Talk:Concrete ship

What material are this ship actually made off

At the first line of the article, "Concrete ships are ships built of steel and ferrocement (reinforced concrete) instead " So the ships are made of steel and reinforced concrete or steel and ferrocement? I had read the article of reinforced concrete, concerete and ferrocement, and none appears to be 3 different thing.. Can somebody tell me what are they made off actually? 153.20.24.68 (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia article is absolutely appalling. The very first sentence is complete nonsense - Concrete ships are built primarily with ferrocement (reinforced concrete) hulls, reinforced with steel bars. as it instantly confuses the reader and the cited source does not back up the statement. Reinforced-concrete and ferro-cement are not the same thing. Concrete is a mix of cement, sand, water and aggregate. 'Cement' is cement, sand and water. Concrete ships were constructed with steel reinforced concrete. Ferro-cement vessels are built with cement plastered over mesh. 2001:BB6:4BFF:E800:E977:C4E0:61AF:E729 (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is unprotected and anyone can edit it as long as they comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Acceptable Wikpedia articles summarize what referenced reliable published sources say about the topic. Please note that most of the cited sources use "concrete" in their titles. Wikipedia editors have no interest in what you say or think or believe about the topic. We only care about how well you can summarize specific, published reliable sources. That's it. Cullen328 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are they still in-use today or not?

The article seems to be contradicting itself, it state towards the end of the history part that... "Although the end of WW II marked the end of large-scale ferro-cement ship building, to this day, smaller recreational boats are still being made from ferro-cement.". So this implies that they are still in-use and new ones still being built. However the "Today" section of the article says..."Concrete ships are no longer in use as ships.". So comes the contradiction and confusion. So are they actually in-use today or not? (I'm adding a Contradictory template to the article because of this). --Hibernian 20:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (I hope) --KJK::Hyperion 00:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead

I've added a couple of pictures and a link to a blog I created to store historical documents of my Great Great Grandfather's concrete boat. i don't have the time to add all of the information, but it's there if you want it. it's http://www.theconcreteboat.blogspot.com/ D League 02:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)D League[reply]

differences between barges and ships

The article mixes barges and ships together, maybe they are a different category. Concrete barges are still in use today and being built, in the Netherlands that is, but these aren't exactly ships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.122.157 (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Concrete ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Ferrocement", not "concrete"!

I would advise that the word "concrete" should be replaced throughout this article with the proper word, "ferrocement". It is just plain wrong to call a ferrocement boat a "concrete boat"!

"Concrete", which is used in building edifices, bridges and dams, is a mixture of gravel, sand and cement "Ferrocement", which is used in building boat hulls and Mulberry-type harbours, is made up of cement, and sand, the mixture being plastered over an "armature" of steel rods and mesh. (In both definitions, the ingredients are in the order of declining magnitutude, and in both cases, water is used to create the mix).

The article's curent lead sentence begins: "Concrete ships are built of steel and ferrocement (reinforced concrete)". Wrong!! Rather, "a ferrocement boat is made with an armature of steel rods and mesh that are plastered with a cement rich substrate. Uopn curing, a ferrocement hull has a monococque qua;ity. The cement:sand mix in ferrocement is about 4:1, (i.e. very rich in cement) whereas a typical concrete admixturemay have a ratio of gravel:sand:cement of aroun 3:2:1

I propose that this article should be substantially rewritten, wiuth the title changed to "Ferrocement ships".____

Nonsense history

The entirety of the write up on British World War II FCBs is totally spurious, citing a source that itself has absolutely no grasp of the history of these barges. Nothing to do with Mulberry whatsoever. Never went to Normandy. My learned edits have been rejected. I actually spent 4 years researching the history of these concrete barges, have written it all and made it available for free ao people can actually learn the true story. Some halfwit rejected my edits. So the fake news gathers pace, gets repeated, fiction becomes fact. 2001:BB6:4BFF:E800:803A:5275:F300:FD92 (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you've spent years researching it, it shouldn't be a problem for you to cite higher-quality sources that aren't your learned self. Feel free to do so. --Xanzzibar (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I shall leave a learned person like yourself to cite totally unreliable sources that have done no research whatsoever. What makes LondonRiversideBid a reliable source in your learned opinion? There is only one reliable source for the history of British Concrete Ships of both World Wars, and that is me. That’s because I actually did the research, visited the National Archives, got the documents. You discredit Wikipedia as a source for reliable history and in taking it on yourself to undo my edits, you LITERALLY propagate fake news 2001:BB6:4BFF:E800:34C4:82B5:179B:98D (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of being indignant, review Wikipedia's content policies, such as our policies on verifiability and original research. You're welcome to add sources that comply with those, which shouldn't be a problem since you say you've already done all the relevant research. This article could certainly use better referencing.

And FYI, I have little to do with the content of the article. My contributions have mostly been some copyediting, layout adjustments, and maintenance. --Xanzzibar (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how London Riverside Bid is a verifiable source. It is literally a circular citation and if I had a website that said the moon was full of blue cheese, would you accept that in the article about the moon? Here’s a fact check https://thecretefleet.com/blog/f/the-concrete-barges-of-rainham-marshes---fact-check 2001:BB6:4BFF:E800:34C4:82B5:179B:98D (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are actual archived documents from Ministry of War Transport and Overlord planning archives. 100s and 100s of previously secret documents that you have to access at the National Archives, Kew. They are not digital. You would be better off taking a critical view of the circular citations and dodgy references for what you have on Wikipedia about British World War II FCBs and stop telling fake news. 2001:BB6:4BFF:E800:34C4:82B5:179B:98D (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you regard the National Maritime Museum of Ireland as a reliable organisation in this sphere. https://www.mariner.ie/concrete-ships/ I have been published many times by respectable magazines. A 6000 word article was recently published in print by The Cumbrian Industrialist https://www.cumbria-industries.org.uk/cumbria-industrial-history-society/publications/

Perhaps someone will actually decide to edit the nonsense that the Wikipedia has published. The article on concrete ships is literally riddled with errors. Has anyone checked whether the sources cited are actually reliable? Or what those sources actually say - for example concretebarge.co.uk doesn’t say that the Petrol barges went to Normandy and certainly doesn’t say that they were part of Mulberry (which they clearly weren’t because they are barges, not harbours). 2001:BB6:4BFF:E800:34C4:82B5:179B:98D (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit and fix sourcing errors (including misattributions, misquotations, bad paraphrasing, etc.) yourself; there's no need to wait for other people to do that. You can remove bad sources entirely. You can add new sources that better conform to our verifiability and original research policies. Sources do not need to be digital, and don't even need to be readily accessible to the general public so long as they can be clearly identified (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). You can, within reason, cite your own contributions to reliable sources as long as you're familiar with and comply with our conflict of interest policies, particularly WP:SELFCITE. At a glance, material published by The National Maritime Museum of Ireland or Cumbria Industrial History Society would likely pass muster for inclusion (see WP:SOURCE). --Xanzzibar (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]