Talk:MS München

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MS München article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Shipwrecks

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

Wreck location unknown?

Am I reading the article correctly? The wreck's actual location is unknown? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, officially the location of sinking seems to be unknown (maybe due to improper communications about her poition), as well as the wreck's location. There are but rumors concerning a picture of a mititary satellite - not very appropriate for the article. -- Wasabi (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

raf sar

i was on the Raf Nimrod that was searching for her, we flew to and operated out of us naval base lajes on the azores for 4 days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.240.131 (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation?

Within the Investigation section, the passage "Whilst ploughing through the storm..." onwards is surely pure speculation? -- Pollykisveny (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsinkable

"The exceptional flotation capabilities of the LASH carriers meant that she was widely regarded as being practically unsinkable." Is there some list of ships that are considered unsinkable or practically unsinkable now? Because I don't ever want to set foot on these vessels!

Seriously though, are ships often considered unsinkable and only after they've sunken is this a factoid that becomes interesting or has nobody been so bold as to call a ship unsinkable after this went so horribly wrong with the Titanic but it's made up nonetheless after the fact because it's such a nice story to see unsinkable ships sink? I mean after all there are probably few ships built today for which the engineers say "Oh yeah, it floats ... for now but better don't get into some kind of heavy wheather." --Mudd1 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

builder

Both sisterships BILDERDIJK and MÜNCHEN were built by the shipyard Cockerill Yards in Hoboken (near Antwerp) in Belgium. BILDERDIJK as yard no. 859, MÜNCHEN as yard no. 860. After bankruptcy of Cockerill Yards in 1982, the yard was taken over by Boelwerf from Temse. So BILDERDYK was not built by Boelwerf. Cockerill-Sambre, mentioned as builder of the MÜNCHEN, was not the shipyard, but was a steel factory in Liège (Belgium). Source: I worked in Cockerill Yards at that time. Paul Zwysen81.11.200.135 (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]