Talk:Moby Prince disaster

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 Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance 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

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merger proposal

MS Moby Prince should be merged into this article - there is no reason for two separate articles to exist.--ukexpat (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I went ahead and merged, if anyone objects it can be reverted.--ukexpat (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object combining two articles, but the article name should be MS Moby Prince. Otherwise, IMHO, the ship infobox should be replaced by a disaster infobox because the article is primarily about the disaster and not the ship. Tupsumato (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Moby Prince disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140316235744/http://www.faktaomfartyg.se:80/koningin_juliana_1968.htm to http://www.faktaomfartyg.se/koningin_juliana_1968.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Moby Prince disaster. 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) 06:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy?

Parts of this article seem to heavily imply that people suspect some kind of coverup or conspiracy, but it doesn't actually explain what they think happened. How would the presence of a bettolina or US warship in any way effect the disaster? There were two vessels,a tanker that was hit, and a ferry that hit something, was covered in oil and set on fire. Did the bettolina actually hit the tanker, and then the ferry spontaneously combusted in an unrelated incident? Why would they lie about the presence of a bettolina? What happened to that vessel? How did US warships present or not have anything to do with the collision? It just doesn't make any sense. It seems much more likely that a captain of a large tanker who was just struck by another small vessel far from his bridge, which is now covered in oil and flames, just had difficulty exactly identifying the type of vessel. Maybe he expected a bettolina to rendezvous with him. I don't see how these apparently relatively straightforward facts can be interpreted as some sort of complex and sinister conspiracy. I mean other than that it's a popular hobby for some people to read conspiracy into everything. Idumea47b (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]