Talk:PS Medway Queen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Location[edit]

Just by way of explanation, a bot had labelled the article as missing coordinates, presumably because of the visitor attractions in Kent category. I know it's a bit debatable whether an article like this should have coordinates, but if it drives a bit more traffic to the article via Google Maps, then they're worth having IMO. However whilst she's in bits it doesn't seem quite right to tag her with Bristol or the office block in Rochester where the charity is based, so for the time being I've tagged her with low-precision coordinates in the middle of the Medway, between Damhead Creek and Chatham Docks. Once she's back in one piece on the Medway, they can be updated with wherever she ends up getting berthed, presumably it'll be at Chatham? 82.2.128.157 (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Restoration or Replica?[edit]

Perhaps the article should make clearer that the MQ's hull has not been "restored" - it's remains are believed to lie at Chatham Dockyard. This is a completely new hull (as is indeed mentioned in the Timeline). It is intended to restore and refit some surviving parts (importantly the engine, as I understand it, and paddle boxes). Of course she will have a new boiler (they have to be replaced periodically anyway). It is also most unlikely that she will be certificated to carry passengers.

The recent IP additions to the Preservation section about the tow home seem far too detailed and journalistic in style, not at all encyclopedic. I'll have a go at improving this in a few days, but don't want to step on anyone's toes.

Incidentally, the first two references seem to be inaccessible to IE users - can others still access them?Davidships (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern and offer to help. I'll answer your questions as far as I am able.
(1) I must declare an interest in that I have been a life member of the Medway Queen Preservation Society (MQPS) since the late 80s. I still have most of the Society magazines and reports. These contain authoritative details of the ship's history, including many witness accounts and old photographs, and are the main first-stop research source.
2) I have so far watched the page to protect it from vandalism, but have resisted editing the page to give precedence to local members, because I live over 200 miles from where the ship lies.
(3) I can see that the page needs copyediting, Wikifying and a general tidy-up, so in response to your comment I'll be doing that in the next week or two. I agree that the first two refs are dead links, and I'll find alternative references.
(4) Wikipedia does give allowances for rotating live news edits, (for example this happened in the days directly after Michael Jackson died - although of course those Death of Michael Jackson edits were all properly referenced). I'll sort out the section about the tow with references, though I should add that I personally have no doubt that it was written in good faith - it just needs a precis and proper refs and updating in line with breaking news.
(5) Regarding your philosophical question about restoration vs replica: as you know, article talk pages are not the place for this, but I guess it's worth making the point that the MQPS is in line with the HMS Victory Preservation Trust, in that a historical ship is still the same ship even though it is a grandfather's axe because it retains both the spirit and symbolism of national or world history - and that is the reason for existence of this kind of preservation trust.
(6) You will also already know that WP article talk pages are not the place to discuss whether the ship is going to be fit to carry passengers, bearing in mind that you do not quote a reference source to confirm your doubt. I have understood so far that it has been the intention of Heritage Lottery and of MQPS to make her seaworthy. The financial award for the re-framing and re-plating would appear to confirm that intention.
I hope this answers your questions. I shall endeavour to improve the article without changing content (which appears satisfactory). I would also thank the editors who have made the effort to keep it up to date over the years. --Storye book (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Storye book. My only intention here is to stimulate debate on what is in the article itself, and I don't think it is philosophical. My understanding is that the MQ as a whole is a restoration, but the hull is a complete replacement, in the form of a close replica (as required by the Lottery Fund), and the boiler will be a replacement. But let's see what the RS have to say. I am glad to see you will give some attention to the page, and are well placed to have good material to hand. That will be needed as MQPS has, since yesterday deleted all its old site and started over again (very skimpy so far). Davidships (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Referencing[edit]

I have updated the references- John may feel wrongly credited for the website- but he is vice chair -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Fleet review[edit]

In this edit summary User:ClemRutter asks if there was more than one Coronation fleet review. The simple answer is yes, and according to the article, Medway Queen attended two. Not both for QE2 of course but I think the wording can be improved; not necessarily by my replacement of 'the' by 'a'. Help please.SovalValtos (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Oops- apologies. Would something like 'the 1953 Coronation fleet review be a way forward- do we need to create an article? --ClemRutter (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I have made some changes. Still room for further improvement.SovalValtos (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)