Talk:Whaleback

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Whaleback 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

Transport: Maritime

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

City of Everett

According to this article, the City of Everett was a very significant vessel in her own right, as well as being an important example of a whaleback design. However, she does not have her own article (as of 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)), although a number of less important ships do (such as her relation the Christopher Columbus (whaleback)). (The Everett link above is (strangely) redirected to Museum of Flight, which (briefly) mentions an aircraft of the same name, the first 747.) Not being a big shipbuilding fan or anything, I'm not the right person to write that article, but I sure wish somebody would... Eaglizard 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear

The article is vague about what is so unique about this ship design's appearance. The lead paragraph mentions that it is named because of its unique design, but then forgets to mention what is so unique about it. A brief description of that should probably be in the first paragraph or two. I'm still unclear about it, so I won't attempt it myself. Neil916 (Talk) 00:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, (from what I grab from the article) "whaleback" means that the water flow across the deck of the vessel is improved or optimized.

However, this is also true for submarines. As far as I can tell from the srticle, submarines should therefore also be classified as whalebacks. --80.134.46.181 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And wait, I just remember a much more recent design, a "ship on legs". It consists of two hulls which are completely submerged. The superstructure sits on "legs" connected to the hulls, similar to the superstructures on the historic whalebacks (which sat on turrets). The advantage is that the hulls are completely below the water surface and therefore unaffacted by waves (also somewhat similar to the historic whaleback ships, where waves would go over the hull, affecting the ship less than more conservative vessels).

The new design is of course patented, even though it appears to be just an extreme implementation of the whaleback design. --80.134.46.181 (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it from its description in paragraph 5 or 6. Tha editors appeared to want to make you read the whole article, then tease it out. Edit as necessary or post again if it is still not clear. I hate it when the FA takes you to a link in its first sentence that is worthless. Very carelessly done. --Blechnic (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better, thanks. Neil916 (Talk) 00:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Pig Boats"

This term also was used in reference to submarines prior to and during WWII. Sca (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Those portions of the article that I contributed are drawn primarily from Wilterding's book, listed among the references. I did not consider it appropriate to have numerous citations all referencing the same source.RDavS (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

Additional text and refs. Copied from Whaleback to SS Clifton See former's page history for list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Whaleback. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071005170240/http://www.abouthegreatlakes.com/whale.htm to http://www.abouthegreatlakes.com/whale.htm

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) 08:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]