Talk:USS Princeton (1843)

message: It should be emphasized that there was a big difference in the construction of the two unique guns onboard the Princeton.  Ericsson chose placing bands of hot metal around the barrel, and Stockton chose making his gun thicker...and that difference has to be made plain to the reader of the article.  Carajou 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Question:
Where was the vice President during the accident aboard the USS Princeton?
Wwenzel 17:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Pearson, L. (1966). Technology and Culture: The John Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0040165X.
This book is vol. 7 of 47 volumes, that goes in greater detail of the USS Princeton of 1843. It goes in depth about the gun that exploded on board that initially caused the tragedy. It also discusses when and how the boat was made and who created it.This book has great info for any project on the USS Princeton sailing vessel of 1843.RYANMURR (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: USS Princeton (1843) book

message: <Start of discussion>
Does there need to be a separate entry for USS Princeton Disaster of 1844? Can't that subject be covered well and in context in this entry for USS Princeton (1843) at the section called "Peacemaker accident"?
Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Support merge, such as it is. Perhaps if the ship's pagespace was bloated with battle action the incident could be pruned off and built separately, but since the Peacemaker mishap is the only important event in Princeton's four-year career, the new article is unnecessary. BusterD (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Support for the reasons given.Bigturtle (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Oppose merger. If the articles are merged under the ship's name, the user is required to know the name of the ship on which the disaster took place in order to look it up. If all one recalls is that a gun exploded and killed members of the president's cabinet, he or she would be out of luck in locating the specific entry (unless "disaster" or "accident" or "explosion" appears in the title). The incident had important enough consequences in returning Calhoun to the cabinet as a replacement for one of the dead officials and in providing the popular romantic story of Julia Gardiner fainting into John Tyler's arms that the entry should stand alone. GeoWPC (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

text: THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BY NO MEANS ME MERGED, IT WAS A SIGNIFICANT EVENT OF IT'S OWN AND IS WORTHY OF BEING SEPERATE. The page could use some expanding though.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Reasons to merge a page include: unnecessary duplication of content, significant overlap with the topic of another page, and minimal content that could be covered in or requires the context of a page on a broader topic.
The ship and the most significant event in its history are inseparable, IMHO. If both entries are maintained, both require much of the same information and neither will have have so long an entry that material specific to one or the other, the ship or the disaster, can not be easily managed within a single entry. As was said above, "the Peacemaker mishap is the only important event in Princeton's four-year career." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger 

message: The introduction says that President Tyler barely escaped death when the shipboard gun exploded, but the section describing that incident says that he was unharmed because he was belowdeck at the time.  Which is it?
66.41.100.151 (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that too. "Barely" indicates he was in much more danger than was really the case, with the evidence we have. RM2KX (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  President Tyler 

message: I propose that USS Princeton disaster of 1844 be merged into USS Princeton (1843). I think that the content in the Disaster article can easily be explained in the context of USS Princeton, and the Princeton article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Disaster will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.
The original discussion above was never technically closed, and stands at 2 support and 2 oppose. Please respond here with Support or Oppose if you have not already voted there. Here is my count:
*Support BusterD (talk) 
*Support Bigturtle (talk)
*Oppose  GeoWPC (talk)
*(Oppose) $1LENCE D00600D (talk)
The original proposer never voted definitively, nor have I yet. There is a chance the discussion will still remain tied, so it should remain open for now. RM2KX (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Merger Proposal 

message: # Used a smaller article lead. Names of all victims and the guns are detailed in the main article. Moved references into article.
# Created separate section, "machinery," for engines and propellers, since "guns" already had its own section. This separated all design elements from the general section, "Ship history."
# Reconfigured section headings. Retitled "Ship history" section "Early history" because "Later history" already existed.
# Shuffled some information to appropriate new sections, including later developments of the people involved into "Aftermath."
# Added paragraph break between Oregon and Peacemaker info.
# Removed "two sailors" (unnamed) from casualty list, after failed verification.
RM2KX (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Some of the notable changes made during merge