Talk:MV Manx Viking

message: I rode on the Nindawayma back in the summer of '89.  Of course that was many years ago now, and she was in a lot better shape back then.  The rumours about her not being able to handle the rough weather are true, which is why she was only in service during the high-peak months of July-August.  She indeed did have a lot of mechanical problems-mostly eletrical and hydraulic related, but yes her engines(Pielstick's) were also fussy and burned an obscene amount of fuel.  Ontario Northland, who were/are the former owners, took a huge financial loss as they paid $13 million for the vessel, while she was only in service for four seasons, from 1989-1992.  In contrast, the Chi-Cheemaun has been in service for 32 years now.  Meanwhile, the "big canoe" is spending the winter in Sarnia, Ontario undergoing a major refit which reportedly includes new engines, stabilizers, and some interior modifications as well.  Regular sailing will resume in May, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.175.193 (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From old talkpage:

message: Flibirigit has removed a fair amount of stuff, allegedly due to it being "point of view" or "fluff". In reality these are verifiable comments and I have restored some, and will restore others. It seems more likely that Flibirigit is aware of the poor claims made of her during Canadian service and seems to unable to reconcile her excellence during Manx service with a view to justifying the Canadian version of her abilities. I find it hard to reconcile the Canadian view with what I know and experienced with the ship, but am prepared to accept that in later life she may have been viewed differntly. However, the point remains please DON'T remove these facts simply because you don't like them81.86.230.16 (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear to me that the largest single change was the modification of one paragraph, with the removal of several comments from the former "Manx Service" section.  On the old version of the article, there were multiple statements that argued a point of view, and used weasel words.  Specifically:
*the ship became what was probably the most reliable vessel ever employed on the Isle of Man routes.
*She was so popular that the competing Isle of Man Steam Packet Company were forced to the point of bankruptcy and only saved through an acrimonious amalgamation with the Sealink-Manx Line, the operators of the "Manx Viking" (which resulted in the cessation of the lease of the vessel).
These statements would require a citation from a reliable source.
"It is safe to say that there appears to be a significant difference in experience between her reliability on Manx service, and apparent unreliability on Canadian service" is also a case of editorializing.  We as editors should not be passing judgements. Again, this statement would require sourcing. Resolute 18:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Stating that the booklet was an important source of reading certainly was POV.  If it is a reference, it should simply be listed as a reference.  My suggestion, if the booklet is what argues the statements I called out above, is to add inline citations.  Without specific citations, the comments above definitely read as POV.  And yes, a source is necessary for the comments on the ship's service in Canada. Resolute 01:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that. I'd appreciate it if you'd have another check now and see if what I've done is (more) acceptable81.86.230.16 (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Edits

message: I have found conflicting evidence as to the ships size
During Manx service she was quoted as variously 2,753 or 2,800grt
The Canadian Transporation agency quotes Gross Tonnage 3589t  Net Tonnage 1,872t with 813t Deadweight,
The Transpot Canada marine safety site quotes Gross Tonnage 6,197.14t, Net Tonnage	4,425.54t - around 80% larger!
The two sister ship are both recorded as being 2752grt 
Can anyone clarify this for inclusion in the article? The correct details should be added to the main  page.81.86.230.16 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also a lot of different numbers being quoted for the basic length and depth of the ship. I have changed it to use the tonnage from the Transport Canada site as it looks more reliable, but the other dimensions are still coming from another source because the numbers there are more complete. I am not sure which is more correct overall. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 18:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats a much needed improvement. One point though, GRT and Gross Tonnes are measured differently so the 2853GRT and one of the two Gross figures could both be correct. I've amended the GRT figure in the text back to the original (as this is close to what is quoted for the two Spanish sisters) and amended the infobox to read Gross Tonnes rather than GRT. I've left the figure as the Transport Canada value.  81.86.230.16 (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't know that. How confusing! • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 21:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vessel size

message: I have restored one of Flibirigit's edits: that giving details of the book "Is this any way to run a shipping line". Reason being is that this is the primary reference for much of the information relating to the ship's succesful Manx service. It seems to me that he's yet again attempting retrospective revision of history with this article.81.86.230.16 (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your description of the book is WP:POV. In other words, you are trying to express your personal opinions of the book through the article. Sorry, thank is not allowed. Flibirigit (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Stating that the booklet was an important source of reading certainly was POV.  If it is a reference, it should simply be listed as a reference.  My suggestion, if the booklet is what argues the statements I called out above, is to add inline citations.  Without specific citations, the comments above definitely read as POV.  And yes, a source is necessary for the comments on the ship's service in Canada. Resolute 01:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That comment by Resolute related to a previous comment about the book, which was subsequently removed and eventually replaced by the significantly different text we are discussing. As I said before, if anyone is showing a POV over this it is yourself for appearing to attempt to remove any evidence suggesting the ship had a succesful life.81.86.230.16 (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not an administrator. I did leave a WP:3RR notice on your talk page. Please remember WP:CIVIL. Here is the comment you left on my talk page. Flibirigit (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. YOU appear to be promulgating an edit war because of YOUR biased POV. If anyone needs blocking, you do. I'd love to, but I don;t have the power. Try blocking yourself instead of threatening me. I you want arbitration YOU request it, or otherwise leave alone. As it stands I still have a lot of work to do on that article  - some of todays edits DO require inline references and as soon as I work out how best to do them they'll get them. But in the meantime I really suggest you stick to hockey. And just remember you were the one who amended MY posts first three times. How does one band an admin? 81.86.230.16 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep thats what I said. Basically because I assumed that anyone that went round threatening admin powers had the stick to carry them out. And also because to my mind, and threat is an uncivil act however its worded. I now see it appears you don't have the powers, I apologise for overestimating you. Rest of the comments still apply though. In my view you are biased.81.86.230.16 (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flibirigit causing confusion again

message: *Clarification. On what do you want comments?  Please provide specific points of contention.  Windy Wanderer (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: I propose this page be moved. Naming guidelines say that articles should use the name by which a ship is best-known; I suggest that as she spent only 4 years of a 16 year career as Nindawayma then that isn't it.
The majority of the article deals with her time as Manx Viking; I think the page should be there, or at the original name. Xyl 54 (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wrote the bulk of this article and I'd be very happy for it to be moved to "MV Manx Viking".
She spent most of her life as that, was well-used and fondly remembered by the Manx people under that name. As for the original name of Monte Cruceta, this was changed before she even sailed, while the second name Monte Castillo lasted less than a year. Olddemdike (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I've moved it. No-one else had anything to say about it for the last year, so I've done it
Olddemdike (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move?