Talk:SS Californian

message: I've removed the following apparent notes that were placed directly in the article proper.  These look like they were pulled from a primary source:
:Transports Carrying the New Zealand and Australian Division from Alexandria to Gallipoli, April :1915.nzetc
:Name of Transport. "Californian"  
:O.C. Troops. Major I. T. Standish
:Adjutant R.N.Z.A. Lieut. C. Carrington 
:Units on Board 
:N.Z.F.A. 3rd Battery New Zealand Field Artillery
:Ammunition Column. New Zealand Field Artillery Brigade
:4th Australian Field Ambulance 
I'm not sure what to make of this stuff, so I removed it from the article.  --Bletch 00:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: I was wondering if anybody knew whether the 'weight' of the ship was displacement or deadweight? I assumed displacement in the infobox, but I may be wrong. Xtrememachineuk (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ocean liners don't usually use deadweight as a measurement, so I would assume it means displacement.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The "displacement' field has been removed entirely, and the grt and nrt figures, taken from the two British inquiries, are now in the "tonnage" field.  Kablammo (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight?

message: 1973 can't be right. 213.48.150.168 (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right - that isn't right.  Removed.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Date Ordered

message: The article lacks clarity on the subject of British merchant ship log books and the type of information which is entered therein. On a British registered vessel of that period there would have been an Official Log Book (O.L.B.) which was entirely in the care of the ship's Master (i.e. Captain). The "Official Log Book" was part of the documentation supplied by the British Board of Trade, along with the crew Articles of Agreement and several other forms which dealt mainly with administrative and statutory matters aboard ship. The logbook and "scrap" log referred to during the British Inquiry was a different logbook which was often referred to as the "Mate's log" - or "Deck logbook" - or occasionally "Bridge Logbook " or "Company" logbook. This document was provided by shipping companies to make a detailed record of events during the ship's voyage and would normally include detailed navigational records, weather records, cargo information, ballast details, tank soundings and various other information according to the requirements of each shipping company. The "scrap log" was merely some form of rough notes which were jotted down as an 'aide memoire' as each watch progressed. It was intended to assist with the writing-up of the fair copy of the Company logbook. Following a 19th. century maritime court case, in which scrap log notes were used in evidence, it became the practice with many shipping companies to require their officers, aboard ship, to ensure that those rough notes were "scrapped" (i.e destroyed) as soon as the fair copy of the company logbook had been written. In 1912 that was the company policy of Leyland Line - the owners of SS Californian. 188.223.5.128 (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference note regarding "logbooks" 

message: While interesting, most of the above back and forth ignores the problem here. Much of this article does not meet Wikipedia standards with respect to sourcing. This has been noted for at least two years. There are several possible correctives.
1. Provide appropriate in line citations with generally accepted sources.
2. Substantially rewrite the text eliminating unsourced material.
3. Delete in their entirety those sections that are substantively unsourced.
Given that some years have elapsed without corrective action I propose to undertake option 3 unless the article is brought into conformity with Wikipedia standards within a reasonable period of time. As a matter of opinion, I think that given the two year time lapse since the problem was noted, "a reasonable period of time" should not be presumed to be more than three months from the current date. I don't want to be a jerk about it, but this article has major problems of long standing. It needs to be fixed.Ad Orientem (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a crack at option 1, with a bit of options 2 and 3. Everything I've found sources for I've cited, which I would say was 80% of the tagged items. I deleted the rest. I'm frankly incredulous at the length of time some of the unsupported statements had stood for. Hands up, there was a paragraph by an anonymous user that was clearly based on a particular book (it was noted in the revision summary), but I don't have access to it and the whole text isn't in Google Books. Given that it had been up for several years, I'm not confident any citation is forthcoming and in my opinion the article doesn't suffer without it, so I deleted it. ElectricalTill (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources Please 

message: There is a picture showing where the Californian sank in the Mediterranean. The problem is that this picture's right next to a paragraph that details the events of the night the Titanic sank, which is what the Californian herself is most notable for. Her own sinking is mentioned in the last paragraph of the article, way down the page, and this image is clearly an illustration for that paragraph; the way it's positioned now is misleading, especially with the current caption "Approximate location of sinking, off Cape Matapan (red dot)", which does not specify that this sinking is not the one that the vast majority of the article, and indeed the paragraphs directly next to the image, talk about.
While I'm sure there are a lot of knowledgeable readers who realize that this map cannot show the north Atlantic, it's easy to misinterpret the image, especially if one doesn't read through the whole text.
Sorry that I don't boldly change it myself; I have no idea how to place images, and I don't want to mess it up. 188.6.134.63 (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now moved.  Kablammo (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of sinking - picture 

message: The conversions for distances appear to be from statute miles, not nautical miles.  Is there any support for that in the sources?  Kablammo (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distances 

message: That sentence is clearly nonsense. The Radio Act of 1912 is a piece of American legislation; and countries do not "ratify" another country's statutes. I'll remove this. SchnitteUK (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "Twenty–nine nations ratified the Radio Act of 1912, which required 24–hour radio watch on all ships in case of an emergency."

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on SS Californian. 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/20160506085649/http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/botRepCalifornian.php to http://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/BOTRepCalifornian.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Formal request has been received to merge the article Cyril Furmstone Evans into SS Californian#Sinking of Titanic; dated: September 2018. Proposer's Rationale: This man's only notable life event was that he was the wireless operator aboard the Californian when it did nothing the night Titanic sank and unlike the captain, was not heavily criticized afterwards or suffered long-term consequences. His article has hardly any references and most of the content already exists in the ship's article anyway. Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Is the launch date given in the article, 26 November 1901, correct?
Just asking because I recently noticed a small item in a newspaper from June, 1899 that says the SS Californian passed Cape Race, Newfoundland on 8 June 1899.
The newspaper is in the Google newspaper archive and here is a link to it: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=M3ejUd6NZC8C&dat=18990609&printsec=frontpage&hl=en
The item is on the last page and is just below an article with headline "ALARMING Situation in South Africa". It says (in part) "The S.S. Californian passed west at 3 p.m. yesterday."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.222.123.65 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it's correct, this ship was launched on 26 November 1901.There was a previous SS Californian in operation in 1899. Lyndaship (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Launch date?