Talk:Patent slip

message: A very well done article, but isn't this more commonly known as a Marine Railway? The description doesn't mention rails, but they are visible in the photo.
As there currently is no Marine Railway article, I'm going to redirect that here. In the long run, I suggest renaming this article, as I believe Patent Slip to be a regional term. Pjbflynn 05:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

message: I'm posting this on the talk pages of the related articles, in the hope of unifying them.
I've just discovered the very haphazard nature of articles relating to the various methods of (for want of a completely neutral discriptor) removing a boat or ship from the water. There is lots of crisscrossing going on between dry dock, slipway, patent slip, marine railway, shiplift .... There isn't even a page for the most common name of one method (albeit a brand name), Travelift, or lift ship, as used for the USS Cole.
I suggest the following reorganization:
*Drydock - with Floating Drydock and Graving Dock as subsections (pretty much as-is)
*Lift Dock - with Shiplift as a redirect (this because the same basic concept is applied to vessels from the smallest to the really big)
*Marine railway - with Patent slip as a redirect
*Boat Ramp - with Slipway as a redirect
*Travelift
*Lift Ship
Each article would have a common set of links to the others. 
Also, I think a distinction needs to be made between launching ways that have no means to haul a vessel out, and a true marine railway.
Comments? Pjbflynn 06:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support such a move from here to "Marine railway" as proposed. Anyone else have thoughts on the matter? Morgan Riley (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Patent slip is the clearer and better known term already. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various hauling methods 

message: When reading this was confused here:
"The committee eventually did not support the patent extension. It was claimed that not only was the cost of a slip one tenth of a dry dock but also by hauling completely onto a clear dry area that it was easier to carry out the maintenance."
So it was saying some patent stuff and then the "It was claimed..." part seems completely unrelated. I thought the claimed might have been like in a patent sense, how they have a number of claims early on, but it does not seem at all like what a patent claim would be like really. So maybe to clean-up would be best to state who claimed that and where, or to just move it to the next paragraph and delete the claimed bit altogether, or reword it to not use the 'claim' term in any form.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.225.23.168 (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing part 

message: The following 2006 plagiarism by User:Rjstott was identified and remedied:
Text placed:
*"In 1832, a House of Commons Select Committee under the chairmanship of the, Rt. Hon Sir George Cockburn, was convened to adjudicate on a petition by Thomas Morton to extend the duration of his patent. The committe [sic.] eventually did not support the patent extension." (See )
Source text:
*"In 1832, a House of Commons Select Committee under the chairmanship of the, Rt. Hon Sir George Cockburn, was convened to adjudicate on a petition by Thomas Morton to extend the duration of his patent. ... Ultimately the Select Committee decided not to support Morton’s petition." REF Stuart Cameron (2005) "The Patent Slip", ClydeSite Magazine, Issue 5, Article 4 (23rd March 2003), see , accessed 30 June 2014. CLOSE REF
Note the cut-and-paste relocation, even of the typographic error "the, Rt." (for "the Rt.").
Current edited text:
*"Thomas Morton petitioned to extend the duration of his patent in 1832, before a Select committee of the House of Commons. The committee, chaired by the Rt. Hon. Sir George Cockburn, was convened and heard the claim that the slow construction and implementation of such slips required the extension, that the cost of using such slip was one tenth that of using a dry dock, and that by hauling completely onto a clear area it was easier to carry out maintenance. The committee was sympathetic, in a particular regarding the small return that Morton had seen during the initial patent period, but ultimately did not support the requested extension." [same reference appearing]
Another editor introducing a large block of unreferenced text has also been contacted. Acted on this immediately, rather than let plagiarised material stand.  Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism spotted and remedied, remaining text must be checked