Talk:HMS Gladiator (1896)

message: In this edit I have to say that I agree with the IP. It was the Gladiator 's hull that was damaged by the accident and needed repair. Although the Gladiator was unseaworthy, it wasn't really a hulk; it hadn't been demasted (deliberately hulked), nor was it a shore hulk (ie. a wreck on the foreshore). Still, perhaps this is all irrelevant; from what I've read it was HMS Dreadnaught 's launch a few year earlier that made Gladiator obsolescent, so it wasn't worth fixing. Ranger Steve Talk 22:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The term 'hulk' has wider meanings, including in this instance 'an old, unseaworthy, or wrecked ship.' In the original version the term referred to the ship as a whole. Appropriate since far more than just the hull was damaged in the collision, sinking, and five months spent immersed in water. The repair and refitting required to return Gladiator to service would have involved the replacement, cleaning and/or repair of much of her machinery, fixtures, fittings, guns, etc. If all this had been considered acceptable costs, but it was only the state of the 'hull' that was considered too  expensive to repair, then the ip's edit would have been accurate. Since hulk in this case was being used correctly (i.e not just referring to a deliberately dismasted ship or one on the foreshore), the ip changed the meaning more than was justified, unless new evidence or detail was presented Benea (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but I'm afraid I'm not familiar with your definition of a hulk (neither is the wiki article on it to be honest). I'd have classed Gladiator as a wreck at this stage, which most sources on the subject that I've read also describe her as. Ranger Steve Talk 11:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd really advise a dictionary over wikipedia articles to be honest. Given that in order to be surveyed after she was salvaged in so that it could be determined that a repair was uneconomical, she was brought up into a dock, Gladiator would fit your 'wreck on the foreshore' classification. Hulk = the entirety of the recovered ship, hull = just the physical hull. The ip changed the nuance, without explanation, to refer to one specific part of the hulk, the hull. Hence my reversion. Benea (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've looked in some dictionaries, but I'm still not seeing anything that supports a definition of hulk to the extent that Gladiator would have been one. Ranger Steve Talk 11:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this really an issue to be honest, or can we let this lie? Benea (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to make an issue of it, I just happen to agree with the IP's edits and don't really agree with your interpretation of a hulk. Besides, even if it is correct, its irrelevant; "the hull was deemed un-repairable" is just as valid as "the hulk was deemed un-repairable" (substitute hulk with wreck or ship), if not more so. The ship's superstructure is easier to repair than the hull, and the hull is a specific part more likely to be un-repairable. Expense and the extent of the vessel aren't mentioned in the sentence at all, so I don't really see how hulk was being used any more correctly than hull in the sentence in question. Anyway, I've fixed it now with a source and some rewording. Ranger Steve Talk 16:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hulk or Hull