Talk:City of Adelaide (1864)

message: City of Adelaide (1864)
A link to a major source of information has been created by the Adelaide, Australia based Action Group set up to save the City of Adelaide. 
124.178.209.107 02:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: source

message: Final pleas as deadline looms on the City of Adelaide's fate 
deadline-looms-on-migrant-ships-fate
Gavin Lower,From: The Australian, December 15, 2009 12:00AM
This is obviously of interest. I have been meaning to update the City of Adelaide's article, but other mattters have kept me away. Use this reference as you see fit.Regards --220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent News on City of Adelaide - December 15, 2009 

message: The infobox is way too long, It should be consolidated as much as possible. Mjroots (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not certain what to do about this issue.  The Infobox follows the advice given in the Template:Infobox ship career description and is similar to the method used for the examples of the USS Bang and USS Wisconsin.  The City of Adelaide has an exceptionally long, perhaps near unprecedented, career that covers 146 years - fourth oldest merchant ship in the world, much older than the two example WWII military ships.  I made a conscious decision to repeat the 'ship name' inside the box each time due to the four different names (CoA-HMS-Car-CoA) but that might be the sort of thing that could be consolidated to shorten the box when the name has not changed.  This is certainly a good test for the standard Infobox template! Any ideas? --Cruickshanks (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on a new infobox and post it here for discussion. I'm used to dealing with ship that have several changes of name, owner, flag etc. Mjroots (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Comments here will have to be indent / outdent due to infobox. I've no objection to the Union Flags being changed, but if one is changed, the so must the other - i.e.  Southampton and  Glasgow. Mjroots (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Mjroots. That looks great. I will incorporate into the main page fixing up a few typos. Scottish devolution has played a role in the fate of the ship and so will use the country flags as they convey greater meaning (I am not Scottish btw). --Cruickshanks (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Anyone have ideas on why the Heading lines are running over the InfoBox in the article?  The USS New Jersey (BB-62) has a Ship Characteristics Infobox that runs over multiple Headings without the clash.  Perhaps there is a problem with the Ship Careers Infobox Template??--Cruickshanks (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Same problem occurs in USS Yorktown (CV-10) article but for the Ship Characteristics Infobox - and so 'Career' and 'Characteristics' Inoboxes both have the problem - but not always??--Cruickshanks (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, it appears to be browser related.  The Heading lines run over in some, but not all, articles using these Infoboxes when viewed using IE8.  I have tested this using Firefox too now, and yes, the page renders correctly without the lines overlapping.  For better or worse, IE8, is most common browser used today and so I suspect most visitors are seeing this problem when looking at WikiProject Ships pages. --Cruickshanks (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I discovered the same browser problem occurring on another non-Wikiships pages too - eg. the Beau Geste image onFrench_Foreign_Legion#References_in_popular_culture.  However, since I added images to this article the rendering problem with IE8 has gone away.  Thuse there seems to be some sort of anomaly occuring between the code for the two types of boxes that creates or stops error depending on the sequence that the boxes render onto the page.--Cruickshanks (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading Lines Running Over InfoBox 

message: Hi Mjroots, I note your recent change reflecting Belfast.  I agree that Belfast (or Dublin) seems very likely for the homeport from 1889-93 and so was appropriate.  However, I have Lloyds Register for 1888-89 showing the City of Adelaide was still registered in London. Do you have LLoyd's Register records post 1889 to be certain that the Port of Registry changed away from London? I have doubts it changed, but don't know for sure. Regards,--Cruickshanks (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, If my change was incorrect, feel free to correct it. Was just going by what was said on SMM website, but LR would trump that in any case. Mjroots (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Port of Registry post 1889 

message: Hi Mjroots, recalling that you are using Firefox, I suggest that you open the article in IE8 for a review.  Your recent move of the HRH and Sir Julian Oswald images looks terrible when viewed in IE8.  (Firefox not so bad with a relatively small amount of white-space.)  As IE8 is the predominant browser used, I suggest that your change should be reverted. 
I had previously placed the text in the 'Duke of Edinburgh Conference' subsection inside of a table because there is a rendering problem (at least in IE8) with the Unordered List bullets not being properly indented when adjacent to the portraits.  Using the table makes them render correctly in both IE8 and Firefox.  It also meant that, because of the constrained wrapping, some whitespace was created on the right beneath the photograph of the delegates.  To me, that whitespace did not seem unnattractive.  If it is that whitespace that you are tying to remove, then a better solution to moving the two images might be to place the four  buletted paragraphs in this subsection inside of four separate tables.  The text would wrap more that way and it is easy to implement.  (Obviously this is a hack to overcome some underlying CSS shortfalls within Wikipedia globally.)
In hindsight, I should have put some  inside the article relating to this.
I was also trying to follow the manual of style where people portraits are recommended to look towards the text rather than away from it.  From this respect, the two portraits would look better on the left.  Notwithstanding that the painted portrait of Capt. Bruce at the top needs to be on right, to look towards the text, in my view there was previously some nice harmony on the page in that all of the photographs of individuals were on the left of the page.  It also meant that all of the 110px and 220px  images were vertically aligned.  I thought that systematic approach added some elegance to the presentation.
What do you think about reverting?  Yours aye --Cruickshanks (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have implemented this change to make article render correctly in IE8 and Firefox.  The wrapping fix was simpler that stated above as it was easier to just move the right-hand image inside of the invisible table.--Cruickshanks (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images moved 

message: Anyone keen to assist me in making an effort to get this article to FA class, with a view to being Feature Article on the day the ship arrives at Port Adelaide early next year? It really is a fascinating story, extremely well sourced already and with many more available, and also many fair use or freely licensed pictures. I'll be able to devote some time to it in a few weeks.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a fantastic idea. I was reading the article a couple of days ago and thought it needed some serious work - lots of piecemeal additions and repetition. I have moved some of the text into a sandbox: User:Jonathan Oldenbuck/Carrick. Its still a bit scrappy but feel free to comment/get stuck in. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now partially rewritten the second half of the article in the sandbox, from 1999 when the SMM stopped work, through to the ongoing transportation effort. I've attempted to improve formatting and referencing.  If there's no objection over the weekend I'll paste it back into the article next week. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi everyone, I saw notice of the upgrade to FA on the WikiProject Australian maritime history. while I have not got any spare time in the next couple of months & therefore cannot help, I would like to make some suggestions. Firstly, the Lead Section needs a tidy up to match WP requirements (WP:LEAD); I personally feel that the lead is too long, does read more like a promotional item than an encyclopedia entry and does not adequately summarise the article content. Secondly, some of the LEAD content could go in a new section discussing the ship's significance in the same style as a heritage assessment for, say, a building. Thirdly, I feel the article is dominated by the Rescue Project, particularly as the three of the six major headings concern the Rescue Project - can the three headings be merged together under one heading? Personally, I think the best long-term strategy would be to split the article in two - one for the rescue project which is notable in its own right and in principle, will be complete when the ship's hulk arrives in Adelaide, and one for the ship (including a summary of the project in WP:Summary style).Cowdy001 (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Cowdy, useful suggestions. I have cut down the rescue section a lot, but it may be worth considering a separate article as you suggest. I also agree with a "significance" section as you suggested, and have moved the list from the lead under such a heading. Still needs to be de-listified. I would further suggest that the "Ownership" section be merged into the "Service history"? Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jonathan Oldenbuck, the upgrade to date looks really good.  Thank you. The only comment that I have at the moment is that the "significance" section needs some more citations; I also agreed with the need to 'de-list'.Cowdy001 (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Upgrade to Feature Article Candidate

message: I've changed some of the data in the info box to match the user guide. I've also added references for this information. I have deleted "displacement" as this appears erroneous - if there is a suitable reference for this, please reinstate with the reference.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box 

message: Follows on from "Gender Neutral Article" section (above).
This article was originally written with female pronouns  ("she", "her") to refer to the ship. This style existed from 21 January 2006 until 19:28, 12 July 2010, when it was altered to the genderless "it" and "its". There was no preceding discussion on the talk page and the edit summary did not mention this change.  This would appear to be a straightforward breach of the Manual of Style. It may be of note that the editor involved in this change now cites the relevant rule to defend the current choice of style.
The result of this undiscussed change is that this article no longer follows the style adopted by (1) other Wikipedia articles on similar subjects, such as ships in :Category:Tea clippers (details in extended content), or articles such as Clipper, etc. (2) the majority of specialist books on similar ships, both newly published and older books (3) virtually all the historical material on this and similar vessels, including diaries, newspaper reports, Lloyd's Register, etc.  
One could give particular emphasis to the usage employed in the diaries written by people who emigrated to Australia on this ship ("she") (see extended content) and the Wikipedia article on the only other surviving clipper Cutty Sark (also using the feminine pronoun). The usage ("she") by the director of the project to restore City of Adelaide in the journal of the Royal Institute of Naval Architects may also have some authority.
I propose that the "ship pronoun style" be changed back to the original style in which this article was written, namely "she" and "her".
Please comment on this proposal.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is now closed due to (1) unanimity of responses and (2) breach of WP:SHIPPRONOUNS validating the proposal. (WP:SNOW seems to apply in this instance.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style proposal 

message: The following use "she"/"her" when referring to a ship, with one instance of "it" in the Nancarrow family diary, which uses "she"/"her" thereafter. The other diaries in the collection have no usage of either type.
http://cityofadelaide.org/wiki/Diary_of_Frederick_Bullock (Frederick Bullock a later mayor of Adelaide)
http://cityofadelaide.org/wiki/Diary_of_James_McLauchlan
http://cityofadelaide.org/wiki/Diary_of_Melville_Miller
http://cityofadelaide.org/wiki/Nancarrow_Family
* support 'she'  This has a long tradition for ships. I fail to see why it's at all contentious. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is now closed due to (1) unanimity of responses and (2) breach of WP:SHIPPRONOUNS validating the proposal. (WP:SNOW seems to apply in this instance.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Diaries of people who travelled on ''City of Adelaide''

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on City of Adelaide (1864). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100730034804/http://www.scottishmaritimemuseum.org:80/adelaide.html to http://www.scottishmaritimemuseum.org/adelaide.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110512184710/http://www.north-ayrshire.gov.uk/ChiefExec/ArchiveCommRA.nsf/e9ee67f48fbb9003802569d700533758/af19a496b7884bc5802569f100346aab?OpenDocument to http://www.north-ayrshire.gov.uk/ChiefExec/ArchiveCommRA.nsf/e9ee67f48fbb9003802569d700533758/af19a496b7884bc5802569f100346aab?OpenDocument
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on City of Adelaide (1864). 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/20131005020348/http://www.headlandarchaeology.com/Services/consultancy/maritime_case_studies/city_of_adelaide.html to http://www.headlandarchaeology.com/Services/consultancy/maritime_case_studies/city_of_adelaide.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060208111227/http://www.historyscotland.com/features/svcarrick.html to http://www.historyscotland.com/features/svcarrick.html
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) 09:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: OK, peeps, I know that the ship is a very significant vessel and I read in another of these Talk sections that some cutting down of the Rescue section of the article had been done, in 2013 I think.   
But...really.  I mean, come on.  That section is just ridiculously long (as are others).    Is it *really* necessary to have soooooooooo much detail?    Boscaswell talk 17:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on City of Adelaide (1864). 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/20100429101609/http://cityofadelaide.org.au/devitt-and-moore.html to http://cityofadelaide.org.au/devitt-and-moore.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130505024154/http://cityofadelaide.org.au/paxwiki/Diary_of_Frederick_Bullock to http://cityofadelaide.org.au/paxwiki/Diary_of_Frederick_Bullock
*Added archive https://archive.is/20131212013656/http://www.wavy.com/news/local/norfolk/19th-century-clipper-ship-in-norfolk to http://www.wavy.com/news/local/norfolk/19th-century-clipper-ship-in-norfolk
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20090515014912/http://www.oph.gov.au/ to http://oph.gov.au/
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) 06:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified