Talk:MV Explorer (1969)

message: Can we please establish whether it is the MS Explorer  or MV Explorer  that is involved in the incident? Currently the page redirects back to itself! Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The MS Explorer  (called the Explorer II) has its own article MS Explorer II (cruise ship) --Camptown (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the three different links, #3 is the correct ship. #2 webpage the company says it is not their ship. Link #1 and #4 are the same. All that needs doing now is to sort out all the different redirect pages - beyond my level of editing yet. Mjroots (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which redirect page are you in particular thinking about? Camptown (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have discovered the IMO number of the vessel. At least we now know which one to talk about! Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It is the same ship as on the Noble Caledonia and Eagle Eye pages, it is not the same ship as the RSSC's Explorer II. Keep in mind that one company can own a ship while another charters or leases it. --Dhartung | Talk 22:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: M/S stands for "motor ship" (originally vs. "SS" for "steam ship"). "M/V" stands for "motor vessel" or "merchant vessel". Very often M/S and M/v are used interchangeably, although you'd expect otherwise. The Eagle Eye Tours page uses both of them! The use of the slash is stylistically variable as well, and Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a standard. --Dhartung | Talk 22:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: MS Explorer crashed? Why am I not surprised? (Sorry it had to be said.)Paperweight (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: which ship?

message: Article reads: "It was the first ship custom built as an expedition ship, and the first to navigate the North West Passage, in 1984.". This is all very obvious wrong, many ships has been built as expedition ships, and many has navigated the North West Passage. Perhaps someone was thinking "... for the cruise market" or something, but then it gets less interesting. I will remove the sentence entirely. Greswik (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This site  give the correct line, she was the first expeditionary cruise ship. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It may be less interesting to Greswick, but it's citeable. I don't have a problem with this claim (although I'd like more info about the 1984 trip). I don't know what "foot in mouth" means here. --Dhartung | Talk 23:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Foot in mouth" means to make a stupid or mistaken statement. The idea is that someone who misspeaks is putting his or her "foot" in his mouth and thus garbling his words. I dunno where the phrase came from. 68.36.214.143 (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a native English speaker. I don't know why Greswick used it in this context. --Dhartung | Talk 08:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a native English speaker, so I use whatever I think will convey the meaning. The meaning was not to bash the ones inserting it though, if that was you: just to say it could obviously not be right. If you check the diffs, you will see I didn't actually remove it alltogether, just wrote it down a bit. Still, by writing on the talk-page I hoped someone knowing (and by that I mean knowing, and not only guessing) what could have been meant, looked at it, and rethinked if something still should be in the article. But I also wanted to make a point about the marketing-slogans: they are not allways as interesting as the marketing-people think they are. I still think it's either a tall or an uninteresting claim when they say it was the first cruiseship custom built for expeditions. I am sure some rich person has had their yachts custombuilt in a similar way, and how interesting is the difference between cruiseships for the rich, and yachts? But that's just me. I'm not doing anything more about this, i just wanted to air it, yesterday. Greswik (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foot in mouth 

message: Since this is clearly causing confusion: Uusikaupunki is the name of the city where this ship is built, and the shipyard is Uudenkaupungin telakka. Due to Finland being a bilingual country, both have Swedish-language names alongside the Finnish ones (in this case, Nystad and Nystads varv). The correct versions you should use are the Finnish ones, due to the city being monolingually Finnish. Many internet sources use the Swedish names, probably because the Swedish-language Fakta om Fartyg uses the Swedish versions and many websites source their info from there. Still, usage of the Swedish names is incorrect unless you are doing a Swedish-language article. -- Kjet (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. -- Kjet (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but this is not Finnish Wikipedia, and Nystads Varv Ab, seems much more used in English registers and translations. So to deem it "incorrect" etc is just silly. Like a Norwegian joke. --Camptown (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We should not seek political correctness. We should use what secondary sources use. If they use the Swedish, so should we. The wikilinked articles, if they have information on the dual naming, can explain further. --Dhartung | Talk 23:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. Living in Finland, the translatability of Finnish names to Swedish and vice versa seems the naturaly and correct thing to do to me, but obviously things aren't that simple if you aren't from here. (But Uusikaupunki would still be more correct :P). -- Kjet (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing - I'm not sure what the convention on this is in English, but "varv" is Swedish for shipyard, so if you say "Nystads Varv shipyard", you're actually saying Nystads Shipyard shipyard, which sounds rather silly. -- Kjet (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, it sounds rather dyslexic, but as the place where the ship was built is usually cited as "Nystads Varv" / "Nystads Varv Ab", and most readers here are unfamiliar with the Swedish word "varv", Nystads Varv Shipyard is as is good as anything. --Camptown (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the sake of argument, doesn't the fact that a ship was built there pretty much automatically signify the place is a shipyard? Ad another point, I don't remember seeing any articles referring to "Aker Yards Shipyard", "Chantiers de l'Atlantique shipyard", "Meyer Werft Shipyard" or "Finnboda Varv Shipyard". Although that mihgt just be selective memory on my part. -- Kjet (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nystad vs. Uusikaupunki and other linguistical issues

message: I've managed to add an infobox. Once all details have been transferred the sectin "Specifications" can be removed. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: After I changed her into past tense, I am a bit embarassed to admit Norwegian papers still seems to think she is floating- I read them to be writing "down" previously. Anyone with certain information here? Should we still have the article as if she is afloat? Greswik (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Expected to sink within a few hours. Most likely sunk by now - I've updated it :) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say leave it for now. I did see one news webpage that said she had sunk, but the majority are silent on the matter. It is a remote area so news may take a while to get through. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, I disagree with you on this. We can't speculate. I wrote down because I misread the Norwegian papers to be clear on this, but speculation is even worse. However, she seems like a floating wreck on the pictures- but that is still not the same.  Greswik (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is still no confirmation. As we can't have her as sinked when we do not have any confirmation of it, I will revert it again. Greswik (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still floating?

message: I removed a copyrighted image from this article. I kept another one, because it directly showed the sinking, was accurately depicted as a fair use image, and was appropriate to the page. The image of survivors is not essential; it's just a bunch of people bobbing around in the water. Moreover, it was incorrectly stated to be GNU. 68.36.214.143 (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a number of pictures of the ship, from about two years ago, that I would be willing to put on Commons if this would be useful. --Constantine (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyrighted img removed

message: I could have sworn I tinkered with the article on this ship a couple years ago, but article history suggests that it was created today. It's also odd that Lindblad Explorer is not linked; it was well-known under that name for many years. Stan (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MS Lindblad Explorer is. --Camptown (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History? 

message: The infobox entry for propulsion needs attention, not all details are being shown. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't notice your post before now, some kind of blindness, but I think this is what I fixed earlier today, so it should be fixed now. Greswik (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propulsion 

message: Does anyone know if Audrey's Blog was lost in the editing process or deleted on purpose; I can't seem to find the diff with an edit summary for when this was done. Although as a blog it could not be used as a ref, it provided a unique insight into the atmosphere of the rescue and I can see no harm of it being used as an external links.KTo288 (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed here: . It's an admin, and I'we already disagreed with him over the speed we wrote "sunk", so I didn't object when he did it. ;-) Also, the reason seemed to be founded in policy. But I agree the blog was interesting, so I felt a bit sorry for it. Greswik (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An eye-witness account of the rescue is removed because of the reporting venue?  What the hell?  Had the author of that that blog had the evidence printed in the New York Times ... exactly what would have changed?  There is no way anybody -- and this includes even the most objective, Pulizter prize-winning reporter -- could, at the time the evidence was published, verify or confirm the account in any meaningful way.  At some point facts are facts, and they remain facts whether printed in a blog or if they appear in the scrolling ditties under the polished visage of some talking bimbo-head at CNN.  The buck stops at the witness, and if Wikipedia policies are inconsistent with this reality, then said policies need to be ignored to keep Wikipedia from looking silly.  mdf (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I've  found the line of policy that would normally exclude blogs, line 12 of "Links normally to be avoided" of Wikipedia:External links however the title is "Links normally to be avoided" rather than "Links to be avoided" another line in "Wikipedia:External links" under Links to be considered offers "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." I take it than that under some circumstances blogs may be considered as valid links. I'm going to ask at the help desk, with regards this polcy. KTo288 (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And to drive this point home:  the current article lists http://www.bt.no/kamera/nordnorge.html in the external links section.  There, you will see eye-witness testimony of Explorer's list.  Is this not the functional equivalent of a dreaded blog?  How can I, Wikipedia verifier, confirm that those pictures were in fact of the ship in question, taken under the circumstances claimed?   How can I, Wikipedia verifier, confirm that Audrey is on the up-and-up?  Answer to both questions of verifiability and reliability: I can't, as I have come to the end of the chain of evidence.  In the human-written-blog case, we have someone converting what happens in front of them into HTML, and in Nordenorge, we have a someone else's robot converting what it sees into JPEG's.  Under the "no blogs" rationale, if the text-blog has to go, then so must this image-blog.  But that seems silly, right?  mdf (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It is no ruckus. It was no bad link, in my point of view. Why don't you (that is User:KTo288)  ask at that admins talk page, no need to go to the help desk so fast, perhaps he agrees with you it was a blog to be kept? Greswik (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added the blog back, it was a bloody good account that our readers should most certainly have the opportunity of clicking through to read. There's also a chance that Audrey may freely licence some of her photos, in which case, we would be quite prepared to linkback to her blog if that was part of the requested attribution. Nick (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur there is little harm in including this blog -- the exception that proves the rule. It would be problematic if the blog were making unverifiable claims e.g. about the competence of the captain. That is typically when blogs become damaging to the Wikipedia project. It should be treated as an external resource, however, and not a reference. In any case, it is always good to review the inclusion of possibly unreliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Audrey's blog

message: How did it hit a iceberg off the coast of South America, I mean thats the ecuader, there shouldn't be icebergs there.--Xgmx (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: South America is long, stretching from the ecuador to nearly Antarctica.  The ship was very far south.  Read the Ernest Shackleton or the Drake Passage articles for more information. - Thaimoss (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are even some early reports that the Explorer hit an iceberg with somewhat higher density than normal. --Camptown (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Xgmx, they were about 600 miles farther south than the southmost tip of South America. And icebergs have even been sighted almost all the way to Buenos Aires, which is 2000 miles north of the sinking location. In any case, I hope you realize that past the equator, the farther south you go, the colder it gets. --Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Dhartung--Xgmx (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  how is 

message: I've started a page for the MS Nordnorge. Over to the experts to expand. Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this eliminates the need for having a photo of that ship in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MS Nordnorge 

message: The article seems to report the event of the ship sinking as if there is still uncertainty as to when/how it sank. I believe their are sufficient facts/references available to now rework the article to reflect a past-tense report on the ship's history and its sinking that can be stated as fact rather than report. CharlieWinston (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Consider the counter-point: Given all the reporting of the sinking, surely someone somewhere would have reported it now if it HADN'T sunk.  In any event, the Chilean Navy has confirmed it.  - Thaimoss (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Tense 

message: I'm rather confused by the ice class here, as some of the sources seem to have conflicting information. The GAP page states that the ship had "ice rating 1A1 ice A", but the source that someone else recently added appears to state that the rating was 1C in Baltic classes, as well as seeming rather critical from a very poor computerized translation. I don't see how these two could possibly both be true at the same time, though GAP's claimed rating doesn't seem to make much sense by my reading of the ice class article. Perhaps someone who knows something about these matters could clarify the matter? Could the class have been changed at some time? --Constantine (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with the DNV classification which is 1A1 ICE-A given their authority on such matters.  Nick (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, there's no "HELCOM scale". They're using Finnish-Swedish ice classes. The equivalent Finnish-Swedish ice class for a ship with class notation +1A1 ICE-A is IA . Tupsumato (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice class 

message: MS NORDNORGE FACTOID
I removed the factoid about the MS Nordnorge being involved in another rescue earlier this year as this information is available via the link to the page on the MS Nordnorge page and is not directly related to the sinking of the Explorer.  I first considered simply moving the information further down in the "Sinking" section of the article because it's current location (middle of the section, end of paragraph 1) made the second paragraph slightly ambiguous about which passengers were being rescued (those from the Explorer sinking or the rescue the Nordnorge particpated in earlier in the year), but I ultimately decided that since the information is available via Nordnorge link that it would be ok to remove completely for the time being until someone has time to rewrite the paragraph to work that little factoid back in without it causing confusion. CharlieWinston (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a bit of Nordnorge information found its way into the article because the Nordnorge didn't have an article of its own until recently. Your removal of the information seems quite justified to me, as it really isn't very relevant. Your other improvements are also most welcome, but unfortunately I can't comment on them because as soon as I find a suggestion or question, I find that you've remedied it while I was typing it out.  --Constantine (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Change History 

message: The 2 fair use photos are copyrighted Chilean Navy and Chilean Air Force respectively, and handed out to all that wanted them for "EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR SALE FOR MARKETING OR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS". As such, I have removed the  tags from both of them as the reason given, that it were news/photo agency photos..., no longer apply. Feel free to retag the photos with  with a different (appropriate) reason if you feel it's so warranted. KTC (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the photos were by an agency, I would delete them (and I would be well within policy to do so.)  Now that their source has been clarified, however, I will not be replacing the disputed tag.  Thanks for the clarification, KTC. kmccoy (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If you mean the picture of Explorer sinking on the German article, that is a freely available picture that can be added to the English article. The picture of Explorer sinking we already have is a better picture though, as the German one was taken from the sea and is rather dark. Mjroots (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair-use photos 

message: Can someone who know German please translate the new pic as this is the english wikipedia and as i think the pics are great i think the description should be in english as well. Jay2k 08:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean the picture of Explorer sinking on the German article, that is a freely available picture that can be added to the English article. The picture of Explorer sinking we already have is a better picture though, as the German one was taken from the sea and is rather dark. Mjroots (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New MS Explorer Pics 

message: The insurer of the Explorer is the Steamship Mutual (source), I'm not sure where to insert the info into the article though. Mjroots (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Insurer

message: I'd recommend everyone to read both the accounts at the bottom of the external links section that are by Andy White. Fascinating reading. Mjroots (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links - Andy White

message: Most Wikipedia articles about ships are loaded (some even overloaded) with the names of various people involved.  This article, quite oddly, refers to the "Master" many times, but doesn't seem to have a clue as to what his name is/was.  I could be wrong (could have missed something), but it seems the only human mentioned here by name is Lars-Eric Lindblad.
--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names? 

message: The article mentions that she ran aground near "Vicky Island" in 1979. This is repeated all over the web, in a straight copy from this page. However, there is no island of that name in the SCAR or USGS gazetteers. Authorative sources mention that she ran aground near Wiencke Island in the Neumayer Channel; that leads me to believe that Vicky is a spelling mistake in the reference, and that Wiencke was intended. I changed the text accordingly, citing the article in Antarctic.  --Lemnaminor (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the correction, obviously The Times got it wrong. Mjroots (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of 1979 accident 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on MV Explorer (1969). 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/20110607103139/http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/living_and_working/diaries/rrs_james_clark_ross/antarctic2003_2004/13_27/index.php to http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/living_and_working/diaries/rrs_james_clark_ross/antarctic2003_2004/13_27/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016194609/http://iaato.org/tourism_overview.html to http://www.iaato.org/tourism_overview.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.aol.com/story/_a/doomed-ship-defies-antarctica-odds/20071123061209990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.armada.cl/p4_armada/site/artic/20071123/pags/20071123150603.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) 04:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on MV Explorer (1969). 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/20071125170547/http://www.eagle-eye.com/Locations/MV_Explorer.html to http://www.eagle-eye.com/Locations/MV_Explorer.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703151037/http://www.philatelie-polaire.com/nouveautes/georgie.htm to http://www.philatelie-polaire.com/nouveautes/georgie.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128084951/http://www.falklands.gov.fk/pb/sg/merchant-ships.htm to http://www.falklands.gov.fk/pb/sg/merchant-ships.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112140641/http://www.gapadventures.com/explorer/ to http://www.gapadventures.com/explorer/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071125170547/http://www.eagle-eye.com/Locations/MV_Explorer.html to http://www.eagle-eye.com/Locations/MV_Explorer.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) 01:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified