Talk:Marlborough (1876 ship)

Alleged 1913 accounts

• An account allegedly from 2 1913 Newspapers of the discovery of the Malrborough Glasgow can be found on page 159 of Ripley's Beleive It or Not Volume 1 published 1929 {reference only} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.149 (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Author Tom Quinn (in "Military's Strangest Campaigns and Characters", Robson Books [2006]) claimed that a British naval vessel came across the Marlborough Glasgow, still afloat and with sails set off the coast of Chile in 1913. A boarding party found the crew members deceased and the author further claims that tests were conducted on their skeletal remains failed to indicate a cause of death. Quinn not only failed to name the British naval vessel, but her commander, and did not indicate if the Marlborough was taken into any port or was left adrift. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignasius Prince (talk • contribs) 06:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have found a number of newspaper accounts from 1913 and 1914 which could call in to question the conclusion this article presently makes about them being fiction. Link to the relevant 1914 article: A tale of the sea, Evening Post Wellington New Zealand 1914 NealeFamily (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done! Those old NZ newspaper accounts make interesting reading. Salmanazar (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Basil Lubbuck was right - the first story almost certainly fiction, and the second most likely one of mistaken identity NealeFamily (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moot (non-admin closure) 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

---

{{Requested move/dated|Marlborough (clipper ship)}} Marlborough (ship) → Marlborough (clipper ship) – there is more than one ship called "Marlborough", indeed, we have a list of them at HMS Marlborough. Therefore "Marlborough (ship)" should redirect to the disambiguation page Marlborough, and this ship should be renamed to not use ambiguous disambiguation 70.50.151.11 (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment to closer: When proposed, this article was Marlborough (ship). As consensus was achieved for a move to Marlborough (1876 ship), the move was not controversial, and has been implemented. An apparent effect of that implementation is that the new name is displayed in the box above in the "move from" field, rather than the former name. As the move has now been made there is no need for further action here. Kablammo (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support per nom, partial disambiguation. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This was not a clipper ship. Where is the support for the assertion that the vessel was a clipper? A clipper is not simply a three-masted sailing ship, but a specialized vessel of the middle third of the nineteenth century, with additional sails and kites above and outboard of the normal sails of a three-masted squarerigger, extra crew to work those sails, and fine lines. Kablammo (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Then User:Kablammo Marlborough (1867 ship)? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine, and I would support that title. Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC) The present title then should be a redirect to the present dab page at Marlborough#Other_uses, or a new section of that dab page devoted to ships. Kablammo (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

70.50.151.11, is this suggestion acceptable to you? Kablammo (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is acceptable to me -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Query and Suggestion If the Marlborough is not a clipper then someone needs to update the info box - it is called a clipper there. One of you nautical types might be able to put in its appropriate type. A suggestion would then to call the article something along the lines Marlborough (1867 type of ship). NealeFamily (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That is why I chose "clipper ship" as the disambiguator, it was in the infobox. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've now changed it to full-rigged ship, which may be as good a type as any, although merchant ship would be an overlapping and more general type. The vessel likely also was, or had elements of, a windjammer and bulk carrier, and and was also used to convey passengers-- all of which shows that general-purpose vessels do not fit easily into a single ship type. But as there are no naval vessels of this name launched the same year, I think that Marlborough (1867) suffices. Kablammo (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer "Marlborough (1867 ship)" since the base disambiguator would be "ship" so the additional term is the year. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Support Marlborough (1867) as there are at least two earlier ships, one in the 1840's and another in the 1860's. NealeFamily (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm okay with Marlborough (1867 ship) as well - either way. NealeFamily (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

On the assumption that "1867" is a transposition of "1876" (the given date of launch)-- an error which I did not catch before-- I have moved this page to "Marlborough (1876 ship)". Kablammo (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The [old] title then should be a redirect to the present dab page at Marlborough#Other_uses Now that the page has been renamed seemingly satisfactorily, can we then carry through with the redirect repoint and close this discussion? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Kablammo (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

England-New Zealand via the Horn?

'...a sailing ship like the Johnson would not normally sail on this route to reach New Zealand – the usual route being the Clipper route around the Horn if sailing from England. See map.'

Don't you mean 'around the Cape'? The map shows that the route around the Horn is only travelled West-East. Valetude (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes - I'll correct that NealeFamily (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)