Talk:SS Edmund Fitzgerald

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

The plain Google Earth KML is for the center of Lake Superior, not the wreck site.

—76.219.180.189 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But looks OK to me. The way I looked it showed the actual site, and then Lake Superior as a "nearby place" with a second marker at the center of the lake showing where that "nearby place" is. Or, maybe I'm mistaken. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Reason for sinking

Hi there,

Here's a link that might explain what happened to SS Edmund Fitzgerald: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-080.htm

Regards, Cosmin

21:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.62.186 (talk)

Thanks, but that website doesn't meet the criteria for usage as a source in a Wikipedia article per WP:SPS, the policy provision on self-published sources. It would fail to meet the criteria for usage in a Featured Article as it's not a "high-quality, reliable source". Imzadi 1979 → 21:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Another thanks. But it is also partially a repetition of the oldest of the many theorized causes (hatch covers not clamped) . Also it got it wrong on the clamp conditions. Some were mangled, some were intact. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Memorial Bell(s)?

It appears to me that the Memorial section is describing two different bells, and not distinguishing between them. Mariner's Church rang its own church bell the day after the wreck- which couldn't possibly have been the bell that was later recovered from the wreck. However, the second sentence, beginning with "A legal document" and subsequent ones appear to be describing the ship's bell that was recovered. Given the disputes over the ship's bell (and its status, fate) I request comment before WP:BOLD. Still, I'd like to add a line acknowledging the second bell and identifying the two separate memorials. The section as-is is quite confusing. --Robert Keiden (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I think that it was in good shape when it achieved FA and also when it was "article of the day". Then it looks like some content got removed and two paragraphs combined and now it has the problems that you noted. Situation should be carefully reviewed and fixed. My first thought is to go back to the November 2011 version of those paragraphs? North8000 (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I went through the history. Looks like it was in good shape up until April 17th. On April 19th someone sort of made a mess out of it. Later on the 19th WPWatchdog partially undid the problematic stuff but not fully. I'll revert that part to the April 17th 2012 version. Nice catch. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ship or boat?

If she is so mighty, and she did displace more than pre-dreadnought battleships, then why is she referred to as a boat? 69.196.183.85 (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Boat versus ship, mixed useage? Choose one, stick with it!

"Boat" versus "ship" there seems to be a mixed useage here. Boat is the noun usually applied to small vessels or submarines, ship is the noun usually applied to large vessels. The Fitzgerald is clearly a ship, not a boat. 50.89.66.83 (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

To answer this *and* the section directly above, "boat" is the term traditionally used to refer to vessels that sail only on the Great Lakes, regardless of size. "Salties" (oceangoing vessels) are ships, but the Fitz was a Lakes freighter, designed only to sail on the Lakes, too large to pass through the Welland Canal to gain access to the ocean, and not built to take the sort of swells seen on the ocean anyway, and thus a boat. It's a specialized usage for Lakes sailors. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Are we an encyclopedia for general audiences or a specialized source for Lakes sailors? Parsecboy (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The terms are used somewhat interchangeably in the Great Lakes region, but "boat" is the more common term for a vessel not designed to leave the lakes, vs. "ship" for those that can pass through the seaway out to the open waters of the Atlantic. The language isn't that specialized to just the sailors of the region. Imzadi 1979 → 02:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No, general usage defines a "boat" as something that can be lifted out of the water, and a "ship" as something that cannot. The idea that "boats" are designed for freshwater service and "ships" for saltwater does not seem to have much wider circulation than the Great Lakes. As I pointed out on my talk page, there are a number of sources that refer to the vessel as a ship. Parsecboy (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your definition has no source. Submarine and Great Lakes freighters are called boats. Rmhermen (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm inclined to agree with Parsecboy here. --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"What's the difference between a boat and a ship?" at The Straight Dope has this to say:

There are exceptions, of course. Many commercial fishing craft, for example, are sizable oceangoing vessels, yet they're almost invariably called boats. Similarly for submarines, built by General Dynamics' Electric Boat Division. The Great Lakes are pretty deep, and one sees certain large vessels on them that to all appearances are ships, but in fact said vessels are commonly called ore boats.

Imzadi 1979 → 09:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed and "boat" agreed on. We can reopen the discussion, but somebody just unilaterally changing it or claiming it is "wrong" is themselves wrong.North8000 (talk) 11:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Was it? Where was it discussed? Was the outcome of the discussion to use both terms in the article? Thas is what we currently have, 9 "boat"s and 8 "ship"s. I can see why some people might think it looks a bit rubbish like this. If this truly was the consensus, maybe there was something wrong with the consensus? --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If you bothered to look, you would find that this was discussed in archive 1 and 2.--Asher196 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not see a consensus there to use "boat", and I certainly do not see a consensus for mixed usage. Mixed usage looks really terrible. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Boat is right. Ship is wrong. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(a) And this is based on the Straight Dope source above, or on something else? (b) What do you think of the current "mixed" approach? --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out on my talk page, there are numerous sources that call Edmund (and other lake freighters) a ship, rather than a boat. Simply asserting that "ship" is wrong is, frankly, a non-starter. Parsecboy (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you are commenting on a talk page comment rather than the main question here which is essentially a claim that "boat" is wrong. North8000 (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"Boat" is the norm and best term for lakers and "ship" is OK. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line: "Boat" the norm for lakers, and because of that it was discussed and decided several times to generally use "boat" in this article. But there's nothing wrong with occasionally using "ship". There's no rule against using two different correct nouns for an object in an article. North8000 (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I can only find two discussions in the archives, this (very) brief discussion and this one, where the only argument in favor of "boat" is that calling Edmund a ship "just sounds wrong" to Izmadi, since in local terminology they're called boats. Hardly evidence of a consensus for "boat", I would say. And last time I checked, we avoid jargon because we're writing for a general audience, not specialists. Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Terminology: boat, ship

The "boat" convention for lakers just got sourced at the other article, here is the source. North8000 (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well done for finding a source, but let's be honest, it isn't that great a source, is it? It's a Cruising Guide for recreational sailors and it says that "old-timers" refer to ships on the lakes as "boats". Does that really mean that we have to? I also find the switching back and forth between the two terms a little jarring. Now, I think I am ok with using "lakers" as that's less jarring. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That's my point - Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not for a specific region in the world, or for "old timers". "Laker" is probably too jargony for a general audience. Parsecboy (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Someone else found the source, I just brought it over. I have not had a very strong opinion on "ship" vs. "boat" but have had a strong opinion on having a process in place that doesn't have each person who comes along unilaterally roto-tilling the article to what they personally think it should be. In this case, it has been discussed and decided on twice, it is the common name where they operate, and now there is sourcing for the latter. I'd be just as happy if the group decided on "ship" as "boat", but am against the chaotic process that has been tried in the article in the last few days. North8000 (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's called normal editing. On the other hand, reverting for no other reason than your (wrong, on this occasion) perception of consensus is frowned upon, by those with a clue. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

So what is your plan? Each person who comes along makes 20 edits to change it to whatever their opinion is on what it should be? North8000 (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

North, unless you can point me to other discussions apart from the two I linked to above, this issue was only seriously discussed once, and no strong consensus emerged for either usage. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see my previous question. (Again, I don't have a strong preference either way on the actual choice of words.) North8000 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If you don't have a strong preference either way, can't point to a strong consensus, don't have a strong policy-based argument, and your best supporting source is a hobby guide posted by an IP, why are you edit-warring to restore the mixed version? --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The annoying thing about IPs and the other insufferable know-it-alls is that they sometimes do know it better. Now stop acting like a bunch of drama queens and get back to work.91.64.13.20 (talk) 13:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)