Talk:Breadalbane (ship)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Arctic Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shipwrecks Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

Past or present tense[edit]

I there a convention for shipwrecks? Was a ship? Is a ship? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HMS?[edit]

This ship wasn't, so far as I can tell, ever commissioned, which makes her simply Breadalbane. She doesn't show up in Winfield, R.; Lyon, D. (2004). The Sail and Steam Navy List: All the Ships of the Royal Navy 1815–1889. London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-032-6. OCLC 52620555., and I'd be interested to hear whether she shows up in Colledge, J. J.; Warlow, Ben (2006) [1969]. Ships of the Royal Navy: The Complete Record of all Fighting Ships of the Royal Navy (Rev. ed.). London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-281-8.. I'd suggest the article title needs changing - perhaps Breadalbane (ship)? Shem (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She was apparently chartered by the Royal Navy for service as a transport and tender to H.M.S. Phoenix serving under the supervision of a government agent, so she surely wasn't commissioned. She doesn't appear in Colledge and Warlow. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 12:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you correctly state, the Breadalbane was not a naval vessel, but a mercantile ship chartered for use as a transport. The term "HMS" is particular to vessels owned by and/or commissioned into the British Navy, so this prefix was never applicable to the Breadalbane. The retitling you suggest should certainly be done.The Breadalbane was crushed in the ice as she lay anchored off Beechey Island, and sank in fifteen minutes. Her crew were all taken aboard HMS Phoenix by her commander, Commander Edward Inglethorpe. Canadian divers found the Breadalbane in 1981, in 340 feet of water. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article incorrectly refers to HMS Phoenix as a "sister ship", which she assuredly was not - the Phoenix was a steam-driven naval sloop (so the term "HMS" correctly applies to her); but please delete the reference to "sister ship". Note also that the article's final sentence "In 198, further visits to the Breadalbane were conducted ..." is missing a final digit from the year. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The captain of the Phoenix was Commander Edward A. Inglefield, not Inglethorpe, though no doubt that's what you meant. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 13:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly correct, Simon. Obviously I've been reading too much Agatha Christie recently! Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontroversial, then. I've made the move and amended the text as discussed. Shem (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support this move, as other users have pointed out she doesn't appear in any of the lists and directories of the commissioned RN ships. Despite this look how several of the sources have jumped on an HMS bandwagon! Benea (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you all so much for helping with this article, and moving it to its correct name. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. One question, though - where did you get the position of the wreck from? This says 74 41 N 91 50W. Shem (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources said "half a mile south of Beechey Island in Lancaster Sound", so I Google Earthed it. Zoomed in on the right place and right-clicked "What's here?", grabbed the coordinates (something like 74.68999,-91.846962), which I added to the article, somehow omitting the "-", which, even with the "-", seems to land somewhere else. So, yes, navigation is probably not my long suit. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that explains it. 74 decimal 69 is not the same as 74 degrees and 69 minutes (in fact, it's 74 degrees 41 minutes). Same with the longitude. The wreck is actually at 74° 41' N 91° 50'W. I'll make the appropriate changes. Shem (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, your wonderful methods were very, very close, once I'd taken the minus sign out. Shem (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close? Thank goodness I'm an editor and not a submarine navigator. I think I understand. By the way, I first searched the net for the coords and couldn't find them, so that' why I resorted to Google Earth. I think I should have first clicked "Center map here", then "What's here?". And I must have accidentally removed the "-" while adding the figures to the coords thingy. So if you were wondering: "How the heck did she get this so horribly wrong?" Now you know.

Also, I searched for a long time for an image, and the closest I got was some site that charged money for Illustrated London News images. So, kudos to you for grabbing that image. I'm delighted. And thanks again for fixing the coords. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breadalbane (ship). 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/20080706122108/http://www.l-3klein.com/image_gallery/530_images/breadalbane/breadalbane.html to http://www.l-3klein.com/image_gallery/530_images/breadalbane/breadalbane.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]