Talk:HMS Curacoa (D41)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pronunciation?

How exactly is "Curacoa" pronounced? I'm watching an Unsolved Mysteries DVD and Robert Stack pronounces it as "Keera-Sowa". --98.232.181.201 (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Like every language it is pronounced slightly differently. Since it's named after the island, pronounced /ˈkju�?rəsaʊ/ in English; Dutch: Curaçao, Papiamento: Kòrsou. Mkdw^talk 15:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Curacao

Where do people get the idea that the name of this ship is "Curacoa?" If you google "HMS Curacao" you get 31,900 references, as against 788 for "Curacoa". Further, when I found some documents in a flat belonging to a relative of one of the sailors the Baltic Exchange who paid the insurance called it the "Curacao". My father sailed in the Atlantic Convoys and always called it the Curacao (Not Curacoa). ALL the other ships in the Royal Navy similarly named are called "Curacao" after a place in South America called Curacao (not Curacoa). Some articles on the internet spell it both ways within the same item(!) There are 388 reasons for getting the name of their ship right, it's not much to ask, is it? Rant over. I'm going to do some more work on this to be sure. Britmax 08:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The book "Queen Mary and the Cruiser: The Curacoa Disaster" definitely spells it Curacoa. I have also seen a ref somewhere to the origin of the name (which was also used by another HMS Curacoa) as being a mis-spelling by the Admiralty which then stuck. I can't find this ref, but as you say, let's do some research and get a definitive result. --mervyn 10:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha! horribly plausible, I think. Keep meaning to get down to the library to check Jane's and some others; will probably get it done next week. My father told me that the cruiser was zig zagging in front of the ship to flush out mines; he implied that this was a regular practice. After this and an incident when two destroyers gave up pacing the liner and had to be drydocked on returning home the Mary and the Lizzie were left to cross the Atlantic unescorted. I've heard two theories as to why this worked; the first was the sheer speed of the ships, and the second that orders (some say from the highest level) came down not to touch them as the repeat of a propaganda coup like the sinking of the Lusitania in the First War was deemed undesirable. Don't know how much of this is true (fog of war, chinese whispers, propaganda, etc).Thanks for the reply anyway, Mervyn. Britmax 18:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

J. J. Colledge, Ships of the Royal Navy, Greenhill Books, 1987 is generally regarded as the authority on RN ship names. I don't have it, but check it out if you get the chance. --mervyn 19:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Colledge and Jane's both list her as Curacoa. And Colledge lists all Royal Navy ships so named as Curacoa (not Curacao!) as far back as the first one in 1809. Seems definitive. Benea 19:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And no, far from being warned off them, the Germans were very much after the Queens. "Because of their size and prestige their sinking was such a high priority for Germany that Adolf Hitler offered the equivalent of $250,000.00 and the Iron Cross to the U-boat commander who could sink them" - from RMS Queen Mary, and quoted from here. Benea 15:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And no to the zig zagging as a way of flushing mines in this instance. It was an accepted practice, but in areas where there were expected to be mines, eg in chokepoints, etc. In this case, the point of collision was in open waters, where it did not make much sense to lay mines in the unlikely chance that a ship and mine would would one day intersect. Curacoa was zig zagging as an anti u-boat measure. This worked in two ways, by continually changing course, she made herself a much harder target for a u-boat to make an accurate prediction about where to aim the torpedoes. And by continually shifting her position and covering a wider area

by zig zagging, it increased the chances of detecting any u-boats shadowing the convoy, which would have been hard pressed to find an area that might not be suddenly covered by the erratic course of the convoy escorts. Hope all this clears up the situation. Benea 14:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The Royal Navy named four ships HMS Curacoa. That cannot have been a mistake. There is a very simple solution: Curacoa Island off the eastern coast of Queensland, Australia, is part of the Palm Island group. This island, long time part of the British Empire, is a better candidate than the (mostly) Dutch Curaçao in the West Indies. I will write the Navy Dock Yard Museum in Porthmouth and ask them about it. François van der Hoeven, Curaçao, 24 April 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.122.247 (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

my dad was on this ship

i would like to know more about this disaster my dad told me that the queen mary went through the ship like a knife through butter and that he lost most of his shipmates so it would be nice if anyone could tell me a bit more about it please his name was bill miller (dusty) i will check this site to see if any more has been added every week alan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.28.122 (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't rely on updates to this article to be honest. It can take a long long time for that. Your best bet is to track down a copy of David A. Thomas and Patrick Homes's Queen Mary and the Cruiser: The Curacoa Disaster. Available on Amazon and other sites, or more cheaply from a local library. Or if you have specific questions, I have a copy myself, or you could try asking at the WP:Reference desk. Benea (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Article seems based on inaccessible TV link

There many references to the disasters TV series but the episode link is dead, and the claims supported by it are contradicted by the book review of (* D. Thomas, Patrick Homes and P. Holmes: "Queen Mary" and the Cruiser: "Curacoa" Disaster (1997) ISBN 0-85052-548-9 Summary/review). Not clear if Curacoa also zig-zagging, or where the blame was assigned in the various judgements. - Rod57 (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute

I'm opening up a discussion to resolve the issue of WP:CITEVAR. Sturmvogel 66 began editing this article on 21 March 2016. They unilaterally changed the citation format from its original format without seeking consensus or input from the other major contributors. As one of the long standing editors of this article, I saw these changes as beneficial and was thrilled to see it was getting the much deserved improvement it so desperately required. Likewise, I choose this opportunity to continue to help improve this article and it would have also been my intention to help get it through GA. One improvement to the changes was to introduce the use of the {{sfn}} template. These changes were reverted citing WP:CITEVAR, despite Sturmvogel 66 having not followed them whatsoever, and left one of the worst anti-collaborative messages I've perhaps ever seen on my my talk page, "You are unilaterally doing this and can be expected to be reverted frequently". Now that CITEVAR is an issue, I am insisting that it be followed and the original cite format of a single reference section and a single further reading section be restored. From there, pending willingness from Sturmvogel 66, either through discussion here or at dispute resolution, that a consensus with the other major editors of the article be formed around whether a change to the original format is required, and to what it should be. It should also be noted this article is now under dispute and ineligible under criteria 4 for GA review. Mkdw^talk 17:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

There still is only a single further reference section, so I'm puzzled by your complaint about that. As for splitting out the sections, I am merely following MOS:APPENDIX which states: "When appendix sections are used, they should appear at the bottom of an article, with ==level 2 headings==".

You call your introduction of sfn format for the cites an improvement; I disagree. I chose to conform one of the existing citation formats and converted the one cite that didn't follow it for the sake of consistency. As I see it, you broke CITEVAR, not I, by changing all the cites to sfn format without a consensus to do so. No specific consensus is needed, OTOH, to break out the different appendices in accordance to APPENDIX as the MOS is the consensus, by definition.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:CITESHORT was not the first format used so I await restoration of the original format. Ironically sfn is mentioned in CITESHORT, but that's for later. Once done, we can start building a consensus to the style of inline citation and appendices. Mkdw^talk 06:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This is the format used for the first book cited, back in '09: "Joseph Balkoski. Beyond the Beachhead. Stackpole Books. p. 37-38. ISBN 0-8117-0221-9." at [1]. I followed the format used in the Feb '15 edits as shown here: [2] as it's preferable to the original one and there were more cites in that style than the first one. Not to mention that it doesn't follow MOS. Strictly speaking, that editor in '15 should have followed the first cite's format, but since he didn't, I believe that it means that it's up to me to decide which one to follow. I have better things to do that to investigate the history to determine the original cite format so I use what's offered to me when I start work on an article. So please explain how I failed to follow CITEVAR, because I'm just not seeing it. Unlike your change of everything to sfn which is a blatant violation of CITEVAR, although it's a perfectly acceptable format in its own right.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Almost forgot, the MOS already established the consensus for the appendix formats, so there's nothing to discuss about them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it was up to you alone to decide. If the two formats were present in the article, WP:CITEVAR clearly leaves instructions to use the first one in place. It instructs, "...defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page". None which occurred. If you're absolutely insistent on CITEVAR being followed, then I object to your unilateral decision to make the choice for the article against the first style in place without consensus -- and back to awaiting restoration of the original citation format. SFN and CITESHORT are acceptable formats, but change from the original style to another was never reached through consensus. Mkdw^talk 22:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I would also like clarity to exactly what you're trying to accomplish here? In an edit summary you asked for Pearce to be put into CITESHORT, which was done here, yet reverted wholesale. Are you reverting all my edits on principal or are you reverting the changes made in each? Mkdw^talk 22:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I stupidly reverted everything that you'd done, so I've gone back and put Pearce into the existing format (I really hate how Google Books often no longer shows page numbers). I saw a single, very flawed, long format cite and multiple satisfactory short format cites mired in a mishmash of an improper single appendix, so I split the notes and bibliography as per the MOS and standardized everything in the better cite format; I don't research the history to see which one is older. I can see your point about a strict interpretation, but I am disinclined to invest the time to do the necessary research when I see multiple formats in an article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm still interested in working together to find a format through consensus. Whether it's the original format or a subsequently introduced one that is also improved upon. Unless you'd like me to take a page out of the message you first left me, "You are unilaterally doing this and can be expected to be reverted frequently". Mkdw^talk 21:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that we can agree that neither of us likes long-form cites, so the question is what kind of short-form cite do we want to use? My preference is for something that's as short as possible while conveying the minimum of necessary information, which is why I just use author(s), page # (with a disambiguator only if there's more than one work by an author). You appear to prefer sfn, which I intensely dislike because of the additional typing it requires. So how do we resolve this impasse?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66 and Mkdw: There is a request on GA for a nomination here which can be quickfailed if the editors cannot agree soon on this issue of CITEVAR. Normally if the references are using a formatted reference template and not bare references, then this is sufficient. Are the editors at an impasse here? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fountains-of-Paris: I believe the issue with CITEVAR can be easily overcome with a willingness to collaborate. At the time of the nomination, the article still needed a few more improvements that would have helped solidify its GA nomination. A few bits of information, images, and clarification on CITEVAR. I wouldn't necessarily say the content dispute is purely about settling on a format but rather centres around this revert and then this message left on my talk page. I don't believe anything can proceed further if these two issues are resolved: If a rigid interpretation of CITEVAR is to be followed -- the rationale used to revert my edits -- then the current citation format should be changed to match the original acceptable format from the first major contributor; the other being if whether further improvements to the article will be collaborative or if the ultimatum remains in place. We have made some progress and the discussion is proceeding. If I had to recap the progress so far, we agree that a consensus to change the citation format is desired. We're both in agreement that MOS:APPENDIX is better than the original. For this type of appendix we're using WP:CITESHORT can be written manually or by using a template. I'm in favour of SFN here because we have multiple books by the same author differentiated by only a publishing year The argument about it being additional typing is past the point, I think, because I had already done all the additional typing to implement it. It could also be easily maintained going forward. This article has been on my watchlist since 2009 and it hasn't attracted a tremendous amount of changes or edits in 7 years. As for whether further improvements I attempt to introduce will be reverted frequently, that still seems unclear to me since I was given that ultimatum. Mkdw^talk 17:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

You are free to make such editorial changes as you see fit, as you always have been, but CITEVAR forbids you from unilaterally changing the format of my cites into sfn format.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Does this not bring us back to square one? The changes you made to the citations was not "the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page". Should those edits be reverted until you also form a consensus? Selectively enforcing a unilateral changes is no way to collaborate. Mkdw^talk 13:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's the problem with following CITEVAR here - long citations do not work with repeated citations to the same source. Per WP:IBID, the only acceptable methods when one cites the same source multiple times are short cites, parenthetical references, or the {{Rp}} template (which I personally find stomach-turning, but YMMV).

That being said, I'd be happy to review this article for its pending Good Article nomination, but I won't take it on until this dispute is resolved. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Basically the article is being held to ransom by one editor who appears to be insisting on their preferred style of referencing and claims that this is a content dispute - it is not - it has nothing to do with content. As an editor who has made significant contributions to this article such behaviour is unimpressive and does nothing to improve the encyclopedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not what's being said here. And I would agree that taking such an anti-collaborative approach has been damaging to this article and the process. As I've stated, many times, I'm not necessarily in favour of long citations either. The problem is that one editor is reverting wholesale edits using a selective interpretation of CITEVAR but completely disregarding it for their own edits. Furthermore their ultimatums are the reason why we're in this situation. I see no other choice than working together but that's been offered multiple times but without movement. Mkdw^talk 22:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

But that is what is exactly what is being said here - you are vetoing any attempt to take this article through the review process, and insist in labelling a disagreement about reference formats as a content dispute, which is grossly misleading as it has nothing to do with the content of the article. This dispute appears to have driven the editor who nominated the article away - the article hasn't been edited for over a month, so there is no point in continuing this farce.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not surprising there hasn't been any more edits to the article. It was essentially nominated as being "ready" by the nominator which suggests the article was taken to a place of near completion. Since the nomination, other editors including myself made the last of the changes through this dispute. The only farce is that the community habitually acquiesces to experienced editors who deny collaboration and force their issue. We have two editors here who have differing opinions about which short cite should be used here. CITEVAR technically prohibited the introduction of both without consensus but one editor has now forced the issue by reverting any further changes unless it's their preferred format. The selective interpretation and the message that any further attempts to change it would be reverted only invite controversy. The only thing that should be forced here is either a compromise or some form of collaborative attempt. I've offered to either go back to long cite which CITEVAR technically enforces, or to work together to find a compromise. Both are reasonable options and worth the wait. The article is in a good state, being read, and the recent changes were a great improvement. Mkdw^talk 09:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

OK - article unwatched - you can change the references to whatever you want. Feel free to delete all my contributions from the article as I have unwatched it as it is clear that normal editors are not welcome here. Congratulations.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No one is proposing the deletion of your contributions. What's being sought here is a consensus or compromise. I'm not sure why that's such an offensive concept. I'm also not sure what you mean by "normal editors". No one has attacked you and no one has said you're unwelcome here. In fact, you came here first with accusations about holding the article ransom. The article was already being held ransom by immediate reverts by the other editor. They essentially held up the GA process by doing so. The difference here is that bullying isn't working. The threats of being "reverted frequently" are being challenged because we have rules and collaborative avenues to resolve these issues. Mkdw^talk 02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Sturmvogel 66: Your GA nomination is being reviewed. It's been up for a couple of days and wanted to notify you in case you have stopped watching this talk page. While it's regrettable that we couldn't find a compromise, I think this nomination should go forward and will support its nomination. Mkdw^talk 23:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)