Talk:Marchioness disaster

Cooper article

The Cooper article-- or most of it-- appears to be online [1] but it displayed oddly when I previewed it after adding the url.

The article uses an odd definition of "trim", so I used another one from an online dictionary. The important point is that the stern was lower than the bow, which is well-handled in the efn. Kablammo (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The 51 victims aren't listed

Most disaster entries on Wikipedia seem to list the victims (or notable ones if the victim list is large). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"calderbank condition"?

The term "calderbank condition" is not one that appears in legal textbooks. What does it mean? What were the terms of the settlement offer that was made?

This book explains quite well the three forms of offer that can be made to settle civil litigation in England:

• "open" (which can be referred to in court, possibly to the deteriment of the defendant as it might involve an admission of liability, but affects the abiity to recover legal costs if the claimant fails to recover more than the offer);
• "without prejudice" (which cannot be referred to in court, so does not affect liability, but also does not affect costs);
• "without prejudice save as to costs" (i.e. a Calderbank offer).

Any offer can be accepted or rejected (or withdrawn before either) but a defendant's offer is not "withdrawn if a judge awarded a lower amount", it just falls away. Just as a claimaint can't wait for the judge to decide the case, and then accept a higher offer made previously by the defendant.

The effect of an offer being "without prejudice save as to costs" is that (unlike an "open" offer) the offer cannot be referred to in court until a determination is made of liability and quantum (i.e. whether the defendant is liable, and to what extent) at which point, if the Calderbank offer was higher that the judge's determination, it would affect the ability of the claimant to recover their legal costs from the time when the offer was made. (Rather than costs following the event, as is - or at least was - typically the case.)

With respect to the journalists of The Guardian in 1999, Lynne Wallis seemingly does not understand what a Calderbank offer is, and in any event a newspaper is not a reliable source for an explanation of legal terms. (A small point, but upper case is used almost universally for "Calderbank", named as it is after the litigants in the case of Calderbank v Calderbank in 1976.) 213.205.240.190 (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Lights

The article mentions the issueof whether watch was being kept on each vessel. But it says nothing about what lights were being shown. I recall this being discussed in the press at the time: there were accusations that that the Bowbelle was not displaying a bow light, whereas the disco boat was, inevitably, emitting any amount of light (and sound). Maproom (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Why did it sink SO quickly?

sinking in less than a minute? why? Cramyourspam (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Catastrophic damage due to being crushed under a far larger vessel. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cramyourspam: baldy ^^^. The Marchioness was over 60 years old and wooden-hulled, while the Bowbelle was steel-hulled and over 30 times its weight: equivalent, say, of a Ford driving over a skateboard. ——SerialNumber54129 18:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. We cover this in the article as far as the sources allow us: "The upper superstructure of Marchioness was ripped off by Bowbelle's anchor.[44] The lower saloon was quickly flooded ... The weight and momentum of Bowbelle pushed Marchioness underwater and she sank, stern first, within 30 seconds of being hit". She was run over, split in two and pushed under by the heavier vessel. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

[2] "Modern vessels' hulls are required to be divided into watertight compartments, so any flooding resulting from a breach can be more easily contained" -- BBC. Although it's not implied that this would definitely have made a significant difference in this disaster. MPS1992 (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

thanks Cramyourspam (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Link

SS Californian, another ship that was subject to a controversial MAIB report around the same time as the Marchioness, in early 1992.

The link goes straight to the ship of this name involved in the Titanic disaster of 1912. Why is this link here? Valetude (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Article uses ":" in blockquotes for indenting – is this a problem?

This article currently uses ":" (lists) to indent text in blockquotes. I was sure I saw somewhere that this is not recommended, but I can't find where. If it is a problem, what can be done instead for indenting? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It isn't an issue, as far as I am aware. Perhaps if you can find the part of the MoS that says otherwise that would be helpful, as it will often give the alternative method of coming to the same effect. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11A1:3EEB:EE7D:C22F (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

It's MOS:INDENT. I have updated those sections. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Nordjyllands edit warring

2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:F099:E2EB:15CE:9C39, please do not continue to remove referenced content without explanation and with no attempt to discuss here. Please explain why you believe your opinions on this content should matter more than other editor's. Nordjyllands (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear sock, Firstly you have absolutely no clue what the hell you are playing at. The edit I made yesterday was reverting several inappropriate changes made to the account in the last few months, while retaining any improvements. Some of the changes reverted included people dicking around with quotes and trying to change the punctuation - that's an absolute no-no. Reverting such changes is a no-brainer, so why you decided to put back the changes is laughable. The small part of the lead that was also removed in the edit I made (that you have edit warred three times to replace), is fairly obvious to anyone who isn't playing at being a sock-troll: it's badly done. The main problem is that it is extraneous detail that bloats the lead. The lead, as it stands, is clear, concise and succinct. The rest of the article is for adding additional details, not the lead.

If you really want to play around on an article, go find something that isn't an FA, and therefore has been through a couple of community reviews to anchor in a rather strong consensus. And learn fast that a knee-jerk revert without any edit summary (as your first ever edits have been) is very likely to be ignored. There again, there's an overwhelming likelihood that you're a sock who is here to troll only, so these are all probably wasted words. - The editor formerly known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:11A1:3EEB:EE7D:C22F (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Liferaft capacity

So the rafts (140) plus the lifebuoys (14) would accommodate 154 passengers. Why was she licensed to carry 165? Valetude (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

changes to passenger vessel legislation

There should be mention of the profound and far-reaching changes to MCA legislation, which is still happening to this day, brought about following the Marchioness disaster. 146.199.238.75 (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)