Talk:SS Gothenburg

Passenger lists

I don't see the relevance of including exhaustive passenger lists here as they are not notable, and do not add anything to the story. Suggest that noteworthy passengers are mentioned in text, and the other passengers just summarised (and possibly moved into a separate list article). Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The fact that many roads were named after the victims was the reason this article appeared on DYK. Removing this section would make the DYK pointless. Whilst not all are notable in themselves, they are all connected with the Gothenburg and worth a mention. Wikipedia should give comprehensive coverage rather than summaries where possible. Mjroots (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I haven't seen another shipwreck-related article that includes an exhaustive list of passengers. Look especially at featured and good shipwreck articles. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Do you propose to AfD List_of_passengers_onboard_RMS_Titanic and List_of_crew_members_onboard_RMS_Titanic too? It they are notable enough to have a list separate to the main article, then the Gothenburg's list of passengers has enough notability to stay.

Those lists are separate from the main article for good reason: they are unencyclopedic, will never reach GA or FA status, as seen by the fact that they barely escaped deletion 6 months ago. Also, it does not follow that a separate, low importance passenger list article for the Titanic implies that an exhaustive embedded passenger list for the Gothenburg is important or encyclopedic. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The examples of the Titanic lists don't seem particularly relevant to me in this case. People are notable in the press, at least, for having been Titanic survivors, with articles at their passing. I know that this is not a formal deletion discussion, but don't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to justify keeping this. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I also oppose the deletion of the section, as it completes the article. Additionally, the article should be as comprehensive as possible and from my experience, readers are very interested in people connected with disasters. I suggest we consider other opinions, such as Wiki Project Australia, before making a hasty decision. Spy007au (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess we'll see what the GA reviewers say too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments 1) Is the section formally nominated for deletion? I can't see it in the AfD list. 2) The list of crew members onboard RMS Titanic has not been through the AfD process. 3) This article does not seem to have been nominated for GA Review. IMO it would be premature to nominate it now, although it probably needs reassessment from the Ships project. 4) Spy007au - is that a comment or an oppose? If it is an oppose then it should be clearly stated as such. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - For reasons set out above.Spy007au (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove complete lists (keeping any notable people); WP:BIO states that lists of people are assumed to be lists of notable people, and not exhaustive lists of all people associated with a notable subject. Rewrite to include the fact that many streets are named for individuals that were victims. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment WP:BIO states:-

This page documents a notability guideline on the English Wikipedia. While it is not policy, editors are strongly advised to follow it. As the occasional exception may arise, it should be approached with common sense.

I believe that this case is one of those occasional exceptions. It is referenced and relevant to the article as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 12:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to be contrary or anything, but you say that these lists should be exceptions to a strong guideline, but, other than because 'it's referenced', you don't provide any reasons. Can you provide some reasons why this rates an exception? — Bellhalla (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Remove Would think they could be broken out into a daughter article Passenger and Crew list of the SS Gothenburg would be more appropriate, agree that retention of the full list within the article are problematic especially crew killed as only one on that table has any legacy information. Gnangarra 13:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • clarify note removediff was added to my comment, I'm oppose to the deletion of the information I think it can be better presented separate to the article. Gnangarra 13:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the misunderstanding - I know you weren't suggesting deletion. I believe we're talking about the same thing though, as a move is equally acceptable. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Have created a daugther page to the main article and transfered the passenger and crew lists.Spy007au (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Its at Passenger and Crew list of the SS Gothenburg, and was tag with {{prod}} which I have removed Gnangarra 15:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks everyone, matter resolved. I've nominated the article for WP:GA Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think a GA nomination is premature as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passenger and Crew list of the SS Gothenburg may have implications to the article. Gnangarra 10:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of following the advice of the GA reviewer below by re-including these lists as collapsible tables. I hope that makes a suitable compromise for everyone. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the AFD and deleted the other article after these developments. Gnangarra 11:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible OR in passenger lists

Setting aside the issue of the appropriateness of the survivors/victims lists (which is discussed above), the way I read the article and its sourcing — please correct me if I am wrong — is as follows: The 1875 J. H. Lewis-published lists have errors, misspellings, etc., that have been corrected by WP editors. If this is correct, sources for corrections (or corrected lists) should be included. Without additional sources it could be reasonably interpreted as original research. Can someone clarify? — Bellhalla (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Without sources it'd be a simpal spelling error(that should be fixed), where the list says it was spelt wrong at source then that should be cited, add {{fact}}. Either way it isnt WP:OR as there is no conclusion. To say that Joe Bloggs must also have been on the ship because he was Tom Citizens footman and then included him in the list of passengers would be OR. Likewise to add a Joe Bloggs to the list of victims because there is no record of him after the event, or to say he was a fireman because the vessel had 8 there was only 7 listed in the crew and his position in the crew wasnt listed so he must have been one. Gnangarra 00:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if I have caused any confusion. The passenger and crew list in the article was reconciled against an extensive article written by Helen Wilson, which has been quoted earlier in the article. In hindsight, I agree the way I wrote the section appears as if I made the changes/corrections, which is not the case. I am happy for someone with far better editing skills than me to make the appropriate changes.Spy007au (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added the Wilson ref to the text, which should solve the problem. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Name changes

Appears that this ship started life as the Gothenburg (1855), then became the Celt (1857), then the Gothenburg once again (1866). Would be good if her UK history could be expanded further (e.g. I get the impression she may have been a troopship for the Crimean War, and given the Union Castle Link, probably operated the route to the Cape of Good Hope for a while.) Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In researching this article, I photocopied an extensive article from Darwin's State Reference Library that was written by Allan McInnes (a historian and solicitor) in February 1982. He states that the Gothenburg was originally named the Celt in 1854 and her first owners were Balgarve of Rotterdam and that she was intended to ply between London and Rotterdam. In all my research, I have not come across any mention of the the subject Gothenburg being associated with the Union Castle Link. Perhaps there was another ship with the same name? Spy007au (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the builder, names and years are correct:

• "Celt(I), 1857. Lungley, Deptford, 514 tons. Built in 1855 as the Gothenburg, the Celt was acquired by the Union Line from the North of Europe Steam Navigation Company in 1857..." [1]
• "This ship had been known as the Gothenburg, and used to sail for Sweden from Irongate Wharf near the Tower of London. In order that she might readily fit in with her consorts she was given the more clannish name of Celt." [2]

That said, there was both a Celt(I) and a Celt(II). Celt(I) was also called Gothenburg, however it appears that it was the other ship, Celt(II), that was lengthened in 1866.[3] Also see this bio of the Union Castle Line, which clears up the Rotterdam ownership issue, I think. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The bit that I think needs to be clarified is change of ownership in 1862 to McMerkan, Blackwood & Co. i.e. from this point forward, the ship's history is undisputed, while from 1855 to 1857, there are also good references for a ship called Gothenburg/Celt(I). However the link between these two pieces of history is currently tentative: I've searched, but cannot a text that explicitly states who McMerkan, Blackwood & Co purchased her from, or who the Union Castle ship was subsequently sold to after she was traded in for Celt(II). So until unless this link is established for sure, we could indeed be talking about two different Gothenburgs. What makes this more tricky is that, if it transpires that these are not the same ship, a number of historians and texts have already assumed along the way that they are. Thoughts, anyone? Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Have carried out some further research. McInnes also stated (additionally to the above) in his article that, "for 12 years after leaving the stocks Celt was classed A1. In 1862 Blackwood of Melbourne purchased her for the Australian trade...... In 1865 her ownership was amended to McMechan & Blackwood". In contrast, Wilson stated, "She was classed A1 at Lloyds and intended for the UK-Baltic trade, her first owners being the North of Europe Steam Navigation Company....... In June 1862 she was purchased by McMeckan, Blackwood & Co of Melbourne". Not sure if this helps, but it may provide some leads/answers. Hope it helps. Spy007au (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Although I realise there are two on going issues, I feel happy enough with the article to pass for GA. Effectively, this is a well-written and well sourced article which adequately covers the topic and makes for very interesting reading. If the intention is to take this article further then I have a few suggestions of things which need to be improved if the contributors are hoping to take this to FA. I also have some suggestions regarding the two outstanding issues.

• The lead is too short FA requires at least two paragraphs explaining the topic in summary form. At the moment this lead does not do that.
• The writing needs further reviewing. Its not bad, but has several minor problems which should be addressed.
• The issue about the ship's service at Celt is interesting, and should be investigated. I don't feel such information is immediately vital for GA, but this should be explored for further development and it should be conclusively established whether this ship is the one in question or not. If it is then please include more information.
• The lists. I am all too aware of the debate on Wikipedia regarding the appropriateness of lists of non-notable fatalities. I tend to fall into the group who supports their inclusion, but I'd really like to see some form of related project maintaining them rather than their exisitance as full blown articles in their own right. A couple of other suggestions to this end involve a) the idea of collapsible tables which will allow lists to be present without overwhelming articles and b) those seeking the retention of the lists would do well to copy them to a user page before they are deleted. That way the information will still exist when the issue is decided for once and all, will still be accessible to those interested but will not run the risk of being deleted as unencyclopedic. In promoting this, I am deliberately avoiding the issue of the survivors list as that is something for the article's main contributors to decide. I believe that the article reaches GA quality with or without the list.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this review so promptly, and for your very useful and insightful input. I hope too that this article might be improved to FA status, as there are scant few ship-related articles at the moment in that category. Your idea about a collapsible list is novel and certainly worthy of consideration. Anyway, we'll keep at it, and hopefully get to the bottom of the few outstanding issues very soon. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Turtle Shell

I was considering nominating the the photo of Gothenburg's "Turtle Shell Roll" as a featured picture under the history heading. It appears to meet the criteria. Any thoughts? Spy007au (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we rather get the whole article to FA? (It's the story behind the picture that makes it interesting.) Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)