Talk:Star of Oregon (ship)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |  |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] Recent additions
I think it's great that people have decided to add to this article, however I think some of this new material should really be elsewhere. Much should stay, but this page is really about the ship only, and should mimic other ship pages. Some of the construction info should be moved to Star of Oregon (event) as it better relates to it, and some of the info on the person in CA that bought it should go to a biography on that person. Any other thoughts? Aboutmovies 04:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge Star of Oregon
I suppose that I am a "lumper" rather than "splitter." Take a look at RMS Titanic, the Mutiny on the Bounty, the USS Monitor, or the Mayflower pages for examples that combine information on the ship and its place in history. With respect to Jose Limantour, the intention is to follow the ship and also show that the Star was a very sea worthy vessel--not a sea going "coffin" as John McLoughlin characterized it!
- Please note I am not proposing a merger. If I thought they should be one article I would have made just the one article. Instead I started them both. And, no I don’t own the articles. Anyway, the more significant article is the event, I simply added the ship as a secondary article to cover the ship. As to your examples, please note the Mutiny on the Bounty is not a ship, it is an event. The ship was HMS Bounty (now a re-direct), the articles were merged a few years ago into the event that made the ship famous. Not to mention the article is horrible and needs to be edited.
- As to USS Monitor, note that the information on the captain is very limited, just one line. The only other person mentioned is the designer. Again, the focus is on the ship, not the people. As to the Mayflower, not a single captain is mentioned, and only a few people are even mentioned. The event portion is under other articles. With Titanic, the content is focused on the ship, not what the captain had been doing prior to this assignment or other extraneous items. For content guidelines of ship articles see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships.
- Again, most of the content should stay, but I want to make sure editors note there are two closely related pages. The event makes the ship, not the other way around. Content more related to the event should go there, and vice versa. That is why details about the ship length/breadth/draft are not on the event page, as these are details better suited for the ship. For instance, the “preparation for voyage to California” has now been removed, and there is just a section for California voyages” that would incorporate the Star voyage and then the subsequent sale/journeys of the re-named vessel. Preparation for California was training of the crew and their need for official papers, which relate to the crew, not the ship. The ship’s prep was the building, covered under a different section, the ship did not need training.
- Lastly, with the French guy, most should stay, but some of the more intricate details should go to a biography of him. It’s nothing personal and the content is great, just the wrong place. Aboutmovies 22:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
