Talk:Bulk carrier/Archive 1

Very old comments

• Why isn't there any mention of earlier bulk carriers, such as the wartime examples? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.64.136.248 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC).

• This entry also does not recognize the developments made in handling bulk cargo on the Great Lakes both in ship design and in on shore handling facilities. The long clean decks premiered with the RJ Hackett in 1869 and by 1910 there were more than one self unloading vessels.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rds47 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC).

Translation

Hello,

When wikilinks are translated, it could be useful to use this tool which automatically fetches the corresponding wikilinks in the target language. See this example which I'm sure you will enjoy :-)

Another point : in the "history" section, the original article devotes a long part to Skaarup's design, yet I didn't find any reliable sources on this. It may be worthwhile investigating this topic to see how much this ship has changed the bulk carriers' world. As far as I know, the sloping ballast wing tanks and the wide holds were present even before the 1950s, the aft engine room/superstructure was becoming the new fashionable design, so I don't see why this design was particularly innovative. But I can be wrong :-) le Korrigan →bla 23:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note also that "échantillonnage" is the translation of "scantlings" (ie hull width) and not surveys :-) le Korrigan →bla 13:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Korrigan, I wanted to take a stab at the references before getting back to you, but you're so quick! Thanks so much for reading through this. As you've noticed, technical engineering terms and slang are giving me some problems. I understand scantlings as "thickenings and reenforcements to offset the weakening of the hull structure due to large open hatches." If I missed it again, please let me know.

Also, I have no idea what the final quote says, something about an impotent baby with 3 feet?!? :) Also, I agree with you about Skaarup: it's a plausible story, but doesn't appear to be verifiable.

I'm having trouble with one of the refererences. It seems like "Reflets OMI" should probably be available in English, but I can't seem to find it. Have you tripped over it? Cheers. Haus^Talk 14:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, let's try to get it clear ;-)

• "Scantling" means "hull thickness", period. Basically, during the design phase, after the architect has done some general arrangement design, you want to know the hull thickness at various points as well as the reinforcements, and you draw all this on the midship section. When you know the scantlings on various points, you know the quantity of steel you need, hence the hull cost. It is particularly important for bulkers as the hull thickness decreases with age due to corrosion, and it is believed that insufficient thicknesses were responsible for some structural failures. During inspections/surveys, the hull thickness is also checked to make sure corrosion hasn't gone too far. (on a side note, please pardon my English,I guess I'm speaking British English and I don't always know the American English equivalent !)
• The final quote is from the Pierre LD Master (the Pierre LD is a French ore carrier, 170,000 DWT), and he describes his ship as "a huge impotent baby, large like three football fields, with the engine of a Solex" (the link says it all !). For "impotent", you could also say "disabled", "crippled"... you get the idea :-)
• For the documents from IMO, have a look at [1], and the document in English is at this address. The IMO webmaster should be shot, it's quite hard to find anything on their website ! le Korrigan →bla 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that clears most everything up. I'd never heard of a solex before, but that was laugh-out-loud, spill-your-coffee funny. Thanks much for the links and clarifications, and no worries at all with the English, I'm infinitely more fluent in British English than in French. :) Haus^Talk 15:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

gallery vs. table

Hello, why change from galleries to tables ? For the different bulkers' types, this is indeed a very good idea, but for the architectural drawings and the unloading sequence, I find that galleries had a much better appearance, they made sure the text and other images were not superimposed (it is the case now on my screen, at 1024x768)... and that's just what galleries are made for : presenting several images at a time. I often use them on French articles to present a sequence of images, is there any guideline on en.wikipedia against this ? le Korrigan →bla 18:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Korrigan. I started playing with different layouts based on Raul654's comments at the pump. Please adjust as you see fit -- it's all experimentation at this point. Same thing with going from the *max table to the pie chart -- just trying to see what works best. :) Haus^Talk 18:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be worth putting that table on the pie chart's description page, and tell in the image caption "click for more details". The source is SNAME once again (this book is a pure gold mine, pity it's $1000 and it belongs to my previous University :D). For the galleries, I'll let you experiment, but you know my POV so far ! ;-) le Korrigan →bla 18:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Click for more -- clever idea. :) Based on the responses I've been getting, I'm thinking about submitting the article for peer review within the next day or so. Do you have any feelings about that? Haus^Talk

Why not, there's nothing bad some peer review I guess (nothing to lose). Another editor left a comment about the last part being POV, I don't really agree with it butmaybe putting back the quote (translated :-)) could help lessen this feeling. Or maybe move it in he first part ("overview") saying how they can be recognised/distinguished (hatches...), and how they stand amongst other cargo ships. Just some thoughts... le Korrigan →bla 20:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It probably is POV -- I just spammed the last few sentences out when I couldn't translate the solex bit :). I'll look at it again when I'm fresh. Cheers. Haus^Talk 20:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Popular image and POV

Hello, I'm concerned that part of this section introduces an unduly favourable opinion of bulk carriers. I don't have anything against them personally, but if this article is to reach Good Article or Featured Article status here, potential POV issues should be addressed.

The English article currently says:

In view of their great mass, it is easy to think of bulkers as indestructible, lumbering mastadons. However, they are constantly subjected to sea-water, waves, the bulldozers that tear ore out of the holds, and crane-hooks that slam into the bulkheads. If the disasters of the 1980s and 1990s have taught us anything, it should be that these ships are anything but indestructible.

Note that for reasons of formatting ease, I have removed the references in this discussion.

This paragraph comes across to me as if it is arguing that

The original French article says:

Une idée reçue assez courante est que les plus grands sont des mastodontes indestructibles, au vu de l'épaisseur de leur tôle ou de leur masse impressionnante. Pourtant, ils restent soumis aux vagues, aux bulldozers qui doivent arracher le minerai accroché au fond, aux grappins qui butent sur les parois... ils sont aussi très peu manœuvrants et ont besoin d'assistance pour évoluer dans les ports. Le commandant Rossignol du Pierre LD voyait ainsi son minéralier de 170 000 tonnes comme « un gros bébé impotent, grand comme trois terrains de foot, avec un moteur de solex.»

My impromptu and rather free translation of this is:

It is a widely held belief that the largest bulk freighters are like indestructible mastodons, given their thick hulls and their impressive mass. However, they are subjected to waves, to bulldozers that tear ore from deep within their holds, and to crane-hooks that slam into their bulkheads. They are not very maneuverable and need assistance to move around in ports. Captain Rossignol of the Pierre LD saw his 170000 ton ore ship as "a fat, helpless baby, as large as three football fields, and powered by a moped engine."

I think I'm reacting to the way that the English article is currently written. I suggest the following:

In view of their great mass, it is easy to think of bulkers as indestructible, lumbering mastadons. However, they are constantly subjected to sea-water, waves, the bulldozers that tear ore out of the holds, and crane-hooks that slam into the bulkheads, and the disasters of the 1980s and 1990s have demonstrated that these ships are anything but indestructible.

This may be a lot of talk about changing just a few words, but I hope that this helps. --Kyoko 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This sounds better, I think. To be honest, the last part of the French article serves also as a "conclusion" to the article (something which sometimes appear on fr.wikipedia), and while it is informative it deliberately adds some sort of "sensitive" touch to bulk carriers, and the final quote is representative of this (on film, the ship Master obviously enjoys being on his "baby", despite the description). I guess this reflects my POV as well, but nobody so far wanted to correct it :-) Anyway, thanks for your proposition, it suits me. le Korrigan →bla 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Replying to my own post... perhaps "favourable" wasn't the right word to use in my first paragraph. Anyway, my point is that it is probably best that if the article claims that bulk carriers have a certain popular image, then that claim should be supported with a source. Arguing against the popular image (by talking about disasters, hazards, etc.) risks introducing a certain slant on the section. Maybe it would be best if there was something about the popular image (with the citation used), contrasted with how captains of freighters view their ships (as seen and cited in the French article).

One more thing (I don't want to this right now): check up the SS Edmund Fitzgerald. The sinking of that ship became famous in part due to a song by Gordon Lightfoot. --Kyoko 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the great feedback, Kyoko. I made the change as you suggested, but split the final sentence in two: "...into the bulkheads, and tThe disasters..."

"Popular view" has felt problemmatic to me from the beginning, but it never fully raised a red flag until you pointed it out. I read back over it, and paraphrasing, it says:

• They live in dirty, lonely places
• Everybody thinks they're tankers
• Nobody cares when they die
• They're big, cute elephants
• We hurt them with big machines

No offense to Korrigan -- it's good writing, it just seems more like the conclusion of a book on the subject than an article. (I just read through Anne Frank for comparison, and it's nowhere near as dramatic. :)) Maybe we should cut the whole section? Cheers. Haus^Talk 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Eliminating the entire section would work for me: the whole idea of "popular image" introduces an element of subjectivity that I think the article can do without.

I still strongly suggest looking at SS Edmund Fitzgerald as an example of a famous bulker disaster. I'd do the writing myself, but to be perfectly honest, ships don't really interest me. --Kyoko 21:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

I've reviewed the article and promoted it to GA. It's well-written, well-referenced, with no major WP:MOS problems. Good job! Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC) c

Copyvio

I just removed a huge section from the article that appeared to be a copy and paste from http://www.bimco.org/Corporate%20Area/Seascapes/Ships_that_serve_us/Double_hulled_bulkers.aspx It may still be good material, but will need substantially rewriting and (ideally) properly sourcing to go back in. -- SiobhanHansa 14:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)