Talk:Blue Baron (shipwreck)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Shipwrecks High‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

High

This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

Port Nicholson[edit]

Given what we know now, the talk of Guyanese coast location appears to have been a ruse. A rather bizarre one though. The picture they originally released is clearly Port Nicholson, easily found and identifiable on a number of sites on the web, and correctly by the Telegraph in the first place, though they did get the owner wrong. The location was easily disprovable, since the location of U-87 is known and there was no way that she could have been sinking ships off Massachusetts in mid June, and could have sneaked down before or after in the month and bagged one off Guyana. The story of the stop in South America is presumably to justify the location, the claim that the log book confirmed the location really depended on no one following that up in any detail. They gave the submarine, the date, even the picture. Either all that was a lie, or the location was. I can't really work out why they bothered to make an announcement in the first place, as opposed to just salvaging it as quietly as possible. If anyone had really followed it up they could have wrinkled the truth out with minimal effort. But enough of that, given that this billion-pound wreck is known now, this little ruse can be merged and folded in with the article on the actual ship, SS Port Nicholson (1918). Any objections? Benea (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None from me - merge seems like the sensible plan. I will put a merge tag on. --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]