Talk:HMS Ontario (1780)

Article merger/article name
We have both HMS Ontario (1780) and HMS Ontario. Both pages deal with the same subject. I propose we merge this page into HMS Ontario. I don't think we need the disambiguation on the 1780 - how many HMS Ontarios are there? What are your thoughts? Fraud talk to me  01:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We do not need two pages on the same subject, I agree! The two articles should be merged in one, and the other stub converted to a redirect. I would make HMS Ontario (1780) the main article, and HMS Ontario - a redirect, in case some other HMS Ontario from a different era pops up. Cheers! Xenonice (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I opened the HMS Ontario article after searching for any other HMS Ontario and finding none (although, by timestamps in the history, it looks like "HMS Ontario (1780)" was created just beforehand). I think HMS Ontario is the name of the ship and makes a better article title.  It correctly does not imply a host of other HMS Ontario's exist out there.  If it helps for the implementation, i defer to Xenonice's having created his version just a bit sooner, so I agree to having this article with its history moved over the redirect now at "HMS Ontario" (so Xenonice will show as creator in the history). doncram (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The AFD-closing statement that was added above, "This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-06-13. The result of the discussion was speedy redirected." seems not to have been implemented. A redirect was put in the wrong direction, or there was not consensus.  A move (over redirect) from this article to "HMS Ontario" is needed.


 * A switch could also be implemented by blanking this article and moving the material to "HMS Ontario". Should i do that instead? doncram (talk) 06:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't, as that would confuse the page histories. As there seem to have been multiple HMS Ontario's this name seems to be consistent with Naming conventions (ships). I just speedy-closed the AfD as everything now seems to be in order, and it's not the appropriate place to discuss renaming articles. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Because an IP-man documented there are other ships bearing HMS Ontario name, i conceded and agreed in the AFD that the article should stay here. How Xenonice had handled this rubbed me the wrong way.  Interesting that the version he "wrote" and supported keeping has turned out to be almost-if-not-all copied, a copyvio farm.  Frankly, it would have been better to have been better to delete the 1780 article entirely under copyvio, and move the modest HMS Ontario version that i had started here instead. doncram (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * After deleting passages entirely plagiarized, the article really rots. I just now chose to restore the intro to being exactly what i had written in the original "HMS Ontario" article, before it was merged into the copyright violation version.  At least the intro is now coherent.  The rest has no value now after deleting plagiarized passages.  I moved the section copyvio notice down to the only remaining section that has any amount of text, as I am not sure whether that is copyvio or not.  Apology to whoever wrote that section, if it is not copyvio. doncram (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Doncram, I didn't mean to subvert your honest work or anything. I searched for HMS Ontario, and having found nothing in Wikipedia, I decided to start this page... I did suspect, however, that there would be more Ontarios out there, and played it safe just in case. Also I tried to incorporate the most of your writing into this page before putting that redirect in your page. As for copyvio, my sincere apologies. That website was written like a good wikipedia article already (complete with the intro and subsections - don't you think?), so I thought it would be a good starting point to transfer that structure into this article, hoping experts like you would rephrase each section to avoid the copyright problems, and/or add new material. I really appreciate your efforts! Xenonice (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, well, i have to acknowledge i like ur chipper style. However, save the copyvio copy and paste job in the future, please! doncram (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Contacting the divers to get photos
Anybody wants to volunteer to contact the divers to see if they can donate some of their photos to wiki? I don't think there is any other way to get those beautiful shipwreck shots in here. Xenonice (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Inexpert authored article
Throughout this article the Ship is referred to as "it" rather the correct pronoun "she". Even an amateur ship enthusiast would know this, and an expert most certainly would. This article was written by someone has has no studied knowledge of the subject, and cannot be trusted as being in any way accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.215.186 (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why Wikipedia is so great! We can count on experts like 86.141.215.186 to make sure everything is to the highest standard! Xenonice (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ship
Surely this would not have been called a "ship" in 1780? Andrew Yong (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, she's not a ship, but a brig-sloop. She is, however, both a warship and a shipwreck.  I'll change the references to ship to 'Ontario'.  Duncan (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Ontario (1780). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710144403/http://www.doranbayships.com/cgi-win/doran.exe?LISTING=6512 to http://www.doranbayships.com/cgi-win/doran.exe?LISTING=6512

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)