Talk:Hales Trophy

Change of use
Following the s discussion at Blue Riband I've split out the content there pertaining to the Hales Trophy and put it here. The two are connected, but only tangentially, and the Hales Trophy is has both a life of its own, and notability in itself. As far as the Blue Riband connection goes, only three of the 35 Blue Riband winners also got the Hales Trophy, while the Hales Trophy has also been awarded to three other vessels that hardly qualify for the Blue Riband, being .a) not the fastest vessels to have made the crossing at the time .b) not involved in transatlantic passenger traffic .c) not involved in a competition that is "the most difficult or most prestigious" of its type. So I have split it out. I trust everyone is OK with that, Xyl 54 (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction
This article (and the Blue Riband article before it) has stated, since September 2014, that the trophy is at the Incat offices in Hobart. This contradicts articles from Denmark recently added that say the trophy is at the Scandlines office in Copenhagen. Can anyone shed light on the Incat claim? Was the Hales trophy ever on display there? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

PS: The 2014 source (an article at marinelink) also claims that Incat have built the last three winners (true enough) and that this is the first time any builder has done so since the 1860's. As a similar claim was made on behalf of the city of Belfast, and the Harland & Wolff shipyard, in 1891 (Freeman's Journal, 8 August 1891) we should maybe question that, also... Xyl 54 (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

BRD
The article currently says ''.. before the trophy was finished, Hales made arrangements to present the trophy to the Rex''. I edited this on 2 October to add an explanatory note, which was reverted as being 'unnecessarily pedantic'. May I ask why? The article doesn't say anywhere else why Hales was going to give the trophy to Rex's owners, when Normandie held the record; why is explaining that 'unnecessary'? And as the trophy does go to the owners, not to the ship, why is correcting that 'pedantic'? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It is conventional that the award is "given" to the ship. So the RMS Queen Mary is referred to as the Blue Riband holder, not Cunard even though it is the latter that receives the actual trophy. The award to the Rex is referred to in the opening paragraph. Hope that makes sense. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there's very little about the Blue Riband that's conventional, seeing as it didn't officially exist; and the Queen Mary isn't that good an example, as Cunard refused to accept the accolade, or the Hales Trophy, when she set the record. But I'm not disputing that Rex set the record, I was just pointing out that once a tangible award existed, it was presented to the owners ( as the sources make clear: viz. The Times, 1 August 1935, and again, 19 November 1952 )
 * I think you've missed the point about the convention. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I know what a convention is: Do you know what a reliable source is? Xyl 54 (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Anyway, the bigger issue, to my mind, is that you deleted the explanatory note about why the trophy went to Rex, when Normandie was the record-holder. So if there wasn't any particular reason to take it out, I think it should go back in. Xyl 54 (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Explained in the previous paragraph. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Xyl 54 (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's try again, shall we?: Why 'pedantic' (as opposed to 'accurate', or 'precise')? Why do you feel the information is unnecessary? And why, even if you feel that, does that translate into a right to delete relevant (and supportable) information? Xyl 54 (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm not going to get into a slanging match with someone who is determined to be rude. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm the one being rude here, Murgatroyd: I've asked for an explanation, and so far (as far as I can see) I haven't had one yet. You've accused me of being pedantic (when I've only used the same terms as in the sources); You've referred to some convention involving the Blue Riband, when this article is (quite evidently) on the Hales Trophy; And you've made an obscure reference to some 'previous paragraph' (which doesn't explain anything at all). And when I've asked you to clarify your reasons, you've dismissed my comments, saying I've 'missed the point'.
 * So unless you can justify deleting what I wrote, I can see little reason not to simply put it back again. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * PS: It's been a fortnight since I posted this, and there's been no reply, so I've gone ahead and restored the deleted content. I trust that'll be the end of it. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm not going to get into a slanging match with someone who is determined to be rude. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither am I. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)