Talk:La Belle (ship)

Wikify tag
Wikipedia articles are not blocks of text like this article in current state - please read style guidelines - specially about sections, thanks SatuSuro 09:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Measurements
I edited the "Construction of the Ship" section to include specific metric equivalents of the French dimensions, which rendered the last parenthetical note (the French foot is about 7% longer than the modern English foot) superfluous. Chang E 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Blueprint of the Belle
A blueprint appearing to show a construction plan of a 17th or 18th century ship appeared with the caption "Blueprint of the Belle." There was no such thing as blueprints (a design drawing on traditional blue paper) in the 17th century. Furthermore, no contemporary design drawings, lines drawings, or construction plans of the Belle have ever been discovered or are believed to exist. The most important document related to the construction of the Belle was discovered by Dr. John de Bry of the Center for Historical Archaeology. It is a construction contract that provides required measurements for specific hull members or ship dimensions (such as keel length, maximum width, depth of hold, etc) but did not display a drawing of any type. This series of measurements were used by the shipwright to design and build the ship, and thus is the closest thing to blueprints that exist.

The image placed here cannot be an actual blueprint of the ship. It may have been a blueprint for a 20th century model, but it was clearly misleading to call it the blueprint of the ship. Also, the image is so small that I could not read any of the writing on it, and thus couldn't confirm if it was associated with this ship or not. And finally the link which referred to the source of the image no longer worked, again making it impossible to confirm if this modern blueprint is in anyway supposed to represent the Belle in any way. Several models have been produced of the Belle based on the archaeological information produced during the excavation. One of these was published by famed French naval historian Jean Boudriot, and another by the Nautical Archaeology Program at Texas A&M. Neither of these efforts would have used a blueprint like the one pictured, which appears to me to date to earlier in the 20th century and therefore cannot be based on the ship itself.

I felt an actual image of the hull of the ship was much more appropriate here. I was one of the archaeologists who discovered and excavated this shipwreck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmeide (talk • contribs) 19:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. The caption is misleading, besides the very low quality of the image, whose only historical value is for being baprt of the negotiations with the French government regarding ownership of La Belle. Alas, no free images for the ship lines are available currently, that I know of. The best ones that I have found so far are owned by the Texas Historical Commission  Yama Plos   talk  00:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy of Information
The article states that the captain died from eating prickly pears. Prickly pears are edible so unless there was misidentification this is unlikely. Is the base information correct or has it been over truncated so it now reads incorrectly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.145 (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The story as I read it (Grieco) it is that he ate prickly pears with the skin on, and choked on the glochids (the tiny spines). Believable IMHO. Death would not have been quick at all, as the irritation would have developed into infection. I guess the source is Joutel's diary, but I do not know Yama Plos   talk  06:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There's an ambiguous sentence that reads, "The 1.5 million dollar structure was paid for by the state of Texas, through private funding and federal grants would fund much of the subsequent excavation." Should this actually read, "The 1.5 million dollar structure was paid for by the state of Texas, THOUGH private funding and federal grants would fund much of the subsequent excavation," or should it read, "The 1.5 million dollar structure was paid for by the state of Texas, through private funding and federal grants WHICH would fund much of the subsequent excavation." I'm not familiar enough with the project to know one way or the other. I'm guessing that the original author actually meant though, but typoed the word through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixedupfiles (talk • contribs) 02:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, it should be "though". I'll fix it. 21:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Live Stream links
not sure how/where to put those, it's obviously a time-sensitive thing that probably needs be removed at some later date but meanwhile should be prominent?

Please opinions, / help / correction. Yama Plos  talk  18:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems like it would be automatically disqualified per WP:NOTNEWS, and it's already in "External links". At least try to rephrase so that it doesn't amount to pure recentism.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on La Belle (ship). 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/20050316040730/http://www.caller2.com/newsarch/lasalle1.htm to http://www.caller2.com/newsarch/lasalle1.htm

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) 22:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Petard?
I think this might be equivocation. Qwirkle (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)