Talk:MV Manx Viking

From old talkpage:
I rode on the Nindawayma back in the summer of '89. Of course that was many years ago now, and she was in a lot better shape back then. The rumours about her not being able to handle the rough weather are true, which is why she was only in service during the high-peak months of July-August. She indeed did have a lot of mechanical problems-mostly eletrical and hydraulic related, but yes her engines(Pielstick's) were also fussy and burned an obscene amount of fuel. Ontario Northland, who were/are the former owners, took a huge financial loss as they paid $13 million for the vessel, while she was only in service for four seasons, from 1989-1992. In contrast, the Chi-Cheemaun has been in service for 32 years now. Meanwhile, the "big canoe" is spending the winter in Sarnia, Ontario undergoing a major refit which reportedly includes new engines, stabilizers, and some interior modifications as well. Regular sailing will resume in May, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

I am amazed that this ship was unpopular in the Canadian Lakes. As the "Manx Viking" she spent many years plying between Heysham (UK) and the Isle of Man for Manx Line / Sealink, and was probably the most reliable ship ever used on that route. She was comfortable, luxurious (big armchair seats) and was capable of handling almost anything the Irish Sea could throw at her. She frequently sailed in force 8/9 storms when the Isle of Man Steam Packet ships ran for shelter in the Mersey Estuary. I agree with the comment about the smell - the funnels were set too low on the after-desk and the smoke did sometimes blow down a bit. Its not true that she was built solely as a freight ship - she was designed as a multipurpose vessel designed to take passengers, vehicles - and containers on the afterdeck, though Manx Line removed the cranes for the latter. She was only removed from the route following an acrimonius takeover of Manx Line by the competing Steam Packet She was a bit slow - only 18-19 knots, and could be a bit lively in heavy weather, but she put to sea in weather no other Irish Sea ferry could handle. A good record of her Isle of Man career was published in the book "Is this any way to run a shipping line"  published 1986 by the Manx Electric Railway Society. This book should have been essential reading to whoever made the decision to take her out of Canadian service. Cost UK£2.25 from the MERS at http://www.mers.org.im/salespage.htm 81.86.230.16 23:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sad to report that the old girl is all but a memory now. She has offcially been scrapped, and her hull will be broken up. A sad ending for what was once a proud ship... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

As a former Master of 'Nindawayma' during her Irish Sea days, I can add something to what has been said. As regards weather, she was one of the most comfortable ferries I ever commanded - partly due to her comparatively deep draught (and modest GM of around 2 metres).Her seakeeping qualities were very good, although speed dropped quickly in a head sea. Service interruptions were much more likely to be related to her single rudder, which made manoeuvring difficult in port in strong winds. As for the oil smell..... well, perhaps it came from some other source, which the breakers may well discover. Least said best mended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Just looking at the photos from her Canadian days I've noticed the exhaust deflectors over the funnel tops from her Manx Line days are missing and have been replaced with what look like straight stovepipes. I wonder if that would have affected / increased the smell ??? Anyone know what she burnt? Was it straight diesel or heavy oil? 81.86.230.16 (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Flibirigit has removed a fair amount of stuff, allegedly due to it being "point of view" or "fluff". In reality these are verifiable comments and I have restored some, and will restore others. It seems more likely that Flibirigit is aware of the poor claims made of her during Canadian service and seems to unable to reconcile her excellence during Manx service with a view to justifying the Canadian version of her abilities. I find it hard to reconcile the Canadian view with what I know and experienced with the ship, but am prepared to accept that in later life she may have been viewed differntly. However, the point remains please DON'T remove these facts simply because you don't like them81.86.230.16 (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It would appear to me that the largest single change was the modification of one paragraph, with the removal of several comments from the former "Manx Service" section. On the old version of the article, there were multiple statements that argued a point of view, and used weasel words.  Specifically:

These statements would require a citation from a reliable source.
 * the ship became what was probably the most reliable vessel ever employed on the Isle of Man routes.
 * She was so popular that the competing Isle of Man Steam Packet Company were forced to the point of bankruptcy and only saved through an acrimonious amalgamation with the Sealink-Manx Line, the operators of the "Manx Viking" (which resulted in the cessation of the lease of the vessel).

"It is safe to say that there appears to be a significant difference in experience between her reliability on Manx service, and apparent unreliability on Canadian service" is also a case of editorializing. We as editors should not be passing judgements. Again, this statement would require sourcing. Resolute 18:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is a reliable source - the booklet quoted in the references section: "Is this any way to run a shipping line." Published ,1986 Manx Electric Railway Society In my original screed (in "other reading") I stated this was a major source of information, however this statment was deleted by Flibirigit. While not available online it can still be purchased (though few stocks remain). This is essential reading for anyone interested in the ship. The authors and publishers of this booklet are (to quote their own description) a "partly-political organisation" (thats not a mistype) who have spent decades monitoring and analysing the public transport environment of the Isle of Man. Outside of senior employees of Manx Line itself, they are the most authoritative source you will find regarding her stay in Manx waters. Conversely, there is no source for the comments that she was a failure in Canadian service. The reasons for her apparent failure alll appear to be conjecture and hypothecation. If a source is required for her excellence in Manx service, surely a similar reliable source is required for her short-lived Canadian venture? I could go back through the Manx press of the time, which reported extensively on the subject but this would require a lot of time - and cost. However the MERS boklet accurately reflects the history of the ship, the collapse of the Steam Packet, and the subsequent financial shennaigans. Having said all that, I have now reinstated most of the content in what may be regarded as a less-confrontaional style while keeping Flibirigit's improvements in layout (which were justified). Is this now acceptable? 81.86.230.16 (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Stating that the booklet was an important source of reading certainly was POV. If it is a reference, it should simply be listed as a reference.  My suggestion, if the booklet is what argues the statements I called out above, is to add inline citations.  Without specific citations, the comments above definitely read as POV.  And yes, a source is necessary for the comments on the ship's service in Canada. Resolute 01:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'd appreciate it if you'd have another check now and see if what I've done is (more) acceptable81.86.230.16 (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Vessel size
I have found conflicting evidence as to the ships size During Manx service she was quoted as variously 2,753 or 2,800grt The Canadian Transporation agency quotes Gross Tonnage 3589t Net Tonnage 1,872t with 813t Deadweight, The Transpot Canada marine safety site quotes Gross Tonnage 6,197.14t, Net Tonnage	4,425.54t - around 80% larger! The two sister ship are both recorded as being 2752grt Can anyone clarify this for inclusion in the article? The correct details should be added to the main page.81.86.230.16 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are also a lot of different numbers being quoted for the basic length and depth of the ship. I have changed it to use the tonnage from the Transport Canada site as it looks more reliable, but the other dimensions are still coming from another source because the numbers there are more complete. I am not sure which is more correct overall. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 18:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats a much needed improvement. One point though, GRT and Gross Tonnes are measured differently so the 2853GRT and one of the two Gross figures could both be correct. I've amended the GRT figure in the text back to the original (as this is close to what is quoted for the two Spanish sisters) and amended the infobox to read Gross Tonnes rather than GRT. I've left the figure as the Transport Canada value. 81.86.230.16 (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that. How confusing! • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 21:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Flibirigit causing confusion again
I have restored one of Flibirigit's edits: that giving details of the book "Is this any way to run a shipping line". Reason being is that this is the primary reference for much of the information relating to the ship's succesful Manx service. It seems to me that he's yet again attempting retrospective revision of history with this article.81.86.230.16 (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your description of the book is WP:POV. In other words, you are trying to express your personal opinions of the book through the article. Sorry, thank is not allowed. Flibirigit (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong. What I have written is not POV, but factual statement. What IS POV is your repeat attempts to censor any suggestion that the ship was in any way successful in use. You seem to want to condemn the vessel based on its limited service life in Canada. The book is an essential authoritive reference for anyone interested in the ship, and is the primary source for much of the data in the article. Until you have read it yourself I suggest you refrain from making any comment or assessment of it as you quite simply DON'T KNOW about the subject. I wouldn't consider amending your articles on your beloved hockey tems as I am totally ignorant of them. Likewise lay off things you yourself are inexperienced - and unsourced on. I have reverted your edit - again.81.86.230.16 (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat a comment made by another user. Flibirigit (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Stating that the booklet was an important source of reading certainly was POV. If it is a reference, it should simply be listed as a reference.  My suggestion, if the booklet is what argues the statements I called out above, is to add inline citations.  Without specific citations, the comments above definitely read as POV.  And yes, a source is necessary for the comments on the ship's service in Canada. Resolute 01:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That comment by Resolute related to a previous comment about the book, which was subsequently removed and eventually replaced by the significantly different text we are discussing. As I said before, if anyone is showing a POV over this it is yourself for appearing to attempt to remove any evidence suggesting the ship had a succesful life.81.86.230.16 (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record Flibirigit appears to be in an edit war with me, but has used his powers as an admin to threaten me with a ban. Now we really are getting into a biased POV situation. An admin threatening to ban someone he's attempting to silence because he's biased. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 81.86.230.16 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not an administrator. I did leave a WP:3RR notice on your talk page. Please remember WP:CIVIL. Here is the comment you left on my talk page. Flibirigit (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope. YOU appear to be promulgating an edit war because of YOUR biased POV. If anyone needs blocking, you do. I'd love to, but I don;t have the power. Try blocking yourself instead of threatening me. I you want arbitration YOU request it, or otherwise leave alone. As it stands I still have a lot of work to do on that article - some of todays edits DO require inline references and as soon as I work out how best to do them they'll get them. But in the meantime I really suggest you stick to hockey. And just remember you were the one who amended MY posts first three times. How does one band an admin? 81.86.230.16 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep thats what I said. Basically because I assumed that anyone that went round threatening admin powers had the stick to carry them out. And also because to my mind, and threat is an uncivil act however its worded. I now see it appears you don't have the powers, I apologise for overestimating you. Rest of the comments still apply though. In my view you are biased.81.86.230.16 (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This text:
 * Third opinion

In the references section, while maybe interesting, is not acceptable as it is a personal opinion of an editor about this book, and as such it is a violation of WP:NOR. At most, a very short description, may be acceptable, such as A detailed history of the ship's service with Manx Line and Sealink. I would also advise User:81.86.230.16, to assume good faith and engage civilly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

 * Clarification. On what do you want comments? Please provide specific points of contention.  Windy Wanderer (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am asking for a review of neutrality, with respect to the ship's economics during Manx service. Please see the talk sections above. Flibirigit (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Move?
I propose this page be moved. Naming guidelines say that articles should use the name by which a ship is best-known; I suggest that as she spent only 4 years of a 16 year career as Nindawayma then that isn't it.

The majority of the article deals with her time as Manx Viking; I think the page should be there, or at the original name. Xyl 54 (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I wrote the bulk of this article and I'd be very happy for it to be moved to "MV Manx Viking".

She spent most of her life as that, was well-used and fondly remembered by the Manx people under that name. As for the original name of Monte Cruceta, this was changed before she even sailed, while the second name Monte Castillo lasted less than a year. Olddemdike (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I've moved it. No-one else had anything to say about it for the last year, so I've done it

Olddemdike (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)