Talk:Marco Polo (1851 ship)

Requested move 31 July 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Marco Polo (1851 ship). Consensus to move, and Llammakey's citing of the ship naming conventions seems to support this name. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Marco Polo (ship) → Marco Polo (clipper ship) – WP:PRECISE there are many ships named "Marco Polo" several with article son Wikipedia (see Marco Polo (disambiguation); this is insufficient and ambiguous so should be moved, the current title should point to the disambiguation page – 65.94.171.217 (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   09:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be better if this was discussed.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   09:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree to the move but per civilian ship disambiguation and ship name disambiguation, the title should be Marco Polo (1851 ship) with its launch date as its disambiguator. Llammakey (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. The current title is incomplete disambiguation and needs to change; there are a number of articles on ships named Marco Polo: Italian cruiser Marco Polo, MS Marco Polo, SS Marco Polo, etc. Marco Polo (ship) needs to point to the dab page.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

One in every twenty Australians can trace his or her roots to the Marco Polo
This claim seems pretty dubious to me. And the citation doesn't provide any further information or sources. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 28% of Australians weren't even born in Australia (and presumably unlikely to have MP ancestry). About 13% were born in Austrlia to non-Australian born parents (unlikely to have MP ancestry). Etc. The.proportion of Australians with any ancestry back to Australis in the 1860s isn't going to be high, yet there were over 1 million people in Australia at that time of which the MP immigrants would not be a large percentage. This feels like a claim based on say 10,000 MP immigrants having (say) 20,000 children, and 40,000 grandchildren, producing after say,7 generations, 1,280,000 present day descendants, which is 1 in 20 of the Australian population, which is a bogus way to calculate it. Can anyone come up with any plausible basis for the claim? Kerry (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Fastest wooden ship
pov claims that the ship was the "fastest" when built. No such claim in article, nor can I find any npov citation, but suspect there's some truth to it. May have to "overqualify" in order to make it work, "fastest ocean-going sloop-rigged" or some such. But if anyone runs across anything... Student7 (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)