Talk:Palmers Shipbuilding and Iron Company

Beginning to end
Palmers was the last British shipyard which claimed to take in iron ore at one end and the resulting ships launched at the other.AT Kunene (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Palmers Shipbuilding and Iron Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090208082152/http://wiki-north-east.co.uk:80/topics/charles-palmer to http://www.wiki-north-east.co.uk/topics/charles-palmer

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 November 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: NO CONSENSUS. KSF T C 22:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Palmers Shipbuilding and Iron Company → Palmer's Shipbuilding and Iron Company Ltd – Every source I've looked at in the last few days of working on HMS Spiteful (1899) has used "Palmer's", not "Palmers", and the full title when given ends with "Ltd" (for "Limited", obviously). Nortonius (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. JudgeRM   (talk to me)  22:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Nominator's note: I have reconsidered my position based on the discussion below and request a move to the title: Palmer's Shipbuilding and Iron Company.
 * This is because there is already a clear consensus against the inclusion of "Ltd", and because, with hindsight, I think it was a simple error on my part to include it, per the relevant comments below. Nortonius (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In this edit Bradv closed the requested move unilaterally on the grounds that "[s]ources given in the article, such as this one, use Palmers (plural) rather than the possessive. According to the article, the company was originally called Palmer Bros., which is likely why the plural survived." I reverted Bradv's edit on the grounds that I felt it was an inappropriate close. The very first source mentions only Charles Mark Palmer in this regard, and I'm not sure it follows that, if "the company was originally called Palmer Bros.", then a "plural" would survive. I would think it more likely that the apostrophe was elided in the sources indicated, and that it's not a "plural" at all. I do realise that it has been 7 days since I proposed the move, but I really think Bradv ought to have discussed it rather than instead closed it on the basis of an opinion expressed in the act of closing, per WP:RM and WP:RMCI. Please. Nortonius (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RMCI, I closed it as contrary to naming conventions (we don't use Ltd. in the title, per WP:NCCORP), and in conflict with applicable guideline (there is no source given for this name as required by WP:NAMECHANGES). I realize I could have relisted the debate as well, but as no one had participated at all I felt it best to just research it myself and make an informed decision.
 * As you disagree with my closure, this revert was fine and we can leave the discussion open until another WP:RM volunteer comes along. I have no strong feelings about this topic, I was just trying to help.
 * It would help your case considerably if you were to find some sources that use the name you propose, as the ones in the article do not. Bradv  18:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks for the engaged response Bradv! You make a good point about making a case. I too thought this'd be a no-brainer: I'll go away and do some more definite research. Nortonius (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I have relisted the discussion one more week, as the previous close was controversial and was reverted. JudgeRM  (talk to me)  22:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'm perfectly fine with all this, now that Bradv and I have had a bit of back-and-forth, but I note that the RM template says "The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached ...": to be honest, I'd studied the idea of a RM only enough to decide I wouldn't move the article without discussion, and in the end I only took notice of what the template says. So, the close earlier today took me by surprise, because there'd been no discussion, and hence no consensus. Am I missing something? No need to respond if not, I don't mean to tax anyone. Nortonius (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you're not missing anything. ;) Bradv  22:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bradv. I said in my original proposal that sources I've used in researching my edits to HMS Spiteful (1899) use "Palmer's" – I wish I'd been making a full list, because I've steamed(!) through many more than are now listed in the article; and I saw predominantly "Palmer's", with the occasional "Palmers". Anyway...


 * An example from 1899, the year of HMS Spiteful's launch, and directly concerned with her, is in Marine Engineering (p. 475), which uses "Palmer's"; Scientific American used "Palmer's" in 1887 (p. 118) and again in 1891 (p. 245); The Illustrated Guide to the Royal Navy and Foreign Navies (p. 8, under "Resolution") used "Palmer's" in 1896; Manning, T.D. (1961), The British Destroyer, Putnam, has a section dedicated to builders of destroyers (pp. 21–2), and names the company as "Palmer's Shipbuilding and Engineering Co. Ltd." – not great, given "Engineering"; battleships-cruisers.co.uk has "Palmer's"; and so does Lyon, D. (2005), The First Destroyers, Mercury, throughout (in a section similar to Manning's, and see the index at p. 127) – among Lyon's qualifications, according to that book's end notes, is that he had been "Chief of Research of the Maritime Information Centre" at the National Maritime Museum (he died in 2000). However, while Henry, J.D. (1907), Thirty-Five Years of Oil Transport, p. 7 has "Palmer's", it also has "Palmers" on p. 113, and – guess what – an advert placed by the company itself in a separately paginated section at the back, on p. xiv, which uses "Palmers"! And then there's Some Account of the Works of Palmers Shipbuilding & Iron Company Limd. (sic), written by Malcom Dillon, who styles himself "Secretary of Palmers Company" and uses "Palmers" almost exclusively, in 1900. ... Hmm!


 * From that brief survey, I can see how I got the impression that it was usually "Palmer's" in the sources – although I feel in good company with David Lyon – because I was concentrating on early sources related to HMS Spiteful, but I can also now see that that was too narrow a criterion: it looks like someone in the company decided to drop the apostrophe in about 1900. In which case, despite the examples of Manning and Lyon, and given WP:COMMONNAME, perhaps I need to forget about this proposed move ...? On the other hand, whether or no, would it be contentious to try adding something about this in the article? The variation was giving me a headache, which was what prompted me to propose a move, so I think that would be a good idea. What I've presented here is prima facie original research, but I think there'd be no harm in adding an explanatory footnote introducing the bare information. I realise that's effectively starting a new topic, but, while I'm here, any thoughts? Thanks for the discussion! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No opinion on the "Palmers" vs "Palmer's" issue, but I think that the "Ltd" should be dropped. It is only useful as a disambiguator and isn't really used in common parlance...for example, Microsoft's article is at Microsoft since nothing else competes with that name, whereas Apple's article is at Apple Inc. for obvious reasons. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Should this proposed move be made, I would now recommend that the "Ltd" element be dropped. Nortonius (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a modest preference for the name without the apostrophe, as that's how I usually see it rendered, but I don't really care so long as a redirect is set up for the version with an apostrophe. But definitely need to get rid of the Ltd.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:07, 11 December 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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Palmers Shipbuilding and Iron Company. 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/20131103215409/http://www.tyneandweararchives.org.uk/pdf/arkrep.pdf to http://www.tyneandweararchives.org.uk/pdf/arkrep.pdf

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) 06:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)