Talk:MV Derbyshire

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Shipwrecks High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

MV Kowloon Bridge[edit]

A mention might be made of the MV Kowloon Bridge (sister to MV Derbyshire) which sank off the coast of Ireland not long after the Derbyshire disaster.

--smrgeog

Remaining crew[edit]

The Derbyshire was lost with all hands; yet the article talks about the "remaining crew" being charged with negligence. This needs to be explained - was it the late crewmembers that were charged with negligence, or crewmembers who did not sail (and if so why)? Lupine Proletariat 09:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed that as well. The wording could be changed to say that the "actions of the crew might have been negligent."

smr 23:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)smrgeog

Unknown Creature[edit]

Does anyone have any information on the "Derbyshire Nymph," a newly-discovered pelagic isopod that was photographed during the TLC-led voyage to find the Derbyshire Wreck location Link? Streltzer 19:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly this is a Pariambus typicus? Streltzer 28 September 2016 (UTC)
New info is that this is a Subspinctoria cinerea
- Possible Munnopsidae — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.178.219.199 (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Builder[edit]

Why is this categorised as a Tyne-bulit ship when the article says it was built at Haverton Hill on the Tees?

Rogue wave[edit]

Perhaps the article should be linked to the wiki entry on rogue waves given the hatch cover regulation changes? mallek 116.206.141.98 (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal About the Sinking[edit]

Heffernan, Janet, Tawn, Jonathan. (2003). An Extreme Value Analysis for the Investigation Into the Sinking of the M.V. Derbyshire. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, 52(3), 337-354.

This journal talks about opening the case again about the sinking. They explain that the sinking was most likely cased by structural problems. (IHR mlm1134 (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Page 'Sunk' ![edit]

Help! Why has someone 'blanked' the page on the vessel 'Derbyshire'? I just visited this page at 02.08 on 11th November 2013 to find, incredibly, that "This page was last modified on 11 November 2013 at 02:02."! What is going on here? If someone is doing 'work in progress' why take down the page?

I'm hoping it is OK to 'restore' it to the previous page - I cannot see any 'in use' tag? I am not otherwise editing the page, just viewing it. --Girly Brains (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People do this sort of thing from time to time because they can. It's a weakness of a open project that comes with all the good stuff. Best to just restore the article and move on. Britmax (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)|[reply]

Hi GB. You can simply undo the edit ..but in the case of multiple edits by the same user you may want to rollback or restore to an earlier time. The page blanker also9 changed the date to 9th September which looks a good faith edit ..but it wasn't clear to me if there was any certainty it sank on that day or a day or so later so I left it. JRPG (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the reassurances - it seemed a bit remarkable especially in view of the fact that it appeared to have occurred only six minutes before I happened to 'fetch up' on the page myself. I remember the tragedy very well - particularly as there was a spate of incidents involving the 'Bridge' class vessels built by SH. But I will look carefully into the date of the Derbyshire tragedy as soon as I can and edit, if appropriate. (The 'page blanker' as you put it seems to have come in for some flak for this kind of thing so …who knows?)

Thanks again. Girly Brains (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DATE format[edit]

Can someone explain why this article uses the USA date format and NOT that used by the United Kingdom. The USA format places the month before the day and this is followed by the year - whereas in the UK they use Day, Month, Year. So can someone explain and rectify please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.108.129 (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that anyone can actually explain it, no. It's been like that for about ten years, perhaps more. Maybe it was initially edited by someone who preferred that format? We may never know. Anyway, I think you are right and it should be shifted to the UK-ish standard-ish format, so I did. I hope you like it. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MV Derbyshire. 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/20110917114552/http://www.bsnet.co.uk/derbyshire/ to http://www.bsnet.co.uk/derbyshire/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue wave hypothesis Suggestion[edit]

Given that the rogue wave hypothesis was published by an investigative board, I have added their conclusions (copied from Rogue wave) by appending them to the end of the "History" section of MV Derbyshire , with a subsection header "Further investigation". Not being an expert in this field, I did not venture to resolve the two competing hypotheses (low bow vs rogue wave), but rather included them both, which may create confusion, as I simply pasted in the entirety of the Derbyshire rogue wave material.

It would benefit the article to have another user with some expertise resolve this inconsistency by looking over my addition and trying to more clearly state (probably by consulting sources) the current (2022) opinion on the sequence of events and primary causes. Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]