Talk:Four-funnel liner

Find sources

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

File:The Four Flyers.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The Four Flyers.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:The Four Flyers.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Britannic hospital.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Britannic hospital.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Britannic hospital.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

SS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse

The SS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse was not sunk. She was scuttled by her crew. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, this article has been updated lately. The sinking of the SS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse is mentioned twice, once in 'The End of four-funnel liners' section and again in the list table under the 'Fate' column. In both cases the article now says 'Sank in Battle' the ship absolutely sank in the sense that it started out on the surface of the water and ended up resting on the sea bed. Much like the Bismarck battleship its probably going to be extremely difficult at this point in time to verify whether the Kaiser ultimately sank due to battle damage or by actions of the crew. Feel 'Sank in Battle' is fair to both sides but sure this could be edited if more information comes to light. MCMacleod (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Personal opinion; Too much use of the word "sport"

Sure the word, as a Verb is appropriate as per definition. It does still, even in 2014 however denote a slang connotation thanks to extensive use among hip youth during the late 90's and early 00's. I think twice is just a bit overkill in the main read: ONLY description. I make a motion to change at least one of them to brandished, displayed, exhibited, "to be distinguished by" are just a few alternative possibilities. 2601:C:9200:1541:D199:8242:482F:B8F3 (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Diddy

Hi, this articles been fairly extensively rewritten. I did a Ctrl-F search for the word 'sport' but it looks like its no longer used at all anymore. MCMacleod (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Factual errors?

"Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse, launched in 1897, was the first ocean liner to have four funnels"

The next paragraph states the Great Eastern was launched earlier? ~2025-38909-77 (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Great Eastern had five funnels when launched, one was removed later in her career. Kaiser was the first to be designed and built as a 4-funnel liner. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Ships List - Is the Hull Launch Date column needed?

Hi, was wondering if the Hull Launch Date column is needed? I believe it may be superfluous. MCMacleod (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Debatable, that sort of detail is available , along with a lot of other information, in the individual ship articles. This is an overview for comparison purposes so the maiden voyage is probably more relevant. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

That was my thinking as well. The hull launch date is a major milestone any any historical ships construction but in the case of this article I don't think it has much comparative value. Only reason I could see to remove it would be to make the table more concise but not sure if that matters much? MCMacleod (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

What was the rationale for the immediate deletion of revisions between 18:11 and 18:28 on 19th of March 2026?

Hi, I noticed somebody added some scrapping dates for other four funnel ships as well as clarification on the timeline of the RMS Olympics more complex scrapping process. These changes were immediately reverted. While I agree its good practice to comment on changes and reference where possible I fear immediately reverting other peoples contributions will create a cooling and non-collaborative effect on future changes to this page. I have a shed full of ocean liner books I need to go through to add references to changes I've made on this page, the edits this person attempted to make however are common knowledge and didn't get the chance to be referenced, challenged or discussed. MCMacleod (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

"Common knowledge" is not an adequate reason for not supplying references. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Then double standards are being applied. The vast majority of the article is under referenced. I believe those changes should be restored and any issue with their lack of referencing should have been raised here instead. MCMacleod (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

If you want to make a mockery of the article, go ahead. Try reading WP:Referencing for beginners to see why it is important for all edits to be properly sourced when made, not left on the basis "I might get round to it sometime". Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I have put considerable effort into this article. I would very much like to improve its references. I would also like it if wikipedia remained an open and inclusive platform. If you have issue with the lack of referencing you should have spoken to me on here months ago and you should have raised it with whoever made those changes as well. I genuinely have no idea how far references should go, in the list of ships should every ship name cell be referenced for example. I feel you should switch attitude from a dracanion gatekeeper to a helpful moderator, if you ask someone to reference a change here, and after a week or so they haven't and you then delete their contribution I wouldn't have any issue with that but the way you operated yesterday was absolutely not helpful. MCMacleod (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on whoever adds content to provide reliable sources, and common-knowledge is indeed not a reliable source for nearly anything. Sure, there are lots of ways it can be addressed, but undoing a change that does not meet a core policy is one of them. And WP:OTHERCONTENT being a problem does not provide any basis for adding even more problematic content. That's not someone being mean to you or singling your edits out; that's just one of WP's universal policies. The fact that it doesn't get applied evenly doesn't mean it shouldn't be applied at all, or shouldn't be applied in at least the cases someone actually notices. The burden isn't on others to notice other problems once they notice even one problem, and others have zero obligation to you to check with you before objecting to an edit on editorial or policy grounds. A good solution might be to get your refs together and work in a sandbox to prepare your content with refs so that when you add it to the article it meets standards. DMacks (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate the advice here and I fully understand the need to provide accurate information. My concern is the lack of 'applied evenly'. Someone who was contributing content in good faith yesterday was given a figurative slap across the face. Yourself and Murgatroyd49 have clearly been on Wikipedia for a long time, I myself am still getting used to it all and however added those changes yesterday is likely a beginner but there's a good chance they've been scared off for good and will not contribute further to the article or wikipedia as a whole. If people are making changes that fall short of the standard of wikipedia the onus is on you to help them improve the quality of their contributions, not dismiss them entirely. MCMacleod (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Too many people think it is clever to randomly change details in articles just for the hell of it. Most of them aren't registered users but operate from IP addresses. So multiple unsourced edits from an IP user flags up a warning. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I totally hear you on that one. If somebody added in 1918 the White Star line built a fourth Olympic Class Liner the RMS Butternut I would totally get the immediate removal. In this case all the edits that user made were fundamentally accurate. Would it not have been better to approach them with 'can you create a proper user profile and can you reference those scrapping years you added?' That was someone who could have made major contributions in the future but now possibly never will. MCMacleod (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Problem is I don't know whether they are accurate or not and I am not a mind-reader. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

How extensively should referencing be improved to raise this article from B-Class to A-Class?

Hi, I have a large amount of ocean liner related books and I would like to use to improve the referencing throughout this article so it can elevate out of B tier. I have a few questions in this regard? - Should references be made on a per paragraph, per sentence or per fact basis? - In regard to the List of Four Funnel Liners there are 15 ships with seven columns, should all 75 of those table cells be referenced? - Can authoratively youtube content such as Ocean Liner Designs or Titanic Honour and Glory serve as references? MCMacleod (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

YouTube is not generally regarded as a reliable source as most of it is WP:UGC - user generated content, with no proper editorial overview. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed Italian four-stackers

I noticed that in the proposed section of the article, there isn't a list for a pair of Italian 4-funneled liners. This isn't to say it didnt happen, though, as there was a proposal to construct 2 4-funneled sister ships for (I believe) the Transatlantica Italiana Società Anonima di Navigazione. However, the only sources I could find with this info is on reddit, which I believe isn't reliable enough so it unfortunately can't be on the article. If anyone finds a reliable enough source to add it on the article, I would appreciate it!https://www.reddit.com/r/Oceanlinerporn/comments/16tveud/the_canceled_italian_fourfunnel_liner/ ~2026-25584-43 (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2026 (UTC)