Talk:SS Regulus (1878)

HMS Brilliant (1891)

I've linked to HMS Brilliant (1891) in the article text. I'm not 100% sure that's the correct HMS Brilliant, but it seems likely. It would be good if we could find a corroborating source. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Additional image?

Check out . It's probably copyright free since it predates 1910, but the site doesn't explicitly say so. The description says this is a print from the original glass plate, so there may be copyright on the print itself. Worth contacting MUN to see what the status is, and perhaps they would be willing to upload it to commons. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible source

this blog suggests an article in the New York Evening Call, but the fultonhistory site that supposedly hosts the article is down. There some more information here about that archive and possible alternative archives. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

NY Times sources

Two good sources, unfortunately behind the NY Times paywall:

"TimesMachine: July 16, 1910 - NYTimes.com". timesmachine.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2018-04-03.

"TimesMachine: October 25, 1910 - NYTimes.com". timesmachine.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2018-04-03.

New York Times Article

There was a previous collision between Regulus and another vessel in New York Harbour prior to the wreck. Regulus had a reputation as a jinxed ship. There is much more I can add to this article as I locate good sources to cite. My great uncle was lost on this wreck. We have a rich oral tradition about it in our family and I grew up in Petty Harbour and spent a great deal of time hunting and fishing in the area it was lost. It now lies in deeper water to the east of Hayes Reef. The under tow is exceptionally strong there and diving is hazardous. There's at least 4 other wrecks at this site. Two that predate Regulus. A great loss of life on the stretch of coast.

Thanks for all your help and advice!

Jerome JeromeOBrien (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 February 2026

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation. If there is any objection within a reasonable time frame, please ask me to reopen the discussion; if I am not available, please ask at the technical requests page. (closed by non-admin page mover) HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

---

• SS Regulus → SS Regulus (1878)
• SS Regulus (T-AKR-292) → SS RegulusSS Regulus

– Based on page views the 1878 ship is not the primary topic over the current ship, or other ships listed at Regulus (ship). Either switch the primary topic as proposed, or I would be fine with disambiguating both and redirecting the base name to Regulus (ship) as {{R from ambiguous term}}. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support first, and redirect the title to Regulus (ship). BD2412 T 01:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.