Talk:Tower Belle

A fact from Tower Belle appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 August 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Tower Belle (pictured), built by Armstrong Whitworth on the Tyne in 1920 as the Wincomblee, worked on the Thames in London after World War II before moving to Bristol in 1976?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tower Belle.

Wikipedia

Bristol Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-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.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ships

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

Congratulations on DYK![edit]

Was Tower Belle there for the Jubilee Parade? If so, it should be mentioned in this article!

Why would a boat that has been in Bristol for the best part of 40 years be taken out of service at the height of the season and transported to London by road at some expense for a pointless queue of boats in honour of an unelected head of state? Jezhotwells (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my stupidity! I thought that if small powered vessels could come from as far away as Cumberland, then Bristol is only a hop, step and a jump, so to speak! One of the small craft arrived safely from New Zealand. Of course they didn't paddle it all the way. Amandajm (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Tower Belle is a working vessel. Why would anyone waste all of the money required to move it to London, to get re-licensed for London river, etc?

Also, I found the clutter in the photo, particularly the masts of the tall ship, to be distracting, as the entire photo is in quite sharp focus. Since, in this instance, the subject is just one of the vessels, I have modified the existent version by blurring the background. Hope that this is useful to you! Amandajm (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will be replacing with a better photo shortly

And, until you have taken and inserted your better photo, why not do the courteous thing and use my edited version? Amandajm (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I really miss the funnel. I wish they had retained , or replaced it, just for the look of the vessel. Totally awesome! Amandajm (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The funnel disappeared a long time ago, it would not have been practical to retain it, as it would have taken up passengers space and had to have been lowered at every bridge on London river. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake! I thought that it had been in Bristol for 40 years! Pardon my ignorance; is the river that flows through Bristol called London river?

The Tower Belle has been in Bristol since 1976. The funnel disappeared sometime between 1939 and 1956, but I have no RS for the exact date. Hence the comment about London river (a nautical term for the Thames in London), because she was there from the early 50's to 1976. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can I suggest that instead of working on your next DYK, you do a little work on your attitude....

Likewise. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Since you have an apparent interest in such craft, I thought (mistakenly, it seems) that you might express at least a passing interest in one of the finest small steam ships still in service. Never mind! Amandajm (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty boat but impracticable to earn a living out of, without lots of unpaid labour. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs to the Sydney Maritime Museum, along with a couple of other small ships still working on steam. They are driven by volunteers. I don't know who drives them now, since the death of my friend Len Lark, who was employed at the Powerhouse to drive the Boulton and Watt engine. It was wonderful fun chugging around the Harbour. The Lady Hopetoun and the Waratah always get a lot of attention when there is a maritime festival in Sydney, more exciting to some people than the tall ships and the maxis. Incidentally, I agree with you over the definite article. Amandajm (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of a definite Article[edit]

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships), which is the guideline that describes Wikipedia's conventions for naming articles about ships and for referring to ships in the body of articles, the use of a definite article is not needed before a ship's name. Therefore, using "the" before a ship's name and is not preferred for the title or body of articles. 174.116.1.251 (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be preferred , but it is not proscribed and removal of the definite article would make nonsense of the grammar, which is important in British English, though possibly not in Canadian English. The subject is British so British English applies. This article was rigorously scrutinized by other other experienced editors before getting DYK, and would be better left alone. Please see other ship articles, eg Cutty Sark, MS Kungsholm (1966), SS Alert, etc. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]