Talk:Ariel (clipper)
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Taeping and Taitsing
editThis article refers to both "Taeping" and "Taitsing". If you know the real situation, please see the talk page for Tsaitsing and help to sort this out. Ta. — Johan the Ghost seance 15:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Taeping and Taitsing were two different clippers sailing the same race. There were approx 10 clippers in this unofficial race. Unfortunately the article Tsaitsing is wrongly spelled - should be Taitsing. Boatman 20:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info; I guess this article is OK, though I think it's a little confusing -- the fault of the ships' owners, not the author! ;-) Maybe we can clarify in some way? (See also talk page for Tsaitsing). — Johan the Ghost seance 12:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Too much about the Great Tea Race?
editAbout half of this article is about the Great Tea Race, for which there is already a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, one of the facts about the race is wrong - the premium was not shared among the crews of the two vessels, but between the owners of the two ships - it was a lot of money: 10% of the earnings for the entire return voyage. That was why they invested so much to get a fast ship built. I appreciate that one of the sources states that the premium was shared among the crews, but that is incorrect. You will find that MacGregor, Lubbock and Andrew Shewan are all clear on who actually got the money - even though they vary on other details of the race.
I propose reducing the mention of the Great Tea Race to a minimum, thereby redirecting the reader to The Great Tea Race of 1866 for information on that event. Any thoughts on this? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm fine with that.Naraht (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)