Talk:Oil tanker/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Term Oilers

It's not clear from the article that oilers (the auxilliary ships) and tankers (crude oil carriers) are different types of ships. Laschatzer 18:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm a maritime journalist and I've never, ever heard the word 'oilers' being used to describe ships that carry oil. It's only ever 'tanker' or one of the classes of tanker - Aframax, Suezmax, VLCC and so on. Can someone provide authoratitive usages of the word 'oiler' in context? Ta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.201.177.103 (talk) 12:58, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

In response to your previous question: 'Oiler' is a specific term to the US Navy and the Royal Navy. I believe an oiler is distinct from a 'tanker' in that an oiler can transfer fuel directly to another ship (see Replenishment oiler and Underway replenishment oiler). That 'definition' is extrapolation on my part, but the term itself is definitely in wide use. Maralia 15:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to have 'oiler' confirmed - you learn something new everyday. Thanks for the notes/feedback Maralia. Cheers Jimmec 07:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A major kicking

I've given this page a major kicking and merged in a lot of the text from 'supertanker', added a whole bunch of stuff on the history of tankers. I haven't put in references yet (don't know how too yet). All and further contributions are welcome. I think that we should probably re-name this page 'Tankers (ships)' and add in chemical and other kinds of sea-going tankers - cheers jimmec

I haven't read either yet, but there is an article at Tanker (ship). Have a look at it and see if you feel they should be merged.

Also, just FYI: when you move a page, check 'What links here' on the old page name so you can clean up any double redirects or other weirdness that happens with renames. I've fixed it just now, but the page Supertankers redirected to Supertanker which redirected to Petroleum tanker. Maralia 15:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename to Oil Tanker

Why is this article at petroleum tanker? Surely the majority of these ships could be better described as oil tankers first. Petroleum is a type of oil but (forgive me if I am wrong), not all oil tankers carry petroleum, but all petroleum tankers could be described as carrying oil. Shouldn't this article covers all types of oil-carrying tankers, not those specifically carrying petroleum?. I therefore propose moving the article to oil tanker Emoscopes ^Talk 07:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Support move to oil tanker. Although some sections are phrased specifically about petroleum and refined spirits, others are not (e.g. merchant tankers). Viv Hamilton 10:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Emoscopes. I think you're right. Crude oil normally goes into, surprisingly, crude oil tankers. And, if memory serves me right, petroleum goes into product tankers. The articles in the place where it is owing to the historical creation - whoever wrote the naval aspects (as opposed to the merchant shipping aspects) started writing about 'oilers', a kind of oil tanker used for naval purposes. I'll move the article over to Oil tanker in due course. Cheers Jimmec 10:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There has been some time since this discussion took place... is there any reason why it has not yet been moved? SJSA 01:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I put a {{db-move|Petroleum tanker}} on Oil Tanker to see if we can move forward on this. Haus^Talk 03:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Evolution of a Giant.jpg

Image:Evolution of a Giant.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this image has been removed from the page. Haus^Talk 09:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Safety controversy

The section on double hulls looks like it was written from two very opposing viewpoints, to the degree that it degenerated into an argument between the two within the article. I tried to fix it, but I think it needs to be redone entirely. Could we try to rewrite it, including only information that we agree on and can reference (e.g. there is opposition to the idea), without trying to come to a conclusion on the effects of double hulls? Presently, I think it's a huge case of WP:OR. --MatthewLiberal (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the section as suggested. Please feel free to revise or comment as you see fit. Cheers Haus^Talk 00:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)