Talk:Tanker (ship)

Untitled

No mention of Handymax sizes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.38.145.208 (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VScherrenburgl90. Peer reviewers: Rrobak3139.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Basic facts and figures?

It would be nice to know a few basic facts and figures about tankers, things like: - max. speed - length - width - cargo types and capacities - turning circle - stopping distance - the Top 20 largest tankers --Richard@lbrc.org 11:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

An AFRAMAX size Tanker ( 80,000 to 120,000 DWT) usually has the following specification

-Max speed: 14 ~ 16 Kts. -Length  : 240 ~ 250 mtrs -Width  : 42 ~ 44 mtrs -Cargo Types  : Usually able to Transport 3 different Grades of Dirty Petroleum Products.

Modern Day tankers have Diesel Engine Propulsion, are all Double Hull in construction, and a sea steaming range of over 60 days.

Oscar Gouveia Pinto, okaisa@gmail.com 20:20, 03 October 2006 (UTC)

So, is a 24.999,5 dwt tanker a general purpose or medium range tanker?

I think you are a bit too much a theorist. BoH 14:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Unjustifiably deleting external links of marine vessel movement

Why are you deleting the external link I added to tanker(ships)? The external link complies with all the guidelines for adding external links. There must be some misunderstanding here that I'd like to get to the root of. You mention that the link is a directory of links and used for advertising and promotion. That statement is totally misrepresentative of what the link achieves especially since there is no commercial interest in regards to educating the public on how marine vessels transit the waterways in real time with the aid of global vessel identification technology.

Upon further research which is accurate and on-topic readers are now able to view the various types of marine vessels that transit the oceans, ports and harbors by viewing the website from the external link. This information could not be added to the Tanker (ship) article due to amount of detail in the real time movement of vessels on the Google Map and would of not been suitable for inclusion in the Tanker(ship) article.

Reading the restrictions on linking I see that sites that violate copyright and sites that are on the spam black list are not allowed. The external link I added are neither of these. In regards to what to link, the site is proper in the context of the article as it enables the reader to see in real time tanker ships sailing and navigating on the waterways. This is factual and very informative, something that the reader can't obtain in just reading words on a page. Ships move like the waters they sail upon. Words on a page don't move. Yet the ships on the VesselTrax site move just as the ships do in real life. After readers complete the article they can now go to an external link that will bring them from the comfort of their home upon the seas and a bit of interaction with the vessels that they read and learned about.

So I ask. How am I not complying with the guidelines for external links? There is no promotion or commercial interests here. Only educating and sharing with the readers the wonders of the maritime trade as the initial article sets the stage. Now one can actually see a tanker moving in the harbor, docked, or actually conducting lightering operations offshore. How can the words of the page in the introductory article do that?

I feel that this external link should be added back to the tanker(ships) article and not deleted as you have done. The trade of the professional mariner has long been one that goes unnoticed as it is unseen upon the seven seas. By not letting the readers actually see how and where the ships of the sea ply the trade you only diminish the full importance of an understanding global shipping which is mentioned in the article. | Talk

(UTC)Watermon 05:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be very busy getting your link back on these pages. On this talk page, Veinor's talk page and mine. I revert them as they are focused on a small part of worldwide shipping. If you would have made substantial contributions to WP, I might have considered them, but you only seem to want to promote your website. Actually, this discussion on the talk age seems to be the largest contribution you have made to wikipedia. BoH 11:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the link you added is only tangentially relevant, especially considering you added it to many pages. And if you read the warning I left, you'd see that I never said that that the link was a directory or used for advertising or promotion. I said that Wikipedia is not a directory of external links.

The section of the external link guidelines that mentions copyright violations and the spam blacklist only concerns sites that can never be linked to. If you go further down, there is a section titled 'Links normally to be avoided'. Number 13 is 'Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject'. I think that this falls under that category, since the connection from tankers to a vessel tracking website is rather tenuous; the reverse connection is even more so. Basically, the site doesn't provide any more information on tankers themselves, just on the movements of some actual tankers.

This is not to say that I don't like the site; I think it's very neat. I'm just saying that the link is inappropriate. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   15.203.233.79 (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Closed under WP:SNOW. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Tank ship → Tanker (ship) — Haus (talk · contribs) moved this article in 2008 from Tanker (ship) to Tank ship without any discussion, simply stating "better title". On seeing this odd term displayed on the Main Page, I have to disagree. These things are, to my mind, universally known as tankers. A 'tank ship' could be anything really, not least a cargo ship that carries tanks, or one of the various military ships that carry tanks, such as the Landing Ship, Tank, and to a lesser extent Landing Craft, Tank (remembering that 'ship' is a catch all term on wikipedia, for pretty much any size of vessel). The alternative title of Tankship offered up in the opening sentence is also the name of two companies at least, so that is hardly unambiguous either. It should be moved back to Tanker. The need to use a disambiguator of (ship) really is no reason to use an ambiguous title, to avoid it. MickMacNee (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I was curious too about this - "tank ship" is to my mind far less usual than tanker . The article just talks about tankers. I think Tanker (ship) might be needed becuase of the other - admittedly less common meanings! (Msrasnw (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

I support the move but have put a note on User talk:Haus to let him know as some explanation for the move might be useful - but he might be at sea. A move now might be wise as it is on the front page and is a bit odd. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

• Support - ought probably not have been moved in the first placeGraemeLeggett (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support per GL's comments. - BilCat (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Sounds sensible. Knepflerle (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support, but we'll need a bot to change all the wls. I've altered the display of "tank ship" to "tanker" on the ITN article. Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. As well as all the good reasons given above, the title tank ship is a problem anyway, as it more often means a ship that transports tanks. Andrewa (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support, in the name of logic. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support when I saw "tank ship" I thought it was about the LST (landing ship tank) or similar. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support tanker is a more precise name.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. "Tank ship" made me think of army tanks, not liquid-holding tanks. Tanker (ship) (as Msrasnw proposes) might help disambiguate from tanker trucks and railroad cars. --Badger151 (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I've reverted the premature move of the article, as the discussion has not been closed. Note that this talk page was not moved, as only an admin can move it. I would like to request a speedy close, as there have been no objections to this point. Then we can have an admin do the move properly. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Very sorry for the premature move I just thought it would help ... and I wasn't aware this page wouldn't move too until I'd started and then felt like it was too late. I have learned a lesson. Sorry again. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.