This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cutty Sark article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 23, 2004, November 23, 2005, November 23, 2006, November 22, 2007, November 22, 2008, November 22, 2009, and November 22, 2010. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The first paragraph refers to the Cutty Sark as "it" ("It is preserved in..."); following paragraphs refer to the Cutty Sark as "she". Why is this not consistent? Is a clipper neuter while a ship is female? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinjakubik ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 23 November 2004 (UTC)
Great article. However, I want to move it from Cutty Sark to Cutty Sark (ship) to make room for a much-needed article on the phrase from which the ship took its name. That has historical precedence, and so should be the root article. I hope everyone is cool with this. -- Doric Loon 12:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cutty Sark (ship) → Cutty Sark. User:Doric_Loon moved it the other way, against an objection on talk page and without properly disambiguating existing links to the article. See discussion above. -- Chris j wood 18:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 19:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A question, BTW. Stan's suggestion of having two articles distinguished by capitalisation (Cutty Sark on the ship and Cutty sark or even Burns' original Cutty-sark on the colloquial usage) is very neat. But is that not confusing for users? It's the kind of thing I would have expected a Wiki policy against. If it IS thought good style then it would be a compromise which would make everyone here happy. (And there would be no need for a disambiguation page because the article on colloquial usage can point to subsequent developments!) -- Doric Loon 20:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then there is our solution. I will move CS(Garment) to Cutty-sark and you can put the ship article back where it originally was. That resolves the problem, I think, to everyone's satisfaction! -- Doric Loon 11:30, 15 Jun 2005
On possible confusion between upper and lower case versions, yes, that should always be considered when choosing titles. For instance, if I had a concept with two synonyms almost equally common, but one of them was case-ambiguous with some other title, I would choose the other synonym, with lots of disambiguation cross-links at the top of all the articles involved. One also wants plenty of redirs for minor variations (with/without hyphen, etc), so as to channel people in the directions they want to go. Stan 21:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are the measurements given for the sails in "yd" actually the area of each sail in square yards? If so, all the conversion to meters are wrong, and even if colloquial usage shortens it to "yards" it should be quoted here as "yd²". To me, it seems that is likely what these are, but I'm not certain enough to fix it yet, but if they are length units and not area units, which dimension is being measured? Gene Nygaard 17:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I've deleted "and she is the only classic clipper still surviving" from the opening paragraph. Surely this statement can't be true. There are plenty of square-rigged ships still around. Some are still sailing, some are not (for example, The Peking. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Remember, a clipper is a very specific type of sailing ship. I believe that there is at least one still sailing, but there is a possibility that she might be a replica. Cutty Sark is certainly one of very few in good condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.24.87 ( talk) 20:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just heard that she is "100% ablaze". 24.4.143.174 05:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6675381.stm Satu Suro 05:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Terrible news! ممتاز 06:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Quite naturally it's the top news over here in England, images seem to show the ship as being a complete wreck, like a toy boat that got too close to the barbeque User:Lyinginbedmon
Terrible news indeed but [thankfully] it looks to have been exagerated and overestimated - they reckon the damage is no where near as extensive as first thought and of the 50% of the ship that was still on site, 80% has been damaged in some way - so its not like the whole thing has gone forever. With any luck Brown might lend some money from his coffers to pay for repairs...then again he'll probably want to send it up to scotland to renovate some scottish ship...
21 May 2007 62.231.137.138 (→Fire - Changed link to Ref and removed LinkSpam) This anonymous user removed a link to a Live Blog of the coverage. I have restored it as relevant for the duration of the event. Please do not vandalise. I will remove after 24 hours. User:julianduk 10:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, they've caught up now and material is available, so I'm going to start building a paragraph with authoritative references. I'd welcome people to work with me.
Can I start with a couple of questions / suggestions:
This article has very few citations so more references would be appreciated, if there is media report detailing something that is not covered in the article then please include it. The question of a seperate paragraph or modify it depends on what is being written. Take the following (very simple) sentence.
'Is a report by a local resident on a local website authoritative for the locality? simple answer yes. Complex answer yes - but that report will be echoed on every major/reputable news site, so it is best to inlcude it only once and from a major news site or established/recognised local website E.G. Manchester Evening News or London Standard. One final tip is avoid recentisn (see WP:RECENTISM). In 12 months time this fire will be only a minor footnote. -- Rehnn83 Talk 12:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll start looking.
I removed much of the detail of the fire from the lead paragraph because I felt it was unnecessarily detailed for the opening paragraph. If necessary this detail can go into the Fire section.-- A bit iffy 11:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I just saw that it says that she was destined for slave trade? Is that some synonym for the China Tea Trade in English...? In that case, I would think it is rather confusing to foreigners... Too bad about the fire, hope she can be restored anyway. Kjetil Kjernsmo 07:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the ship had wood planking on an iron frame. This should be included in the article. -- Petri Krohn 08:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Given the number of uses of the phrase "Cutty Sark" or "cutty sark", (see Cutty-sark), I believe a disambiguation page would be useful. Anyone want to take this on? If not, I'll have a go, but it won't be until tonight. – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the Wiki style on this issue? British ships are traditionally referred to as "she" so my suggestion is that all refs in the article to "it/its" etc be changed to "she". Everyone agree? -- ukexpat 17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is this article written as if the fire is only a small one. The article still includes sections about the conservation effort to restore it. It's gone, it's been completly destroyed by fire and theres no bringing it back. They can't restore it, this whole article needs to be re-written.
One of the links on this page is a link to a model ship sales site. This seems quite inappropriate.
mercator79 69.29.1.114 17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Could it be made clear, in the article, which are the other remaining clipper ships? Duncan.france 11:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added an infobox but I wasn't sure about her complement and range, can someone fill these fields in please? -- Philip Stevens 17:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Cutty Sark was not built on the clyde it was built on the River Leven! http://www.shippingtimes.co.uk/item624_leven.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.228 ( talk • contribs)
Do we need an hour by hour report on the Fire? I would think enough time has passed that this could all be replaced with a synopsis that covers the entire event. 38.112.47.92 14:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to improve this article, but if it wasn't enough that you lot like to insult and be rude to newcomers now, you also don't let them get involved.
Whatever happened to those ethics Wikipedia had not so long ago? Looks like the project has got so big that it can forget about them. Wiki old schooler 10:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Though nice to hear and an experience I also once had with the Golden Hinde, I did not think Wiki was the place for mentioning personal growth through making of a model, therefor I removed the insert.-- Edmund Patrick 09:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
what's a "Neetard"?
I have uploaded my September 2006 photo of Cutty Sark's figurehead if anybody thinks it would be helpful somewhere in the article.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Cutty_Sark_Figurehead.jpg
Sanba38 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
all the recent talk has been of Raising money for the repairs and of Lottery grants and government handouts... as a major London Tourist attraction the Cutty-Sark would have had Insurance to cover fire or damage so why is the money being provided by the UK Taxpayer?
62.239.159.5 10:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Tony Spumoni
I have added Internal Links to this article. Kathleen.wright5 10:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This section needs a lot of attention and clean up. It was obviously written as events took place and reads like it. For example:
Seriously, do we really need to know, almost 4 months after the event, that at exactly 6:09 UTC the Fire Brigade said that the fire was under control?
This is one of the big problems with writing about current events... people want to "inform" the world through Wikipedia, and put the latest information about the unfolding event in their articles ... but you end up with a piss poor article once the event is "old news" and people lose interest in editing. Blueboar 20:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Any of you Londoners out there have any post-fire pictures of the Sark that could be added to the article? - R. fiend ( talk) 14:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a couple of good,clear pictures taken today from my phone, but I don't know how to upload them to wikipedia. Can anyone enlighten me? -- Ikonos45 ( talk) 16:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The chief engineer, Professor Peter Mason, has resigned, saying the project will damage the ship and should be stopped, etc. see Andrew Gilligan's article Cutty Sark Disaster: The £11 Million Nail In the Coffin -- Robkam ( talk) 17:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not surprised... I saw the Cutty Sark in 1984. Apart from the impression the ship herself left on me, the thing which stuck in my mind was the singular lack of a sprinkler-system or fire-extinguishers below decks. Some years later, i read an article in a woodworking-magazine (and i'm sorry to say that i can't remember which one). In the article, a furniture-maker had stated that while the keel was being partially replaced, he had visited and asked the foreman at the site if it would be possible to obtain pieces of the original keel, which was made of a hardwood originating in India (and which is extinct today). The foreman refused flatout. Eventually, the man received a small piece of wood- while the workers there were warming their hands on a fire kept going in an oil-drum. It was fuelled by- wait for it- pieces of Cutty Sark-keel...
This vessel is a part of world heritage. The people in charge there are incapable and irresponsible at the very best. I'm not sure what they are at the very worst... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.240.52 ( talk) 02:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
She did have an, albeit rudimentary, sprinkler system installed in the 1950s but the main water feed pipe for the sprinklers was in the way of the works and had to be disconnected. The feed could have been temporarily diverted but this was not done. It is well known in the construction industry that construction sites where hot work is often in progress are vulnerable to fires so the need for ongoing fire protection could have been anticipated.( Bluejacket ( talk) 16:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC))
the article states that the fire burned for several hours before being brought under control, however in a report by London Fire Brigade, of the investigation into the incident, it states that they were called at 04:57 hrs and that by 05:28 hrs the fire was under control and "a few minutes later only burning embers in the lower deck remained" source: http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/CuttySarkFireReport-29Sep08.pdf
It seems to me that the section Construction and entymology should be split into two, either as the separate sections Construction and Entymology, or the part dealing with the construction should become the start of the section History and the bit about the origin of the name should be in a section Entymology. As I've come to this years after the article was written and I see that this part of the article has been moved around a bit in the past I will not do it immediately but ask if anybody has got any firm opinions? I think that a bit more about the origin of the name would make a useful contribution here and (if I teeter on the boundary of being encyclopedic), I might even draw attention to the interesting point that such a racy name was chosen at the height of Victorian prudery. Any thoughts anybody? Charwelton ( talk) 08:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I have been revising the section on the ships history to accord more with that posted by the Cutty Sark's owners website. In particular I have removed the below passage about the ship's fastest speed and racing the wool trade with thermopylae. These numbers might be correct, but I see someone else has already challenged part of them. Anyone have any corroboration? Sandpiper ( talk) 20:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
She recovered her reputation under Captain Richard Woodget, winning the wool race 10 years out of 10 (and beating Thermopylae every time they met citation needed). She posted Australia-to-Britain times of as little as 67 days, and in one instance outsailed the fastest steamship there was then, RMS Britannia. Her best run, 360 nmi (670 km) in 24 hours (an average 15 kn (28 km/h)), was said to have been the fastest of any ship of her size.
I remember the "Cutty Sark" coming up the Thames to the present dry dock. One version of the design story, current in the 1950s was that the original owner of this ship had previously purchased a sail/steamer "The Tweed" and had it converted to pure sail and that it had proved fast. He wanted a smaller fast version for the tea trade. Linton liked the design of "The Tweed" but thought that the stern area was the main problem about increasing speed and the "Cutty Sark" incorporated the perceived design improvements. AT Kunene ( talk) 10:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Anyone know how come signal flags spelling jkws might have come to mean 'cutty sark' as stated in the article? JKWS sounds perfectly reasonable for JocK WilliS, her original owner. Sandpiper ( talk) 07:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
There are conflicting sources over the 1895 sale price of Cutty Sark to Ferreira. Basil Lubbock's 1925 "Log of the Cutty Sark" records a sale from Willis to Ferreira for £2,100. But The Mariner's Mirror in 2009 (referenced in the article) reports research into the sale as follows:
I have preferred the Mariner's Mirror account to Lubbock's, because:
Apologies if this seems a long-winded explanation of an obscure issue. But as Lubbock is (rightly) relied on elsewhere in the article, I though it worth explaining why in this instance a different account might be preferred.
Link to 'knots' in the sentence 'The maximum logged speed for Cutty Sark was 17.5 knots.' should be to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_(unit), not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot. Sorry, I'm not an editor, and don't know how to get the correct link to display as 'knots' rather than 'knots (unit)' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.146.181 ( talk) 10:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
In this article it says that the Thermopylae traveled on its maiden voyage from London to Melbourne "port to port" in 61 days. Yet in the Thermopylae article, it says that it took 63 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.169.157 ( talk) 23:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone think the figure of 1450 tons of tea, quoted for her first trip back from China, is correct. All the sources I have seen give a tea cargo in pounds. If someone has converted that, I don't think the arithmetic is right. I can't find a source to confirm/deny, but for instance Ariel carried 1,230,900 lbs of tea in 1866. I make that 549 tons (UK) or 558 tonnes (metric). Cutty Sark was only slightly larger than Ariel. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 23:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoughtIdRetired ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
There is something about the following section that inhibits display of all sections that follow it - I can't fix it, so have moved it to be the last section. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 23:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The photograph on the Wool trade section titled "Cutty Sark moored in Melbourne" I believe is titled incorrectly. Acording to the book "Log of the Cutty Sark" the ship never visited Melbourne.
There were two docking areas in Melbourne, Port Melbourne and Victoria Dock. The photo is definitely NOT Port Melbourne which is two piers in very flat area and according to the Wikipedia article Victoria dock was not completed till 1892. The Cutty Sark only had two more voyages to Australia after that, 1892 to Sydney and to Brisbane 9th Decemeber 1894.
The photo appears to be taken in Circular key Sydney, The ship is moored on the South Eastern side of the harbor. The Sydney ferry jettys can be clearly seen in the left of the photo, the rising ground in the rear of the photo being the "Rocks" area of Sydney, the area immediately around Victoria Dock Melbourne being flat.
In the Wikipedia article on Circular key there is a photo entitled "Circular Quay, 1892" This I believe shows the area where the ships is moored in the photo in question. The ship being moored to the Quay in the right rear of the photo, the photo in question appears to have been taken from one of the windows on the 1st or 2nd floor of one of the buildings in the extreme right of the photo. In the foreground of the Circular Quay photo are the two ferry piers whose domed roofs can be seen on the left hand side of the image in question.
References
~~~~ Ray Lindsay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.217.4 ( talk) 00:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
A group of enthusiasts led by Captain Vladimir Martus are going to build a replica of Cutty Sark. Cutty Sark Replica Project --~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.118.213.90 ( talk) 05:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that § Cutty Sark#Investigation conclusion has much more detail than is appropriate to this article. I propose to trim the last five paragraphs.
Also, do we really need § Cutty Sark#Mast specifications? I can imagine keeping total mast heights (if that's important and if they are known) but listing the lengths of the individual segments is a bit too much detail in my view. I propose to delete the entire section.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The article says the ship had a Captain F. W. Moore around 1872 and (after a few additional changes of captains – e.g., Tiptaft, Wallace and Bruce) had a Captain Moore, previously of the Blackadder, around 1882. Were those the same person? Whatever the answer, I suggest for it to be clarified in the article, and if anyone knows the given name or initials of the second Captain Moore, for that information to be added (to both this article and the Blackadder article). — BarrelProof ( talk) 15:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The info box does not have any references beyond one for the GRT, and there the number has been copied across wrong from the source. (Article says 975 GRT whilst the source says 972). It's not really clear what information is being given under "Capacity" - if it is volume, then (a) it looks very large compared to GRT and (b) it should not be converted into tonnes. If it is weight of some sort, (? deadweight tonnage), then it does not look right to me.
What are the sources?
Are the numbers right?
ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 22:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cutty Sark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Cutty Sark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cutty Sark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23615647-cost-of-saving-cutty-sark-soars-to-40m-as-rust-eats-into-hull.doWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
In the history section there is a strange sentence "In 1924 she was used as committee boat for the regatta week in Fowey during that years regatta week as recalled to me by Mr. Arthur (Toby) West." It is as if it has been copied and pasted from some sort of personal history of the ship. Can someone a) consider whether much or all of this whole section might just be a plagiarised quotation, b) fix it and c) make sure that the fixed version has some possessive apostrophes where appropriate.
From personal contact with the International Guild of Knot Tyers' Frank Harris, resident in Charlton, the 1950s refit was undertaken by Standard Cables, in North Woolwich. She was derigged in the refit of the early 2000s, which led to the fire, and refitted by TS, of Maldon: the website links to this video, https://www.classicyacht.tv/journal/2015/6/5/rigging-the-cutty-sark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.85.178 ( talk) 11:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The article currently states
"In earlier years, Willis had commanded his father's ships at a time when American designed ships were the fastest in the tea trade...."
This is based on Lubbock's The Log of the Cutty Sark, page 20, where he says:
"He ["Jock" Willis] had commanded his father's ships at a date when American clippers were lords of the China seas and carried all before them."
Both these statements, source and article, seriously over-represent the relative performance of American clippers. To make this point, there are two main aspects to consider:
(1) Lubbock.
Basil Lubbock was a prolific writer on clippers. However, he sometimes gets things wrong. He is criticised for accuracy by David R MacGregor in his Fast Sailing Ships (pg 218 and, more damningly, pg 253), and Lubbock is mentioned as having gained his information by "hearsay" in an article in the Mariner's Mirror (the journal of the Society for Nautical Research) which rather dismisses him as a reliable source.
[1] It is not unknown for a Wikipedia editor to find that Lubbock provides information which is at variance to other sources.
(2) Were American ships the "fastest in the tea trade"?
There are some notable passages by US registered clippers in the 1850s, but on close examination, they are not particularly remarkable. Consider Celestial. She made 3 tea passages to England. One was of 96 days (in 1853) - but this was with a departure date late in October, when the contrary winds of the Southwest monsoon would have gone - so this is not a fair comparison with ships sailing earlier in the season, who had to beat to windward across the China Sea. The other 2 tea passages for this ship both took 137 days and were in the more difficult conditions of the Southwest monsoon.
[2]: 45
[3]: 20 Studying the times of large numbers of ships for each tea season in appendix 1 of MacGregor's The Tea Clippers, you do see American ships make a fast trip in the years from 1850 to 1858, but the majority of these are with departures late in the season, when the wind conditions in the China Sea were much more favourable. There are just a handful of instances of American ships putting in a good performance on equal terms with British clippers. And the same ships were equally capable of putting in a poor performance in another year. By no stretch of the imagination could American ships could be called the "fastest in the tea trade". They were just there and competing in the same way as any other clipper. (One could suspect that US clippers were much better at marketing their ships - when they arrived in London they had information on their ships available for journalists, getting all the free publicity they could. No reference to hand on this point, but I can probably find it if this really bothers anyone.)
Hence some rephrasing is due for this part of the article. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 15:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
References
The record time of 73 days London to Sydney (arriving in 1877) has had a citation needed template for a while. Newspaper searches that Cutty Sark sailed from London on 19 October 1876 (Lloyd's List of 20 Oct and Shipping and Mercantile Gazette of the same date), landed her pilot on the Isle of Wight on 21 Oct (at 7:00 am) (Lloyd's List 23 Oct) and then arrived Sydney on 11 Jan 1877 (Lloyd's List 16 Jan 1877). That is nothing like 73 days - by my maths that is 84 days - though you would get a lower number if you measured pilot to pilot. Perhaps someone has picked the wrong year for this record (in which case my fact checking would be irrelevant). However, the apparently incorrect and certainly uncited material should not remain in the article. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 13:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
although there are a number of photographs of this clipper ship on the site, not a one of them shows the beauty of the ship. Isn't there a nice picture of her? 98.45.173.213 ( talk) 18:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
One photograph is labeled with the words "fine lines." Is this a technical term? If so, it should be linked or explained; if not, maybe the label should be re-worded or expanded. 98.45.173.213 ( talk) 18:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cutty Sark article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 23, 2004, November 23, 2005, November 23, 2006, November 22, 2007, November 22, 2008, November 22, 2009, and November 22, 2010. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The first paragraph refers to the Cutty Sark as "it" ("It is preserved in..."); following paragraphs refer to the Cutty Sark as "she". Why is this not consistent? Is a clipper neuter while a ship is female? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinjakubik ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 23 November 2004 (UTC)
Great article. However, I want to move it from Cutty Sark to Cutty Sark (ship) to make room for a much-needed article on the phrase from which the ship took its name. That has historical precedence, and so should be the root article. I hope everyone is cool with this. -- Doric Loon 12:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cutty Sark (ship) → Cutty Sark. User:Doric_Loon moved it the other way, against an objection on talk page and without properly disambiguating existing links to the article. See discussion above. -- Chris j wood 18:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 19:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A question, BTW. Stan's suggestion of having two articles distinguished by capitalisation (Cutty Sark on the ship and Cutty sark or even Burns' original Cutty-sark on the colloquial usage) is very neat. But is that not confusing for users? It's the kind of thing I would have expected a Wiki policy against. If it IS thought good style then it would be a compromise which would make everyone here happy. (And there would be no need for a disambiguation page because the article on colloquial usage can point to subsequent developments!) -- Doric Loon 20:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then there is our solution. I will move CS(Garment) to Cutty-sark and you can put the ship article back where it originally was. That resolves the problem, I think, to everyone's satisfaction! -- Doric Loon 11:30, 15 Jun 2005
On possible confusion between upper and lower case versions, yes, that should always be considered when choosing titles. For instance, if I had a concept with two synonyms almost equally common, but one of them was case-ambiguous with some other title, I would choose the other synonym, with lots of disambiguation cross-links at the top of all the articles involved. One also wants plenty of redirs for minor variations (with/without hyphen, etc), so as to channel people in the directions they want to go. Stan 21:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Are the measurements given for the sails in "yd" actually the area of each sail in square yards? If so, all the conversion to meters are wrong, and even if colloquial usage shortens it to "yards" it should be quoted here as "yd²". To me, it seems that is likely what these are, but I'm not certain enough to fix it yet, but if they are length units and not area units, which dimension is being measured? Gene Nygaard 17:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I've deleted "and she is the only classic clipper still surviving" from the opening paragraph. Surely this statement can't be true. There are plenty of square-rigged ships still around. Some are still sailing, some are not (for example, The Peking. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Remember, a clipper is a very specific type of sailing ship. I believe that there is at least one still sailing, but there is a possibility that she might be a replica. Cutty Sark is certainly one of very few in good condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.24.87 ( talk) 20:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just heard that she is "100% ablaze". 24.4.143.174 05:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6675381.stm Satu Suro 05:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Terrible news! ممتاز 06:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Quite naturally it's the top news over here in England, images seem to show the ship as being a complete wreck, like a toy boat that got too close to the barbeque User:Lyinginbedmon
Terrible news indeed but [thankfully] it looks to have been exagerated and overestimated - they reckon the damage is no where near as extensive as first thought and of the 50% of the ship that was still on site, 80% has been damaged in some way - so its not like the whole thing has gone forever. With any luck Brown might lend some money from his coffers to pay for repairs...then again he'll probably want to send it up to scotland to renovate some scottish ship...
21 May 2007 62.231.137.138 (→Fire - Changed link to Ref and removed LinkSpam) This anonymous user removed a link to a Live Blog of the coverage. I have restored it as relevant for the duration of the event. Please do not vandalise. I will remove after 24 hours. User:julianduk 10:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, they've caught up now and material is available, so I'm going to start building a paragraph with authoritative references. I'd welcome people to work with me.
Can I start with a couple of questions / suggestions:
This article has very few citations so more references would be appreciated, if there is media report detailing something that is not covered in the article then please include it. The question of a seperate paragraph or modify it depends on what is being written. Take the following (very simple) sentence.
'Is a report by a local resident on a local website authoritative for the locality? simple answer yes. Complex answer yes - but that report will be echoed on every major/reputable news site, so it is best to inlcude it only once and from a major news site or established/recognised local website E.G. Manchester Evening News or London Standard. One final tip is avoid recentisn (see WP:RECENTISM). In 12 months time this fire will be only a minor footnote. -- Rehnn83 Talk 12:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll start looking.
I removed much of the detail of the fire from the lead paragraph because I felt it was unnecessarily detailed for the opening paragraph. If necessary this detail can go into the Fire section.-- A bit iffy 11:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I just saw that it says that she was destined for slave trade? Is that some synonym for the China Tea Trade in English...? In that case, I would think it is rather confusing to foreigners... Too bad about the fire, hope she can be restored anyway. Kjetil Kjernsmo 07:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the ship had wood planking on an iron frame. This should be included in the article. -- Petri Krohn 08:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Given the number of uses of the phrase "Cutty Sark" or "cutty sark", (see Cutty-sark), I believe a disambiguation page would be useful. Anyone want to take this on? If not, I'll have a go, but it won't be until tonight. – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the Wiki style on this issue? British ships are traditionally referred to as "she" so my suggestion is that all refs in the article to "it/its" etc be changed to "she". Everyone agree? -- ukexpat 17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is this article written as if the fire is only a small one. The article still includes sections about the conservation effort to restore it. It's gone, it's been completly destroyed by fire and theres no bringing it back. They can't restore it, this whole article needs to be re-written.
One of the links on this page is a link to a model ship sales site. This seems quite inappropriate.
mercator79 69.29.1.114 17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Could it be made clear, in the article, which are the other remaining clipper ships? Duncan.france 11:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added an infobox but I wasn't sure about her complement and range, can someone fill these fields in please? -- Philip Stevens 17:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Cutty Sark was not built on the clyde it was built on the River Leven! http://www.shippingtimes.co.uk/item624_leven.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.228 ( talk • contribs)
Do we need an hour by hour report on the Fire? I would think enough time has passed that this could all be replaced with a synopsis that covers the entire event. 38.112.47.92 14:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to improve this article, but if it wasn't enough that you lot like to insult and be rude to newcomers now, you also don't let them get involved.
Whatever happened to those ethics Wikipedia had not so long ago? Looks like the project has got so big that it can forget about them. Wiki old schooler 10:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Though nice to hear and an experience I also once had with the Golden Hinde, I did not think Wiki was the place for mentioning personal growth through making of a model, therefor I removed the insert.-- Edmund Patrick 09:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
what's a "Neetard"?
I have uploaded my September 2006 photo of Cutty Sark's figurehead if anybody thinks it would be helpful somewhere in the article.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Cutty_Sark_Figurehead.jpg
Sanba38 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
all the recent talk has been of Raising money for the repairs and of Lottery grants and government handouts... as a major London Tourist attraction the Cutty-Sark would have had Insurance to cover fire or damage so why is the money being provided by the UK Taxpayer?
62.239.159.5 10:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Tony Spumoni
I have added Internal Links to this article. Kathleen.wright5 10:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This section needs a lot of attention and clean up. It was obviously written as events took place and reads like it. For example:
Seriously, do we really need to know, almost 4 months after the event, that at exactly 6:09 UTC the Fire Brigade said that the fire was under control?
This is one of the big problems with writing about current events... people want to "inform" the world through Wikipedia, and put the latest information about the unfolding event in their articles ... but you end up with a piss poor article once the event is "old news" and people lose interest in editing. Blueboar 20:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Any of you Londoners out there have any post-fire pictures of the Sark that could be added to the article? - R. fiend ( talk) 14:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a couple of good,clear pictures taken today from my phone, but I don't know how to upload them to wikipedia. Can anyone enlighten me? -- Ikonos45 ( talk) 16:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The chief engineer, Professor Peter Mason, has resigned, saying the project will damage the ship and should be stopped, etc. see Andrew Gilligan's article Cutty Sark Disaster: The £11 Million Nail In the Coffin -- Robkam ( talk) 17:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not surprised... I saw the Cutty Sark in 1984. Apart from the impression the ship herself left on me, the thing which stuck in my mind was the singular lack of a sprinkler-system or fire-extinguishers below decks. Some years later, i read an article in a woodworking-magazine (and i'm sorry to say that i can't remember which one). In the article, a furniture-maker had stated that while the keel was being partially replaced, he had visited and asked the foreman at the site if it would be possible to obtain pieces of the original keel, which was made of a hardwood originating in India (and which is extinct today). The foreman refused flatout. Eventually, the man received a small piece of wood- while the workers there were warming their hands on a fire kept going in an oil-drum. It was fuelled by- wait for it- pieces of Cutty Sark-keel...
This vessel is a part of world heritage. The people in charge there are incapable and irresponsible at the very best. I'm not sure what they are at the very worst... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.240.52 ( talk) 02:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
She did have an, albeit rudimentary, sprinkler system installed in the 1950s but the main water feed pipe for the sprinklers was in the way of the works and had to be disconnected. The feed could have been temporarily diverted but this was not done. It is well known in the construction industry that construction sites where hot work is often in progress are vulnerable to fires so the need for ongoing fire protection could have been anticipated.( Bluejacket ( talk) 16:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC))
the article states that the fire burned for several hours before being brought under control, however in a report by London Fire Brigade, of the investigation into the incident, it states that they were called at 04:57 hrs and that by 05:28 hrs the fire was under control and "a few minutes later only burning embers in the lower deck remained" source: http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/CuttySarkFireReport-29Sep08.pdf
It seems to me that the section Construction and entymology should be split into two, either as the separate sections Construction and Entymology, or the part dealing with the construction should become the start of the section History and the bit about the origin of the name should be in a section Entymology. As I've come to this years after the article was written and I see that this part of the article has been moved around a bit in the past I will not do it immediately but ask if anybody has got any firm opinions? I think that a bit more about the origin of the name would make a useful contribution here and (if I teeter on the boundary of being encyclopedic), I might even draw attention to the interesting point that such a racy name was chosen at the height of Victorian prudery. Any thoughts anybody? Charwelton ( talk) 08:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I have been revising the section on the ships history to accord more with that posted by the Cutty Sark's owners website. In particular I have removed the below passage about the ship's fastest speed and racing the wool trade with thermopylae. These numbers might be correct, but I see someone else has already challenged part of them. Anyone have any corroboration? Sandpiper ( talk) 20:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
She recovered her reputation under Captain Richard Woodget, winning the wool race 10 years out of 10 (and beating Thermopylae every time they met citation needed). She posted Australia-to-Britain times of as little as 67 days, and in one instance outsailed the fastest steamship there was then, RMS Britannia. Her best run, 360 nmi (670 km) in 24 hours (an average 15 kn (28 km/h)), was said to have been the fastest of any ship of her size.
I remember the "Cutty Sark" coming up the Thames to the present dry dock. One version of the design story, current in the 1950s was that the original owner of this ship had previously purchased a sail/steamer "The Tweed" and had it converted to pure sail and that it had proved fast. He wanted a smaller fast version for the tea trade. Linton liked the design of "The Tweed" but thought that the stern area was the main problem about increasing speed and the "Cutty Sark" incorporated the perceived design improvements. AT Kunene ( talk) 10:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Anyone know how come signal flags spelling jkws might have come to mean 'cutty sark' as stated in the article? JKWS sounds perfectly reasonable for JocK WilliS, her original owner. Sandpiper ( talk) 07:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
There are conflicting sources over the 1895 sale price of Cutty Sark to Ferreira. Basil Lubbock's 1925 "Log of the Cutty Sark" records a sale from Willis to Ferreira for £2,100. But The Mariner's Mirror in 2009 (referenced in the article) reports research into the sale as follows:
I have preferred the Mariner's Mirror account to Lubbock's, because:
Apologies if this seems a long-winded explanation of an obscure issue. But as Lubbock is (rightly) relied on elsewhere in the article, I though it worth explaining why in this instance a different account might be preferred.
Link to 'knots' in the sentence 'The maximum logged speed for Cutty Sark was 17.5 knots.' should be to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_(unit), not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot. Sorry, I'm not an editor, and don't know how to get the correct link to display as 'knots' rather than 'knots (unit)' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.146.181 ( talk) 10:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
In this article it says that the Thermopylae traveled on its maiden voyage from London to Melbourne "port to port" in 61 days. Yet in the Thermopylae article, it says that it took 63 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.169.157 ( talk) 23:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone think the figure of 1450 tons of tea, quoted for her first trip back from China, is correct. All the sources I have seen give a tea cargo in pounds. If someone has converted that, I don't think the arithmetic is right. I can't find a source to confirm/deny, but for instance Ariel carried 1,230,900 lbs of tea in 1866. I make that 549 tons (UK) or 558 tonnes (metric). Cutty Sark was only slightly larger than Ariel. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 23:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoughtIdRetired ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
There is something about the following section that inhibits display of all sections that follow it - I can't fix it, so have moved it to be the last section. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 23:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The photograph on the Wool trade section titled "Cutty Sark moored in Melbourne" I believe is titled incorrectly. Acording to the book "Log of the Cutty Sark" the ship never visited Melbourne.
There were two docking areas in Melbourne, Port Melbourne and Victoria Dock. The photo is definitely NOT Port Melbourne which is two piers in very flat area and according to the Wikipedia article Victoria dock was not completed till 1892. The Cutty Sark only had two more voyages to Australia after that, 1892 to Sydney and to Brisbane 9th Decemeber 1894.
The photo appears to be taken in Circular key Sydney, The ship is moored on the South Eastern side of the harbor. The Sydney ferry jettys can be clearly seen in the left of the photo, the rising ground in the rear of the photo being the "Rocks" area of Sydney, the area immediately around Victoria Dock Melbourne being flat.
In the Wikipedia article on Circular key there is a photo entitled "Circular Quay, 1892" This I believe shows the area where the ships is moored in the photo in question. The ship being moored to the Quay in the right rear of the photo, the photo in question appears to have been taken from one of the windows on the 1st or 2nd floor of one of the buildings in the extreme right of the photo. In the foreground of the Circular Quay photo are the two ferry piers whose domed roofs can be seen on the left hand side of the image in question.
References
~~~~ Ray Lindsay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.217.4 ( talk) 00:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
A group of enthusiasts led by Captain Vladimir Martus are going to build a replica of Cutty Sark. Cutty Sark Replica Project --~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.118.213.90 ( talk) 05:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that § Cutty Sark#Investigation conclusion has much more detail than is appropriate to this article. I propose to trim the last five paragraphs.
Also, do we really need § Cutty Sark#Mast specifications? I can imagine keeping total mast heights (if that's important and if they are known) but listing the lengths of the individual segments is a bit too much detail in my view. I propose to delete the entire section.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 13:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The article says the ship had a Captain F. W. Moore around 1872 and (after a few additional changes of captains – e.g., Tiptaft, Wallace and Bruce) had a Captain Moore, previously of the Blackadder, around 1882. Were those the same person? Whatever the answer, I suggest for it to be clarified in the article, and if anyone knows the given name or initials of the second Captain Moore, for that information to be added (to both this article and the Blackadder article). — BarrelProof ( talk) 15:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The info box does not have any references beyond one for the GRT, and there the number has been copied across wrong from the source. (Article says 975 GRT whilst the source says 972). It's not really clear what information is being given under "Capacity" - if it is volume, then (a) it looks very large compared to GRT and (b) it should not be converted into tonnes. If it is weight of some sort, (? deadweight tonnage), then it does not look right to me.
What are the sources?
Are the numbers right?
ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 22:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cutty Sark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Cutty Sark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cutty Sark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23615647-cost-of-saving-cutty-sark-soars-to-40m-as-rust-eats-into-hull.doWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
In the history section there is a strange sentence "In 1924 she was used as committee boat for the regatta week in Fowey during that years regatta week as recalled to me by Mr. Arthur (Toby) West." It is as if it has been copied and pasted from some sort of personal history of the ship. Can someone a) consider whether much or all of this whole section might just be a plagiarised quotation, b) fix it and c) make sure that the fixed version has some possessive apostrophes where appropriate.
From personal contact with the International Guild of Knot Tyers' Frank Harris, resident in Charlton, the 1950s refit was undertaken by Standard Cables, in North Woolwich. She was derigged in the refit of the early 2000s, which led to the fire, and refitted by TS, of Maldon: the website links to this video, https://www.classicyacht.tv/journal/2015/6/5/rigging-the-cutty-sark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.85.178 ( talk) 11:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The article currently states
"In earlier years, Willis had commanded his father's ships at a time when American designed ships were the fastest in the tea trade...."
This is based on Lubbock's The Log of the Cutty Sark, page 20, where he says:
"He ["Jock" Willis] had commanded his father's ships at a date when American clippers were lords of the China seas and carried all before them."
Both these statements, source and article, seriously over-represent the relative performance of American clippers. To make this point, there are two main aspects to consider:
(1) Lubbock.
Basil Lubbock was a prolific writer on clippers. However, he sometimes gets things wrong. He is criticised for accuracy by David R MacGregor in his Fast Sailing Ships (pg 218 and, more damningly, pg 253), and Lubbock is mentioned as having gained his information by "hearsay" in an article in the Mariner's Mirror (the journal of the Society for Nautical Research) which rather dismisses him as a reliable source.
[1] It is not unknown for a Wikipedia editor to find that Lubbock provides information which is at variance to other sources.
(2) Were American ships the "fastest in the tea trade"?
There are some notable passages by US registered clippers in the 1850s, but on close examination, they are not particularly remarkable. Consider Celestial. She made 3 tea passages to England. One was of 96 days (in 1853) - but this was with a departure date late in October, when the contrary winds of the Southwest monsoon would have gone - so this is not a fair comparison with ships sailing earlier in the season, who had to beat to windward across the China Sea. The other 2 tea passages for this ship both took 137 days and were in the more difficult conditions of the Southwest monsoon.
[2]: 45
[3]: 20 Studying the times of large numbers of ships for each tea season in appendix 1 of MacGregor's The Tea Clippers, you do see American ships make a fast trip in the years from 1850 to 1858, but the majority of these are with departures late in the season, when the wind conditions in the China Sea were much more favourable. There are just a handful of instances of American ships putting in a good performance on equal terms with British clippers. And the same ships were equally capable of putting in a poor performance in another year. By no stretch of the imagination could American ships could be called the "fastest in the tea trade". They were just there and competing in the same way as any other clipper. (One could suspect that US clippers were much better at marketing their ships - when they arrived in London they had information on their ships available for journalists, getting all the free publicity they could. No reference to hand on this point, but I can probably find it if this really bothers anyone.)
Hence some rephrasing is due for this part of the article. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 15:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
References
The record time of 73 days London to Sydney (arriving in 1877) has had a citation needed template for a while. Newspaper searches that Cutty Sark sailed from London on 19 October 1876 (Lloyd's List of 20 Oct and Shipping and Mercantile Gazette of the same date), landed her pilot on the Isle of Wight on 21 Oct (at 7:00 am) (Lloyd's List 23 Oct) and then arrived Sydney on 11 Jan 1877 (Lloyd's List 16 Jan 1877). That is nothing like 73 days - by my maths that is 84 days - though you would get a lower number if you measured pilot to pilot. Perhaps someone has picked the wrong year for this record (in which case my fact checking would be irrelevant). However, the apparently incorrect and certainly uncited material should not remain in the article. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 13:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
although there are a number of photographs of this clipper ship on the site, not a one of them shows the beauty of the ship. Isn't there a nice picture of her? 98.45.173.213 ( talk) 18:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
One photograph is labeled with the words "fine lines." Is this a technical term? If so, it should be linked or explained; if not, maybe the label should be re-worded or expanded. 98.45.173.213 ( talk) 18:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)