![]() | Action of 16 January 1916 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 February 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into SMS Möwe (1914). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
SMS Möwe (1914) 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 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In 1916, the Canadian (Canadian Pacific Lines) ship Mount Temple was carrying two specimens and other fossils from today's Dinosaur Provincial Park, Alberta, Canada to Britain. It was sunk by the German surface raider SMS Möwe, sending its 75 million year old cargo to the bottom of the North Atlantic, where it rests to this day. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxrossomachin ( talk • contribs) 11:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
One should look at the picture in the infobox. That´s not the auxiliary cruiser, but the survey vessel with the same name, built in 1906, charateristic with her clipper bow.
-- Gerd Wiechmann ( talk) 20:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
-- Gerd Wiechmann ( talk) 14:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There was no consensus for this proposal, and no further comment in twelve months, so I've taken the liberty of closing this. If anyone has anything new to add, they can always re-list it. Xyl 54 ( talk) 13:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The two individual actions described are minor and not notable of themselves but as part of the Mowe's wartime career. Material is duplicated across the three articles and it would be better to bring it all together here. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 13:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
(od) There wasn't any agreement on this, and there's been no further comments for the last year or so; that being the case I've removed the tags as a no consensus conclusion. I trust that is OK with everyone. Xyl 54 ( talk) 13:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | Action of 16 January 1916 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 February 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into SMS Möwe (1914). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
SMS Möwe (1914) 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 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In 1916, the Canadian (Canadian Pacific Lines) ship Mount Temple was carrying two specimens and other fossils from today's Dinosaur Provincial Park, Alberta, Canada to Britain. It was sunk by the German surface raider SMS Möwe, sending its 75 million year old cargo to the bottom of the North Atlantic, where it rests to this day. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxrossomachin ( talk • contribs) 11:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
One should look at the picture in the infobox. That´s not the auxiliary cruiser, but the survey vessel with the same name, built in 1906, charateristic with her clipper bow.
-- Gerd Wiechmann ( talk) 20:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
-- Gerd Wiechmann ( talk) 14:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There was no consensus for this proposal, and no further comment in twelve months, so I've taken the liberty of closing this. If anyone has anything new to add, they can always re-list it. Xyl 54 ( talk) 13:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The two individual actions described are minor and not notable of themselves but as part of the Mowe's wartime career. Material is duplicated across the three articles and it would be better to bring it all together here. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 13:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
(od) There wasn't any agreement on this, and there's been no further comments for the last year or so; that being the case I've removed the tags as a no consensus conclusion. I trust that is OK with everyone. Xyl 54 ( talk) 13:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)