Jump to content

Talk:BC Ferries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confusing Sub Pages (V Class, Burnaby class, Queen of New Westminster)

[edit]

As it stands right now, the concept of the V class ferry is confusing to wikipedia readers, mostly because the names of the classes kept changing. Originally SEVEN VESSELS were V class vessels:

  • Queen of Victoria
  • Queen of Vancouver
  • Queen of Esquimalt
  • Queen of Saanich
  • Queen of New Westminster
  • Queen of Burnaby
  • Queen of Nanaimo

When they were built originally they all had the same basic specifications. All seven were also streched with an 84 foot insert section, so that doesn't split the class yet. What makes it confusing for some is that when 5 of the ships were modified with a new car deck, the two ships that were NOT modified had their class changed, so the Burnaby and Nanaimo became "Burnaby class".

Then they made it more confusing when the Queen of New Westminster was fitted with new engines, and they officially removed the ship from V class, leaving the vessel in a class of it's own, as a result we have three different types of ship which were all originally built the same.

Is there some way we can reflect this in the articals without it being confusing? Perhaps if we could make the "main" artical on V class ships include a "Sub Classes" section which includes the two Burnaby Class ships, and the Queen of New Westminster, whilst maintaining the pages existed for those ships?

I want to make this set of articals much less confusing for the reader. CarsonCo (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous edits

[edit]

Please see: http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?pagetitle=BC Ferries --Achim (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge

[edit]

The comment about the bridge which can be the alternative has been removed. At least a link should appear where this is presented otherwise it's censorship even if of course it's a hot political subject since this company has a monopoly.

Uh, it was never there to begin with.  Denelson83  16:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarity ensues

[edit]

Can anyone confirm that their slogan used to be "Cruise the straits with BC Ferries" until somebody pointed out the double entendre? Or is that folklore? It almost seems like a common enough story to be worth mentioning.

What double entendre?  Denelson83  15:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cruising is a term for looking for partners for a single, stand-alone sexual encounter. Originally this term was used much more widely in the gay community. Similarly, "straight" was a term used by gay people to refer to heterosexuals. So, cruising the straights" could be interpreted as "look to approach heterosexual strangers to invite them to share in a one-time homosexual encounter." -- Geo Swan 05:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was merchandise that referenced B.C Ferries using "Cruising the Straits" as a slogan on keychains sold near the docks in Vancouver, Canada in the late 1970s. It was a two-sided keychain dongle encased in clear plastic with the words "CRUISING THE STRAITS" on one side and "B.C. FERRIES" on the other side. It's not clear if this was official B.C. Ferries merchandise or something sold by a private manufacturing company. [1] Kirkwoodie (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Kirkwoodie[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154028583559112&l=65e794c289

Images

[edit]

This article seems set for images. Unless there is a specific image that someone can think of, we can remove the image request. -Dr Haggis - Talk 23:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove image request. -Dr Haggis - Talk 03:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not from Canada (but have a strange interst in BC ferries for some reason) so I am not too familiar with locations or anything, may I suggest the creation of a route map for 'non-canadians' to have a better idea of what routes are served, wozza 1 15:25, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

Thanks for the suggestion. I am now in the process of making such maps. I expect to have four or five of them ready to add to the article. I'm using images from NASA World Wind, so the licensing won't be difficult (PD).  Denelson83  02:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing those, don't want to come across as rude but do we have an estimate as to when they will be added? --wozza 15:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're in the article now.  Denelson83  00:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just taken a look and they're really good, thanks for the valuable contirbution to the article and furthering a 'clever' Brits understanding --wozza 07:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents

[edit]

Does anybody else think that putting the accidents section so close to the beginning of the article--before information about the fleet or about their routes--might be giving the subtle impression that they have a lot of accidents? Nine in thirty-six years, for a fleet with thirty-five vessels does not seem too dangerous. The accidents information should be moved to closer to the end of the article. Stearnsbrian 01:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done - and I agree. --Ckatz 03:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thirty-four vessels now.  Denelson83  04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A reference to the countess rescues performed by BC Ferries could add balance away from the accident section. As one of the largest fleets with most active routes it is often in position to render aid and assistance to other maritime traffic. Conversely, with so many miles traveled accidents are expected. I think we should avoid issues like passengers injured on escalators or “standard” mishaps like falls or cuts aboard ship. There are dosens of injuries daily, but only several a year I personaly deam "significant" but there in lies the rub, who am I to decide for the word what is significant. I have held back adding legend type items for example if I were to add "M.V. Queen of Victoria" under the V class vesels I would be tempted to mention how Victoria was thouhgt to be a cursed ship due to the high number of accidents she was in and suicides on (technicaly lept off) board, and to point out the number of sould rescued by the ship before it's sale and re-naming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.96.214 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
This could help provide a good balance, especially in conjunction with the details on the size of the fleet (and perhaps some sourced commentary on the nature of BC coastal waters, are they safer, rougher, etc.). It might even help out with a minor issue over on the Queen of the North talk page page where there is some discussion over how to handle official statements about the safety of the BC Ferries fleet. --Ckatz 20:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess other editors changed mind. Too bad, my dad was rescued by a BC ferry but I guess they are all about the crash and distruction stuff.

- I was thining that perhaps we should reduce the number of accidents on the article and then add a seperate article on "Maritime Incidents involving BC Ferries" or something to that degree. The current list focuses on the modern ones, and doesn't give historical ones proper recognition. Additionally, there has been a tendancy to add less dramatic, more modern accidents, while leaving on lesser historical ones. Some more spectacular ones, such as Queen of (Qo) Coquitlam's drydock roll over, or (Qo) Alberni's near capsize have been omitted. 24.86.197.153 05:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By any objective measure, the BC Ferry system has a terrible safety record and I am shocked the the BC government allows this to continue. They must account for ~20% of the accidents in North American maritime passenger over the past ~40 years. It is reasonable for this entry to factually convey this fact. oysterengineer (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)oysterengineer, 07 August 2008[reply]

It is reasonable for the entry to list every maritime incident BC ferries has been involved in, but by no means does the BC Ferry system have a bad safety record. Any system that operates on as large a scale as BC Ferries does would be lucky to not have a plethora of accidents much more intensive than that of BC Ferries. Anyway, I'm leaning on the idea of a separate page on "Accidents involving BC Ferries", so that we can fix the dramatic imbalance of the accident section in the main artical. This section should also include rescues made by BC ferries as the title includes the word "involving" BC Ferries, not "caused by" BC ferries. I'm going to be getting out by BC Ferries history book in the next couple of weeks to work on that project, because I think it's important to have this accurate information on wiki. CarsonCo (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support the seperation of the Accidents into a seperate Incidents page, listing both good and bad. YYC T Dawg (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Neutrality

[edit]

I'm by no means an expert in nautical matters or encyclopedia etiquette, but is it proper to refer to a ship as "she"? Of course, I understand that this is indeed a common expression, but it strikes me as being colloquial (perhaps even a tad sexist?). I haven't made any changes to the article in this regard, nor do I intend to, but I'd be interested to hear what others thinks. Should "she" be changed to the gender-neutral "it"? Maybe it's a non-issue, but just thought I'd bring it up.--Ledavee 23:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some discussion of this on Wikipedia: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_archive_(ships_as_"she"). (Although I don't think it was fully resolved). I think in the maritime industry the reference of "she" is often used even in formal writing. In mainstream press the neuter is usually used. Lloyds recently started to use the neuter much to the constrenation of many readers [1] --Webgeer 00:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to call them "it" instead of "she", we might as well start using "left side" instead of "port", and "rear" instead of "aft". I think it's well within proper, formal usage to use naval terminology. Azio 08:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point.--Ledavee 18:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a point of sexism. Ships have historically been called "she" in respect. They respect the ship as if "she" were a woman. CarsonCo (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other terminals

[edit]

I noticed we only have pictures of the Tsawwassen terminal, with no pictures of any of the other four major terminals. Could we get such pictures in this article?  Denelson83  03:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have some good shots of the Duke Point terminal. How do I submit or place them on the Site. I never personally thought that there would be this much interest in BC Ferries - but hey, now I have seen everything!!! Cheers from Nanaimo VI WIKIPEDIAVI 04:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can upload them to the Wikimedia Commons, using the "Upload file" link on the left of the screen on that site. Just make sure you license them under the GFDL.  Denelson83  04:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinking Casualties

[edit]

When the Queen of the North sank, it is believed two people likely drowned. When the two passangers could not be located afterwards [2] an investigation followed and they were presumed dead [3]. BeefJeaunt 14:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

As there aren't any companies providing this service on the East coast of BC (and the service isn't limited in any way to the West coast), I respectfully offer a rewording of this sentence for clarity. Revert it or reshape it, but pls consider what "on the West coast" actually means. Tks. Joevanisland 18:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV. NPOV!!! When the sea that used to cover Alberta returns, you'll see the error of your ways... Seriously, though, the changes make sense. Thanks for noticing, and for fixing it. --Ckatzchatspy 19:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HA! Your wit (ahem) sailed right over my head for a moment leaving me thinking, the sea ... Alberta ... what?!? Thanks for the smile, Ckatz, appreciated here! Joevanisland 22:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ports of call list

[edit]

1) Brentwood Bay
2) Mill Bay
3) Swartz Bay
4) Fulford Harbour
5) Long Harbour
6) Otter Bay
7) Lyall Harbour

8) Village Bay
9) Sturdies Bay
10) Tsawwassen
11) Vesuvius
12) Crofton
13) Chemainus
14) Thetis Island

15) Kuper Island
16) Nanaimo Harbour
17) Descanso Bay
18) Duke Point
19) Departure Bay
20) Horseshoe Bay
21) Snug Cove

22) Langdale
23) Gambier Island
24) Keats Island
25) Earls Cove
26) Saltery Bay
27) Westview
28) Blubber Bay

29) Little River
30) Buckley Bay
31) Metcalf Bay
32) Gravelly Bay
33) Shingle Spit
34) Campbell River
35) Quathiaski Cove

36) Heriot Bay
37) Whaletown
38) Port McNeill
39) Alert Bay
40) Sointula
41) Bear Cove
42) Bella Bella

43) Bella Coola
44) Shearwater
45) Ocean Falls
46) Klemtu
47) Prince Rupert
48) Skidegate
49) Alliford Bay

--  Denelson83  19:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant Accidents section

[edit]

It appears that the accidents section is duplicated in the articles for each individual vessel; which to me is where that level of detail belongs. I'm guessing it was created here before the individual articles existed. I think at this point the few missing vessel articles should be created, then the Accidents section should be purged from this article as this one should be a higher level over-view of the organization, not of the ships themselves. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed further up the page, I am wanting to review, expand and create all relevant BC Ferry related articles to bring them in line with especially thier closest counterparts Alaska Marine Highway and Washington State Ferries but also look at the handling of oversea ferry companies. It is likely that only the most notable of accidents by some criteria will remain on the main page, the QoTN sinking will probably remain for sometime regardless of criteria decided. Gunther87 (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Website Down

[edit]

I am not sure if it qualifies as a paragraph on the page somewhere, but yesterday the BC Ferries site went down due to someone in their IT department not renewing their IP address or something like that. Here is the news article: BC Ferries Website Down. Thought it was pretty funny, especially since I need to book a reservation for our long weekend coming up! 129.42.208.186 (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accident section extremely poorly weighted.

[edit]

The accident section is (from my quick observations of my browser's scroll bar) over 25% of the article. This is completely off base for a corporation that has historically been considered comparatively safe. Secondly, that section could use much better referencing. Other editors thoughts?

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 23:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS And holy crap, I just noticed the Table of Contents (which is in the lead) being over 50% accidents! This is totally unreasonable.
PPS And the History section is extremely temporally unbalanced, with half of the paragraphs on the topic of a shipbuilding issue in 2004! BC Ferries has a long and complicated history....

Arrow Lakes ferries.....

[edit]

These used to be Department of Highways.....are they BC Ferries now? Wondering what to say on the Galena Bay and Needles-Fauquier Ferry articles and the like, and re Commons cats for pix.Skookum1 (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The freshwater ferries are still under the direct control of the BCMoT. They have nothing to do with BC Ferries. --  Denelson83  01:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on BC Ferries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BC Ferries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BC Ferries. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on BC Ferries. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My splitting proposal

[edit]

I propose that the section Accidents and incidents be split into a separate page called List of BC Ferries accidents and incidents. The content of the current page seems off-topic due to the page. The section and subsections are large enough to make their own page. Cascadia630 (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The section absolutely dominates this page and could make for a standalone article. — Kawnhr (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done List of BC Ferries accidents and incidents Emma0mb talk 23:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BC_Ferries&oldid=1257906282"