Here's the finalized plan for Naming a Ship's voyage landing category for voyages to Australia [closed]

+7 votes

Here's the finalized plan for Naming a Ship's voyage landing category for voyages to Australia

The Australia Project reviewed its requirements for categories related to immigration and shipping and after extensive consultation agreed to a proposal to revise the category structure. The preferred landing category is by arrival date. 

eg. [[Category:Lady Juliana, arrived 3 Jun 1790]]

A suggestion to add the arrival port was made recently, if you agree with the proposed structure, but not the inclusion of the arrival port, see the third answer below. 

See the proposal post here.

This finalised plan is re-posted to clarify that the original proposal was for naming the landing category only for voyages that arrived in Australia.   

Please vote by up-voting your preferred answer below.

Thank you

Margaret Haining

Project Coordinator, Australia Project

Edited to remove the arrival port from the format of the preferred landing category.

closed with the note: Approved format post:
in Policy and Style by Margaret Haining G2G6 Mach 2 (28.9k points)
closed by Margaret Haining
The suggestion to add an arrival port was made by a member on a previous post, I included it here, to gauge support or otherwise for it. From the votes and comments so far, it is not a preferred option, so I've removed it from the preferred format above.

3 Answers

+12 votes

Yes! I agree with this structure, including the addition of the arrival port.

by Margaret Haining G2G6 Mach 2 (28.9k points)
edited by Margaret Haining
I believe that there must be an arrival port, the ships didn't all end up at NSW.
The comments on not including the port are valid.  My original thought on this idea was to make it optional, as there are some ships that actually do go to one port.
+2 votes

No! I do not agree with this structure (please list your concerns as a comment).

by Margaret Haining G2G6 Mach 2 (28.9k points)

Sorry Margaret you have lost me here. I have been supporting this all the way until you start breaking it down by final Port. 

e.g. [[Category:Lady Juliana, arrived Sydney 3 Jun 1790]]

This was never part of our original discussions, either initially in the categorization team and later in the Australian Project discussions. The work involved to implement these changes is already becoming massive and this makes our task even greater. 

We will have people using Port Jackson instead of Sydney. And many other variations on name depending on which reference tool they use. I can't support it with such a change.

danny in canberra

Hi Danny, yes the suggestion to include the arrival port was only made recently, in the previous last call post, and I've now edited the post to make that clearer, and added another answer for anyone, like yourself, who supports the structure but not that inclusion.

I felt it was important to mention as including it may help with the issue of "where the ship arrived", by designating the final arrival port in Australia.

I agree with Danny. To me it's important to have a unique identifier in the category and I think [Lady Juliana, arrived 3 Jun 1790] is sufficient. I've also been caught off-guard by the late amendment to include the port. I think there are other ways to to consolidate information about the arrival port. One way is a free space page like For anyone that looks at the list please note a category for each voyage is linked if one exists.

Steve, see my comment above at the beginning of the post.
+9 votes

Yes! I agree with this structure, but not with the inclusion of the arrival port.

by Margaret Haining G2G6 Mach 2 (28.9k points)
There are many ships that made multiple stops, eg Sydney and Morton Bay. it could quickly become unwieldy if we attempt to list arrival ports in the actual category.
Yes as I mentioned before; I think this will add a lot more work to those of us who have to do the changes to existing categories.

And the possibility of confusion over using Port Jackson instead of Sydney etc.

I also think a voyage which drops people off at various ports as has been mentioned before. i.e a few at Swan River Colony, a few more at the South Australian Colony, on to Port Phillip and finally somewhere in New Zealand. I think this will become harder to categorise, not easier as some think.
My preference would be to keep it simple and not specify the arrival port. Thanks Margaret for all your fantastic work.
I agree with Danny's comments. For ease of use and maintenance, I support keep it simple.

Regarding possible confusion; If more categories were added for early immigration to South Australia, it would be easy to confuse Kangaroo Island, Port Misery and Port Adelaide.

Is it possible to mandate ship and arrival date and leave arrival port as an optional extra?
As per the proposal page, "arrived" date was intended to be the date of arrival at final port of call in Australia.
Thanks Margaret, however your answer doesn't clarify the point of possible confusion introduced by adding the arrival port. I'm noting for the first settlers to South Australia that Kangaroo Island (Nepean Bay) was the final port of call (i.e. the port of disembarking, before moving to other parts of SA later) .

Related questions

+7 votes
3 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright