Talk:MV Derbyshire

This article has not been simplified enough from the enwiki article. Things that need simplifying or explaining include:

oil-bulk-ore combination
Bridge-class sextet
entered service

The term "ore-bulk-oil combination carrier" was changed to "oil-bulk-ore combination freighter". We might want to keep the term "carrier", since that's what it's actually called.

Some sentences also need to be divided.

--Auntof6 (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which sentences need to be divided? Angela Maureen (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first and third. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I divided the first and third sentences in the page. I also simplified. Angela Maureen (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I simplified the above things. Is there anything else to simplify or change? Angela Maureen (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Yes.

The term "ore-bulk-oil combination carrier" needs explanation or simplifying.
Instead of "lost their lives", just say "died" or "were killed".
A few more links would be good, maybe the class of ships and the typhoon. It's OK if they're red links.

--Auntof6 (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I simplify "ore-bulk-oil combination carrier"? Whatever do I change it to? Angela Maureen (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. The term is linked in the enwiki article. Look at that article and see what it means. I also see that you added the term "bulk carrier": that is also complex and would need simplifying or describing. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I linked oil and ore. I'm gonna need some serious help for this article. Angela Maureen (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linking the pieces of the term is not very helpful, because it doesn't explain the term. What kind of help do you need? Are you able to read en:Ore-bulk-oil carrier to see what it means? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked ore-bulk ore combination carrier in the page. Is there anything else or is this article good enough for main space? Angela Maureen (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good now. The only other thing I'd do is remove the category "1980". This article is about a thing, not an event. I'll go ahead and remove that, and move the article back. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]