![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: Moved to Marco Polo (1851 ship). Consensus to move, and Llammakey's citing of the ship naming conventions seems to support this name. — Amakuru ( talk) 15:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Marco Polo (ship) → Marco Polo (clipper ship) – WP:PRECISE there are many ships named "Marco Polo" several with article son Wikipedia (see Marco Polo (disambiguation); this is insufficient and ambiguous so should be moved, the current title should point to the disambiguation page – 65.94.171.217 ( talk) 08:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
This claim seems pretty dubious to me. And the citation doesn't provide any further information or sources. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 28% of Australians weren't even born in Australia (and presumably unlikely to have MP ancestry). About 13% were born in Austrlia to non-Australian born parents (unlikely to have MP ancestry). Etc. The.proportion of Australians with any ancestry back to Australis in the 1860s isn't going to be high, yet there were over 1 million people in Australia at that time of which the MP immigrants would not be a large percentage. This feels like a claim based on say 10,000 MP immigrants having (say) 20,000 children, and 40,000 grandchildren, producing after say,7 generations, 1,280,000 present day descendants, which is 1 in 20 of the Australian population, which is a bogus way to calculate it. Can anyone come up with any plausible basis for the claim? Kerry ( talk) 20:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
pov claims that the ship was the "fastest" when built. No such claim in article, nor can I find any npov citation, but suspect there's some truth to it. May have to "overqualify" in order to make it work, "fastest ocean-going sloop-rigged" or some such. But if anyone runs across anything... Student7 ( talk) 21:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)