This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic articles
For the Huntford Shackleton reference, the ISBN given was incorrect. Since page numbers are referenced, I'd like to double check. I'm pretty sure I've got it right, through Amazon.co.uk [1]. If someone could confirm, I'd be grateful. Thanks! --Storkk (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ISBN number given is the book's valid identifier for ISBN 13. I am not up on the current ISBN numbering system, but believe this is current. Bigturtle (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can find, the Mercosur article, which doesn't even hint at its source, is the only source (excluding clear copies from this article) that claims that the ship was originally Foca II. Everywhere else - including Google results (main, images and books), contemporary newspapers, Norwegian shipping research/archives - has Foca I. It looks like a straight mistake, or even just a typographical error, and it seems inappropriate to give it any prominence in the article. I have removed it, but if it must be restored, I suggest moving it to a footnote. - Davidships (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
