Talk:Lightship

Comment
Just wondering about the Mooring section on this page. I recently read The Lighthouse Stevensons by Bella Bathurst and I didn't get the impression from that book that Stevenson invented the mushroom anchor. What is the source for the claim that Stevenson invented the mushroom anchor?


 * As an aside, I wanted to add that I've often heard it said that many lightships were converted from old whale catchers. Is this true? ▫Bad▫ harlick♠  15:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine as Bella Bathurst's work is as a human account it's short on technical material. A better account is Deborah Cadbury's "Seven Wonders of the Industrial World" p97. Chris55 (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Lightship No. 61 "Corsica Shoals" on Lake Huron
In Shipwrecks of the 1913 Great Lakes storm there is an omission. This lightship was destroyed on Lake Huron. It isn't listed, and it obviously should be. It's being offsite was a contributing factor in the loss of the Matthew Andrews, which is listed. See also Huron Lightship. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Stan

Crewless lightships
The article claims that automatic lightships were deployed in Britain in 1932. I can find no evidence of this: the first attempt at automation in Britain seems to be about 1972 with Lanby buoys (adapted from US originals) and was largely a failure. The citation is from an American magazine with a hand annotation saying that a British firm was involved in the manufacture. That is a very different matter. I can find US sources saying that these lightships were still being tested in 1950 and it would seem that they were only used, if at all, on more sheltered US inland waterways. Can anyone find better evidence? Chris55 (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Popular Mechanics" may be a reliable source, but someone's handwritten notes in the margin of a Googlebooks scan of it are certainly not. If there are no reliable sources for this claim it should be removed. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am unsure as to your point. We have Reliable sources that say this.  You apparently don't for the contrary position.  as such, your assertion is WP:OR  And this is covered by WP:Truth, I would submit.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is simply that the source doesn't say what is claimed. It's an American magazine talking about what I believe is an American development. However, as with much technology development, there's a gap between development and deployment. It doesn't talk about deployment. (And notes in the margin are not RS.) The British continued to (expensively) man lightships into the 1970s. Why did they do this if they had a usable substitute? Chris55 (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Difference in priorities and operational philosophies.
 * Expect the unexpected. Preparedness for extremes, not the norm. A crewless lightship can't do a rescue.  Even reliable technolofy can fail. Etc.  There are many plausible explanations.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case I take it that you have no evidence at all for this extreme interpretation. Chris55 (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not the proponent of the change, you are. I admit that my answer to your hypothetical question was just speculation.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:36  7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of this may be to a difference in terminology. Some might call a large fully automated unmanned installation a "light buoy", not a "light vessel". There is an ambiguity and a degree of overlap.  This has resulted in a change in he use of  symbols in navigational cartography. See .  It also may involve the slow automation of lighthouses generally in the UK,  See  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lightvessel. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004131113/http://www.lighthousefriends.com/light.asp?ID=617 to http://www.lighthousefriends.com/light.asp?ID=617

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lightvessel. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060425134509/http://www.southstseaport.org/street/ambrose.shtm to http://www.southstseaport.org/street/ambrose.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lightvessel. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120528075851/http://www.buffalohistoryworks.com/light/light-vessel.htm to http://www.buffalohistoryworks.com/light/light-vessel.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120528075851/http://www.buffalohistoryworks.com/light/light-vessel.htm to http://www.buffalohistoryworks.com/light/light-vessel.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014043942/http://hnsa.org/ships/overfalls.htm to http://www.hnsa.org/ships/overfalls.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511155035/http://www.phmuseum.org/lightship/lightship.htm to http://www.phmuseum.org/lightship/lightship.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2024
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

– Who calls these things "lightvessels"? Practically nobody, according to this Google Ngram. Lightship is the common name. The article itself uses "lightship" throughout (lightvessel also, granted). All of the many named instances are called "Lightship [Name]" not "Lightvessel [Name]". The "In popular culture" section has seven entries -- all using lightship. Heck, the spellcheck as I write this is fine with "lightship" but never heard of "lightvessel". And there are no non-ships discussed in the article. (A Light buoy is not a ship, but it is not a vessel either and is not discussed in this article.) Herostratus (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Lightvessel → Lightship
 * Lightship → Lightship (disambiguation)
 * Note: WikiProject Lighthouses has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Ships has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Transport has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Trinity House seems to prefer lightvessel Lyndaship (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you look at that website you will see some lightvessels which definitely aren't ships. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's because it is a results page for a TH-site search for the word "lightvessel". The real lightvessel page is here. - Davidships (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. So are you saying that "vessel" is synonymous with "ship"? Or only in the case of lightvessels/ships? Note that we also have an article on light floats - are these vessels or not? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, in general use they are synonymous - for example the completely interchangeable prefixes MV and MS for diesel-powered vessels/ships. For lightfloats, I would say "not", but do note that in the past some lightships/vessels were considered as lightfloats if unmanned.Davidships (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. "Vessel" is also somewhat ambiguous. BD2412  T 20:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support for the joint proposal. Although there are probably some EngVar aspects (which might impoverish some spellcheckers,though not mine), and there is some ambiguity with "lightship" (see dab page), I think that the WP:COMMONNAME grounds are clear. That would not necessarily follow in relation to some related articles. Davidships (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that "lightvessel" may be more common in Europe. Are the supporters of this proposal American by any chance? Note that a lot of call signs (probably the wrong word) were prefaced by LV, for example LV72 or LV 91. So I would be wary of renaming all other lightvessel articles unless there is more evidence of what they were called in other localities &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Correction: LV was used for US lightvessels as well, e.g. LV-58 &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, I've heard lightship used much more commonly as well Garnet Moss (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom. Clear common name and primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)