Talk:List of museum ships/Archive 1

Kon Tiki
I just added Kon Tiki and Ra II. They aren't ships, of course. I also added Fram, which is a ship, but isn't in the water (they build a building around it). I think all three belong here. Fram is in its own museum. Kon Tiki and Ra II are in the Thor Heyerdahl museum.


 * Actually, by the definitions of "Ship" and "Boat" that I prefer, Ra II is a ship. To wit:  Boat: a vessel that goes out and back from the same port (some fishing vessels are huge, but are boats by this definition); Ship: a vessel that goes from port to port, transporting something (merchandise, passengers, ammunition to shoot at the enemy ;-), etc.).  As Ra II is porportedly a replica of an Egyptian merchant vessel, it fits the bill. OLEF641 (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If there were a page on seafaring museums, or some such, maybe Thor's boats could be moved. Also candidates for that page. Museo Maritim (Maritime Museum) in Barcelona, Sjofahrtsmuseet (Seafaring museum) in Oslo, Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts. Ortolan88 20:26 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)


 * The theory is that this lists only actual ships that you can walk on or around, which is quite different (and smaller) than the list of museums with a ship's wheel and a couple plates from the mess. :-) Museum ships are also distinct in that they have little subcultures of people who do the dirty work of keeping them from falling apart (trains and planes have something similar).  Kon Tiki and Ra II are borderline by this definition, but that's OK, it's not like the list is ruined by having a few extra items.


 * A list of maritime museums would be good to have too, though formidable to compile, going by some of the directories I've seen. Stan 21:11 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

Right. You can walk around Fram but not the other two. They're so fragile I can't imagine anybody walking on them when they were new, much less sailing the open sea on them. Ortolan88

I am new to Wikipedia and do not know if I should edit the HMS Rose entry on this list to change to her new designation (HMS Surprise) new rig (RN frigate of 1800's) and port (San Diego). The Rose had a pretty good reputation and few may have heard of the Surprise as a replica. Can some kind of redirect be used for a ship without an article? I am trying to rectify this. Thank you. --Displaced Raleighite 02:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, redirects for multiple names and designations (think of randomly-changing USN hull numbers/types) are very useful, quite a few ships have them. As to what the article itself should be under, that's a bit of a judgement call - generally the longest period of service or most familiar is the right way to go. You can always try it one way and change later if it doesn't "feel" right. Stan 04:46, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

why are the PS Kingswear Castle - Chatham, paddle steamer and the MV Balmoral - Glasgow on this list? They're both both in active service for the Paddle Steamer Preservation Society / Waverley Excursions (see PS Waverley) = dave souza 21:06, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * "Museum ship" doesn't mean permanently immobile - many on this list go on cruises. Operation by a "preservation society" is a strong hint that the service is not strictly commercial. Do the vessels have a regular parade of visitors that go on board to look around? Are there informational signs attached to every nautical bit? :-) Stan 23:04, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * This is tricky, as I've not been on these ships, but know that together with the PS Waverley they carry out a regular season of sailings every year: the Kingswear Castle in the Thames (I think), and the Balmoral was bought to fill in (at least for the Waverley) when cruises are wanted in two places at once. If they should be on the list, so should the Waverley, but it's run by the excursion company (I think a subsidiary of the preservation society), carries out regular sailings in season, has no explanatory signs on things and as far as I know doesn't invite visitors when tied up. You go on board (prebook or get your ticket at the purser's office) and sail on her. The organisation's a charity. It gets subsidy, but then so does Caledonian MacBrayne. Then there's the SS Sir Walter Scott - since 1900 it's continued to sail for the water company - and the PS Maid of the Loch which is tied up and open to the public, so it fits more of the definition in the museum ship article, but that's because it's a preservation work in progress towards getting back to regular sailings. If the definition is to be widened to include old ships kept in service, then the museum ship article needs modifying. I don't think of them as museum ships, but others might want to. Ta for keeping up the good work, . dave souza 23:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that a vessel used in this manner, if outdated, should qualify for the list of museum ships. People go to see, and ride on, these ships/boats to see how things used to be.  Even if a vessel doesn't spend time tied up alongside, with tours being given, it should be on this list, maybe with a note that it only does excursions, no tours. OLEF641 (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

List by countries
I think that these ships should be listed by countries to make them easier to find.


 * "Easier" depends on whether you know the name but not the country, or vice versa. What happens for a list of this length is that one ends up with a bunch of tiny sublists, and readers who don't find a name under the expected country end up searching all through all the lists. Also, when you mean "by country", is that original nationality, or current location? One compromise that people do sometimes is to make a list of museum ships by country alongside this one (perhaps renaming this one to list of museum ships by name). That means extra maintenance though, to ensure the lists are consistent - IMHO more trouble than it's worth for this particular list. Stan 21:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If you look, you can see that the list is sortable by both where it is and its country of origin. OLEF641 (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree! I do believe that the index should be by where the ship currently is so that people can visit them. If you want to find a certain ship you can always do that by coming in from the original record in WikipediaCaveman1949 (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the USS Slater listed
What about the Destroyer Escort USS Slater in Albany, NY. Maybe, it is in there somewhere; but it's not in alphabetical order. Hokeman 18:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for note -- have now added USS Slater (DE-766) -- mervyn 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help, Mervyn. I'm going to visit the Slater on 1 May.Hokeman 01:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Lightships
There are afew lightship in museums, but I don't know them all. I added the Portsmouth and Chesapeake. They are listed as LV-101 and LV-116 rather than name because a lightship's name would change with station. Since they were not listed I assume that it is because they were never added, If they belong in another catigorey all together (which I don't think they should) please move them. Oktober 2006

Oppose Merge
Oppose merge of Ships preserved in museums with List of museum ships. The first is an article, while this is a list (see Museum ship). In any case, Ships preserved in museums discusses precisely what is excluded from this list - see discussion at top of page Viv Hamilton 20:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A suggestion is to use info from Ships preserved in museums to re-write the intro to the article Museum ship -- it is currently not inclusive, and skewed to the US concept of the floating Memorial ship. Museum ships can encompass a range of different types, whether floating, in dry dock, or as static displays in museums. Then the proposed merge would make sense. --mervyn 17:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Given significant rewrite of the article, the proposed merge could be an improvement. Viv Hamilton 08:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

North Korean sub
North Korean sub: Hi, I was a little surprised to find no info or entry for a North Korean submarine that ran aground off the coast on the S.Korean city of Gangneung on Sept 17, 1996. It's now held in a museum-style setting at a place called 'Unification Park', south of Gangneung alongside a donated US warship. I took photos of the sub and ship here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sunnybreaks/1440002695/

The 2004 Lonely Planet book says, "The sub weighs 325 tonnes, is 35m long and had a top speed of 13kms an hour."

I'm assuming that NK never owned up to it being there, so it would've been difficult to get a name for it, but I'm curious if anybody can pick the make of it.

_________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yak sox (talk • contribs) 04:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for info -- have added two --mervyn 11:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * USS Everett F. Larson (DD-830) (later ROKS Jeong Buk (DD-916) - Gangneung Unification Park, Gangneung, South Korea -


 * Sang-o Class submarine - Gangneung Unification Park, Gangneung, South Korea - North Korean coastal submarine of the Special Naval Infiltration Unit of the Reconnaissance Bureau of the General Staff Department, Korean People's Army.

Argentinian museum ships
Hi all, just wanted to comment that I'm currently working in the (new) WikiArticles for 2 argentinian museum (tall) ships listed here: the frigate ARA Presidente Sarmiento and the corvette ARA Uruguay. Hopefully will have them ready by the end of this week (at least an initial version). Regards, DPdH (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Spirit of Australia
I made the article for the Spirit of Australia boat that holds the world record for the fastest speed on water. It's on display at the Australian National Maritime Museum. I'm not sure if it belongs on this list, but I figured I would suggest it be put up here instead of changing the list. Billcheese1 (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nationality
What do we mean by "nationality", is it original or current? A couple of examples: Duchesse Anne is indeed a French ship as shown but it was originally, and for most of its working life until 1945, German. On the other hand af Chapman has in fact been Swedish since 1915 but we show this with its original (British) nationality. Consistency can be a little difficult to achieve, but a clearer definition here might help. Bagunceiro (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

olny 4 spanish submarines, but realy 6 preserved

 * Tiburon I (SA-51)
 * Tiburon II (SA-52)
 * Delfin (S-61)
 * Peral Submarine at Cartagena

ok but to is preserved:


 * Foca I (SA-41) at Mahón
 * Foca II (SA-41) at Cartagena

Ref in List of submarines in the Spanish Navy

Takashi Kurita ~ Hablame compañero 16:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not references for each other. We need third party sources. Also preserved does not always mean the same as museum. It could be in storage awaiting going back into service. Rmhermen (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You must read the reference in the article...
 * [[Image:Naval jack of Spain.svg|18px]] Takashi Kurita ~ Hablame compañero 14:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that is not online and it is not clear which part of the list that is a reference for. If you have a hard copy, you could check if those subs are in it. Rmhermen (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that is not online and it is not clear which part of the list that is a reference for. If you have a hard copy, you could check if those subs are in it. Rmhermen (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry... short english here, i have got the book, and is in it...; you can see photograpy on line in Takashi Kurita ~ Hablame compañero 07:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Photography in commons, Foca presserved at Mahón
 * web with photography; Foca presserved at Cartagena

Removeal of Fireboat No. 1
Looking at your edit and thinking about it, I can see a justification for removing that ship from this list, as it's not "open to the public" in usual sense, but an edit comment to that effect would definitely have been handy. May I encourage you to write edit comments? Also, are you going to remove its article from the "museum ship" category? I'd think the two should be consistent. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think I removed Fireboat No. 1 from the list? It's still there for me anyways, between Fire Fighter and Florence. Godsfriendchuck (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was looking at the diff, and saw it removed, and today I can plainly see where it got moved to, but at the time I'd swear I looked and didn't see the re-addition. No idea what was going on; obviously I messed up.  Sincere apologies!  (But I still do try to encourage people to use edit summaries.) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Estonian ships
'From' column means ship's country of origin? Most of ships in Estonia are not estonian, right?Inq-16 (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

U.S.S. Constitution
I was very surprised to not see "Old Ironsides" listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmadil (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Northwest Seaport
What about these? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Seaport

And I know there's a cod fisher ship in Seattle, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmadil (talk • contribs) 15:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent deletions
Quite a few removals in the last 10 days, mostly without edit summaries. What are your intentions? Where are the deleted entries going? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The deletions aren't being deleted, some are going to List of oldest surviving ships as most if not all old ships have been converted into museums. Other ships are already present on other lists such as List of museum ships of the United States military, and List of submarine museums. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're going to do something like that, set it up as a page with links to sub-pages. Having an article claim to be comprehensive in the first line, and then deleting half the entries without linking them, is really bad page design. I don't mind a redesign here, but start with the new design. Simply deleting things en masse without telling readers of the article that you've done so isn't okay. I've reverted to the edit from June 17th, before you started this project. Do it right, and then use your previous revisions to build the new pages once you've got a structure in place that readers can understand. Alsadius (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This page was so massive that I had to get some of the entries out before I could start on rebuilding things. I placed sub pages on the top of the page and am getting ready for the new layout. My apologies for any trouble. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Knowledgekid87, what is the intended organization, and intended definition of contents now? I see that there's a tag stating the article is under major edit, but other editors have reason to question, and have questioned, and are entitled to weigh in on what is going on.  Currently the article's sections are:

1	Civilian ships 2	Current museum ships 3	See also 4	References 5	External links
 * Both of the first two sections include museum ships and civilian ships, and it doesn't currently make sense. I do recognize you are currently editing, but is just unclear what is the plan. The lede, on the other hand, suggests different divisions.  Perhaps discussion needs to happen here and decisions be made here, now.  I do assume that Knowledgekid87 is adding value in some ways through their edits, e.g. perhaps through factual corrections/additions, but those will be lost if consensus is not achieved and the list is reverted to a pre-major-changes version. --Doncram (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Editing an article doesn't happen overnight, right now things don't make sense as the article is undergoing major changes. It will all come together when the tables and sections are done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * K87, your first reply doesn't answer Ariconte's question: what are your intentions. Maybe your answer has to include a full discussion of several related lists. But anyhow this is titled to be a list of museum ships, and it seems reasonable for Wikipedia to have a list of that type, and it doesn't make sense to delete notable museum ships (having articles or not) that happen to be among the oldest surviving ships. Do you intend to change the name to "List of former museum ships which have been destroyed plus some museum ships that are not very old"? That does not seem rational. Alsadius also has a point, and reversion to June 17th version seems pretty reasonable to me right now.
 * Given your reply to me, it sounds like you want to proceed by creating a substantially revised list-article, and also substantially revising some related list-articles. Which perhaps you could/should do in Draft or User space, and then make a proposal here and at the related list-articles to make all the changes, or not.  You are risking a future failure to get agreement, if you don't discuss your plan first, i.e. if you cannot explain your plan.  And who knows, maybe if you did explain your plan you would find that others have good suggestions to refine your plan or may have substantial objections which you cannot answer.  Currently it seems like you are dismissing all past editors' decisions without reason, and it would be reasonable to revert all recent changes here and at related articles. --Doncram (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My intentions are to combine lists and remove entries that are already present elsewhere as redundant. Most of the oldest ships in existence are museums, it makes much more sense to provide both of this information on one list rather than to state the same thing on two separate lists. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please be more specific. You are planning to make just one list, list of oldest ships, and in that list identify which are museum ships or not, and delete the list of museum ships?  Or what.  What list are you intending to build and how, and what are you intending to pare down, and how.  I don't necessarily agree that redundancy is bad, not at all.
 * About how you are working, I think you might do better to add a sortable column to make some categorization you think is important, e.g. civilian vs. military, rather than moving all the rows. If you just make the column and add/create usable information, then you can later make the case, make the request, to split the table/list-article on that factor.  If others do not agree to splitting that way, nothing is lost.  As you are doing it now, you are losing whatever order made sense to others, and if others don't agree with your final deal, then it will all be lost by reversion to pre-June 17 version.  It seems unfriendly not to work ahead more gradually, i.e. by simply adding a category column and then having discussion;  your way seems to be forcing your way. --Doncram (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is a layout:


 * List of oldest surviving ships - Ships that go to 1919
 * List of surviving interwar ships - Ships that go from 1920 to 1939
 * List of surviving ships from World War II - Ships that go from 1940 to 1945


 * Having "List of museum ships" is too broad, as there are many types of ship museums. Narrowing down the scope of the lists and making them tell as much information as possible without being overcrowded seems like a good idea to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

organize by civilian vs. military, or by geography, or by age or what
{{I don't understand the reorganization that has been going on, and I don't agree that redundancy across lists is all bad. To try to foster some discussion, let's discuss a few questions. This can be about division into separate tables or separate articles, and also about relevant columns/variables to include in the tables, and about ordering. --Doncram (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Would division by civilian vs. military work?
An editor seems to be creating two tables, one for civilian and one for military. Without starting by creating a sortable column identifying these categories. Maybe smaller categories would make sense, e.g. divide commercial by freighters vs. tugs vs. ocean liners  With intention to split the world-wide article into two, by this division, later? I tend to think readers would be more interested in seeing the museum ships of one country all together. And civilian vs. military is not completely clean: how exactly is that to be defined?

What about Nash (tugboat), for example, a once-U.S. Army ship that is the principle ship asset of the H. Lee White Marine Museum in Oswego, New York. It served the U.S. Army at D-Day, but served most of its life in civilian use. Tug Ludington in Kewaunee, Wisconsin is similar. I see that there is a List of museum ships of the United States military which omits these (because they are not U.S. Navy or Coast Guard ships?). K87, are you planning to make a List of non-military museum ships in the United States, or similar? I note we have List of museums in the United States which splits out to lists of museums in each state, not to lists of military vs. civilian museums. --Doncram (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are currently 206 sovereign states in the world, so I do not think countries is the best idea. We could do by region if you wish as that is more broad. Redundancy with lists does matter as there is no reason to have List of museums in the United States if we include all of the military museums here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Umm, the natural way forward to implement a geographic organization would be to indicate nation in a column (already done I suppose), or (region/nation) in a column, and see how many are grouped in each region, then split out any very large sections. Andorra or other small nations will never get split out.  Lots of big lists of things are organized this way;  I have contributed to many systems of such lists. I am not necessarily for this, for museum ships, but this is very workable.
 * It may make sense to have List of museum ships in Canada including all of them, even if there is a separate List of military museum ships worldwide which includes the Canadian military ones, that "would not matter". It does matter, hugely, that any list-article be clearly defined and be what it says it is.  Could you answer the question:  do you plan to split all museum ships into one worldwide system of military ones, and one worldwide system of "civilian" ones?
 * I don't even know what a civilian museum ship means. Does that include a private (civilian) museum having a former military ship?  Are military museums just ones that have an official involvement of a Dept of Defense or something?  What about support ships like tugboats, can a military agency have civilian-purpose ships? --Doncram (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Would division by geography work?
I think yes, division into tables or into separate subarticles by nation or region would work, with the location used being the main/home location of the ship or its associated museum buildings if any. If division of this list-article is required by its size, this is the way to go I think. --Doncram (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to sort the tables by continent that might work out okay. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay if you are agreeing this is a plausible way to go, i.e. List of musuem ships in Canada vs. List of museum ships in South America, then please stop splitting by civilian vs. military. Please do feel free to add a column indicating military or not, if you can define that. And feel free to add a region column which might be used in implementing a split by region. You agreeing here, means that you agree that splitting by region not by military vs. civilian may be the way to go in the end. --Doncram (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Would division by type (freighter vs. passenger liner etc.) work?
I am not sure, but this might be better than civilian vs. military. --Doncram (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

membership of list system
I assume that all museum ships which are Wikipedia-notable, as evidenced by their having an article, should be included. This includes current museum ships and former ones, i.e. ships which served as museums and later were demolished, and ships of museums that still exist but were divested from any museum. Any museum ships that have articles that have been deleted should be returned, right? --Doncram (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Also any known museum ship without an article, but whose existence and importance are supported by included references, should be kept or added as a redlink. --Doncram (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Article back to status quo
I have reverted everything back to the way it was, hopefully a consensus can be made regarding the article in the future. I apologize for the disruption. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry too if I have seemed too confrontational or disruptive, too, by me questioning you here. I do hope you can discuss here what you have in mind as improving the list-system, and I hope others can too. --Doncram (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No its my fault for rushing onto this list and forcing my ideas, I am happy to discuss a way forward if you close this section and we start from scratch. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

}}

reorganization from scratch
Hey, I am sure there are issues and there could be improvements in the existing system of list-articles of museum ships. This main list, List of museum ships does seem pretty huge. (How many are listed?) A comprehensive list should maybe include all historic ships, that could be boarded by visitors, that are themselves museums or are included at museums, that are notable and that are not replicas (covered separately). There was previous discussion above about a "List of ships at museums" as opposed to "List of museum ships" which seems to have ended by the first being kept as a category for individual articles, Category:Ships preserved in museums, but dropped as a list-article topic. I think, knock on wood, that the museum ship article defines the term well enough. And I also think any museum ship is probably wikipedia-notable, like all public museums are (as i asserted in my contributions to essay wp:ITSAMUSEUM).

Maybe it is helpful to review what is the current list-article system, and what categories are meaningful (which could be used to divide out separate lists, or to be covered as columns in tables, and which can be used for actual categories in individual museum ship articles). I hope this might be helpful. I must say that it seems easy to question or criticize maybe, like I was doing elsewhere, but it seems hard to think for real. :( --Doncram (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

membership
(please add to this if helpful)
 * historic only, not too modern?
 * notable (Wikipedia-notable i.e. deserving of a separate article, or importance covered in sources)
 * big enough for visitors to tour inside, i.e. to board and walk through (not mere boats), and where visitors allowed to board
 * e.g. include the Fram (at Fram Museum) which can be toured, but not Kon-Tiki raft (at Kon-Tiki Museum) or the Oseburg Ship (at Viking Ship Museum (Oslo)) which can't be boarded
 * ship is a museum itself, or is part of a museum
 * include former museum ships that were demolished or are no longer open

existing system
(please add to this if helpful) Museum ships:
 * List of museum ships, worldwide, sorted by name of ship, sortable by location and by nation of origin
 * List of submarine museums, worldwide

Lists of ships that include non-museum and museum ships but may identify which ones are museums:
 * List of ships, includes numerous sub-lists
 * List of oldest surviving ships
 * List of lightvessels includes non-museums, but Template:Lightvessels has section of 16 that are lightship museums

categories which seem relevant to organizing
(please add to this if helpful)
 * type of museum ship: submarine vs. passenger ship vs. freighter vs. battleship vs. tug etc.
 * year or era of ship
 * e.g. "oldest" (i.e. up to 1919) vs. "interwar" (from 1920 to 1939) vs. World War II vs. "modern" (time divisions suggested by K87)
 * country of origin of ship
 * country/region of current or most recent permanent location of ship (see Category:Museum ships by country)
 * maybe military vs. non-military?

discussion
(please insert sections above about new topics, or make general comments here?) I am not sure what to say about overlap of List of oldest surviving ships vs. List of museum ships. --Doncram (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

"From" column
Does the "from" column indicate where the ship was built, or who it was built for? I only ask because the Japanese battleship Mikasa is listed as being "from" Japan, but it was actually built at Barrow-in-Furness in the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also PNS Hangor (S131) which is "from" Pakistan but built in France. Alansplodge (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Question
Although the RMS Queen Mary is both a museum ship and a hotel ship, aren’t there other ships we should add to the list that are either hotel ships or museum ships or both? Ubersonic Gaming (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

We could add Queen Elizabeth 2, MV Doulos Phos, SS Rotterdam, and Hikawa Maru if they aren’t already on the list. Implacable18 (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Photos
should we add photos? Ubersonic Gaming (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The list is already long and it would get unwieldy even with one photo each. As almost all entries have articles, they are just one click away. Davidships (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Should we add potential museum ships
I feel like some ships are eventually going to be turned into museums but the Saratov icebreaker for example is in the process of being raised from the bottom of the Volga river and will be a museum later on. Ubersonic Gaming (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No, this list is for current museum ships. I guess we could think about adding a separate section for future planned museum ships. Implacable18 (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How would that even work? Many ships, especially naval vessels, as they near retirement have groups (sometimes multiple groups) seeking to have them established as museum ships. It often does not work out. Just the same, it only takes a couple of reports in a local pager to established the effort as notable, meaning the table of "potential museum ships" could quickly become a long, unwieldy list of endeavors, many of which will never come to fruition. With the length of this list as it is, I think it better to avoid such an addition, and just add actual museum ships as they become established. (jmho) -  wolf  01:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, and on a similar note, I don't think it's worth adding ships that were planned to be made into museum ships or otherwise preserved but had those efforts fail to the Former section. I think it'd be best to keep that section limited to ships that were explicitly preserved at some point. Godsfriendchuck (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, @Godsfriendchuck, I only just realised that the non-museum ships are highlighted, as if they are the most important, rather than the least (there's even that rare phenomenon, a bold red-link). I've deleted one, which was completely unsourced as a museum ship. All such should go - for most any unfulfilled plans are mentioned in their articles. Davidships (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

On another note, (maybe this should be in a new section), we also have the article List of museum ships of the United States military, that I belive creates a lot of duplication with this page. Should we co consider removing the US military vessels from this list that are also on that list? Or go the other way and blank and redirect that page here? Or just leave everything as is? Or something else? Thoughts...? -  wolf  10:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Sort by name
It would be useful to add a data-sort-value to the names column, so that it would sort on actual name, ignoring USS, HMS, etc. And also to put entries in proper alphabetical order, it's pretty random at the moment; in fact, this would make the sort by name function less necessary. I expect there are tools to help with this, but it's not something I'm set up to do. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is more or less in alphabetical order, where it isn't is where later editors have added ships, seemingly at random. I'll make a start by moving the first one! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd noticed it was more or less alphabetical, like lots of similar lists in Wikipedia! The idea of a Wikipedia table editor was thought of years ago, but didn't get far. I've toyed with the idea of exporting to a spreadsheet with easy manipulation of columns (and rows), then importing back, but (given the earlier table editor ideas) that would be inventing the (square) wheel. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding data-sort-value to the table, initially with blank data, seems moderately harmless. Maybe I'll experiment with it. If it ends up causing disruption it can be reverted. Ultimately the table needs sorting alphabetically so it displays sensibly without clicking anything. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I have started work on sorting by name, so that "USS Iowa" will sort as "Iowa", not "USS". What I have done so far is add  before each ship name entry. A suitable sort key has to be added to each entry; there are about 900, so this will be a long, collaborative effort (or won't get done). What needs to be done is to add an appropriate name for sorting to each entry, like. Many names are obvious, others less so: is "H F Bailey" H or B? "James Craig" J or C? "Admiral Nevelskoi" A or N? That could be discussed here. I will do a few and hope that others continue. This will mean that clicking on the sort arrows for the name column will sort according to the data-sort-value, not the displayed name.

It is still necessary to sort the entries so that they are properly alphabetical, so that they display sensibly before clicking the arrow. Lots of work.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As the name column in alphabetical order is the default, is it really worth the hassle? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was actually much easier to set this up by adding blank  parameters than to manually sort by name, as there were lots of out-of-sequence entries. Actually entering all the names is a bigger job, but probably easier than manually sorting the default order by moving rows (unless there are table tools that I don't know about). Go to an entry, select the desired name, drag and ctrl-drop after the "=". I also admit that I did this partly an exercise in how to sort a table by a non-displayed key. A question for table experts: if the order of table entries is unsuitable and the table is sortable, is it possible to sort the table as required, and then save the code of the sorted table to use it as the new default? I ask for general use, I'm not particularly interested in this article. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * On a quick, though not exhaustive, run through, I have found one that is out of order, and that is a Soviet submarine that is listed, along with its sisters, under its pendant number rather than its name. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed, I've just checked. What does happen is that sorting by name lists, for example, all the USS ships together. I must have been misled by looking at the list after sorting and thought it was the default, or been mistaken for some other reason. If, and only if, the sort keys are entered, sorting will work properly; I've entered a few. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

To answer your question above, about alphabetizing names by first or last, I believe it's by the very first letter of the name as whole that is used, so if there is a given name, that's the one to go by, if there is a preceding rank or other honorific, then that it used, so; This is how the US Navy does it, according to the Naval Vessel Register (www.nvr.navy.mil/). The Australian Navy does it the same way as the US Navy (https://www.navy.gov.au/). As for the Royal Navy, there doesn't seem to any rhyme or reason to how they list their ships on their website (https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/), they aren't listed alphabetically, by hull number or date of commissioning. Hope this helps -  wolf  00:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * HMS John Smith would be listed under 'J',
 * HMS Captain John Smith would be under 'C'
 * HMS St.George would be listed under 'S', and so on.

This article should be split up and made into a disambiguation page
This is per WP:SIZE as this list is huge, reads like a wall of text, and is potentially slow to load on some devices. Here is what we already have:


 * List of submarine museums - this would I am assuming cover "submarine" museum ships.
 * List of museum ships of the United States military - this covers military museum ships from the United States.
 * List of Great Lakes museum and historic ships - this covers museum ships of the Great Lakes (United States)

My suggestion is to create more articles like these so we can narrow down the scope and make the lists more accessible. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * A split by country would probably be a good starting point. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * At this point I'm debating if the whole thing is redundant to Category:Museum ships by country. If it were up to me then I would get rid of alot of the columns as the title mentions "museum". We don't need extensive details about the ships themselves. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Ships that are debatable to add
Would the following [4] ships qualify as a museum or memorial ship?--Ubersonic Gaming (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * HTMS Thonburi
 * HNLMS De Ruyter (F806)
 * SS Conte Biancamano
 * Amphion
 * User:Ubersonic Gaming, which "Amphion" out of at least 10 ships of that name (see Amphion (disambiguation)) do you mean? Can u provide a link or reference? If u mean Amphion (ship), I don't know, given only parts of it survive (in a museum).--Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, would Ancerville in Shenzen, China, qualify? It is "in stationary use as a hotel and event space" per this "itinerary", with photos. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * MV Ancerville

axing alphabetical subsectioning now
Is it okay if I drop the (arbitrary) division of the list-table into sections "A to C", "D to G", etc., so that it can be sorted? It's just a bother, IMO, as I have several times now needed to sort, so I could see same-location items together. If there are no objections, I will do that, making it just one big table for now. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah you can do that, it will just be harder to edit with such a long list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Former museum ships
Hidden below this message is a list of "former" museum ships. The reason why I removed them is because I am wondering if these really should be included or if they go against WP:DIRECTORY. I mean... we aren't including a list of ships that used to formerly be breakwaters that don't exist anymore? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This section is for ships that were at one point preserved, but have since been scrapped, sunk, removed from display, or are otherwise no longer maintained as museum ships.
 * Former museum ships

As there seems to be a test of wills below instead of a discussion, perhaps the creation of List of former museum ships from the content above will alleviate some of the angst. Toddst1 (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * That was "Bold" I guess. As another approach which I think is consistent with discussion, I restored the above back into this "List of museum ships" article, in effect. I did so by sorting the above by continent by nation, and then merging into small sections labeled "Former" corresponding to the now-broken-out tables by continent or nation.  I worked from the above (now-collapsed) list, not from the version at List of former museum ships (which I just redirected back to List of museum ships).
 * Checking just now, I see this edit by User:Tony1 appears to be the only edit which made any changes to the content there. Tony1's edit summary indicates it was a script-assisted edit, and it changed some date formatting and flagicons.  [Tony1, that edit was lost in effect.  Could you possibly please consider running the same, on this list article which now includes the former ships material, from before your improvement?] --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

adding coordinates
As a separate matter, but also supporting division of this list by location, it seems useful to include coordinates locations of all items. Seeing all places on the OSM linked map will clarify how to divide the list into separate tables possibly on separate pages (by continent, or group N and S America together, or whatever). But it is simply good to have coordinates included in the current alphabetical list so readers can consult the linked map.

This isn't urgent nor is it hard to do. In one window, go to each article and collect coordinates from them, then record them into an editing window on this article. I suggest, and started with, use of decimal coordinates with precision to 5 digits after the decimal point, mainly because that is the degree of precision accepted by a certain cadre of editors that follow me personally (it seems like that to me! but maybe/probably somehow they are monitoring all usages of template coord and enforcing that). Note the display of coordinates in Degreed-Minutes-Seconds (DMS) vs. decimal formats can be set or changed at the article level (and/or in individual editors' user preferences). Note that numerous ship articles do not have coordinates in them, I suggest just skipping those for the moment. Who is willing to do this for a given alphabetical section?

I trust that starting this will be understood as purely helpful and not controversial, but by all means discuss any possible concerns. Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I have seen it done before on a limited amount of articles, if you are going to add coordinates may I suggest adding a "coordinates" column to focus on location only? This will make sorting easier in the short term, long term I am making lists by location in my userspace. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

articles needed

 * Names for many ships link to articles in other-language wikipedias (or, oddly, to commons categories). Should these show as redlinks instead, indicating articles are needed? Or create articles now:
 * Admiral links to ET wikipedia; start at Draft:Admiral (steamship)? Note Admiral (steamship) was just now added to Admiral (disambiguation).
 * HNoMS Alta links to NO wikipedia; try HNoMS Alta; start at HNoMS Alta?
 * Angara links to Russian (RU) wikipedia; try Angara (icebreaker), start at Draft:Angara (icebreaker)?
 * MS Bleichen links to DE wikipedia; try MS Bleichen (it exists already!); start at MS Bleichen?
 * HSwMS Bremön SE
 * Bürgermeister Abendroth (Elbe 3) DE
 * Christiaan Brunings NL
 * ...more...
 * HSwMS Västervik SV


 * Names for several museum ships of Marine Museum of Manitoba went to commons categories. Now linked to coverage within MMM article.
 * Morro Bay Maritime Museum (currently a redlink), is location of 4 entries here: Alma (tugboat), DSRV-2 Avalon, CG 30615 (currently a redlink), Spindrift (ship) (currently a redlink). Start at Draft:Morro Bay Maritime Museum? (currently a redlink)
 * Taizhou Naval Museum is location of 3
 * Gothenburg Maritime Centre is location of 2
 * many other redlink ones have just one museum ship

"museum ships" vs. "ships preserved in museums"
Should this distinction be made, or should Ships preserved in museums be merged into this list?

Ships preserved in museums states that these are "distinct from museum ships, which are ships where visitors can go aboard to see the ship." However, at least one there, Fram (ship), allows visitors onto and into it.

Also, this List of museum ships includes some, perhaps many, "ships preserved in museums" that one cannot go onto, including Kingston II up on a stand at Mystic Seaport. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Ships preserved in museums should redirect back to this article as most of them are already here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Some distinction is necessary, in order to define the scope of the list(s). But I am not sure what it might be. I am not attracted by, for example, whether the ship is indoors or not, or whether it is floating or ashore. Some might define a "museum ship" as a ship that contains a museum, which does imply getting inside, but that might be quite limiting. I am coming round to the idea that a museum ship, for the purposes of this list, must be (a) substantively complete and (b) primarily presented as a museum for educational purposes and with public access. This would exclude some currently on the list, eg the somewhat incomplete Mary Rose (undoubtedly a ship preserved in a museum - and that article should also be converted into a similarly informative list article in due course). What think colleagues? Davidships (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and Boldly eliminated Ships preserved in museums from mainspace by redirecting it (to here, "List of museum ships"), and I noted disposition of all the items which were there in Talk:Ships preserved in museums (which stays open). It turned out numerous entries there were already here in List of museum ships or were in List of ship replicas or List of submarine museums.  I merged the remaining ones into here..  Note we can list a group of ships within one museum in a single item; Skuldelev ships and Nemi ships, which I added, are each one item covering 2 or more.  I just noted that the lede of List of classic vessels suggests that ship museums are static.
 * In real life, ships can move back and forth in their status between being static or in use for sailing excursions, or allowing people on board or not, or being open to the public vs. not (note this list includes some preserved ships used for navy staff training). Here in this list we can move items between current or "former", and it is helpful to keep them both here, in part because there will be sources and editors arriving to add items, and also museums can be reopened.  Luckily ships don't often switch between being submarines or not, and only rarely and gradually transform into being replicas (e.g. as happened with USS Niagara (1813), per intro to ship replica article).
 * Anyhow I cannot make a distinction between "ship preserved in a museum" vs. a "museum ship", and when I saw that the "ships preserved in museums" could be merged here, country by country, I just did that. I wasn't remembering specifics of any discussion here, and I'm sorry if I should have discussed here first.  I hope this seems okay now. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that seems a good move in principle, and should be helpful to readers. But I do think that the scope still needs to confirmed - and might need to be a little different to my first shot just above, which garnered no comments back in January. Davidships (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

inaccuracy of locations, incl. Mystic Seaport
When click on OSM map linked from article and zeroing in, I think one can see that some coordinates are implausible, putting a museum ship out in the middle of harbor, say. For several ships at Mystic Seaport, the coordinates given in their articles put them together exactly at 41.3625°N, -71.96528°W, which is obviously wrong, when you zoom in. The coordinates in their articles, and then the coords here, should be refined to point exactly at the actual ships. Using 5 decimals of precision gets to within something like 2 m, approximately, i think, for places at Mystic Seaport's latitude.

It may take a while to review all locations and confirm/refine coordinates. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Formatting
How does display of coordinates in the "Museum/location" column look? The displays could be shrunk in size, from showing default size (e.g. 41.3625°N, -71.96528°W) to showing small size (e.g. 41.3625°N, -71.96528°W ), instead, by use of The smaller size is used in all the list-articles covering the 90,000 or so NRHP places, actually.

Hmm, by accident in editing here just now, i think i see how to make things even smaller...e.g.  41.3625°N, -71.96528°W , by use of    I did not know how to do that before! --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Using text goes here works too! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have been using that extensively now. Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Data fields
I mentioned above that "origin" needs definition. If the arrangement of basic lists is to default to "country etc of museum location", then place/country of origin (construction) is important, though I am not articularly enthusiastic on the presence of flaglets, and would head it "Where built". The fifth column does contain mainly the ID of the museum, though some entries mark the significance of the ship: eg "Shetland bus", "Chaco War". These are helpful to the reader and I favour a separate column for these (perhaps "Significance" or similar) - to make space, I suggest, if all loacations are indeed to consist of two lines, other fields be allowed to run over also where unavoidable (and the heading for "Year launched" also be given two lines to narrow the column. Davidships (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I have actually been making a new format here: User:Knowledgekid87/List of museum ships. This example is for Canada, I can make a "Provence" column if need be to get rid of the flag icons. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On second thought im just going to add in a "location" column. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Using a draft-type, non-mainspace page this way is good, it aids communication here, thanks. I dunno if we're supposed to edit in User:Knowledgekid87/List of museum ships though; how about a Talk subpage Talk:List of museum ships/Options allowing multiple proposals? IMHO "Location" is a great column title to have, as it allows us to get rid of multiple others sometimes, including any separate columns for coordinates.  In User:Knowledgekid87/List of museum ships, "Coordinates" as a separate column is unnecessary IMO. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Also axe "Museum" as a separate column. The museum is a place, the most specific that needs to be said in words.  And a museum can/should be the first thing in "Location".  All ships of same museum will sort together, and otherwise there's no need, no usefulness, for a reader to sort by most specific location.  About more general location, such as country, I am expecting that will be handled by breaking the big list by sections for each country (with the sections in alphabetical order worldwide, or grouped by "Asia" vs. "America" etc. as higher level sections. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Combining Location column with Co-ordinates is a no-brainer (all the latter could do is sort by latitude, which is of no use for anything if the Location is sortable. Co-ordinates' sole purpose is to take the reader off the page and onto a map.
 * I am attracted by the two-pronged approach to Location in the Canadian draft: Province and Specific location. Each serves a useful purpose: what is in a region? what is in a specific museum? For some lists the first of those will probably be Country. (I am bearing in mind that each division of a list reduces practical usefulness to some degree, so should be limited to absolute necessity regarding page size.)
 * Also, I still favour sortable Where Built, but only at the country level. Davidships (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would rather drop the Co-ordinates totally as a data field as the given information dates quicker. There are some "museum" ships in limbo right now which have no specific locations on a map. Also museum titles as a location alone isn't enough as some museums are not obvious by name. The "Marine Museum of Manitoba" is of course going to be in Manitoba, but what about "Maritime Museum of the Atlantic"? Without a location indicator this can imply any of the places in Atlantic Canada (using my list as an example). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ page moved to Talk:List of museum ships/Options. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and now see new Talk:List of museum ships/Options. The location field should include all necessary location info: "Maritime Museum of the Atlantic" is not enough.  Please see second row in "Options 2", which shows surprising-to-me city and country information that I added; "Admiral Nevelskoi Maritime Museum" alone, as shows in current big list is not enough! --Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also "Option 2" adds second and third flagicons for a ship that was launched in A, operated by B, preserved by C. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Update: The "List of museum ships" has been reorganized (by me) into sections by continent, with tables for continents as a whole or for each country. I have started changing "Museum or location" to simply "Location" (and including any museum name plus location info including coordinates under that).  And I have been adding a "Notes" column.  At least some data fields questions which were under discussion here are still open questions or clearly offer improvements (in particular i liked including 2nd and 3rd flagicons for ships launched, operated, preserved in different countries) that have not been implemented. I haven't refreshed myself on what was being discussed; Knowledgekid87, could you possibly please summarize, and comment on what is still needed? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)