Talk:List of ocean liners

Prefix
A lot of these ships seem to have "MS", despite being steamships. I'm not absolutely sure I am right to change them to "SS", but I have for some of the more famous ones, especially if they have an article under SS. --Nycto 06:22, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * I was filling in from various sources, I'm sure there are plenty of errors. :-) In most cases it's worthwhile to have a redirect from the "MS" (maybe even "MV") version because from Googling you can see that the two are very often confused, you want to channel people to the correct version once it's been ascertained. (BTW, thanks for great liner work, it's been somewhat neglected!) Stan 14:07, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Redlinks

 * This list is a bit scary... so many red ships! My current priority is to get the more famous liners from between the wars covered, with images and deck plans (if I can get them together).--Nycto 18:06, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * They get there; list of battleships of the United States Navy was once mostly red, now it's complete! Stan 21:59, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Remove cruiseships from the list?
This is a list of ocean liners, so perhaps we should consider removing the cruiseships, and making them a seperate list. I think this would make the list more manageable, but it's not the sort of change I want to make without consultation.--Nycto 18:38, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * I would agree with removing cruise ships from the list and creating a new one for them. There is already a seperate category for them "Categories: Cruise ships" A disambiguation link at the top of the page could mention the difference between cruise ships and ocean liners and link between the two lists. Would some ships have to appear on both lists or would one list have priority over the other? Martyman 23:02, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I would tend to give priority to the ocean liner list, as virtually all liners went on cruises on occasion, and a awful lot of classic liners were used breifly cruise ships in the thirties. So it's best to put ships that have engaged in a regularly scheduled passenger service for a significan part of their careers only on the liner list.--Nycto 05:07, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * You mean like list of cruise ships? For any ships used regularly in both roles, it's convenient to have them on both lists. They should also have "see alsos" to each other, in case one is looking on the wrong list and doesn't know about the other. In answer to the next obvious question, I'm not so keen to have a single combined list, because dual-use ships seem more the exception than the rule, and it seems less helpful to the searcher to mix dozens of old vessels in with Disney Magic etc; searches are likely to be "among modern cruise ships" or "among classic liners", not "among anything floating". :-) Stan 05:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Haha, guess I should have checked that. Anyway, my concern with putting ships that were used for both roles on both lists is that ship like the Mauretania would go on both (she was used a cruise ship full-time in the thirties), and I don't like that. So do we agree that we should start removing the cruise ships from the list? I can only do a few, because there are an awful lot of ships on this list I don't know.--Nycto 06:00, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Why is having a ship on two lists problematic? Think of a multi-talented person who is a painter, novelist, and poet - you would want to add that person to "list of painters", "list of novelists", and "list of poets". It would be incorrect to decide that the person was more of one of them and therefore had to be removed from the other two lists. Another way to look at it is that if you removed Mauretania from the list of cruise ships, somebody will come along later and say "hey, but she did cruises in the 1930s!" and add back to the cruise ship list, while leaving on the liners list. So you always want to do things in a way that seems natural to later editors, because that will improve the odds that they won't undo your changes at some future time. Stan 07:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling we'll find out that virtually all the classic liners engaged in cruises, somewhat defeating the purpose of having two lists. Perhaps we should pay more attention to what the ships were built for, with a bit of common sense. For example, the QE2 and Empress of Britain belong on both lists, but ships that were built as liners, did 28 years of transatlantic crossings, but then a few months cruising during the depression needn't go on the cruise ship list (people are hardly like to look for them there anyway). That said, I'm not that fussed, as I'm not likely to pay much attention to the list of cruise ships.--Nycto 08:30, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * That's why I think it should be limited to those that did cruising as a regular part of their service, or simply did it for long enough to be mentioned in the article. :-) But the beauty of WP is that you can always go back and change everything later if the original idea isn't working out. Stan 14:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We now have a list of cruise ships, and also a list of ocean liners to which cruise ships have been added. I have removed some linked cruise ships from this list. We should either maintain separate lists (my preference) or give up the fight and have one list only of passenger ships. Kablammo 21:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

List is getting an update
For those of you curious and want to help I am updating the list to make it look a bit better, as for the list categories ones I though tabout but did not iunclude were:
 * Country of Origin: As with ship names there are some ships that had alot of ports to call home.
 * Date of Build, Maiden Voyage: I was looking through the ships and found not all of them have these details, I went with Ship launched as it can be flexable.
 * Company Builder/Ship line: Again there are some ships that have multiple ones of these I tried to keep it simple.

I would love to hear feedback from people if they have any input or ideas to add on, be WP:BOLD and discuss and edit. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a huge gap in the list for the early liners of the 19th century. I have been adding quite a few as I find them. But it seems like each article references other ships that I then have to look up. This is starting to look like a massive project.Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I would be careful yes some steamships were considered ocean liners but others were just for short voyages. I don't want to see this list stray into WP:OR of what was considered an ocean liner and what wasent. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am only adding ships that were oceanic steamships that carried passengers between different continents. I wasn't aware that "notability" was a criteria for the list. City of Chicago and Richmond were both transatlantic passenger ships operated by the well known Inman Line.Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a WP:GNG General Notability Guideline on what should be and what should not be in articles, if the ship listed has no article then it would be better if you were to make the article first then link it in the list. If you want to add a ship with a reliable source that has no article this is okay too just don't add the ,s to avoid a red link. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It really all comes down to the reliable sources provided for list inclusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries. Just as an FYI if I am adding a ship that doesn't have its own article yet I am doing so based on credible sources that indicate the ship meets certain specific criteria. Those being, that it had mechanical propulsion (not sail), that it was a deep water ship designed and used for oceanic intercontinental passenger service, and that it carried more than a token number of passengers. I have passed over quite a number of ships where one or more of those criteria either did not exist or I couldn't confirm one way or another.


 * On an unrelated note has there been any discussion about setting a standard rule for naming articles about ships that had multiple names? There seems to be no standard rule that I can see being used. I find it confusing in the extreme when naval enthusiasts write up an article on a ship that was an ocean liner for all but a year or so of its multi-decade career and insist on assigning its military name for the article title. See USS Saint Paul (SP-1643).- Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * After reading WP:GNG and taking some time to think on it I respectfully disagree with your undo-edits. Red links are a useful tool that helps prompt users to create articles on certain subjects. Indeed they appear frequently in various Wiki articles on ocean liners. Also I think that perhaps you are applying an unduly narrow approach to notability. The list description as it currently stands has fairly broad parameters for addition. In fact the criteria I apply when considering any additions is more restrictive.


 * All of which said I don't want to get into an edit fight. If you still think you are right we can invite alternative opinions from the WikiProject Ships. Maybe you are right and I am being too liberal in my criteria. If that's the consensus I will happily defer. In the meantime I will hold off on any more edits until we reach an agreement. One area I do want to tinker with though is the list description. I really do think we could be a bit tighter on criteria for inclusion on the list.- Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sank vs Sunk
Of note for anyone following, I found that the standard to go by is "Sank" for ships on the list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

PORTUGUESE VESSELS MISSING
Portugal had several important ocean liners which surprisingly were not included, to my knowledge, 13 owned by the "Companhia Colonial de Navegaçao";

- 1922: GANDA I – Ex General Allenby (1898-1933) - 1925: AMBOIM I – Ex Sardinia (1898-1933) - 1926: LOANDA – Ex Würzburg (1900-1938) - 1928: JOÃO BELO – Ex Gertrud Woermann (1905–1950) - 1929: COLONIAL – Ex Ypiranga (1908–1950) - 1929: MOUSINHO – Ex Corcovado (1907–1954) - 1940: SERPA PINTO – Ex Ebro (1915–1954) - 1947: PÁTRIA –1947–1973 - 1948: IMPÉRIO – 1948–1974 - 1952: VERA CRUZ – 1952–1973 - 1953: SANTA MARIA – 1953–1974 - 1954: UÍGE – 1954–1974, then transferred to CPTM. - 1961: INFANTE DOM HENRIQUE – 1961–1974, then transferred to CPTM.

Plus three others owned by the "Insulana de Navegaçao".

- 1955: N/T ANGRA DO HEROÍSMO - 1955: N/T AMÉLIA DE MELLO - 1961: N/T FUNCHAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oguerreiro (talk • contribs) 15:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you have reliable sources for any of these? I know there are many fan based things out there, but what we are looking for are sources in the form of ship records and/or mentions in books. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

By Years
I suggest you use this to see the timeline of ocean liners. 75.76.14.26 (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Should there be photographs and/or drawings?
I was thinking we could add photographs and/or drawings to the list. IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * if you really want to then sure go ahead. My only concerns are clutter and a slow loading page as there must be over 700 ships listed here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * oh ok thx IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * kinda forgot about this, will continue over the summer IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The picture update is going great!
I've been working on this update for 2 days now and am so glad that barely any pictures have been removed. IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal of addition of proposed ships which were never built
Examples being the Bretagne, Oceanic, etc. IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No per WP:NOTDIR. It's just too broad, I mean what would the list criteria be? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)