Talk:List of shipwrecks in 1828

Ship George IVth
Hello, I the typography of the name of a ship from George IVth to George IVth based on MOS:ORDINAL, which I understand as the way things should be written in Wikipedia even if other typography is used in sources. User:Mjroots that change. Mjroots, please explain your thinking below. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 21:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - I thought I'd explained this in my edit summary. I was working with WP:MOSQUOTE in mind, quoting the ship's name as given in the source. There is contemporary evidence that names were carried in such fashion, such as the American steamboat Helen McGregor in 1830. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As WP:MOSQUOTE says "formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment", I think George IVth makes more sense there. SchreiberBike talk 05:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - I'll ask for further input from WP:SHIPS members as WP:SHIPWRECK isn't that active. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a purely typographical difference and nothing to do with the name of the ship; 19th century writing conventions used superscripts as the norm, WP doesn't. There is a more important point here, I have no doubt that the name of the ship was George IV, even if the Caledonian Mercury rendered it ungrammatically - "IV" is an ordinal. Other contemporary sources get it right, eg Lloyd's Register 1828 . Davidships (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I've been persuaded, . I'vr removed the superscript and ordinal from George IV. In the case of Helen McGregor in the 1830 list, as there is visual evidence thar her name was carried in that fashion, it should remain with the superscript. Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Casualties or Shipwrecks
If shipwreck implies the loss of a ship (implied by the introduction "..sunk, wrecked or otherwise lost.."), then there there are a good number of entries which don't qualify as they were ships which grounded or stranded and are cited as subsequently refloated. On Bold principles I have deleted them. If such are to be included, should not the article be List of ship casualties in 1828? Different question: should belligerent naval actions be included (eg entries on 20 August)? Davidships (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - Strandings are somewhat subjective. My general rule is that ships stranded as part of a mass event and later refloated are included. Ships stranded for a day or two are generally not included. Ships lost to belligerent naval action are most certainly included, otherwise the lists covering 1914-18 and 1939-45 would be rather shorter than they are now. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, where a ship is driven ashore and her crew are rescued, that meets the definition of a "shipwreck" in my opinion, regardless of whether or not the ship is later refloated. Strandings are also included where the ship has an article on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of shipwrecks in 1828. 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/20141222065415/http://www.swanseadocks.co.uk/Gower%20wrecks%20Rons%20write-up%20site.pdf to http://www.swanseadocks.co.uk/Gower%20wrecks%20Rons%20write-up%20site.pdf

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) 23:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)