Talk:List of shipwrecks in 1924

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of shipwrecks in 1924. 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/20120217042035/http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/descriptions/ShipsI-J.html to http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/descriptions/ShipsI-J.html
 * Added tag to http://www.belgischekoopvaardij.net/belgian%20merchant%20A-G%2023.5.04.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) 06:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Engvar
- we need to discuss the variety of English used in this list. As a major contributor to all shipwreck lists, I use British English. That this list has had some American English inserted should not be a factor. There should be consistency across all shipwreck lists. Therefore I propose that any uses of American English should be replaced by British English where it is appropriate to do so (e.g. retain American spellings in American place names and in sources). Mjroots (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not how ENGVAR works - there's no need to have consistency across all articles, just internally. The uses of "harbor" were added here, and I don't see anything that points to BrEng or AmEng in the previous version. WP:RETAIN says that once a style has been established, it should be...um...retained unless there are compelling reasons (ie., strong national ties to a topic) Believe me, it would have been much easier on me to convert the handful of articles on German battleships to AmEng if I could, but even now, I've got people digging through articles I wrote a decade ago and switching them from one to another because 15 years ago it was something different. Parsecboy (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - I contend that STRONGNAT does apply here. Looking at January 1924, 35/80 vessels mentioned were British. I reckon that counting all vessels mentioned would produce a similar result, which can be broadly repeated across the vast majority of all shipwreck lists. Mjroots (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's pretty dubious. If this was an article about only British shipwrecks, then it would clearly be a case of strong national ties, but it's not. Parsecboy (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect Dolly Madison
The Dolly Madison listed under Oct. 8 is not the same ship was the one hyperlinked. How do I change this? Thebrakeman2 (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)