Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shipwrecks/Archive 1

Infoboxes
Whilst I have done some bits here and there on Wikipedia I am a relative duffer at the actual coding stuff. I noticed from the grading scale that infoboxes are helpful things - is there a standard shipwreck infobox? I have no idea how to make one, but (to my mind) things such as a picture (either wrecked or afloat), date of wreck, location of wreck, country of registration would suffice for a casual looker. As an aside - a good idea for a project, whoever thought it up. I can add little to important wrecks, but am working on adding artciles on the many around Bermuda. LeeG 01:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing that the Infobox_ship already includes all that info, and has a "fate" input already, that should more than suffice. (I know that was amost a year old, but still thought it needed a reply incase anyone was still wondering) MarVelo 13:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Ignorant as I can be, what I did was never surpassed. I hope. I forgot to leave any sort of "Hello!" message here for the group. I founded this WikiProject. I just finished making categories, and nearly done assessing articles. Real credit for assessing 80% of the articles goes singularly to Blood red sandman. -- Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 20:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The acknowledgement is apreciated - Blood red sandman 21:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox template
Hi all, I been playing and created a User WPShipwrecks for User pages of project members, the links are red until the project moves from these user pages. Gnangarra 12:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We already have one. See or . I left this message on your talk page too. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 18:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for classification
Can anybody tell me whether the criteria for classification in Low---Top importance are really useaable for shipwrecks; as this is not clear. Leafing through the list it seems to me that Modern and US ship wrecks rank consitently higher then other wrecks which (of course) should not play a role. (e.g \. Commerce (ship) is ranked mid where Batavia (ship) is ranked low). In my opinion the problem is that no individual shipwreck is essential to understand the phenomenon (so no ship lists as top), and only shipwreck that are that obscure that they are just not listed would rank as low importance. Arnoutf 18:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Valencia?
Has any work been done on an article about the Roman shipwreck to be found off the coast of Valencia? See. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 17:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

M/S Herald of Free Enterprise
Hi, not very important, just a quick heads up to let you know that a major restructuring is intended for the M/S Herald of Free Enterprise article by WelshMatt, and that should bring the article up significantly in quality. If you have anything in particular you want to see done, propose it on the talk page for the article! Blood red sandman 18:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Intersting Wreck - Looking fowards to the rebuild. Markco1 20:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a go at improving it. This is my first attempt at copyediting so any advice is welcome. I've attempted to rationalise some duplicated information and generally tidy up, spell check, and reword in a more encyclopedic style. WelshMatt 14:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't look at it before improvement, but it seems well structured now - however it could still do with better referencing in accordance with WP:V. Viv Hamilton 18:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I'll dig up some references for the ship shortly. One of the books I have covers the sinking pretty well alongside a general history of the Spirit class. A brief web trawl should turn up original news reports. WelshMatt 18:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now had a go at adding references, but I didn't get very far. Basically I've added placemarks where I feel references are needed in the hope that others will be able to fill in the gaps in the sources I have. If anyone can help here then please do so. WelshMatt 13:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I will see if I can find any more references. Looks like a lot need to be dug up - BTW looks like you did a great job!! Markco1 14:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Following some handy advice on the Talk page for the article I've changed my ghastly mess of numbers in brackets to the "Citation needed" flags - I've also managed to get the two sources I have to work as proper Wikipedia footnotes (eg with the number in brackets working as a link to the relevant footnote). Thanks for the kind words! WelshMatt 17:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Australian maritime history
As a matter of courtesy, I should let you know that this new project has started - with a strong western australian contingent (probably because of our long coastline with a large number of shipwrecks amongst other things ! ) - and in the process of searching through wikipedia - I am not impressed by the status or general situations of maritime history (like no-one in the states has even ventured to start a usa article? it seems really odd)  so- maybe one day a west australian will have to start the usa maritime history article ?! Anyways keep up the good work!!! SatuSuro 23:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

ISSN question
Please see the note I posted at Talk:Salcombe_Cannon_Wreck. I'm trying to clean up ISSNs tagged as being incorrect, and though you may be able to help. Keesiewonder 23:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

“Shipwreck”
Not all of the maritime incidents described in this project are “shipwrecks”. For a maritime accident to be a shipwreck, the boat has to sink. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to rename some lists and categories as “maritime incidents” rather than “shipwrecks”? – Zntrip 03:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The way I'm looking at it - others in the project may disagree with me - if a vessel came substantially close to becoming a shipwreck, then it is covered by the project. I don't know about anyone else's views, though. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart  -  Receive My EviLove  07:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to sink to be a wreck, it could for example be stranded or beached, or still floating but in a dangerous condition. A wreck is a vessel rendered incapable of restoration to navigation, irrespectrive of what subsequently happens to it.  The remains of wrecks can be salvaged afterwards.  This doesn't mean that it wasn't a wreck.  So not all shipwrecks leave remains that you can dive.  Viv Hamilton 08:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New Carissa
Hi, just wanted to point out, the New Carissa featured article will be on the main Wikipedia page on 3/31. Might be good to give it an "importance" rating - I don't know much about shipwrecks, so I can't really do it! Anyway, just thought you'd like to know. -Pete 05:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will get it done!

Attack on Pearl Harbor FAR
Attack on Pearl Harbor has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Project banners added
Just wanted to let you know that while tagging World War I-era ships of the Kaiserliche Marine for WikiProject Ships, I went ahead and added this project's ShipwrecksWikiProject banner to several articles. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

RMS Titanic FAR
RMS Titanic has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Shipwreck categories
Would appreciate some input on the Categories we use (note that I am NOT referring to criteria for inclusion in WP:Shipwrecks yet, ONLY to categorization).

Categorization of Ships into Shipwrecks
I've gone through nearly all Category:Ships articles, looking to also categorize them under Category:Shipwrecks if they meet the criteria of either (1) the ship wrecked and was not removed; or (2) the wreck event itself was particularly newsworthy, even if the wreck no longer remains. This effort is mainly to give us a good starting point: Category:Shipwrecks contains everything that might be a candidate for WP:Shipwrecks.
 * Is this sufficient criteria for inclusion in Category:Shipwrecks: the wreck was not wholly removed OR the wreck event was newsworthy?


 * The way I see it, if the ship went down, that counts, regardless of whether it was removed or if it was newsworthy (if it wasn't, there may or may not be a notability issue, but that's differant). Also, if an incident resulted in the writing off of a vessel, or required it to be salvaged, then that, too, may be an issue for consideration. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sub-categorization of Shipwrecks
I'd like to come up with some guidelines for how we subcat. We have two modes: by coast and by body of water. My preference is to categorize an individual shipwreck by one method or the other, not both. This leads to decisions - at what point does a wreck off the coast become instead a wreck in the ocean? My completely unscientific method thus far has been to consider whether the wreck is close enough to shore to be reasonably considered a diving attraction for that coast.
 * Agree to categorize by coast or body of water but not both?
 * Is 'reasonably diveable' sufficient criteria for categorizing by coast instead of body of water? What distance is reasonable?


 * Possibly use the position in accordance with UNCLOS i.e. if it is within the territorial waters or declared contiguous zone of a nation, declare it as being off shore of the littoral country i.e. up to 24 miles offshore. If it is in international waters (or EEZ etc), then declare it to be in the body of water (even if in practice you will access it from the nearest coast).  Then be pragmatic depending on number of entries about whether or not you subcat a particular nation further e.g. USA by state and UK by section of coastline. Viv Hamilton 17:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To me, UNCLOS' Internal waters and Territorial waters distances seem too small to be ideal here. I'm concerned that restricting at Internal + Territorial would leave us with absolutely enormous Atlantic, Pacific, etc categories. I would actually argue for EEZ distance. In my experience reviewing ship articles, especially military ones where I can compare DANFS text descriptions to actual geo coords, the 'breaking point' between referring to a wreck by coast vs by body of water has been roughly 250 miles. This is of course arbitrary, but I think it's worth mentioning since in very many cases, the DANFS text description is the only information we will have. Do you think EEZ is workable? Maralia 17:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me - at least we will have a defined criteria, and there is an argument that the littoral state can manage shipwrecks as a resource where they lie in their EEZ Viv Hamilton 07:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree with the use of the EEZ system. BTW, as a qualified diver, I would be more worried about the depth than the distance, and about the wreck condition (is there lots of loose crap to get tagled up in? etc etc), so I guess that would create future disputes if we used that system. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Shipwreck category names
There are some inconsistencies in shipwreck subcat names. Within the subcats by body of water, there is the issue of multiple names for the same body of water (i.e. Sea of Marmara or Marmara Sea); I suggest we follow the conventions of Sea, which uses 'X Sea'. For subcats by coast, I suggest the standards 'in [Country]' followed by subcats thereof in format 'of the [State/Region] coast'. This would mean renaming some cats - existing cats use 'in' 'of' and even 'on' - but would bring things in line with WP:NCCAT while making it easier to intuit cat names.
 * Agree to standardize body of water category names thusly: 'Shipwrecks in the X Sea'?
 * Agree to standardize by coast category names thusly: 'Shipwrecks in [Country]' or for subcats 'Shipwrecks of the [State/Region] coast'?

Please respond right at the bullet points, if you have any input. Once we have some consensus on categorization, I'd like to revisit criteria for inclusion in WP:Shipwrecks and List of shipwrecks. Maralia 16:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather than do it by the bullets, I'm simply going to say here that both seem very reasonable and workable to me. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

request for membership
Can our article, List of world's largest wooden ships be part of your project and get a rating etc?--Filll 22:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added the article, but I'm unsure if we can rate it for quality as it is a list. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * List of designations under the Protection of Wrecks Act was previously added - Lists ought to be able to be rated according to the same criteria - i.e. is it important, and how good is it (compared with featured list standard) Viv Hamilton 08:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

SS Republic (1853)
I've been hearing radio ads in which a company is claiming to have for sale, uncirculated Confederate silver half dollars with New Orleans mint marks from the wreck of the Republic. Why would such coins have been on a ship going to New Orleans? Corvus cornix 17:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Vasa (ship) for GAC
The article about the Vasa has been nominated for Good Article status. Input and insights or even reviews from members of this project would be very much appreciated.

Peter Isotalo 15:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It has now been nominated for FA status. Input and insights from members of this project would again be very much appreciated. henrik  • talk  13:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)