Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shipwrecks/Archive 2

"Importance scale" link is wrong
I wanted to let you guys know that that the "Project’s importance scale" link in ShipwrecksWikiProject links to an importance scale for WP:AZTEC. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've fixed it now. I also added the redirect WPSHIPWRECKS because I still type it wrong half the time. Maralia (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

shipwreck of a a radeau
There's one shipwreck article, Land Tortoise (shipwreck), within the large list of other List of National Historic Landmarks in New York that is just a stub, potentially holding back advancement of list to Featured List. Stub, but with detailed sources identified and linked. Could anyone help develop this? Am hoping it would get up to high Start or to B-level or so quality. It's a radeau, which seems to be a barge to hold cannons. Thanks for considering. doncram (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

SS Gothenburg
An editor has proposed a deletion of a section of this article, but I can't find any formal notification under AfD that it has been done. So far the only discussion is on the talk page of the article. Are the correct proceedures being followed here? Mjroots (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Sorted Mjroots (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Reseach source
I found this, which might be a starting point for an article ot two. Mjroots (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Help needed at Marine debris
Lots of changes recently made to this article, a second-opinion copyedit would be very helpful. Thanks - 82.18.44.72 (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Amsterdam
I recently saw that the ship Vasa was featured on the main page, and this inspired me to do some work on the article about the Amsterdam. I think there is much information available about this ship that is not already in the article. The pages in the external links section could be used, at least to start with. I proposed an article structure on the talk page and would very much appreciate the help of some users from this project in order to improve the article and perhaps also to receive feedback. Thank you, Ilse@ 11:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  20:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class Assessment request
Please look at Washington Irving (sidewheeler) to see if it is C-Class. Thanks. WilliamKF (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 1822 articles are assigned to this project, of which 295, or 16.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review of Protection of Military Remains Act 1986
Peer Review of Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 opened at MilHist, please comment Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

HMS Panther missing from lists?
I found several references to an HMS Panther that either "ran aground" or "sunk" in a place named after it as "Panther Point" in the Trincomali Channel, between the northern ends of Saltspring Island and Galiano Island in Wallace Island Provincial Marine Park in British Columbia, Canada, but I couldn't find any reference to such a shipwreck in your list. Can you help me find data about this ship (its history etc.) before it reached its sad end? By the way, an "HMS PANTHER" befitting this wreck is not present in the Wikipedia list of British naval ships - can you help solve the mystery(?) of this vessel?Bergeronz (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The HMS Panther was a 58 meter (194 foot), three masted coal barque that got caught in a fierce gale in Trincomali Channel. The Panther's external planking, clad in copper, was 6 inches thick. The planking was fastened to enormous ribs, more than 12 inches square, set only 10 inches apart. The hold was lined with more planking (called a ceiling) 2 or 3 inches thick. In 1874, loaded with 1750 tons of coal from Nanaimo, and headed for San Francisco, Panther was wrecked in a fight with a fierce winter Novemberstorm that threatened both tug and tow. With near zero visibility and blinding snow, the Goliah was forced to cut the Panther free in order to save herself, once the storm subsided the tow steamship Goliah searched for Panther in the daylight. Finding nothing, Goliah's captain reported the loss of ship and crew. Meanwhile, the crew of the Panther had fought all night in freezing rain and snow to save the ship, but it was blown away from Saltspring Island and across Trincomali Channel, where it wrecked off Wallace Island. All hands from the Panther were saved, but coincidentally reported the loss of the tow tug Goliah in the night's storm... The wreck is now named on marine charts as Panther Point. She sunk will a full load of coal, and lies about 5 fathom deep. The masts and rigging were removed soon after her sinking.

As a diver this intrigued me. A few minutes googling yielded the following report. The Panther is a well known wreck in British Columbia in the dive community. Jetlife2 (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Report of diving on the Panther
 * The ship in question, while being named Panther, is not an HMS Panther. She was a civilian merchant, and not a commissioned Royal Navy warship. Sources that refer to her with an HMS prefix are in error. Benea (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Shipwreck
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

HMAS Sydney (1934)
The National Archives of Australia has (in the last few days) declassified and released a large number of documents relating to the sinking of the Sydney (see the talk page). Although already rated GA, this new information should be thoroughly digested and included. We should work towards making this the FA for 22 November 2009, the 75th anniversary of her launch. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Maritime Disaster article
I think that this article supplements the project quite well. It presents a halfway house between the detailed shipwrecks lists and the whole article about the ship itself. Some of the details may be duplicated, but this is not a problem, as the same material is often presented in different viewpoints/perspectives in an encyclopedia. Wallie (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

SS Princess Sophia
I've reassessed the article from start to B class for WPShips, and reassessed class from Stub to B for other wikiprojects in line with that assessment. The article needs assessing for importance for WP:Shipwrecks. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Julius von Röhr
"Von Röhr's 1793 mission ended abruptly when the ship on which he was travelling to Africa from New York disappeared somewhere in the Atlantic". Can anyone put a name to this ship? ciao Rotational (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not after a quick search, but interestingly Benjamin Smith Barton in his Collections for an Essay Towards a Materia Medica of the United-States, reports that Röhr made it to Africa, but died of a fever a few days after his arrival. Benea (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I wonder who started the "ship lost at sea" rumour? Rotational (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Shipwreck template
I've been working on a template for the List of maritime disasters article. It's still in the "kicking it around" stage but I'd like to get some input for possible improvements. This link User:Shinerunner/Sandbox2 will show you what I've got so far. On a long list the header can be repeated in the list. Also, the header, line color between entries and the background colors for the entries or summary lines can be changed. Shinerunner (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I finished the template and it's at Template:Shipwreck list if anyone wishes to take a look.Shinerunner (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Google Under the Sea
Yesterday, Google announced a new version of Google Earth, which includes Ocean data, including many shipwrecks. - Canglesea (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Two proposed category renames
There is an active proposal to rename the categories World War I Mediterranean shipwrecks and World War II Mediterranean shipwrecks. All interested editors are welcome to comment at this proposal's entry at the categories for discussion page. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Quedagh Merchant
Just an FYI, I have put up this ship for peer review. Any help from this WikiProject would be graciously accepted. This is not my area of expertise, but I do want to raise this to GA status. Here is the direct link: Peer review/Quedagh Merchant/archive1

Featured Article Review for SS Andrea Doria
nominated SS Andrea Doria for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -MBK004 02:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:40, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Mary Celeste in desperate need of citations
I know there must be a a ton of citations around for this subject. Unfortunately, few of them happen to appear in this article. I've posted a message in talk that large-scale trimming is coming without some citation work. Folk here might be up for just such a task. The article needs a lot of help. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  07:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Need a few reviews for a few projects!
I cleaned up the World Discoverer page alittle and it classifies as a shipwreck but no one has given it a review. It is a mid-importantance on the Ships group and also has its spot on Google Earth where the shipwreck lies. The page has recieved over 2,100 hits since the pages creeation in June 2009. Also, I was hoping for an assessment on Lady Elizabeth (1879) which was built just after the sinking of her parent ship Lady Elizabeth (1869) which was assessed and I am currently working on it. Also any advice on this pages to classify them as a higher importance then low would be great. Thanks Lukeduk1980 (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Need reassessment on Lady Elizabeth (1869) & Lady Elizabeth (1879). I have cleaned up alot of the grammar errors and added material. I am hoping we can classify this at a high rating then what it is at. 66.41.160.240 (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well guys, It's been three months now and I am still awaiting assessment on the Lady Elizabeth (1869) & Lady Elizabeth (1879) articles. Someone posted the the Wikiprojects Shipwrecks on these articles but never assessed them. I am hoping this can be done by someone soon. I understand the pressure some of you might be under to assess all of these articles; but I would just like a moment of your time in a quick assessment of these articles and a grading for them as well. I would appreciate it. Thank you and Merry Christmas. Lukeduk1980 (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. I looked over the articles and added assessments. I'll leave a message on your talk page as well. Shine runner   (talk)   13:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

st chamond - correct info
sunk on 29 april 1918 not sunk in 1917!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.73 (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

HMS Traveller
My uncle William Taylor served on this ship and went down in 1942. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.192.162 (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Project merge proposal.
I've been thinking about this for a few months now. Since it is highly likely that any article tagged for this project will also have a project tag for wp:ships would it make enough sense to merge the projects? Perhaps the shipwreck project could work as a special task force for the ships project? I'm not sure of all the details that might be involved in merging the projects but I at least thought the better way was to propose the merge here first. --Brad (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that a project merge would be a good idea. As stated above there is a redundancy in the two projects goals. Shine runner  (talk)   00:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please elaborate - maritime disaster/ aka shipwrecks - are an important part of archeaology and understanding maritime history - I cannot see how the current mode of 'ships' is anything to do with that SatuSuro 01:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I object - 'Ships' is an ill named project, and should not have as its scope that which is in the shipwreck scope - I see no point in merging - (I should point out that I started the Maritime History of Australia project) - and see no need in merging - on the basis that some are sunk and and some are still moving - there is a difference :) SatuSuro 02:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think these should be separate projects. I am only interested in sunken ships.  Those still afloat are boring. Jehochman Brrr 03:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Brad, I can see why you would think we should merge them; they are highly similar. Though I must agree with the previous two comments: they have differences. Though ships play a large role in modern technology, transport, and history, shipwrecks are a different matter altogether. True, there should not be a group for every single related thing. "Shipwrecks" is more about the historical shortcomings of ships, and perhaps the more mysterious side of ships. "Ships" is about ships in general; their workings, history, crew, and such. - Abluescarab (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? "Ships" is about every aspect of ships, similar to how WP:MILHIST is about every aspect of military history. "Ships" and "Shipwrecks" completely overlap, as the latter's scope is entirely within the realm of "Ships". — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  00:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ther are two ways of looking at that - milhist actually needs cordinators and almost military like attitude to project managemtn due to the sheer size - that is not a desirable state when you see how history cannot manage itself for instance - also ship as a term and the scope is nothing like the real world - real world stuff actually separates the subject into much more managable chunks with components parts of 'maritime history, 'maritime law', etc etc - ships is too simplistic a level of label to be of any benefit to a real encyclopedia project SatuSuro 00:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Last August or thereabouts I noticed that this project seemed abandoned so I began to watch it. Since the above message was left here over 3 months ago without comment I still question how much effort is being put into the project. It doesn't look like a whole lot. So I'm puzzled that suddenly there are those who think it should not be merged but haven't bothered to notice this topic before I went out and left messages on the talk pages of all listed members of the project. --Brad (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I also don't understand why this can't be a task force. The new task force would still hold the same scope, but it would bring ships and shipwrecks&mdash;two very obviously connected topics&mdash;together. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  20:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Many projects in wikipedia always appear abandoned - that is not a valid 'taskforce' or merge proposal - the waves of edits and articles in Australian maritime history project is a good example - I personally think Ships is a badly named and poorly thought out scope - and I would prefer that the projects remain separate - simply that larger projects usually become even more of a problem - History for example cannot even know what one part is doing its reach is so big in wikipedia - but it cannot even have something like assessment or project management in hand. Taskforces in Military history - a great idea - but you will find some get started and never go anywhere - I would suggest give this idea a break for another 3 months - and less watching for signs of life - just watch ships as well - does the project have enough people to do simple project tasks - are there actually new articles - is there discussion at the talk page that even addresses the scope - then also look at the issue of what happens in quiet projects - do they get swallow-up messages on their project talk pages?  If you can then answer those easily - well maybe another discusion later about that SatuSuro 00:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the relationship between Ships and Shipwrecks - there are categories clearly with shipwreck in the title and less informed editors have tagged the ship project - nah - little sign of understanding the differentiation will not help either project in the long run SatuSuro 05:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What differentiation is there? By definition, a shipwreck falls under the scope of this project and wp:ships. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case the scope of WP Ships is in need of narrowing and being clearer - sunken ships and maritime history related to shipwrecks is usually out there in the real world - quite separate - sunk and floating are two quite different states - if 'ships' here in its scope including shipwrecks - then rather than merging, the ships project scope needs narrowing so that this project can get on with the job SatuSuro 04:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it really doesn't. Military history does just fine covering both historical and modern war; why can't Ships cover scrapped, wrecked, and floating ships just as well, especially considering that the project has many participating members? — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  04:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Break
SatuSuro does have a point in that there are several maritime related projects throughout WP. Off the top of my head there is: I'm starting to see where the issue becomes one of having a project that might cover all of the topics as task forces under one project though not necessarily all of them. The Shipwrecks --> Ships could be only one phase of a larger regrouping of projects. My original point was to take an inactive project and fold it into one that is more active than the average WP project is. Recently there was a merge of WP Ice Cream into WP Food and drink which made perfect sense. Overall I feel there are far too many projects that are started and soon become abandoned. WP StephenKing was started last August and is already tagged as inactive for example. --Brad (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maritime Trades
 * Shipwrecks
 * Piracy
 * Sailing
 * Ports
 * Watersports
 * Knots
 * Ships
 * Irish Maritime
 * Australian Maritime

Reply
Tasksforces tend to die quicker than projects. I see no reason why ships should take over shipwrecks - no sound reason has been given above which shows understanding of the importance of organising articles into project/subject areas as a way of creating adequate assessment 'fields' within wikipedia.

I see no reason why someone should tag shipwreck categories with WP Ship tags only and ignore WP Shipwreck - if a proper re-tagging was done of all shipwreck articles and categories - and then a proper comparison of the range of WP Ships against WP Shipwrecks would clearly illustrate the point why ships does not need to grow bigger - bigger projects like history are unmanagable due to size - no one has done any project maintenance in history and it is a monolith with inadequate numbers of eds interested in maintaining or assessing - which is a good argument for shipwrecks to stay as it is, and for a very large number of categories to be correctly tagged shipwreck - and not ships SatuSuro 15:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mary Rose update assistance
I've been working on a major update of the Mary Rose-article for a few months now and I have been tinkering with it at a sub-page of mine that can be found at user:Peter Isotalo/novelties. The reason for my not doing the editing in article space is because I've wanted to submit it as a DYK. There's also the matter of waiting for a possible image donation from the Mary Rose Trust that is in the works. Anticipating that the update will be realized within a few weeks, I'm inviting anyone who's interested in improving the quality of the update (and to share DYK credits) to freely edit the above mentioned draft.

Peter Isotalo 10:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK opportunity
There's a planned press release from at least two Wikimedia chapters (UK and Sweden) for an upcoming image donation from the Mary Rose Trust scheduled for January 3. It's going to be accompanied by a major update of the article on the Mary Rose and the Anthony Roll which are going to be nominated as DYK for the day of the press release. If anyone here is interested in joining in to make that day into a naval/Tudor period/shipwreck theme day for DYK, check out Wikipedia talk:Did you know.

Peter Isotalo 10:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Mary Rose peer review
Mary Rose is up for peer review. Comments and suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated.

Peter Isotalo 21:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Tags
A large number of shipwreck categories were some time ago blanket tagged with 'ships' project templates - even though the WikiProject Shipwrecks existed at the time of tagging - to correct the issue I am changing the ships to shipwrecks - and when finished (some time to go that is for sure) - there will be a better sense of what is 'ships' and what is 'shipwreck' territory - at the moment it is not possible to have an adequate perspective - as hundreds of categories with the phrase/word 'shipwreck' were allocated ship project templates. SatuSuro 05:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Parallel tagging is a resolution for the issue - and does not seem to be a problem with the ships project SatuSuro 04:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Verifying tagging issue http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Shipwrecks&dir=prev&action=history - commenced in 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk%3AShipwrecks_by_time_period&action=history - a large number of categories that specifically relate to shipwrecks were tagged for the ships project in 2008 - it is now 2010 - and time for shipwrecks project to have its specific categories and articles 'reclaimed' SatuSuro 01:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Parallel tagging appears to be the way to way to resolve the issue.


 * I have restored the SHIPS tags to the category talk pages, as shipwrecks are, by definition, ships, and therefore within the scope of WP:SHIPS. There is of course, a big degree of overlap between the two projects; that the categories are covered by both projects is to me a non-issue. Please do not continue to remove them. Parsecboy (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Reverted self - I beg to disagree on scope and overlap - but if parallel tagging keeps ship editors happy - fine with that SatuSuro 04:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the categories are essentially filled only with articles about individual ships (i.e., RMS Titanic or Vasa (ship)) that sank. Since the categories are populated almost exclusively by ship articles, it seems logical to me that it should be within the scope of WP:Ships. But regardless, does it really matter whose tags are on the talk page? It's not like there's some pissing match between our projects over who has more articles within scope. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah well with that attitude it is best left be, leave it that and after this no further comment; as I have a very different way of thinking about projects and their management than the casual dismissals you find so easy - assessments, and good management of projects actually take the issues a little more formally than that.  However with the comments at the ships project and here - it seems pointless to outline the issues of project overlap - adjusting of scope and negotiable adaptations of assessment and issues of management - as it seems the general issue is to argue for project overlap as 'logical' and not actually consider other ways of thinking about things.  I honestly couldnt be bothered wasting time negotiation as to modifying things as there seems a fairly adverserial attitude at ships that this project even exists - I would rather be fixing the tags.  SatuSuro 14:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Mary Rose at FAC
I've nominated Mary Rose for FAC. The nomination can be found at Featured article candidates/Mary Rose/archive1. You are most welcome to contribute to the review of the article.

Peter Isotalo 23:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ironbottom Sound - article inconsistency
The Ironbottom Sound article has an included map, titled "Map of the Location of Shipwrecks in the Ironbottom Sound." The article also includes a list of sunken ships in Ironbottom Sound. The map shows the location of a wreck titled "USS Minneapolis" (shown on the map up near Tulagi), but this vessel does not appear on the list of wrecks within the article. I think the map reference must be to USS Minneapolis (CA-36), and must therefore, I think, be incorrect, since I'm fairly sure that vessel survived the war. Can some one shed further light on this? Should some sort of explanation be added to the article?Kenives99 (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: As it turns out, that wreck map on IBS page is simply full of inaccuracies as to the position and/or the names of certain shipwrecks. It does the page no favors having it there.

However re the Minneapolis, the bow of the ship was cut off in Tulagi Harbor (after the ship was torpedoed) and that is what is there, not the ship itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.85.102 (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

MS Jan Heweliusz
Edited the info-box, but appearently not quite competent enough for such tasks. Didn't think it was too bad so I left it at that, but would appreciate if somebody either got the formatting right or helped me doing it myself. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Shipwrecks to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at WikiProject Shipwrecks/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 02:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding lat/long fields to ship infobox
A discussion has been started proposing the addition of lat/long fields to the ship infobox. Please feel free to add your comments and opinions at Template talk:Infobox ship begin/doc. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

International Journal of Nautical Archaeology
Does anyone have access to the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology? There are several articles that would be useful to improve La Belle (ship), but I'm not willing to pay $30 each for them. I'm interested in the following: Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hall, Rebecca A., Andrew W. Hall and J. Barto Arnold III 1997 Presenting Archaeology on the Web: The La Salle Shipwreck Project. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 26(3):247-251.
 * Arnold, J. Barto III 1996 Magnetometer Survey of La Salle's Ship the Belle. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 25(3 & 4):243-249.
 * User:Woody very nicely agreed to get these for me :) Karanacs (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

New entry on 1988 oil spill / shipwreck
Please take a look at Odyssey (tanker), I'm sure it can be improved! Thanks. --Padraic 21:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Want to write more shipwreck articles?
The Bureau d'Enquêtes sur les Événements de Mer has written many investigative reports about shipping disasters in French waters. I listed all of their reports at Talk:Bureau d'Enquêtes sur les Événements de Mer - Many incidents which may be notable according to Wikipedia rules do not have articles on the English Wikipedia (one incident has an article on the French Wikipedia, but none on the English) - Some reports are in English and French, but most are only in French. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

MV Fairwind
I created an article on MV Fairwind, limited to the very little information I have on it. The wreck was recently found and reported by the Australian Broadcasting Commission's 7:30 Report. Any critical review, addition or improvement is welcome! Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Lists of shipwrecks
I've opened a discussion at WT:SHIPS about standardizing the format of the various lists of shipwrecks. Members of this WP are welcome to contribute. Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have details of the ship launches for the first two HMS Penzance in 1665 and 1747. Instead of starting new pages for each year would it be better to have the following pages?
 * List of ship launches in the 17th century
 * List of ship launches in the 18th century
 * Happy to start new individual year pages if that is ok but initially a page for each century may make better reading. Jowaninpensans (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Shipwreck articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Shipwreck articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

King Philip shipwreck
Ahoy there Project Shipwreck members, User:Mbz1 and I am working on this shipwreck article, which is to be submitted as a possible DYK soon. We are not expert on shipwrecks, so please would anyone here who has a chance, look it over to see what they think, and to possibly improve it (or to suggest improvements)? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

MV Hong Wei
Hey guys! The MV Hong Wei just sank. It may help to write an article about the ship... WhisperToMe (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Source: "10 Chinese sailors missing, 14 rescued after cargo ship sinks." CNN. December 4, 2010.

A little help on article titles, please?
I'm undertaking a little project to create (or expand) articles on the ten shipwrecks near Isle Royale listed on the National Register of Historic Places (the ten are listed at National Register of Historic Places listings in Keweenaw County, Michigan). The NRHP lists the ships in ALL CAPS; i.e., ALGOMA, AMERICA, etc. The three ships that have articles currently are listed as Chester A. Congdon (ship), SS Kamloops, and USS Puritan (ID-2222) (the last having seen service in WWI). So what, exactly, is the preferred article title for the rest of the ships? My guess is that I should be adding "SS"; i.e. "SS Algoma" and "SS America", with a year disambiguation as required-- "SS America (1883)" Can someone agree or disagree, please? Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've followed the WikiProject Ships naming with the ship prefix and year. Shine runner   (talk)   23:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oho. OK, that makes sense.  Thanks! Andrew Jameson (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

SS Edmund Fitzgerald article nominated for Good Article
There has been an extensive amount of work done on this article and I just nominated it for GA review. Would the project also consider revisiting it's "B class" rating on the quality scale? Sincerely, North8000 13:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

SS Edmund Fitzgerald article nominated for Featured Article
I nominated the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article for Featured Article at [] Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It made it! Now we're going to try for article of the day for November 10th, the day she sank. North8000 (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wreck HMS Royal Oak (08)
Please note, thanks. --Bonty (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

FAC
Just a heads up, the 1991 Perfect Storm, one of the more significant New England nor'easters, is on FAC right now - Featured article candidates/1991 Perfect Storm/archive1. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Lists of shipwrecks by year
I'm gradually working through backwards through The Times for shipwrecks, and am up to 1947 atm. Many of the WWII articles are in table format, whilst all lists from 1946 onwards are in list format. I intend to convert all lists from table to list format as I come to them. Due to the number of shipwrecks during the war years, I may possibly suggest splitting the lists by month. Will assess that as and when I do the lists. Mjroots (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Support - when someone has the time and stamina for that - they should be wholeheartedly supported! thanks SatuSuro 23:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Question - why are lists better than tables anyway? At the very least, do we need to add the country name and flag in brackets after the name of the ship responsible for a sinking? I've always found the multitude of flags in a single listing annoying. Manxruler (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Lists are better than tables because by using lists with a Toclimit set to 2, it makes for easier editing - especially when the lists get long. The issue of flags being displayed for ships other than the casualty vessel is something I'd be happy to discuss, and wouldn't necessarily oppose the removal of those flags. The flags could possibly be removed and the nationality of the vessel stated in words. For now, I'll continue what appears to be long-standing accepted practice of displaying flags for all vessels mentioned. For the record, I would oppose any attempt to remove all flags from these lists. Mjroots (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. That explains the issue. I too would oppose the removal of all flags for the lists, the casualty vessel definitely needs a flag. For other vessels potentially involved descriptions of nationality should suffice, in my opinion. Manxruler (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The work is progressing nicely, the 1941 and 1942 lists have bee split per month. I've found a couple of sources which will mean that all lists from 1939-45 will be able to split per month. Will work back to 1939 then work forwards with these sources to 1945 before continuing with the pre-war lists. Mjroots (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability criteria for inclusion in lists of shipwrecks
The subject of a threshold of notability for inclusion of an entry in a list of shipwrecks has been raised, and is worthy of discussion. As members of this WP may be aware, I've been working back through The Times adding to the various lists, and have reached 1939. The list of shipwrecks in 1939 has been expanded as far as I am going to expand it before splitting. The first eight months have many entries where a vessel grounded, and was then refloated. Wiktionary defines a shipwreck as "An event where a ship sinks or runs aground", so a grounding is technically a shipwreck. The inclusion of these events has been questioned though, so it is right that we discuss this issue. Should a grounding equate to eligibility for an entry in a list of shipwrecks, or does there need to be a damage threshold? Mjroots (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Other dictionaries definitions (such as "the partial or total destruction of a ship at sea") imply substanstial damage or loss. Personally, I would treat running aground and then coming off again at high tide as below note - unless the ship was out of action for repair for some time after, or the ship was itself already notable with an extant article. I would also think that clipping a rock or reef without stopping and carrying on to port as not a wrecking. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much how I've treating the ship articles I've been working on. For example, the Hurtigruten steamer Dronning Maud ran aground in October 1929, but damage wasn't substantial so I left her out of the List of shipwrecks in 1929. As an example of what I've chosen to include in the lists, when the coast guard ship Fridtjof Nansen ran aground in 1933 she sank, thus qualifying her for the List of shipwrecks in 1933, even though she was later raised. Rendered unseaworthy for a substantial amount of time is what I've been going for. Manxruler (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that a sinking is notable enough for inclusion, even if the vessel is subsequently raised and returned to service. For the purposes of these lists, beaching a vessel to prevent it sinking should also be a notable enough event. Mjroots (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Manxruler (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Location
Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Location has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Event
Template:Infobox Ship Wreck Event has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Brad (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sinking of the RMS Titanic
I've written a new version of Sinking of the RMS Titanic, which I'm intending to nominate for Featured Article status with the aim of getting it into the Main Page in time for the anniversary of the sinking. If you have any comments on the new version, please leave feedback at Talk:Sinking of the RMS Titanic. Prioryman (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Operation Locker
As some members of this WP may already be aware, I've been working on improving the various lists of shipwrecks covering WWII. All years from 1939-44 now have a separate list per month, and as this project progresses, I expect that it will prove necessary to split the 1945 list similarly.

Operation Locker (as in Davey Jones's) seeks to result in comprehensive coverage of all ships lost during the years 1939-45. A side effect may be the expansion of various lists post 1945 too. As you may imagine, it is a big task, but it can be made simpler by splitting it up into small manageable bites and manageable by soliciting the assistance of other wikiprojects, such as WP:SHIPS, WP:MILHIST and WP:JAPAN. Further details will be found on the dedicated subpage. Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding whitespace in TOC
One problem I've noticed whilst working on the various lists of shipwrecks is the large area of blank space when using a conventional TOC. No TOC is not an option. I've been having a think about this, and think I've come up with a solution. I don't think a horizontal TOC would work here either. What I've done is probaly against WP:MOS, but I'm applying WP:IAR to that argument. My solution can be seen at List of shipwrecks in January 1939. I'm not going to implement this over all 1939-44 lists unless there is consensus that this solution a) works, and is b) desirable. Whilst this issue is under discussion, I would ask that it is not reverted to a standard TOC. I'm happy for it to be reverted should that be the consensus after a considered discussion. Mjroots (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I like your calendar widget. Have you considered a tabular layout for the list?  It would sidestep the TOC issue.  Here's an example I'm familiar with.  Cheers.  Haus Talk 14:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Nevermind, missed the discussion above.  Haus Talk 14:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's OK about missing the discussion about the tabular format. It is certainly easier to edit these lists when they are in a prose format. I believe that it is easier to read too, and the number of refs are cut down from five or six per entry to one per entry, as one ref covers all facts, instead of one ref per entry in a table. So, what about the calendar-style TOC? Does it work, does an explanation needed to be added to the lede that the calendar works like a conventional TOC? Mjroots (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * One approach you could take would be to take one of the lists up through the FL process, consider the feedback you get, and apply that to the remaining lists. It hasn't been my experience that each cell of a table requires a redundant citation in FL-class lists.  The level of citations you have seems to be consistent with the requirements for FL-class.  If List of shipwrecks in January 1939 had a more substantial lede, I think it would be appropriate to submit it for a PR.  Cheers.  Haus Talk 15:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * FL class (why is there no GL class?) is possibly something to think about in the future, once Operation Locker is completed. The 1945 list hasn't been split yet, but I envisage doing so at some point. Ledes can be expanded, but that is the sort of thing that can be done when the lists are more complete than they are now. For the moment, getting the lists expanded is my top priority. Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been almost a fortnight, and there has been no dissent. As this discussion was flagged at SHIPS and MILHIST, there has been plenty of opportunity for editors to comment. Therefore, I intend to implement this method of doing the TOC on all monthly shipwrecks lists. Mjroots (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Scope of shipwreck lists
Hi guys. I don't know how active this project is, but in case you're interested, there's been a recent effort to seperate the massive List of shipwrecks into region-specific lists, and now I'm hoping to establish some consensus as to the scope of the lists and the criteria for inclusion. I'd appreciate it if anyone wanted to join the discussion. Thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Shipwrecks by country
Please see the discussion at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 30. This started as a discussion about naming the country-location categories using "of" rather than "in", and opened up the possibility of longer expression such as "of the ... coast". There is now also a suggestion to create categories by the national ownership of the wrecked ship. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, Category:Shipwrecks by time period is now up for deletion. – Fayenatic L ondon (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

External links for shipwrecks
Why my link http://www.oceantreasures.org has been deleted ? Wasn't it's content interesting and in relation with the subject ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batavia08 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The content guideline at External links states that we should not link to "[a]ny site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article," and "[l]inks to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising." The guideline also states that, "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent." -- Donald Albury 23:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the website meets WP:RS, it could be added to the resources page of WP:SHIPS. Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking?
A difference of opinion has arisen re overlinking in the various WWII shipwreck lists. removed many links to Atlantic Ocean from the List of shipwrecks in April 1941. I started re-adding the links, but reverted myself on receiving a reply from him and suggested the issue be raised at WP level. CC agreed this would be a good idea.

With long lists, my opinion is that there is little use in only linking on the first occurrence of the term. I agree that the link every occurrence of the term is not a good thing, and have tried to find a compromise. With Oceans, seas and rivers, I have taken the view that there should be a link on the first occurrence of the term in each subsection of the list. A further occurrence in the same section is not linked. This is a reasonable compromise IMHO. CC, quoting WP:OVERLINK, appears the favour the complete removal of links to the Atlantic Ocean (and presumably other major oceans). There is a qualifier in WP:OVERLINK that says that the link may be made if the target is particularly relevant to the topic in question. I believe that oceans and seas are relevant to the subject of ships and shipwrecks. Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the key question is whether a reader is likely to find such links useful. Even though the ocean name is of course a fact relevant to a shipwreck, it's hard to imaging anyone clicking on such a link - and in particular, someone with an interest in shipwrecks isn't likely to be ignorant of the basic facts about the world's major oceans. For lesser-known seas and rivers, I agree with Mjroots' compromise approach of linking only the first occurrence. (To preempt any questions, I'll state here that I would entirely unlink Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic, Antarctic oceans, plus Mediterranean and Caribbean seas. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Complete removal would be against WP:MOSLINK. At a bare minimum, there should be one link per list. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to see you are both talking to each other. You are both to be commended for that!!

Increasingly I have noticed editors pre-occupied with either what a reader might do - that is second guesssing the user - regardless of precedents in practice from policies or guideline. Big problem with lists (and we find it in the Indonesian project) is that flagcruft and overlinking is so rife in some areas the time to cleanup is close to impossible without a concerted effort. So where does a third party view the above discussion? I think links to oceans is worth leaving in - and if there is some reduction due to overlink - I would suggest leaving the obvious in - I have a distinct impression (hunch not provable) that a considerable amount of queries/hits may well occur where background knowledge on shipwrecks/context must not be assumed - SatuSuro 10:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of work on the lists of shipwrecks by location, and my philosophy there is to link every occurence of the term, on the basis that lists are generally skimmed rather than read from top to bottom. I don't think WP:OVERLINK was intended to apply to lists. As to whether major oceans should be linked at all, I'm with Chris, I don't think it's necessary. Those few people who see the words "Atlantic Ocean" and instantly want to know more about it can just as easily use the search bar. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You say, "Increasingly I have noticed editors pre-occupied with either what a reader might do - that is second guesssing the user." But aren't you second-guessing the reader by cluttering with maximum numbers of repeat-links? Could you point to consensus for such an approach to linking in the first place? Tony   (talk)  13:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony1 - no I cannot refer to anything to do with linking - not specifically related to this project - but I am not suggesting for a moment that I would encourage cluttering with maximum numbers of repeat-links either - if you see - both Mjroots and CC are tring to find a compromise - and as the shipwrecks project can be deadly quiet I threw my few cents in, I have no problems which way it goes in the end (if you also see that I acknowledge that in the Indonesian project we have major problems with overlinking...) SatuSuro 13:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The general consensus is that in a normal article or a list with non-sortable tables, the first occurance of a term should be linked, and to link further is overlinking. However, in a list with sortable tables, it's to link every occurance, as you cannot know which line will be at the top once the user sorts the table. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Repeated links are okay, practical, when they are far apart on the page. Sometimes important links should be repeated also. Bear in mind, there is no 'one size suits all' approach to WP edits. General comment: Engaging other editors over something like this is counter productive. I have lost count of the people who come to WP to do writing only to leave in frustration because they are pecked at by users who obsess on fuzzy opinionated issues. Unless someone was trying to link to Bart Simpson on the page, or linked to something more than twice, this really shouldn't be an issue IMO, certainly not something that involves lengthy debate. Linking is one of the most disputed topics and often over marginal and opinionated issues. A good rule of thumb would be: Link more than once if it's an important/significant link and/or when they are far apart. 'See also' is usually a good place to repeat an important or significant link. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, the difference of opinion here isn't about multiple links within a table. I'm quite happy with Mjroots' compromise position of linking only the first occurrence (not ideal, as has been pointed out, in a sortable table, but an acceptable approach to an essentially insoluble problem). What we're discussing is whether certain common terms such as Atlantic Ocean need be linked at all in these articles, as such links seem to me to be covered by WP:OVERLINK: major geographic features so widely known that the links offer no benefit to the reader, just clutter and distraction from the truly useful links. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Linking common knowledge items like the 'Atlantic Ocean' has always been an issue with me as links go, esp in the lede. WP should have a disclaimer of sorts: WP editors write with the assumption that the average reader has completed the third grade. Yes, the Atlantic Ocean is certainly significant, many of the ships we write about floated in this mass, but alas, we don't need to swim in it to appreciate this idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just came across this discussion by chance, but I feel I ought to mention that most UK readers will not have any idea what you mean by "the third grade" - which just goes to show how dangerous assumptions can be! :-) Deb (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. One of my problems with these megatopic links is that they're so vague. The Atlantic Ocean covers 20% of the Earth's surface, stretching from Spitzbergen in the Arctic down almost to the Antarctic, and from the east coast of South Africa across and up to the Gulf of Mexico. If the shipwreck is the slopes of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, link to that article, please. If it's off the coast of the Falkland Islands, please find a more specific link. Good wikilinking is a skill, a service we should be offering to readers, just like good prose. It's easy to slap in megatopic links, but requires a little clicking research to do better. Perhaps this is why we don't do so well in the quality stakes in this respect. Tony   (talk)  04:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC) PS Oh, and just how "it covers approximately 20% of the Earth's surface and about 26% of its water surface area", as the mega-article announces in the lead, when the oceans cover about 67% of the planet, is beyond me.  Tony   (talk)  04:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * User:SatuSuro, User:Tony1, User:Mjroots, et alia: I came across this ancient discussion after adding a wreck to List of shipwrecks in 1926, where I was blown away by the bold print, the flag icons, and the overlinking of countries--and I think by stating it that way I have probably indicated sufficiently where I stand. (In brief: bold is redundant, flags need to go per MOS:FLAG and per WP:holy shit that's a busy and distracting page, and likewise with the links for countries, per the same as well as OVERLINK.) Thanks, and keep on wrecking in the free world, Drmies (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Taking the 1926 list, apart from the links generated by Flag, I see no overlinking of countries. For example, Danzig was an independent city in 1926. Newfoundland was separate from Canada at the time. WP:MOSFLAG specifically states "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." This has been the accepted practice even before I began editing Wikipedia. The use of bold to identify a casualty from other vessels makes it clear which is the main subject of that particular entry. In the case of a collision where both vessels are lost, both are bolded, rather than duplicating information with two separate entries. Mjroots (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the explanation: the bold makes perfect sense now, but I have to say, those pages are so distraction that I didn't see it. Now, overlinking caused by the flag template is easily fixed: by not using the flag templates. I still don't see why a flag is necessary in such lists in the first place, no matter how old the practice is. So the Åland Islands have a flag--what do a few pixels of color add that the words "Åland Islands" don't sufficiently cover? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , there may be a case for some unlinking of countries, where the country linked to is the current one and is a major country. This is done by the use of flagu rather than flag. Where a country linked to is a historic one, then the link is useful and should be kept. Mjroots (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My issue is with the flags, primarily. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus is against you there I'm afraid. Is there no information that would be lost without the flags? Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mjroots is an excellent spokeperson over this issue... I would defer to his recent experience... my shipwreck work recently is sadly lagging satusuro 09:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Scope: Or, what's considered a shipwreck?
So, what's considered a shipwreck? Is a purposeful scuttling considered a shipwreck? Yes, it's a wreck that can be dived... but it's not quite the same as a ship that went down (or ship that was lost, and has been found).  See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Shipwrecks ~ender 2012-07-14 11:32:AM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.46.247 (talk)


 * Yes, a scuttling counts as a wreck. A beaching to prevent sinking is also counted. If a ship is left crewless for whatever reason, that can also count as a wreck, regardless of whether or not a ship survives. collision resulting in damage, loss of masts/rigging etc generally do not equate to a shipwreck if the ship survives. Mjroots (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * excellent explanation maybe this explanation needs to be placed somewhere in the main page of the project to clarify the issue satusuro 23:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ellen Southard
This article is up for review at FAC - would appreciate any comments or feedback. Thanks in advance. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 10:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 2013 - help please.
Hi,

I am not part of this project, but do sometimes edit the article List of shipwrecks in 2013, as I often look at maratime news websites which report such news, and then if I can, I will add to it.

I noticed that a recent incident regarding the pilot tower in Genoa, of which the ship Jolly Nero crashed into and demolished, has been added to this article.

I personally think that the incident should not be included in this article as it did not involve a ship being grounded, foundered or sunk (as far as I know).

As I am an inexperienced Wikipedia editor, I though I would ask your advice before taking any editorial action.

Thanks

MrDerails (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I added the incident to List of shipwrecks in 2013. I would argue that the incident qualifies as a grounding as it impacted the "waterway side". —Diiscool (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)