Talk:Lists of shipwrecks

message: Should this include ships intentionally sunk as artificial reefs or not?
--Displaced Raleighite 02:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, good question - I would say not. There's not much "story" to tell for deliberate sinkings; little to explain about how it happened, what the remains on the bottom can tell us, and so on. Artificial reefs do have a significant present-day interest for divers though; how about a list of artificial reefs that includes ship and non-ship creations, with the expectation that articles describe what's there, which critters are to be seen (a nice connection to our species articles), etc. Stan 05:31, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Artificial reefs

message: I'm curious why this list is limited to those whose wrecks have been located.  Having just added a couple before I noticed that limitation, I am wondering why it is there - or, more accurately, I should say there's a need for a page that lists ship disasters by location (other than the category page), whether or not they were found.  Is there such a page?  If not, can this page be separated out, so that located and unlocated ships are both listed, but separately?  It's seems a dishonor to those who've lost their lives at sea not to include their wrecks if they haven't (yet) been located.  Thanks, Bruxism 00:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The theory is that this is a list of existing physical objects/locations that one could actually visit today - using the noun "shipwreck" to refer to the remains rather than the event. There is certainly room for a separate list of disasters at sea; I would think twice before embarking on it, because it will likely get very very long (thousands of entries), and it doesn't start to get useful until it's comprehensive (no "list of disasters that I could think of off the top of my head" please :-) ). Stan 12:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I have started another List of missing ships which would include missing wrecks for now. I have moved some of the missing wrecks identifiable in this list to over there. --Kvasir (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why located wrecks only?

message: There are a lot of red-links on this page.  The sheer numbers of wrecks in the world mean that we can't and shouldn't have an article per wreck.  So should we have notability criteria for shipwrecks?  My proposal would be that the following deserve own article:
* Historically notable ships or ships whose voyages were notable even if scuttled/salvaged rather than wrecked or even if exact location not known/confirmed (e.g. Cook's Endeavour).   If more than say 50 years ago and people have heard of it, that suggests notable.
* Historically notable wreck incidents even if exact location not known/confirmed (Lusitania, Titanic).  Historically notable can include recent events e.g. modern tragedies.
* Archaeologically or historically notable assemblages of wrecks (even if scuttled) e.g. Scapa Flow.  There should be an article for the wrecksite with individual vessels listed or described (possibly as sections) within that arcticle.  Only individual vessels that meet the notability criteria in their own right should have their own article.
* Archaeologically interesting wreck or boat remains or wrecksites (e.g. Mary Rose) Even if on foreshore - like Newport boat?  One archaeologist (or team) doing a survey does not qualify as notable, unless some new archaeology (techniques, first example of a kind etc) or social interaction arise - like Newport boat.
* Well-known dive locations (multiple or individual wrecksites) even if little or no apparent historic/archaeological interest e.g. Scilla.  As with archaeological assemblages consider that the article should be of a group of wrecks in the same area (e.g. wrecksites of Portland) rather than an article per vessel.  A search on google ought to uncover multiple hits if the dive site is well-known.
* Other sites could be considered notable based on special circumstances e.g. if Titanic weren't already notable for the wrecking, her wrecksite might still have been notable for the fact of its investigation using deep submersible technology (possibly an archaeological technique criterion anyway).
Any comments, improvements please?  Viv Hamilton 13:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not my sphere - but this all seems very reasonable to me. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 14:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability criteria for shipwrecks 

message: A second suggestion, once we have dealt with the question of notability, is that we should have categories and sub-categories, rather than list of pages.  That way we could have a sub-category for disasters at sea, wrecks of particular regions etc.  The ability to have multiple sub-category tags gets around the problem of what should be on what list, and hence multiple entries.  Viv Hamilton 13:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-categories for shipwrecks etc 

message: Does the list include ships which run aground and destroyed or otherwise unsalvageable as a result, or only ships lost under the water?  What of wrecks (of either sort) which are subsequently removed?  Should the New Carissa, for example, be listed here? --EngineerScotty 21:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Shipwreck starts off with "A shipwreck is the remains of a ship after it has sunk or been beached as a result of a crisis at sea", so I would include New Carissa.--Commander Keane 10:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grounded ships 

message: Per the Manual of Style on links, an article may be considered overlinked if ... more than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I intend to start unlinking nonexistant articles in this list. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good plan.  Most of these ships are in no way notable and would therefore not merit an article anyway.  Even where an article exists, many of these are stubs and candidate afd as they do not give any reason why the shipwreck is notable.  It would also be useful if you or someone checks that the blue links are correct.  Viv Hamilton 06:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I see that there are 28 Lists of shipwrecks by year, many of which have a single shipwreck listed for the year. These are obvious duplicates, and I will nominate all of them for deletion as soon as I can (I have to leave my computer in just a couple of minutes). -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You'll find there are a few more red links as I have disambiguated the ones pointing to completly the wrong thing!  Viv Hamilton 20:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive red links 

message: Following some of the comments here, I am in the midst of a (sadistically large) cleanup effort on this list. In the interest of a homogenous appearance, I came up with the following conventions:
Red links
*I am retaining links for red linked shipwrecks only if I have reason to believe (via previous notations here, google search, etc) that the ship or the wrecksite is historically, archaeologically, or dive-related-ly notable. If they don't meet this, the info remains but it is no longer redlinked.
*Red linked locations have, in almost all cases, had their link removed, with the info of course retained there.
General phrasing of a list item
*Ship types (barque, sloop) are not interwiki'd, although ship lines (White Line) are.
*Ship countries of origin (German) are not interwiki'd.
*Directions (north, southeast) are not capitalized.
*Self-referential information is not included (a listing in the 'Western Cape' subsection need not mention the Western Cape).
*Once a location (sunk near London) is interwiki'd within a subsection, further references to that location within the subsection are not interwiki'd.
*If a listing links to an existing article, the listing itself only contains a brief description of the shipwreck. Listings that are interwiki'd to an as-yet-nonexistant article may contain a longer description until the article is created.
Essentially, I am aiming for:
shipname a nationality shiptype shipwreckevent at shipwrecklocation on shipwreckdate
which would produce:
Dunedin Star a British cargo vessel ran aground 80 km south of the Kunene River mouth on November 29, 1942.
Anyone have any advice, corrections, or perhaps dark chocolate, to help me in this ridiculous (but hopefully useful) endeavor? Maralia 05:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravo!  Yes I basically agree with what you are doing.  I think perhaps we should consider going further and eventually split it out into a set of List of shipwrecks by location.  The only point in your strategy I would question is not interwiki the ship type.  Against linking is that the list is messy if every other word is a link, but pro linking, is the fact that you often want to find out what that term means.  An info box of ship types (all linked) at the side or bottom of the article, instead of linking the ship type in every entry would be best I think.  There is an info box of sailing vessels on Galleon, but we would need an info box with a wider scope than this to include all the steam ships and motor vessels as well. Viv Hamilton 09:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed in theory to linking the ship type - it was just unreadable. I think splitting the list by location, and moving to tables, are the real solutions. List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks is the format I'd like to see, although I would use sortable tables. Maralia 16:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Additionally, the list ought to cite references.  If the shipwreck is notably and is linked to its own article, the link to the article can stand as the reference, but if it doesn't link, it ought to have a reference (preferably in-line web, to keep the information together).  The alternative is where there a good reference can be cited for shipwrecks of a region, that can act as the reference for a whole section. Viv Hamilton 09:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on principle. In practice, I think removing redlinks and eventually moving to tables would help organize these as well. Maralia 16:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks is a good model and a table format would be a real improvement - a ship type info box as the footer would be quite elegant - it could then be consistent across each of the regional pages. I'd offer to produce it but have no experience of making info boxesViv Hamilton 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Fancy! Looks like just the thing. The wikicode looks pretty terrifying, though - you are brave! :) Maralia 20:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the template.  Do feel free to edit the :Template:Ship types to add anything I've missed or improve the categories Viv Hamilton 18:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List cleanup

message: This list is certainly looking better!  Once Maralia has finished cleaning up red links and extraneous text, what is the next stage?  Personally I would like to see the list broken into list of shipwrecks by region/country with each one written as a proper list article - and eventually - suitable references for everything.  Is it worth considering standard headings for each list article?  I can think of:
* Opening paragraph would have some standard text e.g. this is a list of shipwrecks whose remains have been located - plus whatever is significant about wrecks in that region - aim to provide generic references for wrecks of the region (e.g. databases, catalogues, books covering local wrecks)
* Wreck distribution - time period, location e.g. if there is a concentration because of a battle or trade routes or hazardous sea areas
* Wreck law - e.g. if protected
* Wreck diving and tourism e.g. if there is a thriving diving or wreck museum tourist industry
* List of shipwrecks (preferably tabulated)
* References
Obviously it would be best if most of the above paragraphs linked out to main articles.  Any improvements on the above or any thoughts on improving the introductory sentence?  I would be willing to have a go at United Kingdom in this format, or whatever is agreed Viv Hamilton 10:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good approach. I am posting about some related issues on the project page - appreciate your input. Maralia 15:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please move any remaining unlocated shipwrecks to List of missing ships and mark them with "(missing wreck)". Those under that category will be split into its own list when it becomes large enough. I have moved most if not all missing wrecks identifiable in this list already. According to the introduction this list covers wrecks that HAVE BEEN located. --Kvasir (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup stage 2 

message: I have not put MS Explorer in this list because the wreck has not been found yet. But it might be found in the future. If it is found, which category should we put it under? 68.36.214.143 (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wreck need not have been relocated after sinking in order to be listed as a shipwreck. This list is in pretty bad shape at the moment; the shipwreck categories are much more comprehensive and will be used to rework this list. From the coordinates given, it looks like it should be listed here under Antarctica, and categorized in :Category:Shipwrecks in the Southern Ocean. Maralia (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[MS Explorer]] - not in list yet, but may well be in future 

message: Why isn't there a list in chronological order somewhere? There is something like this in de: and fr: - Simplicius (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is only possible if the list is in table form that have customisable listing preference. --Kvasir (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Only if the list is converted to sortable tables. The list is long as it is, a separate list will make the article twice as long.  --Kvasir (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology?

message: It seems very odd that the article is organized according to continents, countries or even by (Canada and Australia) provinces or (U.S.A.) states (!!), that is, land masses. That's not where ships usually are. The article should instead be organized by water bodies, that is, oceans, seas, rivers, and lakes. Also, the Caribbean, legendary graveyard of sunken Spanish & other European Galleons, is completely missing. --AVM (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The located wrecks tend to be in shallower water which tends to mean that it is territorial waters or at least EEZ of a particular country.  So for the majority, if the wrecks are listed by country, it indicates what legal jurisdiction applies.  Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd article sectioning

message: The Great Lakes section of this article contains about 110 ships with location coordinates.  This appears to be sourced from one of three volumes on Great Lakes shipwrecks written by diver/photographers Georgann and Mike Wachter, based on note just added to the section by new User:eriewrecks.  Here is a copy, copied in full into here because such notes do not belong in the article:
Here's the note i drafted to put into the section lead:  There are more than 250 shipwreck locations in the Great Lakes.A three volume work by Georgann and Mike Wachter, Erie Wrecks East (2nd Ed.), Erie Wrecks West, and Erie Wrecks & Lights, identifies 110, 103, and 45 wreck locations respectively.
I posted a notice to Talk:Eriewrecks, perhaps eriewrecks will respond further here. doncram (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Lakes shipwrecks 

message: It seems to me that this list is unnecessary. There are lists of shipwrecks by year, and all entries on this list could be incorporated into those lists if they are not already there. This list could be turned into a table that links to the various lists, thus preserving the talk page which has lots of relevant discussion to shipwrecks - seems a shame to lose it, which would happen if the list of shipwrecks was deleted.  Mjroots (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yuk there are 109 articles of list of shipwrecks by year (and that is only, starting at 1860!  Personally I feel that this list should be broken up into a list per region (as the subtitles), which could then have an interesting introduction about the distribution etc of the wrecks in that region, and the referencing would be better as there are plenty of books that tackle wrecks in a particular area.  Also there are already several list articles dealing with particular regions (such as List of shipwrecks of the Isles of Scilly, so we could then end uyp with a better, consistent set of list articles. Viv Hamilton (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this list necessary (in its current form)?

message: There seems to be edit warring going on back and forth with regard to this edit  . To end the edit warring and so there is no constant removing and readding this information, I think a simple solution would be adding the information with a citation needed post near it. The reason for removing it is because it is uncited, so a citation needed post should take care of that. Cheers dude (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, yes, but he was not warned on his talk page so I will let it go. Calenderwatcher, if there is a persistent problem, see if you can ask for help, edit warring won't solve the issue. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: I have reinstated the entries with citations for Dona Marilyn, and Cebu City (and also added citations for Princess of the Stars.  I haven't had any luck with Dumagnete J, howver, it sank pre-internet news, so that is perhaps not that surprising.  In view of the fact that a small amount of googling found RS for the two recent entries in dispute, perhaps we can assume good faith on the third?  However, I can't confirm everything stated for the Dona Marilyn entry and sources conflict on number dead, so I have modified Dona Marilyn:  the original entry is below, in case other editors can find additional sources.Viv Hamilton (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations Found

message: If this is a master list of all shipwrecks, the list is going to be impossibly huge, maybe we can break this down a little better.  Perhaps we can link to spinoff articles that list wrecks by location?  Perhaps we can somehow have an automated list generated by one or more of the shipwreck categories?  Ive been trying to improve this list, but it seems like too big a task and one that is better suited for a computer anyway.  Suggestions? Bonewah (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been working on the sister article List of missing ships. Many entries on that list actually originated from this list here. I have organised my list by last known geographical location of the ship using sortable and collapsable tables. I have eliminated much of the info on the ship itself in the table because readers can go to the ship's own article for more info (if there is a wiki article for it). It Looks like List of shipwrecks is the prime candidate to use this system. If the ship doesn't have its article I wonder if it's notable enough to be included on the list in the first place. --Kvasir (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SHIPS convention is that all ships are inherently notable. Just because a ship doesn't have an article doesn't mean that it is non-notable. Redlinks encourage article creation. Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Be that as it may, it doesn't change the fact that this article is way too big. I just added a ship to the list, and it took a whole minute for the page to save the edit and return to the article. We do need a way to break down this article into smaller ones. For example, this page could be rendered into a list of locations (continents, bodies of water, countries, etc.) and a list of causes (grounding, foundering, battle damages if that is acceptable, etc.). Each cause and location could be its own list-article. - Lord Vargonius (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the list is too long, but how do we divide it up without simply duplicating the category system? We have categories under :Category:Shipwrecks by location, :Category:Shipwrecks by time period, and :Category:Shipwrecks by type. Dividing up by location may be the easiest, as time period and type are not always clear for wrecks of unidentified ships. Even by location, there are ambiguities (how far off shore should a wreck be before we put it under an ocean/sea rather than a country, for instance). -- Donald Albury 14:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of shipwrecks, huge list, maybe we can organize this better? 

message: ES Godafoss(Iceland section)does not belong on this list as its wreckage has never been found.
It was sunk on Nov.10 1944 by U-300 just outside Garðskagi.
There have benn serveral attempts maked to find the wreck over the last 65years and they have all failed.
So can some one please edit it out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.204.105 (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ES Godafoss. 

message: I think it would be a good idea to use some kind of icon next to the name of the ship to indicate that a photograph of the wreck as it is today underwater is in the indexed article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmadil (talk • contribs) 22:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wreck photograph symbol 

message: Tirpitz, Norway
Oriskney, USS ACC, USA  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.135.40 (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addons 

message: Should the subsections be listed alphabetically or chronologically? Right now it's mixed. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering 

message: Why is Puerto Rico missing from the list?  Not included as Caribbean nor United States even though other US possessions such as Guam are included.
Luisr (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is most likely because no editor has added a wreck in Puerto Rico to this list. If you are aware of one or more shipwreck sites in Puerto Rico, where the site of the wreck is known and there either is an article in Wikipedia about the wreck or a reliable source that can be cited, then you can add them yourself. If you want any help doing that, just ask again here. -- Donald Albury 13:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puerto Rico missing 

message: As was pointed out above, it is odd that wrecks are listed by country (landmass) rather than body of water. This has led to plural listings of the sinking of the MV Wilhelm Gustloff, in Germany, Poland, etc. If somebody can come up with an agreeable principle to decide this matter, these extra mentions could be deleted. I hate to see that many people being drowned multiple time in different countries.  Pete unseth (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many references to one ship 

message: It seems like everyone's in agreement that this list is way too long, and dividing it into seperate articles for each continent is the best way forward. If no-one has any objections, I'm going to kick-start the process by doing some of the grunt-work, creating the new list articles and transferring the information. It might take me a couple of days to get this done (unless anyone wants to help out), and this article might be a bit of a mess until I'm finished; it will ultimately end up as a list of lists, and renamed as appropriate. If there are any objections, I'd appreciate them being raised here before anything gets reverted, simply to avoid confusion. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking good so far. - Denimadept (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting into lists of shipwrecks by continent 

message: Is there a special page for found (and/or raised) shipwrecks? Thanks! 41.58.236.133 (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Findings and raisings