Talk:Shipwreck

message: I'd like something about the laws covering shipwrecks.
Finders keepers, the captain abandons ship the last,...
--Error 00:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Law

message: At the moment there is a disambiguation tag at the top of this article, pointing to a reality TV show. Is it just me, or is it really annoying to come across stuff like this when trying to do some _serious_ reading? I'm very tempted to delete the disambig tag altogether... Carcharoth 22:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annoying disambiguation tag 

message: In the RMS Titanic no human remains have been found,yes? But plenty of bones have been found in the RMS (or is it HMS) Lusitania and HMS Empress of Ireland, and I heard somewhere, I don't know where, that the two are refered to as boneyards. Let me also say quoting User:Rumiton in the Titanic talk page that age has nothing to do with it. He used an example from when he scuba dived the SS Yongala which sank off the coast of Australia in, I believe,1909. He said he found a thigh and pelvis bones in the bridge. The water there is much more hospitable to bacteria and other organic eating organisms. I don't expect flesh on the bones. But at least shards of bone. Could there be remains in the boiler rooms of the Titanic? It'd make sense if you think about it. Please help me out with this, I have run out of ideas.--Philippe Auguste 23:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key point there is in the bridge.  Exposed human remains will decay from internal bacteria or be consumed by marine life.  Even if the bones remain, bones will dissolve eventually over time.  The more active the conditions, the sooner this will occur.  Hence it is unusual to come across exposed human remains - even so it does happen, (recently reported from the Jutland wrecks from the first world war) perhaps through odd local chemical conditions.  Bodies inside a confined space can be protected, so it is likely that there will be human remains inside a submarine or other closed space.  When the wreck is covered by sediments, human remains can be preserved just as other organic remains are preserved.  However, the human body seems to self-destruct after death, so this generally just means bones but it has been known for flesh to have been discovered when protected by leather boots. There were skeletal remains of over 200 individuals discovered in the Mary Rose.  I don't have much personal knowledge of the Titanic, but it is not protected by sediments and they have not done extensive penetration of it.  You are talking about large spaces inside it, and there are some interesting biochemical reactions going on, capable of destroying the remains of the vessel.  Viv Hamilton 08:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Remains 

message: The unlicensed images of the Andrea Doria and HMS Perseus do not meet criterion 8 of Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. The images are not discussed in the article, and a single photo of a wrecked ship shows us nothing about what deterioration has occurred. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  images under copyright, unlicensed 

message: It seems to me the most of this page is not specify about shipwrecks but "Marine Safety" The sections causes and prevention of shipwreck should be marine Safety then the remaining should stay as shipwreck. Marine safety would include prevention of shipwreck as well as prevention of collusions , grounding etc.  KAM 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a new section, but I propose moving everything in this section to a new page KAM 16:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Support Marine safety as a new page - the causes section should then have a mainarticle link to this Viv Hamilton 20:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marine safety

message: This section is highly POV and also incorrect.  The Protection of Wrecks Act controls access - it does not deny it, and the point of protection is that it enables investigation to appropriate standards by competent people.  The Cattewater wreck was protected at a time pre-dating campaigns for responsible wreck diving - taking hammers and crowbars on dives was pretty common practice at the time.  The Protection of Military Remains Act is another issue altogether of course, since the wishes of survivors are considered paramount, there is no obligation (and little likelihood) of licences being granted even to the most responsible and competent archaeologists unless the MoD or the survivors feel there is a need for investigation. Viv Hamilton 21:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shipwrecks and the law 

message: The article says "Until the twentieth century, the most sophisticated navigational tools and techniques available - dead reckoning using the magnetic compass, marine chronometer and sextant - were rather inaccurate".  I can see two problems with this:
# Inaccurate by what standard?  While they don't position you down to a few meters as GPS does (in the best case) they are adequate for safe navigation on the water, if used correctly.
# The wording looks incorrect -- "dead reckoning using the magnetic compass, marine chronometer and sextant".  Dead reckoning is done by compass, log, and time.  Marine chronometer and sextant are the tools of celestial navigation, not dead reckoning.
Paul Koning 19:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points - I've revised it Viv Hamilton 09:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate navigation 

message: There are a couple of red links in this article and it is not clear if these direct correctly or if the article is likely to be created.  If someone has added these links intending to create the article, please explain here.  Otherwise, if I cannot find a suitable alternative reference, I will remove the linking for Military wrecks, A1 at Lloyds.  Additionally, the Treasure ships article is inconsistent with the reference from this article.  Viv Hamilton 19:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links and article inconsistent with linked content 

message: The paragraph on instability is incorrect.  A ship can be stable with its meta centre above its centre of mass (a submarine can't), provided the centre of buoyancy acts outboard of the centre of gravity as the ship heels over i.e. a broad hull form at the waterline provides righting forces (unless a very severe force acts to turn the ship completely over!) Viv Hamilton 15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instability 

message: In Types of shipwrecks:
:There are also thousands of wrecks that were not lost at sea but have been abandoned or sunk. These are typically smaller vessels such as fishing vessels. These vessels can provide an interesting recreational dive but are usually of little interest to historians
Is this really true? If so, one could at least mention that there are important exceptions, like the Skuldelev ships, amongst them probably the only remainings of a viking longship (se Havhingsten fra Glendalough) and knarr (the ship used by them to travel to America).
130.232.213.59 (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the German pocket battleship Admiral Graf Spee?  Socrates2008 (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the text is clearly saying that it is smaller vessels such as fishing vessels that are usually of little interest to historians. -- Donald Albury 11:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't. It would be clearly saying that if it read These smaller vessels can provide .... But are small vessels uninteresting for historians? Fishing vessels that tell something about the fishing or boat building technics of the time should be very interesting. I think that this has to be worded more carefully to be of any value. What is trivially true is not worth saying and any non-trivial meaning should be expressed explicitly. Can somebody do that or provide some source for the statement? 130.232.213.59 (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've tagged the paragraph with . Let's see if someone can come up with some sources. If we can't source the paragraph, it should come out. -- Donald Albury 22:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Willfully sunk ships uninterresting? 

message: Should there be something about what happens to shipwrecks after they are sunk? I know that they can create havens for marine life but I really can't find much on the subject.--Valtism (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental Impacts 

message: The image :Image:HMS Antelope (F170).png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:HMS Antelope (F170).png

message: I've removed the following text, which didn't fit in the section it had been added (construction)
:rain was also apart of shipwrecks on many occasions
:Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  rm edit 

message: Do Found but Abandoned ships count as shipwrecks for the classification "Shipwrecks in XXX Ocean" eg the Mary Celeste, later the MV Joyita and Kaz II. They obviously count as "Maritime incidents in 19xx" ie by year Hugo999 (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abandoned Ships 

message: All the pics in this article show shipwrecks above the sea, there is not one of a ship on the bottom, this could mislead the casual browser into thinking that shipwreck as a term only applies to wrecks on the surface, could a pic of a sunken image be included somewhere to address this problem??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.153.207 (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you think about it - for a land-based wreck, all one has to do is travel over to it, to snap their own picture from an every-day digital camera.  A picture of a shipwreck at the bottom of the sea, however, involves the work of professional sea-based excursions involving sophisticated technology, and whose images are likely copyrighted.  It really is too bad, I'll admit.  --Nicholas Weiner (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with pics 

message: Does anyone know if there are verifiable models for the process of a ship sinking?  I've been looking around and all I can seem to find is information on why a ship sinks and what happens to the ship after it has sunk.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.106.248 (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The actual process of a sinking ship 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Shipwreck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306183447/http://www.webcastr.com/videos/informational/scurvy-death-and-cannibalism.html to http://www.webcastr.com/videos/informational/scurvy-death-and-cannibalism.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225222905/http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-environmental/mcga-dops_row_receiver_of_wreck/mcga-dops_row_report.htm to http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-environmental/mcga-dops_row_receiver_of_wreck/mcga-dops_row_report.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150816004056/http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/08/12/battle-over-shipwreck-photos-brews-in-n-c.htm to http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/08/12/battle-over-shipwreck-photos-brews-in-n-c.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Shipwreck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150917131032/http://www.wcslaw.com/news/2001/10/05/treasure-salvage-finders-keepers/ to http://www.wcslaw.com/news/2001/10/05/treasure-salvage-finders-keepers/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110128191037/http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-environmental/mcga-dops_row_receiver_of_wreck/mcga-dops_row_penalties.htm to http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-environmental/mcga-dops_row_receiver_of_wreck/mcga-dops_row_penalties.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018170141/http://mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-newsroom/incident/dops_-_hq-napoli_15_february_.htm to http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-newsroom/incident/dops_-_hq-napoli_15_february_.htm
*Added  tag to http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D34114%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html
*Added  tag to http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D34114%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)