Talk:List of shipwrecks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks: Contents 1 To Do 2 Done 3 Notability criteria for shipwrecks 4 Sub-categories for shipwrecks etc 5 Grounded ships 6 Excessive red links [edit] To Do Shipwrecks Clean up typos Improve Grammer Add any additions if needed Discuss disired additions Cattewater Wreck Needs expansion [edit] Done Shipwrecks Re-wrote the first paragraph Cleaned up Types of Shipwrecks it felt a bit jumbled Cattewater Wreck Started the article

Should this include ships intentionally sunk as artificial reefs or not? --Displaced Raleighite 02:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales wrecks are off the East coast of Malaysia in the South China Sea and not in the Indian Ocean. [David] 7 September 2005

I noticed at the top of the page, it makes a point of saying that this is a list of ships that have sunk, which sounds like it would exclude ships that ran aground and wrecked in that manner. Does this mean that legitimate wrecks like the Peter Iredale, still resting on the northern Oregon Coast a century after wrecking, could not be added to this list since it never actually sank? --Billdorr 03:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Notability criteria for shipwrecks

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)

Not my sphere - but this all seems very reasonable to me. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 14:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-categories for shipwrecks etc

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)

[edit] Grounded ships

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)

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)

[edit] Excessive red links

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)

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)

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)

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)