Talk:List of world's longest ships

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
List	rated as List-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as High-importance on the assessment scale

Length is a pretty bad measurement of how large something is. I think ranking by mass would be more appropriate.

Gross tonnage seems to be the "industry standard", but media often list ships by longest, so it satisfies the curiosity of some. --Dhartung | Talk 03:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Still, shouldn't this article be called "List of the world's longest ships"? It could be complemented by a "List of the world's largest ships" where we measure by gross tonnage and link to the longest ships for people who want to see it that way. TomTheHand 14:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Incomplete 2 Largest Ship? 3 Aircraft carriers 4 Listing in sections 5 Tonnage vs. Displacement 6 Deadweight vs. Displacement 7 List markup

[edit] Incomplete

I removed this self-reference, which belongs here on Talk:

It appears to be erroneous, as there are a number of freighters on the Great Lakes that are 1,000' long; length is an imperfect measure of a ship's size, regardless.

So obviously there are ships out there that should be here, let's find 'em! --Dhartung | Talk 03:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Largest Ship?

Ok should it be based on gross tonnage rather than length?

As this page measures largeness only by length it should be relabeled as sugested above. To measure largeness by gross tonnage may make sense for commercial vessels, but displacement is how naval vessels are measured. And it is not easy to find displacement figures for passenger ships, and gross tonnage figures for warships may be virtually impossible to come by (at least enough of them sufficient to compile a meaningful comparative list). Kablammo 19:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft carriers

There may be some confusion among the aircraft carriers - over whether to use overall length or waterline length. Not all articles supply both numbers and the ones that don't do not specify which figure they are giving. Rmhermen 20:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listing in sections

When I first looked at this list late last year it was just one list of the longest ships. Now it's in sections - Military, Cargo, Passenger. I'd prefer the one list so I can easily see what ranking the Berge Stahl (or any other ship) is in 'The world longest ships'. Isn't one of the main points of this page to see the ranking of the longest ships - if needed have another page/list of the longest Military ships / cargo ships / passenger ships on other pages. I realise that it may have been split because of the tonnage issue but why not have another list of the world's largest ships? Any others have thoughts? I also acknowledge the work done by user 88.112.30.155. Well done! - Ctbolt 03:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tonnage vs. Displacement

So some of these sections are listed by tonnage and some are by displacement. These are definitely not the same thing so we should make sure they are not being used interchangeably. We should get them sorted out and all in the same units. -Bonus Onus (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deadweight vs. Displacement

The table has a comment labelled Disp, but the figures given are (from my quick review of the top few entries) sometime actually DWT and sometimes displacement. These are not the same thing. For example, the table gives Knock Nevis's displacement as 564k but that is its DWT and its displacement is more like 647k. Similarly for the Batillus class. Emma Maersk may be correct (certainly the figure given is not the vessels dwt, so it may well be its disp.) The TI Oceania figure is again actually the DWT and not displacement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.193.196.122 (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Overall and Cargo ships listings should have an unsortable Size field rather than Displacement or Tonnage respectively. Neither of the present fields are accurate, as stated above. The new fields should be filled with the number and what it represents, i.e., GT, DWT, etc. The new fields should not be sortable as there is no real comparision between the different measures. Kablammo (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List markup

The first of the currently four lists uses different markup than the other. I just started editing the others to use the "sortable wikitable" feature, but came across special markup used to add some empty rows (the "military" list uses them after every row, the others seem to do some grouping (though not by class)). I did not like to remove them without knowing their purpose, so I refrained from editing the page at all. Maybe someone can explain the purpose? Tierlieb (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)