Talk:Museum ship

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.
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as high-importance on the assessment scale

This article is part of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of museums. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, and see a list of list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

After reading the article on the Twelve-Mile Circle and state legislators in Trenton jokingly (I assume/hope) mentioning using the USS New Jersey to settle a territorial dispute with Delaware, I find myself wondering about the constitutional specifics of state governments taking ownership of these vessels and using them as museums in light of the third clause of Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States. Do the states actually take posession of these ships, or do they still technically belong to the US Navy? If it's the former, does Congress pass individual acts allowing the state in question to take posession, or is there some sort of safeguard in the transfer process that ensures that the ship can no longer be considered a "ship of war" from a legal standpoint? Guppy313 23:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Clean-up, 'tabled'

Reworked this, and moved the data into a table. May add country affiliations later. MadMaxDog 11:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category modification / expansion

Would it make sense to recategorize/expand the Museum Ships category to have categories for the general locations (countries/states) where the ships are? Seeing as there is probably quite a bit of interest in viewers to go visit these ships, it would be easier to find specific vessels based on a category that is "close to home." Jkstark 23:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been planning an 'afiliated with' and a 'located in' column, but I haven't been able to do it yet. MadMaxDog 10:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yorktown

Yorktown is not afloat. She is intentionally aground, and they tell me two lower decks are flooded with fresh water to keep her that way. If you visit, note there is nothing of substance connecting her to the pier. Not even a single dock line or chain.--J Clear 04:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide references, it would be good to change her entries here and at its main article. MadMaxDog 06:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of museum ships

I don't know whether anyone is watching this article, or whether this comment might be stumbled upon at some point in the future, but could someone who knows about this subject please add a section telling humble readers like myself about the history of the musem ship as an idea or institution? The reason I ask is I remember once reading about how back in Tudor or Elizabethan England or so there used to be a venerable old warship parked in the Thames as a museum piece. Well, when I heard that I was amazed, but it's a pity there's nothing in this article about it, or other historical museum ships, or indeed anything about where the idea originated. Anyone who knows about these things, please help! Lordrosemount (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly there are people watchlisting the article. However, I (and probably most others watchlisting it and every now and then working on it - i.e. the parts beyond the list!) aren't really experts, so we don't have a comprehensive view of the subject either. If you could remember any specifics about the ship or institution you mentioned, we might look into it. Ingolfson (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
PS: I think that 'museum ships' must be an ancient concept. Even the old Romans must have had the odd famous galley that was the centrepiece of some former war. Ingolfson (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability for selection as representative museum ships

The list of "Notable museum ships" seems to me to be heavily skewed to warships. I am speaking from perspective of working recently on List of U.S. National Historic Landmark ships, shipwrecks, and shipyards. In its first 20 ships listed, 15 are non-warships: steamers, tugs, ferries, etc. and only 5 are warships. Of these, I am not sure, but most are preserved and would be classifiable as museum ships. I just don't have the gut sense that most museum ships are warships, and to me the list of mostly warships in this article does not seem representative. In the U.S., there are a bunch of sloops and Maryland skipjacks and so on, but none of those are listed. I expect that reed boats, fishing boats, and other commercial vessels are preserved in museums elsewhere in the world, too. My 2 cents. doncram (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that more than 50 percent of all the ships preserved as museums are warships. That isn't to say that this list is skewed, but warships are generally the more visible museum ships, with the obvious exceptions (RMS Queen Mary, and the soon-to-be museum RMS Queen Elizabeth 2). -MBK004 04:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to bet that the non-warships are more than 50% of the museum ship total either, clearly there are many salient warships. But the list here is 85 or 90 percent warships, and i would bet that is an overstatement, it doesn't seem representative of what a complete List of museum ships would show. It does not have any fireships or tugs (except incidental mention, not as a row, of tug USS Hoga) or any fishing boats or anything very recognizable as a sloop (USS Constellation has 3 masts and doesn't look to me like a conventional sloop!), or any steamboats or any dredges or any four-masted oil tankers or any snagboats or any yachts (presidential or otherwise) or schooners or lakeboats. There are eight lightships that are U.S. National Historic Landmarks, but none on this list. So there is overrepresentation of some types, and no representation of other types of museum ships. Also the warships listed seem to be big ships, and there are no little ones like PT boats. All of the ones I refer to are "notable" in terms of wikipedia notability, they have articles. I guess i wonder what the criteria should be for selection of relatively few museum ships to include in this article. "Notable" doesn't define the list, it begs the question of what the editor deems is notable enough to include in this list. I guess i would be in favor of dropping a few aircraft carriers and US battleships, in favor of a steamboat dredges and a sloop and a lightship or two.
On a completely different subject of Anglo-Catholic churches, i have been troubled by / discussing the use of "notable" in a list title. Notable seems a difficult adjective, because it has a clear meaning in wikipedia-speak, but to use it in that sense violates WP:SELF. No one likes to hear their local church / ship / whatever is not notable, as it is obviously notable if u choose to note it. doncram (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Doncram, you do talk of an issue that I have wrestled with before - the "slowly slowly" hidden comments above the list are mine, and I have at times pruned ships (usually US warships) from the list. But your reasonable request to add non-warship examples obviously begs "Which to delete?" because the list is already getting faaaaaar to long as it is. I am just concerned we will end up with heated discussions because somebody's personal favurite has been deleted. Ingolfson (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, should we set a limit on the list's numbers? Ingolfson (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I note u changed the section title from "Notable museum ships" to "Famous examples". Good to avoid the "notable" word, but still problematic, IMO. (How do you judge what is famous? Is that a semi-objective, survey-based view of what is famous, or is it your or my no-doubt-culturally bound view of what is or should be famous? I can't believe that all 55 or so listed are famous. I would guess maybe 5 or so might be termed famous: Vasa (ship), HMS Victory, USS Constitution, USS Missouri, and Cutty Sark, and besides Vasa those not necessarily famous for being museum ships, they are just known for their history. If the task is to identify top ships famous for being museum ships, then maybe accessible ones like Intrepid in New York City comes in. Most visited ships, using actual visitation numbers if those were available from somewhere, would be preferable to a subjective list.
In the discussion about notable churches that i mentioned, someone pointed to List of notable asteroids, an article that i like and where notability is not vague. It is not just one list, it is multiple (10 or 11) short lists of different types. How about doing several short lists of museum ships on each objective criteria that is available: Most visited; Largest; Smallest; Oldest; Newest; etc. Or cross those criteria with warships vs. merchant vs. lightships vs. fishing ships etc. Or cross those with geography: give "U.S. WWII or later warships" one minilist. As for numbers to include, editorially I would try to have just 10 or so if in one list, rather than 55 or so. Or five or so mini-lists of 5 each.
That is more than 2 cents contributed, but as you see I don't really know what i would do. I am glad i am not responsible here. :) doncram (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if your proposal was meant seriously, but sourcing both the statistical information and splitting ships into subgroups is A LOT OF WORK, and defeats the purpose of having one catchall main list. I somewhat disagree with you on famous, as I think there can be lots more famous ships - I just wanted to get away from "notable" - EVERY museum ship articled on Wikipedia is by definition notable or won't survive an AfD. I think, at the end of the day, we may not be able to avoid setting a certain number to get a max list length, and then watching to make sure that a) it does not get too long and b) it does not get (too) skewed. Ingolfson (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)