Talk:List of fictional ships

??

Hmm.. Is this wholly fictional ships, or semi-fictional ships (USS Dallas in Red October) as well? Elde 16:27, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm.. Most of these ships are going to be stubs, so should not the names point to work (print/film/play) in which the ship appears? AIUI Wikipedia policy is to avoid creating stub 'fan pages'. Elde 18:41, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wholly fictional I think - an appearance of a ship as itself is just a part of its career, so works well in the ship's article, and quite a few already have such mentions. (It might be amusing to find all these and make a list of ships appearing in literature some day.) As for the articles, I can go either way; one could imagine in-depth article describing how the fictional ship is like and unlike the real ships on which it is based, connect to author's experiences, etc, and the material would be more nautical/technical than would make sense in articles on the literary works. Another argument is that a stub makes the linking work better, for instance if the literary article were long. I'd suggest letting this all percolate for a couple months, see if any fictional ship articles can grow into non-stubs. (I personally hadn't thought much about how many ships there are in fiction until recently.) Stan 22:57, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The mention of the Rights-of-Man isn't really ficitonal. Given the era in whicht eh novel was set, I've always assumed it to be an Angliscization of the Droits de l'Homme a 74-gun ship-of-the-line during the French Revolutionary wars Varlet16 (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I was thinking about removing leading "the's" from ship names for consistency's sake - thus, "The Pequod" would become "Pequod." A very few ships have "the" as part of the name, though, such as USS The Sullivans, so I wouldn't change any of those I was aware of.Brecchie 02:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Name Change

This article should probably be at List of ships in fiction as some of the ships listed are real ships that have appeared in various fictional milieux rather than completely fictional creations. Djbrianuk 01:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scope of Article

Is this article supposed to contain references only to ships that feature prominently in a work of fiction, or should it also include those mentioned only in passing? For instance, there are dozens of ships mentioned in Moby Dick, but only three mentioned here. I would like to see a comprehensive list fictional ships, but don't know if this is the place. Kirk Hilliard 03:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

More Research Needed

The subject(s) of this article should have been more carefully researched. There are ships listed that are in fact actual or were actual ships. The USS Abraham Lincoln is an actual COMMISSIONED ship in the United States Navy and the Andrea Gail was an actual ship which sank in the REAL perfect storm in 1991. Just listing these in this so called list of fictional ships is disrespectful to those who are serving aboard the Lincoln and those who died on the Andrea Gail. This list needs to be closely reviewed and ships that do not fit, removed.

Earthbound

The SNES game Earthbound also has a submarine in it, but it's unnamed as far as I know. I still want to add it - should I? 81.243.19.164 14:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal - reorganize the list

It might not be a bad idea to consider reformatting the list in a manner similar to that used by the List of fictional astronauts, at the very least it would allow the addition of notes such as cases where real ships are used in fictional novels, it would also allow the grouping of ships by novel which would made adding to the list simpler than it is under the current format.Graham1973 (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge note

Rather then putting out an AfD, I am merging the entries that have its own article to List of fictional vehicles#Ships, why? This list is becoming a dumping ground for some random non-notable fictional submarines, therefore it will make it an easy target for an AfD. Donnie Park (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Additions

Ships in Marryat and in Ballantyne should be included. Forester's Brown on Resolution has ships. Niven has a big ship in the Ringworld series. McCaffrey has ships on Pern. Gulliver travelled on ships, and there is a small one in Mistress Masham's Repose. But I cannot recall details. Also, there's the sub in the film which represented the capture in August 1941 of U-570, later HMS Graph, the fiction being that the US Navy did the capturing. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ngaio Marsh had several stories set on ships - Singing in the Shrouds (Cape Farewell), A Clutch of Constables (MV Zodiac) and Artists in Crime — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.122.212 (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Another List That Fails To Justify Its Existence

Perhaps this is more an organizational issue, but at what point does a 5+ page list of terms and links become a burden rather than being useful? The literature section alone makes my eyes glaze over trying to locate anything within. I understand there is tendency among certain editors here at Wiki to create exhaustive lists and yet, for all that information, fail to write a single paragraph explaining why any of this is important to anyone. I'm not talking about term paper length writing -- any writing would be nice -- because not all of us are fanboys, but we all came here looking for information, which, as it stands, is hard to find. That's two strikes. Then there's the fact there are numerous, numerous errors in this list. For example, while it's true that there were two ships called Aurora in Tintin and Sherlock Holmes they're not, obviously, the same ship or even the same type of ship (plus, The Sign of Four is a novel, not a comic, as the Wiki link to it makes clear). That's strike three. In other words, you have a confusing list of apparent trivia with glaring factual errors and yet editors here talk as if this was somehow a good thing, since no one here seems to have attempted any organizing since 2004. I think 7 years is enough time to assume no one cares enough about this list to actually fix it. I propose deletion. Duende-Poetry (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion should be kept at the talk page for List of fictional vehicles where you already started it. And post at the bottom of a talk page, not the top. Dream Focus 21:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Red Storm Rising and Yulius Fuchik

I seem to have become involved in an edit war with User:Mediatech492 about including the Soviet merchant ship Yulius Fuchik, featured in the 1986 novel Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy and Larry Bond, in the article about fictional ships. The ship in question is a barge carrier that was built by the Finnish state-owned shipbuilding company Valmet in the late 1970s and is clearly identified in the novel by the author:

"The Soviet ship had been built years before in Finland's Valmet yard from plans purchased in America" (Red Storm Rising, p. 83)

Tom Clancy, practically the creator of the "techno-thriller" genre, is known for his attention to detail. In the book, he provides detailed descriptions of the ship's general arrangement and cargo handling system, and even goes as far as mentioning the ship's operator, Interlighter, by name. The only difference is the transliteration of the name: the ship was named after Julius Fučík, the name which was also used in the novel, but her name was transliterated from the Cyrillic alphabet as Yulius Fuchik in official context such as the MORFLOT fleet list.

In my opinion, there is enough of a proof that Clancy was using an existing civilian ship in the novel like he did with all other naval ships and most of the military equipment (the only exception being, as far as I know, the stealth fighter) instead of coming up with a fictional ship that just happens to be a carbon copy of an existing vessel.

However, my edit to the list of fictional ships has been reverted twice using the following arguments:

• Different spelling and not the same ship
• "Red Storm Rising" is a fictional story, the Third World War never actually happened, in case you didn't notice

In light of the second revert, should we include every ship featured in the novel to this article, including very non-fictional ships such as USS Nimitz (and perhaps rename the article to List of ships in fiction as proposed above)?

Comments regarding the dispute are welcome. Otherwise I'm inclined to remove the ship from the list as non-fictional and, if my edits are reverted, ask for a third opinion. Tupsumato (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there was a real ship named Yulius Fuchik (International Maritime Organization Number: 7505322) is acknowledged. The fact that Tom Clancy used the Yulius Fuchik's description as the basis for the ship Julius Fusik in his fictional book 'Red Storm Rising' is arguable. However no ship named Julius Fusik was ever registered by the IMO. The fact that the name and description is similar to an actual ship is irrelevant. The Julius Fusik never existed in reality making it clearly a fictional ship. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The name of the ship is written as Юлиус Фучик, which can be transliterated as both Yulius Fuchik (GOST 16876-71) and Julius Fucik (e.g. ISO/R 9:1968). If you don't believe me, check the name letter-by-letter with these instructions. This issue has been encountered time and again with Soviet/Russian ships. Tupsumato (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The English transliteration of Юлиус Фучик which is officially recognized by the IMO is Yulius Fuchik, whereas Julius Fucik is not officially recognized by any official source. Mediatech492 (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Julius Fucik is still a valid using the western ISO transliteration, which could have been used in e.g. US Navy reference material instead of the Soviet GOST transliteration. If you transliterate the name back to Russian, it's the same. Tupsumato (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternative transliteration is irrelevant. If the specific spelling is not officially recognized by the IMO then by international law it is not the official name of the ship. Mediatech492 (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

So, if an author makes a mistake with the spelling of the ship's name (by using an older way of spelling the name, which is still the same as written on the ship's side), a real ship suddenly turns fictional even if he gets all the other details correct? Tupsumato (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on Tupsumato's comments above, it seems the ship in question is not a fictional ship although it appears in a work of fiction. A slight difference in transliteration is a minor issue, especially when compared with the numerous matches noted by Tupsumato. Gatoclass (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gatoclass. It appears to be the real ship. That Mediatech492 does not consider the multitude of ways that names can be transliterated from one language (Russian) to another (English) is unfortunate. Remember that the Romanoff dynasty is the same as the Romanov dynasty, even though they are spelled differently in English, they represent the same thing. This is also a fiction book so why do you need the officially recognized name? Lots of books use nicknames for ships or pet transliterations, but the ship is still the same ship. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Scottish Engineers and Greek Sailing Ships

Guy Gilpatric's Mr. Glencannon stories are set on the British tramp steamer, Inchcliffe Castle, in-between the wars. Perhaps I missed it, but wouldn't Jason's ship, the Argo go here? Plus Homer's Iliad has the Catalogue of Ships. If no one minds I'll add these as soon as possible. Cheers! Xenomorph erotica (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Link to author not enough

A cleanup that's under way has been partially reverted on the, to my mind, feeble excuse that links existed to the names of the authors of the books concerned. Leaving aside the obvious requirement for notability to be established with a citation to a reliable source - missing in almost every case in the whole article - the mere presence of a link to the author is utterly inadequate.

Even supposing that Mr. AAA really did write book BBB, and even supposing that ship SSS really was mentioned in that book, the presence of a link to Mr. AAA completely fails to establish the notability of the book, let alone of the ship.

This is not encyclopedic writing, it's mere listing without evidence. It's frankly embarrassing in something that sets itself up as a global encyclopedia, and it's more than time that it stopped. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because a ship does not have its own devoted article does not mean it is it trivial in a list like this. An author may have a vast body of work and many notatable ships worthy of such a list as this. Ships mentioned once or twice in a book are not noteable, but a ship featured in a book is noteable in a list like this; just as the book itself is noteable as a written work. Mediatech492 (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not an editor to stand on ceremony, but the WP:GNG applies exactly as much to lists as it does to any other type of article. "A ship featured [strongly] in a book" might indeed be notable, but it is shown to be so if and only if

(1) it is verifiably proven to feature (somewhat strongly, we appear to agree) in the book by citations to reliable sources; and

(2) "the book itself" is shown to be notable in the same way, and with a bluelink to an existing article.

It should not be necessary to remind experienced editors of these basic requirements. Since many entries fall foul of these at the moment, I will conclude by reminding you that "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation of a source that directly supports the material." That includes all the entries that I have already challenged. It will not be sufficient simply to add a reference to a book, as the article must also show that the named ships feature reasonably strongly in the books concerned. The challenged entries provide nothing approaching that quality of support at the moment.

The article has been tagged as needing citations since November 2011, so there has been more than enough time to add them.

Finally, I intend immediately to remove any remaining entries for ships in books which do not themselves have a (bluelinked) article. To be clear about this, it is easy for anyone to publish a minor book; if that book does not reach the GNG, there is no reason to list ships mentioned within it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a fallacy to assume that just because a book does not have an article dedicated to it that it is a "minor book". Your assumption would dedicate many notable and important but less widely read books to obscurity leaving only more widely read (and in the most cases popular trash) works with any notation. The purpose of a list page such as this is to give reference to the important, but lesser read works. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything. I simply don't know whether a book without an article is notable or not, I'm not pretending, I really don't, but if I did decide it was it would be pure WP:OR unless I had documented sources (WP:RS) to prove that notability, this is how Wikipedia works. It's no good your going on about "The purpose of a list page such as this is to give reference to the important, but lesser read works", you have no authority for that, because "important" is only your own opinion. I hope this is clear. I can see that you mean well and have good intentions, and I wish you well, but what you are doing is simply against policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There was nothing in my revert that was unsourced, author and title were all clearly stated for each listing, and they were all linked to articles and web pages where further support for their veracity was available for anyone who bothered to look. If you want to dispute the individual sources, then that is another thing. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting statement. Wikipedia requires sources IN THE (LIST) ARTICLE itself, as other articles on Wikipedia do not count as reliable sources. I do not recall deleting a single item where there was either a bluelinked book article or a citation - if there was, it was a mistake; but I think I just removed items that were either totally unsourced, or which had what I'd call a dummy link, to the name of a class of ship or to the name of the author, neither of which serve as any kind of evidence that the book and ship in question even exist. I suspect you are claiming that a link to an author's name would enable the reader or verifying editor to follow a tortuous procedure like this:

1) Go and read about the author, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere (Amazon, perhaps).

2) Confirm if possible that the author wrote a book of a certain title.

3) Confirm that the book contains some substantial mention of the named ship.

4) Confirm using Google or other means that reliable sources have discussed the book and the ship.

This procedure is not Wikipedia's idea of making an item "verifiable" - the procedure is far too indefinite and there is no assurance that reliable sources even exist for the item. So, frankly, it is not acceptable. Wikipedia rightly requires written citations IN THE LIST ARTICLE ITSELF - it is not the verifying editor's job to go and see whether any such might possibly be found. The mere existence of an author and a book is not proof that ships are named in the book, nor that the ships are considered notable. We have spent a great deal of valuable time discussing this, and it is time to bring the discussion to a close and spend the time editing articles instead. You have not provided adequate evidence to support your contention, which is sharply against Wikipedia policy, indeed against several of its most basic policies. All editors should from here on consider themselves authorised to remove any uncited items from the article. I won't act hastily here - if you start adding sources, I'll give you time to continue - but given the years that have elapsed since the item was tagged for better citation, it is honestly about time it was cleaned up, either by citation or deletion, it's your choice. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No love for stingray?

What, noones heard of the Stingray submarine from the Gerry Anderson tv series? Even Thunderbird 4 gets a mention for crying out loud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.90.222 (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Star Trek ships?

Star Trek has a slew of fictional ships. I was surprised that the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 was not even mentioned once. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgwall (talk • contribs) 20:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is about aquatic ships, the type that float in water. Fictional spacecraft are covered in a different article. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Dubious

The inclusion of Noah's Ark in a list of fictional ships is dubious. It is mentioned in a non-fiction book, as being a real ship.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The very article lead says "There is no scientific evidence for a global flood, and despite many expeditions, no evidence of the ark has been found" and lists 6 source notes.MartinezMD (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of fictional ships. 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/20111231234408/http://www.sorenlarsen.co.nz/ to http://www.sorenlarsen.co.nz/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Ergenstrasse ship

Can someone who does this go to NetFlix, select "Patriot Games" (Clancy) and go to 38:13 and you will see the Ergenstrasse which starred, along with John Wayne,in the movie "The Sea Chase". An homage perhaps? That is all.Bjornsonw (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

French Connection II Ship Yokohama-Kobe Osaka

2:24 minutes in movie and I saw ship and not in Wiki. I would like somebody to add listing Yokohama-Kobe Osaka Ship movie name The French Connection II year 1975. Thanks. CFBancroft (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)