Talk:Invisible ships

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Invisible ships is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Invisible ships appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 September 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that invisible ships are a myth?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Invisible ships.

Wikipedia

On 12 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Invisible ships phenomenon. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the invisible ships myth is likely based on one explorer's surprise that natives of Botany Bay did not have a strong reaction upon seeing the HMS Endeavour? Source: [1]
- ALT1: ... that the myth of natives being unable to see European explorers' ships likely began with an explorer's surprise that natives didn't react more upon seeing such a ship? Source: [2]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/BattleSphere
- Comment: Open to other hooks... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to mainspace by Rhododendrites (talk). Self-nominated at 19:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Invisible ships; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Comment: An alternative hook:
ALT2: ... that invisible ships are a myth? Source: [3]

I think it's interesting due to its brevity. Simpler is better, less is more. I'll point out that a reviewer might object to the lack of page numbers in some sources. I'd suggest you fix that. 〜 Festucalex • talk 20:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article was new enough and is long enough. It is mostly policy compliant, although there should be a relevant reference for the paragraph at the end of the "Historical basis" section (as this is the core to the hook!). My preference is for ALT2, Festucalex's suggestion, as being pithy and witty. Readers should already be curious at what the heck invisible ships are, so let the focus be on the weirdness of the title itself. (Although this makes the "Australian natives really did see the ships!" sentence all the more important to stick a direct reference on, per WP:DYKCITE! Finally, QPQ does not appear to be done. So almost ready to go. Feel free to ping back once QPQ is done, and if you have any objection to shipping ALT2. SnowFire (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @SnowFire: Updating at last. Cite added, QPQ done, and I agree that ALT2 is better. There's no direct line about "it's a myth" in the article, granted, but that the sources all call it as much (or, in some cases, use synonyms) is why I refer to it that way throughout the article. The "Contrary to the myth" line is my summary (presumably not too SYNTHy). Thanks for the review. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 10:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - LGTM, hook confirmed. ALT2 is approved.
  - As a side comment, I think that North Star Journal article is only questionably independent from the Fortean Times one... he doesn't cite it as a source, but there's some suspiciously similar phrasing going on, giving it a real feel of "lemme copy-paste this then paraphrase everything a little." It's most obvious in the final sentence, but seems to affect the article in general. SnowFire (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible ships → Invisible ships phenomenon – A Google search for "Invisible ships" mostly comes up with information about the Philadelphia Experiment. The myth is very clearly not the primary meaning for this phrase. It's hard to say what the actual title should be, Invisible ships myth could be another possibility, but this shouldn't be it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd favour Invisible ships myth, given that it is referred to as such in the article. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that "myth" works better ("phenomenon" suggests it's real), but otherwise agree with the move. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, add hatnote, and disambiguate "invisible ship" (singular) - A Google search for "Invisible ships" mostly comes up with information about the Philadelphia Experiment - This is odd. I did the same thing, searching "invisible ships", and the top results are all about this subject or in some cases about neither subject. I'm scrolling and scrolling and haven't come across anything about the Philadelphia Experiment yet. Are you searching without quotes (just any article that returns "invisible" and "ship")? I tried it again in an incognito browser to ensure my results weren't skewed from having worked on this article, and see the same. Seems like something that can be addressed with a hatnote. As for the alternatives, definitely not "phenomenon" since as Andrew says that makes it sound real. Adding myth doesn't really change that much in terms of the Philadelphia Experiment, since that also appears to be [likely] a myth. This subject is also sometimes called "ships not seen", but if we're just searching without quotes, that's going to lead to some ambiguous google results, too, I suspect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not a real phenomenon, it's at best a hypothesis that almost certainly was not actually true. Also oppose Invisible ships myth - we don't need to tag "myth" at the end of every topic that isn't true. We don't have Zeus myth, Flat earth myth, International Jewish conspiracy myth, etc. The reader can just read the article to find out that it's a myth, "myth" is only needed if there was some call for natural disambiguation which there isn't here. I don't think anyone interested in the Philadelphia Experiment would look it up by typing in "Invisible ships". SnowFire (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.