Talk:Lists of shipwrecks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:List of shipwrecks)
Jump to: navigation, search

Artificial reefs[edit]

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)

Why located wrecks only?[edit]

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)

I have started another List of missing ships which would include missing wrecks for now. I have moved some of the missing wrecks identifiable in this list to over there. --Kvasir (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability criteria for shipwrecks[edit]

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)

Sub-categories for shipwrecks etc[edit]

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)

Grounded ships[edit]

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)

Excessive red links[edit]

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)

List cleanup[edit]

Following some of the comments here, I am in the midst of a (sadistically large) cleanup effort on this list. In the interest of a homogenous appearance, I came up with the following conventions:

Red links

  • I am retaining links for red linked shipwrecks only if I have reason to believe (via previous notations here, google search, etc) that the ship or the wrecksite is historically, archaeologically, or dive-related-ly notable. If they don't meet this, the info remains but it is no longer redlinked.
  • Red linked locations have, in almost all cases, had their link removed, with the info of course retained there.

General phrasing of a list item

  • Ship types (barque, sloop) are not interwiki'd, although ship lines (White Line) are.
  • Ship countries of origin (German) are not interwiki'd.
  • Directions (north, southeast) are not capitalized.
  • Self-referential information is not included (a listing in the 'Western Cape' subsection need not mention the Western Cape).
  • Once a location (sunk near London) is interwiki'd within a subsection, further references to that location within the subsection are not interwiki'd.
  • If a listing links to an existing article, the listing itself only contains a brief description of the shipwreck. Listings that are interwiki'd to an as-yet-nonexistant article may contain a longer description until the article is created.

Essentially, I am aiming for:

shipname a nationality shiptype shipwreckevent at shipwrecklocation on shipwreckdate

which would produce:

Dunedin Star a British cargo vessel ran aground 80 km south of the Kunene River mouth on November 29, 1942.

Anyone have any advice, corrections, or perhaps dark chocolate, to help me in this ridiculous (but hopefully useful) endeavor? Maralia 05:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Bravo! Yes I basically agree with what you are doing. I think perhaps we should consider going further and eventually split it out into a set of List of shipwrecks by location. The only point in your strategy I would question is not interwiki the ship type. Against linking is that the list is messy if every other word is a link, but pro linking, is the fact that you often want to find out what that term means. An info box of ship types (all linked) at the side or bottom of the article, instead of linking the ship type in every entry would be best I think. There is an info box of sailing vessels on Galleon, but we would need an info box with a wider scope than this to include all the steam ships and motor vessels as well. Viv Hamilton 09:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not opposed in theory to linking the ship type - it was just unreadable. I think splitting the list by location, and moving to tables, are the real solutions. List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks is the format I'd like to see, although I would use sortable tables. Maralia 16:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, the list ought to cite references. If the shipwreck is notably and is linked to its own article, the link to the article can stand as the reference, but if it doesn't link, it ought to have a reference (preferably in-line web, to keep the information together). The alternative is where there a good reference can be cited for shipwrecks of a region, that can act as the reference for a whole section. Viv Hamilton 09:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on principle. In practice, I think removing redlinks and eventually moving to tables would help organize these as well. Maralia 16:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks is a good model and a table format would be a real improvement - a ship type info box as the footer would be quite elegant - it could then be consistent across each of the regional pages. I'd offer to produce it but have no experience of making info boxesViv Hamilton 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK I have just discovered Template:Navbox generic and have had a go at an info box for the footer, take a look at my page and see what you think. Is this a useful grouping? Viv Hamilton 14:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Fancy! Looks like just the thing. The wikicode looks pretty terrifying, though - you are brave! :) Maralia 20:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I've added the template. Do feel free to edit the Template:Ship types to add anything I've missed or improve the categories Viv Hamilton 18:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup stage 2[edit]

This list is certainly looking better! Once Maralia has finished cleaning up red links and extraneous text, what is the next stage? Personally I would like to see the list broken into list of shipwrecks by region/country with each one written as a proper list article - and eventually - suitable references for everything. Is it worth considering standard headings for each list article? I can think of:

  • Opening paragraph would have some standard text e.g. this is a list of shipwrecks whose remains have been located - plus whatever is significant about wrecks in that region - aim to provide generic references for wrecks of the region (e.g. databases, catalogues, books covering local wrecks)
  • Wreck distribution - time period, location e.g. if there is a concentration because of a battle or trade routes or hazardous sea areas
  • Wreck law - e.g. if protected
  • Wreck diving and tourism e.g. if there is a thriving diving or wreck museum tourist industry
  • List of shipwrecks (preferably tabulated)
  • References

Obviously it would be best if most of the above paragraphs linked out to main articles. Any improvements on the above or any thoughts on improving the introductory sentence? I would be willing to have a go at United Kingdom in this format, or whatever is agreed Viv Hamilton 10:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good approach. I am posting about some related issues on the project page - appreciate your input. Maralia 15:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've come up with a draft table structure at User:Maralia/List of Shipwrecks of the Florida coast. Leaving some comments about it over at the Talk page there. Maralia 19:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There are references to ships named Collector, Wychwood, Elda, and Caraquet. The links are totally wrong, and I have no idea what they should be. Hue White 19:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please move any remaining unlocated shipwrecks to List of missing ships and mark them with "(missing wreck)". Those under that category will be split into its own list when it becomes large enough. I have moved most if not all missing wrecks identifiable in this list already. According to the introduction this list covers wrecks that HAVE BEEN located. --Kvasir (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

MS Explorer - not in list yet, but may well be in future[edit]

I have not put MS Explorer in this list because the wreck has not been found yet. But it might be found in the future. If it is found, which category should we put it under? (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The wreck need not have been relocated after sinking in order to be listed as a shipwreck. This list is in pretty bad shape at the moment; the shipwreck categories are much more comprehensive and will be used to rework this list. From the coordinates given, it looks like it should be listed here under Antarctica, and categorized in Category:Shipwrecks in the Southern Ocean. Maralia (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


Why isn't there a list in chronological order somewhere? There is something like this in de: and fr: - Simplicius (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is only possible if the list is in table form that have customisable listing preference. --Kvasir (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there some way that a seperate list could be compiled where all the wrecks are compiled in order of the year sunk? -- (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Only if the list is converted to sortable tables. The list is long as it is, a separate list will make the article twice as long. --Kvasir (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I found Category:Lists of shipwrecks by year which is remarkable fine. Simplicius (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd article sectioning[edit]

It seems very odd that the article is organized according to continents, countries or even by (Canada and Australia) provinces or (U.S.A.) states (!!), that is, land masses. That's not where ships usually are. The article should instead be organized by water bodies, that is, oceans, seas, rivers, and lakes. Also, the Caribbean, legendary graveyard of sunken Spanish & other European Galleons, is completely missing. --AVM (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The located wrecks tend to be in shallower water which tends to mean that it is territorial waters or at least EEZ of a particular country. So for the majority, if the wrecks are listed by country, it indicates what legal jurisdiction applies. Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

US NRHP shipwrecks[edit]

The following 93 shipwreck sites are located and notable, as each is listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places with extensive documentation available. I am listing them to facilitate creating articles about them and including in the list. Please help identify which have articles already, and/or strike out those already in the List of Shipwrecks. These 93 have "shipwreck" in their NRHP listing name; there exist other NRHP shipwrecks; order is by NRHP listing date, not included.

  1. ISABELLA Shipwreck Site and Remains, Area: Astoria, OR
  2. SS ANTONIO LOPEZ Shipwreck Site and Remains, Area: Dorado, PR
  3. GEN. C. B. COMSTOCK (dredge) Shipwreck Site, Area: Surfside, TX
  4. Privateer Brigantine DEFENCE Shipwreck Site, Area: Stockton Springs, ME
  5. BARNEY, F. T., Shipwreck, Area: Rogers City, MI
  6. R. J. HACKETT (steamer) Shipwreck Site, Area: Green Bay, MI
  7. SPORT (tug) Shipwreck Site, Area: Lexington, MI
  8. MUSKEGON Shipwreck Site, Area: Michigan City, IN
  9. SAMUEL P. ELY Shipwreck, Area: Two Harbors, MN
  10. THOMAS WILSON (Whaleback Freighter) Shipwreck, Area: Duluth, MN
  11. ONOKO (Bulk Freight Steamer) Shipwreck, Area: Knife River, MN
  12. MADEIRA (Schooner--Barge) Shipwreck, Area: Beaver Bay, MN
  13. AMBOY and GEORGE SPENCER Shipwreck Sites, Area: Schroeder, MN
  14. USS ESSEX Shipwreck Site, Location: Address Restricted, Duluth, MN
  15. HESPER Shipwreck Site, Area: Silver Bay, MN
  16. NIAGARA Shipwreck Site, Area: Knife River, MN
  17. Cape Fear Civil War Shipwreck Discontiguous District, Area: Holden Beach, NC
  18. Cape Fear Civil War Shipwreck Discontiguous District, Area: Topsail Beach, NC
  19. Cape Fear Civil War Shipwreck Discontiguous District, Area: Wrightsville Beach, NC
  20. Cape Fear Civil War Shipwreck Discontiguous District, Area: Kure Beach, NC
  21. Cape Fear Civil War Shipwreck Discontiguous District, Area: Wilmington Beach, NC
  22. CHAUNCY JEROME JR Shipwreck Site, Area: Long Branch City, NJ
  23. S.S. NORTHWESTERN Shipwreck Site, Area: Unalaska, AK
  24. SAN JOSE Shipwreck Site, Area: Plantation Key, FL
  25. SAN FELIPE Shipwreck Site, Area: Islamorada, FL
  26. MAPLE LEAF (Shipwreck Site), Area: Mandarin, FL
  27. Emanuel Point Shipwreck Site, Area: Pensacola, FL
  28. SS WILLIAM LAWRENCE Shipwreck Site, Area: Hilton Head Island, SC
  29. LOUISIANA (Shipwreck), Area: Washington, WI
  30. LUCERNE (Shipwreck), Area: La Pointe, WI
  31. LIGHT VESSEL No. 57 (Shipwreck), Area: Milwaukee, WI
  32. R. G. STEWART (Shipwreck), Area: La Pointe, WI
  33. NOQUEBAY (Schooner--Barge) Shipwreck Site, Location: Address Restricted, La Pointe, WI
  34. OTTAWA (Tug) Shipwreck Site, Location: Address Restricted, Russell, WI
  35. SEVONA (Bulk Carrier) Shipwreck Site, Area: Bayfield, WI
  36. PRETORIA (schooner--barge) Shipwreck Site, Area: Bayfield, WI
  37. MERIDIAN (schooner) Shipwreck Site, Area: Sister Bay, WI
  38. CULLODEN, H.M.S., Shipwreck Site, Area: Montauk, NY
  39. LAND TORTOISE (radeau) Shipwreck Site, Area: Lake George, NY Land Tortoise (shipwreck)
  40. CHAMPLAIN II Shipwreck, Location: Address Restricted, Westport, NY
  41. USS SAN DIEGO (Armored Cruiser) Shipwreck Site, Area: Fire Island, NY
  42. SS RIO DE JANEIRO Shipwreck, Area: San Francisco, CA
  43. KING PHILIP (ship) and REPORTER (schooner) Shipwreck Site, Area: San Francisco, CA
  44. O.J. WALKER (shipwreck), Location: Burlington Bay, Burlington, VT
  45. GENERAL BUTLER (shipwreck), Location: Burlington Bay, Burlington, VT
  46. PHOENIX (Shipwreck), Location: Colchester Shoal, Cochester Reef, Coshester, VT
  47. Back Bay of Biloxi Shipwreck Site, Area: Ocean Springs, MS
  48. JOSEPHINE (Shipwreck), Area: Biloxi, MS
  49. SS Tarpon (Shipwreck), Area: Panama City, FL
  50. USS MASSACHUSETTS--BB-2 (shipwreck), Location: 1. mi. SSW of Pensacola Pass, Pensacola, FL
  51. URCA DE LIMA (shipwreck), Area: Ft. Pierce, FL
  52. SAN PEDRO (shipwreck), Area: Islamorada, FL
  53. HALF MOON (shipwreck), Area: Miami, FL
  54. SS COPENHAGEN (shipwreck), Area: Pompano Beach, FL
  55. CITY OF HAWKINSVILLE (shipwreck), Area: Old Town, FL
  56. FLEETWING (shipwreck), Area: Liberty Grove, WI
  57. BROTHER JONATHAN (Shipwreck Site), Area: Crescent City, CA
  58. CADET (Shipwreck), Location: Address Restricted, Bolton, NY
  59. HOMER, The (Shipwreck), Area: Camden, AR
  60. CHRISTINA NILSSON (shipwreck), Location: Baileys Harbor
  61. Lofthus (shipwreck), Area: Boynton Beach, FL
  62. TAHOE (Shipwreck), Area: Glenbrook, NV
  63. St. Peter, (Shipwreck), Location: Address Restricted, Putlneyville, NY
  64. SS ALEUTIAN (Shipwreck), Area: Larsen Bay, AK
  65. T. H. Camp (shipwreck), Area: La Pointe, WI
  66. PORTLAND (Shipwreck and Remains), Area: Gloucester, MA
  67. APPOMATTOX (Shipwreck), Area: Shorewood, WI
  68. HETTY TAYLOR (shipwreck), Area: Sheboygan, WI
  69. Regina Shipwreck Site, Area: Bradenton Beach, FL
  70. FRANK A. PALMER AND LOUIS B. CRARY (Shipwreck), Area: Gloucester, MA
  71. Vamar Shipwreck Site, Area: Mexico Beach, FL
  72. Angustias Shipwreck Site, Area: Layton, FL
  73. Chaves Shipwreck Site, Area: Islamorada, FL
  74. El Gallo Indiano Shipwreck Site, Area: Layton, FL
  75. Herrara Shipwreck Site, Area: Islamorada, FL
  76. El Infante Shipwreck Site, Area: Plantation, FL
  77. El Rubi Shipwreck Site, Area: Tavernier, FL
  78. San Francisco Shipwreck Site, Area: Layton, FL
  79. Sueco de Arizon Shipwreck Site, Location: 1600 yards offshore Conch Key, Layton, FL
  80. Tres Puentes Shipwreck Site, Area: Islamorada, FL
  81. Georges Valentine Shipwreck Site, Area: Stuart, FL
  82. IRIS (Shipwreck), Location: Adjacent of Rock Island Ferry Dock, Jackson Harbor, Washington, WI
  83. OCEAN WAVE (Shipwreck), Location: 2 mi. off Whitefish Point, Lake Michigan, WI
  84. Roosevelt Inlet Shipwreck, Area: Lewes, DE
  85. ROUSE SIMMONS (Shipwreck), Area: Lake Michigan, WI
  86. PAUL PALMER (Shipwreck and Remains), Area: Provincetown, MA
  87. SS POMONA (Shipwreck), Area: Jenner, CA
  88. BENJAMIN NOBLE (Shipwreck), Area: Knife River, MN
  89. DANIEL LYONS (Shipwreck), Area: Lake Michigan, WI
  90. JOYS (Shipwreck), Area: Sturgeon Bay, WI
  91. KATE KELLY (Shipwreck), Area: Wind Point, WI
  92. HENNEPIN Self-unloading Steamship (Shipwreck), Area: South Haven, MI. Hennepin (shipwreck)
  93. MARQUETTE (shipwreck), Area: La Pointe, WI

No separation?[edit]

Is the goal for this article to really be a list of *every* shipwreck ever? The Australian National Shipwreck Database lists 7600 in that country alone. What level of comprehensiveness should this list be aiming for? Stevage 03:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I had a similar concern. The other issue is that the list would grow by about 5 a day. I wonder if there should be a "significance" threshhold? --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, notability. I hate trying to resolve notability. I guess the main options would be either:
  1. One article on every shipwreck no matter what
  2. One article on each "notable" shipwreck (ie, it's been written up somewhere), plus a comprehensive listing of all shipwrecks (ie, one line each)
  3. One article on notable ones, plus a listing of semi-notable ones.

Stevage 00:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As you will see from earlier discussions on this page, I favour articles for "notable" shipwrecks, plus listing others. However at some point we will need to split this page up (e.g. based on the headings in this list). Shipwrecks that aren't really notable in their own right often have some meaning for the place where they occurred, so a few lines about the wreck in the article about the place would be more appropriate than expecting to have an article for every wreck. Just to put this in context, for the British Isles alone, there are approximately 40,000 known wrecks (although not all located). Viv Hamilton (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Like I've mentioned above, I've tried to pulled missing wrecks and missing ship to List of missing ships. This will hopefully lighten this list. --Kvasir (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Great Lakes shipwrecks[edit]

The Great Lakes section of this article contains about 110 ships with location coordinates. This appears to be sourced from one of three volumes on Great Lakes shipwrecks written by diver/photographers Georgann and Mike Wachter, based on note just added to the section by new User:eriewrecks. Here is a copy, copied in full into here because such notes do not belong in the article:

Interesting list. We wish the author had credited the source: Erie Wrecks West by Georgann and Mike Wachter They also have Erie Wrecks East (another 103 wreck locations) and Erie Wrecks and Lighthouses (45 more wreck locations).

Here's the note i drafted to put into the section lead: There are more than 250 shipwreck locations in the Great Lakes.[1]

  1. ^ A three volume work by Georgann and Mike Wachter, Erie Wrecks East (2nd Ed.), Erie Wrecks West, and Erie Wrecks & Lights, identifies 110, 103, and 45 wreck locations respectively.[1]

I posted a notice to Talk:Eriewrecks, perhaps eriewrecks will respond further here. doncram (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Open issues:

  • how to credit the Wachter books properly?
  • what should be included? surely not all 110 or so are individually notable for a separate article. Those 110 are from the east parts of the great lakes, apparently; there are about 250 ships covered in total in the Wachter books
  • should the latitude and longitude info be left in? If left in, should be put into proper coordinates format and a google map link should be created (as for example, is done for historic places in many list-articles, for example List of Registered Historic Places in Erie County, New York.
  • other?

Is this list necessary (in its current form)?[edit]

It seems to me that this list is unnecessary. There are lists of shipwrecks by year, and all entries on this list could be incorporated into those lists if they are not already there. This list could be turned into a table that links to the various lists, thus preserving the talk page which has lots of relevant discussion to shipwrecks - seems a shame to lose it, which would happen if the list of shipwrecks was deleted. Mjroots (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yuk there are 109 articles of list of shipwrecks by year (and that is only, starting at 1860! Personally I feel that this list should be broken up into a list per region (as the subtitles), which could then have an interesting introduction about the distribution etc of the wrecks in that region, and the referencing would be better as there are plenty of books that tackle wrecks in a particular area. Also there are already several list articles dealing with particular regions (such as List of shipwrecks of the Isles of Scilly, so we could then end uyp with a better, consistent set of list articles. Viv Hamilton (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

There seems to be edit warring going on back and forth with regard to this edit [2] . To end the edit warring and so there is no constant removing and readding this information, I think a simple solution would be adding the information with a citation needed post near it. The reason for removing it is because it is uncited, so a citation needed post should take care of that. Cheers dude (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As seems to be normal, you, once again, don't understand what's going on: the editor is someone from Osaka, Japan who has, for months now, using a variety of anonymous IPs and despite warnings from multiple editors, been adding random, sub-literate, and entirely unsourced--and therefore suspect--entries to this and various other disaster-related pages. As he is the one adding them, he should very well know the sources, and despite multiple pleas and at least one block has ignored all requests. That you would, once again, inject yourself into a situation that you don't understand isn't surprising, but that you would expand its range out of personal spite foretells a a path you don't want to go down. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This really isn't about the editor's history, its about the edit. Please assume good faith CalenderWatcher. Basing this edit on spite is assuming bad faith. I simply thought this could be a step to take in ending the edit war you to are having. You felt it needed citing and he wanted to keep it in the article, so I thought a compromise was having it left in the article with a [citation needed] link. Let's work on editing together as a team and assume good faith about each other. Cheers dude (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I also hope you realize that by reverting the edit 4 times, you have in fact violated the three revert rule. Cheers dude (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Technically, yes, but he was not warned on his talk page so I will let it go. Calenderwatcher, if there is a persistent problem, see if you can ask for help, edit warring won't solve the issue. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations Found[edit]

I have reinstated the entries with citations for Dona Marilyn, and Cebu City (and also added citations for Princess of the Stars. I haven't had any luck with Dumagnete J, howver, it sank pre-internet news, so that is perhaps not that surprising. In view of the fact that a small amount of googling found RS for the two recent entries in dispute, perhaps we can assume good faith on the third? However, I can't confirm everything stated for the Dona Marilyn entry and sources conflict on number dead, so I have modified Dona Marilyn: the original entry is below, in case other editors can find additional sources.Viv Hamilton (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

  • MV Dona Marilyn, carrying 389 people on-board capsized by Typhoon Ruby off Visayan Sea, at least 14 by Typhoon Ruby off Visayan Sea, at least 147 people rescued and at least 242 peoples confirmed dead on October 1988.

Thank you for stepping in and finding the citations. That clears this all up. Cheers! =) Cheers_Dude (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks, huge list, maybe we can organize this better?[edit]

If this is a master list of all shipwrecks, the list is going to be impossibly huge, maybe we can break this down a little better. Perhaps we can link to spinoff articles that list wrecks by location? Perhaps we can somehow have an automated list generated by one or more of the shipwreck categories? Ive been trying to improve this list, but it seems like too big a task and one that is better suited for a computer anyway. Suggestions? Bonewah (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on the sister article List of missing ships. Many entries on that list actually originated from this list here. I have organised my list by last known geographical location of the ship using sortable and collapsable tables. I have eliminated much of the info on the ship itself in the table because readers can go to the ship's own article for more info (if there is a wiki article for it). It Looks like List of shipwrecks is the prime candidate to use this system. If the ship doesn't have its article I wonder if it's notable enough to be included on the list in the first place. --Kvasir (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:SHIPS convention is that all ships are inherently notable. Just because a ship doesn't have an article doesn't mean that it is non-notable. Redlinks encourage article creation. Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Be that as it may, it doesn't change the fact that this article is way too big. I just added a ship to the list, and it took a whole minute for the page to save the edit and return to the article. We do need a way to break down this article into smaller ones. For example, this page could be rendered into a list of locations (continents, bodies of water, countries, etc.) and a list of causes (grounding, foundering, battle damages if that is acceptable, etc.). Each cause and location could be its own list-article. - Lord Vargonius (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the list is too long, but how do we divide it up without simply duplicating the category system? We have categories under Category:Shipwrecks by location, Category:Shipwrecks by time period, and Category:Shipwrecks by type. Dividing up by location may be the easiest, as time period and type are not always clear for wrecks of unidentified ships. Even by location, there are ambiguities (how far off shore should a wreck be before we put it under an ocean/sea rather than a country, for instance). -- Donald Albury 14:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

ES Godafoss.[edit]

ES Godafoss(Iceland section)does not belong on this list as its wreckage has never been found. It was sunk on Nov.10 1944 by U-300 just outside Garðskagi. There have benn serveral attempts maked to find the wreck over the last 65years and they have all failed. So can some one please edit it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Wreck photograph symbol[edit]

I think it would be a good idea to use some kind of icon next to the name of the ship to indicate that a photograph of the wreck as it is today underwater is in the indexed article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmadil (talkcontribs) 22:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


Tirpitz, Norway Oriskney, USS ACC, USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


Should the subsections be listed alphabetically or chronologically? Right now it's mixed. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rico missing[edit]

Why is Puerto Rico missing from the list? Not included as Caribbean nor United States even though other US possessions such as Guam are included.

Luisr (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That is most likely because no editor has added a wreck in Puerto Rico to this list. If you are aware of one or more shipwreck sites in Puerto Rico, where the site of the wreck is known and there either is an article in Wikipedia about the wreck or a reliable source that can be cited, then you can add them yourself. If you want any help doing that, just ask again here. -- Donald Albury 13:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


I've started a conversion to a Wikitable. If this will be too complicated, feel free to revert me. My goal here is to attempt to get everything into a standard format for ease of reading, similar to List of bridge failures. Maybe just try to keep it in chronological order and add a country/region column as at that article? - Denimadept (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Major conversion to wikitable is complete. Coords need to be moved to the coords column, and moved into coord templates. Sink dates need to be moved to the Sunk column. And now I'm thinking the article is too long. It could be split by continent and ocean. What say you? - Denimadept (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Part of the length comes from editors ignoring the statement at the top of the article, "This list of shipwrecks is a list of those sunken or grounded ships whose remains have been located." More generally, I think editors have different ideas of what should be in here. Some, I suspect, see this list as a guide for scuba divers. Others (including me) are more interested in the historical/archaeological aspects of wrecks. If all of the ships for which the location of the wreck is not known were transferred to List of missing ships, this list might be more manageable (although the List of missing ships might then become unwieldy). Pruning out wrecks for which a WP article has not been created, and for which reliable sources have not been cited, might help, as well. However, the division into "remains have been located" and "missing" doesn't work very well. Some wrecks have been recovered or broken up for salvage. Other wrecks were at a well known location, but have disappeared. Sometimes remains of ships found cannot be matched to ships known to have wrecked in an area.
OK, after that ramble, yeah breaking this up by continent might work. The broader issue of what should be in this list may need a wider discussion, if anyone is interested in discussing it. -- Donald Albury 11:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Too many references to one ship[edit]

As was pointed out above, it is odd that wrecks are listed by country (landmass) rather than body of water. This has led to plural listings of the sinking of the MV Wilhelm Gustloff, in Germany, Poland, etc. If somebody can come up with an agreeable principle to decide this matter, these extra mentions could be deleted. I hate to see that many people being drowned multiple time in different countries. Pete unseth (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Shipwrecks vs. wartime sinkings?[edit]

The title of this article led me to expect that these were civilian shipwrecks caused by nature and on-board problems. I did NOT expect wartime sinking to be listed as "shipwrecks". If this is a concern to others, then what is the solution? An separate article on wartime sinkings, with many sinkings moved to it? Pete unseth (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of shipwreck at Wiktionary says:
1. A boat that has sunk or run aground so that it is no longer seaworthy.
2. An event where a ship sinks or runs aground.
That seems to cover wartime as well as peacetime sinkings, and even the deliberate sinking of ships to create artificial reefs. -- Donald Albury 21:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Splitting into lists of shipwrecks by continent[edit]

It seems like everyone's in agreement that this list is way too long, and dividing it into seperate articles for each continent is the best way forward. If no-one has any objections, I'm going to kick-start the process by doing some of the grunt-work, creating the new list articles and transferring the information. It might take me a couple of days to get this done (unless anyone wants to help out), and this article might be a bit of a mess until I'm finished; it will ultimately end up as a list of lists, and renamed as appropriate. If there are any objections, I'd appreciate them being raised here before anything gets reverted, simply to avoid confusion. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking good so far. - Denimadept (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that's done. This article's still a bit of a mess. I'll relocate the external links to the relevant pages, but I don't know what to do about the navboxes. Speaking of which, we need a new navbox for the new set of lists, but I wouldn't have a clue how to go about making one. I'll leave that to someone else. There's a few other things that need to be done, like putting split-from templates on the talk pages, channeling the 'what links here' links to the relevant lists, merging the duplicate South African wreck lists, and more generally filling in dates and coordinates where possible and adding more of our shipwreck articles to the relevant lists. If anyone more knowledgeable about shipwrecks wants to expand on the lists with region-specific information, as suggested further up this page, go ahead. My thanks to Denimadept for transferring the project templates, which wouldn't have occured to me, and for converting this whole list into table format in the first place. It makes my work a lot easier. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing problems[edit]

This article and its daughter articles are grossly undersourced. I'm going to suggest removing any wrecks that are not verifiable to a reliable source. The reason is that at present anybody can insert misinformation here. It has to be understood that allowing misinformation to accumulate brings Wikipedia into disrepute when the problems are eventually found. How can any of us argue that Wikipedia is a useful information source when we allow factual errors to be made without any indication of how to check them?

There is already a noticeable effort by vandals to subtly change articles simply by altering dates. Look at the Sneaky date-related vandalism section on ANI to see how it is happening. Just today I spotted this edit to the article which changed 14 January 1840 to 13 January 1840 with no edit summary. Is it a genuine correction or date-vandalism? How can anybody tell when the entry is not sourced to anything? The article on the Steamship Lexington says it sank at 3:00 am on 14 January 1840, but of course that article cites no sources either. At some point the desire to provide useful information has to be tempered with the need to provide accurate information, and sources are the means of bridging that gap.

I'd be happy to hear any other editors' thoughts on the issues before I start making wholescale deletions from the articles. --RexxS (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the removal of unsourced material; even though I suspect the sources do exist for a lot of these wrecks, it would take a lifetime to go through and manually verify each one. I would, however, suggest that any list entry that has its own article should be kept, since one of the primary functions of lists is to allow easier navigation between related articles. The onus to provide sources then falls upon the article, not the list.
I think we also need to define a loose notability criteria. The list of Great Lakes shipwrecks, for instance, is properly sourced (I assume the paragraph above it provides attribution for most of the entries), but very long. Given that apparently 6,000 Great Lake wrecks have been identified, how do we decide which ones are worthy of incluson? DoctorKubla (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
This is the classic situation where the ever close to dormant shipwreck project was salvaged - with the hope for a central location to have discussions to resolve the issue like the one discussed here, that said - the sheer volume of potentially identifiable wrecks against a notability criterion is an important one - and probably should be scaled against (a) newsworthy issues like reported wrecks - with either fatalities and or misadventures that crept into media well away from the location (In Australia in the late 19th century there could be wrecks in Queensland that caught th attention in Tasmania or Western Australia) (b) type of vessel or type of wreck - where the volume is too large - perhaps a sample of the type with allusions/lists to similar ones (c) sourcing against some reputable texts/resources can also be an idea. Anyways thats my ten cents worth SatuSuro 09:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


We need to decide on the scope of these lists. There's been a lot of discussion on this talk page and elsewhere, but no guidelines have emerged to clarify what editors can or cannot add, which means things are being added more or less at random. I'm hoping to build some kind of consensus (among the two or three people who watch this page) so we can start to bash these lists into shape.

My initial thought was that every wreck for which we have an article should be included in the relevant list; on looking through Category:Shipwrecks, however, it occured to me that a) we have a lot of unreferenced articles on non-notable wrecks that would be deleted in an instant if they were sent to AfD, and b) these lists would be redundant if they just duplicated the category system. An alternative solution is to ignore notability and catalogue every shipwreck that exists, which would obviously be a massive undertaking, and would require further division of the lists into specific countries and regions (see List of shipwrecks of Cornwall, for example). I'd rather not go down that road, as the lists would lose all functionality and become as unwieldy as the 237 lists of shipwrecks by year. A third option is to be much more exclusive and list only the most notable wrecks, but in a lot more detail (as in List of shipwrecks of Isle Royale, which isn't so much a list as a guided tour).

None of these options are ideal, so here's my proposal. Every wreck in this list must not only be the subject of a Wikipedia article, but also pass the general notability guidelines (i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources). That means getting rid of every entry that isn't bluelinked, as well as entries that do have articles, but shouldn't. Keeping the standards high will prevent the lists from degenerating into useless lists of everything, and distinguish them from categories, which don't discriminate. It also leaves room for more detailed discussion of region-specific shipwreck information (as I think was mentioned a few years ago, further up this page), if anyone feels like doing that. On the downside, it isn't a clear-cut guideline and it requires some editorial judgement, which might cause arguments later on. But it's better than nothing.

So that's my tuppence. Any thoughts? DoctorKubla (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm an inclusionist. - Denimadept (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I know, me too. It pains me to suggest this. But there's just so many shipwrecks. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd rather suggest AfD'ing non-notable articles, but keeping the listing entry. Entries don't cost much or imply anything in particular. As someone (you?) noted, some of these are for SCUBA use, which doesn't strike me as a bad thing per se. Divers need locations too. - Denimadept (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe that was me what mentioned scuba sites. I do question whether a lot of the dive web sites count as reliable sources, and relying on them tends to skew the list to wrecks that are accessible to and interesting to divers and snorkelers. And, after all, WP isn't a guide. :) I do think that anything on the list needs either an article in WP, or at least one citation to a reliable source. Whether the articles can be verified is another issue. I don't set a very high bar, I've added articles on ships that wrecked based on a few one sentence mentions in obscure 19th century documents that have made it to the web. Even cleaned up, the list will probably be too long, but I'm not sure yet what would be a good way to break it up. By continent has been suggested, but then we would need separate, and smaller, lists for losses in open ocean, and then we would have to be arbitrary about how far from shore a wreck becomes oceanic rather than continental. -- Donald Albury 21:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The big split up has already been done, as far as I can tell. Beyond that, I'm not editing these articles in an editorial fashion, but for formatting. I'm a believer in Wikitables. What goes and doesn't go in them is not something I have strong feelings about. - Denimadept (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Asking for citations to a reliable source isn't really a barrier to inclusion, because I'm pretty sure every wreck that exists has been mentioned in some directory or other. I'd be happy to drop the notability issue and say any shipwreck with an article goes on the list, which, as I say, was my original philosophy. It does mean hundreds more shipwrecks need to be added, but I don't have anything better to do. One point I forgot to raise, though, is the distinction between shipwreck and shipwreck (accident). I think we're all in agreement that these lists should only cover actual physical shipwrecks, but a lot of the stubbier shipwreck articles only say that a ship was wrecked in the 1800s, without confirming that the wreck exists today and has been located. Should we give these articles the benefit of the doubt and put them on the list, or take the lack of further information to mean that the wreck was never found? DoctorKubla (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The issue of whether a shipwreck exists today can be murky. Shipwreck sites range from large, mostly intact, 20th century ships in shallow water, to a jumble of artifacts buried in sand or mud, to suspicious shapes in deep water showing on sonar screens. Some 19th and early 20th century shipwreck sites are well documented, complete with photographs, but have since disappeared. The identity of some known shipwreck sites is disputed. The exact location where some ships sank in the 19th century is in dispute, and so there is contention over which pile of debris came from which ship (see, for example, Guerrero (ship)#Search for wreck site). In any case, IMO, if we are going to restrict this list to currently existing wreck sites, then we need to change the name of the list. -- Donald Albury 10:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This list has its scope defined in the lead as: "This is a list of lists of shipwrecks (i.e. sunken or grounded ships whose remains have been located), sorted by region" while the List of missing ships article has its scope defined as "This is a list of missing ships and wrecks. If it is known that the ship in question sank, then its wreck has not yet been located". It seems to me that those two scopes have served their purposed well over time, and I can see no good reason for changing the scope of this list (and its daughter lists) to include everything that is covered by the scope of the other list. Nor can I see any value in having a list that merely duplicates a category. I mean that a category page produces a navigable list of existing articles on a topic. A list has the advantage that items can be included within it that are verifiable, but not necessarily notable in their own right. On Wikipedia, the criterion used for inclusion of a fact is that it is verifiable to a reliable source, and I'd strongly recommend that we adhere to that principle when deciding what entries are made in these lists. By all means, remove entries that are not verifiable, and add entries that are (even if have no article for them - yet). --RexxS (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, when I said the wreck should exist, I meant we should exclude ships that were sunk or beached, but later raised and returned to active service or broken up for scrap. As RexxS says, we should also exclude wrecks that exist but haven't been found, because there's another list for that. I think we should include wrecks that have been so weathered by time and natural forces that little or nothing remains of the ship itself, so perhaps renaming to List of shipwreck sites would be more appropriate.
As for verifiability, I just don't think it's workable. To elaborate on my previous comment regarding shipwrecks of the Great Lakes: History of the Great Lakes by J.B. Mansfield is undoubtedly a reliable source. In it, he apparently documents 5,999 shipwrecks on the Great Lakes within a twenty-year period. There are numerous similar works - see Australian Shipwrecks volumes 1-5, for example. We can't possibly list every verifiable shipwreck. Well, okay, we could, but such an overcrowded list would be worse than useless, not to mention being impossible to maintain. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I found this discussion after seeing the proposal to merge the List of Oregon shipwrecks into the US list and wanted to add my tuppence. I spent some time last fall when I was new, trying to add info to that list, but ultimately realized it was kind of a rogue, needed lots of work & doesn't get much use. It's a pretty complete list of shipwreck incidents, not just sites, so looks like it would be cut drastically. It isn't well sourced, though there are sources (I haven't yet learned how to add.) My own interest is historical, & I'd be sorry to lose the list, which to me is far more useful than all the ones by year. But I do have to agree that the whole subject needs reorganization & that there are an awful lot of shipwrecks. There are some better regional lists like Great Lakes and the "tour" of Isle Royale - maybe a good model will emerge for some enhanced regional coverage. Perhaps sections in regional articles like towns, bars, bays. And I'm spurred on to try to write articles for some notable Oregon shipwrecks, with & without sites. Cataobh (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I was the one who originally wrote the List of Oregon shipwrecks underneath my old handle. The book I have is a very comprehensive book, and has shipwrecks for the entire state of Oregon, up to 1984. My goal was not necessarily to list all relevant wrecks to the United States, let alone the world. Ideally, I would have written out articles based on the materials within the book on the ships that had the info. Alas, that never transpired. I, like Cataobh, have a historical interest in the subject of maritime history of my homestate. The purpose of the list was simply to be a jumping off point for research by people who enjoy that sort of thing, or people who are trying to find info on wrecks of less notable stature than the New Carissa, or the Peter Iredale. It's a layer of complexity. Maybe from the scope of the world, none of the wrecks are notable. However, the closer you look, the more one sees. I want to see the list be more comprehensive and clearly formatted, however, I was primarily working from one source, by a man who did his research, albeit published almost 30 years ago. After 2 weeks of hard work, I would hate to see all my work in transcribing reduced to nothing because it doesn't fit into another framework. SenshiMiko (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A new proposal[edit]

You know what? I think we could list every shipwreck.

The reason I've been against this idea is that such a list would be unbrowsable. As someone with only a casual interest in shipwrecks, a few short lists of notable wrecks would be of more interest to me than endless lists of every shipwreck that exists. On the other hand, I can see why someone from, say, Oregon would find a comprehensive list of Oregon shipwrecks useful. I've been trying to reconcile these two points of view, but it's finally dawned on me that we can do both.

So how does this sound? The lists of shipwrecks by continent (for example, List of shipwrecks of North America) list only the most notable wrecks, along the lines I've already mentioned. Each section heading (Bahamas, Bermuda, Canada, etc) has a "main article" hatnote leading to a complete list of shipwrecks in that region. These lists can be further divided if necessary (Canada, for instance, into Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, etc). That way, everyone's happy.

Thoughts? DoctorKubla (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It would keep individual lists down to a reasonable length. Coverage and quality of maintenance would vary quite a bit over the lists, but then that's true about a lot of stuff in WP. -- Donald Albury 00:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it is a workable and A modest proposal and a compromise with promise. 7&6=thirteen () 00:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Alright then. I'll wait a week or so before getting started, in case anyone else wants to chime in. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
This method does work, see List of windmills, where a similar system is in operation. Mjroots (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is much better than the original proposal, which had the potential of eliminating a lot of sweat equity by other editors. Going the route of the new proposal allows the subsidiary lists to be developed in greater depth according to the interest and availability of editors. YBG (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to start creating the new list pages. A lot of the lists will be pretty small at first, but they'll have much greater potential for expansion. Thanks for all your input, everyone. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'll save myself some work and just split off the longer lists for now. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Listing everything is great. The whole reason I come to wikipedia is to find the stuff that I can't find other places. If editors are only doing 'major' or 'important' things, well... I can find that on other sites (in fact, most other places; including general reference books, or gasp, physical encyclopedias). If wikipedia is doing *everything*, well, I know that when I'm here I'll be getting the most complete information there is - and if I have some piece of information that is missing, it can be added (and not deleted). This could result in (allegedly) 'too much info', but that's what a search function (or a google summary) is for. It'd be nice if there were a sort-function on lists, which would allow me to only list 'notable' items, or items that have non-stub articles... but that's merely icing on the cake.
~ender 2012-07-14 11:45:AM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)