Template talk:Surviving ocean going ships

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Ships (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template 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 articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.WikiProject icon
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Mary Rose[edit]

I would dispute the inclusion of the Mary Rose on this template, she is not exactly surviving, rather what we have of her is recovered wreckage and although some of the wreck survives to this day, I would not consider her surviving in the same sense as the Cutty Sark or the Victory and she is certainly not ocean going. JonEastham (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

bumped to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject ShipsCruickshanks (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Mary Rose should be removed. Vasa also probably. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
When I first created this template, my intention was to try to trawl for all of the originally ocean-going 'survivors' out there. That is why I included Vasa and Mary Rose in the first revision of the template (by memory) because the very existence of those two very old ships is so significant. My use of the term "ocean going" was only intended to differentiate from the myriad of small coastal vessels out there that could swamp this template. The term "ocean going" is not intended to construe that they are still "ocean going" today. Indeed, to apply such a filter now would basically empty the majority of the ships from the template and make it rather pointless. Thus, the inclusion of Vasa and Mary Rose, as well as Cutty Sark and Victory, is fully in keeping with the initial intent of the template. I hope this helps. Cruickshanks (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggested additions[edit]

In the military section, I would add:

Bancki (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Good collection; I have now added Cruickshanks (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

AWB Bot[edit]

Thinking aloud, I wonder if someone who is experienced in using Bots could use a bot to append this template, in the auto-collapse state, to each of the ships in the list that do not already have the template.Cruickshanks (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Admissibility criteria?[edit]

Currently, the template covers ships launched before 1960. I propose that the scope of the template is moved forwards by five years, to cover all vessels launched before 1 January 1965. Mjroots (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. --Mervyn (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 Done - Not sure about whether or not Canadian internal ferries or lakers fit the criteria, so I've left them off. If anyone feels strongly that they should be included, please feel free to do so, and add the template to the relevant article. Some ships currently on the template are pending disposal / scrapping, but are includeable at present. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Enterprise (1960) and Nomadic (1911)[edit]

I'd debate if the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) still qualifies as a "surviving" ship. The main article outlines that dismantlement is in progress and much of her equipment has been stripped off her hull. The description of the deactivation progress to date suggests that she's beyond the point where there is any reasonable possibility she could become a museum. Is there any project standard on when a ship is referred to in the past tense? Without a standard I'd say it is when a ship arrives at her "final resting place".

The other question is the tender Nomadic. Surving yes, but does a tender qualify as an "ocean going ship"? Blue Riband► 01:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ocean going criteria[edit]

Several of these ships such as the coastal gunboat Tyr or the Spanish Submarine Peral were never designed to operate with the ability to independently cross oceans. Other ships in this category such as USS Cairo and SMS Bodrog were only designed to operate on rivers, making their classification as "ocean going" even more circumspect. I would suggest thar this template box be renamed "Surviving Ships launched before 1965" rather than eliminate a number of The ships. --199.59.117.76 (talk) 18:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone has been adding Great Lakes freighters, like Col. James M. Schoonmaker and SS Badger. Do these belong? It's a bit confusing that the template is named "Surviving ocean going ships" but displays as "Surviving ships launched before 1965". Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

great template but it is prone to line-wrapping problem[edit]

Difficult to work with years when they wrap separately from link

possible solution with another template D1gggg (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Should we count replicas as "surviving"?[edit]

Pilgrim (brig) is a replica D1gggg (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

No, unless said replica is 50 years old. Mjroots (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Preserved Viking ships[edit]

Shouldn't this include old Viking ships that have survived? Oseberg Ship, Gokstad ship, and so on. --Jtle515 (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Merchant vs military[edit]

A lot of these "military" ships are cargo, light, and coast guard ships.... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggested cutoff date of "1939"[edit]

I am proposing that we have a cutoff date for this template set at 1939 or 1945 indefinitely. The reasoning behind this is that the template is becoming too large to navigate properly, and the proposal pre-dates or post-dates World War II. We also have an article here List of oldest surviving ships which I have been fixing up. The cutoff date I have is 90 years but can adjust the date to align with this template. We can always make "Surviving World War II ships" or the like as an alternative. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Support either year; the current list is way too long. Just for reference, IHS Sea-web search for ships that are in service found 463 ships built 12/1939 or earlier, but a whopping 8,562 for pre-12/1969. Tupsumato (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - What about splitting the ships by century, and having each section collapsed by default. This might mean combining military and civil ships together, but I don't see that being a big problem. Would prefer to keep the threshold at 50 years, with the proviso of no article = no entry. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
This is an idea we could do, but the list is just going to keep expanding if we keep the 50 year threshold. If a ship is 50 years or older than there is a good chance that it will have some kind of information on it. It's really cool that we keep the 50 year threshold I know, but I'm hesitant to continue doing so here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is it possible to keep one large template for the article - List of oldest surviving ships - and then for individual articles, have a smaller template for list of surviving ships from 1700s, list of surviving shisp from 1800s. That way the enormous template won't have to go on the article for HMS Victory, which is really not comparable to ships constructed in 1959. Llammakey (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Most of the surviving ships date in the 1800s, I am doing my best to try and cut down the cross category lists. There are also a lot of ships not mentioned on the template here which would fit in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)