Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shipwrecks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Shipwrecks (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-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.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

MV Christena, a ferryboat disaster[edit]

I don't normally write shipwreck articles, but I was thinking about starting one for the St. Kitts & Nevis Christena disaster, which happened in 1970. Over 200 people died when the ferry sank. Anyone willing to help me with starting the article? I do have a couple of references we could use. Invertzoo (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I may just go ahead with that article, as I don't think anyone can claim that the ferry disaster was/is not notable. Invertzoo (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Marlborough (ship)[edit]

I would like some assistance in checking this statement, because the source I have is not particularly reliable:

The Iquique Another possibility is that the boat Burley found was from the H. Fölsch Co, Hamburg's, 899 ton barque Iquique. She the went missing in 1883 after being spoken to at Cape Horn. The Iquique had originally been called the Marlborough. The Iquique had sailed from Newcastle On Tyne in February 1883 under Captain G Eduard Jessen with a load of coal for Iquique, Chile.

In particular I need a source for the renaming from Marlborough to Iquique, when and where it was last spoken to and the name of the ship, plus anything else which might add to the story. The other information I am seeking is when was the life saving station set up in or about Good Success Bay. NealeFamily (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You might want to check out WP:SHIPS/R for a link to Australian newspapers that are online. Might be something there. Do you have access to The Times online archive? Mjroots (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - I have access to both but have not found anything of use in them yet. Another editor has confirmed the name change through a LLoyd's reference. This still leaves me with the Iquique's demise and the Argentinian Good Success Bay life saving station to locate references for. NealeFamily (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
All references now found. NealeFamily (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

SS Californian[edit]

Neglect over some time to properly cite SS Californian has led to intention announced on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships to "slash and burn". My general reading suggests to me that most the content is citable to the main works on Titanic as well as those dealing with the particular controversy over Californian's role, and I am sure that there are members of this project that have the right material. Davidships (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Help Wanted: RMS Lusitania 100th Anniversary[edit]

On May 7th of this year we will observe the 100th anniversary of one of the most consequential events in maritime history. May I suggest a full court press to get this article up to FA status in time for the anniversary? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Lists of shipwrecks[edit] has been removing valid links from various lists of shipwrecks (1790, 1795, 1800, 1805, 1810). Over the course of a few days it has become apparent that this editor believes the issue is overlinking. The IP has accused me of owning the lists. I have told the IP I don't, but have merely followed established practice in creating the lists.

As a large number of lists are involved, and due to a relative lack of willingness to discuss the issue, I am raising this here in an effort to establish consensus on how these lists are laid out.

Unwillingness? Then what is the following under the TP for 1800?:


Mjroots--If you believe that these lists are in a useful format then they had best be eliminated as they are currently a mash of facts without any way to determine something unless one goes through the entire article that the mere amount of typos to be found show that either they get little traffic or so much texts eliminates the opportunity for people to read out typos. Also, I guess depending who and at what point something was inputted what is and the style of what is linked is not consistent so if someone doers add more information then how are they to determine as it is to be done in any other WP article that something fits into that article's arrangement. Reverting merely because you do not want to read and understand changes or do not want changes made without your effort of pre-approval is not the point of WP. As far as I understand, "List of shipwrecks in ....." is not preceeded by "Mjroots' ......". So are you going to be accepting of making these lists useful with a predictable arrangement so that they can be maintained with each new addition, clarification or edit? If not then the WP goal of long lasting articles has pass by like a ship in the dark. (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC) @ I've already explained my reasoning behind the linking at another list talk page. I do accept that I don't own the lists, but in creating these lists, I've merely followed the format established before I started editing Wikipedia 9½ years ago. Barring flaglinks, major countries that are essentially the same as today are not linked. Historic countries, first level subdivisions thereof and places are linked. There should be one link per date, with further mentions unlinked. I appreciate that where there are many entries against a date this sometimes gets overlooked, but it is not a big deal.The lists are in a predictable order - chronological, then alphabetical. I see no other way of doing it, but am always willing to hear suggestions. Mjroots (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC) One of the problems with policies is that things change over time. It may appear that the lists are in an order but that order is not universal in as many respects as is now being encountered. If it is not policy to link the first mention of a place in the list then when additions are made there is no predictable less time consuming way for people to determine if there needs to be made a change of what should be linked. So when say Dublin is mentioned in December 30 but then an addition is made for April 1 there is no quick way even with "find" to determine if something has already been linked or needs to supersede an existing link. That way when someone contributes they can do a "find" and if it what they contribute appears before the pre-existing link then it would be an appropriate action to move the link and maintain a predictable order of information. That is the arrange/order that is missing from the current style of the articles. Also, it can be borne out that there are many multiple links of the same place name otherwise the counts that I have encountered would not be so high. Also, it may appear that at the time whatever policy was "established" did not account for the possibility of presenting information in way that expects everyone to have the same weltanschauung and thus understand what context there may be for those that are more familiar with a country or region or continent verses those that come across the articles for a specific item. A case in point concerns the Denmark mention. Technically the country was occupied from 1807 until ceded in 1814 when it would be then a recognized possession. It has to be recognized that when one grows up in a place that the article concerns they possess a subconscious knowledge that may guide them through things without additional clarification but when one does not then there needs to be a consideration of that. I do not expect everyone to share my weltanschauung but I do expect to state what is in an article without that prejudice or bias that some people may not recognize because their subconscious does not fully enter their contribution. This to some may be a belabor but WP is suppose to present neutral in its style and yet a centrism may exist. I am confused as to what is "per date"? Is that per article or per day? If it is per day then all that does is make the article cumbersome and presents the idea that multiple links are acceptable as they exist in virtually all the articles. That is what I have fundamentally worked on. That is why the first mention should be the key link. Also, it may be necessary to have a fully expanded place mention in the article for particular places that are not linked since they may previously be so in order to avoid confusion for both a place name and the unaware reader. These articles most purposely serve those that are unfamiliar rather than familiar. And they most likely be reference in relation to a specific mention rather than the article as a "story" that is what can be found in other non-list articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I can understand that you did not respond there but instead on the sounding board but that is not justification enough, courteous in view of WP to say that I have been unwilling. (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment in the individual subsections below. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


The established practice is to use linked flags for all entries, regardless of whether or not that country has previously been linked in that section of the list. I have had recent discussion with Colonies Chris, to which Tony1 contributed, about this practice (User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2014/Dec#Flags in lists of shipwrecks). An offer of a WP:RFC was declined. As we are now discussing the lists in general, it seems a good opportunity to thrash this one out too.

As I said to Colonies Chris, I do have a idea which I'm prepared to discuss. Instead of the current practice, we could have one linked flag per country, per section. This can be achieved by the use of {{flagu}} instead of {{flag}}.

  • WP:FLAGCRUFT is a constant problem in soccer (association football) articles - they do not as a project (WP:Football) seem to have constrained the issue - the suggestion to limit is an excellent idea. satusuro 09:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    • It won't remove the flags completely. That one is a non-starter. There have been many discussions on the subject and consensus is that the flags stay. Mjroots (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


Apart from links generated by the flag template, the current practice is that major modern countries are not linked. Historical countries are not linked where that country is essentially the same as today. This means we don't link France or Spain, but we do link the Kingdom of Great Britain, Kingdom of Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. These are piped to display as Great Britain, Ireland and United Kingdom respectively, per WP:COMMONNAME. The Russian Empire is not essentially the same as Russia today, and is similarly given a piped link to display as Russia. Many modern countries did not exist in historic times - Belgium (1830), Italy (1861), Germany (1871). In these cases, their historic predecessors are linked. These are linked once per section, by which means I belive we avoid running foul of WP:OVERLINK.

  • Again, another good suggestion - there are regular former country/current country issues that are far from discusssion let alone resolution of issues, this is a good idea satusuro 09:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Country divisions[edit]

First-level divisions of countries (e.g. Finistère, Kent, West Flanders, Friesland are linked once per section. Further mentions of the same are in plain text. They are not mentioned when they are essentially the same name as the main town/city in that subdivision and that town/city is mentioned (eg. Antwerp (province), Groningen (province), Gloucestershire).

  • good suggestion satusuro 09:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


All place names are linked once per section, with the aim of including the first-level county division following, subject to the exception mentioned above. This is to ensure that the reader is clear as to the location of the wreck. Historic spellings are maintained wherever possible, using piped links if necessary (Batavia, Memel). Pipe links are also used to comply with WP:COMMONNAME (Halifax, New York) unless doing so causes ambiguity, in which case the unpiped link is used.

  • good suggestion satusuro 09:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC) General statement[edit]

Accepted practice? so things are not set in stone? Okay. My issue is with how can each article lend its format to being maintained, especially by the general lay person that most likely will not be aware of the particular "practices" for the shipwreck articles of the more frequent contributors to the lists. As per links, this practice differs from what is followed by WP in other articles where one is sufficient unless for some compelling reason it should be linked again, some of which differ from other article format. Treating links per section rather than per article means that there is a potential for 12 links when if linking is done with the first appearance then when someone adds to the that list the entire article is reviewed for consistency rather than a section that may differ from other sections and not be reviewed. I can hear, "Oh, bit I always review ......." If everyone did review as part of their editing practices then there would not be the occasion for so many typos and instances of non-"current"-linking "practice" to be found. I went from the start of each article to see how many times previous or past a place to see if it was linked or not linked. So, clearly the current practice does not lend itself to correcting whatever mistake is present otherwise they would not be there. If section is each month period then clearly the "current practice" does not lend itself to maintaining quality encyclopedic articles--there was within one month links for the same place. I seriously doubt that these lists will get to the point that a nation name changes from one on a Tues to a different one on a Wednes. It probably will when it comes to months but that just lends credence to the proposal that a link be established for an entire article list once it appears not for each "section" which means the potential of 12 links when one will do as long as the quality of the lists are maintained and predictable means exist to determine if or not a place has been mentioned or linked. Is it asking too much that a practice in line with that followed in WP in many other, if not all, articles be followed with these lists so that people can self-check work or those that verify after the fact that something is consistent? With all this adherence to accepted practice just was not working, contributes to article length that does not need to be as long with what is included, becomes so filled with characters that people do not catch typos, etc that a different approach may better suit the content of the articles/lists. Despite the championing of the "current" those same people who had "reviewed" the articles in which typos were found were not catching them. I found them. Or are editors leaving previously existing work to others and concentrating on those contributions that follow? But the point has to be borne out that if it was not being done and then the likelihood exists that it would continue to exist. So does the group want to adopt a new practice to bring about better quality lists? (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@ thank you for joining the discussion. No, nothing is set in stone, as you will have seen by my suggestion re linking from flags. We are open to suggestions for improvements. Such suggestions are proposed, discussed, and if there is consensus for them, they are implemented.
The reason for one link per section is that some of these sections can get quite long, as the entry for 3 January 1800 shows. That is by no means one of the longer ones.
The work of typo fixing is appreciated, and you are thanked for it. I appreciate the wall of text argument. Shipwrecks are illustrated where there is an image of the shipwreck (not the ship) available. These, unfortunately, are few and far between. There may be a case t be made for a "once per month" argument, but maintaining that does not make it easy for editors adding content to established lists, whereas a once per section limit is easier to maintain. Feel free to put that forward formally and it can be discussed. Mjroots (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I never said that I would not participate in this discussion. And a review of my edits will show how often typos appear which have been many that with review should have been caught much earlier. It did not take me hours to correct the shipwreck articles--it took many days and many sessions. Well, I do not believe the "once a wreck happens at sea it never happens there again," theory so if a wreck happens in January it can happen in any month past that but is it really necessary to link any more additional links for it in other sections if it already appears once in the article. Otherwise instead of one link you end up with how many links of the same location in each section in which a wreck happens. That is an automatic unnecessary expansion of the article for as many links with a one per section policy would entail. If the predominate policy in many other WP articles is one per article unless a particularly compelling reason is presented then when users who may find something odd by a one per section link might be unaware of what is the practice and then make changes that then put them off because they end up getting criticized for not being aware of the practice. I would say about length of sections that Jan-1800 in comparison to many other sections as more info becomes available make that section short. The natural beginning and ending of a date and a paragraph or sentence provides a text guide to locate where info should be added when necessary. Again, most of WP uses the one link per article practice, that is what many people are aware and strive when editing articles, that is what the casual or occasional reader will think because what is encountered elsewhere, and just for visual effect does not seem logical. If the section is too long then maybe there should be a change with what is a section? Yes, it may be logical to segment an article into sections but it does not appear logical if section length is the basis to continue with a one per section link since that just increases the overall length of the article with additional links of the same place that with a one per where it appears first established that pass that point it is no longer a linkable place and it gives an opportunity for typos or misstatements to be found by natural review when updating the article. I guess most current contributors to these shipwreck articles have yet to discover the "find" capability which is what I have used in every edit when it comes to linking. All it takes is one movement to find just where the first mention is made and then it is established whether the edit at hand needs or does not need to be linked. If in other articles people are expected to check citations then why should not people who want to change a shipwreck article to do due diligence as to whether a link should change. (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

One link per article is fine for short articles. You've seen how long some of these lists can get. In edit mode, no links or all links are the easiest ways to go. Both of which are not permitted. One link per section is fairly easy to maintain, and with very long lists is not excessive. One link per article is the hardest to maintain when writing articles, particularly when expanding an already well established article. Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

We are asked to use a logic in the development of articles. I am told that articles and sections can get long; therefore multiple links of the same geo-place names is appropriate in these articles or sections. What is wrong with this picture? Multiple links to the same places is justified as making something shorter and thus more easily maintained "how". Why should a shipwreck list be less logical than any other type of WP article when it comes to content, links and practice? If a WP article becomes too long then it is made in to smaller sections that may concern a particular aspect of the article subject. If "size" is the concern then how is "size" reduced when multiple uses of the same link in that article increases the size of the article overall? As I say to some that want to champion an idea; you can argue it this this way or that way but you have to recognize what is and is not part of the situation. Mathematics is wonderful in being able to identify the unknown quantity but this must be one maths that I have yet to encounter. (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be insisting on a very strict interpretation of WP:OVERLINK. Allow me to point you to another of our policies, WP:IAR, with its associated essay, WP:FATRAT. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Ignoring rules is for that which a suitable universal policy is not able to cover all instances. The argument has been presented that the length of the articles is at issue and the solution is to increase the amount of links in order to resolve it. There seems to be a disconnect with logic as if the concern is article length then any "solution" other than maintaining as necessary an article length as possible is inconsistent. That is different than ignoring a rule. Again, if article length is the issue then article length is what needs to be addressed. As for maintaining the correctness of the articles, that is easily achieved by locating the first instance of that link/potential link and following through--something that is easily achieved with "find". That little "review" of the article just may uncover additional inconsistencies or typos that ordinarily may not be found as these lists are not the type of article that one would ordinarily read through as if a regular article. I have no other issue with what is being done in these lists except that of linking. Unless another example as to WP policy is presented in this particular then I probably have no additional comment since this is a rug that has been beaten enough to dislodge the dust and dirt from the under pile. The practice that the first potential link is made and when appropriate an(y) additional same links made later are suitable for many other articles is more than appropriate for these lists especially as it concerns article/section length. (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


The issue has arisen yet again at Talk:List of shipwrecks in January 1918#Overlinking. Editors are invited to make their views known.

Navbox suggestion[edit]

I'd lime to propose a navbox for shipwrecks and incidents. It would work in a similar way to the navboxes for rail accidents and air crashes, such as {{2014 railway accidents}} {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 2014}}. The intention is that the navbox would contain two sections, for losses and one for other incidents. It would only have blue links and would be on a per year basis except for 1914-19 and 1939-45, which would be on a per month basis. The intention is that the templates would be named in the "(year) ship incidents" or "(month, year) ship incidents" series. Mjroots (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of Texan schooner Invincible[edit]

Texan schooner Invincible, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

MV Explorer (1969) listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for MV Explorer (1969) to be moved to MS Explorer. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Categorization issue[edit]

Copied from user talk:Mjroots


Please see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, section "Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category".

If what you say is true, then I guess several shipwreck articles need an update, and a few redirects need to be created.


HandsomeFella (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@HandsomeFella: - I don't understand, Category:Maritime incidents in 1628 is not a redirect. Nearly all other vessels involved in shipwrecks / maritime incidents are suitably categorized by year (or month + year for WWI and WWII). That's why I undid your edit. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, it is not the category that is a redirect. You may have read the guideline a little too quickly. It's about how we avoid placing articles in incompatible categories by creating appropriate redirects. See for instance the sinking of the RMS Titanic article, which is in the "maritime incidents in 1912" category. The article about the ship itself is in "ship-compatible" categories. The article about the sinking is not in ship categories, and the ship article is not in incident categories, just as it should be (I just removed the incident category from the ship article; it was both a miscategorization and a duplication).
Per Wikipedia:Categorization, categories are either set categories or topic categories. Set categories are always in plural. In order to belong in a set category, articles must fit into the category; it must be an instance of what the category describes. A ship is not an incident, thus it does not belong in set categories about incidents. In this case, both the ship and its sinking are notable, and both have articles, and that's all good and well. In the case of Vasa, there is only an article on the ship. While the sinking of Vasa may also be notable, there is still no article. We can't just arbitrarily place the ship in an incident category, just because there is no article on its sinking.
Similarly, editors sometimes mistakenly place articles on people in categories on scandals (following news reports). (I would call that "categorization by association".) People are not scandals, and thus this is wrong. If the scandal isn't notable enough to have an own article, place a suitably named redirect (to the involved person) in the appropriate categories – categories in which readers can be expected to search for the scandal.
For another example, please read the section "Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category", especially on the 24 Heures French-language version of the 24 Hours newspaper. The former can't obviously be placed in English-language newspapers categories, and the latter can't obviously not be placed in French-language newspaper categories.
Hope this wasn't TLDR.
HandsomeFella (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@HandsomeFella: I think I've got it now. Because there is a redirect (Sinking of the Vasa), you're saying that the ship shouldn't be categorized in the Maritime incidents category?
Unlike the Titanic example you gave, there is little likelihood of an article on the sinking of the Vasa being created. IMHO, the redirect should be deleted, leaving the ship in the correct category, per many other ship articles. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
You almost got it. It's not because there is a redirect; it's because a ship is not an incident. The sinking of a ship is an incident. The redirect was recently created by me, as a place-holder if you will, since Vasa is not an incident, and since it's needed in the "Maritime incidents in 1628" category. 1628 is in Sweden kind of like what 1066 is in England, I guess, and since both the ship and its sinking are notable, the 1628 category is needed.
I agree, there's little likelihood that an article on the sinking of Vasa will be created (but you never know). That's not the question at hand however. There's also little likelihood that the 24 Heures article will be created, and it's still a valid redirect, even referred to in the guidelines. The question is that the Vasa is miscategorized as an incident, while it was a ship.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but unlike me, you don't seem to have a guideline that supports your views. Or do you? If, as you say, this type of categorization is widespread, then I think we need to start a discussion somewhere. Do you have a suggestion?
HandsomeFella (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

End of copied text

categorization is broken in wikipedia, there are mountains of category trees that are either overlapping parallel or very very confused, not worth the effort at this stage.
Many categories are created loosely 'by association' and 'over-association', this also occurs on talk pages in project tagging, where it has created some bizarre situations. If there is something to 'fix' here, I would stongly suggest just here, elsewhere it is a jungle out there... JarrahTree 08:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure that this sort of thing has been discussed elsewhere. In fact, I'm certain, since when this comes up I usually offer Honey Lantree as an example. That's a redirect to the article for The Honeycombs, but there are some categories (such as Category:1943 births and Category:British female drummers), which are applicable to Honey Lantree (the person) but not to The Honeycombs (the band). This is because the band was not formed in 1943 (some members were born in 1943, but by no means all) and although the band is British, it isn't a female drummer (it has a female drummer, but that's a completely different verb). So these cats are placed on Honey Lantree, the redir.
More at Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
AIUI, a "maritime incident" is an incident in which a vessel (not being an aircraft or non-amphibious land vehicle) is involved. These include (but are not limited to) founderings, collisions, fires, groundings, allisions etc.
If a vessel is involved in such a maritime incident, it is placed in the relevant "Maritime incidents in (year)" category. The vast majority of vessels do not have separate articles covering the maritime incident they were involved in, therefore the article on the vessel is categorized. This system was in place long before I started editing Wikipedia in 2005. It should be understood that the category "Maritime incidents" really means "vessels involved in maritime incidents". I oppose any proposal for a wholesale renaming of these categories to accommodate this. Shorter is better here. Mjroots (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I take Redrose64's post as explicit support of my view:
  • The Honeycombs article cannot be placed in the British female drummers category in lieu of an article on Honey Lantree, because it isn't a female drummer; it has a female drummer.
  • Similarly, Vasa cannot be placed in the Maritime incidents in 1628 category in lieu of an article on its sinking, because it wasn't a maritime incident; its sinking was.
I disagree on the description of the maritime incidents category tree as "really [meaning] 'vessels involved in ... '". The maritime incidents categories are fine as they are, they are intended for incidents (not the vessels involved); if they really were, how then would we categorize the incident articles? "Real maritime incidents"?
Thus, nobody is proposing a "wholesale renaming" of those categories. What ought to be the outcome of this discussion however, is that we go through the maritime incidents category tree, and wherever we find a ship's name, we check the article to see if it's mainly about the ship, or mainly about an incident it was involved in. Depending on which (and maybe a decision on which is the more notable), one of two lines of action should be taken:
  • If the ship is/was more notable, place a redirect describing the nature of the incident in the incident category, and remove that category from the ship article.
  • If the incident is/was more notable, rename the article to a name that is appropriate for the incident category, and remove "ship-compatible" categories. Optionally, categorize the redirect left behind in "ship-compatible" categories.
There is a third option: splitting the article into one on the ship and one on the indicent, if there's enough material, and both are notable. Then adjust the categorization accordingly.
HandsomeFella (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Fourth option: - Just leave the categories as they are. They work just fine. Mjroots (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
That would contravene the guidelines above. But there's even a fifth option: create subcategories of the "Maritime incidents in XXXX", "Ships involved in maritime incidents in XXXX", and place the ship articles there. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
That (the fifth option) seems a good compromise - strongly oppose splitting an article into ship and incident. JarrahTree 22:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
A guideline is just that, a guide. It is not something that has to be rigidly followed in all cases. There are exceptions to most rules, and WP:IAR can be applied. Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, JarrahTree. Regarding your objection on splitting articles: whether it's motivated to split articles would depend on the individual article. There is one article on Titanic and one article on its sinking, and that's ok, isn't it? It's not entirely unthinkable. But it should of course not be done routinely. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Please understand that I have come into this conversation a little distracted and perhaps not grappling with the issues being sorted out here, if I have misunderstood the issues, my apologies.
My prime interest is that long term editors on this project are strongly supported and always given credit, and understanding, regardless of whatever might bounce in from the flotsam and jetsam of the real world or other parts of the wiki project, as the project has been under fire a few times in its history, and I do think it needs sustaining and supporting.
Secondarily after coming back from a gap in time, and thinking about parts of things above - I would retract the 'splitting' objection, Borobudur and Krakatoa come to mind, one article cannot possibly encompass the range of issues that arise from those two subjects.
As to the issues between the two eds above, I am less interested in the details, more concerned that this project continues, and however helps it improve and expand needs to be supported, as so many project areas on wp en are close to dormant, and I think that is sad, as the potential for projects to more carefully monitor and 'mind' subject areas on wp en, specially in face of project ignorers who play with the 'front' main space and category space but never ever are seen anywhere near talk page and project tagging. Wp is the poorer for the emphasis on the front page and neglect of the talk page JarrahTree 08:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings WikiProject Shipwrecks Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Wreck diving[edit]

The article Wreck diving is tagged for WikiProject Shipwrecks as top importance, so I am requesting comment from this project on what your members consider would be desirable changes and expansion. I work mostly on WP:SCUBA, and the article is rated high importance there at present, so I would like to get it up to B-class soon and GA in the foreseeable future. Please respond on the article talk page. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

ARA General Belgrano listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for ARA General Belgrano to be moved to ARA General Belgrano (C-4). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Shipwrecks/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Shipwrecks, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)