Talk:List of shipwrecks in 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of shipwrecks in 2023 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ships

This article 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.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Years

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Orphaned references in List of shipwrecks in 2023

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of shipwrecks in 2023's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bbc.com":

From 2023 Messenia migrant boat disaster: "Greece boat disaster leaves at least 78 dead and hundreds missing". BBC News. 15 June 2023. Archived from the original on 14 June 2023. Retrieved 17 June 2023.
From Marshall Islands: "Marshall Islands profile - Timeline". Bbc.com. July 31, 2017. Archived from the original on August 14, 2017. Retrieved August 22, 2017.
From United Arab Emirates: London man tells of 'shock' jailing in Dubai over kiss. Bbc.com. Retrieved 26 November 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boat name

The 14 June section says Andrianna, but the article linked says Adriana, with a note saying that it has been reported under three different names, including the one that I haven't mentioned earlier, Andriana. Which name should be used, and should there also be a note in the list article as well? 70.79.239.40 (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olenegorsky Gornyak

Wisdod has removed Olenegorsky Gornyak from the list, saying there is no confirmation of a shipwreck. Vessels do not necessarily need to be hull losses to qualify for an entry. I think the entry should be reinstated. Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been actual confirmation that the vessel has been hit? At the moment it appears to be a case of claim and denial by the various parties involved. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian denials can probably be taken as proof it was hit. Images on social media (Visegrad24, for example) show the vessel with a severe list, and a spillage coming from the ship, thought to be fuel oil. Mjroots (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are back to the definition of a reliable source! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Murgatroyd49: The BBC meets RS, as does Sky News. Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but neither of them commit themselves as to the veracity of the claims Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, but both carry photographs which show the ship listing and low in the water at the stern. Mjroots (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which could be due to a number of reasons. I'd still waiting for independant corroboration. After all, I believe she is the same class as the previous ship the Ukrainins damaged earlierin the war, we need confirmation this is a different vessel. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Murgatroyd49: does Naval News qualify as a reliable source? Mjroots (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know it does. However it is still very cagey about whether the presumed damage was caused by a Ukrainian strike. I note that is still a contempory account. There must be some later coverage out there. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sevastopol attack

Kashmiri - I've reinstated the two vessels damaged/lost in the attack on Sevastopol. That one of the vessels was in a drydock at the time is immaterial. There are plenty of other examples of vessels being lost in drydocks, whether through accidents or war, in the various lists of shipwrecks. Per each vessel's article, both were at least severely damaged, if not lost. They both qualify for entries here. Mjroots (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Well, per shipwreck, the term doesn't seem to denote vessels damaged while being repaired - especially when the extent of the damages is unknown and the ship may well be repaired (yes, the perpetrator boasts that the damage is permanent, however no reliable source has confirmed this independently). With no confirmation that either is a shipwreck, I don't believe they should be included here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri:. Thanks for the reply. I will post a note at WT:SHIPS asking for other editors to comment. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the message at SHIPS. Seems too soon to me. Wait for more info as to whether they are wrecked and will be scrapped/scuttled, or repaired. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it will take several weeks or more for the Russian authorities to assess whether the vessel has been damaged beyond economical repair (which may also be influenced by the available budget) and then for the media to report on any decisions. So, we might not know the hull's status for quite a while. I think some editors are simply too hasty in copying what essentially is part of war propaganda into Wikipedia. Patience please :) — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Peacemaker. Some people are just jumping on the propaganda wagon of both sides. Llammakey (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Always been a debate if a constructive total loss counts as a shipwreck but in this case they are not even confirmed as a ctl so should not be included (yet) Lyndaship (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think they can be included, there are enough sources to cite for the fact that they are damaged. These lists apparently have a very loose definition of a shipwreck and don't appear to need a ship to be lost in combat, or beyond repair or even lost at all. For example, List_of_shipwrecks_in_2017 includes Antietam, Fitzgerald and John S McCain, which were not hull losses or beyond economical repair. List_of_shipwrecks_in_2016 includes USS Louisiana, and USS Montgomery which were not losses. List_of_shipwrecks_in_2020 correctly includes Bonhomme Richard, which was lost to fire, not combat. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the cause I think. The list is about the end result – whether the vessel is now wreckage or still a functional ship that may only need extensive repairs. If there are other problematic entries on sister lists, they may merit a discussion on their own. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in waiting for more information, per Peacemaker. - wolf 19:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]