Jump to content

Talk:Sinking ships for wreck diving sites

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First wreck sunk as a dive site in 2004?

[edit]

Seems pretty unlikely to me. A number of wrecks were sunk artificially as tourist attractions in the 1990s in the British Virgin Islands. The Cayman Islands purchased and sunk a soviet era destroyer before then as a wreck diving site. And I would be very surprised if there were not earlier examples. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just took that fact from a previous version of artificial reef, here [1]. I agree it sounds dubious, but I haven't hunted for any sources. I am going to remove the world view tag though, and replace it with a more appropriate {dubious} inline tag. Things should become clearer as people populate the list. MickMacNee (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(or search for sources) MickMacNee (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the addition of a table of wrecks has now disproved this claim, I have removed the offending line from the introduction.--Dmol (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. MickMacNee (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is going to be fun putting this list together! --Legis (talk - contribs) 22:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another dive wreck

[edit]

HMAS Perth (D 38) paid off on 15 October 1999 and was sunk as a dive wreck off Albany in Western Australia on 24 November 2001. Former HMAS Perth Dive Wreck

Another one to add to the list. This is an interesting topic and I was glad to find the content, but I did not link the above dive wreck to this article name. Can the related articles be reworked to avoid this title? cygnis insignis 18:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by linking to this article. If the title is too cumbersome to use in an article, you can always use a piped link. MickMacNee (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like this maybe? MickMacNee (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title would always need a pipe, excepting the sentence fragment in the article from which it was presumably spawned. Readers would expect to find these facts elsewhere and it is difficult to imagine this being typed in search engine, it is cumbersome. It needs more sources, these may reveal a better title. This article could be expanded and merged to articles on wreck dives, scuttling, artificial reefs, etc., leaving a list of the sites. Feel free to add HMAS Perth and the reference, hope it helps with the improvements. cygnis insignis 04:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created the separate article because there seemed to me to be no sensible parent article between wreck diving and artificial reef (and possibly others, its a while since I thought about this), it arguably has 50% merit to be in either (both would be a reasonable {Main} subject to add here), so it was spawned as a content union if you like (as opposed to a fork). As for the name, I realy couldn't think of one that was backed by sources, or a noun description e.g. artificial wreck? that was preferable to a descriptive one, but I do think that proper linking from related articles is enough to justify a separate article. Not all articles need an exact on the button search term. I had intitial doubts as to whether it was a big topic, but there seems to have emerged more examples of this practice than I thought there ever was. I would hope this article is findable from the related articles, and a few people have found it already, so I don't think it is quite 'in the wilderness' per se. I think in these cases a separate 'home' article clearly defining the subject that can be linked from all the closely related ones is preferable than risking duplicating of content in the merge candidates. I don't think it would survive as a standalone list. Anyway, despite all this rambling, I wouldn't be overly offended if you kicked off a formal merge/rename proposal, to see if we could determine a merge target/better name. MickMacNee (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering and anticipating my concerns. The article is about two things; the preparation of a ship for scuttling and the dive sites in the list. Both are very interesting, I read some articles on this in the local media when they sank the Perth. I'm sure the correct name will emerge when it is expanded and referenced. Don't forget to include my include my links ;-) cygnis insignis 13:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HMAS Swan! A distinguished inclusion, but then I would say that... cygnis insignis 14:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is realy bugging me is, I am 99% sure the reference of National Geographic channel, "The Ship Sinkers" I initially added was a programme about HMNZS Wellington (F69), but I cannot find any source to say that. MickMacNee (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not the best ref, but this is an adequate source. cygnis insignis 15:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinking_ships_for_wreck_diving_sites&oldid=1213150937"