Talk:Ghost ship

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

misc[edit]

It seems slightly absurd to explain away a 'ghost ship' as a 'ghostly ship', but I can't personally think of a better description. Thus the challenge is laid down: can anyone else?

...for what it's worth, I'm confused why this gets categorized as "parapsychology-related". Are ghost ships currently the subject of some major parapsychological investigation? Why should a tradition of legend that goes back thousands of years get pigeonholed into a category concerning some vaguely related faddish (pseudo)science? Mythology almost seems like a more appropriate category.

Many ghost ship cases are unsolved mysteries and therefore belong to the parapsychology group. See Reality shift for more.

That's ridiculous. Not every "unsolved mystery" is paranormal-related; the vast majority really aren't. Tagging every unsolved mystery as paranormal would be *insane*, logistically as well as theoretically. 69.129.196.12 (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Iron Mountain (Riverboat) is missing on the list.

Possible error: Should the word spanker in the following sentence be spinnaker? 3 October 1923, the SV Governor Parr: This four masted schooner was abandoned by her crew after she lost her mizzen and SPANKER in a storm while sailing from Ingramport, Nova Scotia, Canada to Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Probably not an error unless someone misread the source. They are two different things. Without getting too technical, a spinnaker is a foremast sail, and a spanker (sail) is an aft mast sail. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New section added[edit]

I wrote a new section for the article: In video games, where I commented about the ghost ship that appears in a Zelda game. That's the only case I know about a ghost ship in video games. If you know any other game with the same feature, please add it. 200.71.189.2 19:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is very sparse[edit]

There is much more information out there and I feel this article is woefully incomplete. I have added a ghost ship site for Michigan. If I did somethign incorectly, please feel free to fix. I am new and learning. I will come back soon to add more. Nisanu 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Ship ?[edit]

Should there also be a wiki entry for the term Phantom Ship which links to this page or ? Nisanu 22:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reality and Fiction[edit]

I think the article should be divided into 2 topics: Reality (concerning the "real" ghost ships, ships that are found crew-less in the middle of the ocean) and Fiction/Myth/Fantasy Ships, like the flying welshman. And maybe some notes on the end, about famous ghost/phantom ships.

Ghost ships in fiction[edit]

This section makes absolutly no sense whatsoever. It seems like it's rambling. I think it should be cleaned up or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.159.167.75 (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I say we axe it. It looks like some 14 year old got on and spewed about their favorite movie. *ahem* Its relavence isn't worth the effort it would take to rewrite the section, at least IMO. --MUSpud2 23:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject was important enough for the very scholarly work Lost at Sea: Ghost Ships and Other Mysteries to be wrritten on it. Under no circumstances delete...merely clean it up. I'll volunteer to be first, if necessary. --Chr.K. 00:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section should definitely be cleaned up. Repeated use of the word "its" is unnecessary and should be rewritten to be more concise.

I will second the above, under no circumstances it should be deleted, it was indeed an interesting read. It ceratinly could do with addition of more content. -- Ironluca

moved Ourang Medan to 'In Legend'[edit]

I'm not familiar with this account, so maybe it doesn't belong in the "Legend" section. However, as it was, there was a description of this (alleged?) incident under "In Reality," but followed immediately by the sentence, "The entire episode is apocryphal." Either it's been documented to be true or it hasn't been, but it makes no sense to put an apocryphal story in a list of documented events. 70.18.28.88 (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the list complete?[edit]

Please excuse me if this is spam (or similar), but is the list of "In reality" complete? I would've thought there were more ghost ships covered on Wikipedia. 121.208.3.121 (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of the completeness of this article, I distinctly remember a persistent and famous mythical 'phantom ship' that supposedly appears near Prince Edward Island. If anyone knows about this myth, should it be added? 89.206.227.99 (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern ghostships[edit]

The UK media has applied the term 'ghost ship' to a number of obsolete US navy warships which (controversially) have be brought to the UK for dismantling. These are currently kept in the basin near Graythorpe off Seaton Channel in the Tees Estuary. (see http://www.ghostships.co.uk/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnYeadon (talk • contribs) 13:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...these "ghost ships" can be towed from port to port for many years while legal wrangling goes on over their future. Examples include the former French aircraft carrier Clemenceau." This is misleading, and if there are examples citations should be given. Clemenceau is not one - she was towed once from France for India, turned round in mid-voyage and returned to Brest after a few months, where she has been awaiting the conclusion of legal actions before being towed to the demolition yard. Davidships (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think HMS Resolute should be ont he list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.26.10 (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video games[edit]

The content of this section seems to be trivial (eg - entire listing: In Skies of Arcadia, one of the games discoveries is a Ghost Ship that can be seen in upper sky near the entrance to the Dark Rift) at best. There are currently 12 listings and links to 16 games; most game articles have a (usually lengthy) "plot" or similar section, yet only one actually mentions "ghost ship".

I suggest this section be trimmed to games where either the "ghost ship" aspect is detailed in the main article, or an acceptable <ref> is provided. Any objections or better suggestions? - 58.8.17.197 (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the above. I'd like to revise my proposal thus: "games where the 'ghost ship' aspect is detailed in the main article, and an acceptable <ref> is provided". 58.8.9.193 (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2009)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've listed Ghost ship at Wikipedia:Requested moves and suggested that a more appropriate name would be List of ghost ships, per WP:SAL#Naming conventions. 58.8.211.127 (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This rename seems like a good idea based on the content of the article. Hmains (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Since no one's objected, I've gone ahead and moved it. If you want to move Ghost ship (disambiguation) to that title, then you should initiate a move request at that article's talk page.--Aervanath (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, good move. There's still quite a lot of work to convert the article to a good list, however. Andrewa (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article organisation[edit]

There is apparently no "main article" for "ghost ship" (in the core meaning). This article seems to be half pretending to be this main article, yet it is as such misnamed, and its prominent link to ghost ship seems to be deferring to some other article which doesn't actually exist (the link just points back to the dab page, where there is no additional relevant information). Basically it seems a bit of a muddle. 86.134.13.125 (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Also, the subsidiary definition of "ships which have been decommissioned but not yet scrapped" seems misplaced because there is apparently no intention to list such ships in this article. This is another symptom of the article not really knowing what it is trying to be. I deleted this and deferred it to ghost ship, along with making some other changes. My changes were a bit of a hatchet job and probably rightfully reverted, but ideally we should be looking to fix the root organisational problem. 86.134.13.125 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of ghost ships covers the main use - actual ships (vessels). There's no reason for "ships which have been decommissioned but not yet scrapped" not to be listed here. The Ghost ship dab page covers other uses - books, films, music, TV; linking to it as Ghost ship (disambiguation) is per WP:INTDABLINK and has made this clearer. 92.1.93.82 (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, looking back at the edit history, I think I'm getting confused between the versions. I think I was accidentally looking at the wrong version and consequently made an unintended change in my last edit. What we have now looks reasonable, except that "Ghost ship is a fictional concept for a haunted vessel" is poor English. It's awkward to say that something is a concept "for" something else. 86.134.90.135 (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
... though, looking at it again, it doesn't quite make sense, and isn't quite in the standard Wikipedia style IME. Cross-references in the "This article is about..." vein are normally used when there is a "main article" about the primary meaning titled (in this case) "Ghost ship", and a disambiguation page listing other meanings. That isn't the case here. Logically, how would anyone arrive at this article wanting any of the other meanings? Either they have already been directed here from Ghost ship (so they aren't likely to want to be sent back there) or they actually typed in "List of ghost ships", in which case this is the only plausible meaning. (Also, the link refers to "Ghost ship (disambiguation)" but the target page is not actually called that, which is mildly confusing.) I'm not saying that it particularly harms anyone to have the note at the top of the page, just that the organisation is nonstandard. These are the sorts of concerns I originally had, before I started getting confused about what I was doing, and I don't think they have entirely gone away. 86.134.90.135 (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
All vessel-specific "ghost ship" links from other articles are piped to here. The "Ghost ship (disambiguation)" links are per WP:INTDABLINK: To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect – for example, link to the redirect America (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "America". 92.1.93.82 (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of this, it still does not quite make sense. Not that I'm saying it's such a big deal, just that there is something illogical about the setup. There is also something not quite logical about routing links to this meaning of "ghost ship" to an article called "List of ghost ships". When clicking on such a link, I expect to reach an article that is about that subject, full stop, not just a list of related things. The basic problem, as I mentioned before, is that there is no "core" article for "ghost ship" in this meaning, so, mindful of this and the incoming links, this list article feels the need to define the term at the top in the manner of a "core" article, and then tack on a list, thereby adopting something of a split personality, as if it can't quite decide what it is supposed to be. 86.172.96.114 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The "List of ghost ships" article was previously named "Ghost ship" - see the section immediately above this one for rationale. "Ghost ship (disambiguation)" was then moved to "Ghost ship". [1] - 92.1.93.82 (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Although neither is ideal, I personally think the "least worst" option would be to put it back how it was. 86.172.103.27 (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Merged lists of ghost ships in film and literature into Ghost ship[edit]

Editors were starting to add ghost ships in literature, film, music, and TV to the article Ghost ship, so I merged the sections on ghost ships in film and in literature from this article into that article. However I left ghost ships in literature and film intact in this article in case an editor objects to deleting them, although at this time they are redundant between the two articles. 71.173.71.164 (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted - Ghost ship is a disambiguation page - please see MOS:DAB. Thanks. 92.11.105.66 (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kaz townsville forensics.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Kaz townsville forensics.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2012)[edit]

Move granted per consensus and common sense. That article isn't "deep" enough has no bearing on the title. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of ghost ships → Ghost ship – The "List of" doesn't belong at this title for the simple reason that there is no article titled "Ghost ship". This is one of those combined article/list pages which has some elements of article, some of list, some of set index. But, without a separate article called Ghost ship, there is no reason for this to be titled as a list. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - this is a start article with a list appended. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This page is in no way an in-depth article like Kantianism or Laser. It is a list and as such "List of" should remain in the title. The actual page Ghost ship should be changed from a redirect to a good article. --— Melab±1 ☎ 04:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you write it. Until then, the article content is all here. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ghostly vessels and real derelicts[edit]

At present, Category:Ghost ships includes both the Flying Dutchman (a ghostly vessel) and the Mary Celeste, a real derelict. I suggest creating two sub-categories:-

1. Ghostly vessels, which could include: -

a. Black Pearl

b. Caleuche

c. Eliza Battle

d. HMS Eurydice (1843)

e. Fireship of Baie des Chaleurs

f. Flying Dutchman

g. Ghost Ship of Northumberland Strait

h. København (ship)

i. Lady Lovibond

j. Palatine Light

k. Phantom Canoe

l. SS Valencia

m. Young Teazer

2. Derelicts, which could include

a. SS Baychimo (NB that there is no mystery surrounding how she became derelict)

b. Bel Amica (NB that the mystery surrounding how she became derelict appears to have been solved)

c. Carroll A. Deering

d. Abel Fosdyk papers (about the Mary Celeste)

e. Governor Parr (NB that there is no mystery surrounding how she became derelict)

f. High Aim 6

g. J. Habakuk Jephson's Statement (about the Mary Celeste)

h. Jenny (schooner) (the historicity of this derelict is unclear)

i. Jian Seng

j. MV Joyita

k. Kaz II

l. MV Lyubov Orlova (NB that there is no mystery surrounding how she became derelict)

m. Mary Celeste

n. Octavius (ship) (the historicity of this derelict is unclear)

o. Ourang Medan (the historicity of this derelict is unclear)

p. HMS Resolute (1850) (NB that there is no mystery surrounding how she became derelict)

q. Ryou-Un Maru (NB that there is no mystery surrounding how she became derelict)

r. Teignmouth Electron

s. The Twenty One Friends (NB that there is no mystery surrounding how she became derelict)

t. Zebrina (ship)

3. Query where we should put Iron Mountain (riverboat) - 'The ship ran aground and sank in 1882. However, a common legend claims that it mysteriously disappeared.'

Alekksandr (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is the categories be Category:Ghost ships and Category:Legendary ghost ships. As a ghost ship, the Iron Mountain is legend, not fact, and belongs in the legend category. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See below.Alekksandr (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folklore, legends and mythology[edit]

I suggest adding Fireship of Baie des Chaleurs and SS Valencia (referring to the Myths and legends surrounding the Valencia).Alekksandr (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historically attested[edit]

I suggest adding The Twenty One Friends.Alekksandr (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tables[edit]

The tables in this are not helping anything here. Since these entries are mostly prose, the meat of the entry is squished into a tiny box and harder to read. I suggest getting rid of the tables and going back to the bullets. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The sortable tables mean that a reader can read the list alphabetically, chronologically or according to the circumstances in which a ship became derelict -e.g. abandoned, unknown, washed away, went adrift. They can also compare types of ship and locations at a glance.Alekksandr (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the tables make reading the prose much more difficult. I'd like to see them removed.--Cúchullain t/c 12:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Mountain[edit]

Why is Iron Mountain gone? Deleted without explanation. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above - '3. Query where we should put Iron Mountain (riverboat) - 'The ship ran aground and sank in 1882. However, a common legend claims that it mysteriously disappeared.' IOW, no-one claimed to have seen her after she was lost (unlike e.g. the Young Teazer) and she was not found derelict (unlike the Marie Celeste). She has an entry in List_of_missing_ships#North_America and I suggest that that is where she belongs, unless she should be moved from there to List of shipwrecks of the United States, as her remains were apparently located.Alekksandr (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It belongs in the legend section. There is nothing in the definition of legend that requires paranormal or a ghostly feature - even if there was, the Iron Mountain Legend is paranormal as an abrupt disappearance. Legend means that it is a story that it is widely believed, and either false, or impossible to confirm either way (such as Category:Legendary rulers. Based on that, the Iron Mountain disappearance story is a legend. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lyubov Orlova[edit]

MV Lyubov Orlova was never a real ghost ship - yes, the cable snapped, but once it was abandoned it was never actually seen. The only ghost ship about it was the bad reporting claiming that it was populated by cannibal rats. So, in my view, it belongs in legends. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated at the beginning, 'A ghost ship ... may be ... a real derelict found adrift with its crew missing or dead'. This page discusses the Resolute, the Baychimo, the Twenty-One Friends and the Governor Parr, all of which became derelict in well-documented circumstances, like the ship in question. The abandoned MV Lyubov Orlova was indeed seen on 4 and 23 February - see her article.Alekksandr (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that brings up the question of criteria for inclusion. The list of real ships is getting long, and perhaps we need to prune it - by limiting it to ships whose reason for being adrift is mysterious, or those that continued floating long after people thought it was lost. As a real ghost ship, Orlova is borderline at best, no mystery involved and no surprise as to when it sank, but the legend of cannibal rats will certainly live on. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Striking the above - I suggest that Orlova is like the Valencia in that it warrants an entry for both reality and legend - the reality that the tow line snapped and it sank in the Atlantic, and the legend of cannibal rats. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghost ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghost ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manfred Fritz Bajorat[edit]

@Curb Safe Charmer: Why did you edit this portion as dubious? All I did was Google his name and found this article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3469044/Mummified-body-German-adventurer-vanished-inside-drifting-yacht-Philippines.html It certainly does not look dubious to me. His mummified body was found hunched over the table, he died of a heart attack and salt air mummified his body.Oldperson (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldperson: I changed the dubious tag to disputed. The bit that is disputed is how long the body had been decaying before it was found. The Daily Mail (which is not considered a reliable source) and the Telegraph (which is) reported that the autopsy indicated he had only been dead for a week before he was (re)found. This is clearly at odds with the information that I added, which was that the racing yacht LMAX Exchange found the ghost ship with the mummified skipper some weeks earlier, but were told by the coastguard that (as he was beyond help) they should leave the yacht adrift and continue on their way. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Safe CharmerThanks for satisfying my curiosity. Much appreciatedOldperson (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost boat investigation[edit]

This item has recently been added to the list, under "unsubstantiated".

It has the word "ghost" in the article title, but does it belong in this article? This is a case where the boat is entirely theoretical. People are missing, and it's theorized that they may have gotten onto an unknown boat that is now missing. The people were real, but nobody witnessed the boat.

This is very different than a "Ghost ship", as defined in this article, which usually involves a boat being spotted, still afloat, with no passengers.

But I'm hesitant to just remove it myself, because it does have "Ghost boat" in the common name of the event. ApLundell (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 March 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost ship → List of ghost ships – This was moved to a non-"list of" title in 2012, but I heavily disagree that this is anything but a list. A proper article on ghost ships shouldn't have this sort of list content anyway, which should be relegated to a list article. I would like to propose moving it back to its original title. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the same reasons it was changed in 2012. The article could use a better general background though. AtFirstLight (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Set index articles do not need to be titled with list of unless there is also another article or a disambiguation page using that title."
I guess it doesn't actually say they can't be named "list of", just that they don't have to be. ApLundell (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"GHOST (vessel)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect GHOST (vessel) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 27#GHOST (vessel) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost ship[edit]

Hi my namee is a 49.205.118.70 (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bodies on board?[edit]

There were cerainly no bodies on board, but neither were there any boats. It's customary to point out the absence of the ship's lifeboat, since its absence could have played a part in the disappearance on the ship's complement. I'm not sure what the original author's intention was. I'm inclined to lean towards the latter. Hengistmate (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghost_ship&oldid=1207414570"