Talk:List of shipwrecks of Oregon

shipwrecks after 1984

Does anybody know or have a book or website detailing wrecks of Oregon after 1984? The book I have, while it does have a lot, was printed in 1984, and would likely only have shipwrecks up to 1982-83. Ryoga-2003 (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you are referring to Marshall, Oregon Shipwrecks. I don't know of a more recent comprehensive guide. I'm sure the best source would be Coast Guard records, but where those could be found in a published form, well, I don't know.Mtsmallwood (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Location

I've changed the locations on a few North Oregon wrecks that I was editing, that were noted "Nehalem" and "Tillamook", since neither town is on the ocean. I haven't looked at them all at this point. I changed Nehalem to Manzanita for those that wrecked on Nehalem Spit, and changed Tillamook to Barview for those that wrecked on Tillamook Bar. I think Manzanita is ok for ships on Nehalem Spit (also called Nehalem Beach), on the north side of the entrance to Nehalem Bay, Nehalem Bar, & have seen some cited that way. Barview is next to Tillamook Bar. Neither "Nehalem Spit", "Nehalem Bar" nor "Tillamook Bar" have entries, though they could be used without a link. But I don't think I'm alone in wanting to know more specifically where a ship was wrecked. Cataobh (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No merger necessary. A much more reasonable compromise has been reached. Thanks for being patient with me, everyone, and thanks to User:Peteforsyth for spelling out what should have been the obvious solution. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm gonna merge this into List of shipwrecks of the United States. Any objections? DoctorKubla (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's helpful to put this into the context of the larger conversation I just discovered at List of shipwrecks. It looks like merging would also mean a reduction in entries, perhaps a huge reduction, and my first reaction is that I'd be sorry to see this info lost. But I do see the need for standards. Also I'm not clear if you're proposing to keep the existing regional sections (e.g. north coast) in a merge. I'll say more at the List of shipwrecks page. Cataobh (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right, merging would likely mean the eventual removal of most of these entries, but that's really a seperate discussion. My only aim in merging is to consolidate the lists, which is something that I feel needs to be done regardless. My intention was to merge this list in its entirety (complete with subsections), as I did with the South Africa and Kingston, Ontario lists. If, as a result of the other discussion, most of that content gets deleted, at least it will all be there in the page history, rather than scattered all over the place. But nothing's been decided, and your input at Talk:Lists of shipwrecks would be welcome. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

@DoctorKubla: It seems you are planning to take some of the entries from this article and place them in the U.S. shipwrecks, and then delete all the remaining Oregon entries? A straight merge would obviously overwhelm the U.S. article as this article lists about 250 wrecks, and the U.S. article has only about 650. But what is wrong with the way it is now? —EncMstr (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

At Talk:Lists of shipwrecks I'm arguing for higher standards for inclusion. If a basic policy is agreed upon (only shipwrecks with articles, or something), it would have to apply to all lists of shipwrecks, including 'rogue' lists like this one. If you'd prefer, I can wait until agreement on that issue is reached before I merge or redirect this page. I just thought it would be easier if I did the merge first, which, yes, would overwhelm the U.S. list but only until it was cut down to size. The difference is that the wrecks in this list could then be accessed via the U.S. list's page history, which I know I would find marginally more convenient. But it's no big deal, I'll hold off on the merge if it's such a contentious issue. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I need to study this before I can come up with anything policy-based instead of "Oppose Merge: It's useful and interesting" but I echo EncMstr's suggestion on the WP:ORE talk page that merge templates ought to be placed on anything you are planning to merge. Valfontis (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. The reason I didn't put templates up before is because I was just going to merge them myself. I didn't really expect anyone to object (hence my somewhat brisk opening remark). I want to stress again that this is not a discussion about whether this list should be in any way altered or reduced. That discussion is here. This is a discussion about whether this list of Oregon shipwrecks should be merged into the list of Oregon shipwrecks at List of shipwrecks of the United States. Let's keep the discussions seperate, and it'll be a lot less confusing. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I oppose this as a merge, but would suggest instead, these lists should complement one another (a short list of prominent ones on the US list, and a more comprehensive list here). Doctor K, it seems that maybe you made the suggestion prior to noticing that the Oregon lists were more extensive and detailed than the others. Perfectly understandable, but now that you're aware of this -- are you sure there's an advantage to moving this in its entirety into another, much longer list? If so, please explain -- at present we're operating without a clearly articulated reason to merge. (And standardization for the sake of standardization is not a good reason.) -Pete (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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.

"Beeswax" Wreck?

What about the "Beeswax Wreck"? CFLeon (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This one? It looks like this list only includes wrecks of specific ships, but I don't see why you can't add sourced info about the "Beeswax shipwreck". Or even create an article. It is apparently the earliest shipwreck in the Pacific Northwest. Valfontis (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added it to the list. Like Valfontis, I see no reason not to include unidentified wrecks. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, listing unidentified wrecks could well lead someone to identify them. —EncMstr (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Northwester

Northwestern ? dont know enough to know if it is certain.2603:8000:D300:3650:E8E3:EFCE:96FD:F15F (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

While I wouldn't necessarily use it as a reliable source, I did fine this page which seems to indicate that "Northwester" is the name. Primefac (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)