A fact from Maritime Museum of San Diego appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 November 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
I'm unclear as to how an 1863 merchant bark is the "oldest active ship". What criteria for activity are being used here??
The HMS Victory is the oldest warship still in commission (1778). Granted, it's in a drydock
The USS Constitution is the oldest warship still afloat (1797). And it definitely sails under its own "power".
This is just two examples of "active ships" that are a lot older. So basically, what criteria are we talking about? Is she the oldest commercial ship? Private ship? I'm not disputing the information in the article, but I do think a clarification is necessary.
I have removed the claim is it appears to be false. CalJW 15:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Star of India is the "oldest active ship" in the sense that she is seaworthy and sails regularly. The HMS Victory is commissioned but not active, because she is in drydock and never sails. The USS Constitution is also commissioned and afloat, but not "active" because she never sails. She only moves once a year, when she is walked out of her berth and turned around so that she will weather evenly. See the Talk page on the Star for a prior discussion of this.
Provided no further dissension, I will put a revised wording of that claim back into the article in a day or two (with further qualifiers). Willy Logan 01:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]