Is everyone aware that voyages to Australia are now officially identified by arrival date?

+5 votes

I've just been looking at a ship "Adelaide" that arrived in South Australia, 17 Feb 1839. [[Category: Adelaide, sailed 18 September 1839]] refers to a voyage by the same ship to New Zealand.

This question is aimed towards my friends across the ditch to check that they are aware of the different standards (i.e. sailed v Arrived) used to identify a voyage.

in Policy and Style by Steve Thomas G2G5 (5.6k points)
reopened by Steve Thomas
Actual Steve - this G2G Question has only just showed up in my feed today (and not before) - We on this side of the ditch appear to have been left out of this discussion - and sorry to Deborah - but people have been changing the categories of both the Ships and their Voyages to New Zealand without any thought that they are also connected to the Categories of other Countries not Just Australia


I apologise if I've changed any of these ship voyages to New Zealand.  I was checking that I only changed the Australian voyages.  But it is possible that I've changed some that went to NZ if I was tired or not aware they continued on to NZ.  I've been spending 9 hours per day trying to clear up our list and ensuring each voyage has a ship attached.

I am not the only person making changes but I did try not to change the NZ voyages.  Sometimes we make mistakes.

Do you want them changed back to sailed? or is NZ looking at following the Australian standard?  You can check in the change history to see who made the changes and ask them to fix it for you.

I've just gone through the category [Shipping to New Zealand Ports] and couldn't find any changed to the Australian "Arrived" standard.  Is there another NZ category to look through so we can help rectify this error.  We certainly didn't intend to upset our brothers and sisters across the ditch.

Note: Aussies fixing the voyage categories to Australia, please be diligent that we don't accidentally change the voyages to New Zealand in error.  Thank you.

Deborah, I've been checking the renames in Editbot, and no-one has changed any NZ voyages to "Arrived".

Hi Deborah / Margaret and others :-)

Ive managed to stop the couple of Voyage categories being renamed before they got processed by Editbot  - BTW it wasnt either of you who set the changes in motion - so dont panic,

<rant> Im a little bit more concerned that a whole lot of Ships (some that didnt even go to Australia including a Singaporeian Navel Vessel & a Ship that sailed from Scotland to Canada only ) have ended up in the Category [Needs Launch Year and Renamed] ( which appears to be a new Austrialian only Maintenance Category) when they clearly have a launch date or Military Id Number in the existing Category name (as per Ship category naming conventions) or have noting to do with ships that made voyages to Australia. - </rant>

The category [Shipping to New Zealand Ports] currently only captures about half the sailings to NZ that have been Categorised (Its just the newer ones and those spoted on edits/additions that have so far been added ) -  the rest are only attached to the Ship categories and the Destination Port Categories.


Last <rant> -

This isnt directed at anyone/or group/team in particular but It would have been nice if we that is the rest of the world that have other categories for Ships in general (not just me for NZ) were included in the discussions about changing the categories that effected us as well, as it appeared to me that they were only for the Australian Project & the WikiTree Categorisation Teams ( as not everyone has all the specific G2G Categories attached to their profile - there are limits - maybe I should have had all the Immigrant shipping ones ( but I have the New Zealand One and it was never included)  - I know that I only found out that there were changes proposed/discussed/decided, when things started changing and Categories were being removed/added or changed  and I had to go looking to find out what was going on and by then in some cases it was too late to slow down/add to or even modify the outcomes of the changes</rant>

Hi Graeme,

I can't comment on the ships that have ended up in [Needs Launch Year and Renamed], as I have only added Australian ones, and yes it was set up for our maintenance purposes. I'll leave Deborah to comment, or whoever added any other non-Australian ships.

You may or may not be aware, but the Shipping structure including the naming of the landing level category, was never officially approved by the Categorization project, or the Wikitree community as per the guidelines for approval  set out by the Categorization Project. As there has never been an approved standard for the landing level category, it meant there exists many different formats for naming that category.

The Australia project wanted to standardise our landing level category, as well as simplify our project categories. Following the categorization approval procedure, there were 3 G2G posts, Proposal (Oct 19), Last call ( Nov 1), Final Announcement (Nov 8). tagged with "Categorization", "Project Leaders", "Australia", "Immigrant shipping". The first two are required by the guidelines so that other projects are alerted to any posts that might be relevant.

 "Categories were being removed/added or changed  and I had to go looking to find out what was going on and by then in some cases it was too late to slow down/add to or even modify the outcomes of the changes"

I'm curious as to which NZ shipping categories you are referring to, that have been affected, to my knowledge we are only modifying categories that relate to Australian ships, (as a project). This page gives you an overview of the layout that was discussed. Perhaps if you let us know specifically, what categories are being affected, we can see if the changes have been made by our Project.

You may also have missed these two G2G posts, again both are tagged with "Project Leaders" as the limit on tags means all projects cannot be tagged.

Hi Margaret 

Yes Im aware that many of the structures of categories (including the Ship ones) on Wikiree were created before there was a global team or without their co-ordination and that these have never been reviewed or approved and that the landing categories have been misused, unused, misnamed , neglected, confused and confusing

I have spent the last 3 years or so / sorting / cleaning / correcting / renaming / sourcing and organising  - Ship Categories and their Voyages mostly to/ from New Zealand and but also related voyages to / from Australia  so that at least these were consistent  (as best as could be proved/provided)

Yes I'm aware of the changes that have now been proposed and commented on and are now being actioned -  I have no problem with changes to the Landing Categories for the Australian Voyages if that is what is needed to make it easier for them to to found/accessed and added to profiles 

"l (Oct 19), Last call ( Nov 1), Final Announcement (Nov 8). tagged with "Categorization", "Project Leaders", "Australia", "Immigrant shipping"."

This was my original point - that I look after the New Zealand Shipping Categories (and may of these include Ships and Voyages that cross over into the Australian ones ) - but Im not Part of the Global Categorization Team, a Project Leader (NZ Currently dosnt have one as such), the Australian Team or tagged into Immigrant Shipping (as I have already said)  and the only G2G post that included New Zealand was one that was only spotted as it was closed.

 "I'm curious as to which NZ shipping categories you are referring to, that have been affected, to my knowledge we are only modifying categories that relate to Australian ships, (as a project). " 

 - Actually some of the modifications are being done to Ships Categories in general  (Not just the landing Categories) - that was also what I was commenting about. 

The Immigrant Ships to ... Categories were set up at the Global Level to link Ship types and to help WikiTree users to search & find a Ship (and not just a voyage destination / type / timing etc) to a particular part of the world but these got corrupted with just  Voyage Categories being added instead of the Actual Ship - This Category is being removed for Australia (and Australia Only) 

I do realise that You, Deborah & Steve at least have been aware of Cross-overs and but there appear to have been others that have just been trying to follow the leaders but havent quite got it right


Hi Graeme,

I am sorry that you missed our posts, wasn't intentional, and we did think using Project leaders and Immigrant shipping would reach all projects and interested parties.

Perhaps if you find any NZ categories being removed or changed, you wouldn't mind sending one of us a PM, with specific categories so we can investigate. It could be a member who isn't up to date with our project discussions.

2 Answers

+3 votes
Some of these ships went from the UK to NZ via Australia so the same voyage could end up with 2 categories, a sailed category and an Arrived category.  How should we manage these?  I’ve been fixing the Australian voyages but not touching the NZ ones.
by Deborah Talbot G2G6 Mach 4 (44.1k points)
To comply with the standards in both countries, I think the result will be 2 categories for the same voyage (ship sailed ..... to go to NZ and ship Arrived ... at Australia).

Steve Harris posted a comment for discussion on Oct 23 which I think addresses this issue. The suggestion was to put "Sailed on ...." as a parent to "Arrived on .....".  I'm fairly confident that something like this is going to be required to synchronise the 2 different standards. I acknowledge that this creates 2 different categories for the same voyage, but there are benefits.

I'm now seeing more voyages that highlight this question e.g. "Category: Comet 1847". While not formally approved, I think the best way forward is to follow drawing sketched by Steve Harris.

I'm attaching an example of one of the ships that carried immigrants to Australia and New Zealand in different voyages. The year shown (1839) is the year of launch.

0 votes
What about a ship that called at Hobart (or Adelaide) en route to Sydney?

by Bill Piper G2G2 (2.7k points)

Related questions

+3 votes
5 answers

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright