Category talk:IMO 5607332

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Stunteltje

@Stunteltje: Hello, this IMO number seems to be incorrect. Is there any valid source available? Groet --Ein Dahmer (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please have a look at:

And so on. They all use the same IMO number, but it is very well possible that it isn't a correct IMO number. I susspect that it comes from the http://www.miramarshipindex.nz/. He uses these numbers, starting with 5, for ships that did not have an IMO number, as the ship did not exist anymore at the time the IMO number was introduced. --Stunteltje (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I see Miramar also as primary source for all these links. The Miramar index number has been wrong interpreted as IMO number! The same mistake occurs often with warships, principle without IMO number, but with Miramar index number. How to solve this problem: Status quo (toestand) or a Category talk:Ships? --Ein Dahmer (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Difficult. However: We use these numbers to make it possible to find images easy. It functions that way, even when they are not "correct" numbers. E.G. I use the Dutch "brandmerk" to compose the ENI numbers for Dutch ships, for the same reason. Only the "older" ships have their ENI number composed that way by the kadaster, who supplied these old numbers. Nowadays they are supplied by a computerprogram, at random of by sequence, and it is not possible for modern ships to make these numbers myself.--Stunteltje (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Okay, my approach was initialized by the Category:IMO checksum failed and I think the present situation is the best way for the categorization. From my point of view we can finish this and the Category talk:IMO 5607090. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Understood. It is the practical approach. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Return to "IMO 5607332" page.