Template:Did you know nominations/Oceanic Steamship Company

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Oceanic Steamship Company, List of ships of the Oceanic Steamship Company

( Back to TM:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

Ad showing its transpacifc route

... that after proving its ships were faster in a race across the Pacific, the Oceanic Steamship Company (ad pictured) bought the competing vessels and added them to its own fleet?
ALT1: ... that the Oceanic Steamship Company (ad pictured) so outpaced its rival that it forced them to quit and sell their ships, which became a part of its fleet under the flag of the Hawaiian Kingdom?
- Source: Adler, Jacob (August 1960). "The Oceanic Steamship Company: A Link in Claus Spreckels' Hawaiian Sugar Empire". Pacific Historical Review. 29 (3). University of California Press: 257–269.
  - Quote: "Oceanic fought the competing line of Elder and Company by slashing rates. It also set out to prove that the Zealandia and the Australia, though fast steamers, were no match for the Alameda and the Mariposa. In January, 1886, Honolulu stirred to an account of the "Great Ocean Race." The Alameda left San Francisco well after the Zealandia, gained 52 hours on her, and arrived in Sydney 13 hours ahead of her. Elder prudently withdrew from the Australian run the very next month, and sold the Zealandia and the Australia to Oceanic. Oceanic announced that it would register the two ships under the Hawaiian flag. Union and Oceanic together now had: the Alameda and the Mariposa under the American flag; the Zealandia and the Australia, to come under the Hawaiian flag; and the Mararoa under the British flag...In his speech at the opening of the legislature, April 30, King Kalakaua took notice of the Hawaiian registry of the Australia and the Zealandia-the first ocean-going steamers (other than interisland) so registered."
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/KCNH1-related disorders; Template:Did you know nominations/Horvat Rimmon; Template:Did you know nominations/The Dream of Saint Joseph (Champaigne); Template:Did you know nominations/Dwarkesh Patel

Created by Viriditas (talk) and Mjroots (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. Nominator has 49 past nominations.

Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2025 (UTC).

I was not aware that each nominator must perform a QPQ. Is that really the rule?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- No, I apologize for confusing you. I donated four additional QPQs to cut down on the review backlog. KCNH1-related disorders is a bundled review of 3 rejections. Viriditas (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Reviewing-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Obviously QPQs done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Both articles moved to article space on 12/21 and are plenty long enough.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Both articles are fully cited.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
The image has a sort of undefined lack of copyright status that is viewed as valid on commons.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Even if it didn’t, can you think of an alternate scenario where the image would fall under non-free status? I can’t. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  - Not worried about the image. It is considered PD and it is in proper use and presentation to be eligible for possible batch lead use.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
No copyvios.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
I am not quite sure whether the List article passes presentability. It has a very WP:CRUFTy feel in the sense that 14 of the 17 elements are redlinks. I believe redlinks are frowned in the DYK articles and a list of mostly redlinks is a real problem. I am not totally convinced it could survive an WP:XFD.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- 2nd thought it would probably survive, but I don't see why you would redlink subjects with just enough source material for about 1 single line of content. It would probably survive as a valid list, but I don't think links are necessary.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  - On third thought, the list article might want to be merged into the main article. An XFD might result in a merge, IMO.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
    - I don’t see that concern at all, and the list has a lot of expansion left. All of the red links are legit topics on their own. I would oppose merging at this time. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
The article (not the list) has a couple of redlinks that might also meet with objection before promotion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- These are legitimate topics for expansion. Not sure what your objection is based upon, and it’s not something I’ve ever heard before. These are ship articles waiting to be created. Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  - The redlinks in the article are minimal enough that it could hang out in article space for years without even getting toptagged. However, the main page does not like to present redlinks. You can call in a DYK admin for a clearer ruling or talk to the promoters you may know for a general understanding. I think the feeling is that they do not want redlinks presented on the main page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
    - That’s an unusual argument for several different reasons, one of which is that the articles are all new to main space within the last week and the red links haven’t yet been turned blue. Also, the creator of the list is adept at showing how each red link can be turned blue, and should have its own article. Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
Content is presented in a neutral and otherwise encyclopedic manner.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
The hook is trying to say too much. You need to cut it down to an interesting fact and not a story.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- 165 characters is too much? That’s 17.5% shorter than the maximum length, or 82.5% of the available hook length. If I had to take a wild guess, I would guess on average, most hooks are just around that size. I’m all for creating shorter hooks, but how would you shorten this? Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
  - It is not the number of characters, but the number of facts. Think about the facts in the hook as follows:
    1. the Oceanic Steamship Company outpaced its rival
    2. the Oceanic Steamship Company forced its rival to quit
    3. the Oceanic Steamship Company forced its rival to sell its ships
    4. the Oceanic Steamship Company rivals ships became part of its fleet.
    5. the Oceanic Steamship Company rivals ships fell under the Hawaiian Flag
    - Each of these is a fact in and of itself that could be nominated as a hook.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:23, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
      - No, they can’t be nominated as a hook, because none of them by themselves are unusual. I get that you don’t like ALT1, and that’s fine, but how does your argument apply to ALT0? It doesn’t. It states, using the least number of words that there was a race for the mail route, Oceanic proved they were faster than the competition, and the slower company gave up their route and their ships and sold them to Oceanic. That’s what is unusual and interesting, no less and no more. ALT1 admittedly goes beyond that. Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
I'd like a third party to give a second opinion on all the redlinks and whether we should run an WP:XFD or WP:M1 regarding the list article?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Red links, per WP:REDDEAL, are not bad. They simply indicate that an article is needed. Per WP:RED: Good red links help Wikipedia. They encourage new contributors in useful directions and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished. The whole point of DYK is to showcase new content, and thereby to incentivize new content. Redlinks also do this. As long as the links aren't one of the categories listed in WP:REDNOT, I see no issue here. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding the list article, I don't see an issue with notability; think the only tidying would be maybe shifting to a table if there is that little information on each ship in the article right now. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
We are still going to need a terser hook.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger: That's fine. I'm working on it now. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
  - ALT2: ... that three of the ships owned by the Oceanic Steamship Company (ad pictured) were chartered by the U.S. military in two different wars?
    - Sources: Adler 1966a, p. 126; Ali 1998, pp. 144, 147; and Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships 1976, pp. 499–501. (all linked in OSC article and expanded in more detail with additional sources in the list article)
Troopship should link at first use.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- Done. Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
  - ALT3: ... that three ships owned by the Oceanic Steamship Company (ad pictured) were chartered for U.S. military wartime use?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Thoughts on ALT3?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:46, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- No thoughts, really. Whatever works. Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
I can't follow, thinking that buying the ships of the competitor (as in the first two hooks) is more unusual and thus interesting. Perhaps it can be worded differently? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Viriditas and TonyTheTiger: I ... can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Gerda Arendt one hundred thousand percent on the interestingness question. ALTs 0 and 1 are fantastic – I cackled when I first saw them – and ALT3 is a complete snoozefest. Can I have ALT0 approved to promote, please? (I assume it checks out.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
yes. ALT1 preferred because of 1) mentioning interesting Hawaii which matches the pic (how about a link?), 2) avoiding the Easter egg of "ships" (I'd pipe to "its fleet" or "their fleet"). The image is licensed but looks like a kafkaesque comic creature at a glance. Perhaps a crop of the last ad, clearly saying American-Australian, might be an option? This article, which should go to GA fast (or nominate on DYK day, for a bit more attention), deserves an image (and length calculations for a double nom), and the ball with green legs will catch extra attention, - perhaps not by the readers interested in the topic but who cares about that anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)