Talk:IMO number

Notes

Is wikipedia free to add IMO numbers to ship articles given that Fairplay Ltd has the following clause in their Terms and Conditions]?

The Unique IMO Registered Owner and Company Identification Number Scheme utilises the maritime Databases of Lloyd’s Register - Fairplay. The IMO Registered Owner and Company Numbers are the result of past and ongoing data collection, data research and database activities of Lloyd’s Register - Fairplay. The intellectual property rights in the Numbers belong to Lloyd’s Register - Fairplay. Other than the IMO or Flag Administrations, it is not permitted to use these Numbers in any commercial database, commercial web-site or commercial data product, nor to distribute the Numbers for commercial gain, without the prior written agreement of Lloyd’s Register - Fairplay.

-Wikianon (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say no after reading that. A more senior editor should know about this.--Nick??? 09:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What commercial purpose is the use of IMO numbers in an encyclopedia? No commercial gain is made so we are free to use them. Mjroots (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes, Wikipedia can use IMO numbers. LFP's concern is for commercial usage. Wiki is not a commercial enterprise with no intention of profit. // Mark Renier (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say that IMO Numbers are not a private company's property. They are issued by Lloyds/Fairplay acting as agents for the International Maritime Organisation, a specialised agency of the United Nations. Neither shipowners or Lloyds have any say in the matter, the numbers are a legal requirement in International Law enacted in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and are entirely public domain, as a vehicle registration plate is. Like a vehicle registration that can be issued by a national government, or an agency appointed by a national government, IMO numbers are issued by Lloyds acting as an agency on behalf of the IMO. The numbers do not 'belong' to Lloyds, although I suspect the actual publication of them is copyrighted by Lloyds. If that publication is not reproduced for commercial use then I don't see the problem. George.Hutchinson (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Forerunners to IMO numbers

Should this article make mention of the various Official Numbers that ships used before IMO numbers were invented? Mjroots (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the necessity to mention the official numbers here. IMO nos. are part of a worldwide database without taking into account the vessels' Flag. The Official Numbers were issued by each Flag State for its own flagged vessels. Some Flag States (e.g. Liberia) still use the Official Number on Flag State ship docs. (e.g. a vessel's SAFCON Certificate) together with the IMO no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.96.209.193 (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

'IMO' as part of the 'id-number'

As the IMO-source writes here,
The IMO ship identification number is made of the three letters "IMO" followed by the seven-digit number assigned to all ships by the Lloyd's Register Fairplay when constructed.. Of course, in an article or database the letters might be omitted (within context --> no misunderstandings). Incidentally, a <space> in between is not mentioned... -DePiep (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice reference. I don't know how to handle this discrepancy. When our AIS system receives a message, the field with the label "IMO Number" has a value that does not contain "IMO ". It certainly is redundant to include those characters when they provide no extra value. Perhaps a note about "the definition" vs. "in practice"? The IMO number is actually a string of character digits and is not a mathematical number; that is, you do not perform mathematical calculations on the "number", you record the "number" in a database as an array of seven characters. // Mark Renier (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, the AIS-place you mention is in context: if you only enter/see the digits, they will be interpreted as IMO-id because of being in that place. This is valid for the human eye and a any input screen or database. When there is no such context, quite everyone adds "IMO", preventing misunderstandings. Compare, how in spoken radio-communication, or identifying your ship in a free text email. Now, apart from stating that it is part of the official definition, I won't push it any further. The article is context enough to allow dropping the prefix in further mentionings. -DePiep (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This page indicated that it needed clean-up or re-write to "improve" it to meet wikipedia quality. I agreed because I use this information in my job, so I try to stay on top of it. Wikipedia is a great source fro information especially if you don't want to muddle through 100 cached webpages. This section was weak and not current. it also contained some minor errors.

The information I inserted in my edit is verbatum from the International Maritime Organization information. I edited the definition section to add missing information. As for the letters "IMO", they are clearly a part of the IMO identification number, which clearly separates this ID: from the Maritime Administrations 9 digit Maritime Mobile Service Identifier (MMSI) number which contains a 3 digit country code followed by a unique 6 digit number for use with the Automated Identification System (AIS). The IMO number never changes, the MMSI number can be changed any time a vessel changes hands, or flags. The requirement to "show" the IMO number visibly on the hull or superstructure is where "IMO" stands out as part of the ID. //BEM401 (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I had not noticed the above comment before now, but it is correct...a verbatim copy of http://www.imo.org/ourwork/safety/implementation/pages/imo-identification-number-scheme.aspx, which is completely inappropriate as it certainly falls under United Nations copyright. I'll attempt to reword the sections involved when I have a block of free time, but anyone else is welcome to do so in the interim. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Validation

How is the validation not relevant? It's an article on the ship identification numbers and describing what makes them valid numbers seems to be useful. Social Insurance Number describes the checksum, for instance. 198.103.96.11 (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Check digit data is not useful in an encyclopaedic sense. The general reader has no use for that knowledge, which is really only applicable to law enforcement or government types. Also, it is entirely unsourced. I'll also point out that just because another article does something, it does not mean every other article should also do that. I would make the argument that the check digit data there is completely irrelevant as well. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's useful. Wikipedia should attempt to provide comprehensive information on the topic. If the number includes a check digit, this relevant.

As for the general reader, he/she probably has no use for more than the initial paragraph of the article. -- 签名 _sig at 10:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Update

I have given this article a general overhaul - there was a lot of duplication of material just copied from other sites and documents - and re-ordered it into, I think, a more logical sequence. Added a bit on the origin of the numbers themselves in Lloyd's Register. Dead links removed and generally updated. Some the cites are not ideal, but the direct online access to the relevant IMO documents seems to be only through Google docs (whose websites seem to be blacklisted by WP).Davidships (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Equasis

Cannot see how to change the superscript at end of the Equasis cite (currently No.9) from "(subscription required)" to "(registration required)". Equasis access is free. Davidships (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That's part of the {{Cite ship register}} template, so I suggest bringing this up at Template talk:Cite ship register to make sure there's consensus for such a change. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Davidships (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IMO number. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140303220739/http://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/en/imo_conv_schedule/conv_schedule_list.aspx?List_Category=2. SECURITY to http://www.classnk.or.jp/hp/en/imo_conv_schedule/conv_schedule_list.aspx?List_Category=2. SECURITY

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Big Reorganization of Content. Sorry!

Sorry folks, I had a spontanous case of feeling bold and took the whole article apart and reordered it. Pls don't get up in arms, the overwhelming part of content is still there, just in different order! I was driven by the intent to put the information into a more logical (well, at least for me...) structure. Especially the distinction between ship id numbers and owner and company id numbers didn't make sense to me, since they actually are assigned by the same registry (IHS Fairplay) and use the same structure. So, I've put all historical development facts into four chapters of history, clarifying the four steps of expanding the system. And have made assignment and structure paragraphs of their own. To my subjective eye, the info is presented in a better digestable way now. I hope you agree or at least can tolerate the change. Gray62 (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

number space organization & exhaustion?

Is there any meaning in the number itself or are they random? How exhausted is the number space at the moment and how many numbers are asigned every average day? --RokerHRO (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, RokerHRO, but I have only just seen your questions. There is no "meaning" as such (leaving aside that some older numbers assigned by Lloyd's Register long before the IMO thought up its scheme did indicate the year of order or completion - but that's irrelevant now). But neither are they "random", as they are issued sequentially based on the first six digits, as explained in the "Structure" paragraph.

They are not likely to run out of numbers any time soon as when the current ship allocations in the 8xxxxxx, 9xxxxxx and 1xxxxxx series (and 5xxxxxx for companies) run out there are great swathes of other series hitherto unused. I haven't seen data on the volume of new allocations. Hope that helps. Davidships (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)