Talk:Ship/Archive 3

fr:Bateau
Hello,

As this article is included as a "core topic", I would suggest using the French article Bateau which is a featured article and covers the subject fairly extensively. While "bateau" usually corresponds to "boat" in English, in French the meaning is more broad and the first part ("Terminology") explains why both ships and boats are covered in the same article.

Regards, 212.139.18.28 14:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... not true. "Bateau" in French means "boat". But "ship" in French is the word "navire". Granted, most French people would be unable to tell you the difference between "bateau" and "navire", just as much as most anglophones could not distinguish between "boat" and "ship" (or, if they could, they would be incorrect). Nevertheless, there are people on both sides of the Channel who know the difference between boat/ship and bateau/navire.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.180.152 (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can confidently report that a French nerd told me that their word "bateau" is derived from the English word "boat"; not the other way round. You might simplify life by abandoning "Ship" and "Boat", and redirect them both to "Vessel", and bung subs (which are boats!) in as well... it'd be a long article; but then I assume you'll be trimming out the content that belongs in Marine Engineering and Naval Architecture, and just sticking to the overview stuff... you can then link to each type of vessel that warrants an article. I mean, you've got Hydrostatics and Hovercraft in this article... where's the discipline here?! Let's just keep each article to a single purpose: an overview; or a detailed look. ...Pleaaaasseee??! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.6.39 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Structure of the Ship article
(Cross-posted at WT:SHIPS)This article is in pretty bad shape, but gets about 50,000 hits a month. I'm wondering if we could brainstorm a little and come to some consensus on what the structure of the article should be.

Right now, the whole article is about 20,000 characters. About 6,500 of that is in 2 lists. About 10,000 characters is on propulsion, which seems kind of lopsided to me. The current structure is:


 * 1 Nomenclature
 * 2 Measuring ships
 * 3 Propulsion
 * 3.1 Pre-mechanisation
 * 3.2 Reciprocating steam engines
 * 3.3 Steam turbines
 * 3.3.1 LNG carriers
 * 3.3.2 Nuclear-powered steam turbines
 * 3.4 Reciprocating diesel engines
 * 3.5 Gas turbines
 * 4 Group terminology
 * 5 Some types of ships and boats
 * 6 Some historical types of ships and boats
 * 7 See also
 * 8 External links

The French wikipedia has a FA-quality article Bateau. There's a little twist in that French language doesn't distinguish as clearly between a boat and a ship as English does. Anyway, the article is about 80,000 characters and their structure is, more or less:

* 1 Terminology * 2 History o 2.1 Prehistory and Antiquity o 2.2 Through the Renaissance o 2.3 Specialization and modernization o 2.4 Today * 3 Architecture o 3.1 The hull o 3.2 Propulsion systems o 3.3 Steering systems o 3.4 Holds, compartments, and the superstructure o 3.5 Equipment * 4 Functioning o 4.1 Hydrostatics o 4.2 Hydrodynamics o 4.3 Structure * 5 Life of a ship o 5.1 Design o 5.2 Construction o 5.3 Repair and conversion o 5.4 Scrapping * 6 Uses and classiication o 6.1 Merchant ships o 6.2 Military vessels o 6.3 Fishing vessles o 6.4 Pleasure boats o 6.5 Sporting boats o 6.6 River boats o 6.7 Other * 7 Some notable boats o 7.1 Wrecks and rescues o 7.2 Technical characteristics o 7.3 Human exploits and exploration o 7.4 Imaginary or historical boats * 8 Around boats o 8.1 Life at sea o 8.2 Symbolism o 8.3 Marine archaeology o 8.4 Arts & culture o 8.5 Poetry of boats * 9 Sources o 9.1 Références o 9.2 Notes * 10 See also

So, (a) is anybody else particularly interested in this article, and (b) any thoughts on what the structure should be before we dust off the wreckin' ball?

To perhaps help move things forward, there's a cybertranslation of the whole article at User:Haus/5. Cheers. H aus  Talk  00:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ship or boat
according to the article on the wreck of the edmund fitzgerald any vehicle on a lake is a boat regardless of size. 67.233.246.67 (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image illustrating "Prehistory and antiquity"
An anon has twice changed the image that illustrates the section "Prehistory and antiquity" from
 * [[Image:Floss.jpg|left|thumb|A [[raft]] is among the simplest boat designs.]]

to instead be
 * [[Image:Ternopil lake77.jpg|left|thumb|Ship Geroy Tanzorow at Ternopil lake.]].

To me, the original image is far more illustrative, given the section into which it's being added. This same anon also attempted last week to add the new image to the top of the article - but as it didn't add anything not already better illustrated in other images, I had removed it. However, rather than immediately re-revert the most recent change by the anon - I wanted to first ask other opinions on the change via this talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The new image appears to be a picture of a ship which while being perfectly nice, has nothing to do with the section it's illustrating, and there's no justification for adding it (WP:NOT) and certainly not in removing an image that is clearly related to the section in question. Could it be the uploader just wants to get people to admire his picture? I'd say revert it. Benea (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * IMAGES is quite relevant here. Images should generally match the text surrounding them. It doesn't make sense to have a picture of a modern boat in a section of text discussing ancient craft. I agree with Benea, it should be reverted. Parsecboy (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree the raft pic should remain to illustrate the proper section and topic. --Brad (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry,but it is the article about ships,and dear image it must be accepted with ships.Why delete him?,simply I do not need it was him to replace... 194.187.230.112 (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge +picture
I suggest a merge of boat and ship article. Also, I suggest including a second picture near the first paragraph illustrating a more modern ship (motorship) next to the sailing ship already shown (as "ship" refers to both these types)

Thanks, 81.245.190.191 (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, ships and boats are different things. One wouldn't call a dinghy a "ship"; likewise, one wouldn't call Yamato a "boat". I suggest that it's best to leave the articles as they are, merger wise. Parsecboy (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ""You can put a boat on a ship but you can't put a ship on a boat""- US Naval enlisted service training - (boot camp). As the only exception I know of, a Submersible Ship (submarine) is commonly called "boat" by those who operate it. Leonard G. (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

this ios not a modern ship the is a fake modern ship from tho old ages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.81.178 (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Loadlines
The section on loadlines is wrong and misleading. The extra lines refer to drafts the ship can load to for various times of year and voyage zones. Fresh water allowance is only one of the differing conditions. I shall try to find time to correct these statements if no one else does first. Rumiton 09:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

New Types of Ships?
Sea Launch's ocean-going satellite launch ships -- Sea Launch Commander and Ocean Odyssey -- what types of ships are they? Currently at least one of the pages classes them I think erroneously as passenger ships and research ships. Ocean Odyssey actually launches geosynchronous satellites and is entirely unmanned during launches. - Ageekgal 07:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that sea launch's ships would be classed as commercial, however its possible that in the future similar ships will be used for military or research purposes. Samuel Bailey 03:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Confuciou (talk • contribs)

Solar Powered Ships
Are there any plans to construct a solar powered ship that runs completely on solar power? Or have they already created such a craft? Zachorious 13:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * From my reading, not enough solar energy falls on a ship at sea to drive it through the water. It could only be an auxilliary source of energy. Rumiton (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Reminds me of the old joke where any sailing vessel is a solar powered ship, in that the wind is generated ultimately by the uneven heating of the earth's surface by the sun. This is probably not what you're talking about, though. Ratmangxa (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Marine Engineering overlap
I recently changed the Marine Engineering article, as it was not about Marine Engineering, but mostly about Marine Engineer Officers on board ships.

It strikes me that from looking at this article, particularly the section on propulsion (and beyond) that a substantial part of this article is about Marine Engineering.

Whilst I accept that Marine Engineering is broader than simply the guts of ships; and that discussion of the guts of ships is relevant to an article about ships; the general level of detail in this article arguably exceeds the terms of reference of the title.

It would arguably not be desirable to duplicate content both here and in an article about Marine Engineering; so someone may want to consider summarising the Marine Engineering content here, and focussing more on producing an overview of the history and development of ships, so as not to duplicate content in the Naval Architecture articles either.

U dig? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.6.39 (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambugation
Perhaps ship can be made a disambugation page; it may refer to
 * water or nautical ship
 * airship
 * spaceship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.167.19 (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The first line of the article says:  This seems sufficient to me, as well as following WP:DAB guidelines.    H aus Talk 14:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

energy generation
not sure whether applicable here, but wind turbine's for ships exist too (to generate electricity and to propel ship), see www.bluenergy-ag.net/images/prod_turbine.jpg, http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2007045220 (rotor sail+PV), https://secure.seabreeze.com.au/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=49631 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.215.15 (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It might also be worthwhile to note the use of animals as a means of propulsion for boats and ships, in the pre-mechanisation era. The employment of horses and mules to tow vessels on rivers and canals was widespread, but there were also instances of river ferries powered by animals which were carried onboard the vessel. They used adaptations of the horse-mill mechanisms to drive paddle wheels. I remember a detailed article on the subject, many years ago, in National Geographic Magazine, but I can't recall the article title or date, for reference. There is also a short article on the subject in 'The chronicle of the Horse" May 21, 1999. (pages 90 -92). While the majority of those river ferries would probably have been considered as boats (or perhaps rafts), I do recollect references to larger vessels - horse, or mule, powered passnger ferries on the rivers Delaware and Hudson - in the early years of the nineteenth century. They had the capacity for around two hundred passengers and could therefore be reasonably classed as ships. Norloch (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Conversions
2 Moilbbl and 2 Moilbbl, carefull now. Peter Horn User talk 01:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See Ships. Peter Horn User talk 02:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

2 Moilbbl and 2 Moilbbl Peter Horn User talk 13:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC) It started with 2 Moilbbl of crude oil, or 62,000,000 gallons then I changed it to 2 Moilbbl of crude oil, or 62000000 USgal, the cubic metres and litres did not match. So I changed 2 Moilbbl of crude oil, or 84000000 USgal now there is a match, and still better yet 2 Moilbbl of crude oil, or 84000000 USgal Peter Horn User talk 15:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Circumnavigation of Africa - precision
Hello,

It is mentionned in paragraph 2.1 (Prehistory and Antiquity) that the "Egyptians made the first circumnavigation of Africa around 600 BC."

This is not completely accurate. It is actually a Phoenician expedition which was sent by the pharaoh Necho II.

The details are references can also be found on the link below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia

Can this be corrected?

Thank you

194.98.239.11 (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ship emissions and efficiency
Appearantly, allot of software has been developed recently to determine how much a specific ship, sailing in a particular place (hence taking into account water resistance) emits. Such software includes:
 * Pollution Emissions Quantification and Abatement (PEQA)
 * Ship Traffic Emission Assessment Model (STEAM)
 * Environmental Ship Index
 * Clean Shipping Index (CSI)

Perhaps it can be mentioned here ? 91.182.29.215 (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Photo captions
Several of the captions under the images of sailing vessels do not give the type of ship pictured. Why are they there, then? Thanks, Wordreader (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

So What Were They Before?
This article starts: "Since the end of the age of sail, a ship has been any large buoyant watercraft." What were ships before then, doorknobs? Suspect during the age of sail, ships would also satisfy that definition as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Definition of a 'Ship'.
A Ship is a vessel designed and built to cross oceans and seas regardless of its method of propulsion, size or usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan gardener (talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"Ship designs stayed fairly unchanged until the late 19th century."
Not sure what was intended here, but surely this is totally untrue. Compare the Mayflower with a clipper such as the Red Jacket. Both were merchant ships of their era, but had a wealth of technological differences. Even over a shorter time period, say from the Mary Rose to HMS Victory there are significant differences. I suppose the intent is to say that the rate of technological change in ship design was faster in the second half of the 19th Century. Given that we see more efficient steam ships from about 1860 - also iron hulled ships become more common - and many more refinements of deck gear, etc - I think that would be a reasonable statement. Late in the 19th Century, the use of steel in ship's boilers gave a further leap in engine efficiency - and this rapid change went on in the 20th Century until we had oil-fired boilers and steam turbines - then container ships, etc. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Ship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131003001327/http://www.texancultures.utsa.edu/publications/exploration/chapternine.htm to http://www.texancultures.utsa.edu/publications/exploration/chapternine.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111018092350/http://www.musee-marine.fr/cartel2.php?id=55 to http://www.musee-marine.fr/cartel2.php?id=55
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://journal.issep.rssi.ru/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ship. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090114164154/http://www.navy.mil:80/navydata/cno/n87/history/subsaga5.html to http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/subsaga5.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

3-D animation?
I'm not sure what this animation contributed to the Renaissance section, other than its creator put a lot of effort into making it. I've removed it from that section, pending advice on why it is value added. User:HopsonRoad 15:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hydrostatics section
This section should not refer to ships and boats. It should only refer to ships, which are the subject of this article. I will pare this down. In the meantime, I have removed this image, which is not germane to a ship. Likewise, I'm not aware of any planing ships, so that bullet will go, too, unless I hear objections here. User:HopsonRoad 17:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ship. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/ships/golden_age_of_shipping/golden_age_of_shipping/index.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925163639/http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/History/FAQ.htm to http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/History/FAQ.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221134647/http://www.marad.dot.gov/Marad_Statistics/2005%20STATISTICS/World%20Merchant%20Fleet%202005.pdf to http://www.marad.dot.gov/MARAD_statistics/2005%20STATISTICS/World%20Merchant%20Fleet%202005.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081209140827/http://www.osg.com/uploadedFiles/2222008FleetlistDownload.xls to http://www.osg.com/uploadedFiles/2222008FleetlistDownload.xls

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ship. 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/20090419105016/http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564182/Aksum.html to http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564182/aksum.html
 * Added tag to http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=hospital%20ship
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070815092539/http://www.greenpeaceweb.org/shipbreak/ to http://www.greenpeaceweb.org/shipbreak/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ship. 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/20070624193729/http://www.irbs.com/bowditch/ to http://www.irbs.com/bowditch/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Navy sizes.
The comparison of navies by number of ships in the lead is...let's say sub-optimal. The US listing includes major combatant ships, large auxiliaries; the North Korean includes stuff all the way down to landing craft and very small patrol vessels, many of which blue-water navies would classify as boats. It also ignores the fact that Coast Guard and other assets are very rapidly able to be taken over by the USN - the USCG alone has about 1,500 vessels which the KPN would consider "surface vessels". Guns or tons might make a realistic comparison, but calling an LCM by the same name as a cruiser is nonsense. Anmccaff (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The article is about ships; discussion of which navy has the most "surface vessels" is not relevant. Even if it were relevant, it does not belong in the lead. Yanacochito (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Massive gap needs to be removed
In my opinion, the massive gap on the 'See also' section before the text underneath the tab should be removed as it makes the section look untidy in my opinion. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

✅ Thanks for the tip, Xboxsponge15! HopsonRoad (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem! Xboxsponge15 (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Ship v. Boat
A ship is, generally, larger than a boat. Is this a controversial claim? Cruise ships, cargo ships, and military combat ships are all large (and ships), while kayaks, canoes, and yachts are considered boats and are significantly smaller. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a controversial claim, although what once was considered a ship might now be considered a boat. Additionally, the largest submarine is still considered a boat. The ship, USS Cole was carried aboard another ship, MV Blue Marlin after being damaged by bombing, still consistent with the maxim "a ship can carry a boat, but a boat cannot carry a ship". User:HopsonRoad 12:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to raise a point, i dont have any source on this - rather just general knowledge having personally gone to a Uni with a marine connection. I believe the general modern interpretation is a ship leans out of a turn, whereas a boat leans in to the turn. Might just be an old wives tale, but thought it may be better than the sort of "not really sure" explanation atm. Maybe an idea to springboard off if an authoritative source can be found Garfie489 (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this, Garfie489. I understand that's a distinction made in the US Navy, but I haven't found an official reference on this, either! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)