Talk:Shipbuilding

translation
Does anybody know how to translate Gleitschienenrack and Tonnenrack into english — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Lovecraft (talk • contribs) 16:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Not exactly a translation, but the left-hand picture is of a truss yoke running on a jackstay, whilst the right-hand picture is of a tub parrel. There are illustrations of this on page 69 of Harland: Seamanship in the Age of Sail The pictures are of the arrangements for a hoisting yard. Trespassing in the subject of translation (using google translate): gleitschiene is "sliding rail", but unable to help with the rest. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @ThoughtIdRetired Thank you very much indeed. Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eliza Wu-UCSD.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of the history of Austronesian maritime technology
The article makes some disputed assertions on the dates of development of Austronesian maritime technology. These are:

Sub-section "4th millennium BC: Austronesia" "The first true ocean-going vessels were built by the Austronesian peoples during the Austronesian expansion (c. 3000 BC)" There are lots of problems with this. A: The more popular view of the origin of Austronesian traditional sailing vessels, proposed by, among others, Horridge, is that the types encountered by Europeans on first contact are forms that have existed with very slow change over a very long period. Early forms were extrapolated back to primitive ancestor types used for the first maritime migrations by Austronesians. There is absolutely no archaeological evidence for this, as nothing has survived from any of their vessels from that long ago. There are some cave paintings of boats, but these are difficult to date. They show quadrilateral sails. If these images are old, then they completely demolish the ideas of Horridge. Linguistic evidence has been cited, but that is now disputed in interpretation and has been used to support opposing theories. An alternative idea has been proposed by, among others, Atholl Anderson (see for instance or his chapter SEAFARING IN REMOTE OCEANIA in The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania (Oxford Handbooks) (p. 473). Oxford University Press.) which suggests a much later date for the development of the distinctive rigs and other maritime technology. At the very least, Wikipedia should say that there is no accepted consensus on when these developments took place, or even which cultures produced the relevant innovations. B: The date given (3000 BC) is before the rapid expansion of Austronesians into near Oceania around 1500 BC. This is when it is suggested that more effective sailing rigs were available. Supposing, then, that the articles has only erred in date, and the claim of "Ocean going vessels" should be dated to 1500 BC, how does that stand against other maritime cultures? The Minoan civilization existed from 3500 BC to 1100 BC. This was a maritime civilisation (based on, among other islands, Crete). They engaged in trade with Egypt, and used sail on both warships (galleys) and merchant ships. The distance from Crete to Egypt is around 350 miles. This is larger than many of the distances travelled by Austronesians in the years immediately after 1500 BC. This comparison does not support the claim of Austronesians being the first. C: Australia was populated about 400,000 years ago. This involved (even allowing for lower sea levels) a significant sea crossing. Was that achieved in a "true ocean-going vessel"? D: What is meant by "ocean-going"? Is this a problem with American English, in which any salt water that is not substantially enclosed by land is described as "ocean", whilst British English would often refer to that as the "sea", with "ocean" being reserved for the named oceans of the world. E: Much of the remainder of this section should not be in a "4th millennium BC" section, as it is of substantially later date.

There is a lot more than one could criticise on the Austronesian content of the article. The above is just a starting point. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Early modern period: Europe
This section completely omits the development of carvel construction (which was not a single step process). The role of the shipwright and the introduction of mathematical techniques in design are glossed over with no explanation. Mechanisation of some ship construction techniques (for instance the introduction of windmill-powered saw mills in the shipyards of the Netherlands in the early 17th century) are not mentioned. Nor is the importance of obtaining large supplies of timber. This, of course, led to the use of iron components to replace the scarce compass timber for knees. The Dutch role as the timber merchants of Europe (importing large quantities from the Baltic) is integral to any account of European shipbuilding. The replacement by Holland of the Basque country as the major shipbuilders of Europe, followed by their decline and replacement by English and French shipyards are an important part of the story. The development of the Fluyt could be mentioned as a major innovation.

As for the existing text, what is meant by the west moved into a new era of ship construction by building the first regular oceangoing vessels? What on earth were the medieval ships that carried wine across the Bay of Biscay from France? Isn't that oceangoing? The statement The ships of the Napoleonic Wars were still built more or less to the same basic plan as those of the Spanish Armada of two centuries earlier is either very poor use of English or a complete misappreciation of the developments over this time period.

Unless a powerful case can be made to preserve some parts of the existing section, it all has to be replaced in a substantial rewrite. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Problem source?
The source used in this article, Haywood, John (1991). Dark Age Naval Power: Frankish & Anglo-Saxon Seafaring Activity. Routledge. p. 18. ISBN 978-0415063746. NB second edition 2006: 978-1898281436 has been criticised in this review. The reviewer challenges some of the conclusions made by Hayward about the superior nautical activity discussed in the book. I suggest that this means this source should be used with caution, as it is clear that contrary opinions exist on many points made by Hayward. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)