Talk:Studding sail

Rewrite
I have made a start on using a range of authoritative sources for the article. At present this picture is surplus to requirements, but will hopefully find a home back in the article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I have cut out the mention of ring tails. From every source I have, this is an entirely different sort of fair weather sail.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Abbreviated form of "studding sail" within the article
Looking at other Wikipedia articles, it appears to be quite normal for an abbreviated form of the article title to be used within the main article text. For instance, Chief executive officer has 32 instances of "CEO" in the main body of the article and only 7 of "chief executive officer" – these being in situations where the longer form is required by context, such as discussing when the term is used.

Looking at sources, they too tend to make ample use of the abbreviated form. Harold Underhill's Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship & Ocean Carrier (1946 with at least 3 reprints) is still the definitive source for much on the rig of square rigged ships. Here you will find only "studding sails" in the index, but the text freely interchanges between that and "stun'sls" with no obvious rhyme or reason. David R MacGregor, who wrote extensively on sailing vessels (best known for The Tea Clippers, Their History and Development 1833-1875 and Fast Sailing Ships, their design and construction, 1775-1875, but with many other publications) uses short and long versions of studding sail in his books. Conway's Sail's Last Century, the Merchant Sailing Ship 1830-1930 (edited by Basil Greenhill) uses both the long and short form – here the index refers "studding sail" to "stunsails", but then uses both terms in the text. I did take a look at Howard I. Chapelle's the Search for Speed Under Sail, but he seems to focus so much on hull shape that there are no rigging terms to speak of in the index and a quick flick through does not show either usage. However, Chappelle was well known to MacGregor (at least one of them wrote the preface for a book written by the other) so I would be surprised if their terminology differed much.

So, based on what else happens in Wikipedia and the sources on which this article is based, it is entirely permissible to use an abbreviation of the article title within the main body of the article. Based on sources, we might consider that a knowledgeable reader might be surprised if we stuck with just one form, especially since that does not represent the terminology as it is used. I recollect that Basil Greenhill's book the Merchant Schooners describes how nautical terminology can be frustratingly variable, yet we also know that some terms were rigidly fixed for safety reasons (see Underhill for that). I think we should represent the terminology as it existed, not in a way that suits an editor's style guide. I appreciate this might sound like T. E. Lawrence's complaints about the corrections made by his publisher's editor, but it does appear appropriate in this case. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 20:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)