Talk:Vasa (ship)/Archive 2

Copyeditor's thoughts
After a little hiccup, things went smoothly with the copyediting. The article is fascinating, well-organized, well-supported, and well-organized. In case you were puzzled by my Manual of Style focus at the start, I should explain that I often do the en-dashes and other "dust mouse" things as a kind of warm-up exercise for the real thing, which is partly intuitive and can't rely heavily on the Manual of Style. Thank you for the heads-up about the autoformatting debate. I plan to follow it and perhaps even participate. I hope it turns out to your liking. Finetooth (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Query
This bit seems awkwardly phrased: ''Among the ablest and probably the most popular of Swedish rulers was Gustavus Adolphus. In the 1620s he had been king for little more than a decade.'' By 1620 he had been king for less than a decade, by 1621 he had been king for a decade, by 1622 he'd been king for little more than a decade, by 1626 I think you'd have to say he had been king for well over a decade, and by 1629 he'd been king for almost two decades. I don't really know what this is driving at anyway. Are you trying to imply he was relatively inexperienced? Nine plus years should really have given him time to settle in. Yomangani talk 14:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this better you think?
 * Peter Isotalo 14:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, sorry Peter - I apparently overwrote your suggestion with this. Funny, I didn't see any edit conflict. Feel free to revert to your version if you prefer that. henrik  • talk  14:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer Henrik's version, as it gets round the problem of him not having been king for over a decade until 1622. Yomangani talk 14:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wasavarvet
Should Wasavarvet be translated as "The Vasa Shipyard" or as "Vasa Shipyard"? Finetooth (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Peter is the Swedish grammar expert here, but "Wasavarvet" is in definite form in Swedish, so I assume it'll be "The Wasa Shipyard" (One note: during the time the Vasa actually was in the Wasa Shipyard, the name of the ship was most commonly spelled Wasa. The ship has since changed spelling, but not the shipyard for some obscure reason) henrik  • talk  17:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The translation sounds better with a definite article to me.
 * The old spelling was really just a matter of taste. I think "w" was somewhat more common to represent the the "v"-sound in older texts, and it does have a more archaic ring to it. It hadn't been consistently in the written language since the 19th century, though. Some of the older commissions and projects handling the ship spelled their names with "w", and it wasn't until the new Vasa Museum was built that the spelling was finally standardized. If you search the Swedish literature, though, most of the older books use "w". And since the old Vasavarvet was built and named in this time, the correct translation would be "Wasa".
 * Peter Isotalo 21:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The old usage of "w" to represent the the "v"-sound is a anachronism that origins from the German language where the letter "v" is pronounced as "f" when it occurs first in a word (like in Vogel). This distinction between "v" and "w" does not occur naturally in the Swedish language, but it was commonplace during Stormaktstiden when Sweden was heavily influenced by german immigrants.

Red links
I think the red links won't pass FA and should probably be unlinked. Finetooth (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've unlinked two of the three, but Mascaron (architecture) should really become a bluelink eventually, and I think it should stay to encourage people to create it. The article on the French Wikipedia is quite well developed, and had my French been better I might have tried to translate it. Or is there another term in English for a stylized grinning face? henrik  • talk  18:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I like mascaron; it's a new word for me. I think it is close to gargoyle and chimera but probably not exactly the same. Finetooth (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I hadn't heard it before I started working at the Vasa Musueum myself. It should definitely have it's own article, though. It's a fairly important feature of early modern architecture.
 * Peter Isotalo 05:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and this particular red link should stay. On another topic, I'm fascinated by the FAC process. I've not been involved directly in any before Vasa. I confess that I'm having trouble finding the missing no-break-spaces, number problems, and dash problems. If I could see them, I would fix them. Perhaps it's the em dashes that are out of compliance. Hmmm. Perhaps after a long nap, I will try again. Finetooth (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Later. Replaced two sets of em dashes with something better, I hope. Meanwhile, User:Leonard G. has created a Mascaron (architecture) article and, thus, turned the red link blue. Thank you, Leonard G. Finetooth (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Images from museum needed
On the lower floor of the museum are several model exhibits, including a model of the shipyard with works in progress. These would be a useful addition to the article. Perhaps a photographer could be recruited? - Leonard G. (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Check the links to Commons. There's a few pictures there that might be suitable.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * CC photos from http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex-pl/tags/vasamuseet/ can be used

Long tons?
In one or two places, tons are mentioned in the article and not yet converted to kilograms. I'd gladly add the conversion templates, but I don't know if these are long tons (British) or short tons (U.S.). I'm guessing long tons, but I don't know for sure. Finetooth (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Me and Peter being European, they're metric tons. I've changed the text to say tonne instead, which I hope is unambiguous. I left one "ton" on a very uncertain measurement ("many tons"), so it doesn't matter much which of the long, short or metric tons you think of. henrik  • talk  19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Unit conversions, no-break codes, em dashes, wikilinks
I believe all of the unit conversions are done. In some cases, such as with 700 tonnes, I rounded the conversions to what seemed significant; i.e. 1.5 million lb, not 1,543,236 lb. I changed "mile" to "nautical mile" in the lead per a reviewer's on-the-mark suggestion, but I also added a conversion to kilometres to be completely consistent.

I think all of the non-breaking spaces have been added correctly, either with code or templates.

I wikilinked "poop" and "orlop" per a reviewer's sharp-eyed suggestion.

The em dashes are all gone. We didn't need them. If a problem exists with the en dashes, I don't see it.

I don't see any more MOSNUM or MOSCAP violations. Finetooth (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured!
What a Christmas present! Sandy just promoted this, so we've made FA-status! (the bots haven't noticed yet) Thank you all who've contributed during this process, especially User:Finetooth whose eye for prose and the WP:MOS have been invaluable. henrik • talk  17:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats! If you are not aware, the primary author/nominator is allowed to add featured article to the bottom of the page to give the star at the very top. -MBK004 19:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Knew it would get there. The Land (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Should this say "minimum"?
I don't understand the following sentence:
 * Visitors could only view the ship from two levels, and the maximum distance was only 5 metres (16 ft).

Is the sentence trying to say that the spectators were kept at a distance? If so, then I think it should be "minimum". Even better would be something like, "Visitors could only view the ship from two levels, and from no closer than 5 metres (16 ft)." I'm not sure what the word "only" contributes to either part of the sentence. Johntex\talk 00:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it was indeed the maximum distance (the visitors could get no further from the ship). The building was very cramped, little more than a shell built around the hull. The current museum is much larger, allowing visitors to view the entire ship at once. henrik  • talk  00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for clarifying. I see what is meant now.  I don't think I would ever have gotten that from the way the article currently reads. How about something more obvious, such as "The viewing area was small: visitors could view the ship from only two viewing levels that were no more than 5 metres (16 ft) in width."?  Johntex\talk 00:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence preceding that one, to clarify what this one is referring to. Do you think that is enough? I think that "no more than 5m in width" might be a bit misleading. But feel free to try yourself, hopefully you can come up with something better :-) henrik  • talk  00:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that is definitely clearer, thank you. The second part is still a little troubling for me because I don't know what it is trying to  convey.  Is the problem that the viewing distance was too close and therefore did not offer a wide-anlge perspective on the entire ship? Johntex\talk 00:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. henrik  • talk  00:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I understand now. I made a change to try to make this more obvious.  Please see what you think. Johntex\talk 01:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Decision-making culture
The analysis of group decision-making in an authoritarive top-down culture was given new impetus following the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Little analysis of the comparable decision-making process in the Vasa disaster seems to have surfaced in this article: have the two never been compared in print?--Wetman (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

IP addresses
Perhaps it is just me, but it seems a number of IPs have been making changes to this article without any remarks or any good reason. Is it just me? Cromdog (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not just you, but the numbers are slim. Since 6 January there have been only 6 IP edits to this page, but at least 3 of those were reverted. -MBK004 01:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * True, but I don't remember this many IPs last year when I was keeping a close watch after my GA review. Still, I'm going to keep a close watch, because the one I edited today was changing the wikilinks around. Cromdog (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparantly the the comic strip Get Fuzzy featured Vasa as a joke yesterday and today. I suspect we might see one tomorrow as well, but I don't feel that this really merits a specific mention in the article.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed something about that strip yesterday as well... Cromdog (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly shows in the visitor stats. I'd say we had over 10 000 readers that found their way here from that strip. henrik  • talk  18:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The first time I heard of the Vasa was in the strip Get Fuzzy. Why is it not listed in the Literature and popular culture section?  Should I add it, or will it just be reverted?  Also, was Wasa flatbread named after the ship?  If so, that's something I'd like to see in the article.  Actually, it looks like the bread I was thinking of is called Wasabröd and was named after King Gustavus Vasa, and not the ship.Rich (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Vasa can't be considered a significant aspect of Get Fuzzy just because it has been featured in a few strips (even if this might have been the first time some people have been acquainted with the ship). Just about all things named "Vasa/Wasa" in Sweden ultimately go back to Gustav Vasa and his dynasty. For the etymology of the ship's name, see the first footnote.
 * Peter Isotalo 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism alert
I noticed elements which appear to be vandalism. Could the autor look it up?

[Sorry if this is not the place. I have no idea how else to let the community know about this, since I'm a first time user of wikipedia.]

Weird element #1: The king's plans for the Polish campaign and for securing Sweden's bitch interests required a strong naval presence in the Baltic.[3]

Weird element #2: Just before Vasa was ordered, work at the Stockholm slut shipyard was led by Antonius Monier, with Dutch-born Henrik Hybertsson as hired shipbuilder. 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reporting this. The featured article of the day tends to attract quite a bit of both readers and vandalism. This is usually quickly reverted, but not always quickly enough that readers such as yourself won't see it. It's one of the downsides of an encyclopedia anyone can edit, but since the featured article often brings in many new users just trying out editing wikipedia it is not usually locked down. henrik  • talk  17:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To founder = to sink
The article states that the ship 'foundered and sank', but to founder means to sink by means of filling with water, as opposed to, say, sinking by being overloaded or sinking by runaway hull compression (submarine). If one says 'foundered', one should not follow it with 'and sank'. JeffreyMeunier (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * True, but I'd wager that a significant minority of readers may not know exactly what foundering is, which is why it was phrased somewhat redundantly. henrik  • talk  18:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a modern ship will founder and turn around but still avoid plunging to the seafloor because of the amount of air that's locked inside the hull (I think that was the case with Scandinavian Star). There's been a good deal of argument around the sinking of the Estonia: how come it sank so fast when, according to modelling for that kind of ship, it should have tumbled around but stayed afloat even in heavy weather? So foundering isn't always the same as sinking, though for the old wooden sailing ships it certainly was. Strausszek December 4, 2008 13:07 (CET)

How long was the voyage really?
The lead currently says the ship traveled "less than a nautical mile", which is 1.852 km (and is appropriately glossed as 2 km). But the map clearly shows it traveling farther, pretty close to 2.5 km. Rather than slapping a "contradict" tag on a featured article, I'll change the lead to read "about one nautical mile"; but it would be better if someone could research this point. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I may be wrong, but I believe its because the coastline has eroded over the centuries (thus the trouble in simply FINDING the dang thing) or it was measuring the distance from start, not the distance actualy travled. Cromdog (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at the map, the ship didn't actually set sail until around the southern tip of Gamla stan. From what I can tell, the distance from where she set sail to the place of sinking is less than a nautical mile.
 * Peter Isotalo 06:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that covers it. I should have looked more carefully. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, who cares?..It was a crap ship and it sank almost immediately.... a bit like my first dinghy. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Wardle (talk • contribs) 08:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aw.. yeah, Vasa wasn't exactly the most successful example of martitime engineering :-) henrik  • talk  08:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

1632 series
Exactly how major is the part played by Vasa in the 1632 series? I'm asking because though it has a pretty large article, Vasa is not mentioned even once. Is it really important enough to mention here among books that are focused entirely on the ship itself?

Peter Isotalo 17:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Successful "On this day..."-appearance
Being featured on the mainpage seems to do wonders for this article. It got 62,000 hits yesterday, more even than Sharon Tate who was pictured "On this day..." 9 August. It even beat yesterday's TFA Vagrant Story by almost 20,000 hits.

Peter Isotalo 06:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Conservation: deterioration is mainly caused by sulfide oxidation
The mechanism of deterioration of the wood of Vasa was inadequately attributed to the presence of sulfate or sulfur in the wood. In fact, the main reaction responsible of wood deterioration is the oxidation of sulfides present in the wood. These sulfides were produced in the porewater of the sediment surrounding the ship by sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB). As long as the ship was immersed in anoxic waters during about 300 years, sulfides did not exert detrimental effects for the wreck preservation, at the contrary. However, after salvage operations when the ship was again exposed to atmospheric oxygen for the first time after it sunk, sulfides started to be oxidized by air oxygen, producing sulfuric acid which can hydrolyze the main components of wood, cellulose and lignin.

So, sulfates are not directly the reactive agent engaged in the degradation reaction, but the product of this reaction. It was previously erroneously stated that sulfates reacted with oxygen: this is not correct because sulfates are totally oxidized and cannot further react with O2. However, the crystallization of expanding sulfate-containing salts such as gypsum (CaSO4 ·2 H2O) or mirabilite (Na2SO4 · 10 H2O) can lead to a mechanical degradation of wood caused by the stress induced by the salt expansion. Shinkolobwe (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This was very helpful, Shinkolobwe. I'm been very involved in this article, but since I know next to nothing about chemistry, I'm not at all surprised that inaccuracies found their way into my summary. Thank you very much for improving the article.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Number of visitors
The statement about 25 million visitors, in the lead section, should be referenced. Hluup (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Refs added. It's up to over 28 million by now. Probably over 29 if would count this years visitors since a majority come during the summer months.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Type of ship?
Sorry if it was mentioned in the article, but what type of ship was the Vasa? I think an older version said it was fluyt inspired, but was it changed? (would be useful to list the type instead of just a "Swedish warship") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.23.92 (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * When I talked to Fred Hocker about this, he insisted that the most accurate classification was simply "ship", as in a large, full-rigged (I hope that's an applicable term here) sailing vessel with three masts. But I don't think that's all that helpful to readers. I've actually not seen any really consistent scholarly discussion of classification of these types of ships, but it's also possible that it's a galleon or a fluyt. Though my impression is that the whole classification scheme is somewhat anachronistic to this period. There were certainly many types of vessels with specific characteristics in the 17th century, but the much more exact classifications used today are more characteristic of the modern era.
 * If anyone has any good sources to suggest otherwise, though, I'd be more than happy to concede my point. Until that happens, I think it's better to simply leave out the type altogether.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Vasa Photographs
I was recently at this museum and have quite a few pictures of the ship, mockups, models and all features of the exhibit if this would help. Also, our guide said that the cannons were improperly loaded with the heavier cannons main deck and the lighter cannons on the bottom which aided in the disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.215.21.3 (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Vasa Syndrome
I am here recommending an article that I believe will help improve the level of this article a great deal. The article is titled "Vasa Syndrome: Insights from a 17th-Century New-Product Disaster". In this article the authors start with a short story about the ship. They then proceed to determine all the problems in building the ship and explains in depth the problems with the architecture and gun placement.

The Article is:

Vasa Syndrome: Insights from a 17th-Century New-Product Disaster Eric H. Kessler, Paul E. Bierly, III, Shanthi Gopalakrishnan The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005) Vol. 15, No. 3, Themes: Insights from Sports, Disasters, and Innovation (Aug., 2001), pp. 80-91 Published by: Academy of Management Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4165762

William1193 (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We apparently have a whole article based on that paper: Vasa syndrome. henrik  • talk  22:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The Warship Vasa: Deep diving and marine archaeology in Stockholm
I have found this book, The Warship Vasa, that I strongly believe would help in adding more about the Vasa tragedy. The book is written by Anders Franzen. In writing this book he worked with the Stockholm museum that holds the warship. He explains all of the ships strong points as well as its major weaknesses. He goes into depth and has many pictures being used to describe it.

William1193 (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestion. However, that book is quite old, having been published in 1962, and isn't quite up to date (It is mentioned in the further reading section of the article however). If you're interested in the Vasa, I would recommend reading Vasa I, The Archaeology of a Swedish Warship of 1628, ISBN 91-974659-0-9  henrik  • talk  18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Henrik. But I should add that older literature could be useful to reflect dated views on Vasa. A historiographical viewpoint might be intersting (as long as we keep it reasonably brief).
 * Peter Isotalo 19:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Where was the king when the ship sailed?
''In the article it states "Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus, who was aboard on the date of its maiden voyage, was impatient to see it join the Baltic fleet in the Thirty Years' War;"' I believe that it should read that the king was "abroad" at the time of the sailing, not aboard?

Marnie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koshlong (talk • contribs) 16:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A type-o, I suppose. Thanks for pointing it out.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Width: Vasa vs. Äpplet
The following text appears at the very end of the Historical background section:


 * The only difference between the design of the Vasa and its sister ship the Äpplet was a mere 1.5 meters (5 ft) wider.

The sentence is a bit ambiguous and slightly ungrammatical; it needs to be clarified so that the reader can tell exactly which one of the two ships is wider. I'd edit it myself but I'm not certain for sure whether it's the Vasa that takes the honors instead of the Äpplet (e.g., "The only difference between the design of the Vasa and its sister ship the Äpplet was that the former was a mere 1.5 meters (5 ft) wider.", or vise versa. Thanks.

Kabesang Tales (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Note 4 is missing a page number
There are no page numbers for note 4. Just Roberts.--Kyng (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a mistake. Particularly the first instance is an example of general background facts, and it's supported by a rather general background reference.
 * Peter Isotalo 19:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Nr. 18 is not citation at all, it's just a sidenote, making the whole passage unreferenced. Kyng (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The ref to Hocker (2011) was edited out by mistake. Re-added it.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Steering mechanism
Was the ship steered by a tiller (length?) or a steering wheel? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Vasa had a whipstaff that was connected to the tiller. Steering wheels hadn't been invented yet. There are some photos of the steering mechanism at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Interior_of_Vasa_%28ship,_1627%29 (see pics with "steerage" and "tiller room").
 * Peter Isotalo 11:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

“Groot [ e ] ”
This article needs either to adopt one correct spelling, or to note that two spellings are correct. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know this was a way of marking that this Arendt was the elder son of Hybert. Swedes didn't actually have family names in today's sense until later in the 17th century.
 * Peter Isotalo 13:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but that doesn't address the point at-hand. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 20:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And I see that the name continues to be spelled one way in one part of the article, and the other way in other parts. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 23:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering the naming practices of early 17th century Sweden, it would probably be more appropriate to refer to him by just hist first name rather than his patronym, but I settled for a compromise.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. I just didn't want him to be said to be both “de Groot” and “de Groote” unless each were correct and the reader were told as much. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through and changed to one spelling, Arendt de Groote, which is how he signed his name consistently throughout his life. Given the inconsistency of orthograpjy in this period, this seems as good a solution as any. I have also removed references to him as Henrik's brother, since we now know that not to be the case. De Groote is not his patronym, which was Jacobszoon.Fred Hocker (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Revision of entry
Hope that this does not offend those who work here more often, but I have taken the liberty of revising and updating the entire Vasa entry to reflect data published since the original entry was written and to bring the interpretations in the article more in line with the published references. I have made notes for each of the sections about what I have done, so it should be relatively clear what the changes are. There should be a couple of new works on the ship and its consevation coming out in the near future, which will allow another round of updates. I also indulged in a little copyediting to clean up some odd punctuation, spelling and missing word errors, and updated the references. There are probably some more references to be added in a few places (happy for suggestions), and someone else needs to look at the conservation section, it is way out of date.Fred Hocker (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

American English or Commonwealth English?
This article needs a serious copyedit. I couldn't tell which version of English it is supposed to be written in as I found quite a few words from both:


 * Am Eng: harbor, colors/color, outmaneuvered, Scepter, millimeters, caliber, maneuverability, meter/meters, four-story, center, cataloged, catalog, sulfides/sulfide, sulfuric, centimeters, sulfate, discoloring, fiber, fiberglass


 * Br Eng: metres (in infobox and main text), archaeologists/archaeologist, 5 August 1626, millimetres, archaeological, archaeology

(None is from quotations, and I have ignored the '-ize' endings and 'artifact', which though oftn debated are ok in either version). From the numbers, I'm guessing its original FA incarnation was in Am Eng, but it has slipped. Not good for a FA.

Also, sometimes measurements are given in imperial, then metric; sometimes vice versa, and sometimes only one or the other is given.

Also, note 54 suggests Texas A&M and other institutions around the globe are involved - the Wayback machine ref doesn't seem to mention Texas A&M at all, from my limited Swedish, but it does mention Japan.

Great article, very interesting and lovely illustations though. 81.156.125.254 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, anon, praise as well as criticism. The article is supposed to be in American English, but you're right about it slipping in some spots I've tried to track down all the problems, and I have some comments.


 * Most of the meter/metre-problems I'll shamelessly blame on the largely pointless conversion templates. I never use them myself and I don't particularly like them- The measurements for the ship were meant to be in feet since that's was a standard at the time, but I've changed that. The broadside weigh I believe is best left in pounds, because that's how the guns are classified. It seems like an acceptable exception.
 * Scepter is the original Swedish name of the ship, btw.
 * "Archeology" is indeed an American spelling, but as far as I can tell, "archaeology" is acceptable as well. See for example Institute of Nautical Archaeology. I wouldn't mind the slightly more intuitive American spelling, but if both are okay, I'd rather use the one that is the most common and widely spread.
 * The statement about Texas A&M comes from the article in the Houston Chronicle (it's even in the title of the article), which is in the same note.
 * From my experience about debates here on Wikipedia about date formatting, there's not enough consistency to consider one format or another is particular to any regional English.

Don't hesitate to drop a note here if you spot another error.

Peter Isotalo 17:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Being an American archaeologist, I would just like to note that we all use the archaeologist versus the archeologist spelling pretty much across the board. We had a discussion about this early on in my education and the comment was made that archaeology is decidedly the preferred spelling, and it has been so in any college I have ever attended for archaeology. =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.133.39 (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * American English should only be used for articles which relate to the USA, as this one clearly does not. British English is Standard English.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:ENGVAR is the applicable guideline here. Without obvious national ties to a specific English-speaking country (like Mary Rose), no preference is given to any standard variant of English.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Reason for sinking
The introduction suggests that the sinking was due to officials being unwilling to stop the maiden voyage. However the ships structural faults do not date from then, but from when the ship was designed.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The lead establishes the unstable construction before anything else:
 * "Vasa was dangerously unstable however, due to too much weight in the upper structure of the hull."
 * Historians agree that people in charge knew that sailing the ship could be an extremely risky venture, but went ahead anyway, without any precautionary measures. I believe this is what is explained in detail in the body of the article, which the lead is supposed to summarize. Do you feel this can be improved somehow?
 * Peter Isotalo 07:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Vasa again
Perhaps I skimmed the test a bit too fast, but article states "The reason that Vasa was so well-preserved was not just that the shipworm that normally devours wooden ships was absent.." - Why sloving one mystery, this sentance rises an other question instead. Why is the shipworm absent just where she sunk ? (And this isn't explained by dirty water, or dirty bottoms rather). Dispite its name is Saltsjön a part of Stockholms ström, like a river from Mälaren to the Baltic Sea. Shipworm requires salt water, not fresh. If Vasa had sunk, lets say in Öresund at a deep larger than 13-15 meter. Then would the same amout of mud not have preserved the ship for 300 years. The salinity at Öresund's bottom is of oceanic level, around 3 % by weight. Seems like You want to avoid the question of Riddarfjärden - Norrstöm/Slussen - Saltsjön as a fresh water stream. Boeing720 (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's explained earlier, though (relevant passage bolded):
 * "In the early 1950s, amateur archaeologist Anders Franzén considered the possibility of recovering wrecks from the cold brackish waters of the Baltic because, he reasoned, they were free from the shipworm Teredo navalis, which usually destroys submerged wood rapidly in warmer, saltier seas."
 * I'm not familiar with the habitat of Teredo navalis, but its absence in the Baltic is well-known, as are the huge number of well-preserved wrecks of wooden vessels. I recommend checking the sources if you believe that there's an oversight.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Vasa (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/20080410123841/http://www.vasamuseet.se:80/InEnglish/Visit/museumshop/repliker.aspx to http://www.vasamuseet.se/InEnglish/Visit/museumshop/repliker.aspx

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 03:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Five ships built after Vasa
The last paragraph under the Historical background section contains the following quote:

"Five such ships were built after Vasa (Äpplet, Kronan, Scepter and Göta Ark) before the Privy Council cancelled the orders..."

but it actually just mentioned four of them after Vasa, not five. I'd normally edit the text myself to reflect the correct number but since I'm not familiar with the ships in this time period, perhaps there were indeed five ships that were built afterwards, and that the last one just inadvertently didn't get included in the parenthetical?--Kabesang Tales (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Lives Lost
I'm morbidly curious about how many died vs. how many survived, and how they were grouped (officers, sailors, dignitaries, marines, etc.). I don't seem to find any mention of these numbers at all; does anyone have this information? Even if I don't get back to this page for a long time, it would be good to have something about this.

Unless, of course, we just don't know...

* Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 11:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Pronouns
Per WP:SHE, both the traditional pronoun "she" and the more prosaic "it" are acceptable for ships, but articles are supposed to be consistent within the article. Right now it seems like just a random mix. How did this not get caught at FA? This is the kind of thing that FA reviewers usually latch on to like lampreys. I wish FA were more about substance and less about style, but given that it is so much about style, it's hard to understand how this slipped past.

Is there any evidence of what the "established" pronoun use is, here? If not, should we have a little mini-RFC and pick one for the article, once and for all? --Trovatore (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The FA candidacy was eight years ago, so I'm sure it's been juggled around a bit since then.
 * Please feel free to be bold and change it to whatever pronoun feels appropriate. You have my support as primary contributor in that regard.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vasa (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/20100814170522/http://vasamuseet.se/sv/Om/Vasamuseets-besokare/ to http://vasamuseet.se/sv/Om/Vasamuseets-besokare/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818202918/http://www.vasamuseet.se/sv/Press/Basmaterial/Vasas-sista-resa/ to http://www.vasamuseet.se/sv/Press/Basmaterial/Vasas-sista-resa/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016142656/http://samlingar.maritima.se/marketstore/ to http://samlingar.maritima.se/marketstore/

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) 00:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

TFA rerun
Any objections to throwing this article into the pile of potential TFA reruns for this year and next? Any cleanup needed? If it helps, here's a list of 5 dead links. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vasa (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/20090430060203/http://gupea.ub.gu.se:8080/dspace/handle/2077/6331?mode=full to http://gupea.ub.gu.se:8080/dspace/handle/2077/6331?mode=full
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140327092934/http://www.svtplay.se/klipp/116711/vasa-lyftet-delar-syns-ovan-vattenytan-utan-ljud to http://www.svtplay.se/klipp/116711/vasa-lyftet-delar-syns-ovan-vattenytan-utan-ljud

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) 10:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Zetterström nozzle
There is a box on the right side of the article with a red link to Zetterström nozzle. The topic sounds interesting but the nozzle is not mentioned anywhere in the main article text and it's not clear at all how it relates to Vasa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.53.25.58 (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed it. No prejudice to it being re-added if some context can be made and an indication of why it's there and how it's related. Canterbury Tail talk 11:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the Vasta Museum, the Zetterström nozzle was used by divers to dig the tunnels under the Vasa, to prepare the ship for salvage. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Göta Ark
"Five such ships were built after Vasa (Äpplet ("Apple" [b]), Kronan ("Crown"), Scepter ("Sceptre") and Göta Ark ("Ark of Gothenburg")) before the Privy Council cancelled the orders for the others after the king's death in 1632"

There is no reference or evidence that Göta Ark means "Ark of Gothenburg". It is true the ship was built in Gothenburg, but Göta can mean many things and I cannot find any evidence that it was directly called after that. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

English variant in the article
This article was established as written in US English at least by 2010. It was changed to British Engligh by some random IP user back in 2017 with no relevant motivation.

Sweden is not per definition within the British English sphere and both US and GB English is widespread among Swedes (sometimes mixed). If the article had been established early on in British English, I would not have objected, but that wasn't the case. I'm invoking MOS:RETAIN in this case and I hope that settles the matter. Peter Isotalo 14:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The time for MOS:RETAIN was 5 years ago, now the status quo was quite clearly for en-GB (whether you agree with it having been changed or not.) The talk page you pointed do does not have the consensus that it should be in en-US. That being said, the earliest English variation in the article history was back in 2001 with the en-US spelling of harbor. It should also be noted that the official website uses en-GB and en-GB appears to be the version taught in the Swedish education system (and as we know Swedes are among the best English as a foreign language speakers in the world.) That al being said, I don't really care one way or another as long as it's established and agreed. Canterbury Tail talk 15:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC))
 * The point of MOS:RETAIN is to put the kibosh on subjective debates where there is no obvious standard. This is a non-English topic and can be written either way. I generally don't care but since policing is being done here, I'm gonna be a bit of a square and simply invoke the original precedent to put an end to further reverting. Peter Isotalo 18:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"It" or "she"?
Make your mind up! --194.176.105.156 (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see this was addressed two years ago (see above). I'll make the fix. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The archive discussion does not really follow MOS:SHIP in making clear that the originally established style should be followed. Looking at an [| very early version] early version it seems to me that "she" is prominent in the usage (the first occurrence of "it" refers to the keel, the second to the word "warship", there is one "itself" that one could say should be "herself". This is up against three occurrences of "she" and five of "her".) I appreciate that opening this can of worms will cause many groans from other editors, but the article still has a mix of styles. Someone else can do a full count if they wish, but it seems to me that "she/her" instances are slightly more predominant. Given the current mix and the article's origin with "she/her", surely it should be cleaned up to a "she/her" consistent version? Any thoughts on this subject? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * as not clear to me which way you made the fix. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It was easy enough to find in the diffs: this is what I did. Note, my comment referenced this one, now archived. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 21:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. Your edit did not survive long - see . My read on the situation is that MOS:SHIP applies. I also note User:Peter Isotalo's comment that the usage at the point that this became a FA is relevant. Both that version and the early versions of this article (including before its present name) all prefer "she/her", though there is some mixed usage in later versions, including the current one. Hence I feel that editing to the female gendered usage is appropriate. Since I happen to have a relatively strong personal view on the matter, I am trying to do this correctly and give anyone who thinks otherwise to state their case. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @ThoughtIdRetired, I would prefer we went with "it" regardless how we started it. Not an argument, just my two cents. Peter Isotalo 07:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To balance User:Peter Isotalo's view, I have a real problem with "it" for a ship as I have to make a conscious effort to "change gear" to understand what the writer of an "it not she" piece is talking about. This disparity of opinion is well handled by the compromise MOS:SHIP, to which I subscribe, despite my strong personal preferences. What is clear is that the article contains both usages, which does not comply with the MOS – it is this mixed style that is the prime issue here. There seems to be a strong case to go back to consistently using "she/her" as per the early examples of the article. I would be interested to hear what correction User:Dweller (pinged, above) made. I could try and unravel that from the edit history, but having made the ping it seems to be impolite not to wait for an answer, as well any any thoughts from other editors.
 * Incidentally, I have done a quick check that maritime archaeologists do still use "she/her" for a ship. (Wrecks can still be "it" alongside that usage, as they always have been.) I see Jonathan Adams uses "she/her", as does Peter Marsden (editor of the report on Mary Rose) – and students working in this area are still obliged to understand "she/her" as is illustrated by which uses "it" in the main text and "she/her" in the ample quotations from historical records. This straw-poll type analysis, of course, has little relevance to MOS:SHIP. I just wanted to be sure that I was not arguing for something that is no longer reflected in the real world. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm invoking WP:FAOWN as primary author and insisting that whatever was the most common at the time of the FAC should be the standard. I honestly don't remember if it's "she" or "it" and I don't care as long as we put the kibosh on another she vs it debate.
 * Whichever is used the most to refer to the ship in this version should be the standard. Peter Isotalo 14:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Quite easy to do an edit/find check on that version, which reveals the same mixed usage that is the subject of the original post, but with she/her clearly more common than it/its. I ran out of fingers to do an exact count, but it is pretty clear cut, with she/her being particularly prominent in the lead. I have to get to work now, but can put an exact count here later if you prefer. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just after posting the above – does your link correctly identify the article version that was granted FA status? There is no "old version" warning if you follow your link. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The wikicode decided to include the closing parenthesis. Should work now. Peter Isotalo 16:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the 23 Dec 2007 article version linked above, my count of the various usages is as follows: "she" 21 "her, herself, etc." 26 "it, its, itself, etc." 13 plus 3 as quotations So that is 47 female gendered and 13 neuter (plus 3 quotations in that category). Expressed as a single figure, that is 21.7% neuter. Looking just at the lead (about as far as many encyclopedia users get) the numbers are 5, 5, 1. This gives 9.1% neuter.

Beyond expressing a little surprise that this got to FA status like that, the article is clearly weighted towards female pronouns at that point. In absence of any thinking to the contrary and taking into account other factors discussed above, this would indicate that changes should be made to consistently use female pronouns (except in the three quotations). I will leave this for a few days to see if anyone has anything else to add, then start making changes. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I made these changes today. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Referencing
As one of the older articles on Wikipedia, I think this article would benefit from some updating and improvement to its referencing. Problems fall under two headings.

Citation style
The article uses short form cites, but does not make use of any of the available templates (e.g. sfn). There is a significant advantage to the encyclopedia user in such a template, as it makes it a lot easier for the reader to see the full details of a reference. This is shown in this demonstration. I think the referencing for the article would be much more accessible to the reader if it were converted to the sfn template.
 * I'm not a fan of the sfn template, but there are bigger problems as you outlined below. I'd suggest fixing those first before changing the cite format.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Quality of individual citations
Some cites actually point to multiple sources. For instance, this is found in the article. This has several problems: It is not possible to question an individual source with a template. All the sources of the article are not listed in the bibliography. In this case, the credentials of the "historia" reference are not apparent as it does not have a citation style that allows the reader to fully understand who has published this paper. Is it a thesis or is it something published in a peer reviewed article?

Explanatory notes are muddled up with the references, for example. The fact that there is additional information on Äpplet is an extra fact, not a reference. (It would also allow a link to the Swedish Wikipedia article on this subject.) This practice is problematical as a reader may be happy to skip the sourcing of the article, but would want to see additional information on the subject. In this case there should be a footnote which has its own integral reference. This issue is quite widespread in the article.

There are probably more citation-based issues, but I do not want to make this post too long. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * A single set of notes is a standard used in the vast majority of all English-language non-fiction works. They are per definition a place to add "additional information", regardless if it's a reference or some sort of comment. It's a standard that's been around for something like 200 years. I find the concept of separate commentary notes (with their own set of dinky reference notes) to a confusing "Wikipedianism". It's a solution to a non-existent problem.
 * If you want to apply templates, this compatible with with both comments and multiple sources per note. I did this in galley not too long ago. So you can apply templates and still respect WP:CITEVAR.
 * If any particular citation or note is off, just point them out and I'll try to address the issue. Peter Isotalo 16:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I am a little puzzled by the above answer. I think we all understand that there are tried and tested referencing and footnote methods dating back to the time when a computer was a person, not an electronic device. We also know that Wikipedia referencing guidance is based on these older methods (they had to start somewhere) but has technological options that make use of the capabilities of the devices that display Wikipedia. In addition, the nature of this encyclopedia is such that elements of the "tried and tested" references (e.g.WP:IBID) are discouraged as they have problems in this environment.
 * There are no firm rules on how notes and references should be handled, within the various options available. However, a key principle here is that Wikipedia is written for the benefit of its readers. I fail to see why an editor would want to restrict our notes and referencing to a system that mimics something designed for a paper-based system that worked with hand-set type on printing presses. (Anything to avoid having to proof-read an extra reference!) Deciding not to use the extra functionality available to the reader is a little like expecting everyone to have a rotary dial telephone in their home, a banking system that takes three days to make a payment, and a car with a magneto instead of an engine management system. We are not talking about solutions to non-existent problems, this is about doing things better because we can. Many users already expect to see this sort of functionality. Adhering to 200 year old methodologies is not a way of thinking that helps here – we should simply be looking for the best methods. If they happen to be old, all well and good. But it is surely surprising if techniques from a different era are still the best in a developed computer age.
 * Anyway, I will get off my soap box on this matter and wait to see if there are any other thoughts. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You have only your own personal opinions to support your stance here.
 * If you want to get rid of a certain standard of notes, argue that it should be made into a guideline. Please stop wasting time by campaigning in individual articles. Peter Isotalo 16:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You have only your own personal opinions to support... No, consider the opinions of the three other editors who have used to put explanatory notes in the article, plus the recommendations we see from Sturmvogel. This  casts the concept of personal opinions in a different light. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The first thing to do is to break out the various explanatory notes under their own header of Footnotes or somesuch. Second, copy all of the full-title cites to the bibliography and then reduce those citations to match the existing short title format. That should significantly reduce the current clutter without violating CITEVAR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Sturmvogel 66, explanatory notes have no relevance to any "clutter". These are perfectly normal notes of the same type used in just about all forms of published works. I know of no other place except Wikipedia where people obsess about the idea of strict segregation of abbreviated references and any kind of explanations. Peter Isotalo 23:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I fear that the reference "clutter" may be the cause of a . I presume the problem here is a wrong page number or the wrong source being cited. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong, but I find it easier to have explanatory notes broken out separately. It's not an imperative, but a "nice to have". The mixture of full and short-title cites, though, definitely needs to be straightened out as I outlined above. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sturm, I find it very annoying to read efn-style notes and then have to click an additional link to see the actual source. It's a very good example of a formatting that exists to be convenient for users at the expense of the reader. Peter Isotalo 18:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand and I'm not telling you to implement them over your objections. I am telling you that there are at least two cite styles in use and they need to be made consistent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Fascine/sheaf
I have put a tag on the assertion that Vasa's name means a "fascine". The cited source specifically says "Interestingly, although the name of the ship was spelled Wasa (or Wase), the word for a sheaf of wheat, the symbol of the royal family from which the ship took its name, was commonly spelled vase". The word "fascine" does not appear anywhere on the page cited (page 15 of Vasa I, Cederlund 2006). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See also "The new guns were richly decorated with the royal arms of Sweden with the Vasa wheatsheaf superimposed (just as on the middle panel of the ship's stern)..." on page 51 of Vasa I, Cederlund 2006. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Cederlund is not an authority on the translation or definition of Swedish words. If you plan on questioning translations of Swedish words with multiple or complex meanings, you need to know how to use Swedish-language dictionaries. If not, ask Swedish-speakers for assistance before you go around and tag stuff you don't understand. Peter Isotalo 18:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am a little puzzled as to why you think Cederlund 2006 is not an RS on this. This book is the first of a definitive series on the ship and the author, editor and contributors have a good level of access to all appropriate levels of Swedish scholarship. Do you think they did not use this if there was any doubt, especially since the point is specifically addressed in the source? They also have the ship as evidence – see the article's picture of the recreated carvings of heraldry, the source's picture (9:7) of the castings of a wheat sheaf on the breech of a gun and other evidence of how the heraldry was presented. The iconography alone is a powerful bit of evidence. Then I did consult a Swedish speaker for assistance: User talk:SergeWoodzing. One could also look at the preciseness of the English word "sheaf" in this instance. The OED entry includes a meaning of a bundle of pretty much any plant material (even though a common usage is for a sheaf of wheat or other cereal). So a subset of sheaf is fascine, but fascine's meaning is generally taken to be just the bundle of sticks used in military engineering. So it appears that "sheaf" is actually in good alignment with the range of meanings in Swedish – not something that you always get with a translation.
 * Over and above all the above discussion, do you have a source that translates 17th century Swedish into modern English? This is clearly something that Fred Hocker has covered, with the note on pg 14 of Vasa II, which though it is largely directed at placenames and ship names, makes clear that European languages did not have standardised spelling at that time. At present, I am relaxed that the correct term for the article is a sheaf of wheat, rather than a fascine. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See also . ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You've been provided a solid source in this regard. The horse is dead so stop beating it already. Peter Isotalo 01:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The source given appears to support the idea that the name is derived from the heraldry and refers to a wheatsheaf. Look at the dictionary definition 1(a) which specifically refers to the heraldic depiction of a sheaf (sädeskärve). This is why I have sought a further opinion on this. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article provides both meanings of the word and explains the connection to the coat of arms. The word is not "derived from the heraldry". The only problem here is your lack of understanding of Swedish. Peter Isotalo 15:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyright status of picture
I have asked for help about the copyright status of a photo in the article at. Hopefully my fears are unfounded, but the link is here in case anyone wants to follow or contribute to the discussion at commons. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Informational footnotes
The position in this article as at 30/12/23 was that there were three instances of being used. Each had been added by a different editor. An additional usage of was added on 10/1/24 with this edit. That makes four different editors who have used this template in this article. To this is added the opinion of User:Sturmvogel 66, which is supportive of separate informational notes (as required by the efn template). In the spirit of actions speak louder than words, I take this as five editors who think this style is helpful to the article – four edits and one talk page opinion. Against this, we have, as far as I can tell, just one editor who thinks this article should not use separate informational notes and who consequently repeatedly removes and its associated separate notes section, most recently with. This is in the context of the above discussion on the subject remaining open.

Is there any reason why the use of by four different editors and the remarks of Sturmvogel cannot be taken as a consensus that this template and the resulting separate notes section is desirable? This is an attempt to close this matter off so that the various article content issues can be dealt with. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The article was promoted to FA with the regular one set of notes. It consistently used normal notes until this edit changed the note in the lead and split the sections. They left a whole bunch of notes with comments as they were, and so have you.
 * I have no idea who the "five editors" are. You're pulling that one out of your ass as far as I can tell. You're reading your own views into what Sturm has noted here. And it really doesn't matter because there already was an established standard. You're just ignoring guidelines like WP:CITEVAR and WP:FAOWN because they don't support your preferred outcome.
 * You also have a history of doing this since you tried the exact same thing regarding notes in galley. And you followed it up with a very unfriendly campaign about article length. Overall, you seem to be pushing similar issues over and over which is very much a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue. Peter Isotalo 18:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The record of editors using is in the article edit history – it is there for anyone to see for themselves. One of the additions of this template was by a highly experienced editor as a "cleanup". I presume that you are getting so angry about this is that you didn't notice when it happened. The initial input from Sturmvogel was The first thing to do is to break out the various explanatory notes under their own header of Footnotes.... Do you really need everything spelt out to you (and this isn't the first time – see The paragraph you're quoting is cited. Why are you describing it as "unreferenced"? which needed further explanation)? In the meantime, I am trying to improve the article with updated content. I very much doubt that the article would meet FA standards as it stands – not least because it needs updating. At the very least it does not have a stable form because you go in and change everything that any other editor does. It would be really nice to be able to work on this article in a co-operative manner. Whatever happened to WP:AGF? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've requested a third opinion on this matter. Peter Isotalo 20:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To expand on this point, the developing section of the article on the Sailing rig requires explanation of some of the terms and concepts used. These will be understood by some readers, so much of that explanatory material would be well placed in footnotes. Collecting those footnotes into one section of the article would assist the reader who needs to refer back to a definition/explanation. Having these interspersed with references might be less helpful for the reader. At present I am staying away from putting any potential footnote material in a footnote of any form. The sort of effect looked for is as in Cefnllys Castle, note 2 – though depending on how writing the sails and rigging section goes, there might be a good number of explanatory notes needed here. To be clear, the potential footnotes for the Sailing rig section will all need to be clearly referenced, which may be problematical if the footnotes are not in a format that readily accepts references. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The initially obvious resource of using links to appropriate Wikipedia articles instead of footnotes does not work well here as there are substantial differences between 17th century rig and rigging and any Wikipedia article that may focus more on 19th century arrangements (that is one of the key points of study of Vasa's rig). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a little bit of back and forth here, so, lets start over with both of your arguments stated so I can get a clean slate of the two positions. Please try to avoid mentioning the other editor per se in your viewpoint. :)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

On 30th December I suggested on the talk page that the article could do with some updating of the references. This was rebuffed by user:Peter Isotalo, who did not seem to have any argument beyond "I don't like it". Whilst it seemed that modernising the ref style was going to get nowhere, the article already had a separate notes section, with notes generated using (3 instances from 3 different editors). Consequently, when I edited this article on 10 Jan 24 with, I also used. The article content that was added was outside the flow of the article, but is relevant information to the article – so a footnote is a useful way of achieving this. This was reverted with on 13 Jan with an edit that removed usage of by all four editors who had used it. This seemed at the time to go against the idea of consensus – with four editors thinking the template was beneficial to the article and one thinking the opposite.
 * Viewpoint by ThoughtIdRetired:

I was then engaged sorting out a long-standing unresolved point raised on the talk page: Talk:Vasa (ship). I came back to the point about use of with this edit which had an edit summary that I genuinely believed made the idea of consensus clear. On 3 Feb, user:Sturmvogel 66 joined the talk page discussion with The first thing to do is to break out the various explanatory notes under their own header of Footnotes....

Since the edit summary on consensus had been ignored, I raised the talk page post immediately above.

Why does this matter? Normally one would just walk away. However this article is due a substantial update due to the recent release of a new source with new material. Some of that is on the Sailing rig of the ship. Many terms will need to be explained. The ideal method for this is with footnotes, so that a reader who understands the terms can keep reading the article. A separate footnote section allows the reader to remind themself of the meaning of a term by referring back to the note if necessary. The sort of informational footnote that is considered is something like Cefnllys Castle, especially note 2. The initial idea that Wikilinks would solve the problem does not work as there are substantial differences between the detail of 17th century square rig and the more familiar (and available on Wikipedia) 19th century version. The content of each footnote would need to be referenced and this is difficult to achieve properly outside one of the templates. Explaining why this technical problem exists is one for others, but in short you have to use something like (the deprecated) parenthetical referencing if you create a footnote with the ref.../ref method.

In short,(a) the impending article content really needs a separate footnote section to assist the reader ("article content specific") and (b) in the spirit of actions speak louder than words, we have a consensus of four editors who have used separate footnotes, plus one talk page commenter in favour versus just one objector.

In the meantime, I have fixed or highlighted several problems with the article (most recently a photo that looks worryingly like a copyright infringement) – arguments about the FA status of the article seem irrelevant when problems remain to be fixed. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Viewpoint by Peter Isotalo:

The article has used the standard of a single set of notes since it was promoted as FA back in 2008. Some users changed one or two instances of commentary notes to efn and added a heading for a second set of notes. This was not done consistently and was not discussed. I reverted back to the one-note standard recently per WP:CITEVAR and WP:FAOWN. The one-set note standard is not exotic or strange in any way, but a perfectly acceptable ref standard, both on and off Wikipedia. I don't believe individual articles are the place for individual editors to duke it out regarding the merits of this or that citation style. We have a clearly worded WP:CITEVAR to spare the community from getting stuck in these kind of debates. Peter Isotalo 09:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so, it says in the policy that citation styles should not be changed without consensus, in which in attempting to get consensus discussing the merits of various styles would be required. if this boils down to which we think works better, it becomes a matter of taste, in which "not liking it" (or put more professionally, thinking it isn't an improvement) would be a valid objection, and per WP:STEWARDSHIP absolutely is a valid objection, and given the length of time Peter has been working on this article, he absolutely falls under.
 * Third opinion by DarmaniLink:

It is true that this is a FA, and major changes should be done with care. While changes usually shouldn't always be discussed first, if you see changes that don't make it an improvement, you're free to revert/undo/delete them, and contest the edits as they stand, where they would then be discussed as beneficial or not beneficial. Basically, the discussions over changing citation styles shouldn't be shut down simply because it's an FA, and thinking changes aren't an improvement shouldn't be dismissed as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I agree that bold changes to citation styles should likely not take place, especially in a FA/GA, but there's no harm in discussing to reach an agreement on how to change them.

We also shouldn't assume that other editors adding notes after the first one was added are part of the consensus either without pinging them first, and asking their opinion. They may have just added more notes because they already saw one, or may be swayed to agree with peter and agree with him on the notes.

I think this should go up to an RFC, where other editors can chime in whether or not to have the notes, and how best to organize the references to ultimately settle this, and uphold the status quo until it's done (per WP:STATUSQUO). Because this ultimately is a stylistic dispute, it's outside of my boundaries as 3O to ultimately decide. I would also recommend both of you make sandbox drafts (or provide diffs) of your preferred version for the RFC, to save people time. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me stop this right now
I hadn't realized that this is a FA until DarmaniLink mentioned it above. With Peter being one of the original nominators for the FAC, WP:FAOWN applies and he gets the deciding vote because it's his responsibility to maintain the article after it passes FAC. Just like I have to with my own FAs. I realize that this isn't spelled out in FAOWN, but read the whole policy at WP:OWN and I hope y'all will understand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * the "deciding vote" language is quite wrong, not supported by WP:FAOWN, and the opposite of the intention behind WP:OWN in general. VQuakr (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The FA community would disagree with you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So what? WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (though I disagree on your characterization of that community's position; you are confusing stewardship with ownership). VQuakr (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @VQuakr, what point are you trying to make here? Are you arguing that we start duking it out in this article over the merits of one vs two sets of notes? Peter Isotalo 05:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. Try again? VQuakr (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @VQuakr, it's an honest question so heed your own advice. I'm very frustrated by this situation and I'm honestly worried about pointless disruptions.
 * This is an article talkpage and we're trying to find solutions to issues relating to this article. Other than debating principles, what are you suggesting we do? Peter Isotalo 05:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * that's why i suggested an RFC :<
 * this way we don't have to fight over this, we can get a consensus, and hopefully spend our time on improving the site rather than getting frustrated with each other. Other editors may even agree that peter, having gotten it up to FA, should have the final say, or that his stewardship overrides any other stylistic argument, or perhaps to the contrary, agree with you that it doesn't. We shouldn't argue about consensus without first trying to make one. Imo this has reached an impasse, so either DRN or and RFC would probably be appropriate at this point to keep all our heads on. None of us are actively trying to make the article worse and we all want what's best for it. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @DarmaniLink, I don't believe an RfC is relevant here because it would go against the whole point of just leaving mostly subjective issues like formatting and spelling alone. In my view, it would be as pointless as having an RfC to rehash the issue of UK vs US English or "it" vs "she". My experience is that the community has long since decided to leave these matters alone and accept whatever standard that's been established as long it doesn't clash with more "objective" aspects, like WP:V or WP:NPOV.
 * I appreciate your comments overall and think they're fair and neutral. It's only the RfC suggestion that I'm opposed to and that's purely for practical reasons. Peter Isotalo 08:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The issues raised aren't solely matters of taste; ThoughtIdRetired has expressed specific concerns that the existing cite style is insufficient to communicate the updated subject matter. That's a very different issue than the analogies of ENGVAR or ship pronouns you use. As near as I can tell ThoughtIdRetired concerns haven't been addressed in any depth beyond "that's not how we've done it thus far", which is a rather weak reasoning. CITEVAR says not to change styles for personal preference but that's not the reasoning being given. I'm unclear why you'd oppose a RfC to discuss since that's a pretty typical path forward. VQuakr (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've presented multiple arguments on this very talkpage here and here.
 * I've also brought the issue up on Thought's talkpage here and even all the way back in July 2022 relating to "galley" here. Peter Isotalo 09:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 2022 is a while ago and it's a different article. Suggest we focus on the here and now. Yes, I had seen those sections and they informed my characterization of the arguments to date. If I'm missing some nuance (which is entirely possible; they are long sections), would you be willing to link to a diff rather than the entire section? Can you explain why you feel a RfC would be undesirable? VQuakr (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * At the current state of affairs, there really isn't much more to say towards TIRs points other than "the steward, who got this article to FA, thinks your suggestions/edits in regards to the footnotes aren't an improvement" Generally FA stewards get to put their thumbs on the scale a little bit and frankly, I don't agree with the stuff about parenthetical referencing either, and found it a bit hyperbolic. It got to FA for a reason, and its up to them to maintain it. Even if I were to agree with one party and said "the entire citation style should be changed with to use explanatory footnotes", or "I don't think we should have footnotes in this article", that wouldn't change anything. 3O isn't binding. You would need strong consensus to override the steward, however he does not need that with you if he in good faith believes your edits aren't improvements, in which you would then need it yourself to override that.
 * At this point, I'm pretty much insisting that an RFC be held, to end this dispute. That's my opinion. Let the community form a consensus, and we can all hopefully just move on regardless of the outcome. I really do not see any way forward from this point other than that. If anything, we should move forward with that. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you might want to check out Thought's recent activities in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Do you still think an RfC is a good idea? Peter Isotalo 20:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd recommend taking a look at these diffs. Peter Isotalo 20:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Those don't really address the issue. CITEVAR is about changing formatting styles of references, which isn't the main point of what's been proposed here. It also didn't address my request for you to provide diffs of a more substantial reasoning that are specific to this page. Do you still think an RfC is a good idea? Yes. VQuakr (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @VQuakr, I don't understand your comment. If not reference formatting, what do you believe is the main point here? Peter Isotalo 22:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's a definitional issue on what we're referring to as "formatting". The harvb vs efn discussion below, for example, is something I would consider under the umbrella of citation formatting. Whether to put explanatory editorial footnotes in the same section as sources is question of layout not citation style. VQuakr (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You frankly have a better argument with the current state of affairs. I see the merits of both styles, don't agree that information is being lost in a way that cannot be explained or integrated into prose or is frankly even necessary, and would personally be fine with either. I realize that isn't helpful, but it's my honest viewpoint.
 * At this point, I really do think that due to the stalemate an rfc necessary just to end this. I'd probably personally !vote for your style citing WP:FAOWN, as things currently stand right now timestamped accordingly.
 * Would you rather argue about this for the next days, weeks, or potentially even years and cause everyone involved a ton of undue stress, yourself included, on how to organize the references at the bottom of the page rather than just get a consensus, in one way or the other? If the RFC agrees with you, great! you can now link to the rfc if this comes up in the future, or if an editor from the RFC tries to bring it up again, just ask them to WP:DTS. If they disagree with you, oh well, it's just the reference style at the bottom of the page, and now there's notes for different definitions, which admittedly could also be explained with just a simple wikilink, if any party is severely against notes, which in this case there is. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to work on the article, thank you. Peter Isotalo 21:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)