Talk:Yawl

Early posts
Gipsy Moth IV is linked to as a yawl, but the target article classifies it as a ketch.

You need to also consider the S&S designs Dorade and Stormy Weather. Dorade was a ground breaking design in the development of the ocean racing yacht and further improved in the later Stormy Weather design which had a long and successful career in Atlantic races including the Fastnet.

Yawl is also considered to have derived from the Scandanvian word also giving the type Yole as in the Shetland types. I understand this to mean just 'small boat'. These would have traditionally been double ended and lug rigged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.199.76 (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Could "Yawl" be named after the Irish town "Youghal"? Probably not, but it's a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.139.160 (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ketch verses Yawl
The sloop is intended for work that requires constant maneuvering. With only two sails it requires less sail tending with every gybe and course correction. A yawl may be sailed without its mizzen like a sloop when it too needs to be continually maneuvered. In a condition when the helmsman wishes to set the sail balanced so that the boat will remain on course without tending, the mizzen can be raised to balance the sail plan. Ketches are used under conditions where the boat sails on a constant course, on open waters for long distances. Ketch sails are intended to be set and left to their selves without tending. That is the functional difference between the ketch and yawl. But the distinction of the mizzen being fore and aft of the rudder post works well as the yawl mizzen is meant to balance the rudder when the rudder is fixed amidships. My Flatley (talk) 06:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In my school, HMS Conway, we were taught that the defining distinction between a ketch and yawl is that the latter has its after mast (or mizzen) abaft of the rudder post. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Article is bang on.
The current article is correct in identifying all the key differences between a yawl and ketch,ie essentially the yawl mizzensail was a steering devise rather than a driving sail.It is too small to have any significant difference on sailing speed due to its small area, its placement way aft and the disturbance to laminar wind flow by the mizzen mast and rigging,to say nothing of the cost of such a set up. The yawl seems to now be consigned largely to history,although I note with pleasure that small boat designer John Welsford of New Zealand has a good small centreboard yawl design that is highly popular both in Nz and overseas.Clearly the yawl still serves a purpose even in the 21 century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.189.177 (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Bravo
I don't usually do this, but I feel moved to commend the writer(s) of this article. It is well written and clearly informative, with none of the flaws attendant upon so many Wikipedia articles. rowley (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yawl as a working boat/hull type - not a rig
Whilst the modern usage of "yawl" usually refers to the rig type (as does this article), it should not be overlooked that for most of the time that mariners have used this word, they have been talking about clinker-built open boats, either beach-launched or carried on larger vessels as one of the ship's boats. To be clear, virtually none of these craft were rigged as yawls. There is an extensive history of these craft around the shores of Britain, with most authorities suggesting a continuous line of descent from Norse longships. The only survivors of this type of craft are Scottish examples, such as the Orkney yole. (Interestingly, the beach yawls from the East Anglian coast, among the largest and fastest open boats ever built, were crewed by men who called their boats "yols" - even though everyone in England used the spelling "yawl".) See also Ship's boat for that type of yawl.

It is probably misleading for an encyclopedia user who finds the word "yawl" in a context referring to one of these open boats to see only an article about a rig used on yachts to exploit a measurement rule. Options would appear to be (a) to cover all types of yawl in one article - that is to say (i) rig type (ii) hull/usage type - or (b) have 2 articles named something like "Yawl (sailing rig)" and "Yawl (traditional boat)".

Suitable references include McKee, Working Boats of Britain, Edgar March Inshore Craft of Britain, E H White's British Fishing Boats and Coastal Craft.

Any thoughts on these ideas?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

This sentence makes no sense
From the current version of the article:


 * Additionally, the mizzen sail of a yawl tends to be significantly smaller relative to the mainsail compared to that of a ketch, [2] about one quarter the size of the mainsail,[3] which may be about half the size of the mainsail.

The natural reading is that the antecedent of "which" is the immediately preceding reference to the mainsail. On that reading, the final clause would say that the mainsail is about half the size of the mainsail.

Is it supposed to say that the mizzen/mainsail fraction is about one quarter in a yawl and one half in a ketch? If so, I suggest:


 * Additionally, the mizzen sail of a yawl (about one quarter the size of the mainsail) tends to be significantly smaller relative to the mainsail compared to that of a ketch (about half the size of the mainsail).

Then place footnotes appropriately.

I'm not going to be bold because my ignorance of the subject is nearly complete. JamesMLane t c 18:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * In short, this article is a complete disaster- largely because it relies on some references written by people who had little grasp of the overall subject. Both the Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea and Encyclopaedia Britannica are a serious problem on this subject - which gives some difficulty for Wikipedia editors as the OUP and Britannica are generally considered quality sources. So I have had a look at some of the more specialist sources available to me to see if they can give any clarity.
 * First point to tackle is exactly what is the article trying to say on sail sizes? I have not pinned down a source I have read that gives relative sizes for the mizzen of a ketch and a yawl compared to each one's mainsail. What I do have is (bold added) ketch a two-masted sailing vessel that has undergone many changes of size, use, and design but is now commonly a yacht with the mizen mast forward of the rudder-head (as distinct from a yawl, where the mizen is aft of it) and/or with a mizen sail at least half the area of the main. Note, however, that this description also fits a number of two-masted beach boats that are nevertheless known as yawls, such as the Norfolk yawl. (Mayne, Richard. The Language of Sailing (p. 161). Taylor and Francis.) (Slightly uncomfortable using a source that cannot spell "mizzen"!) I have not found this mathematical formula in other sources, so I think this is perhaps not a mainstream definition, so should not be in the article.
 * Second, the article is written as if the only yawls that existed were the classic yachts of the 1950s and 1960s. It ignores those currently being built such as (a) the BayRaider 20 (but, strangely, the manufacturers do not use the word "yawl" - you have to go to the highly respected Roger Barnes in The Dinghy Cruising Companion (publ. Adlard Coles Nautical) to see this confirmed - though the manufacturer's photos are totally clear on the point); (b) Drascombe Lugger ; (c) and many other similar boats. At present these examples have been air-brushed out of existence.
 * The reason for the popularity of the yawl as an exploitation of the racing rules (at the time) are well explained by Uffa Fox in his Sailing, Seamanship and Yacht Construction, originally published 1936. The advantages of the "free" sail area (according to the racing rules) were when reaching (wind roughly on the beam), when the mizzen and mizzen staysail gave extra power. This is confirmed in the modern Hand Reef and Steer by Tom Cunliffe (Adlard Coles Nautical publ 2000 with 2nd edition 2016), who also discusses how the yawl can solve the problem of weather helm arising as the wind increases, and the self-steering characteristics that were useful before modern self-steering gear.
 * Most prominently, the article (and its deficient sources) largely ignores the yawl as a hull type, and gives a questionable etymology from the Dutch. The etymology is challenged by McKee in his Working Boats of Britain (he got a grant from the National Maritime Museum to write this book and is widely cited). The yawl, as a hull type, is regarded as having a linear descent from Viking ships: clinker built open boats that used to operate from Britain's beaches. This view is held by (as well as McKee) Edgar J March (Inshore Craft of Britain in the Days of Sail and Oar, publ, Chatham Publishing) and E W White (British Fishing-Boats and Coastal Craft, a book sponsored by the Science Museum). So the warning at the top of the article "not to be confused with Yole" is completely wrong. The yawl was also a particular type of ship's boat - definitions changed over time, but the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich has countless plans of yawls constructed for the British Navy. James Cook's journal of his surveying of the Australian coast has multiple mentions of the yawl and the pinnace in a way that presumably had meaning to the reader of the time - just as we would now understand the differences between motor vehicles called (British terminology) hatchback, SUV, pick-up etc. These 2 ships boats were clearly used for slightly different purposes. (I note that HMS Endeavour has a link for yawl the points to this article - which is embarrassing.)


 * The article needs a huge rewrite. I had been looking for a moment when I had the time to do this, but a busy life outside Wikipedia has prevented this. However, the notes above are a useful start. I did intend to chop out the worst bits of the article as an interim step - but there would be little left. It may suffice to say that the sail area of the mizzen of a yawl, if expressed as a fraction of the mainsail area, is substantially smaller than the mizzen of a ketch.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Confused description
The second sentence of the second paragraph says that the mizzen sail "tends to be...about one quarter the size of the mainsail, which may be about half the size of the mainsail." WHAT?? J S Ayer (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Baby and bathwater
while the article is cleaner looking since your edit, it is also less accurate. Several locations had characteristic local design named as yawls which were single masted, bipod masted, unmasted, etc. E W H Holdsworth shows a periauger, a lug-sailed boat, and a rowboat all called “yawls”; the only shared characteristic is two pointy ends...they are all relatively narrow double-enders. “Yawl” and “yawl-rigged” are not synonymous. Qwirkle (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A strong argument could be made that "yawl" is a de facto synonym of "yawl rigged". The other definitions are historical and shouldn't get undue weight. --Cornellier (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Were this an introductory guide to boating, I’d agree with you. It’s not, though, it’s an encyclopedia, or at least an attempt at one, and things that are purely “historical” will rightly make up a good part of it. As an aside, the material you removed from the the article as “original research” clearly aren’t such. Qwirkle (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

There will not doubt be some (quite justified) shouts of horror, but I have started on a complete rewrite of the article -so, that is, ditching everything that was already there (almost). Working boats called yawls still to go (i.e. the hull type) and also something on ships boats - (somewhere in Wikipedia are photos of various Yol de Bantry replicas - though not sure that they are technically yawls - I think they are gigs - to research!!) The existing sections could bear some filling out, I have concentrated on more specialist references - especially ones that tend to get cited by other experts. Any thoughts (however critical) are welcome.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m assuming, possibly wrongly, that you are British, and may not have run across what I think is the most outre “yawl”, the “river yawls” of North America’s great inland waterways, whose ancestry hails back to the dory and the lumberman’s bateau. In Chapelle here. Qwirkle (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen this before, but it does not surprise me. I suppose it fits with the "ships boat" version of "yawl" - but maritime terminology is very variable - "ketch" is the usual example, but I could point out vessels called schooners by their crew and owners that were, by strict definition barquentines, and their are umpteem "luggers" that are gaff rigged or powered. I've not seen a copy of Chapelle's survey of American small craft (I presume that's where this link points - I have just closed it as I have too many tabs open) - though I have some of Chapelle's other books. I think it is important to use quality authors where-ever possible. It is interesting that Chapelle had to use the resources of the National Maritime Museum here in the UK for some of his research - so he got to know quite well Britain's maritime historians of the same era. Then I think you can identify quality modern writers by who they cite - hopefully including sources of the quality of Chapelle and his contemporaries (David R MacGregor, Edgar March and others). Interestingly some of the more modern writers (e.g. John Leather - but he was working a while ago, I am not sure if he is still alive) are quite well connected into US small boats - simply because they want to sell their books in this wider market. It is Leather who alerted me to the existence of the Oyster Lugger. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2006, apparently. An obit here. Right now, archive.org is giving an hour free viewing to damn near everything, “Small Craft” included. Well worth the look. Yeah, quality cites are important, and knowing their edges is as well. There was a fellow who was a real expert on dories who wrote some amazingly bad stuff, speculation about their origins, trying to claim a German zille was a proto-dory. Wikipedia, at its worst, has an unrealistically black-or-white view of sources. Qwirkle (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

, do you think it’d be worth bringing faerings into the article? Qwirkle (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a decent question. Right now I am scrabbling to make sense of some of the sources. March is fantastically rambling on the subject (most of his work is quotes - either direct or indirect - from the huge amount of correspondence he had). White is over-concise. The Shetland museum is of unknown reliability - but in my experience those who write info for museums are usually less well informed than the average Wikipedia editor. Then there are several Mariners Mirror articles, some of a substantial age, but with a fair bit of information (some of it recycled by March). Marc Chivers is, at times, close to being a self-published source - but on consideration seems OK. (He is published in Mariners Mirror on some points.) I was planning to leave the Scottish side to stew for a while and move on to the Beach yawls. I will still have March to deal with, but there is a good Mariners Mirror article (on which the external link of Tom Cunliffe is largely based). I also have the psychological advantage that my first time afloat on the sea was in a Suffolk Beach Punt, a close relative of the Beach Yawl. I was probably only 6 years old at the time, so don't remember a lot....
 * Without more meat on the bones of this part of the article, I think the faering might unbalance it. But I think it is a candidate as the article matures and grows.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My thought as well. Qwirkle (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit Revert
In regards to this revert, I will defer to the historical context. But I do want to point out that my original edit was not 'censuring' anything, as your edit description claims. The edit was in-line with MOS:GNL and does not change the original intent of the text. The actions being described are not gender-dependent (even if, for various historical reasons, the people involved were most likely male). I understand you don't agree with the edit but this is not a case where 'censuring' could be claimed. CaptainAngus (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be so long answering this - internet failure. Noted that my nimble fingers misspelt censor (once you've posted an edit summary, you can't go back and fix errors). A few points to make: MOS:GNL is not so absolute as you seem to think, and this is one of those "one-gender contexts" that is referred to in the MOS. To imply that the crews of these boats, or their shore stations, could be of any gender is misleading, and it is not the purpose of this encyclopaedia to mislead. I note that CaptainAngus's edit history shows a huge predominance of these "GNL" edits. I suggest that there are risks in being a single-issue editor - and, though others would no doubt disagree, I would suggest gathering some general editing experience so as to gain some perspective on the problem of putting together informative and accurate articles that can be read without jarring English language constructs. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree. CaptainAngus made a similar edit that I reverted here. Such edits are misleading and detrimental to the accuracy of articles describing historical events. I added hidden text here ("per MOS:GNL, a patrol torpedo boat in World War II was a "one-gender context"—no women served on them—so gender neutral language does not apply.") to prevent such harmful changes to that article in the future, one hopes. Carlstak (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * and : I'm not pushing back against historical context. In my personal opinion, both of the reverts in question represent a different way than I would pursue to preserve historical accuracy while still improving the articles for the larger community. However, I'm not a historian, so I'll defer. CaptainAngus (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Canoe yawls
I have deleted the addition of a paragraph on canoe yawls. This is because the cited source does not appear to be a WP:RS. The article might be due a mention of canoe yawls, but I am not sure the definition given stands scrutiny. I have just studied John Leather's discussion of early canoe yawls in his Sail and Oar and it does not go so far as to give a definition of the term, just a lot of description.

Looking further for comment, we have Classic Boat with, in the same article "Canoe yawls ... are frequently neither canoe nor yawl." and "these little yachts had moved so far ... from where MacGregor took his inspiration, that the term was pretty much a nonsense". Charmina is just essentially a pocket cruiser.

The term canoe yawl has also been overtaken by the marketing departments of modern yacht builders – see

So I think we have a type of craft that cannot be concisely defined. So any coverage in the article would need so much explaining that it would destroy the WP:BALANCE. The solution, if it turns out to be possible, would be to create an article on canoe yawls, properly researched and reference, and then put a link in this article to the new article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)