Talk:Ship

Design considerations section

The design considerations section seems out of place in this page... perhaps this information should be moved to the shipbuilding page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Confuciou (talk • contribs) 03:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Feminine gender

At the end of the Nomenclature section, the article states, "Ship (along with nation) is an English word that has retained a female grammatical gender in some usages, which allows it sometimes to be referred to as a she without being of female natural gender.[13] However, Wiktionary traces it back through Middle English schip, Old English skip, Proto-West-Germanic *skip, and Proto-Germanic *skipą, all of which were neuter. I think a better explanation is needed as to why ships (and some other vehicles) are sometimes treated as feminine.

-- Solo Owl 03:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not for us to judge, Solo Owl. We depend on reliable sources and when they disagree, we report the disagreement. Something published in the Cambridge University Press is as reliable as it comes. The entirety of Chapter Four in the reference given is devoted to this question. If it's incorrectly paraphrased, then it would be good to suggest how to improve the entry, here. HopsonRoad (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Size of a sailing ship/bowsprit/159 year old reference

I am alarmed by the edit [1] by User:HopsonRoad (and subsequent edits).
(1) The definition of a ship (as in full-rigged ship) is all about the rig. There is no consideration of the size of the hull. Therefore you have examples of brigs which are bigger than ships. I can dig out a reference for that given time, but this problem needs fixing a.s.a.p.
(2) There is no requirement for a ship to have a bowsprit. They (probably) invariably do, but the definition is all about the square rigged masts.
(3) The reference given to support this is 159 years old. The more modern reference (Jenny Bennett, Sailing Rigs, an Illustrated Guide) is right up to date, written by someone with excellent credentials, and relies on equally impressive references. Note that the 159 year old ref was from a time when the terminology was adjusting to steam vessels and, I suggest, the nautical dictionary writer was struggling with the developing language.
(4) Leaving the text as it is directly contradicts the reference given (Bennett) - if you don't like the text supported by Bennett, at least delete the reference, because otherwise Wikipedia is misrepresenting that author. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

And the 159 year old reference does not actually support the text in the article. Hence the failed verification tag. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired, bear in mind, the description is from the Age of Sail, not the modern perspective, when the reference would have applied. I can't see what's in Bennet, so it's hard to judge its merits. Perhaps you could quote Bennet, here, so we can discuss what it says. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This 1898 source says, that a ship is "a term applied indiscriminately to any large vessel, but among seamen is restricted to one that is full-rigged." By now, we're past the age of sail. HopsonRoad (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I concur with your concerns, ThoughtIdRetired. I hope what I have written is closer to the mark. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is the answer that I had started on:

(A) Jenny Bennett says: "Definition. The full-rigged ship carries three or more masts, all of which are square-rigged. Each mast is in three parts: lower, top and topgallant; and usually in four: the highest section being the royal (although in later ships the topgallant and royal masts were combined in a single pole mast)." The definition then discusses the fore and aft sails that one would expect to find on a ship and then the naming of the various sails. The story of the development of ships goes on to mention that iron and then steel masts did away with the strict "3-section" masts in the definition.

(B) Another source, widely cited, is Harold Underhill's Sailing Ship Rigs and Rigging. Page 2 says "Ship. A ship is a vessel having three or more masts and fully square-rigged throughout. Each mast is composed of a lower-mast, topmast, topgallant-mast, and in most cases royal-mast." Underhill then states that topgallants and royal were, in later ships, combined into a single pole mast.

(C) Looking at maritime glossaries, etc., we have Jane's Dictionary of Naval Terms which says "Ship. (1) General term for a seagoing vessel (in contrast to boat.....) (2) Sailing vessel with three (occ. more) masts and square-rigged on all of them...."

Out of all this, I think the article needs to make clear that a ship is either a loose general term for a seagoing vessel of a wide number of types or a specific type of sailing vessel, defined by its rig. When people use or used the latter definition, we would find them also talking about brigs, barques, schooners, etc, – with "ship" being used in the same way as the other terms that we immediately know describe the rig.

I unexpectedly find myself out of time to look at this more right now, but note that edits have been made to the article. I will get back to this later. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it is important for the editor (and ultimately, the encyclopaedia user) to understand how the word ship, at certain times and in certain contexts, clearly meant the rig. Something verging on WP:OR illustrates this well. Look at [2] This is the shipping report of an American newspaper and should be free for all to read. It originate from a search for the words "ship" and "brig" - so will find instances where rig description is used. This example is shown because the result is not behind a paywall. I have other similar newspaper searches from the 1870s and 1880s that list. This is the technical usage of the word "ship" to mean the rig. At the same time, ship was used more loosely, particularly when not applied to a particular vessel where the rig was known. (But it is worth realising that, especially in the commercial world, a good level of technical understanding of shipping terminology was present - consider the beginning of The Merchant of Venice where the term "argosy" is used – so that is a technical term for a type of ship based in the Mediterranean in a play performed in London.) Seeing actual usage makes clear what we are reading in references.

As it stands, I think the explanation in the article is confusing and does not make clear that, especially historically, the word "ship" can be the technical description of the rig of a vessel, whilst in other contexts in the same era, it might be used much less precisely, for any large water-craft, especially when the actual nature of that vessel is not known or several are referred to collectively.

I suggest the entire paragraph in the article should read something along the lines of:
Historically, particularly in the Age of Sail, the word "ship" frequently denoted the type of rig of a vessel. In modern times this might sometimes be expressed, for clarity, as full-rigged ship. In this usage, "ship" is defined as a sailing vessel with three or more masts, all of which are square-rigged. This would differentiate from other common rigs of the time, such as brig, barque, etc. Concurrent with use of "ship" as the name of a rig, the less technically precise meaning can also be found: a seagoing vessel.

Any thoughts on this idea? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughts that you have put forward, ThoughtIdRetired, and for your patience in arriving at a solution. I have to step away for about 18 hours, so if you want to draft something that you find satisfactory, I'd be interested in seeing it. Once concern I have is that we not synthesize a range of sources to the degree that our own judgment enters into what we write. Instead, we must directly paraphrase them, and when appropriate, cite sources that disagree. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and substituted a paragraph based on the above suggestion. It has been carefully fine-tuned for accuracy and supportability from sources. I have kept the 3 references, despite laying the edit open to criticism as being over-cited. The logic is that both Underhill and Bennett give the "3 square-rigged masts" definition, but Underhill, despite still being the undisputed authority on the subject, is somewhat old. Therefore using Bennett (who clearly bases her remarks on Underhill) gives modern validation to the older work. Just citing Bennett would conceal from the reader the very useful definitive source that Underhill represents. Palmer is there to support the generalist definition of ship that sits alongside the technical one. The fact that the generalist definition - a large sea-going vessel - is used even in the age of sail is not fully supported by an RS (yet another ref would be a problem?), but you can find this usage in Shakespeare, old newspapers, etc. Incidentally, "full-rigged ship" goes back to the 1860s, per OED and also old newspapers.

The only question in my mind is whether the extensive usage of referring to vessels by their rigs needs to be illustrated by one of the open-source old newspapers. It is hard to explain how this worked - by analogy one can show what we do with cars: hatchback, sedan, SUV, etc, but that is not really an encyclopaedic style.

There probably also needs to be a sentence in the lead that says "During the age of sail, the word "ship" usually meant a vessel that was ship-rigged – that is: square-rigged on all of three or more masts." But I am thinking that we are building this wall one brick at a time. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm content with your edit, ThoughtIdRetired. Thank you.

What's not clear is the distinction between informal usage and correct maritime usage at any given point in time. This is not for us to include in the article, except when we're citing an authority that has addressed this question. I'm wondering whether a 15th-century maritime authority would not have called a carrack a ship, when full-rigged ships were not yet invented. If so, then it would appear necessary to allow the broad use of ship for large vessel of the period and not confine the term to being informal or narrowly applicable to a full-rigged ship.

Picking up your automotive analogy, it would be rare to refer to a pick-up truck, SUV, or box truck as a "car"; a technically minded person would use the over-arching term of "vehicle". It appears that in the 19th century among mariners, ship, barque, brig, brigantine, and schooner would all have specific, narrow meanings. The question is whether landlubbers would speak of all of them as ships. The matter must be resolved in the article by reliable sources that discuss such questions, although it's fine to discuss our individual ideas and findings, here. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Examples of "ship" being used in the general sense of a large form of water transport, at a time when a seafarer referring to an individual vessel would use the rig-descriptive term are:
OED (online) 1 b, the sense "take ship" and similar: cites an 1888 price quoted "ex-ship"
Shipping and Mercantile Gazette (so, a specialist newspaper), 1871, the many columns of shipping movements are all headed "Ships arrived home", "Ships arrived out" (whatever that means), "ships spoken" etc. Clearly the word "ship" has been substituted for "vessel", as the contents of these lists, where appropriate, has the rig: brig, ship, etc.
Thomas Riley Blanckley. A Naval Expositor "Shewing and Explaining the Words and Terms ... & Fitting a Ship for Sea" (publ 1750 - when there were vessels rigged other than as ships - and the content of this glossary is general)
These are all examples of the general rather than rig-specific use of "ship" at a time when the rig-specific usage was also used. Could this be called WP:OR? Surely not the Oxford English Dictionary - and all the rest of it is easy for another editor to verify if they have suitable material (of which there is plenty) to consult. I agree Shakespeare is probably a little before the terminology we are discussing was established. But looking at other literature (e.g. Treasure Island, Robinson Crusoe) it seems as though "ship" is being used generally by those not very familiar with the sea. (Defoe was presumably not familiar with the sea, or else he would not have been sued for libel by the people of Deal, Kent.) So, the arguments are here for any editor to disagree with if they wish. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Technically true?

Hi ThoughtIdRetired, you recently put, "For most of the age of sail, the word "ship" often denoted that a vessel was ship-rigged – that is: square-rigged on all of three or more masts. This ambiguity can usually (but not always) be resolved from the context" into the article. Is this true? Is that a citable assertion?

Would it not be more prudent to say, "During the age of sail, ship acquired a specific connotation among mariners as a full-rigged ship with square-rigged sails on all of three or more masts, which distinguished it from vessels with other sail plans and their own specific nautical names." Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The closest reference I have found so far to support this is:
"SHIP, vaisseau, (scip, Sax.) a general name given by seamen to the first rank of vessels which are navigated on the ocean. Amongst people who are unacquainted with marine distinctions, this term is of very vague and indiscriminate acceptation: and indeed sailors themselves, submitting occasionally to the influence of custom, receive it according to this general idea. In the sea-language, however, it is more particularly applied to a vessel furnished with three masts, each of which is composed of a lower mast, top-mast, and top-gallant-mast, with the usual machinery thereto belonging." from William Falconer. An Universal Dictionary of the Marine (that's the short title) first printed in 1669.
I feel that supports the ambiguity bit - whether it is resolvable from context is a bit of explanation that I feel an editor is allowed. The actual definition of a full-rigged ship in Falconer's dictionary is not fantastic, but he was making an early attempt at a nautical dictionary - he didn't have anyone to copy. We know that he is saying that there are three square rigged masts, because he has talked about a lower mast, topmast and top-gallant. That, as may sources say, is a "square-rigged mast". It just is not defined by using the word "sail". (Which is a lot easier for a modern reader to understand, and is used by modern sources, even if alongside the 3 section mast description.) Fore and aft sails (on their own) are put on masts with a different structure: pole masts (even if there is then a topmast above it). To get a feel for Falconer's ability as a dictionary writer, look, for instance, at his footnote to the more well known The Shipwreck, for studding sail, which says "1. Stud, or studding-sails, called by the French Bonettes en etude, are light sails, which are extended in moderate breezes beyond the skirts of the principal Sails; where they appear as Wings upon the Yard-arms. According to a conjecture of one of Falconer's friends, these sails seem originally to have been called steadying Sails, from their tendency to keep the ship in a steady course, as also from the Saxon word s ted, to assist." If you know what he is talking about, that is OK - but...

There might be better sources, but it takes a while to find them. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course, just to complicate things, "ship" is a very old word in the English language. If the meaning in the Age of Sail is mentioned, the article should possibly mention the usage before that era. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired, my formulation of the newly introduced sentence in the lead section was intended to distill what's presented in the Nomenclature section. The new sentence introduces a time frame and frequency without supporting it with a citation. I suggest that that "For most of..." and "often denoted" suggests that someone did a study on the time frame and frequency of occurrence of the nautical usage, compared with non-nautical usage of ship, both assertions requiring verification with a citation.

In the lead paragraph, let's stick with a distillation of what's in Nomenclature. Let's make sure that everything in Nomenclature is a direct paraphrase of what each reference states, not an inference that you or I bring to the article. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Getting this right is substantially more difficult than it first appears. Putting the various points in a somewhat random order:
(1) I accept that my first attempt at a sentence in the lead needs revision - not least the issue of weasel words is apparent to me now.
(2) I think it is important, in the lead, to point out that the technical, rig-specific use of "ship" means that there can be some ambiguity on what is intended by the writer. We know this from the OED (certainly for current usage, but to some degree in the past from the cites associated with the full entry) and from Falconer as a ref. The reason for doing this is to improve the usefulness of this encyclopaedia. A reader who is trying to find out what is meant by the word ship needs to see, totally clearly, that the word may have some ambiguity in its meaning. That should be stated in the lead, because a quick consultation of Wikipedia will not go any further.
(3) Looking at your suggestion: During the age of sail, ship acquired a specific connotation among mariners as a full-rigged ship with square-rigged sails on all of three or more masts, which distinguished it from vessels with other sail plans and their own specific nautical names. (a) I think sources do not show that the rig-specific definition is confined to mariners. It is used by most people in the broader maritime world and its associated commercial spheres. Otherwise it would not be used, for instance, by those in the insurance world when compiling Lloyd's Register of Shipping, nor by the merchants who charter ships or consign cargoes in them, together with the journalists who compile the commercial pages of newspapers. (Clearly Lloyd's Register and the many, many commercial pages in newspapers are their own RSs on this – interesting Lloyd's Register of Shipping is the most punctilious on not using "ship" when they mean "vessel", certainly in the issues that I have browsed recently. (Lloyd's Register has a lot more in it than a list of vessels - there is quite a lot of non-list content at the beginning.)) (b) I am not sure that ...acquired a specific connotation.. fits. It is a precise definition - see sources like Underhill and Bennett for this (and Richard Henry Dana in his The Seaman's Friend, particularly in the early part of the book, plate IV explanation). "connotation" does not seem to make this clear.
(4) I am hesitant about stating that the rig-specific definition is concurrent with the Age of Sail. "Age of Sail" is a technical term used by maritime historians that is not often clearly defined by them. It is not, however, the entire period in which sail was used as a means of propulsion (which the encyclopaedia user could easily presume). Nor do we have any evidence (from sources) that the rig-specific definition of a ship is totally concurrent with the Age of Sail - it is unlikely that it is. There is somewhere (and I will have to track it down, which will take a while) a source (or sources) that clearly states that originally vessels were defined by their hull shape and usage, rather than by their rig. To infer that the rig-specific use of "ship" is swept up in that change in describing vessels would be wrong, but it would help the reader if a footnote made clear that there was a change from use/hull type to rig to identify/distinguish vessels. (The source(s) that I need to find do have a rough date for this change.) It would also assist in our thinking here to know the date of that terminological change.
(5) Yes, there are bits of what I am suggesting for the lead that should be in the main body of the article as well, with appropriate references.
I am probably all out of ideas on this subject right now, but I will get back to it later. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I have finally fixed the issue in the main text of the article. It took a new (to me) source to fix the thinking in my mind and the discovery that a source that I have had for ages addressed part of the story with hard data from a primary source (so, we have their secondary source interpretation). ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Prehistory and antiquity

The section "Asian developments" seems to be unsupported by references, particularly the references given: for instance "The first sea-going sailing ships were developed by the Austronesian peoples from what is now Taiwan." None of the three references given at the end of that paragraph specifically state this. Since it is a major statement of fact, unless someone can promptly come up with an authoritative source that supports this, much of this text should be deleted.

There are other problems in this section: "Austronesian rigs were distinctive in that they had spars supporting both the upper and lower edges of the sails....". Whilst this is broadly true, in a section on the sailing rigs of early and pre-history, it is a huge omission to not mention that Egyptian sailing vessels had a yard and a boom on their square sails - something that can be clearly seen in many of the surviving contemporary illustrations that have survived (and are discussed in chapter 2 of Casson's Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World.)

The section "Mediterranean developments" completely ignores the trade in grain that supported the major cities of this time. Quite simply, the classical era cities (e.g. Rome) could not have existed without deliveries of grain by ship. Casson's paper The Grain Trade of the Hellenistic World[3] makes this point for part of that time period. There are many merchant ship wrecks in the Mediterranean that are evidence of this trade, as well as the extensive written records that document it. Surely some mention is needed.

The article does not cover 1200 BC to 1300 AD – a quite impressive gap in which we saw, at a minimum, the development of the Viking longship and the Cog (ship). Nor is the extensive trade in wine from (present-day) France to England mentioned – a trade that gave us the word ton for measuring the size of ships. This started in the article's 2,500 year time gap with the Romans, then arguably had a pause with the collapse of the Roman Empire and then was going strong from about 1000 AD onwards.

There is probably a lot more to comment on, but this is a start. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

As an aide-memoire to this point, the trade in tin (essential for the Bronze age) is a key part of the pre-history story. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Fairly unchanged designs?

The words Ship designs stayed fairly unchanged until the late 19th century with clippers.... are specifically disagreed with by works such as Reid, Phillip (2020). The merchant ship in the British Atlantic, 1600-1800: continuity and innovation in a key technology. Leiden ; Boston: Brill. ISBN 978-9004424081.. Since Reid's book has a good write up in a review in Batchvarov, Kroum (3 July 2021). "The Merchant Ship in the British Atlantic, 1600–1800: Continuity and Innovation in a Key Technology". International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. 50 (2): 403–406. doi:10.1080/10572414.2021.1987716., I think we can take it that this is a mainstream view. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead and make that change, seems uncontroversial. Coldupnorth (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

All in good time – that part of the article would need a bit of rewriting to accommodate this thinking. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

I am not sure that we are all pulling in the same direction with these edits:

[4] Cleft timber was used for carvel construction right across the Northern European zone, not just in Scandinavia. Consider, for instance, the Newport ship, built in Northern Spain of cleft oak (and all the output of English and Scottish shipyards, etc.). So I find In Scandinavia to be confusingly off-target in explaining the subject. Also I do not get the relevance of the Romans – the periodisation of this part of the article is hopefully clear from the section headings.

[5]. Firstly, explaining what is meant by cleft timber. What I was looking for was somewhere else in Wikipedia that explained this, so that the term could be linked. To date, I cannot find an explanation of timber conversion for boat and ship building. If there really isn't one, this material could perhaps go in Carvel (boat building). Adams makes a key point: that a cleft plank has to be sourced from a tree with a diameter three times that of the width of the plank "... for a cleft board cannot be much more than a third of the parent tree’s diameter."(pg 60). There is some discussion of this, for instance mention of a database of the length and width of clinker planks over time. Clearly there is quite a bit of important detail on this subject – but all of it is too much for this high level article. Hence the need for links and, if need be, the writing of those linked articles.

Secondly, the thinned down paragraph starting with The transition from clinker to carvel construction.. seems to have been eviscerated of its key fact – that it is a complex subject which is not fully understood. The rest of the paragraph is there to explain (briefly) why it is complex. Looking at that detail, the use of shipboard artillery needed more than just gunports. Guns are heavy and produce large shock loadings. That was not spelt out in the original text (perhaps it should have been), but reducing this passage to simply imply that carvel allowed holes to be cut in the sides of a ship for the guns is missing a big part of the story. The new text the increasing size of clinker-built vessels came to necessitate internal framing of their hulls for strength implies that earlier clinker ships had no framing, which is clearly wrong (look at the Gokstad ship, for example. You can see the frames in the pictures in the article. Later Nordic cargo vessels had more substantial frames and beams.) Adams discusses how beams were attached to the hull in early and late examples and explains how that attachment was changed to give greater strength. But the framing was there, both before and after. It just needed to be stronger and of a better design.
Overall, the original passage tried to capture the points made in the source at some length. I think we have to remember that Adams is a professor at a leading maritime archaeology institute[6] and has worked on a number of key sites, starting with the Mary Rose, Gribshunden (an early carvel warship), another early carvel vessel in the Baltic[7] and many other key sites over his career to date. I think we can take it that his discussion of the transition from clinker to carvel is not only based the research that he and others have been part of, but is taught to the students at Britain's premier university for maritime archaeology. This is a more complex story than we have seen from previous generations (I must check, for instance, Unger for what he says on this – from memory he does not go into much in the way of complexities). The earlier writers on the subject had much less information to go on than those working on it now. Drifting away from the points made by Adams is less than helpful. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)