Talk:Sailing ship

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

(First comment)

Any takers for a History entry here? Was doing some research for the technology page and no joy . . . When did we learn to sail?

Rossfi 00:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad pictures

In the current article, the first picture shows a sailing boat, the second shows a ship, but it's under auxillary power (not anchored, check the bow wake). Both of these should be replaced with ships under sail.--J Clear 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oy. Both photos are not ships. They are yachts. The bottom one is a ketch. We need a picture of an actual ship, as in a ship as opposed to a yacht, a ship as opposed to a sloop of war, a ship as opposed to a schooner, a ship of the line. There are various definitions of "ship." I think we should get an unambiguous ship picture. I have a photo I took of the Lady Washington drifting in a calm, but it is a pretty minimal "ship" and it would be nice to get a ship actually sailing. Something like that painting of the Cutty Sark with all its stunsails out. I'm worried about the tackling drawing. I saw it a few weeks ago in a book, and I can't swear it was out of copyright. I also found this here picture,this picture but the sails are droopy. Mrees1997 19:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I cut the two yachts out and put in this picture: . Mrees1997 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tag

I have added a mergeto tag to Sailboat pointing to here. Actually I'm not terribly bothered which way it moves, just my POV that it should go this direction. At least this article is part of a template. The two articles are quite different but I don't think we need both. Its very similar territory and there is no great differentiation between the 2 concepts. Opinions and suggestions please ? Frelke 07:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No merge. In my opinion, the distinction between the two is useful and should be preserved. I tend to regard articles from the perspective of being a link target; if I want to link to sailing ship from, let's say, a "history of trading in the Carribean", I'm not terribly interested in the sporting dinghys on sailboat. And the other way around when I'm doing an article on Olympic sail winners. --Alvestrand 10:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what you see as the intended difference between the 2 articles? Are you suggesting that sailboat should only cover sail-powered leisure craft of a certain size? And that sailing ship covers something else? Frelke 13:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I think. Sailing ships can be used for something useful; sailboats are for fun. --Alvestrand 21:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and provide the following distinction: The term "boat" generally refers to smaller craft (sloops) and submarines, while "ship" refers to larger craft, such as a clipper. Change the title to "Sailing vessels." The term "sailing ship" is almost never used, while "sailing vessels" is the industry-standard term. - Mugs 15:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google "sailing ship": 972.000. Google "sailing vessel": 584.000. Guess the world hasn't caught up with industry. --Alvestrand 21:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No merge I also don't think this article should be merged with sailboat. The Sailing Ship article referrs mostly to historical marine vessels used for war and commerce. Sailboats are primarily contempary (within the past 100 years) marine vessels used for recreation and sport. The uses are different, the time frame is different, the construction methods are different, materials are (typically) different, the owners are different. I would say that the only similarity between the two is their method of propulsion and they are both used on water. Finally, one is not a logical subset of the other. A sailboat is not a type of sailing ship, and a sailing ship is certainly not a type of sailboat. If they were to be merged, both articles should be removed and an umbrella article with at title of something like "Wind Powered Vessels" (or, in fact, "sailing vessel") should be created. I don't see that this is necessary, however, and it might make searches for either sailboat or sailing ship more problematic for a user. I would agree that there should remain links between the two articles. Zander42 16:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Merge Fully agree with Zander42 above Boatman 17:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fully agree with Mugs. The difference between a boat and a ship is for a great deal defined by whether you own it or not ;) Note the three-mast schooner in the sailboat-article. And what to do with historical fishing vessels, like the botter, cutter or logger? Are they too small for a ship, or does the commercial use qualify it as a ship? I don't expect regular users to understand the fine details of the difference between boats and ships. (they don't come over here because they know it all). It's definitely confusing to have two articles. Waltertje 17:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
No Merge, mostly agree with Zander42. However if someone felt there was enough overlap, then perhaps each needs more focus on those topic (i.e. some ... trimming). The common bits might belong more in Sailing or refer there. --J Clear 02:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No Merge, These articles could be edited better in conjunction to separate out the various points which should be in either place. Though the definitions can get a touch muddy, there are generally accepted differences between boats and ships. Crocadillion 19:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing re-organization effort

Take a minute to read the comments at Talk:Sailing#Re-write effort -- non how-to et seq. Some of us are working on re-organizing the sailing-related articles. See if you agree with our approach and give us some help. Mrees1997 20:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram request

This appears to be the master article for this template:

It would benefit from a diagram showing the various parts listed in the template. Image:Tackling.png has on the order of a hundred elements listed, but has no legend. -- Beland 02:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this discussion page to make the exact same diagram request. It's a shame this request has gone on so long unanswered. I don't have the skills to make an image. But if I can find something generic yet detailed enough; I can modify it and label it. -Verdatum (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Art of Rigging has many similar images to the tackling.png mentioned above complete with legend. One issue is that both such sources contain information specific to the ropework of the ship. I'd prefer a diagram (or more likely, diagrams) that described all parts of a sailing ship. -Verdatum (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, image:Warship_diagram_orig.jpg is also very nice, and probably worth adding to this article. However, I'd still prefer a friendlier, svg type diagram. -Verdatum (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My search continues. File:Sailingboat-lightning-num.png This is still closer to what I would like to see. It doesn't appear to be linked to any overview type sailing articles on the en Wikipedia. Only issue is that it's a bit more sailboat-like than I would like to see for a ship article...not that I really understand the difference. I'm a total outsider trying to learn here. -Verdatum (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a rename

Is there any reason not to give this article a more appropriate name? "Sailing vessel," perhaps? Sure, "sailing ship" has more Google hits, but as soon as you get into serious discussion of sailing vessels and rigs, calling things ships which are not ships is just confusing. I would indeed suggest that sailing ship redirect to this article, and not to full rigged ship, because most people searching that term are probably looking for this information. But that's no reason to assail them with muddy terminology.

I don't like the title "Sailing vessel" either, since we'd be arbitrarily excluding small boats, pleasure craft, ice boats, etc. But I can't think of a better name, perhaps because I don't actually know what this article is about. Large sailing vessels? Traditional sailing vessels? Merchant/military/working sailing vessels? The history of non-recreational sailing? Western sailing vessels of the Age of Sail and their replicas? Yes, I'm nitpicking, but I do think we should spell out the exact purpose of this article, both to figure out a possible new title and to more clearly differentiate it from sailboat. --Fullobeans (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article needs a rename because elsewhere it expressly states the ship is three-masted, everything else is a vessel.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info needed on "lug-sail"

JUNK is defined as a lug-rigged sailing vessel.

LUGGER is defined as a vessel with at least two masts carrying lug-sails.

What is that? Nowhere is LUG-SAIL defined or described. Lug rigging is not in the sail-plan diagrams either, though those were very informative. A link to the description in another article might be the way to go. 98.200.150.6 (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing Wording in Introduction - "ship-rigged"

I happened upon this page and was reading through it when I came upon a very confusing phrase at the end of the introduction: 

    "Large sailing vessels that are not ship rigged may be more appropriately called boats."

I am not familiar with the subject, but the phrase "ship rigged" cause me a great deal of confusion. I went back over the introduction again and found no reference, implication, or definition that would aid in interpreting the author's meaning. Possibly it is a typo, in which case it needs correction. It could be a true statement in which case their needs to be an explanation of what it means, either earlier in the text or right at that point. In either case my knowledge of the subject is inadequate and someone else who is better informed should make the changes. Thank you to anyone who corrects this. Sonzaisuru (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment; I've added a link by way of explanation. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List

(This discussion is transcluded at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sailing and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships User:HopsonRoad 10:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]

I added caïque here yesterday, which was reverted as the "article says it is a boat, not a ship". That's fair enough, but the list also has entries for Longship, Lugger, Luzzu, Tjotter, Koch (boat), Yacht and a Polynesian outrigger canoe. They are all about the same size, they all have sail plans, and they are all described interchangeably as boats, ships, or simply vessels.
So, are we in need of some criteria for inclusion here? The term “ship” is notoriously imprecise; what should be in, and what out? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your understanding, Moonraker12, and your appropriate question, here. Perhaps the answer is to make a new stand-alone list article, titled Types of sailing vessels, which would include vessels large and small. In this scenario, the imbedded list would disappear from this article and become a "See also".
A word of caution, there is a List of large sailing vessels, a List of large sailing yachts, and a Comparison of large sloops, each of which names vessels individually, not by type.
I thought about having it be Types of sailing craft, which would include iceboats and land yachts, but decided that they didn't contribute very much to the taxonomy, but would merit a "See also". Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 17:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is tricky: A separate "Types of sailing vessels" list would certainly solve the problem here: OTOH we already have (in addition to the ones you mentioned)
We can have too much of a good thing, I feel.
Another possibility maybe is to incorporate some of the text from the Ship article (esp. from Ship#Nomenclature to here and limit the entries to the ones mentioned; it would be useful to have them listed with definitions (I can never remember the difference between a barque and a barquentine, or a brig and a brigantine)
Anyway, it's up to you (though if you want a hand with the latter suggestion, just give a shout). Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these observations, Moonraker12. It seems that Sail plan#Types is properly about named sail plans, whereas Sailboat#Types is properly about generic categories of sailboats. List of sailing boat types should properly be named List of sailboat classes—it is divided by sailboat types into classes.
To follow your suggestion, one could define "ship" sufficiently broadly to encompass its changing historical meaning and then prune those entries that don't conform. One method would be to go to the link and, if it says "boat" eliminate it. One could next identify which of the "historical ship types" are sailing vessels and check to see if they are really boats, as well. Finally, one could then see what's left and come up with a definition like, "Here is a list of sailing vessels that were considered ships in their time, being used for commerce or war and carrying a substantial complement of crew". Let me know what you think. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 17:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HopsonRoad: I was sort of thinking of things the other way round; to put in some text (we could do with a History section, or something dealing with the Evolution of the Sailing Ship) and list the vessels mentioned in that. I've knocked a rough draft together here, if you'd like to have a look. In practice, I suspect the list would look much the same either way: I've done a rough draft of both here. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moonraker12: Thank you for all the enterprising work that you did at your sandbox sections. I encourage you to be bold and implement what you have started. The "evolution" bit seems to hinge on one source. It would be good to make that clear up front, e.g. "Lavery lays out 5,000 years of sailing ship history, as follows:" BTW, sorry for the delayed response. I was on a sailing cruise in Maine. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 19:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bring substance of "Windjammer" article here

I propose to bring the substance of Windjammer here, because "Windjammer" is a colloquialism, not a class of ship, as is discussed at Talk:Windjammer. I further feel that it would improve this fairly sketchy article. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose leaving the content of Windjammer at that page. It's bad enough to have this article Sailing ship that doesn't seem to know what it is about; it really doesn't need even more rubbish thrown in before it's restructured. Mysha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, Mysha. I share your concern about rubbish and lack of structure. My plan is to mockup the revised article in a sandbox before bringing it here. You are welcome to check out my work, for instance, by comparing Superyacht with an earlier version or Snow with an earlier state of the article. You can also look at User:HopsonRoad for other examples of my work. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm fine with a direct improvement, as I've seen too many sandboxes that never got implemented. But I'd prefer it if you first restructured the article as is, moving or splitting off what doesn't belong here and importing or linking what is necessary here. Once we have an article that knows what it's about, we can move in stuff that's misplaced elsewhere. (I wonder why our sailing pages are so destructured. Is this caused by the topic or by the editors?) Mysha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, Mysha. I concur about restructuring. I've used my sandbox to improve many articles. I also concur that sailing-related articles are among the poorest in Wikipedia. I've worked to improve Sails, Sail components, and Forces on sails, as well. If you'd like to propose a structure for this article, I'd be interested to see it. (Please remember to sign your posts with "~~~~" to provide an automated date.) Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at "Windjammer" led to re-casting the article as one about iron-hulled sailing ships. As such, the material can stay there and be summarized here. There is an editor there who was not happy with the re-casting of the article and discussed it at Talk:Iron-hulled sailing ship#Windjammer is a colloquialism, not a class of ship.; if other editors have similar concerns, they should be discussed there. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still beside myself on this matter. An Iron Hulled Sailing Ship is more of a diffused title than any you mention and criticise here or elsewhere, What your talking about are Iron Hulled Bulk Carrier sailing ships. Iron Hulled Sailing Ships could be 1, 2, 3 masts. Windjammers to my mind were at least 4 masts and wide hulled, and of a specific era, a short one too, never to be repeated. Why did you not improve on Windjammer, refining it as an article and create a new one for your pet project the very much larger iron hulled sailing etc. You have made it clear that you think Wikipedia ships is a mess, actually its not too bad, nothing like the unattended car crash over at Commons, a place where your energy would be better expended.Broichmore (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your level of disappointment, Broichmore, and I am prepared to mitigate any problems that I may have created, subject to input from other editors. I don't have an axe to grind, regarding the title. However, other editors pointed out (here and here) that the term, "windjammer", applies to just about any kind of sailing ship. In the US state of Maine, windjammers are commonly thought of as schooners. The term came about, not as a way to distinguish a type of ship, but as a perjorative term, like "jalopy", applicable to the ships that still were under sail in the age of steam and extended to those who were consigned to sail them. Therefore, it seemed that the material describing windjammers was best provided at "sailing ship".

The ships described in the Windjammer article were, as far as I could see, iron (and steel) hulled. In looking at the literature for ships of the size described here, I didn't find any examples of wooden or composite ships, just a preponderance of iron ships; that's how I came to conclude that material in this article could stand on its own.

Regarding the state of Project Ships, I agree that it's in relatively good shape. It's actually articles having to do with sailing that have many warning templates about references and are poorly written. You can see from my user page that I have rewritten some of them.

As to a resolution, we should follow up on your concern that I was editing against consensus (although I believe that I was editing, consistent with consensus) by leaving an invitation at the Talk pages of editors that have shown an interest in this and related topics, inviting them to the conversation. (You were the only one to respond from my posting at Project Ships.) I plan to do that for our discussion at Talk:Sailing ship#Scope?, which I'll leave an example of at your Talk page. Perhaps you could undertake the same, regarding the article in question (now Iron-hulled sailing ship). If the consensus results in a different outcome, I'm happy to help implement it. I hope that we can leave you satisfied with the outcome, even if it doesn't conform to one or the other of our thought processes. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have provided a place to reconsider the title change in question at: Talk:Iron-hulled sailing ship#Reconsider? for you to direct further discussion to. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scope?

Another issue is scope. Is this article primarily about western sailing ships? To what extent should it include junks and dhows? Are they large enough to be considered "ships"? Clearly, at one point they were among the larger vessels sailing in their regions. They should have at least brief mention, here. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outline

Here's a possible outline:

Lead
A sailing ship is a large watercraft that uses sails to harness the power of wind. Sailing ships are categorized by their sail plans.[1] A "ship-rigged" sailing ship carries three or more masts with square sails on each.[2] Historical ships with other rigs include junks and dhows.
  1. History
    1. Before 1700
      1. Mediterranean
      2. Asia
      3. Africa
    2. 1700-1850
      1. Clippers
      2. Warships
    3. After 1850
      1. Iron hulls
      2. Steam power
  2. Types
    1. Square-rigged
    2. Fore-and-aft rigged
    3. Other
  3. Features
    1. Hull
    2. Masts
    3. Sails
    4. Rigging
  4. Crew
  5. See also
  6. References

Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Quite the contrary, this article should really be slightly pruned to short and sweet, with the great bulk of it comprising, Paragraph: Types of sailing ships, which it already does. There you find links to Dhows and junks; which is appropriate. Broichmore (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting here, Broichmore. Would it not be unusual for an article on a broad topic, like this, to not have a History section? Also, shouldn't the article convey the breadth of different types without having to follow various links to articles for ship types that are unfamiliar to the uninitiated? I invite you to look in on User:HopsonRoad/sandbox. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support the version you have in your sandbox as an improvement for what is really an "overview" article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for being late to the party, but I fully support the addition of a History section in a general article such as this. I notice it was first suggested in 2005, and was touched on again 2 years ago (as were the reasons against reducing it to a Types of sailing ships list) so it's certainly timely. Good work! Moonraker12 (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't type all that well while regularly emptying my stomach, and now that I'm able to keep my food in again my reaction may be too late, but:
This exactly hits the problem: "A sailing ship is ... A ship-rigged ...". As we already have Full-rigged ship and Square rig, I expect that this particular page will not be particularly about ship-rigged vessel, but rather about every vessel that uses sails and is (relatively or absolutely?) large. Is there a consensus on what "large" is, here? Different terms could either have a subsection, if included, or could be mentioned with link as excluded. Mysha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A "sailing ship" is a broad category, Mysha, which is why the lead section now reads:
"A sailing ship is a large watercraft that uses sails, mounted on two or more masts, to harness the power of wind and propel the vessel. There is a variety of sail plans that propel sailing ships, employing square-rigged or fore-and-aft sails. Some ships carry square sails on each mast—the brig and full-rigged ship, said to be "ship-rigged" when there are three or more masts. Others carry only fore-and-aft sails on each mast—schooners. Still others employ a combination of square and fore-and aft sails, including the barque, barkentine, and brigantine. Sailing ships developed differently in Asia, which produced the junk and dhow—vessels that incorporated innovations absent in European ships of the time."
Consider the outline, above, to be overcome by actual editing; I think that you'll see that the article, as being developed, follows your suggestion about linking; there is a question of what to do with the "Types of sailing ship" section at the end. As to "large" there can be no consensus, because it has been a moving target over the course of time, based on the technology of the culture to make a watercraft.
Further discussion should apply to edits in the article, which are largely following the proposed outline. (And also please sign your comments with ~~~~ to create an automatic signature.) Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might I suggest that the history could include pre-1700 European craft such as those of the Vikings, e.g., the 9th-century Gokstad ship and possibly the large naval craft used by Alfred the Great to defeat the Vikings at sea? Bjenks (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that it should, Bjenks. However, when I look at the articles that are linked to from Viking ships, most have inadequate references. Furthermore, this is an article about sailing ships, not sail-assisted rowing ships; so, we have to be careful about what we include here. Certainly, there should be mention of the role of such craft during the Viking Age. I'll see what I can do. So can you! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

Section references

References

  1. ^ Parker, Dana T. Square Riggers in the United States and Canada, pp. 6-7, Transportation Trails, Polo, IL, 1994. ISBN 0-933449-19-4.
  2. ^ Quiller-Couch, Arthur Thomas (1895). The Story of the Sea. Vol. 1. Cassell and Company. p. 760.

translation needed

Does anybody know how the Gleitschienenrack and Tonnenrack a called in english... Greetings--Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Slide rail rack" and "barrel rack". - Ahunt (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gender

Where did we get the information on a ship gender identity and how do we know it’s not male? Seems like a lot of sexism here with all these female ships. 50.76.14.241 (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Ship#Nomenclature. - Ahunt (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

This is an aide-mémoire for some of the problems with this article, but is also here so that others can comment.

(1) The History section dives straight in to talking about the Age of Discovery without making clear that this is within the European tradition of maritime technology.

(2) History, subsection Before 1700:
"Initially sails provided supplementary power to ships with oars, because the sails were not designed to sail to windward."
Beyond being unreferenced, this is utter nonsense. Sail has been a prime method of propulsion of ships and boats since about 3000 BC. There is clear archaeological and written evidence of this. Even galleys (which are a special case) would use sail whenever possible.
As for the "sails not designed to go to windward" – to be fair to the editor who wrote this, many academics have made this assumption, without any evidence to support it – but more recently this is pretty much refuted by research such as Julian Whitewright (2011) The Potential Performance of Ancient Mediterranean Sailing Rigs, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 40:1, 2-17, DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2010.00276.x In short, ancient square rigged vessels that traded n the Mediterranean in classical times could sail to windward – poor windward performance was more to do with hull shape and these varied in efficiency at any point in time in that period (and, incidentally, in more modern times).

(3) Mediterranean and Baltic sub-section (incidentally, very odd grouping of two regions with very different histories)
"Fore-and-aft sails started appearing on sailing vessels in the Mediterranean ca.1200 AD"
This is more utter nonsense. Can someone with access to the cited source (A Short History of the Sailing Ship by Romola Anderson and R. C. Anderson) check whether it actually is in the reference given – if so, that source is highly questionable. The spritsail (i.e. the quadrilateral fore and aft sail supported by a diagonal sprit that went from low down on the mast to the peak of the sail) was present in classical Roman times. Casson is a good source for this, but you will find it in other sources.

(4) Features section:Hull
"Starting in the mid-19th century, iron was used first for the hull structure and later for its watertight sheathing"
What is the intent of the last part of that sentence? I strongly suspect that an editor has written something they do not intend, as I have read the cited source and am pretty sure it says nothing of the kind. We do, of course, have steel framed hulls which were planked with wood (composite construction). We also have copper sheathing. Not sure how the quoted part of the article relates to that.

There is probably a lot more to add to this. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to support early Egyptian content

The source added by User:GwydionM in [1] does not solve the problem. The cited source does not mention paddling, nor is there anything on the bipod mast. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It confirms that they used sails, rather than rowing or letting rafts drift. That was my point of concern, and was needed. Anyone interested in the rest can do the work themselves.--GwydionM (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Sailing_ship"