Talk:Well deck
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||
| ||||||||
Unique modern use in amphibious ships[edit]
Applying the term only to modern amphibious craft is something like ignoring the definition of "Nimrod" going to Biblical times and using only the one originating in Elmer Fudd cartoons. I do not remember and have not researched the naval amphibious ship history of the word in detail, but "well deck" applied to amphibious craft goes back at least to the WW II amphibious vessels with a large and deep cargo area that was an exaggeration of the generic well deck, i.e., a weather deck lower than forecastle/quarterdeck and perhaps a central superstructure bounded by bulkheads. The WW II LSD indeed has a "well deck" in the classical definition. So does this (see Photo #: NH 104810 "Troops standing in the ship's forward well deck area" or Photo #: 19-N-29299 USS Indianapolis (CA-35) "Closeup view of her well deck area". That is the definition that some are now trying to narrowly apply to one application. An entire type of ship is classed by that feature: "well deck ship" is a naval architecture, nautical term of long usage–one that can be found even in the days of wooden sailing ships. Palmeira (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. I actually came here from work on the Titanic article. Numerous sources referred to it having well decks. I looked for the well deck article to link it to and came here and at that moment it basically said that it is a term just for amphibious ships. I noticed that addition of sourced material covering non-amphib ship well decks had been reverted and I reverted the revert to restore the material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, Wikipedia can be badly off course with some "modern only" definitions. Reminds me of using "Nimrod" in connection with a cat that was a real hunter and my grown kids looking puzzled. They only knew the Elmer Fudd derrived "silly, stupid" definition while that one puzzled me. In looking for citable web sources--I have plenty in my hard copy and private files--I found the modern naval usage was taking over. Guess it is just us old sailors that knew well decks of the traditional type as container ships and other modern designs close out the old breakbulk and other well deck design ships. I think all except a couple of ships I was on had well decks. My interest isn't so much in these details, but we probably need to work on them as anyone involved with historic ship material needs to know the terms, including terms of the times. Else some young critter here is going to assume some old steam/sail cargo ship with "well decks" had a big gate in her stern! Palmeira (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- The SS Titanic article (which launched me here) has some real expert salts working on it. Including masters/captains who sailed in the 60's on ships decades old at the time. I think that the terms come naturally to them. North8000 (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, and lots of us that sailed on the ones that "looked like ships" do not particularly like the oddities afloat now. I wouldn't touch those new wedding cake cruise ships with a mile long pole and these things just make me cringe. Looks as if the reverter is insisting on a separate military ship article. Mixed feelings at the moment. Could give that one room to grow, but also divides overall term into general and splinter. The military version is definitely an offshoot of the main term and may be a sort of dead end as the concept seems to be dying out commercially (both labor issues in some ports and OBE, namely container ports all over) and it will be only associated with naval amphibious support ships. Palmeira (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Other than making sure that both are covered, I don't know the answer or what to recommend....I'm not knowledgeable enough on the topic and terminology. North8000 (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Now it appears the individual that did the split is objecting to my "replacing" an article indicating to me fragmentation is the goal. We may need other eyes on this as I've just reverted other changes made to picture captions that are pertinent to the subject and help guide a reader without nautical background to what well decks look like and how they fit in ship architecture. Palmeira (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm also ready to help. North8000 (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Now it appears the individual that did the split is objecting to my "replacing" an article indicating to me fragmentation is the goal. We may need other eyes on this as I've just reverted other changes made to picture captions that are pertinent to the subject and help guide a reader without nautical background to what well decks look like and how they fit in ship architecture. Palmeira (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Other than making sure that both are covered, I don't know the answer or what to recommend....I'm not knowledgeable enough on the topic and terminology. North8000 (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, and lots of us that sailed on the ones that "looked like ships" do not particularly like the oddities afloat now. I wouldn't touch those new wedding cake cruise ships with a mile long pole and these things just make me cringe. Looks as if the reverter is insisting on a separate military ship article. Mixed feelings at the moment. Could give that one room to grow, but also divides overall term into general and splinter. The military version is definitely an offshoot of the main term and may be a sort of dead end as the concept seems to be dying out commercially (both labor issues in some ports and OBE, namely container ports all over) and it will be only associated with naval amphibious support ships. Palmeira (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- The SS Titanic article (which launched me here) has some real expert salts working on it. Including masters/captains who sailed in the 60's on ships decades old at the time. I think that the terms come naturally to them. North8000 (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, Wikipedia can be badly off course with some "modern only" definitions. Reminds me of using "Nimrod" in connection with a cat that was a real hunter and my grown kids looking puzzled. They only knew the Elmer Fudd derrived "silly, stupid" definition while that one puzzled me. In looking for citable web sources--I have plenty in my hard copy and private files--I found the modern naval usage was taking over. Guess it is just us old sailors that knew well decks of the traditional type as container ships and other modern designs close out the old breakbulk and other well deck design ships. I think all except a couple of ships I was on had well decks. My interest isn't so much in these details, but we probably need to work on them as anyone involved with historic ship material needs to know the terms, including terms of the times. Else some young critter here is going to assume some old steam/sail cargo ship with "well decks" had a big gate in her stern! Palmeira (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
DexDor, could you participate here in talk?[edit]
DexDor, could you participate here in talk? You appear to be making changes as a part of some type of battle, but I could be wrong. Could you explain? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "battle". Every edit I make should be an improvement to WP (or in some cases part of a sequence of edits that overall improve WP). If you think any of my edits aren't then please have a cup of coffee, look carefully at the change I've made and any guidelines I've quoted in my edit summary. If after that you still disagree with my edit please do let me know. I'm no expert in this type of ship so I don't intend to change the meaning of this article - I'm just here as a WP:Wikignome. I suspect that most of the links to this article are about the modern meaning so should be changed to link to Well dock - once that's done it'd be best to remove the "Modern military" section. The Well dock article could also do with a sentence referring to this article. P.S. There's also been some discussion on my talk page. DexDor (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
[edit]
The long established definition of well deck does not much resemble the structure in today's amphibious naval vessels or the commercial ships with similar structures. The naval version started off looking more like the traditional thing that in short can be visualized as a weather deck (open to the elements) lower than adjoining decks enclosed by bulkheads so that water would drain from those higher decks into it and, lacking proper drainage, would fill like a pool. That is precisely why various regulations specify drainage requirements for well decks of the traditional type. Really specialized amphibious assault craft were pretty much born in WW II, rather early if one looks at British thoughts on the matter, and put into effect in a big way with U.S. production of a large variety. If you look at old photos of many of those you see something that, at least with the ramps closed, meets the technical definition of a well deck. Enough of Norman Friedman's U.S. Amphibious Ships And Craft: An Illustrated Design History is at Google Books to see the origins of today's amphibious ships. On page 115 is mention of a patent of 30 October 1924 that caught British interest and was the spark for the LPD design. The photo on the next page shows something that does not look like a traditional well deck but in fact meets the definition precisely: it is a weather deck lower than adjacent decks, it is enclosed (when shut) with bulkheads, and lacking proper drainage becomes flooded as a photo of "High surf in the well deck" shows. The thing legitimately got the name "well deck"–even if it was a highly unusual and very specialized version with no direct ancestry in the traditional structures and form. Technically it would loose legitimate well deck status as soon as one end was opened entirely to the sea, but that was a temporary condition. I will argue the structure itself lost its legitimate claim to the traditional "well deck" definition as soon as it ceased to be a weather deck. As soon as it became a "hanger like structure" it lost that status technically, yet the name stuck at least in common use. In effect we had an evolutionary branch in which the animal was different, yet it carried the old name still carried by another line.
I like "well dock" or the apparent USN "wet well" terminology because they eliminate confusion. Two articles, with a good interface for this heritage/evolutionary and term transfer aspect make sense I think. Since "well deck" is used for these things it has to be addressed in the naval/commercial versions that are now covered and thus no longer traditional well decks. Two linked articles, one "well deck" primary and one "well dock" or "wet well" primary and a disambiguation page for "well deck" would probably be the way to go. As a sort of aside, the traditional well deck is not all that common today as far as I know, except maybe small craft as a USCG reference indicates. By the 1930s it was looking dated. Of the Maritime Commission designs of the late thirties and the forties and later only the poor little (UK design driven) N3-S-A2 had the three island design with obvious well decks. The C1 has a "modern" profile that took hold. Even the VC2 design, that had a sort of well deck between forecastle and central superstructure had elongated and stretched it so "well" wasn't a great fit (I don't ever remember anyone using the term for it in my days aboard a Victory). Palmeira (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)