this ios not a modern ship the is a fake modern ship from tho old ages <span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.17.81.178|98.17.81.178]] ([[User talk:98.17.81.178|talk]]) 14:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
this ios not a modern ship the is a fake modern ship from tho old ages <span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.17.81.178|98.17.81.178]] ([[User talk:98.17.81.178|talk]]) 14:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Marine Engineering overlap ==
I recently changed the [[Marine Engineering]] article, as it was not about Marine Engineering, but mostly about Marine Engineer Officers on board ships.
It strikes me that from looking at this article, particularly the section on propulsion (and beyond) that a substantial part of this article is about Marine Engineering.
Whilst I accept that Marine Engineering is broader than simply the guts of ships; and that discussion of the guts of ships is relevant to an article about ships; the general level of detail in this article arguably exceeds the terms of reference of the title.
It would arguably not be desirable to duplicate content both here and in an article about Marine Engineering; so someone may want to consider summarising the Marine Engineering content here, and focussing more on producing an overview of the history and development of ships, so as not to duplicate content in the Naval Architecture articles either.
U dig?
Revision as of 00:47, 27 March 2009
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
As this article is included as a "core topic", I would suggest using the French article Bateau which is a featured article and covers the subject fairly extensively. While "bateau" usually corresponds to "boat" in English, in French the meaning is more broad and the first part ("Terminology") explains why both ships and boats are covered in the same article.
Hmmm... not true. "Bateau" in French means "boat". But "ship" in French is the word "navire". Granted, most French people would be unable to tell you the difference between "bateau" and "navire", just as much as most anglophones could not distinguish between "boat" and "ship" (or, if they could, they would be incorrect). Nevertheless, there are people on both sides of the Channel who know the difference between boat/ship and bateau/navire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.180.152 (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Cross-posted at WT:SHIPS)This article is in pretty bad shape, but gets about 50,000 hits a month. I'm wondering if we could brainstorm a little and come to some consensus on what the structure of the article should be.
Right now, the whole article is about 20,000 characters. About 6,500 of that is in 2 lists. About 10,000 characters is on propulsion, which seems kind of lopsided to me. The current structure is:
1 Nomenclature
2 Measuring ships
3 Propulsion
3.1 Pre-mechanisation
3.2 Reciprocating steam engines
3.3 Steam turbines
3.3.1 LNG carriers
3.3.2 Nuclear-powered steam turbines
3.4 Reciprocating diesel engines
3.5 Gas turbines
4 Group terminology
5 Some types of ships and boats
6 Some historical types of ships and boats
7 See also
8 External links
The French wikipedia has a FA-quality article Bateau. There's a little twist in that French language doesn't distinguish as clearly between a boat and a ship as English does. Anyway, the article is about 80,000 characters and their structure is, more or less:
* 1 Terminology
* 2 History
o 2.1 Prehistory and Antiquity
o 2.2 Through the Renaissance
o 2.3 Specialization and modernization
o 2.4 Today
* 3 Architecture
o 3.1 The hull
o 3.2 Propulsion systems
o 3.3 Steering systems
o 3.4 Holds, compartments, and the superstructure
o 3.5 Equipment
* 4 Functioning
o 4.1 Hydrostatics
o 4.2 Hydrodynamics
o 4.3 Structure
* 5 Life of a ship
o 5.1 Design
o 5.2 Construction
o 5.3 Repair and conversion
o 5.4 Scrapping
* 6 Uses and classiication
o 6.1 Merchant ships
o 6.2 Military vessels
o 6.3 Fishing vessles
o 6.4 Pleasure boats
o 6.5 Sporting boats
o 6.6 River boats
o 6.7 Other
* 7 Some notable boats
o 7.1 Wrecks and rescues
o 7.2 Technical characteristics
o 7.3 Human exploits and exploration
o 7.4 Imaginary or historical boats
* 8 Around boats
o 8.1 Life at sea
o 8.2 Symbolism
o 8.3 Marine archaeology
o 8.4 Arts & culture
o 8.5 Poetry of boats
* 9 Sources
o 9.1 Références
o 9.2 Notes
* 10 See also
So, (a) is anybody else particularly interested in this article, and (b) any thoughts on what the structure should be before we dust off the wreckin' ball?
The section on loadlines is wrong and misleading. The extra lines refer to drafts the ship can load to for various times of year and voyage zones. Fresh water allowance is only one of the differing conditions. I shall try to find time to correct these statements if no one else does first. Rumiton09:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)()[reply]
Are there any plans to construct a solar powered ship that runs completely on solar power? Or have they already created such a craft? Zachorious13:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading, not enough solar energy falls on a ship at sea to drive it through the water. It could only be an auxilliary source of energy. Rumiton (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"She" or "it"
This issue arises in several watercraft-related articles. "She" is often regarded as unencyclopedic, but it is still commonly utilized in ship articles. Does the Ships Wikiproject feature guidelines for writing and MOS? Apparently, "she" and "it" are suitable and can be used interchangeably. Can anyone offer some clarification? CVW (Talk) 23:34, 1 March 2008
I think an exception to this rule must be ships that are gender identified by their name, eg Queen Mary. It is absurd to mention this ship and then say "it had three funnels." Similarly King William, which cannot be a she has to be an it. But I could be wrong. Rumiton (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By 'English conventions', do you mean English language or English culture? English language is also spoken in many non-English-culture regions around the world and shouldn't Wikipedia be neutral and free from cultural conventions.80.223.19.147 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The common convention known to me now is that a ship is a "she" when she's a specific ship built in metal ("Look at how she's sailing"), but always "it" when it's a class name or otherwise a group ("It seems to be a destroyer"). Almost always "it" in generic use ("If a small ship is torpedoed, it's likely to sink") as well. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct for the most-part; but you mentioned "ship built in metal" ... it's actually common convention when referring to a specific ship regardless of the material from which it's built (be it metal, wood, synthetic, whatever). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the original image is far more illustrative, given the section into which it's being added. This same anon also attempted last week to add the new image to the top of the article - but as it didn't add anything not already better illustrated in other images, I had removed it. However, rather than immediately re-revert the most recent change by the anon - I wanted to first ask other opinions on the change via this talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new image appears to be a picture of a ship which while being perfectly nice, has nothing to do with the section it's illustrating, and there's no justification for adding it (WP:NOT#IMAGEGALLERY) and certainly not in removing an image that is clearly related to the section in question. Could it be the uploader just wants to get people to admire his picture? I'd say revert it. Benea (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry,but it is the article about ships,and dear image it must be accepted with ships.Why delete him?,simply I do not need it was him to replace... 194.187.230.112 (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge +picture
I suggest a merge of boat and ship article. Also, I suggest including a second picture near the first paragraph illustrating a more modern ship (motorship) next to the sailing ship already shown (as "ship" refers to both these types)
Generally speaking, ships and boats are different things. One wouldn't call a dinghy a "ship"; likewise, one wouldn't call Yamato a "boat". I suggest that it's best to leave the articles as they are, merger wise. Parsecboy (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
""You can put a boat on a ship but you can't put a ship on a boat""- US Naval enlisted service training - (boot camp). As the only exception I know of, a Submersible Ship (submarine) is commonly called "boat" by those who operate it. Leonard G. (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recently changed the Marine Engineering article, as it was not about Marine Engineering, but mostly about Marine Engineer Officers on board ships.
It strikes me that from looking at this article, particularly the section on propulsion (and beyond) that a substantial part of this article is about Marine Engineering.
Whilst I accept that Marine Engineering is broader than simply the guts of ships; and that discussion of the guts of ships is relevant to an article about ships; the general level of detail in this article arguably exceeds the terms of reference of the title.
It would arguably not be desirable to duplicate content both here and in an article about Marine Engineering; so someone may want to consider summarising the Marine Engineering content here, and focussing more on producing an overview of the history and development of ships, so as not to duplicate content in the Naval Architecture articles either.
