|WikiProject Ships||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Industrial design|
|Deck (ship) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|Today's articles for improvement|
The formulas here are lacking context (are they used to design carriers and supertankers? what about galleons? 1/2 :-) ), and where do they come from (in other words, give a reference)? Also let's be careful not to distort the text so that it only applies to present-day vessels, as for instance the emphasis on "main deck", which is a mostly a modern concept. We can put more specialized material into additional articles, for instance main deck, so that this one focuses just on what all types of decks have in common. Stan 20:52, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The formulae are relevant to any vessel, dinghy through supertanker, although of necessity a smaller boat will use heavier scantlings. They do not predict strength, but instead show the relationship between the deck and the rest of the hull. References cited (probably wrong format, will look that up.)
- Agree on being careful about use of terms, although "main deck", "spar deck", and "upper deck" are all traditional and often used interchangeably.
- This article could use a refactoring. I am currently writing a similar article for SailWiki. Would it be appropriate to merge/refactor the two? - Amgine 16:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Did Phineas Pett use those formulas? :-) I personally have all my time taken up just by WP; my goal with these kinds of articles is for a random person to come in at the top with the usual mishmash of facts and misconceptions that people accumulate (for instance by seeing cryptic references in Dudley Pope books), and come out at the bottom with everything cleared up. A modest goal, although dealing with all the misconceptions can be a surprising amount of work! One way to refactor this into a first part that is "what is it you're seeing when you're standing on a deck or looking at an on old picture of one", and a second part that is "how are they designed and built". This is part of the so-called newspaper style, where the top of the article has the critical bits everyone needs to know, and the most in-depth stuff is at the end. Stan 17:21, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- <grin> No, but if a scholar would compare his decks to topsides it would likely fit the formula. These are descriptive, not prescriptive, although many naval engineers calculate the waterline scantlings only and use formula for topsides & deck.
- Thanks for the suggestions on the refactor. I will begin working on it. - Amgine 17:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Quick question about the fibreglass...
Fibreglass decks are quite slick with their mirror-smooth surfaces, so a non-skid texture is often moulded into their surface, or non-stick pads glued down in working areas.
Surely if you've put a non-stick pad on a smooth surface, that's just giving the same problem of slipperiness? I was going to edit it, but realised this might be a Clever Technical Term I'd forgotten (been a while since I had to deal with either fibreglass or boats). Shimgray 02:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Mmm... Stupidicide... should have been non-skid. Thanks!
I'm considering dividing this article up into individual ones and fleshing them out. Any comments? Anyone game? grendelsmother 20:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think the "Common names for decks" section could be split off into something like List of decks (ship) or something similar. Wayne Miller 19:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is it that any article on nautical terms is replete with terms from sailing ships, but has a complete absence of terms for fishing boats. Differing designs of trawlers for instance have differing deck layouts, and they presumably have differing names. however you decide to restructure these pages, ensure that fishing boat terms can easily be accommodated in the new structure (ideally, someone knowledgable can add the deck names). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you have a bunch of fishing boat terminology, feel free to add it. The reason this list is the way it is is that there is a rich history of books written about contemporary naval battles that invariably have a fat appendix explaining the terminology for the layman. Also the military love to write things down. But fishermen...not so much so. Hence it might be tough to find documentary evidence for fishing vessel nomenclature - which may explain why we're so light on that stuff. SteveBaker (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
1911 Britannica info about the quarterdeck, include as needed:
QUARTERDECK, the after part of the upper deck of a ship. In former times the upper deck of a line-of-battle ship or frigate ended at the mainmast, and was connected with the forecastle by two narrow passages, or gangways running along the sides. The quarterdeck is the residence and symbol of authority in a warship. The starboard, or right side looking forward, is reserved to the senior officer. A sailor who had a complaint to make was said to come to the mainmast, because he placed himself at the forward end of the quarterdeck near the mast. According to the ancient custom of the sea, the quarterdeck is to be saluted by all who come upon it, and the salute is returned by all officers present.
Merger with 01 level
The 01_level page was orphaned for good reasons and I don't see why the 01 level is such a special deck that it warrants it's own article. If no one protests, I'll merge this. Averell (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Deck holding oars
What would one call the deck housing the oars and oarsmen? Is there even a name for such a deck? I've googled and googled, but I can't find any title, much less a reference. Colonel Marksman (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article include a short definition for a forecastle or foredeck, or both (since they're essentially the same thing), and a link to the forecastle article? While technically a forecastle isn't a deck per se, it does function as one, and a foredeck is already a proper deck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Too technical, too arcane, or simply too recondite? Surely though the crucial concept of the "shelter deck" so important to ship measurements and key to ship design for many years should be defined here. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
In connection with the article being WP:Today's articles for improvement, I have two questions:
1) The first sentence of the article now reads:
- A deck is a permanent covering over a compartment or a hull of a ship.
The second sentence of the article reads:
- On a boat or ship, the primary or upper deck is the horizontal structure which forms the 'roof' for the hull, which both strengthens the hull and serves as the primary working surface.
The third sentences starts:
There is no hint of why "boat" is not included in the first sentence. I think there should be a bit more consistency here. Any thoughts?
2) In the section Deck (ship)#Common names for decks, in the definition for Bridge deck, there is a term, "pooping wave", that contains a link, but when I click on the link, it doesn't go anywhere. In edit mode, I see that it is to lead to a glossary, but it doesn't.
3) In the section Deck (ship)#Common names for decks, is the definition for Promenade deck. In the definition, the phrase "Promenade Deck" is capitalized. Do you think it needs to be capitalized? Wouldn't lower case be all right? – promenade deck. – Corinne (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- As the article Promenade deck does not capitalise the term, and this article doesn't for the other decks, I agree it should be lower case, and have now done so. Regarding pooping wave, I would suggest we explain the term somewhere, unless someone else can find a relevant article. A search of the history shows there used to be a glossary section with a Glossary section- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deck_(ship)&diff=prev&oldid=282612868, though I am not at the moment sure how best to insert the description. --CSJJ104 (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)