From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

odd comments in odd position[edit]

Not sure it's actually of interest to half of these wikiprojects - at least not without substantial work on the article, but I've not trimmed them out. EdwardLane (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ship and boat have a lot of material that applies to both, notably the distinctions between them. All of it should be moved to Watercraft and referenced by both of the others. --Jerzy(t) 20:33, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

  • Actually, most of my recent addition (other than what i moved from ship) probably belongs in Hull (watercraft), where i've now moved it. --Jerzy(t) 03:42, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Could we please have a history of watercraft? We have a sketchy history of boats, but nothing comparable for ships, and nothing for watercraft as a whole. --Simetrical 20:38, 2004 Dec 23 (EST)


Can watercraft be merged with boat in order to simplify the articles (boat, boating, ship, watercraft) and provide a more clear article (with 1 meaning for each) ? Would allow to add more specific and better information for each rather than give a general view/modification of text for each individual article.

Also, boating can then be described as the activity of moving a watercraft over water (something which is hard if it were only to describe boats)

Definition should also be changed to A watercraft or boat is ... KVDP (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The article makes clear that 'watercraft' and 'boat' are not the same thing - all boats are watercraft, but a watercraft is not necessarily a boat. Merging the articles would serve no purpose but to confuse this --Saalstin (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we really sure .....[edit]

that "watercraft" (or "water craft" - the article doesn't spell it consistently!) is the professional word? All the professional nautical people I've ever known (and I've known quite a few) have used "vessel" for anything biggish, and "boat" for anything else (including subs, which, as far as I'm aware, are always called "boats" by their commanders and crews), although, technically, a vessel is anything which floats by displacement, of course. While appreciating that "watercraft / water craft" covers everything that floats and and can be usefully steered, I can't help the feeling that it's a term invented for that purpose by officialdom and (therefore!) amateurs - it just sounds that way, sorry! Maelli (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am amused by your suggestion that there has to be a professional word. In view of the apparent dominance of usage I think we will have to stick to watercraft (despite what I note below) as a single word. I see that there are references dating back to the 16th century for the word.

Watercraft is used in the sense of any man-made object floating on the water which in one or way or another is engaged in navigation. Buoys for example are not watercraft, and it is debatable if a fixed pontoon is a watercraft. It is the most general term possible.

Rule 3 (Definitions) of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea states under

a)The word “vessel” includes every description of water craft, including non-displacement craft, WIG Craft and seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water; We may note that here the IMO gives preference to the two word "water craft" spelling and includes watercraft in the set called "vessel". Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking through again ....[edit]

I'm beginning to think this article is a mess and even, maybe, a con. It not only doesn't refer to the professional term for any boat, ship, etc. (vessel), it also goes on about various elements, such as "great ships" (not a very common term) as if these were an important part of the overall picture (which, by the way, is severely lacking here!). Diverting would-be readers here from "marine vessel" is a liberty. Could it be that the author is starting from the German term "Wasserfahrzeug", and trying to make the English definition fit it - it almost looks like it. Maelli (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And looking through yet again .......[edit]

I find this article contains loads of utter nonsense and numerous inadmissible assumptions; here, for example:

"Water crafting therefore requires several orders of complexity (what????) in the design to be successful: flotation, propulsion, navigation for steering, and skilled operation. For these reasons, perhaps the best known and largest wooden construction in early human history, the Noah's Ark, is not a watercraft, but a large enclosed flotation device since it lacked the last three prerequisites."

a) I would think "buoyancy", rather than "flotation" b) "navigation for steering" - not the other way around ??? c) Noah's Ark may not be history - there are many who think it isn't!

In short: English, assumptions, clarity, necessity of this article at all - and especially as a diversion from "marine vessel"! Maelli (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

hungarian link wrong[edit]

the link to the hungarian article is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacdegemecs (talkcontribs) 21:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"Great Ships"[edit]

I can find no proof that this "Great Ships" term ever existed, this section should be removed. Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Having seen no objections in the intervening four months, I have removed this unsourced section. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


If you look at the Watercraft registration page, a merge has been requested and granted by afd. The aim of this thread is to foster a discussion about how to best accomplish this merger. Sheepythemouse (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)