Talk:Glossary of nautical terms (A–L)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Expansion and sourcing

I've put in a lot of diverse dictionaries and encyclopedias in the "further reading" section. These would be ample for the purpose. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

There are now fifteen twenty two dictionaries and encyclopedias containing tens of thousands of words and their definition. It is my belief that one of the greatest services we can do for our readers is to point them in the right direction to find the sources and material they need. Enjoy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

But this list is quite enough now, frankly it's too big already. Wikipedia is not a WP:LINKFARM. Rwessel (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You have misapprehended their nature. The are not link farm in form or substance. But I don't choose to argue about it, and will consider your opinion. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Duly noted. We could use them as the sources they are, and then they would be in line references. Somebody would actually have to edit and put in some article content and take the time to read them. That would be a constructive way to resolve any difference in viewpoint. Just a constructive suggestion, FWIW. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Nautical thimble

could someone add this item. The article exists in several languages--Dutch, Russian, German (Kausch--though one of the photos shows what in English is called a cringle not a thimble). The link from the Russian article (коуш) to the English in fact connects to the article on "cringle" rather than a nautical "thimble". Just the sort of thing to really confuse someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanlongan (talk • contribs) 03:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

How about: “Thimble – a (usually) metal reinforcement inserted inside a loop of rope”. That’s supported by at least a couple of the references ("Flagship Glossary of Nautical Terms", "A Seaman's Dictionary"). You’d think there’s be a picture or mention of such a thing, given just how common they are. Closest I was able to find was Wire_rope#Terminations, which are very similar, but that particular usage is rare on ships. This picture on the German Wikipedia is excellent de:Datei:Zweistrang-Bändselknoten-Kausch.jpg Rwessel (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Anchor light

Armin Maywald inserted in the pertinent text: (Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, I don’t know how these thing here work exactly, but let me say the article about the anchor-light isn’t correct. According to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea – 1972 – including the Amendments (newest effective 1999) says in Rule 30 (b): ... than 50 metres... So please change the text. Greeting, Armin Maywald, an old-salt from Hamburg, Germany). His text was reverted, but should be considered. User:HopsonRoad 12:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Titles of individuals in citations

I note that this citation has a great many titles for authors, which runs counter to WP practice:

• Layton, C.W.T., F.R.A.S., M.R.I.N. Assoc. R.I.N.A.; Clissold, Peter, Commander R.N.R. (Retd.), Master Mariner, Younger Brother of Trinity House, Fellow of the Royal Institute of Navigation revised; Miller, Captain A. G. W. Extra Master revised this edition (1994). "Dictionary of Nautical Words and Terms: 8000 Definitions in Navigation, Seamanship, Rigging, Meteorology, Astronomy, Naval Architecture, Average, Ship Economics, Hydrography, Cargo Stowage, Marine Engineering, Ice Terminology, Buoyage, Yachting, etc" (PDF) (Revised Fourth ed.). Glasgow: Brown, Son & Ferguson, Ltd., Nautical publishers. Retrieved February 23, 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I would suggest that it be:

• Layton, C.W.T.; Clissold, Peter; Miller, A.G.W. (1994). "Dictionary of Nautical Words and Terms: 8000 Definitions in Navigation, Seamanship, Rigging, Meteorology, Astronomy, Naval Architecture, Average, Ship Economics, Hydrography, Cargo Stowage, Marine Engineering, Ice Terminology, Buoyage, Yachting, etc" (PDF) (Revised Fourth ed.). Glasgow: Brown, Son & Ferguson, Ltd., Nautical publishers. Retrieved February 23, 2014.

User:HopsonRoad 16:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The titles do add weight to the authors, which I thought was apt given the nature of the book. Argument from authority. They are all "true experts", not amateurs or wannabes. Mais ça ne fait rien. I defer to policy and your judgment. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Template:Citation suggests that we keep it simple. The work speaks for itself and people can inspect it for the credentials. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 16:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

References

I've just dropped off three definitions- but I am confused as to the status of references. Is this article exempt? Is there an intention? Is the page dormant- or redundant now it has been extradited to Wiktionary? ClemRutter (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting this, ClemRutter! This article is not exempt and it should contain proper references. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glossary of nautical terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227162441/http://www.seaspirit.ru/pdf/Dictionary%20of%20Nautical%20words%20and%20terms.pdf to http://www.seaspirit.ru/pdf/Dictionary%20of%20Nautical%20words%20and%20terms.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227162441/http://www.seaspirit.ru/pdf/Dictionary%20of%20Nautical%20words%20and%20terms.pdf to http://www.seaspirit.ru/pdf/Dictionary%20of%20Nautical%20words%20and%20terms.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

New entries without references

@Mdnavman: I am concerned that you are adding some excellent definitions but not covering them with a reference, leaving them vulnerable to deletion. If you look at some of the last entries I made- you could use the same system. The book- placed at the bottom with cite template. add the parameter ref={{sfnRef|authorname|publication_year(or guess)}}, and then add a {{sfn|authorname|publication_year(or guess)|p=pagenumber}} template to each entry (basically a cut and paste). ClemRutter (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

"Gretch speed"

I went through most of the sources listed in further reading and came up empty. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glossary of nautical terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.arhoolie.com/world/the-foo-foo-band.html?sl=EN
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161023140442/http://www.thamesbarge.org.uk/barges/bargeglossary.html to http://www.thamesbarge.org.uk/barges/bargeglossary.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Varieties of English on a glossary page- absence of references

Philosophical point- do we follow the spelling used in the reference, or break the reference? In an article started in 2004 do we try to claim that one version of English should be adhered to when there have been no previous claims? In trying to establish the primary variety- do we allow unreferenced paragraphs to be cited? If we do deciide to change a word, shouldn't we find a cite for that usage? All things to be discussed before alienating editors and providing admins with unnecessary work.

Proposal

leave this discussion till every term has been checked for accuracy and a source for each one has been provided.--ClemRutter (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Is "holed" a nautical term?

I just saw "... a ship that is holed ..." in a Wikipedia article, but could not find on Wikipedia any explication of the concept, what is the scope of the term? how common is it? Or should that article just be improved to avoid the use of "holed" I added a {clarify} tag there, but thought it might be useful to mention over here. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Ded. Reckoning

the following text conflicts with this page:

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Dead_reckoning which would be apparent to the reader, if Ded. Reckoning hyperlinked to that page.

Ded. Reckoning

   A method of navigation by determining the ship's position using only its previously known position and deriving its new position from the course, speed, and elapsed time provided by instruments or estimation. Ded. Reckoning is used when no other forms of more precise navigation are available (for example, because a ship is fogged in) because all errors are additive and must be corrected for when better navigation information is available, such as the sighting of a landmark or a celestial navigation position fix. Abbreviation for "Deduced reckoning" and often mistakenly referred to as "dead reckoning"

Longpinkytoes (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Glossary of nautical terms to Bibliography of encyclopedias. See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Further Reading

The Further Reading section of this article seems to be excessively long - nor does it seem to comply with MOS:FURTHER. In particular we have a large amount of recent editing activity in this section by User:7&6=thirteen - perhaps I am missing the point of these edits, but I do not see how they make this a better article. My inclination would be to thin out the Further Reading section extensively, leaving only good quality sources that deserve highlighting to an encyclopedia user.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I put these in and think every one of them adds to the further reading. Glossaries (including ours) are inadequate to the universe of maritime, seafaring and related words. It provides a useful history. This is an aid to the reader. If you don't find it useful, don't read it or use it.

There was a lot of time and effort put in to compile this information and build an encyclopedia. But if you are one who wants to tear up the tracks, I get that.

I don't think dumbing down the readers' resources is a good idea. But I am only one editor.

So the alternative is to do a separate free standing article, with a link on this page. WP:Not paper. WP:Ignore all rules. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

My inclination with Further Reading in an article is to try and add a few words to each entry that indicate to the reader why a particular reference would be in this section. As a general principle, there seems little point in repeating references used within the article, as a quick scan of the references section shows what those are and, more importantly, enables you to identify what article content relies upon them.

At present Further Reading has a huge list of works, with no clue on their relevance. All/most of them are findable with an internet search. I am not sure where Wikipedia is adding value by listing them.

I can assure User:7&6=thirteen that I have no ambition to "tear up the tracks" - the implied questions "why is there such a huge Further Reading section?" and "what value is it?" are genuine requests for arguments. I note the idea that there should (perhaps) be an article which is a list of glossaries of marine terms. That might be a solution. That way a user who wants to understand the meaning of a nautical term sees an article of slightly more moderate length, whilst someone interested in glossaries, etc. can see an article about these, perhaps with notes on who wrote them, when and why. Nor do I think Wikipedia processing the whole spectrum of information available is "dumbing down" - it is simply the process of summarisation that is the key defining feature of creating an encyclopedia. Just throwing in everything that is available rather the defeats the object.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding contextual wording is great.

Alternatively, we can use many of those as sources in the article (using WP:SFN and put them in a bibliography). Of course, we need to actually consult them to use them as a source – some of these require access to hardcopies of books. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Noted, but I question the value of some of the old (and consequently free on the internet) sources. For instance, taking the very first one in the section, the 1881 Naval Encyclopedia, see the definition of "dead reckoning":
"The method of determining the ship's position without the aid of astronomical observations."
This term is now precisely defined in the various modern manuals of navigation as being the position determined by distance run and course steered. Most notably it does not include any allowance for tide, current or leeway. The somewhat imprecise definition in the 1881 book suggests that such an allowance is made. So a modern definition is a much more precise thing than that in a book over 100 years old.

Similarly you will find changes of meaning over time - a good example of that is "channel fever" - the OED gives both the obsolete usage (feigned illness to avoid work after leaving port) and the later meaning (enthusiastic excitement at the end of a voyage - including efforts to make the ship sail faster.) The predominance of older sources is likely to pick up an outdated picture of the overall terminology. I would even go so far as to say that extensive use of old sources could be considered WP:OR - much better to have that information processed and validated by an RS.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

What is Carr 1951?

Starting from this edit, this article has made use of shortened Harvard citations to "Carr 1951", without a full citation for what Carr 1951 is causing Harvard errors. @ClemRutter: do you remember what this source was? I'm presuming it's Carr, Frank (1951). Sailing Barges (Revised ed.). London: Peter Davies., but as I do not have access to this book myself I'd want to confirm before adding it as a citation. Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, while I'm looking at Harvard referencing, I'm seeing "Catsambis 2013" is unlinked, which is an easy enough fixed, but the reference which actually is Catsambis 2013, namely The Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology is already linked to "Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology 2011"; is there a reason that's being used to link to this reference instead of "Catsambis 2013"? I also might be bold and suggest perhaps J. Richard Steffy should be listed in the author fields, and hence use "Steffy 2013" as a Harvard citation, as he is the author of the glossary section. Thoughts? Umimmak (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my copy of Carr, was withdrawn from Lincolnshire Libraries. It had originally been gifted to Lincoln City Lbiraries in May 1967, in memory of Vernon E,Brown. Any info you need just ask. Of Catcambis 2013, I have no recollection but bow to your judgment. ClemRutter (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks so much! I went ahead and made those changes; all of the short citations should be properly linked to their full citations now. Umimmak (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)