368:
350:
837:. The term originally arose as a mocking term used by steamship "sailors" to refer to actual sailing ships. Sailing-ship sailors mocked the steamship crews for not being "real" sailors. The phrase was not used narrowly, to refer specifically to a certain type of steel-hulled, square-rigged merchant ship until much later; if ever. The businesses and clubs who use the term windjammer to refer to their sailing ships use the term in its original sense; not the other way around. This article would benefit from a broader perspective. The German language article is actually pretty good, in that it runs through all of the various senses of the word, "windjammer," in the introduction, before launching into a lengthy article about the specific type of "windjammer" covered here.
777:
before the
Captain relented and went the other way. (Probably after he was satisfied that the apprentices had had enough practice tacking.) (By the way, if you doubt tacking a square rig is tricky and dangerous, read "The Secret Sharer" by Conrad.) The Moshulu went round the world from Ireland to Australia and back to take advantage of prevailing winds. Not all trade routes have such convenient wind patterns. Many ships are chartered for individual voyages and benefit by being able to sail in any direction. Hybrid engine and square rigs suffer from huge wind resistance losses when motoring into the wind. Even fore-and-aft rigs have a quadrant they can not sail in. Most importantly though, fuel used to be cheap.
690:
maintenance than steam engine. They need less bunkerage and are more fuel-efficient than steamers. Besides that, windjammers were dependent on weather. True, on good winds they could easily log 15 kn average speeds - Herzogin
Cecilie logged 21 and Parma 22 kn - but while on still wind, such as doldrums, they would have gone faster by rowing. Steamers and motorships can maintain constant speed at any weather, and henceforth are more predictable than windjammers - they keep easier in schedule. Likewise, a diesel ship can be built far wider and draftier by hull than a windjammer of same length; what is lost in hydrodynamics is gained on cargo capacity.
794:
as on longer journeys, they couldn't carry anywhere near enough fuel for a passage. This cost the owners a lot of money. The coal also cost money, as did the enormous manpower required to operate them. Steam suddenly became more useful and economically viable with the opening of the Suez Canal which was a vital world trade route. Sailing ships could not pass through it, and therefore had to continue old routes around Africa, while the steamers cut two thirds off travel distances. As more canals opened, and steam technology became more efficient and reliable, saining vessels were gradually phased out.
1426:. However, it was clear that this article was solely about iron-hulled (and steel-hulled) vessels.The Gould discusses such vessels, extensively, and doesn't use "windjammer" in the text, either. Nor do the other sources (Grantham, Chatterton, and Anderson), cited below, use "windjammer" in the text to describe iron-hulled sailing ships. Authors are free to use "windjammer" or "tall ship" to describe sailing ships, but that doesn't delineate either term at all. Even the definition of "ship" is a murky one. Sincerely,
722:
the deck - no need for going aloft to yards or tops. But on ocean-going vessels, the square rig is better; it provides far better running capabilities, the individual sails can be adjusted exactly by the wind, and large fore-and-aft sails are VERY difficult to handle; seven mast schooner Thomas W. Lawson was known by the fact that its sails were excreemely difficult to handle. That is the reasons why most windjammers were barques: they combined the good properties of both square and fore-and-aft rig.
246:
222:
256:
414:
1777:
191:
452:
431:
318:
1682:, but none of the earlier commenters has reported back to discuss the move. So, given the preponderance of discussion regarding the unsuitability of the title, I made the move after giving notice at three Wikimedia projects and after receiving only one opposing comment since proposing a new name and scope on June 6 and a proposed lead on June 8. Please take note of the
1134:
impossible to find, and
Britannica does not give it a mention. The links refer to, as you say, other specific and defined components of established maritime usage. I'm glad you chimed in, changes made to improve this page or any wikipedia page are best done in concert with other accuracy-minded WPedians. It's not so big a task that I need to run it as a larger project.
1459:, I came to that conclusion by using the Google search window and only found "windjammer" in the index. I appreciate that you are commenting in good faith and would hope that you know that I wouldn't call you a liar. It was my mistake and not yours. I should note that in both the instances that you cite, Gould uses quotation marks around "windjammer".
1953:
1903:
as a term is still the most popular specific search, even though it is now a redirect. Also its search trend has dropped about 40 percent, since the name change; this is because readers previously clicked on the word windjammer in other articles and as a result came indirectly, but still left a score
793:
I wand to clear up several points here: windjammers were very cheap to run. They required minimal numbers of crew, because they were fitted with steam winches. Compared to the earlier steamers, they were also quite fast. A major problem for steamers is that they reuiquired coaling stations to refuel,
689:
The main reason for the demise of the windjammers was the diesel engine. It proved more economical on ultra-long voyages, and it eventually eclipsed steam engine as well - nowadays the only steamships in existence are warships. Diesel engine is stoked automatically and is more reliable and needs less
625:
In addition, what I've read suggests that crews in sail were paid less than those in steam, sometimes considerably so. Not to mention the saving in coal (and water in some places). I don't know which would cost more to maintain; a sailing ship has a lot of gear in constant use in a harsh environment,
1133:
which similarly has been hijacked to a non world view. Please feel free to dive in here. If I were to start from scratch most of this page would disappear. It's not the truth. A windjammer is a simple slang contemporary colloquialism, and I found that dictionary.com agrees. Its etymology is all but
1327:
I got so far as paragraph two before my disagreements started kicking in. My grandfather was a Master
Mariner and as a midshipman went round the Horn three times before the mast on a clipper; did over 40 years on the sea, and in his retirement wemt back work as a harbour master in Dundee. He had no
1267:
Well, personally I see no problem with a page on
Griffers, even if the original description was Two-headed High-backed White Wiz-Wiz, and the term Griffers only came into usage after any form of Wiz-Wiz had disappeared. Pages should be titled for easy access, and using the current name, even if not
721:
Yes, and fore-and-aft rig is superior to square rig on coastal waters - it is far easier to handle and to control, and provides better maneuvreability. Small coasters were built as schooners and barquentines in the end of 19th century. Another reason is that a gaff rig can be handled completely on
1344:
could cover a variery of types whereas windjammer even as a colliquism is more precise, for the type of tall ship we're talking about here. Tall ship a very old term popularised by the AICH in the fifties on their invitations. Karen Hill, New York freelance writer and editor, she's the author of
776:
I think one big problem was that the square rig is a special-purpose, not a general-purpose, rig; it goes very well downwind and poorly upwind. For example, at the start of the voyage, Moshulu struggled for about a week in the Irish Sea trying to go against the wind, after coming out of
Belfast,
770:
carprenter, two men to run the donkey engine, and 18 sailors (9 of those apprentices). That is probably within a factor of two of what a steam ship would need for such a voyage. They handled the heavy work with the help of "patent" (differential) winches. They spent a lot of time chipping rust.
769:
in 1938-1939 has much relevant information. For one thing, the spare sails were carried on the (mostly empty) first deck, just below the weather deck, and above the cargo hold. It seems there was no space conflict. The crew was small, 28; he describes it as 4 officers, cook, steward, sailmaker,
1917:
Lastly the stat tells us that in the last 3 1/2 years 256,000 readers have visited, and on average two editors have made a change every day during that time without complaint. As have all the visitors and editors since 2005 except one. The stats are remarkable considering this article is Start
1169:
Whether or not the term is from German origin seems uncertain. But regardless of the origin, there is now such a term in the
English language. Likewise, whether or not sailors ever used the term to indicate a specific class doesn't change the fact that it now has come to represent a large
564:
And all that stuff about modern reasons to return to sailing ships: this has nothing to do with windjammers in particular (other than that the windjammer was the most advanced form of a sailing ship prior to their demise as commercial vessels). I mean "kites"? what windjammers flew kites?
705:
I don't know the answares to that, but when it comes to the replacement of square rigs with for and aft rigs in the norwegian fishing fleet I think the reason where that square sails required a larger crew to handle then a for and aft sail of the same size, maybe that is relevant here
1225:, built to carry bulk cargo for long distances in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, were the largest of merchant sailing ships with three to five tall masts and combination of square and fore-and-aft sails. They are sometimes referred to, colloquially, as "windjammers" or "
1856:
has voiced concern whether the title change from "Windjammer" to "Iron-hulled ship" was appropriate. Please read the discussion in the above sections (and add to it, as you see fit) and then provide your support or non-support of the current title versus the previous, here.
642:
There is a number of answers. For one, there is not that much cargo without any sensitivity to time of delivery. For another, the world wars were dire for sailing ships, as they could not be put into convoys with steamers. But all that misses the point a bit. If we have no
813:
Some contemporary buisnesses use the term windjammer in their names and to describe their sailing vessles, which are most often actually schooners, and never square rigged sailing ships of the type described in this article. I submit that it is enough to link to
1391:
Where the ships are described as Iron windjammers at least twice, a book incidentally which uses the term
Windjammer on at least 5 different pages, including indices. This is one of the books that has been highjacked as reference justifying the name of
1055:
Here we can only suppose that, in the great rivalry between steam and sail, the men of the sailing ships bragged so loudly of the merits of sail that the supporters of steamships tacked onto them this term, from where it was transferred to the ships as
1440:
Now you've called me out as a liar. You are deliberately twisting the facts to suit here. Gould specifically mentions ââIron windjammersââ in his text at least twice (on pages 253 and 287). This article has sat here for 14 years, without complaint.
1545:
1248:
Interesting issue! There is nothing wrong with mentioning "Windjammer" as a colloquial term for a class of ships in an article on that class (with a redirect leading there), but we should not have an article on a colloquial term alone, as per
1062:- - At some point this can be parsed by someone into wiki-speak - with citations of course, but I have neither the time nor the energy to sift through the heaps of errors with this and similar. Otherwise WP is a most useful of online tools.
1535:
1530:
1384:
737:
Then again, these ships had a large number of relativly small sails instead of one "large" one like the fishing ships had, I guess that would mean that a smaller crew could handle one sail at the time and that way reduce the amount of crew
832:
The narrow use of "windjammer," to refer solely to square-rigged, steel-hulled ships, differs from the original sense of "windjammer," which referred to any sailing ship. See, for example, several examples in Peter Jensen Brown's article,
1328:
problem saying out loud whalers clippers, and windjammers, and all his Cape Horner mates were the same. Terms by the way created by sailors in the first place. When it comes to it (as an aside) he would often prefix a ships name with
367:
349:
1268:
contemporary, is a way to make it so. Hindsight will often bring groups to light that were not visible earlier. But if you can honestly find an entry at NOTDICTIONARY that says titles can not be colloquialisms, then by all means.
1034:
It seems probable that the nickname was coined from the German word for wind, which has the same spelling, and from the German verb jammer (pronounced yahmmer, and from which we get the
English yammer), which means âto moan, cry,
1540:
1898:
Incidentally when an articles name is moved, everything moves with it except its historical record of pageviews, the article starts again from zero. What the stat tells us is that the numbers of readers searching for
1885:. Whats to glean out of this, is that there's an acceptance of the word by the general public, even though it's ill defined; and that it's no longer contemptuous since 1899, if it ever it was for any long period.
1017:
It is a colloquialism used by essentially landlubbers, copy and fiction writers, to describe a variety of large old sailing ships. It was never used actually in the days when there were only large sailing ships.
860:
althou I might be wrong about it being a windjammer... Anyways it would be nice if anyone could verify that it is a windjammer and add it to the list (or prove it ain't one/give a other reason for not adding it)
1219:, where there is no such section. I'm not averse to renaming this article, somehow, e.g. "Large sailing ships", and keeping a substantial portion of material here. In this instance the lead sentences might be:
583:
Windjammers are like the opposite to the clippers - the clippers carried small ammounts of high value/perishable cargo at high speeds; windjammers carried large ammounts of lower-value cargoes at lower speeds.
153:
1637:
I think one of the main problems being highlighted here is that the term
Windjammer doesn't seem to have a precise meaning. Many people have used it to mean many different and overlapping types of ships. -
1170:
long-distance bulk cargo sailing ship. The best way to improve this article is not to complain about the contemporary use, or lack of it, of the term, but rather to improve its structure, and its wording.
950:
The claim that the term derives from Dutch 'jammeren' (similar to German 'jammern', or whinging), is explicitly contradicted by the German version of this page. Only one can be right. Please substantiate.
1045:
The next oldest use in English is the meaning âa talkative person, blowhard, windbag,â and since such a one, too, is making noises with his wind, this meaning seems to be a logical extension of the first.
2002:
332:
327:
232:
970:
Is that mistaken "folk etymology" actually "common"? I've read about windjammers many times before with explanations of the name and never encountered that mistaken etymology before Knowledge.--
1997:
1678:, I see that: "Consensus on Knowledge does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote." It's clear that you don't concur with the move,
611:
The article currently says: "Sailing ships in general were expensive to operate, as they required a large crew". While that is not wrong absolutely, it seems to be misleading in the context.
773:
He interviewed the sailmaker, who described the sail material as the best available linen canvas, certainly not cheap, but likely the most durable material available at the time.
561:
Windjammers are most famous for being very fast. Time is money, especially on the scale of Australia to Europe, and a fast ship would make more roundtrips a year, and more profit.
1080:
Please lets keep windjammer for Jack London novels, or charterboat spiel. And fyi - 40 years a ocean going captain, neither I nor anyone near me ever used this word definitively.
874:
was built for sail training, not cargo carrying. She is also much smaller than the last commercial sailing windjammers. Her loaded displacement of 1050 tons is one fith of the
629:
The difficulty is, if we say that sailing ships were cheaper than steam, we also need to say why they died out (for non-time-sensitive cargo). I don't have an answer to that.
1727:. They were built to carry bulk cargo for long distances in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. They were the largest of merchant sailing ships, with three to five
147:
2007:
615:
had a crew of 45. Compared to a modern container ship, that is large. But compared to a 10000 ton 1900 coal-fired steamer with stokers and mechanics, it is not. --
1992:
302:
1040:
Hence the horn player, who might seem to an unappreciative hearer to be making moaning or wailing sounds with his wind, was given the slang name of windjammer.
1215:, which emphasizes those remaining sailing ships that participate in festivals. Here, the the "Design" section should contribute to a "History" section at
308:
79:
1932:
In summary, the public's perception is the Wikitionary definition, possibly even one mast more; and the popular vote for the articles name has to be
2032:
513:
503:
384:
2012:
1987:
1611:. Lots of sailing ships are called colloquially called windjammers (see discussion above). The examples that you cite are already represented in
1050:
But the most common meaning in English today, which dates from the very last of the nineteenth century, is âa sailing vessel or one of its crew.â
1396:
which incidentally is not proposed as a name anywhere in same book. Added to the fact that Windjammer is and always will be more specifuc than
2037:
2027:
1683:
85:
908:
The article claims that Windjammers must have a metallic hull. The German article states that there are also Windjammers with wooden hulls.
2022:
1526:
The distinguishing feature of the ships under discussion is not their colloquial name, but their construction from iron. See, for example:
818:
at the top of the page and that we ought to refrain from any other such links, as they are essentially promotion of commercial ventures. --
542:
278:
1312:, then an article can be devoted to that subject. (Please remember to sign your posts with "~~~~" to provide an automated date.) Cheers,
1207:. I concur that the term has meaning. However, much of the content here should be directed to a better-organized, structured and written
2017:
971:
44:
388:
1593:
or similar might indeed be a welcome addition, but on its own merits, not as a home for windjammer/clipper/tall ship material.
1029:"The earliest use of the term windjammer in English is reported to have been in the 1870âs, with the meaning of âa horn player.â
1908:
trend which vaguely mirrors the articles trend through time. Now of course they click on ] thus giving the page view score to
668:
page talks about the opening of the Suez canal being a factor in that using the canal was more difficult for a sailing ship. --
269:
227:
99:
30:
1581:
Not only iron-hulled vessels have referred to coloquially as "windjammers" and "clippers". The composite-hulled vessels like
1065:
This is the disappointing downside of crowdsourcing encyclopedic or any accurate information. I find that, for example, the
392:
104:
20:
1872:
Thank you HopsonRoad. Two points to note, and I'm going to repeat this at the Ships Talk page, because it may contain some
990:
479:
475:
471:
462:
436:
74:
168:
1484:
This is among many articles that pertain to sailing that are in poor shape. This one was missing a bunch of references.
202:
135:
1815:
375:
355:
65:
1755:
between continents. Later examples had steel hulls. They are sometimes referred to as "windjammers" or "tall ships".
1014:
is never used by seamen, or ever to describe a vessel definitively. A vessel type is never described so vaguely.
1904:
for it as a search term. The bulk of these clicks came from the sailing ship article, you can see that from the
1099:. This is a topic that should be brought to the attention of the respected interested projects. There's already
1308:âregardless of size, for which there is already an article. If there is a distinct need to describe the era of
1882:
546:
190:
1250:
975:
129:
109:
834:
1586:
1927:
but the larger city (more popular on the web) in Western Australia. Therefore the more popular term wins.
993:
which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. â
1824:
208:
1590:
1345:
several children's books, right? If so she's not as old as some of the writers penning (typing) here.
856:
I see there is a list of some windjammers in this article but I think I know of one not mentioned, the
125:
630:
1969:
1940:
1862:
1764:
1691:
1665:
1628:
1598:
1571:
1501:
1446:
1431:
1413:
1350:
1317:
1279:
1239:
1181:
1116:
889:
842:
838:
823:
799:
795:
589:
585:
538:
1894:
The second thing is an interesting stat to look at, the pageview statistics for the article itself.
1812:
1675:
1066:
648:
616:
161:
55:
647:-verifiable reason, we should offer none at all, not one that is possibly (even likely) wrong...--
277:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
175:
952:
815:
70:
1563:
since there is enough content, when properly referenced for the material to stand on its own.
1493:
1489:
51:
1923:
The project is ruthless when it come to naming conventions, that's why Perth Scotland is not
1839:
1834:
I'm happy to help but need to check first whether the recent move is likely to be reverted.
1104:
1074:
956:
935:
920:
870:
857:
626:
but none of it's particularly complicated to maintain or repair, compared to a steam engine.
261:
1965:
1936:
1858:
1853:
1788:
1760:
1687:
1679:
1661:
1643:
1624:
1608:
1594:
1567:
1497:
1456:
1442:
1427:
1423:
1409:
1372:
1346:
1313:
1273:
1258:
1235:
1175:
1152:
1144:
1112:
1085:
885:
819:
612:
255:
245:
221:
1807:
should lead to a disambiguation page? If so then we should tidy up a couple of things:
1305:
141:
1728:
1620:
784:
1886:
1541:
Chatterton, Sailing Ships and Their Story :the Story of Their Development from the ...
535:
The Article mentions both the Preussian and the France II as the largest Windjammer.
1981:
1621:
Talk:Tall ship#Limit scope to Sail Training International terminology -- trim gallery
994:
669:
383:-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
1589:, which also included some all-timber ships, for example. However I would say that
1895:
1720:
1485:
1364:
1360:
1208:
1100:
413:
1619:
has its own article, but perhaps should be limited in scope per the discussion at
1069:
is defined as a windjammer, when the word should not even be mentioned. She is a
1835:
1724:
931:
916:
905:
The article uses the past tense. Why? There are still some Windjammers around.
745:
644:
574:
1961:
1828:
1819:
1804:
1784:
1732:
1639:
1582:
1368:
1301:
1269:
1254:
1204:
1171:
1148:
1096:
1081:
762:
251:
24:
1736:
1616:
1226:
1212:
780:
274:
451:
430:
1652:
You have changed the name of this article without consensus. The title of
391:. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
273:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
1881:
The first is that windjammer is in the Oxford English Dictionary. Here
1660:
Please change it back till at least this dicussion has run its course.
1612:
1130:
1024:, New York freelance writer and editor gave the best description. : -->
880:
875:
766:
665:
570:
467:
317:
1740:
1108:
1070:
1973:
1944:
1924:
1866:
1843:
1792:
1768:
1748:
1744:
1695:
1669:
1647:
1632:
1602:
1575:
1505:
1496:. I welcome your participation there, as well as here. Sincerely,
1450:
1435:
1417:
1376:
1354:
1321:
1283:
1262:
1243:
1185:
1156:
1120:
1089:
997:
979:
960:
939:
924:
893:
846:
827:
803:
788:
672:
651:
633:
619:
593:
577:
550:
1623:. This article would be about iron-hulled sailing ships. Cheers,
1404:, it's even more specific than the technically too correct term
380:
1752:
1490:
Talk:Sailing ship#Bring substance of "Windjammer" article here
184:
15:
1656:
may have its faults, but it is certainly more specific than
466:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge's coverage of
316:
1536:
Grantham , Iron Ship-building: With Practical Illustrations
1488:
is in need of development. I have started at discussion at
741:
I donno, this ain't exactly something I know allot about..
1111:. Where do you recommend that this material go? Cheers,
160:
2003:
Mid-importance maritime transport task force articles
599:
removed the reference to internal combustion engines
1960:I have created a page with content appropriate for
1003:
Windjammer is a colloquialism, not a class of ship.
765:'s detailed account of his round the world trip on
478:, where you can join the project and see a list of
1998:Start-Class maritime transport task force articles
1684:Windjammer is a colloquialism, not a class of ship
1531:Gould, Archaeology and the Social History of Ships
1385:Gould, Archaeology and the Social History of Ships
307:This article has not yet received a rating on the
1211:article. Some content should remain, such as at
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1889:makes a better job of it] thanks to HopsonRoad.
1551:Accordingly, I propose to rename this article
911:The article doesn't give the term's etymology.
751:Anyways, good luck with finding the answare :)
1546:Anderson, A Short History of the Sailing Ship
174:
8:
188:
1277:
1179:
989:There is a move discussion in progress on
835:Windjammers, Jazz-Jammers and Jam Sessions
425:
344:
216:
1686:section, for more discussion. Sincerely,
1147:, and please feel free to swing the axe.
864:Luredreier 16:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
754:Luredreier 16:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
748:-verifiable reason to change anything ^^
1129:I'm looking at this, and also the page
427:
346:
218:
2008:Maritime transport task force articles
1522:Proposed new name: "Iron sailing ship"
1993:Unknown-importance Transport articles
7:
852:List of windjammers under sail today
373:This article is within the scope of
267:This article is within the scope of
1719:represented the final evolution of
809:Modern use of the term "windjammer"
207:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1876:information of interest to others.
569:Youâre confusing windjammers with
14:
1422:I appreciate your concern, here,
1951:
1775:
744:And I can't exactly be called a
450:
429:
412:
366:
348:
254:
244:
220:
189:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
2033:Low-importance Sailing articles
508:This article has been rated as
287:Knowledge:WikiProject Transport
2013:WikiProject Transport articles
1988:Start-Class Transport articles
290:Template:WikiProject Transport
1:
1813:malplaced disambiguation page
1359:User:Broichmore: that is all
991:Talk:Windjammers (video game)
980:20:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
894:23:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
878:(cargo carrying capacity) of
488:Knowledge:WikiProject Sailing
325:This article is supported by
281:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
2038:WikiProject Sailing articles
2028:Start-Class Sailing articles
1203:Thanks for commenting here,
961:10:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
828:02:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
673:18:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
652:23:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
634:15:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
620:08:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
578:21:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
491:Template:WikiProject Sailing
2023:All WikiProject Ships pages
1816:Windjammer (disambiguation)
1715:Iron-hulled sailing ship:
1157:16:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
1121:02:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
1090:19:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
985:Move discussion in progress
940:08:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
460:is within the scope of the
401:Knowledge:WikiProject Ships
379:, a project to improve all
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
2054:
2018:Start-Class Ships articles
1561:Sailing ship (iron-hulled)
925:11:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
551:22:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
514:project's importance scale
404:Template:WikiProject Ships
309:project's importance scale
1974:02:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
1945:17:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
1867:14:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
1844:14:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1717:Iron-hulled sailing ships
1696:13:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1670:12:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1506:17:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1451:15:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1436:14:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1418:12:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
1304:, "windjammer" is just a
847:20:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
804:23:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
789:04:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
594:22:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
507:
445:
361:
324:
306:
239:
215:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1803:Is there consensus that
1793:22:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
1769:22:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
1658:Iron-hulled sailing ship
1648:22:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
1633:21:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
1603:21:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
1576:14:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
1557:Iron-hulled sailing ship
1494:Talk:Sailing ship#Scope?
1398:Iron-hulled sailing ship
1394:Iron-hulled sailing ship
1377:15:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
1355:12:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
1322:13:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
1284:12:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
1263:17:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
1244:13:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
1186:12:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
998:00:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
557:article is not very good
1332:, and refer to them as
1306:term for a sailing ship
1010:Please note, the term '
470:. If you would like to
387:, or contribute to the
328:the Maritime task force
1827:the incoming links to
1587:Great Tea Race of 1866
966:Folk etymology common?
321:
197:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
1887:wiktionary:windjammer
1381:WP:RS... What about:
930:I've edited it some.
900:I scold this article!
320:
270:WikiProject Transport
100:Neutral point of view
474:, you can visit the
105:No original research
1735:, as well as other
1676:Knowledge:Consensus
1310:large sailing ships
1300:Be that as it may,
1223:Large sailing ships
1067:SMS Seeadler (1888)
463:WikiProject Sailing
1723:at the end of the
1408:in this instance.
876:deadweight tonnage
816:windjammer cruises
531:Largest Windjammer
389:project discussion
322:
293:Transport articles
203:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1591:iron sailing ship
1553:Iron sailing ship
1342:Iron sailing ship
1286:
1188:
1007:Ahoy wikipedians
541:comment added by
528:
527:
524:
523:
520:
519:
424:
423:
420:
419:
393:full instructions
376:WikiProject Ships
343:
342:
339:
338:
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
2045:
1959:
1955:
1954:
1779:
1778:
1585:or those in the
1251:WP:NOTDICTIONARY
1105:Full-rigged ship
1075:Full-rigged ship
871:Christian Radich
858:Christian Radich
553:
496:
495:
494:Sailing articles
492:
489:
486:
454:
447:
446:
441:
433:
426:
416:
409:
408:
405:
402:
399:
385:join the project
370:
363:
362:
352:
345:
295:
294:
291:
288:
285:
264:
262:Transport portal
259:
258:
248:
241:
240:
235:
224:
217:
200:
194:
193:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
2053:
2052:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2044:
2043:
2042:
1978:
1977:
1952:
1950:
1851:
1801:
1776:
1739:. They carried
1712:
1524:
1005:
987:
968:
948:
902:
854:
811:
613:Preussen (ship)
609:
601:
559:
536:
533:
493:
490:
487:
484:
483:
439:
406:
403:
400:
397:
396:
292:
289:
286:
283:
282:
260:
253:
230:
201:on Knowledge's
198:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
2051:
2049:
2041:
2040:
2035:
2030:
2025:
2020:
2015:
2010:
2005:
2000:
1995:
1990:
1980:
1979:
1948:
1947:
1929:
1928:
1920:
1919:
1914:
1913:
1891:
1890:
1878:
1877:
1850:
1847:
1832:
1831:
1822:
1800:
1799:Disambiguation
1797:
1796:
1795:
1772:
1771:
1757:
1756:
1711:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1549:
1548:
1543:
1538:
1533:
1523:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1282:comment added
1232:
1231:
1230:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1184:comment added
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1124:
1123:
1004:
1001:
986:
983:
967:
964:
947:
944:
943:
942:
913:
912:
909:
906:
901:
898:
897:
896:
853:
850:
810:
807:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
752:
749:
742:
739:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
657:
656:
655:
654:
649:Stephan Schulz
637:
636:
627:
617:Stephan Schulz
608:
605:
600:
597:
581:
580:
558:
555:
543:159.233.69.220
532:
529:
526:
525:
522:
521:
518:
517:
510:Low-importance
506:
500:
499:
497:
455:
443:
442:
440:Lowâimportance
434:
422:
421:
418:
417:
410:
407:Ships articles
371:
359:
358:
353:
341:
340:
337:
336:
333:Mid-importance
323:
313:
312:
305:
299:
298:
296:
279:the discussion
266:
265:
249:
237:
236:
225:
213:
212:
206:
195:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2050:
2039:
2036:
2034:
2031:
2029:
2026:
2024:
2021:
2019:
2016:
2014:
2011:
2009:
2006:
2004:
2001:
1999:
1996:
1994:
1991:
1989:
1986:
1985:
1983:
1976:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1963:
1958:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1935:
1931:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1921:
1916:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1902:
1897:
1893:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1883:is it's entry
1880:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1855:
1848:
1846:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1830:
1826:
1823:
1821:
1817:
1814:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1806:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1774:
1773:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1759:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1721:sailing ships
1718:
1714:
1713:
1709:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1674:In reviewing
1673:
1672:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1564:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1547:
1544:
1542:
1539:
1537:
1534:
1532:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1521:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1458:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1390:
1386:
1383:
1382:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1285:
1281:
1275:
1271:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1228:
1224:
1221:
1220:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1187:
1183:
1177:
1173:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1132:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1078:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1057:
1052:
1051:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1036:
1031:
1030:
1026:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1013:
1008:
1002:
1000:
999:
996:
992:
984:
982:
981:
977:
973:
972:23.119.205.88
965:
963:
962:
958:
954:
945:
941:
937:
933:
929:
928:
927:
926:
922:
918:
910:
907:
904:
903:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
882:
877:
873:
872:
867:
866:
865:
862:
859:
851:
849:
848:
844:
840:
836:
830:
829:
825:
821:
817:
808:
806:
805:
801:
797:
791:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
771:
768:
764:
753:
750:
747:
743:
740:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
674:
671:
667:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
653:
650:
646:
641:
640:
639:
638:
635:
632:
628:
624:
623:
622:
621:
618:
614:
606:
604:
598:
596:
595:
591:
587:
579:
576:
572:
568:
567:
566:
562:
556:
554:
552:
548:
544:
540:
530:
515:
511:
505:
502:
501:
498:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:
459:
456:
453:
449:
448:
444:
438:
435:
432:
428:
415:
411:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
377:
372:
369:
365:
364:
360:
357:
354:
351:
347:
334:
331:(assessed as
330:
329:
319:
315:
314:
310:
304:
301:
300:
297:
280:
276:
272:
271:
263:
257:
252:
250:
247:
243:
242:
238:
234:
229:
226:
223:
219:
214:
210:
204:
196:
192:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1956:
1949:
1933:
1909:
1906:Sailing ship
1905:
1900:
1873:
1852:
1833:
1802:
1780:
1733:square sails
1716:
1657:
1653:
1565:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1550:
1525:
1486:Sailing ship
1455:My mistake,
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1309:
1299:
1222:
1217:Sailing ship
1216:
1209:Sailing ship
1101:Sailing ship
1079:
1064:
1061:
1058:
1054:
1053:
1049:
1048:
1044:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1033:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1009:
1006:
988:
969:
949:
914:
879:
869:
863:
855:
831:
812:
792:
779:
775:
772:
761:
610:
602:
582:
563:
560:
534:
509:
476:project page
461:
457:
374:
326:
268:
209:WikiProjects
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1849:Reconsider?
1725:age of sail
1710:Sample lead
1607:Thank you,
1278:âPreceding
1180:âPreceding
1012:windjammer'
631:80.41.90.80
537:âPreceding
472:participate
199:Start-class
148:free images
31:not a forum
1982:Categories
1966:HopsonRoad
1964:. Cheers,
1962:Windjammer
1937:Broichmore
1934:Windjammer
1901:Windjammer
1874:statistics
1859:HopsonRoad
1854:Broichmore
1829:Windjammer
1820:Windjammer
1805:Windjammer
1761:HopsonRoad
1737:sail plans
1688:HopsonRoad
1680:Broichmore
1662:Broichmore
1654:Windjammer
1625:HopsonRoad
1609:Davidships
1595:Davidships
1583:Cutty Sark
1568:HopsonRoad
1498:HopsonRoad
1457:Broichmore
1443:Broichmore
1428:HopsonRoad
1424:Broichmore
1410:Broichmore
1363:, we need
1347:Broichmore
1314:HopsonRoad
1236:HopsonRoad
1227:tall ships
1145:HopsonRoad
1113:HopsonRoad
1095:I concur,
1022:Karen Hill
886:John.james
839:Svaihingen
820:John.james
796:Fionnlaoch
763:Eric Newby
607:Expensive?
586:Fionnlaoch
480:open tasks
458:Windjammer
25:Windjammer
1910:Iron-hull
1811:Move the
1617:Tall ship
1402:Tall ship
1213:Tall ship
946:Etymology
603:I remove
284:Transport
275:Transport
228:Transport
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1566:Cheers,
1400:or even
1234:Cheers,
995:RMCD bot
915:Thanks,
571:clippers
539:unsigned
233:Maritime
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1613:Clipper
1280:undated
1182:undated
1143:Thanks
1131:clipper
881:Moshulu
767:Moshulu
738:needed.
666:clipper
512:on the
485:Sailing
468:Sailing
437:Sailing
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1918:class.
1836:Certes
1741:lumber
1406:barque
1109:Barque
1071:Barque
1056:well."
1035:wail.â
953:heiser
932:Maikel
917:Maikel
575:Seano1
205:scale.
126:Google
1925:Perth
1896:Here.
1785:Ahunt
1749:grain
1745:guano
1729:masts
1640:Ahunt
1559:, or
1555:, or
1369:Ahunt
1365:WP:RS
1361:WP:OR
1340:. An
1302:Mysha
1270:Mysha
1255:Ahunt
1205:Mysha
1172:Mysha
1149:Ssaco
1097:Ssaco
1082:Ssaco
1073:or a
1025:: -->
884:. --
398:Ships
356:Ships
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1970:talk
1957:Done
1941:talk
1863:talk
1840:talk
1789:talk
1781:Like
1765:talk
1731:and
1692:talk
1666:talk
1644:talk
1629:talk
1599:talk
1572:talk
1502:talk
1492:and
1447:talk
1432:talk
1414:talk
1373:talk
1367:. -
1351:talk
1336:and
1318:talk
1274:talk
1259:talk
1253:. -
1240:talk
1176:talk
1153:talk
1117:talk
1107:and
1086:talk
976:talk
957:talk
936:talk
921:talk
890:talk
868:The
843:talk
824:talk
800:talk
785:talk
781:AJim
746:WP:V
706:too?
664:The
645:WP:V
590:talk
547:talk
381:Ship
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1825:Fix
1818:to
1753:ore
1751:or
1338:her
1334:she
1330:the
1276:)
1178:)
1103:,
1077:.
670:Dan
504:Low
303:???
176:TWL
1984::
1972:)
1943:)
1865:)
1842:)
1791:)
1783:-
1767:)
1747:,
1743:,
1694:)
1668:)
1646:)
1631:)
1615:.
1601:)
1574:)
1504:)
1449:)
1434:)
1416:)
1375:)
1353:)
1320:)
1261:)
1242:)
1229:".
1155:)
1119:)
1088:)
978:)
959:)
938:)
923:)
892:)
845:)
826:)
802:)
787:)
592:)
573:.
549:)
335:).
231::
156:)
54:;
1968:(
1939:(
1912:.
1861:(
1838:(
1787:(
1763:(
1690:(
1664:(
1642:(
1627:(
1597:(
1570:(
1500:(
1445:(
1430:(
1412:(
1371:(
1349:(
1316:(
1272:(
1257:(
1238:(
1174:(
1151:(
1115:(
1084:(
974:(
955:(
934:(
919:(
888:(
841:(
822:(
798:(
783:(
588:(
545:(
516:.
482:.
395:.
311:.
211::
172:¡
166:¡
158:¡
151:¡
145:¡
139:¡
133:¡
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
