Talk:Watercraft

message: 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)
thread_title: odd comments in odd position

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge

message: 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)
thread_title:  Looking through again .... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  And looking through yet again ....... 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: In the interest of achieving a stable version of the lede without using the supposedly verboten watercrafts, consider this lede change, which comports with my rationale from the talk page discussion above:
:Any vehicle used in or on water as well as underwater, including boats, ships, hovercraft and submarines, is a watercraft, also known as a water vessel or waterborne vessel. A watercraft usually has a propulsive capability (whether by sail, oar, paddle, or engine) and hence is distinct from a simple device, such as a log raft, that merely floats.
Note #1: Such a lede omits watercrafts, which is a red herring objection re RS, since neither this lede nor its predecessors cite any RS in the lede. 
Note #2: The above lede uses "any vehicle" in a singular but enumerable sense. Similarly, watercraft is used in parallel via its enumerable but singular sense, not in its mass sense (i.e., watercraft) or collective sense (i.e., watercrafts).
Note #3: The second sentence of the current lede (as I recently amended it the article) is equivocal. It should have been: "Watercrafts usually have a propulsive capability (whether by sail, oar, paddle, or engine) and hence are distinct from a simple device that merely floats, such as a log raft any simple devices, such as log rafts, that merely float." With that correction, the plural parallelism would have been salient and the misplaced "such as" modifying phrase is remedied. Cheers, all.
Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to throw a spanner in the works, log rafts (and bundle rafts, too) are actually considered to be a type of watercraft, and they do actually have methods of propulsion. These include punting with a pole (in shallow water), paddles and there are some very notable sailing rafts that were used up until modern times. Examples include the seagoing sailing rafts found along the coast of Peru in the 17th century and the ones in modern use in the coastal waters of the Bay of Bengal. These can be quite sophisticated, using dagger-boards inserted at various points along the hull to provide balance and steering. Also consider that drifting with a tide or current is another method of water transportation. These are all discussed in, for example, Early Ships and Seafaring: Water Transport Beyond Europe by Seán McGrail, ISBN: 978 1 47382 559 8 and in The Sea-Craft of Prehistory by Paul Johnstone, ISBN: 978-0415026352. It is important to remember the rafts that are presumed to have been used to populate Australia around 50 to 60 thousand years ago. Of course, their existence can only be deduced from the voyages made and the constructional technology that was then available. Most who work in the field believe that they were propelled by sail. So sailing rafts were probably involved in the populating of a continent. Rafts were probably the only method of transportation on water until boats were developed, and that needed the increased technical ability of the neolithic, even for a logboat (according to current thinking, anyway). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You make some good points. Why don't you work some of that into the article? Please just mind any relevant distinctions re watercraft(s). One other thing: You might want to consider whether the parenthetic text is properly included in the article's assertion that. "However, numerous crafts, such assurfboards (when used as a paddle board), underwater robots, seaplanes and torpedoes, may be considered neither a ship nor a boat." Seems to me that a surfboard qua surfboard is a watercraft regardless. RS, anyone? Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and deleted "(when used as a paddle board)." Whoever disagrees with the edit, no need to rant or ramble. Just revert it. Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No love lost for "watercrafts"? 

message: Are barge, water skis watercraft? Nemohuman (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Barge (as in an unpowered cargo-carrying vessel) - yes, because it is used for transport, even if it needs to be towed. Water skis - no idea, and would need an WP:RS to put anything in the article to say yes or no. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are barge, water skis watercraft?