Talk:East Indiaman

message: In the table of East Indiamen, what does "Class" mean? So far none of the entries have been assigned a class so should we keep it? Dabbler 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Class?

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#
# Support as nom. FiggyBee 02:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, but I always feel like I'm being presumptuous if I claim something as non-controversial. :) FiggyBee 00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #
# Support as nom. FiggyBee 02:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, but I always feel like I'm being presumptuous if I claim something as non-controversial. :) FiggyBee 00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: There were other East Indian companies other than the British one, all had  armed merchantmen, either retitle this article to something like "British East indiaman" or be less protectective in allowing material about those other companies ships to be included in this article. KTo288 (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason why this article should not include East Indiamen of other countries too, especially as the British East India Company is covered in its own article.  Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

text: There at least should be a linkable section here for large East Indies merchantmen of any flag. Dutch, Portugese?. Also having trouble trying to find an article re. Guineaman. Corella (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Other companies

message: An image used in this article, File:East india company's packet swallow.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:East india company's packet swallow.JPG)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:East india company's packet swallow.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, File:East Indiaman Earl Balcarras.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:East Indiaman Earl Balcarras.JPG)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:East Indiaman Earl Balcarras.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: Friendship of Salem is labeled as a replica of the East Indiaman Friendship (1787) of Salem, but I think it a case of using "East Indiaman" loosely. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friendship of Salem 

message: The list is not the list of all East Indiamen that sailed, right? What are the features of those selected for inclusion? The list needs a better title to indicate how they were selected. For now, I am adding Examples of Indiamen until the reason for putting a ship in the list is clearer. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better title for list of ships -- how are they selected? 

message: I deleted a line in the lead that has no explanation in the article about the ships not being owned by the East India Company. For Britain, the company gained an exclusive right to the trade in 1600, but it is not clear who owned the ships if the Company did not own them. This section of the article on the British East India Company, East India Company#Establishments in Britain suggests that the company did own the ships, and had exclusive shipyards in England. If there is some other source explaining the ownership of the ships, and if it varied by nation, that would be a good source for this article.  --Prairieplant (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who owned the ships? 

message: This article is horrible. No, really. It's really bad. I suspect that a ship sailing in the year 1600 would be different from one in 1700 or 1800. I'd expect an article about a particular type of ship would include specifications for the things. You know, things like displacement, length, number of (main) masts, crew size, average speed, year built, voyages, etc. All we learn reading this article (as well as the "Ships" section of the HEIC article is which ships were bought by the Royal Navy (and how they wrecked). Come on.207.155.85.22 (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the length of the ship and its tonnage, when known. Number of masts?  - - Prairieplant (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  awful