Talk:List of longest wooden ships

message: I believe they found a 15 ft rudder post stern, and by modern calculations, that would place the ships over 350+ feet. And there were surviving documents that referred to the treasure ship flagships at 400 feet. Also, I added info regarding the treasure ships, and moved the Noah's ark ship.
intranetusa 15:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zheng He

message: Shall we put Noah's Ark in the unconfirmed largest ships????  Orangemarlin 04:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is ordered right now roughly shortest to longest. But if you think another order would be better, then we can try it.--Filll 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.  I added a ship right next to the other Swedish one.  I'll have to place it correctly.  Orangemarlin 04:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Time for bed.  However, I didn't know about the Lead vs. Introduction thing.  I'll work on it in the morning, if you don't.  This is becoming a nice article.  I actually visited the Vasa museum in Stockholm a couple of times.  The ship is amazing, but from today's knowledge, it was obvious that it was going to sink.  But what a work of 17th century engineering.  Orangemarlin 06:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  5th February 2007 

message: === Title of the article -> List ===
Congrats to this interesting subject. Suggestion: rename the article 'List of largest wooden ships' or 'List of wooden ships by size' as this will include your page in the corresponding category, leading people easier to this article. Regards Gun Powder Ma 18:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok OM, which do you prefer? I do not really care personally.--Filll 20:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the former, but only by a narrow margin.  I don't care either, really.  Orangemarlin 22:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be one of those "Did you know" articles.  How do we get it nominated?  I read the rules, and typical of Wikipedia, I have no clue what the right way to do it.  I wish there were just buttons here and there to do things.  Orangemarlin 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured the best way to learn is just to try it. So I nominated it at Template talk:Did you know as you can see. I do not know its chances, or if I did it correctly or not.--Filll 00:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops.  I didn't read this, so if we're using the bowsprit, let's reference it on the table.  By the way, it looks nice.Orangemarlin 19:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I am currently semiofficially using total length including bowsprit, although I might not be totally consistent. We could also get tonnage of various kinds (one type of tonnage is a volume measurement I found out) for many of these. To start with, I just figured I would go with length since that is fairly easy to get for most and understandable. Then as it develops, we could add more information in footnotes or other columns in the table, etc.--Filll 19:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject of the article 

message: Congrats to this interesting subject. Suggestion: rename the article 'List of largest wooden ships' or 'List of wooden ships by size' as this will include your page in the corresponding category, leading people easier to this article. Regards Gun Powder Ma 18:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok OM, which do you prefer? I do not really care personally.--Filll 20:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the former, but only by a narrow margin.  I don't care either, really.  Orangemarlin 22:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be one of those "Did you know" articles.  How do we get it nominated?  I read the rules, and typical of Wikipedia, I have no clue what the right way to do it.  I wish there were just buttons here and there to do things.  Orangemarlin 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured the best way to learn is just to try it. So I nominated it at Template talk:Did you know as you can see. I do not know its chances, or if I did it correctly or not.--Filll 00:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops.  I didn't read this, so if we're using the bowsprit, let's reference it on the table.  By the way, it looks nice.Orangemarlin 19:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of the article -> List 

message: I know we are using the Length to be the determinative factor for "largest wooden ship", but it brings to mind a couple of issues.  How do we define length--do we use the bowsprit or a jib?  And is length the best factor, or could it be some other measurement?  I personally think we should stick with length, but let's define what we mean in a footnote to the table.  Of course, let's make sure every entry uses that measurement.  Orangemarlin 19:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am currently semiofficially using total length including bowsprit, although I might not be totally consistent. We could also get tonnage of various kinds (one type of tonnage is a volume measurement I found out) for many of these. To start with, I just figured I would go with length since that is fairly easy to get for most and understandable. Then as it develops, we could add more information in footnotes or other columns in the table, etc.--Filll 19:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of ship 

message: === Table ===
I propose you put your material in a list. There are two types of lists:
- For individual ships: HMS Shannon (1875)
- For lists: List of world's largest domes 
Gun Powder Ma 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a preliminary table. Other criterias may be added like 'keel length', 'beam', 'home harbour', 'builder', etc. Gun Powder Ma 13:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not. But there has to be obviously a list ordering the ships by a definite criteria. Also, that "separate list" should be closely on-topic, that is concentrating on things in close connection with the length & size of the ships, since the ships as such are already discussed at other places. Regards Gun Powder Ma 15:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe a 3rd category is appropriate? We have 1 category for ships for which we have great records, photos, archaeological evidence etc. I put those as confirmed. We have one category for those which are really sort of doubtful. Maybe an intermediate category, those which are supported by serious scholarship but no archaeological evidence? It is hard for me to judge a 2500 year old claim for a ship when there is just a written text. On the other hand, there was a large rudder found in one of the Zheng He shipyards apparently. What I find a bit disconcerting about that story is that the Chinese were not particularly seafaring. It is very different to pilot a craft close to shore or in a river than it is to go across thousands of miles of open ocean. And the claim is that with minimal deep water experience, they set out with a force of 30,000+ sailors and hundreds of ships or more, some big enough to have little farms on them, growing crops, with animals on them being tended so that no sailors would have to eat strange food in strange lands? And in one fell swoop, from smallish junks plying rivers and local waters to wooden craft bigger than have ever been produced even to this date, even with advanced materials and computer modeling ? And then the technology just vanishes into thin air after a few years? It seems AWFULLY hard to swallow. Possible, but seems like a very low probability event.--Filll 01:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a bit of history of why we did these articles.  There is a claim amongst biblical literalists that Noah's Ark is literally true based on Genesis.  And to defend their point, they claim that there have been ships built as large as the Ark.  The Treasure Ship is a myth that supports the myth (yeah Creationists do this all the time).  I started with writing the article on the Wyoming, since it really proves that building a boat that big is impossible.  Filll started the new article.  We need to point out ships that have no evidence of existence.  Vasa is proven.  The Treasure Ships--not so much.  Orangemarlin 01:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: I propose you put your material in a list. There are two types of lists:
- For individual ships: HMS Shannon (1875)
- For lists: List of world's largest domes 
Gun Powder Ma 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a preliminary table. Other criterias may be added like 'keel length', 'beam', 'home harbour', 'builder', etc. Gun Powder Ma 13:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not. But there has to be obviously a list ordering the ships by a definite criteria. Also, that "separate list" should be closely on-topic, that is concentrating on things in close connection with the length & size of the ships, since the ships as such are already discussed at other places. Regards Gun Powder Ma 15:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: I find the classification useful when it comes to distinguishing between modern (and many late medieval) ships on the one hand and ancient vessels on the other hand. But, then again, to classify ships like the Isis or the Syracusia on which quite a considerable amount of serious scholarship has been spent in the same breath with Zheng He's Alice Wonderland 400 ft Treasures ships does not do justice to the former. I find the current solution unsatisfying. Gun Powder Ma 01:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a 3rd category is appropriate? We have 1 category for ships for which we have great records, photos, archaeological evidence etc. I put those as confirmed. We have one category for those which are really sort of doubtful. Maybe an intermediate category, those which are supported by serious scholarship but no archaeological evidence? It is hard for me to judge a 2500 year old claim for a ship when there is just a written text. On the other hand, there was a large rudder found in one of the Zheng He shipyards apparently. What I find a bit disconcerting about that story is that the Chinese were not particularly seafaring. It is very different to pilot a craft close to shore or in a river than it is to go across thousands of miles of open ocean. And the claim is that with minimal deep water experience, they set out with a force of 30,000+ sailors and hundreds of ships or more, some big enough to have little farms on them, growing crops, with animals on them being tended so that no sailors would have to eat strange food in strange lands? And in one fell swoop, from smallish junks plying rivers and local waters to wooden craft bigger than have ever been produced even to this date, even with advanced materials and computer modeling ? And then the technology just vanishes into thin air after a few years? It seems AWFULLY hard to swallow. Possible, but seems like a very low probability event.--Filll 01:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a bit of history of why we did these articles.  There is a claim amongst biblical literalists that Noah's Ark is literally true based on Genesis.  And to defend their point, they claim that there have been ships built as large as the Ark.  The Treasure Ship is a myth that supports the myth (yeah Creationists do this all the time).  I started with writing the article on the Wyoming, since it really proves that building a boat that big is impossible.  Filll started the new article.  We need to point out ships that have no evidence of existence.  Vasa is proven.  The Treasure Ships--not so much.  Orangemarlin 01:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmed - unconfirmed dichotomy 

message: I have added a third category. I suggest all ships that seem a bit difficult to believe be in the last category. I suggest all ships that seem credible, but with weaker evidence, go in the 2nd category. And all confirmed ships go in the first category. And based on what I read about the Great Michael, it definitely belongs in the 3rd category.--Filll 04:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Three divisions

message: === In ===
For large wooden ancient ships check out Syracusia (Greek) and Isis (Roman). For those in the MA, see Grace Dieu. Gun Powder Ma 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They all appear to have steel hulls. I did look however. I might have missed one, so if anyone finds one of these with a wooden hull, then lets see it and put it in.--Filll 19:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer: smaller. See French ship Orient (1791) for instance.--Filll 22:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok I guess I will take it out. I sort of liked it because it comes up when you search for "world's largest wooden ship" on some search engines, but then I found out it had a steel hull. And if we include it, we will have to include a huge number of other hybrid metal-wood ships, and it is hard to know where to draw the line.--Filll 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Another source--Filll 02:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entries 

message: For large wooden ancient ships check out Syracusia (Greek) and Isis (Roman). For those in the MA, see Grace Dieu. Gun Powder Ma 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They all appear to have steel hulls. I did look however. I might have missed one, so if anyone finds one of these with a wooden hull, then lets see it and put it in.--Filll 19:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In 

message: #add HMS Colossus (1787)?? How big was it compared to other ships of that time?
:::Answer: smaller. See French ship Orient (1791) for instance.--Filll 22:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential to do 

message: France II: I propose that we delete this entry, since it really isn't a wood ship.  Orangemarlin 19:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I guess I will take it out. I sort of liked it because it comes up when you search for "world's largest wooden ship" on some search engines, but then I found out it had a steel hull. And if we include it, we will have to include a huge number of other hybrid metal-wood ships, and it is hard to know where to draw the line.--Filll 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out 

message: * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filll (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another source--Filll 02:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other sources 

message: === an irrelevant but huge planned ship ===
Take a look at this puppy: Freedom Ship--Filll 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  Of course all the creationists will now claim that Noah could do it to.  Orangemarlin 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous 

message: Take a look at this puppy: Freedom Ship--Filll 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  Of course all the creationists will now claim that Noah could do it to.  Orangemarlin 01:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  an irrelevant but huge planned ship 

message: I don't mind splitting up the ships into the three sections, but I really don't like the first table.  Not readable, especially with all the extra information in a list below.  I'd vote to have it back to the old table. IMHO.  Orangemarlin 07:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You didnt find the big list in the right hand column difficult? And the strangely sized boxes in the table?--Filll 13:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the old table gave the reader a better general idea. I used that format for this voluminous list: Spread of printing and I think it works. :-) Gun Powder Ma 17:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that would work, although I'm not a fan of footnotes.  Maybe some of the text in the boxes could be placed in a footnote.  Let's see how it looks.  Orangemarlin 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not liking the new format 

message: As an experiment, I trimmed down the text part of the section  Other claimed large wooden ships and made the font smaller, and slipped more material into the footnotes. Comments?--Filll 05:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to fix the spacing, and to make the comment section as succinct as possible, with very mixed results so far.--Filll 17:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better.  I wish that coding of Wiki was easier.  I'm impressed at how you do all of this.  Orangemarlin 17:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I forgot to add a comment when I edited, but I reformatted the table.  It took a bit of experimenting to get it right, but it looks right now.  The table was a bit wider than the rest of the page, and it required scrolling side to side to read it.  I think it works better now.  Orangemarlin 06:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experiment 

message: I don't know anything about the veracity or lack thereof of the various size claims of Zheng He's treasure ships. But the description of the treasure ships as is seems to cast undue doubt. Doesn't the caveat "...but there is no solid evidence for this, and these claims are disputed" apply to all of the last three ships? If anything, it seems like it should apply to the last two more so. Surely the size of the treasure ships is not more doubtful than Noah's Ark? Or the Tessarakonteres, which seems to be described by only a single author a thousand years earlier? -- bcasterline • talk 16:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right of course.  All three ships are probably mythological, although if I were to order them in probability of maybe being true, the Treasure Ships would be first and Noah's Ark would be dead last, bordering on impossible.  I'll rework the language.  Orangemarlin 16:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Very interesting list, by the way; good job to those involved. :) -- bcasterline • talk 17:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re treasure ships 

message: I just saw an ad for this program:  [Ancient Discoveries--Superships] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs) 07:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Channel Program 

message: I have found two new potential entries. I know the list may now be regarded as, say, doing its job, but I believe the two new entries can further strengthen the notion that lengthes of 60-75 meters were widely deemed by pre-19th century shipwrights as the practical upper limit of wooden vessels:
* Grosser Adler von Lübeck (Great Eagle of Lubeck) of 1565: 64 m long, 14 m wide
* Vettor Fausto's Venetian Quinquereme, 75 m long, 10 m wide, 300 cannon
Who has more information on them? Regards Gun Powder Ma 14:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should add this information to the list.  If you have references, that would be great.  Orangemarlin 15:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Grosser Adler von Lübeck of 1565 is the sister ship by the danish warship Fortuna on 2100 tons and a crew on 1159 man. The two ships was the biggest warships in 1565-1604. But all information is on danish and swedish. Fortuna and Grosser Adler von Lübeck had three decks with cannons. The ships was bulid in the Nordic Seven War 1563-1570, but come not in sea battle i 1568-1570.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.161.226 (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two new candidates 

message: I notice that someone has removed Noah's Ark again which I have reintroduced. Please do not remove Noah's Ark. Noah's Ark might be mythological and basically nonsensical, but my feeling is that all wooden ships over 400 feet in length are a bit much to swallow. Unless people hundreds or thousands of years ago knew some secrets of ship building that we know longer know, with all our expertise in materials and naval architecture and numerical analysis etc, then I think that all accounts of ships longer than 400 feet are nonsense. In fact, all wooden ships longer than 300 feet in length probably are mythical as well. I therefore have rearranged the list accordingly.--Filll 19:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rearranging the list

message: Gentlemen, since you've put so much effort into this subject, and are doubtless by now Wikipedia's ersident experts on Big Boats for Boys, could I ask you to take a look at the Noah's Ark article and update it where appropriate? It curently says that the Wyoming was the largest (meaning longest) wooden ship ever built, but it seems from your list that this might not be true (although the margin of difference is pretty slim). Please note that I'm not asking for a paragraph or two on the subject, just for the word "Wyoming" to be changed for whatever really was the largest wooden ship. (Please note also that wooden means all-wooden-hull - no metal keelsons etc etc). PiCo 14:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My candidate is Caligula's Giant Ship, which was measured at 104 meters when its remains were found. However, I will point out that we do not have much information on its sea-worthiness.--Filll 14:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Caligula's ship could be mentioned in a footnote; but for the body of the article I'd like to have the name of a well-documented wooden ship that went to sea and withstood waves and storms and all the other stresses of an Ark-like voyage. (The Wyoming didn't do too badly actually - it sailed the seas for several years before foundering). PiCo 15:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Expert on Big Boats for Boys??? LOL.  I liked the Wyoming as an example, because there are modern records, it was built with modern techniques and equipment (and it still leaked and sank), and by itself, it's a great story.  Other large ships are just too mythical to be used.  It would be like confirming a myth with a myth.  But, I get your point.  We need a good one with some documentation that didn't use modern shipbuilding techniques. Orangemarlin 16:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noah's Ark (the article, not the ship) 

message: I've fixed the link for the reference, but I'm not happy with it as it really should be an archaeological one.  Plus, it says ' it is believed that she had been used in the transport of the enormous obelisk from Egypt" and that isn't good enough for Wikipedia standards. Plus, the obelisk was 105 1/2 feet long, so it didn't need such a huge barge.  And now this is being argued as evidence that the Ark was seaworthy!--Doug Weller (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We did have in one of these articles a naval architect do a very detailed analysis of the Zeng He ship dimensions and the Noah's Ark dimensions, and come to the conclusion that they were highly unstable. Unfortunately, this material was deleted as OR by assorted POV pushers. It can probably be found in good sources, but I did not get around to digging for it. River barges prove little about sea-going ships that have to stay afloat for the better part of a year in a huge storm.--Filll (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caligula's giant barge 

message: The Central Pacific Railroad designed and built a train ferry powered by double walking beam engines in 1879 christened the Solano. This ferry crossed the Carquinez Strait between Benicia and Port Costa, California. By 1914 the Solano was getting so overwhelmed with transferring trains on the Southern Pacific Railroad route between Sacramento CA and Oakland CA that an additional ferry, the Contra Costa, was designed and built by the Southern Pacific Railroad and placed in service at the same location. Both ferries were double-ended side-wheel steamers. Both were decommissioned in November, 1930. 
The newer Contra Costa was slightly longer that the Solano by 13 feet. The Contra Costa was 433' long with a 116' beam and grossed at 5373 tons. 
The Solano was 420' long with a beam of 118' and grossed at 3459 tons. 
(Port Costa 1879-1941: A Saga of Sails, Sacks and Rails, Dick Murdock, 1977, Murdock-Endom Publications)
Both ferries were all-wooden construction except that the Contra Costa did have steel pilot house bridges. For some reason neither ferry made the "Largest wooden Ship" list. Is there any particular reason for that?
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SolanoFerry (talk • contribs) 05:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solano & Contra Costa Train Ferries 

message: I´m sorry, but I´ve seen this article and I´m amaze that it does not mention the Santísima Trinidad, the spanish main ship in the battle of Trafalgar. I don´t know its measurements, but I´m sure of one thing, it was larger than the HMS Victory. Please, respect History and respect the truth. The Santisima Trinidad was larger than the Victory, so... how can you put the Victory in this list and not the Santísima Trinidad ? How can you "forget" the largest ship in the battle of Trafalgar?
I add: Not including the Santísima Trinidad rests quality to this article. It was the flagship of the Armada at the end of the XVIII - beginning of the XIX century, with a lenght of 61,3 m. It lies now on the sea bottom near Cádiz, and there is a replica in Malaga. For long time it was the biggest vessel in the world, not only in size, but in number of decks (4!!) and number of guns (120 initially, converted to 136, and at some moment 140. 
I know how easy is to fall int the "anglocentrism" of history, but, hey guys, the supremacy of the Spanish Armada lasted for longer than the Royal Navy, and in this list is absolutely ignored.
Regards  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.189.46.155 (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it's added! Najro (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santísima Trinidad 

message: An article on the SS President appeared in DYK today. It mentions a wooden hull. Can this be added to the list? -Freekee (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SS_President 

message: Isn't Kobenhaven a steel hulled ship?  It says in the article "five-masted steel auxiliary barque". which I would think means the hull was made of steel - if you say something is a five-masted xxxx barque, the xxxx usually refers to the material the hull is made from.  
In addition, the Wikepedia article on Kobenhaven mentions steel partitions in the holds, which also implies a steel hull. And the fact that the Kobenhaven Wikipedia article says it was one of the finest sailing ship of the time implies it wasn't a wood hull ship - all other wood hull ships of that length were not noted as "fine sailor", but rather the contrary.   05:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree so I will remove it.  All the successful large sailing ships built in the early 20'th century were steel hulls.Eregli bob (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kobenhaven not a wood hull ship? 

message: What about the Derzhava (yacht) - she was almost 95 m in length, much larger then many of the ships mentioned in the article, and wasn't a river/lake barge or the like, but a sea-going vessel. It had oak frame braced with iron, and mahogany + larch hull (source, in Russian).  95.79.218.181 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Derzhava ? 

message: I took it out as no respectable biblical scholar thinks it's real. But if you want to keep it, create a new table of mythical vessels (you can put the Dawn Treader in there as well). PiCo (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, the original purpose in putting in here was to create a link that shows how impossible of a size Noah's Ark would be.  Most of the ships >100M in length sank!  However, I don't think it would be useful to create a long list of mythical ships.  Not sure what the Dawn Treader is, but we could go crazy, I suppose.  The article was started just to blow up the Noah's Ark myth, then it grew into something larger and more informative.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noah's ark 

message: I just removed one that is 31m long - that seems just too short, but what do others think? Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long does a ship have to be to be on this list? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on List of longest wooden ships. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://eraoftheclipperships.com/page42web7.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.mit.edu/museum/exhibitions/clippership2.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://museum.gov.ns.ca/mma/AtoZ/WDLawr.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deutsche-museumswerft.de/projekt00.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091013221811/http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/ships.pdf to http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/readings/ships.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160424144513/http://www.chinapage.com/zhenghe.html to http://www.chinapage.com/zhenghe.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ancientegyptmagazine.com/boats23.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of longest wooden ships. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deutsche-museumswerft.de/projekt00.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017033410/http://www.vasamuseet.se/en/The-Ship/Vasa-in-numbers/ to http://www.vasamuseet.se/en/The-Ship/Vasa-in-numbers/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm a bit new to writing on Wikipedia, so please forgive me. I felt that the article did a really poor job at recognising all the few big wooden ships that are still sailing. It is not easy to make such a dream come true. So I added a whole bunch of new ships to the list. I also think there should be more than just western ships, though they are the biggest. Therefore the size limit should not be too low. What do you think? The list is getting big though, so it should probably split up...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kantamana (talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ships and replicas 

message: What is the Minotaur class doing here? According to the article, these ships were ironclads - there is no mention of wooden hulls. , can you be of any assistance here? Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't belong here as they were iron-hulled ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minotaur class 

message: The French ship Bretagne is mentioned twice, once with a length of 120 metres, then with a length of 81 metres. Both entries refer to the same ship from 1855, but there's no evidence for the larger dimensions in the linked article. Should the larger entry be removed? 2A02:8109:A4C0:44F8:AC2A:6808:86E9:9D32 (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bretagne mentioned twice?