Talk:Brig

message: I came here off the Wikipedia:Most wanted stubs page, made additions and destubbed the article. I had User:Beland check the work and he removed the stub class rating that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history had on this talk page and reccommended that I request they classify it. If it has areas that need to be improved or are missing I hope they will list them here after their review is done.--Wowaconia 16:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs to be reviewed by Military history WikiProject

message: Text removed from brigantine:
Brig redirects here, for an alternate use see: Brig, Switzerland
The target article does not exist. Suggest adding
This article is about the sailing vessel. For the town in Switzerland, see Brig, Switzerland.
if and when it does (assuming it's a town). Andrewa 17:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Brig, Switzerland?

message: All the sources I'm seeing are saying that to be a brig both sails must be square not as the current article says "at least one". I think the modern usage takes precedence and its not as modern as you might think because I found a LOC ref to a brig George Washington had and they say that at that time 1774 there was already a common distinction between Brig and Brigantine. I'm going to change this if I find historical usage that indicates that at one point a ship could be a brig with just one square sail I'll note it in a historical perspective segment.--Wowaconia 01:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Must have two square sails to be a brig. 

message: I don't think these articles should be merged, while the brig evolved from the brigantine they had seperate histories after that and to try and weave them together into one article would confuse the reader. When these articles were both small that might have made sense, but I think this article can now stand on its own and perhaps the brigantine article should be cleaned up and expanded.--Wowaconia 18:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Were ships converted between brig and brigantine rigs with any frequency? If not, I don't think a merge is called for. -- Akb4 20:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On merging 

message: Just looking over the article, I would say expanding the introduction and adding an infobox should be enough to move this up to "B class" status.  For now I still think it is a "Start-class". Cheers--Looper5920 19:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: I alphabetized the list of brigs. Removing the Mary Celeste, as the painting on her page makes clear that she was a brigantine. Chrono would likely be a better order than alpha, but I wasn't quite up for that. -- Akb4 20:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: list of brigs

message: Sorry, my English is very bad. I hope, you'll nevertheless understand me.
What you describe is no Brig, it" a Brigantine:
Brig has both masts full square-sail-rigged!
Brigantine is different in having main mast full or partetly fore-and-aft sail rigged.
That this is not only my opinion and aswell not based on different definitions in engl. or german did show me aswell your own article Brigantine: 
:::is a principally fore-and-aft rig with a square rigged foremast, <BR>as opposed to a brig which is square rigged on both masts.
So of course aswell the Lady Washington is no brig, but brigantine and her foto is here wrong. As wrong as the whole infobox: Place of origin is not Mediterranean - might be Atlantik, might be Chanal. Weight, length and crews are nonsens, brigs are only specyfied on their rigg: if you'll build tomorrow a 100-m-2-mast-square-rigged ship, it will aswell be a brig.
Please, change these misstakes, before no-sailors will begin to lough.
--Skipper Michael 18:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NO Brig, Brigantine 

message: Am finding conflicting info regarding the use of Brig Unicorn from St. Lucia and its appearances in Pirates of the Caribbean.  It's being marketed on various St Lucia websites and elsewhere as being the Black Pearl in at least the first film (and with appearances as other ships in the other 2 films).  The official unofficial PotC website Keep to the Code said that the brig played a different role in the movie (at least in the discussion forums).   If someone can shed some light if they know more and update both this page with the Unicorn's participation as well as adding it to the appropriate PotC / Black Pearl page, that would be swell. SpikeJones 20:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brig Unicorn = PotC's "Black Pearl"? 

message: How'd the transition get made from brig to military prison, etymologically speaking? Probably relevant here, innit? MrZaiustalk 13:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --Wowaconia 23:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Military prison

message: InternetMeme moved the article Brig to Brig (ship).  This move needs to be reverted immediately for the following reasons:
*The move was made while a discussion was in progress on the subject of a similar move requested by InternetMeme, the consensus of which was against any move
*The primary meaning (according to every dictionary I can find) is the sailing vessel, and according to our own rules, that means the article should be entitled Brig without any disambiguation
*Disambiguating Brig as Brig (ship) is technically perverse, since one of the vessels that a brig is not, in a technical sense, is a ship
*Most importantly there are now upwards of 1500 links to Brig that are in context of a two-masted square-rigged sailing vessel, but which now link (via a redirect) to a disambiguation page.
This move requires an admin, since the article Brig (ship) cannot be moved straight back to Brig without Brig being deleted first.  Please can we go back to the (correct) previous naming conventions as soon as possible. Shem (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that a simple revert (but leaving a redir) is helpful at this stage. No significant history at target. Done. Andrewa (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

text: But see above for a formal proposal to reinstate it. Andrewa (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert this move

message: That is one sexy photo! ViniTheHat (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brig Niagara 

message: Well, how typical for Americans to forget about us once again.
In this article there the World's one of most famous brigs, Russian brig "Mercury" wasn't mentioned by even couple of words! In those battle in 1829 those Russian brig "Mercury" (armed with 18 light guns) had against 2 line battleships (flagman and vice-flagman, 90 and 120 guns each by Turkish data) of Ottoman Empire, Russian brig fatally damaged both of them, demanding Turkish ships to lie down on the drift, and then escaped. Nobody couldn't believe in this until Ottoman side confirmed the fact. 
See for brig "Mercury" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_brig_Mercury  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troske (talk • contribs) 07:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Russia 

message: The following is a usefull diagram to show the different two masted vessels rigging plans, in relation to their classicifaction.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ship_Rigging_differences_in_schematic_view.png  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refundpolitics (talk • contribs) 14:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usefull Diagram 

message: The Section
:Development of the brig
:(...) "that the sails, being smaller and more numerous, are more easily managed, and require fewer men or 'hands' to work them."
is in contradiction with:
:Historic usage
:(...) They were replaced in commercial traffic by gaffsail schooners (which needed fewer personnel)
Let me explain why: The difference between a Brig and a Brigantine is in the mainsail. A brig has a square-rigged mainsail, while the Brigantine had a fore-and-aft rigged mainsail. This fore-and-aft mainsail was identical to that of a gaff rigged schooner (at the time, bermuda rigged schooners did not yet exist). It is my understanding that square sails needed more man to handle than fore-and-aft sails (I don't have a source ready, but will see if I can find a credible one). So while the second quote is correct, the first one is really odd.
The information in the Development of the brig section has on the Ocean as a source. This very source also fails to note the difference between cutters and sloops (at the linked page); so it may not be the best source nautical correct information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.54.197 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  article is self-contradicting 

message: Please see Talk:Sail-plan#Brig and Brigantine. --62.19.46.1 (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brig and Brigantine 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Brig. 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  tag to http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/VC/visitor_info/quiz/ship.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301112328/http://freespace.virgin.net:80/r.cadwalader/maritime/era/fleetwin.htm to http://freespace.virgin.net/r.cadwalader/maritime/era/fleetwin.htm#topfleetwing
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626195143/http://www.tallships.org/document.asp?cat=693&doc=6823 to http://www.tallships.org/document.asp?cat=693&doc=6823
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101228161737/http://museum.gov.ns.ca/mma/AtoZ/rigs.html to http://museum.gov.ns.ca/mma/AtoZ/rigs.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101228161737/http://museum.gov.ns.ca/mma/AtoZ/rigs.html to http://museum.gov.ns.ca/mma/AtoZ/rigs.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Brig. 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.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/VC/visitor_info/quiz/ship.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425050927/http://www.texasnavy.com/History/General/19th_Century_Nautical_Glossary.pdf to http://www.texasnavy.com/History/General/19th_Century_Nautical_Glossary.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070912133014/http://www.mariner.org/exploration/index.php?type=shiptype&id=3 to http://www.mariner.org/exploration/index.php?type=shiptype&id=3
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) 19:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The term "Weight" in the info box is meaningless. The term should be "Tons burthen", and the measurement is volumetric with respect to the cargo capacity. The measure of burthen was Builder's Old Measurement, usually abbreviated "bm".Acad Ronin (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight

message: (1) Use of RM Ballantyne as a reference is questionable. What special knowledge does he have of the subject? There are other sources out there.(2) The omission of the collier brigs that served the North Sea coast of the UK is quite surprising. The article is generally very light on merchant vessels of this type.May add more to this list on further study. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: (3)The references for this article include:Teacher's Guide for teaching a history class and setting various tasks for students.A scuba diving site that has some information about wrecks. (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS?)R. M. Ballantyne - as above.A glossary put together for the website for the Texas NaviesEssentially, the article is based on whatever can be found on the internet, with little consideration for the level of expertise that the website operator might have in the subject. There is only one book listed, written by Howard I. Chapelle and it looks as though he has been quoted out of context (I believe he was talking about the multi-masted schooners - but I do not have a copy to hand at the moment). There are ample books on maritime history, written by authors with significant credentials. That should be the reference base for much of the article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article deficiencies