Talk:Rig (sailing)

message: I created graphics from scratch for most of the standard plans in Inkscape. I created them from descriptions and photographs. I did a lot of what amounted to design work, too. ⇝Casito⇝Talk 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hope you love me 

message: Image:Tackling.png is beautiful, but it describes the tackling, that is, the lines used to hold and manipulate the sails rather than the sails themselves. If anybody has a numbered image with a legend for courses, topgallants etc., please put it up. Gaal 09:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needed: sail plan image to replace Image:Tackling.png 

message: Take a minute to read the comments at Talk:Sailing#Re-write effort -- non how-to et seq. Some of us are working on re-organizing the sailing-related articles. See if you agree with our approach and give us some help. Mrees1997 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sailing]] re-organization effort 

message: I need a diagram of a Junk Sail that labels al the diferent parts.
-Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.214.34 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sail Plan diagram 

message: There is some information in the Junk description that seems to be extraneous to the article subject (Sail-Plan).  Namely, that some of the largest sailing ships constructed were Junks, the business about the water-tight holds and .  It's been there since a very early revision [] before a separate Junk article seems to have been created, so I see the reason the information was originally presented in this article.  But now I think it's time for it to go.  
Since it's been present in the article for so long, I wanted to ask before deleting it. Paul Moir (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove information from Junk 

message: I'm not qualified to correct it, but the definition given of a xebec seems to be that of a polacre, and disagrees with the WP page xebec, which speaks largely of polacre-xebecs and suggests that the significance lies in the hull, not the sail plan. Anyone?Czrisher (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it would appear from the caption that a xebec and a felucca are the same thing (if the polacre, described as square at the fore and lanteen at main and mizzen, exchanges her square mast for another lanteen as suggested, she would have three lanteens like the felucca), whereas from what I recall of the life of Thomas Cochrane the xebec that he famously captured (El Gamo) was square on the fore and main and lanteen at the mizzen (like the second picture for a ship rig) - anyone clear this up? 62.196.17.197 (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xebec v. Polacre 

message: I am about to remove the statement, "Some barks (see below) have had as many as twelve masts." To the best of my knowledge, no bark has ever had as many as six masts.  I am open to being educated, but I insist on verifiability. J S Ayer (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many-masted barques 

message: If we are going for thoroughness, we could use descriptions and drawings of a staysail schooner, a three-masted jackass-barque, and a four-masted jackass-barque. J S Ayer (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other rigs 

message: A felucca is defined in the article as having three lateen-rigged masts, but I would suggest that single- and two-masted lateen-rigged coasting vessels in the Med in the 18th and early 19th century were also called feluccas. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article felucca says that a felucca has one or two masts.  I searched for an image of a three-masted felucca, but all I came up with was miniatures.  By the way, is there any difference between a felucca and a xebec? J S Ayer (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feluccas 

message: The Melanesian,  Micronesian and Polynesian proas  and  other  vessels  with  their highly efficient two sparred  crab claw   sail 
(as  distinct from the  less  efficient Lateens) are  a  significant  omission here so  far, considering  the navigational  and   nautical  prowess of  these peoples predating any similar   European   efforts. See "We, the Navigators: The Ancient Art of Landfinding in the Pacific"  by David  Lewis  and "Sail  Performance: Techniques  to Maximise Sail Power"  by  CA   Marchaj  for   references.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcebul (talk • contribs) 04:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proas and  crab claw sails

message: In the article, the definitions of bobstay and martingale have been confused.  The bobstay is the stay beneath the bowsprit which counteracts the pull of the headstays and prevents the bowsprit from lifting. On some vessels twin bobstays were used, angled apart. The martingales (more commonly known on modern yachts as "whisker stays" or whiskers) are the stays at the side of the bowsprit that prevent side-to-side movement. On some vessels the angle of the bobstay is widened by running it under a vertical or near-vertical spar beneath the bowsprit known as the "dolphin striker", which performs the same function for the bowsprit that a "spreader" performs on a mast, and on some vessels "martingale booms" perform a similar function for the martingales.
Actually, details of these components of the rig do not really belong in an article on the sail plan. They should be in a separate article on rigging.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.206.107 (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My research suggests differently, and it appears that a martingale and a dolphin striker are, in fact, the different terms for the same thing, i.e., the vertical spar that holds the lines that counteract the tension created by the jibs.  If you look at the article on dolphin striker you will see what I mean.  Can you provide some citations that support your argument?  I would be glad to see them and see how they compare with those used in the dolphin striker article. Thanks!  KDS4444Talk 13:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bobstay and Martingales 

message: Brig: two masts, both square-rigged with a spanker on the mainmast. They are considered very fast and maneuverable, and can reach speeds of up to 11 knots.
The above statement is entirely inaccurate. A brig of 60 ft (unusually small for this sailplan) at the water line might only get 11knots, a brige of 120 Lwl would get something more like 15 or 16 knots.
Speed has less to do with sailplan as it has to do with hull length...Some hulls that are heavy or very heavy displacement need more sail to push them, but the speed limit so to speak is limited by the hull. You can load more sail on just about any kind of sail plan except catboats and sloops...cutters can load more sail on, but adding more staysails and properly designed for the rig between the jib and the main mast.
Lets remove the reference to absolute speeds.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.124.81 (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed limit of Brig is 11knots? 

message: something like this ... User:Siznax/sandbox
Siznax (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it... KDS444 (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, thanks. I added it. Siznax (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

text: KDS444, I believe that J S Ayer is requesting a diagram of a staysail schooner, if you'd be willing to generate one. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: J S Ayer, it appears that KDS444, who made many of the diagrams in question, has been blocked indefinitely. HopsonRoad (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, HopsonRoad (sniff). J S Ayer (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have a sail-plan gallery? 

message: It says shipped rig were popular "because of high performance on all points of wind".  My understanding, and obvious from observation, is that square rigs were lousy at sailing into wind.  I've never understood why they were ever used at all, especially in unknown waters.  Cannot tack, easy to get blown into rocks and reefs.  And a small boat sailer spends most of their time tacking into wind, as the down wind runs are quick and easy.  Some clarification somewhere would be good.  I have marked it dubious. Tuntable (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding, gained largely from the Hornblower novels, is that big square-riggers are faster running before the wind.  They can tack, though it takes a big crew.  The existing statement should probably be improved. J S Ayer (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Also, ships are more efficient at carrying large cargoes across long distances of open ocean, which is why they were favored for duties like Europe to South America or Australia to Europe. J S Ayer (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the issue is that there were, at any point in time, size limits to fore and aft rigged vessels. These are dictated by the performance characteristics of the sailcloth and rigging available. Other technological considerations come into play with things like mechanical assistance for hoisting large sails. Square rig was much less sensitive to these problems, and so if you wanted a larger ship, you had to choose square rig. That is why you see large schooners come into existence in the closing phases of the age of sail - steam winches, wire rope, etc. These points are well discussed in The Merchant Schooners by Basil Greenhill. Greenhill was a maritime historian who was in charge of the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich in the era when this was a highly respected academic museum. It is also worth pointing out that square rig worked fine when everyone was using it - no-one had a competitive advantage - shippers could tolerate their cargoes being windbound in the Downs (or where-ever). It was the advent of steamships that upset this market equilibrium.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard news, friend, you just explained it better than I did. J S Ayer (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Square rigged into wind 

message: The diagrams in the 'Types of Ships' section are awkwardly placed. They're not actually contained inside their respective list entries, so depending on the type of reader/browser you use it's not immediately obvious if each diagram belongs to the paragraph above it or the one below. I feel like these diagrams should be embedded/floated within their respective paragraphs as part of each list entry, rather than between them. Is there an existing rule in a style guide that governs how images should be placed in this sort of list?
96.237.174.181 (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of no style guide, but your suggestion sounds good.  If you can implement it, I say go for it!  KDS4444Talk 12:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, thanks. I'll take a crack at it then. 108.49.223.195 (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  So.... I did a redesign but it was WAY harder than I was expecting to make it look presentable. Things like 'fully rigged ship' has a huge blob of text and only two images, whereas 'Yawl' has three images and barely two lines, so trying to balance it out is near impossible. This isn't tabular data so I don't want to throw everything in a giant table, but Wiki-markup is very limited when it comes to layout options for images so I'm not sure what to do here. I like the look of Siznax's gallery attempt, but actually implementing that would require removing a lot of text and several images... I'm not sure if that's the right idea. The layout I just put together is still ugly, but less so then is was before... maybe. 108.49.223.195 (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an idea.  I like this proposal so much that I think that it is totally worth cutting out a lot of the current text in order to accommodate it, and I fully support dropping a bunch of the pictures, too (many of which I myself made, so don't expect anyone to take much offense!).  The text describing each sail plan either already exists on the corresponding articles about those plans, or it certainly should— this page should not pretend to be any kind of definitive Wikipedia source on the "catboat", when that job belongs to the article on catboat!  This page should be about the variety of styles of sail plans, and it should do this in a summary way, not in-depth, for each plan.  A picture, a little text; a picture, a little text.  I think this is completely warranted.  If you would like me to take a shot at editing the text of each plan down to its essentials, leaving no more than 2 or possibly 3 sentences for each, and narrowing each plan down to a single picture, if that is really all that is standing in the way of us having the kind of informative, aesthetic arrangement you have proposed, I can totally do that.  KDS4444Talk 19:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Siznax was the one who originally proposed the single-page image array gallery. I think something compact like that arrangement beats the ginormous ugly list that's here now. If nothing else, the main reason for having a gallery in the first place is to quickly compare different plans, and that's hard to do if you have to keep scrolling five miles up and down. The problem with this whole idea is that reducing the images might make things misleading. The Ketch images for example are pretty different, and someone not familiar with the plan may not realize that a ketch1.svg plan is the same class as a ketch2.svg version. I dunno..... are animated-gif slideshows poor taste? I wish there was a markup option that would give you a modern UI lightbox... just have one image/icon to click on and the rest pop out if you want them. The text also needs to be carefully thought out, I'm not sure how you'd reduce the whole brig/brigantine name confusion thing down to a single line. In general I agree that this page shouldn't be more than a summary though. 108.49.223.195 (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is certainly no injunction against gif slideshows, though they are certainly rare enough and I've seen gifs removed from articles in the past as "distracting when all a person wants to do is read the article."  I do agree with you, though, that there is an issue of scale/ size to be considered (and maybe it's even a deal-killer, I am not sure): a ketch is a tiny boat compared to a fully rigged ship, and the current set of images/ diagrams in no way reflects this variation in actual vessel size— I do find that misleading if not incorrect.  We can, of course, change the relative sizes of the actual images, though doing this with any eye towards actual accuracy would be pretty pointless since I don't think we could ever do it (the variation would just be too much).  We could change the images so that each is presented in a more-or-less proportional kind of scale, with the fully rigged ship presented as the largest image and the proa and catboat as the smallest, with no literal scale meant.  Might that work?  Second to lastly, regarding the brig/ brigantine thing: that is exactly the kind of thing that we could leave to the actual articles to explain rather than trying to do so here.  And lastly, I don't know that anyone has ever noticed, but this article essentially contains no references.  Not good ones, anyway.  Wowza. I guess when you are discussing something as old skool as sail plans, people just take the info for granted.  Anyhow, thoughts on these thoughts on your thoughts?  KDS4444Talk 10:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the images should be to scale, we'll end up with a full-rigged that's half the page width and a sunfish that's 15px. Any form of pseudo-scale will just be more confusing. Identical sized images is the way to go, we just need a disclaimer at the top of the list/table/whatever that says "not to scale". If you really want, maybe throw one of those checkered scale bars under each image, or work a statement about relative scale into the descriptions, ie; "XXXX's are small personal boats with....". Re: brig/brigantine/hermaphrodite; that's one of those things that really shouldn't be left out, even out of a summary, as it's a huge source of confusion. This is especially true since the images we have aren't great about consistency showing furled vs unfurled sales- a brig (uk) with a furled square course on the mainmast looks basically the same as a "brig" (us) that doesn't have a square course. Even if people thoroughly read the accompanying text, if they're not already familiar with the terminology (course/gaff/mainsail/topsail/etc) they still won't understand what the difference is. At worst case, another editor who comes along later who isn't aware of the "brig vs brig" issue may delete one of the entries thinking it's a duplicate/layout mistake. In general, the point of this section is to say "these are the common rigs and how to compare them". We can definitely collapse the layout down to something more manageable and prune a lot of the text to facilitate that, but not so much that the section loses it's purpose. 108.49.223.195 (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

text: And yes, the references suck. Some of the referenced pages have obviously changed over the years or gone MIA. I feel like, at least for classical ship rigs, these are effectively word definitions. Can we just reference wiktionary.org? 108.49.223.195 (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Types of Ships" layout cleanup? 

message: An IP user, User:86.80.211.74 has twice inserted an unreferenced paragraph into this article on what that user is calling a "DynaRig".  The DynaRig appears to be a German invention of the 1960s, but it currently has no Wikipedia article of its own and I am not at all certain it belongs here in this article.  I suspect that it is being pushed by someone with a conflict of interest, perhaps someone who works for a company associated with the DynaRig MotorSailer at RunningTideYachts Ltd.  I have left a message on the IP user's talk page, but also wanted to solicit responses here.  Should "DynaRig" be included here in the list of basic sail plans?  What do others think?  KDS4444Talk 12:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for 86.80 or if they have an agenda, but I think it's at least worth considering. It's not entirely/technically true that 'DynaRig' lacks an article- one exists, but it's only for Finnish/Dutch/Russian/Ukranian. The Maltese Falcon (yacht) article also has a section about 'DynaRig', however it appears to be the first and only well-known ship to feature the plan, with all the rest being mainly small pleasure boats. That having been said, just because the ships themselves aren't important doesn't mean information on the sail plan should be ignored. The system is wildly different from normal layouts- it completely lacks rigging and the masts rotate 360 degrees, and it's fairly distinct visually, so there's some justification for interest. A lot of people who are really into sailing are aware of it already, so I'm not convinced that that person tried to add the section purely for promotional reasons (not without other evidence at least). I think the real issue here is ye olde conflict between 'notability' and 'popularity'- in other words, how weird does an uncommon thing have to be before it's worth mentioning? My personal opinion is that it's not hurting anything by including it. 108.49.223.195 (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: All that having been said, I don't 100% agree with where and how they added the information. Maybe it's worth adding a section for "other oddball designs"? 108.49.223.195 (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So I just did some more research on the Dynarig, and it turns out that it looks like it is itself a notable subject, worthy of a standalone article by virtue of having been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources.  So, shut my mouth.  It looks like what AUGHT to be done is that an article should be created first, explaining what such a rig is in detail, and then a paragraph added to this article on sail plans.  Of course, I know this isn't always how it works out, which is why we have redlinks, which is, of course, okay.  I also find I like the idea of having it in a section which is somewhat set apart from the traditional well-known set of sail plans so that readers understand from the beginning that it is a novel and still somewhat experimental design. KDS4444Talk 18:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of section on "DynaRig" by IP user 

message: I have just corrected one factual error in the article (the name of the structure joining a topmast or topgallant mast to the mast underneath is the "trestletree", not a "tabernacle", which is the "hinge" at deck level from which a mast can be lowered to lay flat along the deck). My reference for this change is  Harland, John (1984). Seamanship in the Age of Sail: an account of the shiphandling of the sailing man-of-war 1600-1860, based on contemporary sources. London: Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 978-1-8448-6309-9. I have not put this reference in the article as so much of the article seems of questionable quality that I did not want to make it appear than anything other than this one correction was derived from this source.
On a quick look, this article needs a serious audit for errors and poor explanations.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  One factual error - any more? 

message: Why is it in this article? It should be a simple link, elsewhere, e.g. to rigging. Likewise, there is a Glossary of nautical terms article whose content need not be repeated here. I plan to remove it, unless there is an argument to retain it. HopsonRoad (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: HopsonRoad I agree. This page is getting a bit long, and the rigging section on this page could usefully contribute to developing the Rigging main page. Arrivisto (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rigging section? 

message: Hello! I would like to contribute by mirroring the svg of several riggings so that the bow points to the right. This because general arrangements of ship and yachts are traditionally drawn that way - kind of opposite of what happens with cars that are usually sketched pointing to the left. is there any command I could use to flip the images, or I should download, edit them and reupload them? Cheers
Awambawamb (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest downloading the image and re-uploading as "Imagename-flipped". HopsonRoad (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Flipped images of ships

message: Because Sailing rig and Sailing rigs direct to Rigging, moving this article to either name will require the assistance of an administrator. Hence, I'm seeking consensus that the move is appropriate, per the above discussion. 
The lead sentence would become: "Sailing rigs describe the arrangement of sailing vessels' rig components, including their spars, rigging, and sails."
Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support - That makes sense to me. I also have the "superpowers" to make that move once you feel you have a consensus to do that! - Ahunt (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

text: *Support. As a very minor quibble, the first sentence uses the word "vessels" which might be a problem for land yachts, etc. However, the proposed text is probably the best solution to avoid an over-complicated first sentence. In other words, I cannot think of anything better. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  great, I was hoping you would voice an opinion here one way or the other. I don't think anyone else has expressed any interest. Unless  has any other concerns that we should wait longer, I can just go ahead and move it as "uncontroversial". - Ahunt (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm good with "uncontroversial". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . I have left Sail plan as a redlink, but feel free to redirect it to this article if there is no plan to create a new article at Sail plan. Complaints? - Ahunt (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Ah, an admin has made Sail plan a redirect here to avoid breaking links, but it can always be turned into a future article instead. - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also changed the links in the two navboxes on the page to the new location. - Ahunt (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: and thanks to User:HopsonRoad is once again an article, although a different one than it was. - Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Thanks for these comments, A loose necktie. Perhaps, if you look at the state of the article before the fork, you can suggest a more appropriate outcome. I note that the glossary includes rigging, it doesn't include rig, which it should. They are different terms. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

text: I have suggested adding "rig" to the glossary at Talk:Glossary of nautical terms (M–Z)#Add "rig". I hope that this will help lead to a resolution of the issue. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

text: If "rig" were added to the glossary, then this article could be renamed "Rig (sailing)". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would avoid moving to a new name with brackets in the title. It means that 100% of the time it will have to be pipe-linked. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the need for pipe linking with "Rig (sailing)", now that it is mentioned, I feel it is a better article title. Within the subject, we hear "rig" much more often than "sailing rig", so this is a case of WP:COMMONNAME. Or to put it another way, Wikipedia is meant to be for the benefit of the reader, not the editors who write it. (Yes, I find pipe linking tedious.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not oppose that title if other editors think it is the best we can do, but I would like whomever makes the move to commit to fixing all the (piped) links. - Ahunt (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, if anyone has the patience to read it all, I have made some comments to Talk:Glossary of nautical terms (M–Z)#Add rig ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

text: I find the words, "sailing rig" in only two articles: Gaff rig and Junk rig. In neither case is the combo linked to this article. So, piping doesn't seem to be an issue. Likewise, "sail plan" (the previous title of this article) is linked from only one other article: Full-rigged ship. HopsonRoad (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now a definition of "rig" at Glossary of nautical terms (M–Z)#R, which is linked to this article. I'll change the link, if we rename this article. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Sure that is fine. The title Rig (sailing) is currently not in use, so anyone can make the move. - Ahunt (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Agreed ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move to "Sailing rigs" 

message: Move to "Rig (sailing)", per the above discussion. , , and , do you concur? 
The lead sentence would become: "A sailing vessel's rig is its arrangement of masts, sails and rigging."
Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure that is fine. The title Rig (sailing) is currently not in use, so anyone can make the move. - Ahunt (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Agreed ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move to "Rig (sailing)"

message: I've not been able to give as much thought to this as I would have liked, but it seems to me that the article should first explain that there are fore and aft sails and square sails, then say that there are fore and aft rigs and square rigs. So that is individual sail types first, then a collection of sails that come together to make a rig. (Obviously there are examples of just one sail in a rig, from sailboards through to Viking longships.) 
I don't know if a half-formed thought is of assistance at this stage. Perhaps I am raising this a little too late in the current work. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a good way to do it! - Ahunt (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

text: I'm happy with that approach! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  In trying to implement this idea, I couldn't make it work to my satisfaction. Either only square sails are "square" and all others not, or one categorizes them by shape, which we have done. One could categorize them by whether they are attached to a stay or spar on the leading edge, but this is not what's done in the literature. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  hierarchical explanation 

message: Hi , I was about to harmonize the gallery formats, when I realized that you were editing. I was going to use the following format, which is used in the galleries above your edits:

Filename|Caption
Filename|Caption

IMO, this format makes better use of the page by removing the white space from around the images. Perhaps you could take this on.
Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh sorry, I was transferring part of the text to expand Austronesian vessels. I didn't realize you were editing. I'll leave you to it, I need to eat dinner anyway, heh.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery format