Talk:Caravel

message: What was a typical speed for a caravel? 
71.162.227.105 (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  INFORMATION 

message: What are the sources for this article??
Input from someone more knowledgeable would be appreciated...
it would be about 35 knots per minutes  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.96.36 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISSUES 

message: :We sailed away on a winter's day
:With fate as malleable as clay
:But ships are fallible, I say
:And the nautical, like all things, fades
:And I can recall our caravel
:A little wicker beetle shell
:With four fine masts, and lateen sails
:Its bearings on Cair Paravel
203.217.150.69 (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  . 

message: There are several recurring issues that seem to be being repeatedly reintroduced in the article. First, ships don't "weigh" a given number of tons, they displace them ... their actual weight is significantly less than their displacement (or they would sink, in fact).  Secondly, a caravel is known primarily by its hull, not its rigging...it can be square rigged or lateen, or a combination of both, depending on the needs of the moment.  Thirdly, the Santa Maria was not a "smaller" ship it its companions; it was larger, and wasn't even a caravel at all in fact (though the Nina and Pinta were).  Fell Gleamingtalk 19:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, displacement, for a ship, is just a more obscure way of meaning weight, as they are exactly the same. The notion that a vessel must weigh less than their displacement, otherwise they would sink, is ridiculous. The fact that a floating vessel remains stable at the surface of water means that its weight and that of the displaced water is exactly the same. Therefore, drawing up a distinction between displacement and weight is completely pedantic, unless one is referring to sunken ships (or to magical flying ships, for that matter).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.210.97.251 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Err, no, this isn't true at all. The displacement of a ship is the maximum rated amount of water the hull will displace -- the weight of the ship and all cargo when fully loaded. The ship itself weighs considerably less, or it would indeed sink the minute the crate of cargo or passenger went on board.   The term is used in a precise manner, it's not simply some "obscure way of saying weight".  Fell Gleamingtalk 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh, the amount of water displaced by a ship must necessarily be the exact same weight as the ship itself. It's physically impossible for a ship to displace more or less water than the ship weighs. What you're talking about is the maximum displacement. Most ship specifications give both their loaded and unloaded displacement. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I know it's six years later, but it didn't seem right that some unsigned ignoramus got the last word. Fell was right about everything. The weight of a ship is basically a constant; add up the weight of all the materials its made of and you get the weight. Maximum displacement is also a constant and it represents the amount of weight the ship can carry, in addition to its own weight, without sinking. Displacement is not a constant, it varies based on how much cargo is aboard and even factors like the type and temperature of the water. An unloaded ship rides high in the water, displacing less of it. A loaded ship rides lower and displaces more. So, when the article says that a ship has "a tonnage of 50 to 160 tons," it's talking about maximum displacement. The ships don't weight 50 to 160 tons any more than a half-ton van weighs a half-ton. The van is rated to carry a half-ton.Pwoodfor (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Issues 

message: I've found a couple of interesting sources for the article. I'll work them in eventually if nobody else does it.
* 
* 
* 
* 
*  (I got a copy via WP:WRE)
*  (ditto)
* 
* 
--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for improving the article 

message: Someone changed all references to Portugal and the Portuguese to "Korea" and the "Koreans" so I reverted it and then did by hand the references that weren't caught by the undo.  Hope I did it correctly.  Grumpy otter (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean Vandalism

message: It seems that there is some controversy as to where the caravel received its name. This is not just an issue on Wikipedia, but rather with all sources documenting the caravel. I found a source that gives some possibilities for the origin, and I'll add them, but before I do, just wanted to get some feedback from the community and/or see if you agree.
"The origin of the name of this type of vessel has elicited at various times considerable divergence of opinion. But the weight of the modern authority is in agreement with M. Jal in ascribing the word to the Greek Kαραβος (a light vessel." 
reference: Henry B. Culver. "The Book of Old Ships." Garden City Publishing Company, INC. 1924, p.91
Spartemis (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that fifteenth-century Portuguese sailors knew Greek, that may be right... But considering that not even today that is the case, I would take such etymologies with a large pinch of salt. The vast majority of Portuguese words that can be traced to a Greek origin were received through Latin. So what would be the Latin, Medieval Latin or Galician-Portuguese equivalent for that term? The truth is there is no evidence of any such Greek (or even more bizarrely Arabic) etymology. As far as we know, "caravella" (or "caravela" in its modern rendition) is a modern term. Strangely most of the authors quoted in wikipedia entries regarding Portuguese haven't got the faintest of the language, but find it feasible for etymologies and historical origins to derive from everywhere else but the language itself. For anyone acquainted with Portuguese both "cara" and "vela" are common words meaning literally "face" and "sail". How the two came to be together to form a word, something like "facesail", is the question that should be asked, along with what that meant for fifteenth-century sailing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.74.192 (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I responded to this same issue above, but since this is specifically about etymology and not design, I'll give it another go. There is controversy about the origin of the word caravel, but it pretty much boils down to either the late latin carabus (which came from the greek), or the arabic qarib (which probably also came from the latin). As for your "strangely" and "bizarrely," words very rarely come from the language itself. Are we to look at a documented history of ships similar to the caravel with names similar to the word caravel in languages that are either the origin of portuguese (latin), or closely related by geography and culture (Muslims ruled portugal only two centuries before the first modern caravels were built and trade continued, so yeah, arabic), and then say "sail-face, I guess they just made it up?" Since this is wikipedia, why don't we go with the sources instead.Pwoodfor (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ETYMOLOGY 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Caravel. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071207154919/http://museu.marinha.pt:80/Museu/Site/PT to http://museu.marinha.pt/museu/site/pt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025015529/http://museu.marinha.pt:80/museu/site/pt/loja/reproducoes/ to http://museu.marinha.pt/Museu/Site/PT/Loja/Reproducoes/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071208022611/http://www.arte.tv:80/de/wissen-entdeckung/abenteuer-arte/Durchbruch-am-Kap-des-Schreckens/1765302.html to http://www.arte.tv/de/wissen-entdeckung/abenteuer-arte/Durchbruch-am-Kap-des-Schreckens/1765302.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) 23:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Caravel. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215014748/http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/navegaport/c06.html to http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/navegaport/c06.html
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) 06:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)