Talk:Steamboat

message: I listed Steamboat, Steamship, and Paddle steamer, as well as the redirect Steamer on the Wikipedia:Duplicate articles page. I think that the first 2 terms are interchangeable based on the "What links here" lists, and although paddle steamer is ok as a separate article, there's some overlap with what's in the other 2 articles. I think there shd be only steamboat or steamship but not both.  But I'm not a ship-boat expert, so I'm not going to decide or attempt to merge the text appropriately. Elf | Talk 05:25, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that Paddle steamer should definitely be retained as a separate article. -- Decumanus 05:29, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I was the one who did the steamship/steamboat merge. I kept the steamboat page and redirected steamship as steamboat was then the more complete page. There's a fair bit about the big boats in the lower half of the page. Perhaps some heading would help... Zeimusu 01:35, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)
nowhere here for seagoing steamers.. edit ocean steamship title?  Also, how about lake and loch steamers - SS Sir Walter Scott still going, PS Maid of the Loch under restoration. I changed the SS Explorer to trawler, as the last of the clyde sludge boats is now operating cruises (out of southhamption?), but can't remeber her name (Gardyloo?). Also note that nuke subs are steam turbine boats, albeit with nuke heating ystems - dave souza 10:10, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Early comments

message: While I'm not uninterested in oceangoing types, shouldn't paddle steamer include river & lake types? For instance, Walk in the Water, on the Buffalo-Detroit route, first steamer on the Great Lakes.  Trekphiler 12:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As in Steamboat#River steamboats and Steamboat#Lake, loch, estuary and sea-going steamers ? ...dave souza 00:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Steamer classes

message: For Steam Yachts see C. Dawson (August 2006). "Thomas Assheton Smith's Steam Yachts". The Mariners Mirror 92 (3): p. 331.  
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam yacht".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OMINOREG (talk • contribs) 15:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: great idea, please add such a section. ...dave souza 00:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about steam launches? 

message: The proposed merger with paddle steamers looks pretty stale, with no consensus to merge, so I propose removing the tags.....dave souza 00:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: removed as discussed. ..dave souza, talk 00:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unpopular merge

message: While I don't want to reopen the Sirius/Savannah debate, I do question "Great Western was the first purpose-built steamship to initiate regularly scheduled trans-Atlantic crossings, starting in 1838." I've always heard Cunard's Britannia began this service  4 July 1840.  Trekphiler 02:57 & 03:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who's on first?

message: this diff seems a bit promotionaly to me. 's only two contributions are to link to this ship here and at steam engine. I would not go so far as to say linkspam but it does seem off. I think I will revert it from steam engine. ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delphine 

message: The article never talks about steamships/steamboats under sail. So I'd like to start out with the question "What is the right term for them?" (partly because I'd like to introduce their own category on the Commons)... and then ask anyone who may have more knowledge to include them in the article. Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steamships/steamboats under sail? 

message: The following line was added in good faith to the lede; however, it does not belong there and I cannot easily fit it in elsewhere...
::Steam boats provided faster water transpertation during the US period of expansion. 
Ideas? -- EdJogg (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: The first steamboats generally fitted sail, even if it was only a simple square sail, because the early steam engines were unreliable. There was no special term for them: the earliest were most often called steam packets, packet being the word previously used for the sailing packets. I have even seen the old term barge used for those plying on East Englian waters of England. It seemed odd that “Élise” appeared under North America, so I have erased that there and placed a new item where I think it should appear, with special care in quoting the correct dates. She was ex. "Marjorie" or "Margery" and had the distinction of being the first steamboat to cross the English Channel, in April 1816, having previously plied down from the East coast of Scotland. Probably the first sea-going steamboat was p.s. "Thames", ex "Argyle", which plied the route from Glasgow on 22 May 1815 to London via Lands End. (Fred Hawks, World Ship Society CD, Issue 2, 2010.)OMINOREG (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text moved from article 

message: This article gives a pretty comprehensive overview of steamboats, as well as the technology involved in their creation. Beginning with the invention of the first steam pump, it details the innovations and improvements that later lead to the commercialization of the steamboat, also mentioning the impact it had on American society in the 19th century. The article is fairly well written and full of relevant pictures and diagrams. The references could be a little better though; about half are from the last two decades, while the others date much further back.
Some problems with the article have already been pointed out by other users, mainly the distinction between steamboats and steamships. This article merges both together, while separate articles, or a name change, would likely be more helpful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-10lwack (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique 

message: I'm concerned that, particularly with some recent changes, the focus here is moving from steam boats to steam ships, when there's a better place for such to be covered. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is pretty random and has lots of questionable material; also, I very much agree we need a separate article on steamships. I've been thinking of writing one for a long time but haven't got around to it yet. But sooner or later it will have to be done. Gatoclass (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's extremely short-sighted to have steamships as a tag-a-long afterthought on the end of the steamboats article. The topic is so large and complex that I don't see why it doesn't have it's own article as inland waterways and oceans are two different spheres of operation. I'm surprised that steamship enthusiasts have allowed the situation to persist. You must realize that many millions of people have traveled across oceans on steamships, on adventures, as emigrants, and as crews. Trade would come to a halt even today without steamships. A little respect, please.  B^)  Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much on steamships? 

message: The objections to this article don't seem to be either new or very critical.  Calling in on the objection to the sources are "half are from the last two decades, while the others date much further back" doesn't really point out a problem.  I fail to see how that in itself makes the sources in need of improvement.  The discussion over the separation between steamboats and steamships is a concern that was raised in the comments, but there was never any discussion on what the separation would look like and whether there would contributions to both, neither, or one and if you were going to do the separation yourself.  There is also a lack of length and an apparent lack of effort.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-10bbelsing (talk • contribs) 19:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  critique of critique 

message: I don't see much at all in this article devoted to military steamships. Sure, there are references to the Lusitania, and steam-powered civilian/merchant vessels being attacked by U-Boats, but there is just about nothing here on actual military ships powered by steam. I have added a note that the Battle of the Yalu River was the first naval battle between steamship fleets (despite the name of the battle, it was fought out on the sea, beyond the mouth of the river), but I'm no naval historian, nor a modern historian, and I don't really have the resources to do anything much more wit that.
A friendly request to please expand. Cheers. LordAmeth (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steamships in War 

message: This article is very much focused on North America. What about Europe? Rusland? Asia? I am sure there there is a lot to tell about steam boats on those continents as well. The Thames section is a wp:COATRACK and should probably be removed all together. Yoenit (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Globalization isn't the worst problem, confusing steamships and steamboats is. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  So? If a steamship article is written this article still needs globalization. I fail to see how the two problems are related or why you would bring it up. Yoenit (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your proposal to "globalize" an article with a US bias was to remove the UK content, so I thought I'd best start with the simple stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that is not what I tried to say. The Thames section is not actually about Thames steamboats, it is about a specific ship called the SL Nuneham. As such it is a wp:COATRACK and the current content should be removed or split into a separate article. This is unrelated to the globalize issue, for which the obvious solution is to expand the article with sections on other continents. Unfortunately I do not have sources to do so myself, which I why I tagged it and left this message. Yoenit (talk)
Yes, but the main reason why this article focuses on Europe, and North America is, because they were the ones that invented the first one, and it was Europe, and North America that mainly focused on it especially for the immigrant trade. Asia, and many other places did have steamboats, but few of them used it for passenger trade. They mainly focused on the military use of the vessel. See the Japanese Imperial Navy for that information.--Trulystand700 (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged with globalize 

message: I don't speak Russian.   Evidently Charles Baird introduced steamships to Russia, and an early steam ship may be named after him the Берд Чарльз.  This appears to be a link to the Elivestia "Елизавета" .  Maybe someone with minimal Russian language skills can add to the article.  Charles Baird also has a Russian WP article under his name Берд Чарльз. Geo8rge (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Russian steamships. 

message: An image used in this article, File:PS Brittania.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:PS Brittania.JPG)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:PS Brittania.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, File:PS William Fawcett.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:PS William Fawcett.JPG)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:PS William Fawcett.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: Added image to lead, thinking a gallery would hold these two images, an Idea strikes me to incorporate a gallery of typical steam powered vessels, into a dissambiguation page or hatnote.
The title steam boat makes me think of Mark Twain. If this article is a WikiProject of a maritime nature, then boats and ships or two entirely different beasts of purpose. Let's also add the global aspects of nomenclature, slang and other indiginous dialects, and utilize m:Meta-Babel language and interwiki linking to the Wiki Foundation Projects. Maritime is as old as Philosophy and other Ancient Histories, Sciences, et. al. and the classification and/or categorization of this article into the bigger scheme would be a boon to the project. 
In conclusion, the reason for my edits and input stem from the Meta-Wiki article Create room O=MC4 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  S.S. Humbolt engine room 

message: :Steamboat →  – 'Steamship', is the more common usage. Vessels that run under steam are typically designated with an 'SS' which stands for 'Steamship' not steamboat. Don't know of any steam powered vessel that has an  'SB' designation before its name. Most vessels that were powered by steam were large vessels, ships, not boats. 'Steamboat' should be a secondary theme to this page, esp since the various navies of the world had steamships overall, not boats, and as such there are far many more articles about the many different steamships than there are for 'boats'. Also, this page gives way too much weight and attention to 'riverboats' to which there is already a dedicated article for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The un-merge is trivial. Just cut and paste most of the article to  with the edit summary "copied from Steamboat", then edit both articles to make them make sense. No move is needed. Apteva (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

text: The redirect is not standing in the way. A redirect is simply an edit to an article. Just edit it away. Just go to  and click edit. But use an edit summary to show where the material copied came from. Apteva (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know, already done.  I just was making the point that eliminating a redirect would be involved. I have already recreated the page and will begin a rewrite, adding a needed section about the initial development of steamship, etc. There are numerous uncited statements to be dealt with also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Steamships v steamboats

message: The articles were un-merged. The problem is that steamship facts remain entangled in this steamboat article. On one hand steamboats die out nearly at the beginning of the 20th century, but seem to show some reincarnation in Liberty Ships? Steamships, of course, followed steamboats, and the history of the US as a dominant world power depends on Steamships, not steamboats! I'm not offering to write a superior article which includes both named (what?) Steam powered vessels? Then trying (once more) to rm steamships from here. The latter is mandatory but needs some article which shows the smooth transition. This is jerky because it contains some of both, but not enough for enlightenment. Student7 (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Sequel

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Steamboat's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Thomson 2009":
From Steam engine: 
From Oliver Evans: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I folded this information into the two references to Thomson 2009 in Steamboat SesquiZed (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Steamboat]] 

message: This page has too many citations that are just an author's last name and a publication year.  They don't help you find the source. Hopefully when I look at similar articles, I can track down the missing information.  Help! SesquiZed (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely vague citations 

message: It seems that since there is an article on Steam ship, that the plural variation of the same term ought to direct to that page, not this one. Steam boats are not the same thing as steam ships. One is a large vessel, one is small..45Colt 10:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I agree but I can't see how to correct it. How does one edit an article that automatically redirects you? --Roly (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been fixed now. If you search for "Steam ships" you now get redirected to Steamship but, because of the redirect it says "redirected from Steam Ships" underneath the page title. If you click on this, you get to the page "Steam ships" and can then look at the coding that makes the redirect - and the edit history to see who did it.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "Steam ships" redirect here? 

message: I read "a twin screw-driven steamboat in juxtaposition to the Clermont's Boulton and Watt engine" in the "19th century" section.  I cannot make sense of this.  "Juxtaposition" can't be the right word.  Is "contrast" the right meaning?  If so, what is the contrast between "twin screw-driven" and "Boulton and Watt"?  None.  This needs to be rewritten by someone who understands it.  Zaslav (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing text 

message: I reverted the restoration of a comma by Dhtwiki.  Here is the text:  "The boat was built by John Allan, and the engine by the Carron Company." (with comma), or "The boat was built by John Allan and the engine by the Carron Company." (without comma).  There are two clauses in this sentence, one about the boat and one about the engine.  The two clauses share the verb phrase "was built".  Since there is not a sequence of three or more clauses, there should be no separating comma.   
Dhtwiki says "not two items, two independent clauses, the second abridged".  The clauses are not independent because they share the verb.  If they were truly independent they would need two separate verbs (and a separating semicolon, not a comma) and they would be separable into two sentences.  The "abridgment" here is clearly because of the shared verb; otherwise it is simply ungrammatical, as in "The boat was built by John Allan.  The engine by the Carron Company."
There is a third grammatically correct alternative:  ""The boat was built by John Allan, the engine by the Carron Company."  If Dhtwiki likes that I am happy with it.  Zaslav (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: I know he beat Fulton by at least a decade, while yes his design was not feasible for mass production it was still before Fulton and was a successful attempt. 
Xeracross (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't James Rumsey mentioned? 

message: I removed the date as it is obviously wrong. James Watt himself did not produce a working steam engine with his improvements until 1765. Further Watt's first engine barely worked. It was not until 1773 that Watt was producing practical engines. The reference given for 1763 is from 1910, and much historical research has been completed in the 112 years since then. Nick Beeson (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1763