Talk:Glossary of nautical terms (A–L)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

En Echelon

This meaning is not quite precise, nor is this term exactly nautical. "Echelon formation" simply means a diagonal arrangement. You can read about it here: echelon formation. ViniTheHat (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Searching the web for

"en echelon" naval gun -wiki

turns up plenty of believable hits. While this one, for example is not the Royal Navy, but some historical study institute, still, there are enough of them from various sources to seem credible, and naval. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

punitive devices

Does anyone have any opinion on the removal of all the different iterations of various punitive devices? The cat o' nine tails should stay, I guess, being notable for its naval use. But the rest? ViniTheHat (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ones without reliable sources could stand to be removed, or at least unlinked. A few of the current ones carry the color of wikilinks, to articles without any relevant supporting text. "Starter" is likely worth keeping, as is "rope's end." I seem to remember Dana mentioning a humane captain who frowned on the boatswain "starting" the men. (The quote marks were Dana's, if I remember right.) I think I've seen mention of "rope's end" in such a context as well. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I utterly agree. ViniTheHat (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Bull of Barney

Our article says that this comes from an "obscene" sea legend - but the only reference I can find comes from "Sing a Song o' Shipwreck" (1902) by John Masefield - which doesn't seem obscene in the least:

"It blew like the Bull of Barney, a beast of a breeze,

'N' over the rail come the cold green lollopin' seas,

'N' she went ashore at the dawn on the Ramirez."

I suspect the cause of the confusion is that several books of the time explained the term as "A beast mentioned in an unquotable sea-shanty"...but "unquotable" doesn't necessarily mean "obscene". More likely, the Masefield poem is simply too long to be quoted. I suspect we should correct this entry - but does anyone know better? SteveBaker (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It occurred to me to search for "Barney's bull" - and according to several slang dictionaries (eg [1]), that turns out to be a slang term meaning a worthless person or a worthless or broken thing of any kind...that doesn't seem anything like the usage in the poem. Weird. SteveBaker (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I gotta say, it barely qualifies as a nautical term at all. I would just delete it. ViniTheHat (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have seen it used in a few places - always in the context of describing a storm. But I think I agree. Better no definition than an incorrect one...especially for a term of marginal use. I'll remove it ASAP SteveBaker (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Corinthian

Web searching, I got as far as the history page of The Corinthians. As far as I can see, that is one group of sailing clubs in the Northeast USA. This page's "Corinthian" entry needs some sourcing... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, considering the recent flurry of edits. Wiktionary has this: "An amateur yachtsman who sails his own yacht without a professional skipper." —Diiscool (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary has "(U.S.) Yachting. Amateur. 1885 Harper's Mag. June 83/1 On the yacht of a friend who was fond of sailing Corinthian races." —Diiscool (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Chains

A recent edit added this:

Chains: Small platforms built into the sides of a ship to assist in depth sounding

and link to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chains_(nautical)

And I have a bit of a problem with both this entry's definition and the article it's linked to. The platform being described maybe called "the chains" in the lingo, but are really the chain-wales or channels, which were not built for sounding purposes, but to spread the shrouds. the chain of the chain-wale or channel is a 'chainplate' which is a metal plate with a hole in it, for fastening a chain. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_(sailing).

Does anyone mind if I remove this entry? ViniTheHat (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is impeccably sourced to the Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea which has the definitions 'Chains, a small platform on either side...' and a second separate definition immediately below that: 'Chain-Wales, sometimes known as Chains, wooden projections from the sides of square-rigged ships abreast each mast to carry the chain-plates clear of the gunwale to give the shrouds a wider base...' etc etc. You may add the other definition if you so wish, but don't remove this one. Benea (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

impeccably sourced my ass. ViniTheHat (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please restrict yourself to making valid comments, and refrain from personal attacks. Benea (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Vini, just because you don't have a particular source doesn't mean it's not valid. Benea is correct on both counts; the source is impeccable, and you should not make personal attacks on editors, even if you diagree with their point of view. Mjroots (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine, indeed, pardon me. however, at the very least, the chains, or channels or chain-wales already has an entry, and perhaps Benea should feel free to expand on that definition rather than creating a redundant entry. ViniTheHat (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

CHAINS, properly CHAIN-WALES or CHANNELS. Broad and thick planks projecting horizontally from the ship's outside, to which they are fayed and bolted, abreast of and somewhat behind the masts. They are formed to project the chain- plate, and give the lower rigging greater outrig or spread, free from the topsides of the ship, thus affording greater security and support to the masts, as well as to prevent the shrouds from damaging the gunwale, or being hurt by rubbing against it. Of course they are respectively designated fore, main and mizen. They are now discontinued in many ships, the eyes being secured to the timber-heads, and frequently within the gunwale to the stringers or lower shelf-pieces above the water-way.-In the chains, applies to the leadsman who stands on the channels between two shrouds to heave the hand-lead.

From "Sailor's Word Book" by Admiral W H Smyth revised by Vice Admiral Sir E Belcher 1867 reprinted Conway Maritime Press 1991.

--Nick Green (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Gutenberg EBook of The Sailor's Word-Book

--Nick Green (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick. Do you have an opinion on the current entry for chains being "Small platforms built into the sides of a ship to assist in depth sounding"? ViniTheHat (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have never disputed the accuracy of the above definition. The Oxford Companion contains both definitions, as I stated at the very beginning. Why must there only be one definition for every term? For example the definition of 'pay off' is given here, correctly, as 'to let a vessel's head fall off from the wind'. But the other nautical definition, the closing of the accounts of a ship at the end of a voyage or commission and the paying the balance of the wages owed to sailors and officers, and the related definition of placing a warship into the ordinary after a period of active service, is currently missing. One term. More than one definition. Smyth's work adds another source for one, it does not disprove the other. Benea (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Because 'pay off' in that sense is not a specifically nautical term. ViniTheHat (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just a reader of nautical fiction, used to sail when I was younger but I was looking up "chains" and came across what I thought was half the story. It seemed that adopting the "In the" chains might help you resolve matters- but clearly the primary role of the chains is fixing the shrouds with the secondary role as a platform for the leadsman. Beware of just saying "sounding" insofar as it might imply a mounting for an echo sounder. I trust there are some professional seaman amongst you who know about current practce. Eg I never heard anyone speak of a "brow" in Liverpool Merc' usage: any plank from jetty to ship was a gang plank or even gangway. There are likely differences in usage between military and merchant never mind regional usage. But all very interesting. I wish you all well.--Nick Green (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Aariya, Gripe, Hebeyst?

I've been coming back to this list every few months for well over two years as a sort of nautical-related writing/reading aide, and have noticed these entries added between now and the second to last time I came. Something about that first one seemed off, so I poked around online a bit ... While gripe does seem to be a type of wire line, and a derrick is a lift used at docks, I couldn't find sources that would at all support these three word/definition pairs as they are. They're all added by the same IP user and strike me as vandalism, but I don't feel I know nearly enough to make a call. Anyone with more familiarity have an opinion? Liashi (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed "aariya" and "hebeyst". I couldn't find anything relevant through Google or Google Books. Unfortunately, for "hebeyst" there is now a proliferation of mirror sites using the Wikipedia article. —Diiscool (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Material v. materiel

- I've noticed on a couple of nautically-related pages, material copy edited into materiel when it referred to military equipages.

- The Navy and Marine Corps at the time of my service and throughout my reading in primary and secondary WWII sources shows a consistent usage of material from the British naval tradition.

- When I worked for a defense contractor with people of multi-service backgrounds, they would spell check u.s. government contracts to change material and materiel back and forth as it passed from desk to desk. Acquaintances at the Pentagon in the 1960s and 1990s assure me that the same phenomenon persisted among those in uniform.

- At Wikipedia when the subject is British, British English is used, when it is American, American English is used. When the subject is nautical, the usage in the article should be nautical, in nautical cases, material not materiel. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Task Force

The definition for Task Force is taken from the article, used in another definition on the glossary page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Comprise

- Using primary and secondary sources researching the Bombardment of Cherbourg, I used "task force comprised of ship A, ship B, ... ship H" as I found it in my reading, and as I have heard it used professionally and personally for over 50 years in the naval services.

- Over a year ago it was replaced by composed by a wiki-editor who is an accomplished linguist. The research and his final conclusion ALLOWING the use of comprised for combat task forces is found at Talk:Bombardment of Cherbourg in two sections, along with extensive external links, including to his wiki-essay, which also has a talk page which we used over the course of two months. Truly one of the best wiki experiences I've ever had.

- I add comprise to the glossary since it has a distinctive nautical and naval history usage which is easily misunderstood outside its specialized application to task forces. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"Comprise" does not have a "distinctive nautical and naval history usage". The way you have defined it is not particular to nautical or military applications. That is the definition. I'm removing it from the glossary. —Diiscool (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

- (1) I have defined it particularly to nautical and military applications in the naval task force for combat, and cautioned against using it in military usage for contracts, logistics and tables of equipment. Please explain how that can be confusing to you, perhaps in a proposed edit of the definition? It is a first draft -- you certainly are welcome to improve it.

- (2) I have found it EXCLUSIVELY used in proper usage as it relates to a particular nautical or military application at (a) Morison, Samuel Eliot. History of United States naval operations in World War II, Vol. 11, “The invasion of France and Germany: 1944-1945” ISBN 978-0-252-07062-4, p. 200, and (b) in Rosco, Theodore. “United States destroyer operations in World War II. 1953. ISBN 0-87021-726-7, pp. 361-362. You are welcome to show where "comprise" is properly used PREPONDERATELY in other than distinctive nautical and naval usage.

- (3) Several wikipedians make a hobby of scanning through articles to revert thousands of comprised terms into composed. Clearly there is a need for a central source of clarification. If the term would NOT useful in the Glossary, why would 'comprised of' as properly used, be reverted at 'Bombardment of Cherbourg'? Clearly there is need for a source of clarification. I did not think it VANDALISM. I had thought that they were merely unfamiliar with a particular nautical or military application, and in need of a Glossary of nautical terms.

- (4) In the heat of the campus anti-war sixties, 53% of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel found this usage of ‘comprised of’ unacceptable -- perhaps due to its WWII warrior usage. In 1996, only 35% objected. And last year, the linguist Bryan Henderson -- who as 'Giraffedata' reverted thousands of comprise uses -- said, "So yes, I support 'The task force once comprised the USS Laffey, Cory, Reuben James and Bainbridge.' … 'The division comprises destroyers also works for me, as long as there is nothing in the division that isn't a destroyer." -- this, to make exception to his general guideline FORBIDDING comprise usage in non-naval-military contexts found at his Essay on “comprised of” -- because its proper usage is largely confined to a particular nautical or military application. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Draft #2 -- draft #3 -- following Diiscool critique - focus on what is particular to nautical or military applications, more concise.

Comprise

To include or contain: As applied to naval task forces, the listing of all assigned units for a single transient purpose (mission). “The Task Force is comprised of Ship A, Ship B, and Ship C.” ‘Comprise’ means exhaustive inclusion -- there aren't any other parts to the task force, and each ship has a permanent squadron existence independent of the task force.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

- At mid-20th century, Marine Corps doctrine held that the fundamental tactical unit was the battalion -- so in an amphibious task force under the commander, task force (CTF) there might be both -- Ships A, B, C -- and Battalion X. The Battalion might be augmented X(+) or have detachments X(-), but the battalion was the unit of independent existence outside of the task force -- for the purposes of its 'comprised of' exhaustive unit enumeration to the CTF.

- Any wiki-editor help here to extend the definition outside WWII naval task forces to include 21st century amphibious task forces with battalions?

- If not, I'd like to go with what I've got since I could use a consensus reference on this page for drive-by reverting editors on the use of comprise as it applies to WWII naval task forces. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Posted to article 21 November, Draft-4 -- follows Diiscool critique of draft-1:

Comprise

To include or contain: As applied to a naval task force, the listing of all assigned units for a single transient purpose (mission). “The Task Force is comprised of Ship A, Ship B, and Ship C.” ‘Comprise’ means exhaustive inclusion -- there aren't any other parts to the task force, and each ship has a permanent squadron existence, independent of the task force.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You somewhat confused my opinion on "to comprise" in relation to groups of ships. I said I accept "the task force comprised the ships" (a sentence in the past tense), and "the task force comprises the ships" (present tense), but not "the task force is comprised of the ships" for any meaning. Your definition of comprise is excellent, but the example you give does not conform to that definition! (Substitute the word "included" or "contained" for "comprised" and you'll see what I mean). I have modified the example to conform: "The task force comprises Ship A, Ship B, and Ship C."

Bryan Henderson (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again -- and as I say -- I dare not use it outside military-temporary-combat contexts, because even after excellent tutoring and considerable thought over a year of my adult life, I find 'comprise' terribly difficult to wield in its proper usage -- as you can see. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Abaft the beam

The way I understand it, this term is used for relative bearings of objects or features not on board, and does not refer to the after half of the ship. For example: "Tack when the buoy is a point abaft the beam." Not knowing for 100% sure, I won't just go and fix it... anybody? __ Just plain Bill 03:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Four weeks later, no comment. Fixed it. __ Just plain Bill 23:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. This term can be found in rules of sailboat racing. Once another boat is no longer "abaft the beam", it is no longer considered the overtaking vessel but becomes the windward or leeward vessel and must obey the rules that apply to those positions.66.9.59.210 20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The term 'abaft the beam' is just a description of location relative to the aspect of a particular ship, and can refer to objects on the ship itself as well as apart from it. Refer to the International Rules for the Prevention of Collision at Sea; the description of the arc of visibility of, for example, the sidelights is from right forward to 22.5 degrees abaft the beam; this refers to a part of the vessel. A vessel is considered an overtaking vessel when coming up from more than 22.5 degrees abaft the beam. The IRPCS is a pivotal operational and legal document that sets out internationally accepted definitions of nautical terms, so I think that answers the question. Gigacannon (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Years between replies, but still, that interpretation is incorrect. Visibility of sidelights has to do with an observer not on the vessel in question. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Cat o'Nine Tails

The claim that the phrase '...to swing a cat' derives from this is apparently wrong. The BBCtv programme QI claims that the phrase is recorded 40 years before the first use of the term 'Cat o'Nine Tails'. Bugsysiegel71 (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Top timbers / top-timbers

An entry is missing here. It's a timber in a wood frame. Goes with floors and futocks. Could someone enter it here, please. There are pages that could be linked. (see Clinker (boat building) for example) Thks.--99.11.160.111 (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Amazing Article!!!

This article was VERY helpful to me while working on a Geography project for school. Thank you for the amazing article!!!HttydFan95 (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)HttydFan95

Ratlines

The short definition for "Ratlines" in the glossary is incorrect, although the definition that it links to is correct. The ratlines are not "rope ladders". They are the rope rungs of a ladder that incorporates the shrouds. There is no single name for the ladder that is constructed by fastening ratlines between the shrouds of a ship.

RichardPeteSharp (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Better? Rwessel (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Table of Contents

This article needs one. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Its there. Displays horizontally, not the usual vertical. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There is, however, the problem that "Further reading" does not hyperlink directly to "Further reading in nautical dictionaries and encyclopædias" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem that "Further reading" does not hyperlink directly to "Further reading in nautical dictionaries and encyclopædias" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The {{CompactTOC8}} template, whilst it allows for a further=yes parameter, will only link to the Further reading section if it's called "Further reading" - "Further Reading", "Further reading in...", "Additional reading" etc. won't trigger the link in the template. The solution is either to rewrite the template syntax for this page only (above my pay grade, I'm afraid) or just rename the Further reading section to match other articles. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Problem solved. Thanks.

 Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)