Talk:List of clipper ships

Key sentence not make sense

'Among other characteristics which define a clipper is that they were usually ships in the strictest sense of the word'. This does not make sense. Please could someone more knowledgeable that I rewrite it or define 'ship' in this context.

TransControl, you need to read the entire paragraph to get the sense of what is meant by this. "Ship" means (in this context) Full-rigged ship - so that's with square rig on all 3 masts. The more general uses of the word make this somewhat opaque.

Additionally, I think it is confusing to emphasise that clippers were fully rigged ships. Whilst most were, it is not a defining characteristic of a "clipper" - and certainly was not used in that way when clippers were commonly found in trade. If you look at old newspapers, for instance, you can find adverts for passages in a "clipper brig" - so that is a smaller vessel, but designed for fast sailing. The emphasis on "clipper ships" tends to be from those writing about the American vessels of this type - most famous for sailing from the East Coast to California. These were quite different from the tea clippers that sailed from (mostly) London or Liverpool to China. And both are very different from the Opium Clippers, which were operated in Chinese waters by Europeans and some Americans. A notable example of an Opium Clipper was the Hellas, a former "fruit schooner", 2 masted with fore and aft rig on both but some square rig on the foremast as well (the usual situation with schooners of this era). Many Opium Clippers were schooners or brigantines. And then we have the Baltimore Clipper - confusingly not really called "clippers" in their lifetime, but certainly given that name afterwards. They were schooners. The developer of this list was presumably influenced by the American part of the story and has inserted the word "ships" to limit the list just to that part of the overall picture,

Welcome to the world of nautical terminology, where so many words have 2 different meanings and some experts seem completely unaware of both of them. Essentially, a "clipper" is a sailing vessel built for speed. Yes, this article does need some attention. I would need to dig out some good quality references to do this, and have a backlog of other Wikipedia projects right now. I'll come back to this in a while if the problem is still there.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Non fiction

I removed a fictional entity; it's pretty clear this list is appropriate for actual historical ships. -- Brianhe (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Change of format proposal

In the current layout, the info seems to be very compact and makes reading a bit difficult. Wouldn't it be better to display this list in table format?
Regards, DPdH (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I am converting the list into table format for easier viewership. The articles in themselves are valuable, in no way does placing basic info in a table impede a reader's ability to enjoy a hard worked upon article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Clippers in which Joseph Conrad also served

The article Joseph Conrad's career at sea mentions (besides Torrens) these additional clippers in which he served:

Duke of Sutherland, Loch Etive, Annie Frost, Riversdale, Narcissus, Tilkhurst

These aren't currently in the list. I don't have any idea of their notability (apart from Narcissus being used as the eponymous title of Conrad's novella, The Nigger of the 'Narcissus') or details of their histories. Cheers. Bahudhara (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Note 1: I recommend adding another column to the table, such as "Remarks" or something similar... I digged a lot of info on those less notable clippers from all over the abyss of the Internet and will hate to see it go... Note 2: Agree with the last remark by Bahudhara that it is not a list and that how we can determine which clipper is worth being added...Don't have a solution. Advise to keep everything in and let in the remarks section acknowledge any worthiness of the particular clipper... Cheers mates --/k8 20:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding "Remarks" opens up original research additions that may be purely trivial in nature. We have Template:Efn which allows notes to be added to the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Types of "clippers"

Before going forward, a discussion should be had in regards to what organization the list should have. Namely...what types of clippers are there, and how should they be organized? Here are some types of clippers I came across:

By location

Aberdeen clipper

Baltimore Clipper

California clipper (Category:California clippers)

By hull design

Composite clipper

Iron hulled (clipper)

By size?

Extreme clipper

Medium clipper

By cargo

Opium clipper

Tea clipper

[[Immigrant

Are some of these terms used by sources? There is confusion in the articles themselves regarding this issue as some label x clipper in up to 3 different ways. Some examples of this can be found at Challenger (clipper), and Lammermuir (1856 clipper). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

See "Ann McKim deletion" below for why Baltimore clippers don't belong on this list. Craigthebirder (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The list needs a good explanation for the reader of what is "in" and what is "out". The general reader with a small amount of knowledge could otherwise easily reach the conclusion that Wikipedia was full of nonsense.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Above comment refers to whether a Baltimore Clipper is included.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

More generally, I think categorisation might be a recipe for confusion, as many vessels would be in more than one category. I also question the degree of wide acceptance of some of the terms offered. For instance: there is a widely accepted concept of the "Aberdeen bow" (which was the major British introduction of finer lines, rather than the old bluff-bowed ships, where buoyancy forward was needed to support the weight of the foremast). However, I don't think there is any particular identity as an "Aberdeen clipper", any more than there would be for a Sunderland-built, Whitehaven-built, Clyde-built, London-built or any of the other places where these vessels originated.

Then we consider that many clippers started with one sort of cargo and then had a career with another. Cutty Sark is the obvious one. being built for the tea trade and being successful with wool. The tea trade was carried out with wood, composite and iron ships - but also some were somewhat transitional between wood and composite, such as the record breaking (85 days claimed from China to Liverpool), but usually ignored, Scawfell, which was built with iron knees, but otherwise of wood.

"Extreme clipper" is more a term about the hull lines rather than the size. It does not seem to be applied by British contemporary writers, though you could point at excessively fine hulls in: Serica, Ariel (which was presumed fatally pooped due to the lack of buoyancy aft), Scawfell (which was still carrying 50 tons of permanent iron ballast when lost in general trade in 1880 - indicating that she was unstable without it - most other clippers got rid of their ballast so as to carry more cargo once in general trade). I note that the occurrence of the term "extreme clipper" in the British Newspaper Archive is relatively low: 212 instances in the entire archive. Searching for just "clipper" obviously picks up other uses, but there are 51,398 hits in the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette - and I think we can presume that virtually all refer to sailing ships.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that the articles are already broken down into categories of clippers. If one fits more than one category then we could always go with the one that is more relevant, otherwise we should delete the categories as they just cause confusion. Do you have any other suggestions though? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with scrapping the "Category" column - there's no firm definition for "extreme" or "medium" and mixing cargo (tea clipper) with shape/size categories probably increases confusion. I would go further and combine the "Clipper" and "Extreme clipper" tables into one. Craigthebirder (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

We could do that, but I am not a big fan of having a excessively long table in the article. Would making sub-headers with tables by date or country of origin be better? I just want to note as well that List of American-Built Extreme Clipper Ships and List of extreme clippers redirects here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to track down a decent reference for usage of the term "extreme clipper". I question its application to a number of ships in the list, and I have yet to detect a good quality reference for any of them. I note one (frustratingly I have not noted which!) where the reference was simply the online index of a book - no clue as to what the actual content of the book said. From my point of view, there is more work to do on this subject.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I can tell seeing how many articles label ships incorrectly. For now, would anyone object to the removal of the categories on the list and reorganization by subheader (with tables) for date or origin? By date would look something like this: List of oldest surviving ships. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitely lose the category column. I still think alphabetical is the best sequence. Though not universal, many tables are ordered by their first column. Craigthebirder (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand the alpha order argument, the reason why I didn't do it this way is because of the table size. Its now easier to organize them by launch date or by area of origin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ann McKim deletion

I deleted Ann McKim (clipper) from this list because she was a Baltimore clipper, not a true clipper in the generally accepted sense of the term. Her article describes several features, such as a rounded keel and the shape of her bow, that are different from those of true clippers. True clippers are ships sensu stricto, being square rigged on all masts. The model shows Ann McKim to have been fore-and-aft rigged, making her a topsail schooner. I quote from the Ann McKim article: "On the same note: the terms Baltimore clipper and clipper ship should not be confused. The former term is refereed to the clippers with a displacement between 50 and 200 tons built in Chesapeake Bay in the late 18th century and the latter is to the much larger clippers of the 1840s from New York with a displacement often ten times of what was the Baltimore clippers." And from schooner: "Square topsail schooner: includes square topsails.[12] A version with raked masts, called the Baltimore Clipper was popular in the early 1800s." Craigthebirder (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay good, this will help develop a list criteria on what to include versus not to include. Are there any other ships that wouldn't be classified as clippers? For the record I know little about this topic so think of me as the average reader. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately the word "ship" is commonly used for any large seagoing vessel. But in its strictest sense, which should be the usage in this list, it is a sailing vessel of at least three masts, all of which are fully square rigged. Other sailing vessels commonly called ships are brigs, brigantines, barques, barquentines, and schooners. Quickly scanning through the illustrations, it looks like Fiery Cross (clipper) and Lothair (clipper) don't belong, as their mizzen masts are fore-and-aft rigged which makes them barques. I'll try to write a suggested lead section for the list making the criteria clear (and put it here for comments before putting it in the list itself) but it might be a few days before I can. Craigthebirder (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks! If you remove entries I encourage you to tag the articles as well that incorrectly make reference to the ship as a "clipper". Just by reading though, it looks like some of the entries were converted into other types of ships during their careers. In those cases I would go by what the ship was most notable as. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Fiery Cross was certainly built as a Full-rigged ship. She was reduced to barque in later years when carrying more general cargo. MacGregor discusses her rig in some detail on pages 120-121 and there is even a contemporary technical diagram of her rig (with very spidery handwriting). This happened to most of the tea clippers that survived beyond the peak of the clipper era. Similarly, Lothair (clipper) was built as a ship, but, being a survivor, was re-rigged as a barque (pg 213-216 of the same ref). You need to take great care on this point - very few sailing vesselsclippers were built in the "clipper ship era" as barques - there definitely were some, but not many. The best source for determining the rig of British registered ships is the Lloyd's Register archive[1] (though the computer-based search usually does not work - but the books are in alphabetical order, so fairly easy, if slow, to look up a vessel). From this you see that Lothair was listed as a barque in 1889-90 (when the clipper ship era was pretty much over), but was a ship in, for instance, 1873-74.
forgot to sign this - ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I will dig deep before making deletions. (Please sign your further contributions.) Craigthebirder (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Lammermuir not an extreme clipper

I question Lammermuir's status as an "extreme clipper". Neither MacGregor, nor Andrew Shewan (whose father was captain of Lammermuir) apply this term. From general descriptions, she was just a fast clipper (which is what all of them were designed to be).
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Anglona (clipper)

Should we include early ships that have been dubbed "Opium clippers"? I can see it being questionable seeing the ship I mentioned in the header was schooner rigged. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Opium clippers were, to my mind, a discrete class of vessel - much more clearly defined that, say, the term "extreme clipper". I think this is where Wikipedia has painted itself into a corner by using the term "clipper ships", when some were rigged otherwise. The (perhaps) most well-known opium clipper, Falcon, was ship-rigged, but brigs and schooners were common - with some derivation from the fruit schooners that were the prime example, before the clipper era, of peacetime cargo-carrying vessels needing fast speed.

As I have said elsewhere, not all tea clippers were rigged as ships when first fitted out, though the majority were. At the time when the term "clipper" was in regular usage in maritime trade, it simply meant a vessel designed for speed. If you, for instance, search the British Newspaper Archive for "clipper brig", you will get thousands of hits (8,018 today - this number will only go up as new newspapers are added to the database). (Newspapers are generally accepted as giving a good indication of the way language was used in everyday life.)

I can give no recommendation on how to handle the problem for this article - if you exclude opium clippers that were rigged other than ships, that would be unhelpful to a reader searching for information (if, perhaps, reading the history of the Opium Wars and needing background information) - but ship-rigged opium clippers were, without doubt, clipper ships.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Source warning

A note of caution about a source cited as a reference in the lead: Clark, Arthur H. (1910). The clipper ship era : an epitome of famous American and British clipper ships, their owners, builders, commanders, and crews 1843-1869. There are some errors and poorly written sections of this book that can be misleading.

For instance, pg 321, when (apparently) talking about tea clippers (in the sense of clippers built specifically for the tea trade) Clark says "only twenty-five or thirty of these vessels were built from first to last". He then goes on to list "the most celebrated of them" in Appendix III, where we find 27 listed - so this immediately exceeds the "only twenty-five". Looking at MacGregor, we see the numbers of clippers built, by year, 1859: 4; 1860: 7; 1861: 9; 1862: 5; 1863: 12. So, over this limited date range (I gave up counting!), we have 37 clippers built, with many more in later years (we have not even got to Ariel, Taitsing, etc.). I have tried hard to makes some sense of the 25 - 30 statement, but without success. An editor could easily read this passage and put something in Wikipedia that would be totally wrong.

Another example is the account of the tea race of 1866. Just to pick out a couple of errors - he has the identity of the first ship to finish loading wrong; the details of what happened when the premium was claimed by the winners is the exact opposite of what happened (in that the prize was not not disputed, whilst Clark says that it was), etc.

As with so many books that are freely available on the internet, the quality as a reference is poorer than in books that exist in print only. I mention this one because it appears authoritative (and probably is on some points) but contains confidently written blunders that have to be filtered out by checking with other sources.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Osaka, Miako, and Fusi Yama

I have tried to delete these three entries but Knowledgekid87 objects and reverts. The vessel's articles all describe them as barques. Knowledgekid87 says that the articles' references support the name clipper. However, the one image in an article, of Osaka, shows her to be a barque. The only entry for an "Osaka" in Lloyd's Register is spelled "Osaca" and lists her as a "Scw Sr" which probably means screw steamer. In the Miako article references, both Lloyd's Register and Sunderlandships.com (http://sunderlandships.com/view.php?ref=157144) describe her as a barque. The Fusi Yama article doesn't use Lloyd's as a source and the other references in all three articles are books which I don't own. So, if those other references call them clippers, then the articles should be rewritten to specifically note that sources differ in the type of vessel, and only then should they (maybe) be included in the list with the short summary to include the fact that assignment to a type of vessel is unclear. Craigthebirder (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Osaka - sources calling the ship a clipper: [2], [3] (pp. 203–204)

Miako - sources calling the ship a clipper: [4], [5]

Fusi Yama sources calling the ship a clipper: - [6], with the source used in the article.

@Craigthebirder: I am all for the removal of ships that don't belong, but these need to be clarified first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Yes, the vessels' articles may need to be clarified as I said above. But note that your reference (2) says Osaka was a clipper barque, not clipper ship, and the other references call her and the other vessels clippers, not clipper ships. Being referred to as a clipper doesn't make the vessel a ship; many fast vessels were advertised as clippers. Yes, I'm being pedantic, but this is a list of clipper ships (i.e. square-rigged), not clipper barques. And as far as I can tell, every other entry in the list but these three is a true ship, or at least began life as one. Craigthebirder (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It really bothers me that we are going by how a ship looks versus what the sources say, as this can go into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I found for instance that a given ship has been turned from a clipper ship into a barque later in it's career. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

How a vessel looks (at least in regard to sail plan) is fundamental to what it is, ship or barque or something else. If sources for a particular vessel disagree on its type, then the proper place to address that is in the vessel's article. Again, clipper ships were ships, and vessels of other sail plans were also called clippers (without the "ship"). These are the first two sentences of Clipper ship, emphasis added: "A clipper was a very fast sailing ship of the middle third of the 19th century. Developed from a type of schooner known as Baltimore clippers, clipper ships had three masts and a square rig". So a list of clipper ships should have only ships, or it becomes "List of vessels called clippers". Vessels which were launched as ships reasonably belong on the list, even if converted later such as were Fiery Cross and Lothair. Craigthebirder (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue though is that article has problems associated with it that I had found. You are quoting from the lead which is un-sourced, and has things that should be removed as not mentioned in the article's body. There is no sourced statement for example in the article that supports clipper ships strictly having 3 masts and a square rig. How do we know this is true, and not just something added by a ship enthusiast somewhere along the line? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Further I want to add that "barque" is mentioned (also un-sourced) in the article Square rig under "Types of square rig ship". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

First, MacGregor's biography of Osaka (1869) says "...she was a composite-built barque of 507 tons under deck..." with a lot more detail, including that she had a wider beam than many clippers.(pg 203) Miako (same source) was also built as a "clipper barque" (pg 199). Fusi Yama (1865) was also a "composite barque".(pg 157)

I think we have to accept that the terminology of "what is a ship" is imprecise, but phrases like "clipper brig", "clipper barque","clipper schooner" are very common in contemporary literature (see British Newspaper Archive, especially the adverts and the shipping news) and in the most respected modern sources. We all understand that those examples refer to the rig. Whether or not "clipper ship" refers to the rig depends on (a) the quality of the source and (b) the precise context. I don't think it is wrong for an editor to have to interpret a source to this degree, as long as a great deal of caution is used and other sources are looked for. To be clear, a fully rigged ship is square rigged on all masts, of which there are at least three.

I find it disturbing that this article has painted itself into a corner by being titled "clipper ships" when I have little doubt that a reader would be puzzled that it does not include tea clippers that were definitely part of the story of that subsection of clippers in general. These 3 late-built barques may well have been a response to the Suez Canal being built and shipowners predicting that they needed to keep costs down on sailing vessels. Whatever the reason, these ships barques are part of the story of fast commercial sailing vessels (which is what clippers are). Editors can argue over the finer points of what should be done, but I strongly suspect that those who refer to Wikipedia for information on this subject will be disappointed and/or misinformed by this muddle.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Craigthebirder states that Osaka does not appear in Lloyd's Register of Shipping. That is not correct. If you look in the 1870-71 issue (the first that you would expect a vessel launched on 12 July 1869 to definitely appear)[7], you find her listed as a barque, with all the other details (builder, method of construction, etc.) as per MacGregor.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I should have said it's not in the issue of Lloyd's that include the other two, and I didn't look for the 70-71 issue. Glad to see barque confirmed. Craigthebirder (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Three main eras

Through reading I pretty much found out that the clipper age is broken down into 3 main eras.

American era - 1840s - 1860

British tea clippers (China trade) - 1850s - 1870s

Australian wool trade - 1870s - 1890s

There is most likely other eras that can be defined, but this is what I saw while reading. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Fast Sailing Ships, by MacGregor, he says "By present usage, the clipper ship era lies between the years 1840 to 1870" (pg 58). He lists Falcon (built as a yacht in 1824) as an early clipper, carrying tea back to London in 1837/38 (pg 74). A good number of clippers were built for the tea trade in the 1830s (Jumna (1833), Alexander Baring (1834), John O'Gaunt (1835), Dumfries (1837), Aden (1839) - and another 9 in the period 1840-1845).
It is worth pointing out that not all of these vessels made it into Lloyd's Register of Shipping - especially those built and owned by Brocklebank.

At the same time, there were Opium Clippers in existence.

MacGregor actually points out that the huge amount of detail available on clippers from the late part of the era (because plans were available, better records were kept, and more records have survived), that the focus on tea clipper is much on the later part of the era - when there were fast passages made in the 1830s and 1840s. He points out that a better understanding of wind patterns and ocean currents assisted later voyages in making faster times - their ships had very similar sailing characteristics to those of 10 or 20 years prior.

I am looking for comment about the Australian wool trade. I get the impression that in the main part, it became a clipper route simply because the now-redundant tea clippers were looking for a seasonal cargo to carry.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I read that the "Australian wool trade" was in place for clipper ships as steamships couldn't make the trip to Australian ports without constant refueling. Using clippers was more profitable until larger steamships were built that could hold more fuel. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The key thing about the Australian wool trade is that there was a "new crop" to deliver. Without the associated competition to be the first to deliver a cargo, any sailing ship would have done. By the time that the Suez Canal was affecting the tea trade (from 1870 onwards), long distance commercial steam was already established, with a race to build new ships on the more efficient principles established by Alfred Holt (wow - his Wikipedia article is highly deficient - it does not even say what he was famous for!!). The distance from London to Australia (via Suez) is slightly more than the distance to the tea ports of China, but not enough to make these trips uneconomic for a steamer - but only as long as the cargo value was high enough and the shipper prepared to pay a higher rate of freight. I suggest that wool was not a valuable enough cargo for steam until there were enough steamers built to compete the price down. So it was not a technical issue over whether the steamers could reach Australia, but a market forces issue of whether there were enough of them to want to compete for a lower rate of freight associated with a lower value cargo. I believe there are references out there to support this - just got to track them down.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on using Clipper card images

What is your rationale for removing my images from list of clippers? Images that give a lot of information of these ships. Where is the policy? Broichmore (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Broichmore: The MOS is MOS:PERTINENCE, namely "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic". In this case the article is talking about clippers, not posters talking about them. Some of them I retained as they at least show the ship the list line is talking about. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to fall out over this, while I agree with what your saying on the face of it... But... Clipper cards are extremely high quality, pertinent images. John Gilpin for example has on it the the very flag of the shipping company, captain named, details of voyage etc. The cards are so intimate to the history of the ship, they are pretty much unique in that way. Also they are provably authentic in a way some ship images are not... You can only get closer to a ship by standing on the deck. I have to say that the effort to obtain these cards can be considerable, and we should use them especially when the ship is not notable enough for a article or there is no ship image anywhere available to us... Broichmore (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Broichmore: Okay I will relent, images of the actual ship though should take preference. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I now, agree totally with you. I saw you have a discussion going on at the moment on tabulating the article. Mention has been made of the lack of referencing! Of course, clipper cards are references in themselves. Should this conversation be copied on the talk page there? Regards. Broichmore (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

You can copy this discussion to the talk page if you want, I just feel that we should use the best images we can for the ships. For example, a black and white photograph is going to be better than a "clipper card". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Obviously. What I meant was, where there is no referencing and or ship image, then cards would do... Broichmore (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah sure, sorry it is in the middle of the week and the morning here... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Main image

It seems strange that after all the discussions above on what a "clipper ship" is and isn't, and the removal of those that were not full-rigged ships, the lead illustration is of a bark/barque. (Yes, I know that Great Republic later became a ship by removal of fore-and-aft-rigged mizzen, but not in this painting.) This illustration was introduced without explanation in this diff, replacing one that was a clipper ship. Davidships (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It would be simpler (and make a more informative encyclopaedia) if this article included all clippers, not just those rigged as ships. That would allow the more notable Opium Clippers, for example, to be included.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. But while it is as it is, it should be internally consistent. Goodness knows what would be added if we had List of clippers Davidships (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

In a moment of cynicism about how wikipedia works (sorry), I don't think there would be a huge surge in additional entries to this list if it covered all clippers. That is because information on the "others" is a bit less accessible, as so many popular books have been written about Tea Clippers and the American clippers that served the California gold rush - and this is, to some degree, what has populated the list so far. That does not make the "others" non-notable, as in sources that are (largely) academic in nature, some of the rarely mentioned vessels are discussed as being influential in both history (what they achieved) and design/construction. For sources, I have in mind Chapelle's book on the Baltimore Clippers and MacGregor's Fast Sailing Ships and also his British and American Clippers. Lubbock, of course, has written The Opium Clippers, but I would not class him as an academic source, though he has produced a huge volume of work, overall. If there is a good source for any of the other clippers that existed, I would love to know (I am thinking of the shipping adverts that talked about "clipper brigs" that sailed to, for instance, South American ports - I do not believe there is anything out there on this aspect of maritime history.).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead and change it, I agree though that it seems a bit counterproductive given how many WP:RS refer to Great Republic as the largest clipper ship. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

That one should do, then. Davidships (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)