Jump to content

Talk:Paddle steamer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Steamer classes

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 12:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


I disagree. While some of the steamboat and steamships were paddlwheelers. I still think that the subject is broad enough of its own right to be a seprarate subject. iranon1661 16:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The above comments are a bit puzzling: Trekphiler, the article clearly includes river and lake paddle steamers – there's not much ocean in Switzerland. Seagoing paddle steamers are unusual enough now to have their own section: it could be possible to reorganise things to provide a non-seagoing section. iranon1661, presumably you're commenting on the suggestion of a merger: this looks pretty old with no consensus to merge, and I propose that the merge tags be removed. ...dave souza 00:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

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 05:26, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Merge tag removed as discussion at steamboat. ...dave souza, talk 00:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Types of Paddle Steamer

This entry states: "a side-wheeler has extra maneuverability since the power may be directed to one wheel at a time." I believe this is misleading as I can find no refference to any of the Steamers on the Murray Darling River System having this ability. Certainly none of ones I have photographed are capable of having the wheels driven independently. Perhaps this ability was limited to larger boats. (I am very new at this Wikipedia Stuff) RDUNC 10:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re differential paddle rotation, I don't absolutely know for sure if all side-wheelers could do this but some certainly could. The old Woowich Free Ferry boats (in London) could do this, and it was also a feature of the Admiralty tugs. For these ships it was a normal operational procedure for manoeuvuring in tight places, similar to but more effective than the similar ability in twin-screw boats where you can reverse one propellor while going ahead on the other. I expect it was pretty much a standard capability for side-wheelers. Pinot 22:33, 19 July 2007 (NZ)

Arcynic Steamwheeler

There is a reference to a "Arcynic Steamwheeler", but a google search comes up with references back to this page. Has anyone heard of this, or is there a link somewhere? Should this sentence be deleted? Karanne (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

How is a sternwheeler steered?

I looked up this reference because I wanteed to know how a sternwheeler is steered, but there is no information here.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.18.6.107 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 16 May 2006.

Now you come to mention it, I'd like to know too!
EdJogg 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

They're steered by rudders - see information at http://users.wirefire.com/gemort/rudders%20and%20steering.htm Pinot 17.45, 6 December 2007 (NZ) —Preceding comment was added at 04:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, the wirefire site above is very interesting about sternwheelers. Karanne (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

This might be the dominant form of paddlewheeler used in the United States (in Mark Twain's heyday), but shouldn't the general article include paddlewheel-driven ships using other forms of propulsion? Let's give this article a more general title. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Section template

As for this action, here is the permanent link: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 72#Robert K. G. Temple on Chinese and world history Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

The statement "Consequently no recent (since 1947) paddle wheel steamers have been laid down and there are only a few original paddle steamers remaining in existence, and those that do are mainly preserved for tourists or as museums." is incorrect, and interesting as the accompanying photo is of the str. NATCHEZ, a boat which was designed in the early 1970s and launched in 1975. There are a handful of other modern examples, namely the Julia Bell Swain built in 1971, the Missisppi Queen built in 1975, and the American Queen completed in 1994. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.1.134.173 (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. That paragraph also made unwarranted, uncited OR statements about there being no good reason to use steam technology now. I removed it. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

File:FNR.RotaremisVehiculum.RomanEmpire.CE390.SvenLittkowski.001.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:FNR.RotaremisVehiculum.RomanEmpire.CE390.SvenLittkowski.001.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Paddle Steamer - Link to Website

I would like the website http://www.heritagesteamers.co.uk to be considered as a link to the paddle steamers page. This website is that of a leading maritime heritage registred charity with a specific interest in paddle steamers

90.210.128.249 (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Sura

A new river cruise ship was built in 2010 in Russia named the Sura (after the Sura River). She is propelled by two stern mounted paddle wheels which is said to have the advantage of a very low draft. The same wheels are used for steering. The shipyard that built it also states several more paddle wheelers are to be built.

[1]

I think that must be noted in the article.

DL24 (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

two Mississippi paragraphs

two paragraphs about the Mississippi have been added to History/Western world. This could be expanded, but would seem out of proportion to rest of section.Sammy D III (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Advantages and disadvantages

It would be good if the article could say something definitive about the advantages and disadvantages of paddle wheels versus screw propellers, and why the former have fallen out of use. I assume efficiency must be a key factor, but there may be practical reasons as well? Wwheaton (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I had the same thought. I don't remember where I got my information, but I remember hearing/reading that since paddles can run very near the surface, they're good for shallow water, or water with high snags. It looks like a paddle wheel could put up with a fair amount of damage that a propeller could not. The paddle technology goes back 1500 years; it's hard to tell from the Wiki article on propellers but it appears as propeller technology was primitive in the 1850s. The technology is much more complicated. The disadvantages? Paddle boats with side wheels become inefficient in rough water, in extreme situations, to the point of being useless. They all loft a fair amount of water quite a distance, and all of that energy is lost to propulsion. The ones with variable blades to improve angle of attack and release are a lot more technically complicated (as in: can't be built all out of wood planks). Take all that for what it's worth. We need references. Leptus Froggi (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Another thought. If a ship leans side to side (yaw?) it would follow that one wheel would go deeper, the other shallower, maybe even out of the water. Wouldn't the extra force on one side turn the vessel in the opposite direction, similar to a Caterpillar tractor? Even if it happens too quickly to actually turn the ship, how about stresses to the ship along the axle line of the wheels? No ref, just reasoning. Sammy D III (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Roll. Paddlesteamers are so broad in the beam that they roll much less than screw-driven ships. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ship types

I removed this article from Category:Ship types, on the grounds that Category:Ship types is a supercategory of Category:Paddle steamers (via categories Steamships and Ships by type), of which the article is a member. The relevant policy is WP:SUBCAT, which says that "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category". Andy Dingley reverted "as the lead article of an eponymous cat".

I still think my edit is correct:

@Andy Dingley: could you please explain why you think Paddle steamer should be in both Category:Paddle steamers and Category:Ship types. And/or could other editors comment on the matter. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the lead article of an eponymous cat. That cat is Paddle steamers.
Categorization confuses readers. When navigating category pages (which they manage quite well) they fail to see the distinction between the links to article pages and the links to others categories. There are some ways to fix this by skinning MediaWiki, but these aren't in use on WP. So the best compromise is that for eponymous cats, the main categorization should be applied primarily to the page, not necessarily the category. We do also categorize the category, but not as extensively: we categorize pages in general when there's a useful functional link to express, but category pages only when it helps to build a navigation tree.
In this case, Paddle steamers is in Ship types. We agree on that much. Because it's an eponymous category though, the lead article page and the category page could both be in the relevant categories. In general, lead articles will be in nearly all of their associated category page's parent cats (with a few exceptions that are just about navigation, mostly the "<foo> by <subset>" metacats).
WP:OVERCAT is very often damaging, when applied in a simplistic blanket fashion. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
In general, lead articles will be in nearly all of their associated category page's parent cats...
What you are saying appears to directly contradict WP:SUBCAT's "A page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category".
WP:OVERCAT is very often damaging, when applied in a simplistic blanket fashion.
I don't disagree with that statement, but I don't believe OVERCAT applies here. I'm assuming that the current categories are correct and reasonable (both in terms of their existence and the tree structure). The problem here is the inclusion of the article in the multiple categories. If you think the cat structure is wrong, that's a separate problem - which would need to be addressed before we resolve the issue of which cat(s) the article should be in. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I've posted a request on WT:CAT for other editors' input. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I've also posted a request on WT:SHIP for other editors' input. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of any response, I've again removed the supercategory, in accordance with the clear guidelines of WP:SUBCAT. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Andy Dingley has restored the category "In the absence of any supporting for deleting categories".
I assert (again) that WP:SUBCAT clearly indicates that the article should not be the parent category - there is nothing in the categories to indicate that Category:Paddle steamers is non-diffusing. Andy Dingley, again I ask you:
  • Is there a guideline that matches your claim that lead articles will be in nearly all of their associated category page's parent cats?
  • Do think WP:SUBCAT needs changing?
  • Should Category:Paddle steamers be a non-diffusing category - thus explicitly "allowing" (according to WP:SUBCAT) the article to appear in both Category:Paddle steamers and its parent?
  • Is there something wrong with the category hierarchy - does it need changing (thus rendering my appeal to WP:SUBCAT moot)?
Your only citation of guidelins was to WP:OVERCAT, which I don't believe is relevant here - if you think it is, please point me to a more specific section of it that applies.
Mitch Ames (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be taking "No one has bothered to disagree with me" as "I'm right"
Please see WP:EPONYMOUS. In particular, "Articles with an eponymous category may also be categorized in the broader categories that would be present if there were no eponymous category (e.g. the article France appears in both Category:France and Category:Western Europe, even though the latter is the parent category of the former). "
If there were no category here, I assume you would agree that "paddle steamer" (article) would be categorised under "ship types". Adding the eponymous category does not withdraw this valuable primary categorisation. It remains.
Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
OK - now I see. (It would have been helpful if you'd cited WP:EPONYMOUS explicitly the first time.)
You might be interested in this proposed clarification to WP:SUBCAT to mention the WP:EPONYMOUS exception. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paddle_steamer/Archive_1&oldid=1243792690"