Talk:Port and starboard

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Aviation: Aircraft / Rotorcraft / Gliding

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.
	This article is supported by the rotorcraft project.
	This article is supported by the gliding project.

Transport Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sailing Low‑importance

	Port and starboard is within the scope of the WikiProject Sailing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Sailing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.SailingWikipedia:WikiProject SailingTemplate:WikiProject SailingSailing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

steer board

Sorry to add to the confusion, but many ships, like Greek triremes, had steer boards on both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.59.179 (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC) ieq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1DD0:6930:B423:4EE0:8646:641F (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

red and green

I don't know why anyone thinks this is a good idea, but it's distracting, looks unprofessional, and doesn't serve any explanatory purpose. Do you think names of colors should be in colored letters throughout the encyclopedia, or is this a special case for some reason?Prezbo (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the manual of style] says that "Prose text should never be manually colored."Prezbo (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, alrighty then; I wasn't aware of that. Didn't help that it isn't referenced from WP:COLORS. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty poor article and this section in particular is badly written, confusing and downright wrong. The diagram shows exactly the action the give way vessel ought NOT to take; in this situation it ought to turn to starboard and pass astern of the other vessel. The statement 'the ship on the left must give way' means nothing. The left of what? The picture? The other ship? It might better be expressed as 'a vessel on a converging course with another vessel which is to port of that vessel should give way' would make more sense. Why do we need to rewrite the regulations at all though; why not simply quote IRPCS which are the clearest and most complete statement of this subject possible?Erwfaethlon (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The text is much too long, and stresses the least important parts. It should be something like "for vessels powered by sails only, the vessel to the port must give way by turning starboard, passing aftwards of the other vessel. This rule is especially used during sailing ship races". But my command of the English nautical language is not good enough that I would want to try to edit this article.Esben (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image should be changed to one showing the proper action. That probably means somebody has to do a new one.

I am not sure the COLREG language (which is the normative) is very clear. It is complete and non-ambiguous, but not very easy to understand. Erwfaethlon's sentence above is clearer.

Rules for sailing vessels are harder for non-sailors to understand and should perhaps be left out (the rule cited here may be wrongly quoted, it is not familiar to me).

--LPfi (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to have a section on the right of way of ships. It is at best a sidelight on one of many applications of the terms at hand; at worst, a confusing distraction wedged into the middle of the piece. A better place for such information is a page on sailing practices or whatnot. Jtcarpet (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simple language

First paragraph: The first sentence is fine on its own. The only mildly piece of nautical jargon (bow) is explained. So why have the phrase "in lay terms" and introducinmg the use of the bridge, whic not all vessles have.

Second paragraph: tries to cover two separate concepts: the use of lights and the application of the terms port and starboard to aircraft. All that stuff about "including airships in naval use" and "particularly waterborne seaplanes—floatplane and especially flying boats of both civilian and military types" is completely unnecessary. Port and starboard apply to all waterborne vessels and all aircraft so why elaborate? I'm cutting through all this with the aim of improving the article. Mike Spathaky (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Facing the bow ?

I find the key sentence "When facing the bow, port is always on the left" particularly misleading! To me, facing the bow of a ship suggests being outside of the vessel, but I'm not a native speaker. In any case, I suggest to clarify this. A previous version was: "When standing on the bridge of a ship (or any watercraft) looking toward the bow (front of the ship), starboard refers to the right side of the ship, port refers to the left side". Much better, no ? The linked NOAA website uses "When looking forward, toward the bow of a ship, port and starboard refer to the left and right sides, respectively." To make it simple, I would write "When standing on a ship looking toward the bow (front), starboard refers to the right side of the ship, and port refers to the left side". M. Tewes (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Just to refine your final sentence further, MT, (and removed the word bow which some may not understand I would write, "When standing on a vessel facing forward, port refers to the left side and starboard refers to the right side of the vessel."

(It is conventional, as in the article title, to say port and starboard not starboard and port, jsut as most people say left and right, not right and left. That helps fix in our minds which is which.) So go and do it! Mike Spathaky (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on all of this. Just took a shot at a rewrite. M. Tewes suggestion is good and I made it more minimalist, to avoid having to explain what a bridge is. Also it bugs me to say when standing on the ship looking forwards etc because they doesn't reinforce what we say afterwards, which is that the direction is independent of the viewer's perspective. Also, yes put left before right, but I think the etymology of starboard should be explained first since port is effectively the side that is not starboard --Cornellier (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bæcbord word origin

The original meaning of 'bæcbord' is not clear. The implication in the text is that the word in Modern English would be 'back-board' however I suspect that it is more likely 'beach-board' i.e. the side of a ship which one would present to a beach rather than the steering-board with its easily-damaged steering oar. Cassandra

"... direction the vehicle is heading when underway ..."

Maybe I'm being too pedantic, but many vessels can be underway in reverse. Should this sentence say that the vessel has to be underway in a forward motion? ML5 (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Etymological nonsense

"The term starboard derives from the Old English steorbord, meaning the side on which the ship is steered. The Afrikaans term stuurboord (steering-board) is also taken from this root."

The second part of this, unsourced, statement is nonsensical. There might, ultimately, be a link between the Afrikaans term "stuurboord" and the Old English, but that is utterly irrelevant, as the Afrikaans term is taken directly and without any alteration from the Dutch "stuurboord", which means "steering side" or "steering edge" (reputable source with full etymological history: http://gtb.inl.nl/iWDB/search?actie=article&wdb=WNT&id=M010275.re.32&lemma=stuurboord&domein=0&conc=true). The same is true for most nautical terms in Afrikaans (and a number of other languages). 82.176.221.176 (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone objects within the next few days, I'm removing the (unsourced) second sentence about "the Afrikaans term stuurboord" for the reasons explained above. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC) EDIT: someone already did it! 82.176.221.176 (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Space Station (ISS)

Is it worth mentioning that on the ISS the nautical terms 'Port', 'Starboard' and also 'Deck' are used? I don't know if this is used in a similar sense throughout the ISS or on a per module basis. Nor how fore and aft would be defined, nor whether this is standard practise in space. CatNip48 (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Observer"

I've changed my mind. It took several read-throughs to convince myself that the use of "Observer" is not confusing.

I would consider, though, swapping the paragraphs: "Port and starboard unambiguously refer to the left and right side [...]" and "The port side is the side to the left of an observer aboard the vessel [...]"

The section "Importance of standard terms" doesn't deliver

As of the date I'm typing this, the section "Importance of standard terms" does NOT make any decent argument as to why the terms "port" and "starboard" should be used instead of "left" and "right". I've spoken of the left and right sides of a car often in my life, and nobody has ever said "That's ambiguous, as you haven't specified whether it's 'left' or 'right' relative to someone who is watching the car driving towards them, or relative to someone who is inside the car but in a seat that faces backwards, etc.. The world seems to run itself just fine under the assumption that left and right refer to the sides of something if you inside it and facing the direction in which it's moving. The "Importance of standard terms" section simply doesn't prove its own assertion that using "left" and "right" with respect to the sides of a boat or ship has "Importance", or "are essential", which I think means that if we used "left" and "right" then something would go wrong, or something would be more difficult. Please describe a hypothetical scenario in which using the words "left" and "right" for the sides of a ship would make a material difference (i.e. would cause a different outcome) as compared to using the words "port" and "starboard". Actually, now that I think about it, I see a way that the case COULD be made, perhaps. But the paragraph in question does NOT make that case.108.234.62.240 (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]