![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
East Indiaman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Why is this google's first choice when searching for "largest poop" ?
In the table of East Indiamen, what does "Class" mean? So far none of the entries have been assigned a class so should we keep it? Dabbler 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This is LoneWolfJack from his vacation PC. Don't have my login handy right now. I intended "class" to specify the ship type like "schooner", "clipper", etc. However, I wouldn't know myself where to find that piece of information. My second thought was, "class" could be used to indicate whether the ship was a regular HEIC ship, a charter or a licensed one.
The vast majority if not all East Indiamen in British service were full rigged ships and they were almost all built either in Britain or India and chartered by the company while it had its monopoly. Later there may have been other types of ship sailing on their own trade, but they were not what is usually considered East Indiamen. Dabbler 22:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can see that despite major differences in weight, there is no need to list the ship class. However, I do not share your opionion on the regular/chartered vessel issue. Splitting hairs, the list should only show regular vessels, but there are so many (major) HEIC ships that were not regulars, which would lead to a significant loss of information. I would opt for changing "class" to "type" and use the shortcuts REG (regular), CHA (chartered) and LIC (licensed). LoneWolfJack 10:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 01:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
East Indiamen → East Indiaman — WP:NC says article titles should generally be singular, and I can't see any reason for this one to be plural. FiggyBee 02:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
There were other East Indian companies other than the British one, all had armed merchantmen, either retitle this article to something like "British East indiaman" or be less protectective in allowing material about those other companies ships to be included in this article. KTo288 ( talk) 09:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This is what the article says at one point but it does not elucidate. I am a history machine but naval history generally I am quite shaky on and I don't even know where to begin to get the information I want. Could someone please expand on precisely why some ships of this class would be banned in English harbors? Racism, mercantilism, or some such? Lazarus Plus ( talk) 02:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:East india company's packet swallow.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
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.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:East india company's packet swallow.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:East Indiaman Earl Balcarras.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
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.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:East Indiaman Earl Balcarras.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
Friendship of Salem is labeled as a replica of the East Indiaman Friendship (1787) of Salem, but I think it a case of using "East Indiaman" loosely. -- Pawyilee ( talk) 16:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The list is not the list of all East Indiamen that sailed, right? What are the features of those selected for inclusion? The list needs a better title to indicate how they were selected. For now, I am adding Examples of Indiamen until the reason for putting a ship in the list is clearer. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 17:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I deleted a line in the lead that has no explanation in the article about the ships not being owned by the East India Company. For Britain, the company gained an exclusive right to the trade in 1600, but it is not clear who owned the ships if the Company did not own them. This section of the article on the British East India Company, East India Company#Establishments in Britain suggests that the company did own the ships, and had exclusive shipyards in England. If there is some other source explaining the ownership of the ships, and if it varied by nation, that would be a good source for this article. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 18:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
This article is horrible. No, really. It's really bad. I suspect that a ship sailing in the year 1600 would be different from one in 1700 or 1800. I'd expect an article about a particular type of ship would include specifications for the things. You know, things like displacement, length, number of (main) masts, crew size, average speed, year built, voyages, etc. All we learn reading this article (as well as the "Ships" section of the HEIC article is which ships were bought by the Royal Navy (and how they wrecked). Come on. 207.155.85.22 ( talk) 03:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)