![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from List of longest wooden ships appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 February 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
There is no physical or textual evidence supporting an ark that was capable of holding 2 of all animals in the world - which, btw would have to be the size of a small country. Noah's ark story most likely came from the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, where the main protagonist survived a flood of 7 days and 7 nights on a boat. Intranetusa 16:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Noah's Ark is not clearly mythical, there is no evidence that supports this claim. I think it would be better to keep it on not well documented, since there is little knowledge about the vessel. Conta Sla 2 ( talk) 19:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
More clearly, it is unknown wheter the vessel existed or not, so keep it in "Not well documented" Conta Sla 2 ( talk) 19:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe they found a 15 ft rudder post stern, and by modern calculations, that would place the ships over 350+ feet. And there were surviving documents that referred to the treasure ship flagships at 400 feet. Also, I added info regarding the treasure ships, and moved the Noah's ark ship.
intranetusa 15:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Shall we put Noah's Ark in the unconfirmed largest ships???? Orangemarlin 04:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure why not. Of course, we have only put down lengths in most cases, not widths and draughts, so we might need more information to make it easier to compare. But this page is just a start, obviously.-- Filll 04:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we should re-order the ships. Oldest to newest? Biggest to smallest? Alphabetical? Orangemarlin 04:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
We should make articles for the redlinks. And it needs a LEAD that does not have a section heading over it. We can have both a LEAD and an introduction. But it needs a LEAD for the WP:MOS.-- Filll 05:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Congrats to this interesting subject. Suggestion: rename the article 'List of largest wooden ships' or 'List of wooden ships by size' as this will include your page in the corresponding category, leading people easier to this article. Regards Gun Powder Ma 18:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I need to know what your definitional criteria is: maximum length or length of the keel? Gun Powder Ma 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
So far we are using maximum length, including bowsprit usually.-- Filll 02:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I know we are using the Length to be the determinative factor for "largest wooden ship", but it brings to mind a couple of issues. How do we define length--do we use the bowsprit or a jib? And is length the best factor, or could it be some other measurement? I personally think we should stick with length, but let's define what we mean in a footnote to the table. Of course, let's make sure every entry uses that measurement. Orangemarlin 19:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I propose you put your material in a list. There are two types of lists: - For individual ships: HMS Shannon (1875) - For lists: List of world's largest domes Gun Powder Ma 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure about this format. I think it would be better to have a combination of table and a separate list for more details, quotes, discussion, etc.-- Filll 15:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I find the classification useful when it comes to distinguishing between modern (and many late medieval) ships on the one hand and ancient vessels on the other hand. But, then again, to classify ships like the Isis or the Syracusia on which quite a considerable amount of serious scholarship has been spent in the same breath with Zheng He's Alice Wonderland 400 ft Treasures ships does not do justice to the former. I find the current solution unsatisfying. Gun Powder Ma 01:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I know that evidence on the Isis, although widely accepted, has also been questioned by at least one scholar. In fact, there are strong counter-opinions to all ships in the unconfirmed category and even to some in the confirmed table. That means we should avoid preselections as far as possible, which could be regarded as POV. On the other hand, the 400+ ft of the Treasure ships are plainly ludicrous given later ship building experiences. Right now, I cannot think of a satisfying solution, but I am very much for a policy of giving the myth of the super-colossal Treasure ship not another innocent propaganda platform for spreading. Regards Gun Powder Ma 01:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
When there are pictures, we know it was real. When there are multiple books and newspaper accounts from the last couple of hundred years describing a vessel, it seems pretty likely that it is real. When there are wrecks that can be measured, then it is fairly clear what size the ship was. When there are decommissioned ships sitting in dry dock or at dock or in museums that can be measured, then it is fairly clear the claimed sizes are real. Tessarakonteres was claimed to be an immense ship. But what evidence do we have? We have one or two accounts from 2200 years ago. We have no pictures. We have very minimal documentation. We have no shipwrecks. And in the case of Tessarakonteres, the claimed size is so large that it is highly doubtful that it is correct. If we currently had to build a ship of wood of that size, I do not think we could do it. I think that these ships might have had copper nails, from what I have read. Did they have iron nails? I did not read anything about that. What about more advanced bracing and ironwork? It is very difficult for me to imagine that the ancient Greeks or ancient Romans or ancient Egyptians had this incredible level of technology, and it took the Europeans 4 or 5 hundred years to recreate it by trial and error and tremendous effort and investment, and still were not able to make 450 foot long ships of wood, even with iron and/or steel keels, braces, arches, nails, and so on. So how credible is a claim for a 420+ foot Tessarakonteres? How credible is a 400-600 foot Zheng He ship which seems to have materialized out of nothing in a very short period of time, and then disappeared without a trace with no proper records of technology or shipwrecks etc (I know there are all kinds of claims that the confuscians hated the eunuchs and destroyed the records, but this was only 5-6 hundred years ago !). How credible are the very thin claims of Noah's Ark with no documentation? I realize that Isis and Syracusia are not accompanied with such outrageous claims of length, and sound much more reasonable, but to be fair, I moved them down to the uncomfirmed category because we have the same sort of evidence for them as we do for Tessarakonteres. Do I have that wrong?-- Filll 03:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added a third category. I suggest all ships that seem a bit difficult to believe be in the last category. I suggest all ships that seem credible, but with weaker evidence, go in the 2nd category. And all confirmed ships go in the first category. And based on what I read about the Great Michael, it definitely belongs in the 3rd category.-- Filll 04:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
For large wooden ancient ships check out Syracusia (Greek) and Isis (Roman). For those in the MA, see Grace Dieu. Gun Powder Ma 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Check out also the German Flying P-Liners, many of them among the largest sailing ships of all time, though most featured steel hulls, but perhaps not all. The Padua (ship) ? Gun Powder Ma 14:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone might want to add German naval ship Mühlhausen, 63.16m long. 85.177.181.46 ( talk) 11:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
add Peter von Danzig? Quite big for its time, though small compared to other entries.
Michael (ship). But me thinks, the given length needs double-checking, since it greatly exceeds that of the Great Harry which was meant as an English response. Gun Powder Ma 01:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
France II: I propose that we delete this entry, since it really isn't a wood ship. Orangemarlin 19:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Filll 01:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[3]-- Filll 02:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC) [4]-- Filll 14:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC) [5]-- Filll 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at this puppy: Freedom Ship-- Filll 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It is just planned. I am not sure it is possible. And it will take all kinds of advanced materials and a huge amount of money to do it if it is ever done.-- Filll 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind splitting up the ships into the three sections, but I really don't like the first table. Not readable, especially with all the extra information in a list below. I'd vote to have it back to the old table. IMHO. Orangemarlin 07:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
What about a hybrid, with the longer details put in footnotes, potentially put in smaller font?-- Filll 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok I propose to go back to the old format, but use footnotes to hide away some of the longer parts of the text, so the table is not so clogged.-- Filll 18:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I am faily sure that material in footnotes is lost on readers. I have yet to read a WP article which features important material in footnotes, it is just not the style of WP and, more generally, the Internet. One table with comments each about 3 to 6 lines long, and for the limits of wooden ships a separate intoducing section would be IMHO the best way to present the material. Regards Gun Powder Ma 02:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
As an experiment, I trimmed down the text part of the section Other claimed large wooden ships and made the font smaller, and slipped more material into the footnotes. Comments?-- Filll 05:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
If we can come up with a reasonable format, we can then make it uniform for all 3 tables, and then maybe add some more content. -- Filll 18:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the veracity or lack thereof of the various size claims of Zheng He's treasure ships. But the description of the treasure ships as is seems to cast undue doubt. Doesn't the caveat "...but there is no solid evidence for this, and these claims are disputed" apply to all of the last three ships? If anything, it seems like it should apply to the last two more so. Surely the size of the treasure ships is not more doubtful than Noah's Ark? Or the Tessarakonteres, which seems to be described by only a single author a thousand years earlier? -- bcasterline • talk 16:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I just saw an ad for this program: [ Ancient Discoveries--Superships] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orangemarlin ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
I have found two new potential entries. I know the list may now be regarded as, say, doing its job, but I believe the two new entries can further strengthen the notion that lengthes of 60-75 meters were widely deemed by pre-19th century shipwrights as the practical upper limit of wooden vessels:
Who has more information on them? Regards Gun Powder Ma 14:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have two reliable print sources to quote from, but they limit themselves to the dimensions of the ship and other aspects. But for a three-liner we need more material on the history of these ships. ;-) Gun Powder Ma 15:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I will suggest that someone adds the Norwegian Steam-driven frigate KONG SVERRE, with a length of 77,2 meter and a width of 15,5 meter, built of Italian oak in 1864, and broken up in 1932. Some information can be found in the Norwegian Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.175.61.195 ( talk) 19:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I notice that someone has removed Noah's Ark again which I have reintroduced. Please do not remove Noah's Ark. Noah's Ark might be mythological and basically nonsensical, but my feeling is that all wooden ships over 400 feet in length are a bit much to swallow. Unless people hundreds or thousands of years ago knew some secrets of ship building that we know longer know, with all our expertise in materials and naval architecture and numerical analysis etc, then I think that all accounts of ships longer than 400 feet are nonsense. In fact, all wooden ships longer than 300 feet in length probably are mythical as well. I therefore have rearranged the list accordingly.-- Filll 19:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Gentlemen, since you've put so much effort into this subject, and are doubtless by now Wikipedia's ersident experts on Big Boats for Boys, could I ask you to take a look at the Noah's Ark article and update it where appropriate? It curently says that the Wyoming was the largest (meaning longest) wooden ship ever built, but it seems from your list that this might not be true (although the margin of difference is pretty slim). Please note that I'm not asking for a paragraph or two on the subject, just for the word "Wyoming" to be changed for whatever really was the largest wooden ship. (Please note also that wooden means all-wooden-hull - no metal keelsons etc etc). PiCo 14:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
What was a semi-readable entry is now a mess, thanks to a fervent pro-Zeng He editor. I guess this has to be cleaned up. The point is not to introduce our current speculation at what must have been, but what has been reported. I propose that the more recent information be included in footnotes and this horrendous mess be cleaned up.-- Filll 17:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Look, you are making some assumptions that the recent sources which argue that the Treasure ships were shorter are better somehow. The same could be said for every ship in "less well-documented large wooden ships" and "uncomfirmed large wooden ships". Of course, if we have no good direct physical evidence for a ship's size, like some shipwreck that can be measured, we are not quite sure how big it was. And this goes for the Treasure ships, although we have some archaeological evidence of their berths, possibly, the evidence is pretty bad and we are not sure which dimensions of the Treasure ships we are measuring, if any, when we look at archaeological evidence.
Wikipedia is "not about truth, but verifiabiity". Of course, all those ships in the two sections "less well-documented large wooden ships" and "uncomfirmed large wooden ships" probably have incorrect dimensions. ALL OF THEM. That is the point. The point is, exaggerated dimensions for them were reported and are famous and renowned. And probably wrong.-- Filll ( talk) 14:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you cite any of this modern scholarship? This is the first I've ever heard that his existence is contested, and I'm in contact with some of the scholars looking at this.-- Dougweller ( talk) 15:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the link for the reference, but I'm not happy with it as it really should be an archaeological one. Plus, it says ' it is believed that she had been used in the transport of the enormous obelisk from Egypt" and that isn't good enough for Wikipedia standards. Plus, the obelisk was 105 1/2 feet long, so it didn't need such a huge barge. And now this is being argued as evidence that the Ark was seaworthy!-- Doug Weller ( talk) 12:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The Central Pacific Railroad designed and built a train ferry powered by double walking beam engines in 1879 christened the Solano. This ferry crossed the Carquinez Strait between Benicia and Port Costa, California. By 1914 the Solano was getting so overwhelmed with transferring trains on the Southern Pacific Railroad route between Sacramento CA and Oakland CA that an additional ferry, the Contra Costa, was designed and built by the Southern Pacific Railroad and placed in service at the same location. Both ferries were double-ended side-wheel steamers. Both were decommissioned in November, 1930.
The newer Contra Costa was slightly longer that the Solano by 13 feet. The Contra Costa was 433' long with a 116' beam and grossed at 5373 tons.
The Solano was 420' long with a beam of 118' and grossed at 3459 tons.
(Port Costa 1879-1941: A Saga of Sails, Sacks and Rails, Dick Murdock, 1977, Murdock-Endom Publications)
Both ferries were all-wooden construction except that the Contra Costa did have steel pilot house bridges. For some reason neither ferry made the "Largest wooden Ship" list. Is there any particular reason for that?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by SolanoFerry ( talk • contribs) 05:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I´m sorry, but I´ve seen this article and I´m amaze that it does not mention the Santísima Trinidad, the spanish main ship in the battle of Trafalgar. I don´t know its measurements, but I´m sure of one thing, it was larger than the HMS Victory. Please, respect History and respect the truth. The Santisima Trinidad was larger than the Victory, so... how can you put the Victory in this list and not the Santísima Trinidad ? How can you "forget" the largest ship in the battle of Trafalgar?
I add: Not including the Santísima Trinidad rests quality to this article. It was the flagship of the Armada at the end of the XVIII - beginning of the XIX century, with a lenght of 61,3 m. It lies now on the sea bottom near Cádiz, and there is a replica in Malaga. For long time it was the biggest vessel in the world, not only in size, but in number of decks (4!!) and number of guns (120 initially, converted to 136, and at some moment 140. I know how easy is to fall int the "anglocentrism" of history, but, hey guys, the supremacy of the Spanish Armada lasted for longer than the Royal Navy, and in this list is absolutely ignored. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.189.46.155 ( talk) 10:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
An article on the SS President appeared in DYK today. It mentions a wooden hull. Can this be added to the list? - Freekee ( talk) 04:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Isn't Kobenhaven a steel hulled ship? It says in the article "five-masted steel auxiliary barque". which I would think means the hull was made of steel - if you say something is a five-masted xxxx barque, the xxxx usually refers to the material the hull is made from.
In addition, the Wikepedia article on Kobenhaven mentions steel partitions in the holds, which also implies a steel hull. And the fact that the Kobenhaven Wikipedia article says it was one of the finest sailing ship of the time implies it wasn't a wood hull ship - all other wood hull ships of that length were not noted as "fine sailor", but rather the contrary. 05:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)~ DB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.199.242.202 ( talk)
What about the Derzhava (yacht) - she was almost 95 m in length, much larger then many of the ships mentioned in the article, and wasn't a river/lake barge or the like, but a sea-going vessel. It had oak frame braced with iron, and mahogany + larch hull ( source, in Russian). 95.79.218.181 ( talk) 18:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I took it out as no respectable biblical scholar thinks it's real. But if you want to keep it, create a new table of mythical vessels (you can put the Dawn Treader in there as well). PiCo ( talk) 23:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody have an idea for a better section title? If we stick with biblical, I feel like that excludes Islamic sources. Brozozo ( talk) 15:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I just removed one that is 31m long - that seems just too short, but what do others think? Dougweller ( talk) 16:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe 30m minimum? Idk Conta Sla 2 ( talk) 19:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on List of longest wooden ships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of longest wooden ships. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit new to writing on Wikipedia, so please forgive me. I felt that the article did a really poor job at recognising all the few big wooden ships that are still sailing. It is not easy to make such a dream come true. So I added a whole bunch of new ships to the list. I also think there should be more than just western ships, though they are the biggest. Therefore the size limit should not be too low. What do you think? The list is getting big though, so it should probably split up... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kantamana ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
What is the Minotaur class doing here? According to the article, these ships were ironclads - there is no mention of wooden hulls. Sturmvogel 66, can you be of any assistance here? Gatoclass ( talk) 06:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The French ship Bretagne is mentioned twice, once with a length of 120 metres, then with a length of 81 metres. Both entries refer to the same ship from 1855, but there's no evidence for the larger dimensions in the linked article. Should the larger entry be removed? 2A02:8109:A4C0:44F8:AC2A:6808:86E9:9D32 ( talk) 14:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)