Category talk:Tall ships

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

What is this hierarchy about?[edit]

The TSR definition of class A tall ships is more or less "(sailing) ship or boat, either square rigged and with LOA more than 30 ft, or with any rig and LOA more than 40 meters" plus requirement of young crew.

Is this really the definition to use? Are sailing ships of the past to be put in this category? Is the crew age relevant? Should a 40 ft Viking ship replica be classified as a tall ship, but not a 35 m schooner?

As long as the purpose of the category isn't well documented and established we will have two parallel category hierarchies, those with "sailing ships" and those with "tall ships" in the category name. Usually you cannot know in which category a certain ship will be found.

I wonder if this category is of any use, except to gather sailing ships that in fact take part (or have taken part) in the Tall Ships' Races. Otherwise the ship type is usually much more relevant.

--LPfi (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I did some work on the category and used the description of the English wikipedia. Most ancient ships are just Category:Sailing ships, as the description Category:Tall ships is of much later date. As far as I can see you are right in your conclusion that the category is of value only for sailing ships that in fact take part (or have taken part) in the Tall Ships' Races. If we conclude this way there is still work to do to change categories for ships that never took part in these races. --Stunteltje (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Historical ships definitely should not be placed in this category, nor should sailing ship categories in general. It seems only relevant to individual ships that actually participate in the actual races. And in those cases, it should never replace references to the general categories like Category:Barques. Peter Isotalo 13:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it's worth adding this to the category description. It helps users adding correct categories. --  Docu  at 19:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, certainly. But I think we should have an agreement on the definition first. Do we want to restrict it to ships that actually have taken part in the Tall Ships' Races? That is fine with me, but I think some would like to include similar vessels in similar use. I do not know where to find the possibly interested parties (without analysing individual edit histories). --LPfi (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Since 2 November 2009 I continued categorising ships. We have 10.000 by name this week or month, I assume. I saw a lot of sailing ships and there are more organisations that have sailing schoolships. So I can live with the situation that schoolships, comparable with the Class A ships and for one or another reason not racing, are included in this category. --Stunteltje (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The important thing is to treat this category as a supplement, not something that should replace, for example Category:Ships by type.
Peter Isotalo 13:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Tall ships by type[edit]

I noticed Category:Tall ships by type, which includes Category:Topsail schooners and Category:Schooners‎, neither of which is a "tall ship" category. Is somebody working on real tall ships by type categories or should the category be deleted? --LPfi (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I made Category:Tall ships by type. It seems to be OK to remove the category. I made it to categorize the categories such as Category:Caravel (ship), etc (originally categorized to Category:Tall ships). But, they have been already more suitably categorised. Thanks,--Morio (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)