This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rig (sailing) 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 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I created graphics from scratch for most of the standard plans in Inkscape. I created them from descriptions and photographs. I did a lot of what amounted to design work, too. ⇝ Casito⇝ Talk 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
looks great Enjoyhats 05:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
They're awesome. I would like to suggest, though that we move 'catboat' and 'gunter' up before sloop, so that they essentially progress from fewest sails to most sails. Coldnorth ( talk) 19:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Wonderful images! Bravo! One possible error - It looks like the Bragantine image is actually a Hermaphrodite Brig. A Brigantine should have a couple square-rigged sails over the fore-and-aft mainsail. It would be nice to add one for a Yawl too (A 2-masted, fore-and-aft-rigged sailing vessel similar to the ketch but having a smaller mizzenmast (or jigger) stepped abaft the rudderpost. Also called a "dandy".) mbjenkins ( talk) 10:07, 20 June 2011 (EST)
You have no idea how valuable this is to those of us who do image cataloging/labelling.
![]() |
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar | |
Thanks!. Scwalsh ( talk) 16:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Great. I modified your proa image and made a tepukei image. Thanks, Casito! HLHJ ( talk) 03:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Image:Tackling.png is beautiful, but it describes the tackling, that is, the lines used to hold and manipulate the sails rather than the sails themselves. If anybody has a numbered image with a legend for courses, topgallants etc., please put it up. Gaal 09:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Take a minute to read the comments at Talk:Sailing#Re-write effort -- non how-to et seq. Some of us are working on re-organizing the sailing-related articles. See if you agree with our approach and give us some help. Mrees1997 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I need a diagram of a Junk Sail that labels al the diferent parts.
-Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.214.34 ( talk) 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Try Junk_rig#Modern_rigs, User talk:207.136.214.34. Actually, that ref has a variety of junk rigs. Maybe we need a junk section. HLHJ ( talk) 03:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that the sails jumped from Skysail to Moonraker. I always thought the full sequence was:
I think that was on the East Indiaman Essex, famous for having the most sails of any ship, ever. If there was only one sail above the skysail, I think it was called the moonsail. My only source is a dictionary that I have since lost. J S Ayer ( talk) 18:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
There is some information in the Junk description that seems to be extraneous to the article subject (Sail-Plan). Namely, that some of the largest sailing ships constructed were Junks, the business about the water-tight holds and . It's been there since a very early revision [ [1]] before a separate Junk article seems to have been created, so I see the reason the information was originally presented in this article. But now I think it's time for it to go.
Since it's been present in the article for so long, I wanted to ask before deleting it. Paul Moir ( talk) 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not qualified to correct it, but the definition given of a xebec seems to be that of a polacre, and disagrees with the WP page xebec, which speaks largely of polacre-xebecs and suggests that the significance lies in the hull, not the sail plan. Anyone? Czrisher ( talk) 16:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to have an illustration of a hermaphrodite brig. Thanks, Casito, for all your previous work! Taquito1 ( talk) 04:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
References
I am about to remove the statement, "Some barks (see below) have had as many as twelve masts." To the best of my knowledge, no bark has ever had as many as six masts. I am open to being educated, but I insist on verifiability. J S Ayer ( talk) 00:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
If we are going for thoroughness, we could use descriptions and drawings of a staysail schooner, a three-masted jackass-barque, and a four-masted jackass-barque. J S Ayer ( talk) 02:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, could we see examples of the full plan for upper sails, such as not only skysails, but also cloudscrapers, moonrakers, and stargazers? Also, the mention of the Bonaventure (mast abaft the the Mizzen in a four-masted ship), please? Look to the "Essex" for a really massive sail plan. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
173.166.55.113 (
talk)
13:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Balestron rigs and kite rigs are also missing, along with all but one type of crab claw sail and junk rig. HLHJ ( talk) 03:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
A nameless rig as far as I know: about 1850 the SS Great Britain (both a steamship and a sailing ship) was re-rigged with four masts, fore-and-aft rigged on the first and fourth, square rigged on the second and third (tallest) masts. Any thoughts on this rig? J S Ayer ( talk) 17:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
A felucca is defined in the article as having three lateen-rigged masts, but I would suggest that single- and two-masted lateen-rigged coasting vessels in the Med in the 18th and early 19th century were also called feluccas. -- Michael K. Smith ( talk) 00:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The Melanesian, Micronesian and Polynesian proas and other vessels with their highly efficient two sparred crab claw sail (as distinct from the less efficient Lateens) are a significant omission here so far, considering the navigational and nautical prowess of these peoples predating any similar European efforts. See "We, the Navigators: The Ancient Art of Landfinding in the Pacific" by David Lewis and "Sail Performance: Techniques to Maximise Sail Power" by CA Marchaj for references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcebul ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I think a section of crab-clawed sail plans would be appropriate. HLHJ ( talk) 03:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
In the article, the definitions of bobstay and martingale have been confused. The bobstay is the stay beneath the bowsprit which counteracts the pull of the headstays and prevents the bowsprit from lifting. On some vessels twin bobstays were used, angled apart. The martingales (more commonly known on modern yachts as "whisker stays" or whiskers) are the stays at the side of the bowsprit that prevent side-to-side movement. On some vessels the angle of the bobstay is widened by running it under a vertical or near-vertical spar beneath the bowsprit known as the "dolphin striker", which performs the same function for the bowsprit that a "spreader" performs on a mast, and on some vessels "martingale booms" perform a similar function for the martingales. Actually, details of these components of the rig do not really belong in an article on the sail plan. They should be in a separate article on rigging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.206.107 ( talk) 13:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Brig: two masts, both square-rigged with a spanker on the mainmast. They are considered very fast and maneuverable, and can reach speeds of up to 11 knots.
The above statement is entirely inaccurate. A brig of 60 ft (unusually small for this sailplan) at the water line might only get 11knots, a brige of 120 Lwl would get something more like 15 or 16 knots.
Speed has less to do with sailplan as it has to do with hull length...Some hulls that are heavy or very heavy displacement need more sail to push them, but the speed limit so to speak is limited by the hull. You can load more sail on just about any kind of sail plan except catboats and sloops...cutters can load more sail on, but adding more staysails and properly designed for the rig between the jib and the main mast.
Lets remove the reference to absolute speeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.124.81 ( talk) 15:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
something like this ... User:Siznax/sandbox
Siznax ( talk) 03:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Great honor to those who have done this. I regret imposing on someone else's talents, but we have photographs of staysail schooners here and at Schooner; could we have a diagram, pretty please? J S Ayer ( talk) 18:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
It says shipped rig were popular "because of high performance on all points of wind". My understanding, and obvious from observation, is that square rigs were lousy at sailing into wind. I've never understood why they were ever used at all, especially in unknown waters. Cannot tack, easy to get blown into rocks and reefs. And a small boat sailer spends most of their time tacking into wind, as the down wind runs are quick and easy. Some clarification somewhere would be good. I have marked it dubious. Tuntable ( talk) 08:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The diagrams in the 'Types of Ships' section are awkwardly placed. They're not actually contained inside their respective list entries, so depending on the type of reader/browser you use it's not immediately obvious if each diagram belongs to the paragraph above it or the one below. I feel like these diagrams should be embedded/floated within their respective paragraphs as part of each list entry, rather than between them. Is there an existing rule in a style guide that governs how images should be placed in this sort of list? 96.237.174.181 ( talk) 14:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
An IP user, User:86.80.211.74 has twice inserted an unreferenced paragraph into this article on what that user is calling a "DynaRig". The DynaRig appears to be a German invention of the 1960s, but it currently has no Wikipedia article of its own and I am not at all certain it belongs here in this article. I suspect that it is being pushed by someone with a conflict of interest, perhaps someone who works for a company associated with the DynaRig MotorSailer at RunningTideYachts Ltd. I have left a message on the IP user's talk page, but also wanted to solicit responses here. Should "DynaRig" be included here in the list of basic sail plans? What do others think? KDS4444 Talk 12:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Please elucidate the differences between Brig (UK meaning) and Brigantine (UK meaning): As far as I can read in the two articles, both Brig and Brigantine mainmasts are square and fore-and-aft (a gaff sail) rigged. Also sail-plan pictures do not help very much. So the matter is blurry, messy and uneasy.
Even more, as in US the meanings are different: Brig (US meaning) is both Brig (UK meaning) + Brigantine (UK meaning), if I've understood rightly, while Brigantine (USA) is the Hermaphrodite Brig.
How can we explain and arrange informations in an easy and neat way?
By the way, are all those capital letters (in this whole article, not just these two sections) correct and needed? They are not proper names. -- 62.19.46.1 ( talk) 12:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Sail plan . Consensus to replace the hyphen with a space. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Sail-plan →
Sail plan –
MOS:HYPHEN has three criteria for using a hyphen:
This use of a hyphen in the title of the article does not correspond to the MOS. It does hark back to when the use of hyphens in nautical terms was more common than today. User:HopsonRoad 14:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I have just corrected one factual error in the article (the name of the structure joining a topmast or topgallant mast to the mast underneath is the "trestletree", not a "tabernacle", which is the "hinge" at deck level from which a mast can be lowered to lay flat along the deck). My reference for this change is Harland, John (1984). Seamanship in the Age of Sail: an account of the shiphandling of the sailing man-of-war 1600-1860, based on contemporary sources. London: Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 978-1-8448-6309-9. I have not put this reference in the article as so much of the article seems of questionable quality that I did not want to make it appear than anything other than this one correction was derived from this source.
On a quick look, this article needs a serious audit for errors and poor explanations. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 08:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I have substantially edited the text on schooners, and have deleted the following:
"One of the easiest types to sail, but performs poorly to windward without gaff topsails. The extra sails and ease of the gaff sails make the rig easier to operate, though not necessarily faster, than a sloop on all points of sail other than up-wind. Schooners were more popular than sloops prior to the upsurge in recreational boating. The better performance of the sloop upwind was outweighed for most sailors by the better performance of the schooner at all other, more comfortable, points of sail. Advances in design and equipment over the last hundred years have diminished the advantages of the schooner rig."
From my own experience skippering a 72' staysail schooner, it just didn't make any sense and I deleted the passage as little of it seemed verifiable or even justified. Other editors may take a view on this. Arrivisto ( talk) 14:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Why is it in this article? It should be a simple link, elsewhere, e.g. to rigging. Likewise, there is a Glossary of nautical terms article whose content need not be repeated here. I plan to remove it, unless there is an argument to retain it. HopsonRoad ( talk) 02:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I am surprised to see editing activity in this article that is not purposed with the urgent outstanding task of adding some quality references. As it stands, there is a huge amount of nonsense in the article - to pick out just a small sample:
The section "Lugger" under "Two masted vessels" is at substantial variance with the article Lugger, especially since a lugger does not necessarily have 2 masts, has little similarity to gaff rig (beyond sailcloth, ropes and spars) and the mention of traditional Scottish sailing craft (with their traditional names) is a complete mess of definition (and hence wrong). John Leather's book Spritsails and Lugsails is a quality source (and is often cited by other writers who know what they are talking about).
Under "Types of sail", the article states that gaff rig has a boom - whilst that is usually the case, it is not a defining feature. If some decent references had been used, this would have been clear - try Reef Hand and Steer by Tom Cunliffe (pg 47)
"......such as tea clippers, all had towering stacks of smallish square sails...." (bold added) - this is quite astounding. Clippers generally, including tea clippers, set large amounts of sail, and it was usual for this to be achieved, among other methods, by having yards which were particularly long. You can discover this from most of the books on the subject of clippers - but top works include the several books written by David R MacGregor, Cutler's Greyhounds of the Seas, Chapelle's The Search for Speed Under Sail. How do these very long yards equate with "smallish"? What was the editor who wrote this trying to say?
There is a huge amount of fixing to do in this article. Further editing without use of some decent references at hand is only going to make things worse. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 14:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the article has much nonsense that needs to be deleted. Why is that material still up? Please do lots of deletion. I'll delete some of it myself when I have time to.
As one example, the article states that square sails are faster, with no qualification or specification of the conditions under which they're faster. It's astounding that that statement remains in the article. Many reputable sources can be cited that, compared to fore-&-aft sails, square-sails are better downwind, and less effective at other points of sail, at which L/D matters. ...and that they were predominant because downwind routes were preferred and arranged. ...but also because square-sales are more amenable to division into many small sails, more easily managed on a large ship.
But wouldn't it be best to just take the whole article down and start over?
(apparently by: 19:30, 5 May 2021 97.82.109.213 talk )
There is a fundamental problem with the first two sentences of this article:
"A sail plan is a description of the specific ways that a sailing craft is rigged. Also, the term "sail plan" is a graphic depiction of the arrangement of the sails for a given sailing craft."
Or perhaps the problem is with the article title itself.
If you study how the term "sail plan" is used in books by notable technical maritime writers, the commonest use is (taking a few of the readily available definitions):
"design of sails for a vessel, giving main dimensions"
[1]: 207
"The drawing which shows the positions and sizes of sail, and of the spars and rigging, though there may be a separate and additional rigging plan"
[6]
"A sail plan is a drawing showing the sizes, shapes, and positions or sails" (The Language of Sailing (p. 245) by Richard Mayne)
In The Working Guide to Traditional Small-Boat Sails - A How-To Handbook for Builders and Owners by David L. Nichols the term "sail plan" is used extensively in the discussion of the centre of effort of any plans for the sails to be used on a boat. So, "sail plan" is a technical drawing of the sails in a boat or ship's design - in this usage it is not the type of rig.
All of the above use the word "rig" to denote the type of rig on a boat or ship. That is to say: "gaff rig", "Bermuda rig" "square rig", "sloop rig", "ketch rig". I could add the authoritative Hand Reef and Steer by Tom Cunliffe [2] uses the term "sail plan" just once, but uses the word "rig" a very large number of times.
It is rare to find such writers using "sail plan" to denote the generic arrangement of the sails: schooner, sloop, cutter, etc. or the type of individual sail: gaff, Bermuda, lug, etc. In a fairly determined search, I have discovered only one such usage by a notable maritime writer: Jenny Bennett in Sailing Rigs an Illustrated Guide (pg 5) and that seems to be a simple use-of-English matter of avoiding excessive word repetition. I am not suggesting that "sail plan" cannot mean the type of rig (as opposed to a technical or schematic drawing of the sails on a vessel) - it is just that it is a much rarer usage of the term.
So, we have an article that is about the types of sailing rigs that exist and we have it titled with a less common name for the subject. WP:COMMONNAME
As a result of the article name, the start of the article struggles to find a reference to support its definition of the term. The much more common usage is mentioned in the second sentence as an "also...". (The recent edits were about finding a good reference for the first sentence - but neither of them actually provide a definition.)
Are we at the point where a move discussion should be started to rename the article "Sailing rigs"? ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 00:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Hello! I would like to contribute by mirroring the svg of several riggings so that the bow points to the right. This because general arrangements of ship and yachts are traditionally drawn that way - kind of opposite of what happens with cars that are usually sketched pointing to the left. is there any command I could use to flip the images, or I should download, edit them and reupload them? Cheers Awambawamb ( talk) 22:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
This article has long been a catch-all on nautical information. It should be focused on the topic, sail plan. All the text from the section, "Distinctions in nomenclature" to "Sail-plan measurements" is an overly lengthy rehash of what's succinctly presented in the various galleries, which link to more information on each rig. Some of the text, like for Lugger, is more extensive here than in the main article. I would move the pertinent text to the main article. The end result would be a logically organized series of images in gallery form that would take you to the type of vessel depicted. This article would add value in explaining the choices among sail plans. Enumerating each and every one is less valuable.
The "Sail-plan measurements" section should either be developed into something informative or eliminated. HopsonRoad ( talk) 20:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Because Sailing rig and Sailing rigs direct to Rigging, moving this article to either name will require the assistance of an administrator. Hence, I'm seeking consensus that the move is appropriate, per the above discussion.
The lead sentence would become: "Sailing rigs describe the arrangement of sailing vessels' rig components, including their spars, rigging, and sails."
Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 15:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
That's great. That leaves the opportunity for Sail plan to become an article. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 18:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hang on a bit, "sailing rig" isn't even a term in our Glossary of nautical terms article, and I don't think ever has been (and I think this may have been for a reason). Also, there is WP:PLURALS which suggests this article should be "sailing rig" rather than "sailing rigs", except the article is now a sort of list of rigs. The new article Sail plan feels like an unnecessary WP:CONTENT FORK to me. Was this move proposed at Wikipedia:Requested moves? It looks like the discussion was very brief and may not have been adequately advertised. A loose necktie ( talk) 03:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Move to "Rig (sailing)", per the above discussion. A loose necktie, Ahunt, and ThoughtIdRetired, do you concur?
The lead sentence would become: "A sailing vessel's rig is its arrangement of masts, sails and rigging."
Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 12:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I've not been able to give as much thought to this as I would have liked, but it seems to me that the article should first explain that there are fore and aft sails and square sails, then say that there are fore and aft rigs and square rigs. So that is individual sail types first, then a collection of sails that come together to make a rig. (Obviously there are examples of just one sail in a rig, from sailboards through to Viking longships.)
I don't know if a half-formed thought is of assistance at this stage. Perhaps I am raising this a little too late in the current work. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 18:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
The original text implies it was Chinese, when all of the sources AND the main article agree that it was adopted by them only in the 12th century. The text explaining the most likely origin is necessary for the succeeding sentences to make sense. The Chinese had to adopt it FROM somewhere. You can't start that section just by saying the "Chinese adopted the junk rig..." The rig is Southeast Asian, and thus likely Austronesian. It is used in Austronesian ships even in the earliest European depictions, not just East Asian ships. The Khmer are not seafarers, so leaving the sentence just with the Bayon temple also does not answer the question of where it likely came from. OBSIDIAN† SOUL 13:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
all of the sources. You do not seem to want to list any of these sources. Hourani is horribly outdated and demonstrably wrong on many points – as a reference he can only be used by an expert who knows what of his content is still correct (and that is the circumstance in which he is still cited). Johnstone seems to be the source doing all the heavy lifting here and, depending on which edition you have, is either 36 or 44 years old.
Junk rigs were in use in China by around the 12th century) makes no suggestion that the Chinese invented this rig. It just gives a date when they started using it. This is surely the best solution for a situation where there is no hard evidence and this part of the article should be relatively brief to avoid upsetting the overall balance. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 14:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
The issues that I have with the article providing coverage of the origins of junk rig include the absence of any historical content about the other rig types mentioned in the article. The issue of whether or not the attribution to an Austronesian origin is supported by quality sources is subsidiary to this.
Consider how much longer the article would need to be if each rig type mentioned had its historical origins explored. The article would be much larger in size, but would only be summarising content that is much better handled in each rig's own article. Surely this article is the place for the common characteristics of each rig, not the history. As it happens, junk rig has a number of specific characteristics, both in its traditional form and modern versions. Coverage of that is surely the most useful way of using the space available to this subject. (Interestingly, one of the characteristics of junk rig is suggestive that it was developed with mat sails – as opposed to cloth sails – due to the lower tensile strength of mat versus cloth. This would fit with Austronesian development. That, however, is probably for the main article.)
It is worth adding that Hourani is definitely not an RS because it is an outdated source. It was written in 1951. The intervening 73 years have seen an enormous amount of progress in this field. See
WP:OLDSOURCES where the point is made that the editor should check that older sources have not been superseded
. This is not a personal opinion, it is from one of the major content guidelines in Wikipedia.
ThoughtIdRetired
TIR
16:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The typical sail of the Arabs is the lateen, in fact it is the only sail used by them, now or at any recorded time in the past...[bold added]. We now know that Arab seafarers used square sails in the first millennium AD – to the extent that the Jewel of Muscat was unhesitatingly rigged that way. A paper that covers the modern thinking on the origin of lateen rig is Julian Whitewright (2009) The Mediterranean Lateen Sail in Late Antiquity, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 38:1, 97-104, DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2008.00213.x Here you will find remarks like
Such theories have been superseded by unequivocal depictions of lateen/settee-rigged Mediterranean sailing vessels which pre-date the Arab invasion. This is directed at a list of historians which includes Hourani. Even the 1994 reprint, with notes, of Hourani explains that he is wrong on this point.
informed opinionsusing
indirect evidence. A nautical archaeologist who has obtained a good dendrochronological date for a wreck site would certainly argue against that (there are many important wreck sites where the build date can be ascertained to within two or three years), as would many others with hard and fast evidence on other aspects (such as the evidence for the use of windmill driven sawmills being used to build VOC ships from a wreck off Australia, or evidence of Black Sea and Mediterranean Classical period trade routes from amphorae types). History especially has moved on from its relatively unscientific era, making this change in the 1980s (Devine's The Great Highland Famine is an example of the new analytical approach to history, debunking previous work that was to a lower level of precision). Many aspects of history now have the same level of proof as, say, biomedical sciences that give us modern drugs. I appreciate that Obsidian Soul's area of interest has much poorer archaeological and iconographic evidence than some other parts of the world. But that is not a reason to misunderstand how archaeology and maritime history work nowadays, nor to take it out on other editors. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 20:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
if. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Picking up on the above discussion about including histories of rigs, I note that the article is written differently, both in structure and in style, in the "European and American vessels" section, compared with the "Austronesian and Asian vessels" section. The European/American section covers types of vessels and rig configurations. The Austronesian/Asian section emphasizes history and evolution more strongly than configuration. Whether or not one adds history to the E/A section, the A/A section should have descriptions of types of vessels and configurations of rigs in a roughly parallel structure and similar style as the E/A section. Drawing from sources in the uncited passages, should help provide improved parallel structure and style. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 02:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Obsidian Soul, I was about to harmonize the gallery formats, when I realized that you were editing. I was going to use the following format, which is used in the galleries above your edits:
<gallery width="100px" class="center" caption="Quadrilateral examples">
Filename|Caption
Filename|Caption
</gallery>
IMO, this format makes better use of the page by removing the white space from around the images. Perhaps you could take this on.
Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 12:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rig (sailing) 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 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I created graphics from scratch for most of the standard plans in Inkscape. I created them from descriptions and photographs. I did a lot of what amounted to design work, too. ⇝ Casito⇝ Talk 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
looks great Enjoyhats 05:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
They're awesome. I would like to suggest, though that we move 'catboat' and 'gunter' up before sloop, so that they essentially progress from fewest sails to most sails. Coldnorth ( talk) 19:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Wonderful images! Bravo! One possible error - It looks like the Bragantine image is actually a Hermaphrodite Brig. A Brigantine should have a couple square-rigged sails over the fore-and-aft mainsail. It would be nice to add one for a Yawl too (A 2-masted, fore-and-aft-rigged sailing vessel similar to the ketch but having a smaller mizzenmast (or jigger) stepped abaft the rudderpost. Also called a "dandy".) mbjenkins ( talk) 10:07, 20 June 2011 (EST)
You have no idea how valuable this is to those of us who do image cataloging/labelling.
![]() |
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar | |
Thanks!. Scwalsh ( talk) 16:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Great. I modified your proa image and made a tepukei image. Thanks, Casito! HLHJ ( talk) 03:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Image:Tackling.png is beautiful, but it describes the tackling, that is, the lines used to hold and manipulate the sails rather than the sails themselves. If anybody has a numbered image with a legend for courses, topgallants etc., please put it up. Gaal 09:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Take a minute to read the comments at Talk:Sailing#Re-write effort -- non how-to et seq. Some of us are working on re-organizing the sailing-related articles. See if you agree with our approach and give us some help. Mrees1997 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I need a diagram of a Junk Sail that labels al the diferent parts.
-Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.214.34 ( talk) 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Try Junk_rig#Modern_rigs, User talk:207.136.214.34. Actually, that ref has a variety of junk rigs. Maybe we need a junk section. HLHJ ( talk) 03:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that the sails jumped from Skysail to Moonraker. I always thought the full sequence was:
I think that was on the East Indiaman Essex, famous for having the most sails of any ship, ever. If there was only one sail above the skysail, I think it was called the moonsail. My only source is a dictionary that I have since lost. J S Ayer ( talk) 18:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
There is some information in the Junk description that seems to be extraneous to the article subject (Sail-Plan). Namely, that some of the largest sailing ships constructed were Junks, the business about the water-tight holds and . It's been there since a very early revision [ [1]] before a separate Junk article seems to have been created, so I see the reason the information was originally presented in this article. But now I think it's time for it to go.
Since it's been present in the article for so long, I wanted to ask before deleting it. Paul Moir ( talk) 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not qualified to correct it, but the definition given of a xebec seems to be that of a polacre, and disagrees with the WP page xebec, which speaks largely of polacre-xebecs and suggests that the significance lies in the hull, not the sail plan. Anyone? Czrisher ( talk) 16:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to have an illustration of a hermaphrodite brig. Thanks, Casito, for all your previous work! Taquito1 ( talk) 04:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
References
I am about to remove the statement, "Some barks (see below) have had as many as twelve masts." To the best of my knowledge, no bark has ever had as many as six masts. I am open to being educated, but I insist on verifiability. J S Ayer ( talk) 00:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
If we are going for thoroughness, we could use descriptions and drawings of a staysail schooner, a three-masted jackass-barque, and a four-masted jackass-barque. J S Ayer ( talk) 02:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, could we see examples of the full plan for upper sails, such as not only skysails, but also cloudscrapers, moonrakers, and stargazers? Also, the mention of the Bonaventure (mast abaft the the Mizzen in a four-masted ship), please? Look to the "Essex" for a really massive sail plan. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
173.166.55.113 (
talk)
13:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Balestron rigs and kite rigs are also missing, along with all but one type of crab claw sail and junk rig. HLHJ ( talk) 03:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
A nameless rig as far as I know: about 1850 the SS Great Britain (both a steamship and a sailing ship) was re-rigged with four masts, fore-and-aft rigged on the first and fourth, square rigged on the second and third (tallest) masts. Any thoughts on this rig? J S Ayer ( talk) 17:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
A felucca is defined in the article as having three lateen-rigged masts, but I would suggest that single- and two-masted lateen-rigged coasting vessels in the Med in the 18th and early 19th century were also called feluccas. -- Michael K. Smith ( talk) 00:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The Melanesian, Micronesian and Polynesian proas and other vessels with their highly efficient two sparred crab claw sail (as distinct from the less efficient Lateens) are a significant omission here so far, considering the navigational and nautical prowess of these peoples predating any similar European efforts. See "We, the Navigators: The Ancient Art of Landfinding in the Pacific" by David Lewis and "Sail Performance: Techniques to Maximise Sail Power" by CA Marchaj for references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcebul ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I think a section of crab-clawed sail plans would be appropriate. HLHJ ( talk) 03:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
In the article, the definitions of bobstay and martingale have been confused. The bobstay is the stay beneath the bowsprit which counteracts the pull of the headstays and prevents the bowsprit from lifting. On some vessels twin bobstays were used, angled apart. The martingales (more commonly known on modern yachts as "whisker stays" or whiskers) are the stays at the side of the bowsprit that prevent side-to-side movement. On some vessels the angle of the bobstay is widened by running it under a vertical or near-vertical spar beneath the bowsprit known as the "dolphin striker", which performs the same function for the bowsprit that a "spreader" performs on a mast, and on some vessels "martingale booms" perform a similar function for the martingales. Actually, details of these components of the rig do not really belong in an article on the sail plan. They should be in a separate article on rigging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.206.107 ( talk) 13:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Brig: two masts, both square-rigged with a spanker on the mainmast. They are considered very fast and maneuverable, and can reach speeds of up to 11 knots.
The above statement is entirely inaccurate. A brig of 60 ft (unusually small for this sailplan) at the water line might only get 11knots, a brige of 120 Lwl would get something more like 15 or 16 knots.
Speed has less to do with sailplan as it has to do with hull length...Some hulls that are heavy or very heavy displacement need more sail to push them, but the speed limit so to speak is limited by the hull. You can load more sail on just about any kind of sail plan except catboats and sloops...cutters can load more sail on, but adding more staysails and properly designed for the rig between the jib and the main mast.
Lets remove the reference to absolute speeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.155.124.81 ( talk) 15:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
something like this ... User:Siznax/sandbox
Siznax ( talk) 03:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Great honor to those who have done this. I regret imposing on someone else's talents, but we have photographs of staysail schooners here and at Schooner; could we have a diagram, pretty please? J S Ayer ( talk) 18:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
It says shipped rig were popular "because of high performance on all points of wind". My understanding, and obvious from observation, is that square rigs were lousy at sailing into wind. I've never understood why they were ever used at all, especially in unknown waters. Cannot tack, easy to get blown into rocks and reefs. And a small boat sailer spends most of their time tacking into wind, as the down wind runs are quick and easy. Some clarification somewhere would be good. I have marked it dubious. Tuntable ( talk) 08:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The diagrams in the 'Types of Ships' section are awkwardly placed. They're not actually contained inside their respective list entries, so depending on the type of reader/browser you use it's not immediately obvious if each diagram belongs to the paragraph above it or the one below. I feel like these diagrams should be embedded/floated within their respective paragraphs as part of each list entry, rather than between them. Is there an existing rule in a style guide that governs how images should be placed in this sort of list? 96.237.174.181 ( talk) 14:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
An IP user, User:86.80.211.74 has twice inserted an unreferenced paragraph into this article on what that user is calling a "DynaRig". The DynaRig appears to be a German invention of the 1960s, but it currently has no Wikipedia article of its own and I am not at all certain it belongs here in this article. I suspect that it is being pushed by someone with a conflict of interest, perhaps someone who works for a company associated with the DynaRig MotorSailer at RunningTideYachts Ltd. I have left a message on the IP user's talk page, but also wanted to solicit responses here. Should "DynaRig" be included here in the list of basic sail plans? What do others think? KDS4444 Talk 12:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Please elucidate the differences between Brig (UK meaning) and Brigantine (UK meaning): As far as I can read in the two articles, both Brig and Brigantine mainmasts are square and fore-and-aft (a gaff sail) rigged. Also sail-plan pictures do not help very much. So the matter is blurry, messy and uneasy.
Even more, as in US the meanings are different: Brig (US meaning) is both Brig (UK meaning) + Brigantine (UK meaning), if I've understood rightly, while Brigantine (USA) is the Hermaphrodite Brig.
How can we explain and arrange informations in an easy and neat way?
By the way, are all those capital letters (in this whole article, not just these two sections) correct and needed? They are not proper names. -- 62.19.46.1 ( talk) 12:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Sail plan . Consensus to replace the hyphen with a space. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Sail-plan →
Sail plan –
MOS:HYPHEN has three criteria for using a hyphen:
This use of a hyphen in the title of the article does not correspond to the MOS. It does hark back to when the use of hyphens in nautical terms was more common than today. User:HopsonRoad 14:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I have just corrected one factual error in the article (the name of the structure joining a topmast or topgallant mast to the mast underneath is the "trestletree", not a "tabernacle", which is the "hinge" at deck level from which a mast can be lowered to lay flat along the deck). My reference for this change is Harland, John (1984). Seamanship in the Age of Sail: an account of the shiphandling of the sailing man-of-war 1600-1860, based on contemporary sources. London: Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 978-1-8448-6309-9. I have not put this reference in the article as so much of the article seems of questionable quality that I did not want to make it appear than anything other than this one correction was derived from this source.
On a quick look, this article needs a serious audit for errors and poor explanations. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 08:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I have substantially edited the text on schooners, and have deleted the following:
"One of the easiest types to sail, but performs poorly to windward without gaff topsails. The extra sails and ease of the gaff sails make the rig easier to operate, though not necessarily faster, than a sloop on all points of sail other than up-wind. Schooners were more popular than sloops prior to the upsurge in recreational boating. The better performance of the sloop upwind was outweighed for most sailors by the better performance of the schooner at all other, more comfortable, points of sail. Advances in design and equipment over the last hundred years have diminished the advantages of the schooner rig."
From my own experience skippering a 72' staysail schooner, it just didn't make any sense and I deleted the passage as little of it seemed verifiable or even justified. Other editors may take a view on this. Arrivisto ( talk) 14:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Why is it in this article? It should be a simple link, elsewhere, e.g. to rigging. Likewise, there is a Glossary of nautical terms article whose content need not be repeated here. I plan to remove it, unless there is an argument to retain it. HopsonRoad ( talk) 02:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I am surprised to see editing activity in this article that is not purposed with the urgent outstanding task of adding some quality references. As it stands, there is a huge amount of nonsense in the article - to pick out just a small sample:
The section "Lugger" under "Two masted vessels" is at substantial variance with the article Lugger, especially since a lugger does not necessarily have 2 masts, has little similarity to gaff rig (beyond sailcloth, ropes and spars) and the mention of traditional Scottish sailing craft (with their traditional names) is a complete mess of definition (and hence wrong). John Leather's book Spritsails and Lugsails is a quality source (and is often cited by other writers who know what they are talking about).
Under "Types of sail", the article states that gaff rig has a boom - whilst that is usually the case, it is not a defining feature. If some decent references had been used, this would have been clear - try Reef Hand and Steer by Tom Cunliffe (pg 47)
"......such as tea clippers, all had towering stacks of smallish square sails...." (bold added) - this is quite astounding. Clippers generally, including tea clippers, set large amounts of sail, and it was usual for this to be achieved, among other methods, by having yards which were particularly long. You can discover this from most of the books on the subject of clippers - but top works include the several books written by David R MacGregor, Cutler's Greyhounds of the Seas, Chapelle's The Search for Speed Under Sail. How do these very long yards equate with "smallish"? What was the editor who wrote this trying to say?
There is a huge amount of fixing to do in this article. Further editing without use of some decent references at hand is only going to make things worse. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 14:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the article has much nonsense that needs to be deleted. Why is that material still up? Please do lots of deletion. I'll delete some of it myself when I have time to.
As one example, the article states that square sails are faster, with no qualification or specification of the conditions under which they're faster. It's astounding that that statement remains in the article. Many reputable sources can be cited that, compared to fore-&-aft sails, square-sails are better downwind, and less effective at other points of sail, at which L/D matters. ...and that they were predominant because downwind routes were preferred and arranged. ...but also because square-sales are more amenable to division into many small sails, more easily managed on a large ship.
But wouldn't it be best to just take the whole article down and start over?
(apparently by: 19:30, 5 May 2021 97.82.109.213 talk )
There is a fundamental problem with the first two sentences of this article:
"A sail plan is a description of the specific ways that a sailing craft is rigged. Also, the term "sail plan" is a graphic depiction of the arrangement of the sails for a given sailing craft."
Or perhaps the problem is with the article title itself.
If you study how the term "sail plan" is used in books by notable technical maritime writers, the commonest use is (taking a few of the readily available definitions):
"design of sails for a vessel, giving main dimensions"
[1]: 207
"The drawing which shows the positions and sizes of sail, and of the spars and rigging, though there may be a separate and additional rigging plan"
[6]
"A sail plan is a drawing showing the sizes, shapes, and positions or sails" (The Language of Sailing (p. 245) by Richard Mayne)
In The Working Guide to Traditional Small-Boat Sails - A How-To Handbook for Builders and Owners by David L. Nichols the term "sail plan" is used extensively in the discussion of the centre of effort of any plans for the sails to be used on a boat. So, "sail plan" is a technical drawing of the sails in a boat or ship's design - in this usage it is not the type of rig.
All of the above use the word "rig" to denote the type of rig on a boat or ship. That is to say: "gaff rig", "Bermuda rig" "square rig", "sloop rig", "ketch rig". I could add the authoritative Hand Reef and Steer by Tom Cunliffe [2] uses the term "sail plan" just once, but uses the word "rig" a very large number of times.
It is rare to find such writers using "sail plan" to denote the generic arrangement of the sails: schooner, sloop, cutter, etc. or the type of individual sail: gaff, Bermuda, lug, etc. In a fairly determined search, I have discovered only one such usage by a notable maritime writer: Jenny Bennett in Sailing Rigs an Illustrated Guide (pg 5) and that seems to be a simple use-of-English matter of avoiding excessive word repetition. I am not suggesting that "sail plan" cannot mean the type of rig (as opposed to a technical or schematic drawing of the sails on a vessel) - it is just that it is a much rarer usage of the term.
So, we have an article that is about the types of sailing rigs that exist and we have it titled with a less common name for the subject. WP:COMMONNAME
As a result of the article name, the start of the article struggles to find a reference to support its definition of the term. The much more common usage is mentioned in the second sentence as an "also...". (The recent edits were about finding a good reference for the first sentence - but neither of them actually provide a definition.)
Are we at the point where a move discussion should be started to rename the article "Sailing rigs"? ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 00:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Hello! I would like to contribute by mirroring the svg of several riggings so that the bow points to the right. This because general arrangements of ship and yachts are traditionally drawn that way - kind of opposite of what happens with cars that are usually sketched pointing to the left. is there any command I could use to flip the images, or I should download, edit them and reupload them? Cheers Awambawamb ( talk) 22:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
This article has long been a catch-all on nautical information. It should be focused on the topic, sail plan. All the text from the section, "Distinctions in nomenclature" to "Sail-plan measurements" is an overly lengthy rehash of what's succinctly presented in the various galleries, which link to more information on each rig. Some of the text, like for Lugger, is more extensive here than in the main article. I would move the pertinent text to the main article. The end result would be a logically organized series of images in gallery form that would take you to the type of vessel depicted. This article would add value in explaining the choices among sail plans. Enumerating each and every one is less valuable.
The "Sail-plan measurements" section should either be developed into something informative or eliminated. HopsonRoad ( talk) 20:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Because Sailing rig and Sailing rigs direct to Rigging, moving this article to either name will require the assistance of an administrator. Hence, I'm seeking consensus that the move is appropriate, per the above discussion.
The lead sentence would become: "Sailing rigs describe the arrangement of sailing vessels' rig components, including their spars, rigging, and sails."
Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 15:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
That's great. That leaves the opportunity for Sail plan to become an article. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 18:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hang on a bit, "sailing rig" isn't even a term in our Glossary of nautical terms article, and I don't think ever has been (and I think this may have been for a reason). Also, there is WP:PLURALS which suggests this article should be "sailing rig" rather than "sailing rigs", except the article is now a sort of list of rigs. The new article Sail plan feels like an unnecessary WP:CONTENT FORK to me. Was this move proposed at Wikipedia:Requested moves? It looks like the discussion was very brief and may not have been adequately advertised. A loose necktie ( talk) 03:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Move to "Rig (sailing)", per the above discussion. A loose necktie, Ahunt, and ThoughtIdRetired, do you concur?
The lead sentence would become: "A sailing vessel's rig is its arrangement of masts, sails and rigging."
Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 12:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I've not been able to give as much thought to this as I would have liked, but it seems to me that the article should first explain that there are fore and aft sails and square sails, then say that there are fore and aft rigs and square rigs. So that is individual sail types first, then a collection of sails that come together to make a rig. (Obviously there are examples of just one sail in a rig, from sailboards through to Viking longships.)
I don't know if a half-formed thought is of assistance at this stage. Perhaps I am raising this a little too late in the current work. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 18:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
The original text implies it was Chinese, when all of the sources AND the main article agree that it was adopted by them only in the 12th century. The text explaining the most likely origin is necessary for the succeeding sentences to make sense. The Chinese had to adopt it FROM somewhere. You can't start that section just by saying the "Chinese adopted the junk rig..." The rig is Southeast Asian, and thus likely Austronesian. It is used in Austronesian ships even in the earliest European depictions, not just East Asian ships. The Khmer are not seafarers, so leaving the sentence just with the Bayon temple also does not answer the question of where it likely came from. OBSIDIAN† SOUL 13:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
all of the sources. You do not seem to want to list any of these sources. Hourani is horribly outdated and demonstrably wrong on many points – as a reference he can only be used by an expert who knows what of his content is still correct (and that is the circumstance in which he is still cited). Johnstone seems to be the source doing all the heavy lifting here and, depending on which edition you have, is either 36 or 44 years old.
Junk rigs were in use in China by around the 12th century) makes no suggestion that the Chinese invented this rig. It just gives a date when they started using it. This is surely the best solution for a situation where there is no hard evidence and this part of the article should be relatively brief to avoid upsetting the overall balance. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 14:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
The issues that I have with the article providing coverage of the origins of junk rig include the absence of any historical content about the other rig types mentioned in the article. The issue of whether or not the attribution to an Austronesian origin is supported by quality sources is subsidiary to this.
Consider how much longer the article would need to be if each rig type mentioned had its historical origins explored. The article would be much larger in size, but would only be summarising content that is much better handled in each rig's own article. Surely this article is the place for the common characteristics of each rig, not the history. As it happens, junk rig has a number of specific characteristics, both in its traditional form and modern versions. Coverage of that is surely the most useful way of using the space available to this subject. (Interestingly, one of the characteristics of junk rig is suggestive that it was developed with mat sails – as opposed to cloth sails – due to the lower tensile strength of mat versus cloth. This would fit with Austronesian development. That, however, is probably for the main article.)
It is worth adding that Hourani is definitely not an RS because it is an outdated source. It was written in 1951. The intervening 73 years have seen an enormous amount of progress in this field. See
WP:OLDSOURCES where the point is made that the editor should check that older sources have not been superseded
. This is not a personal opinion, it is from one of the major content guidelines in Wikipedia.
ThoughtIdRetired
TIR
16:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The typical sail of the Arabs is the lateen, in fact it is the only sail used by them, now or at any recorded time in the past...[bold added]. We now know that Arab seafarers used square sails in the first millennium AD – to the extent that the Jewel of Muscat was unhesitatingly rigged that way. A paper that covers the modern thinking on the origin of lateen rig is Julian Whitewright (2009) The Mediterranean Lateen Sail in Late Antiquity, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 38:1, 97-104, DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2008.00213.x Here you will find remarks like
Such theories have been superseded by unequivocal depictions of lateen/settee-rigged Mediterranean sailing vessels which pre-date the Arab invasion. This is directed at a list of historians which includes Hourani. Even the 1994 reprint, with notes, of Hourani explains that he is wrong on this point.
informed opinionsusing
indirect evidence. A nautical archaeologist who has obtained a good dendrochronological date for a wreck site would certainly argue against that (there are many important wreck sites where the build date can be ascertained to within two or three years), as would many others with hard and fast evidence on other aspects (such as the evidence for the use of windmill driven sawmills being used to build VOC ships from a wreck off Australia, or evidence of Black Sea and Mediterranean Classical period trade routes from amphorae types). History especially has moved on from its relatively unscientific era, making this change in the 1980s (Devine's The Great Highland Famine is an example of the new analytical approach to history, debunking previous work that was to a lower level of precision). Many aspects of history now have the same level of proof as, say, biomedical sciences that give us modern drugs. I appreciate that Obsidian Soul's area of interest has much poorer archaeological and iconographic evidence than some other parts of the world. But that is not a reason to misunderstand how archaeology and maritime history work nowadays, nor to take it out on other editors. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 20:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
if. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Picking up on the above discussion about including histories of rigs, I note that the article is written differently, both in structure and in style, in the "European and American vessels" section, compared with the "Austronesian and Asian vessels" section. The European/American section covers types of vessels and rig configurations. The Austronesian/Asian section emphasizes history and evolution more strongly than configuration. Whether or not one adds history to the E/A section, the A/A section should have descriptions of types of vessels and configurations of rigs in a roughly parallel structure and similar style as the E/A section. Drawing from sources in the uncited passages, should help provide improved parallel structure and style. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 02:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Obsidian Soul, I was about to harmonize the gallery formats, when I realized that you were editing. I was going to use the following format, which is used in the galleries above your edits:
<gallery width="100px" class="center" caption="Quadrilateral examples">
Filename|Caption
Filename|Caption
</gallery>
IMO, this format makes better use of the page by removing the white space from around the images. Perhaps you could take this on.
Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 12:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)