Talk:List of world's largest wooden ships

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vernet's Shipwreck This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:
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 Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as High-importance on the assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Deleted Noah's Ark

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)

At least it should be put i a separate piece of the article - like "Largest mythological ships" or similar. Having it put beside the Treasure Ships wich are proven to have existed (althought very little is known of them) is just crazy. There is no scientific evidence for it.
Keep Noah's ark, sure but move it.

[edit] Zheng He

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)


[edit] 5th February 2007

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)

It is ordered right now roughly shortest to longest. But if you think another order would be better, then we can try it.--Filll 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops. I added a ship right next to the other Swedish one. I'll have to place it correctly. Orangemarlin 04:59, 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)

Time for bed. However, I didn't know about the Lead vs. Introduction thing. I'll work on it in the morning, if you don't. This is becoming a nice article. I actually visited the Vasa museum in Stockholm a couple of times. The ship is amazing, but from today's knowledge, it was obvious that it was going to sink. But what a work of 17th century engineering. Orangemarlin 06:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subject of the article

[edit] Title of the article -> List

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)

Ok OM, which do you prefer? I do not really care personally.--Filll 20:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the former, but only by a narrow margin. I don't care either, really. Orangemarlin 22:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This should be one of those "Did you know" articles. How do we get it nominated? I read the rules, and typical of Wikipedia, I have no clue what the right way to do it. I wish there were just buttons here and there to do things. Orangemarlin 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I figured the best way to learn is just to try it. So I nominated it at Template talk:Did you know as you can see. I do not know its chances, or if I did it correctly or not.--Filll 00:20, 6 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)

Oops. I didn't read this, so if we're using the bowsprit, let's reference it on the table. By the way, it looks nice.Orangemarlin 19:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length of ship

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 am currently semiofficially using total length including bowsprit, although I might not be totally consistent. We could also get tonnage of various kinds (one type of tonnage is a volume measurement I found out) for many of these. To start with, I just figured I would go with length since that is fairly easy to get for most and understandable. Then as it develops, we could add more information in footnotes or other columns in the table, etc.--Filll 19:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format

[edit] Table

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 made a preliminary table. Other criterias may be added like 'keel length', 'beam', 'home harbour', 'builder', etc. Gun Powder Ma 13:41, 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)

Why not. But there has to be obviously a list ordering the ships by a definite criteria. Also, that "separate list" should be closely on-topic, that is concentrating on things in close connection with the length & size of the ships, since the ships as such are already discussed at other places. Regards Gun Powder Ma 15:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmed - unconfirmed dichotomy

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)

Maybe a 3rd category is appropriate? We have 1 category for ships for which we have great records, photos, archaeological evidence etc. I put those as confirmed. We have one category for those which are really sort of doubtful. Maybe an intermediate category, those which are supported by serious scholarship but no archaeological evidence? It is hard for me to judge a 2500 year old claim for a ship when there is just a written text. On the other hand, there was a large rudder found in one of the Zheng He shipyards apparently. What I find a bit disconcerting about that story is that the Chinese were not particularly seafaring. It is very different to pilot a craft close to shore or in a river than it is to go across thousands of miles of open ocean. And the claim is that with minimal deep water experience, they set out with a force of 30,000+ sailors and hundreds of ships or more, some big enough to have little farms on them, growing crops, with animals on them being tended so that no sailors would have to eat strange food in strange lands? And in one fell swoop, from smallish junks plying rivers and local waters to wooden craft bigger than have ever been produced even to this date, even with advanced materials and computer modeling ? And then the technology just vanishes into thin air after a few years? It seems AWFULLY hard to swallow. Possible, but seems like a very low probability event.--Filll 01:18, 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)

Just a bit of history of why we did these articles. There is a claim amongst biblical literalists that Noah's Ark is literally true based on Genesis. And to defend their point, they claim that there have been ships built as large as the Ark. The Treasure Ship is a myth that supports the myth (yeah Creationists do this all the time). I started with writing the article on the Wyoming, since it really proves that building a boat that big is impossible. Filll started the new article. We need to point out ships that have no evidence of existence. Vasa is proven. The Treasure Ships--not so much. Orangemarlin 01:56, 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)

[edit] Three divisions

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)

[edit] Entries

[edit] In

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)

They all appear to have steel hulls. I did look however. I might have missed one, so if anyone finds one of these with a wooden hull, then lets see it and put it in.--Filll 19:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential to do

  1. add HMS Colossus (1787)?? How big was it compared to other ships of that time?
Answer: smaller. See French ship Orient (1791) for instance.--Filll 22:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Other triremes and related?
  2. more from links
  3. discussion of Square-cube law?--Filll 21:51, 6 February 2007 (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)

[edit] Out

France II: I propose that we delete this entry, since it really isn't a wood ship. Orangemarlin 19:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I guess I will take it out. I sort of liked it because it comes up when you search for "world's largest wooden ship" on some search engines, but then I found out it had a steel hull. And if we include it, we will have to include a huge number of other hybrid metal-wood ships, and it is hard to know where to draw the line.--Filll 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other sources

--Filll 01:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[2] Another source--Filll 02:34, 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)

[edit] Miscellaneous

[edit] an irrelevant but huge planned ship

Take a look at this puppy: Freedom Ship--Filll 21:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Of course all the creationists will now claim that Noah could do it to. Orangemarlin 01:01, 7 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)

[edit] Not liking the new format

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)

You didnt find the big list in the right hand column difficult? And the strangely sized boxes in the table?--Filll 13:25, 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)

I think the old table gave the reader a better general idea. I used that format for this voluminous list: Spread of printing and I think it works. :-) Gun Powder Ma 17:14, 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 think that would work, although I'm not a fan of footnotes. Maybe some of the text in the boxes could be placed in a footnote. Let's see how it looks. Orangemarlin 02:47, 8 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)

[edit] Experiment

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)

I tried to fix the spacing, and to make the comment section as succinct as possible, with very mixed results so far.--Filll 17:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Better. I wish that coding of Wiki was easier. I'm impressed at how you do all of this. Orangemarlin 17:34, 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 forgot to add a comment when I edited, but I reformatted the table. It took a bit of experimenting to get it right, but it looks right now. The table was a bit wider than the rest of the page, and it required scrolling side to side to read it. I think it works better now. Orangemarlin 06:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re treasure ships

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)

You're right of course. All three ships are probably mythological, although if I were to order them in probability of maybe being true, the Treasure Ships would be first and Noah's Ark would be dead last, bordering on impossible. I'll rework the language. Orangemarlin 16:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Great. Very interesting list, by the way; good job to those involved. :) -- bcasterline • talk 17:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History Channel Program

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).

[edit] Two new candidates

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:

  • Grosser Adler von Lübeck (Great Eagle of Lubeck) of 1565: 64 m long, 14 m wide
  • Vettor Fausto's Venetian Quinquereme, 75 m long, 10 m wide, 300 cannon

Who has more information on them? Regards Gun Powder Ma 14:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you should add this information to the list. If you have references, that would be great. Orangemarlin 15:27, 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)

Grosser Adler von Lübeck of 1565 is the sister ship by the danish warship Fortuna on 2100 tons and a crew on 1159 man. The two ships was the biggest warships in 1565-1604. But all information is on danish and swedish. Fortuna and Grosser Adler von Lübeck had three decks with cannons. The ships was bulid in the Nordic Seven War 1563-1570, but come not in sea battle i 1568-1570. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.161.226 (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rearranging the list

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)

[edit] Noah's Ark (the article, not the ship)

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)

My candidate is Caligula's Giant Ship, which was measured at 104 meters when its remains were found. However, I will point out that we do not have much information on its sea-worthiness.--Filll 14:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Caligula's ship could be mentioned in a footnote; but for the body of the article I'd like to have the name of a well-documented wooden ship that went to sea and withstood waves and storms and all the other stresses of an Ark-like voyage. (The Wyoming didn't do too badly actually - it sailed the seas for several years before foundering). PiCo 15:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Expert on Big Boats for Boys??? LOL. I liked the Wyoming as an example, because there are modern records, it was built with modern techniques and equipment (and it still leaked and sank), and by itself, it's a great story. Other large ships are just too mythical to be used. It would be like confirming a myth with a myth. But, I get your point. We need a good one with some documentation that didn't use modern shipbuilding techniques. Orangemarlin 16:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Treasure ship entry

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)

If the main point is just to present "what has been reported", then the subsections "Less well-documented large wooden ships" and "Unconfirmed large wooden ships" were clearly POV, and had to be removed. I agree about the Zheng He editor, hence I included more recent research, which has to be given priority over the - obviously vastly exaggerating - ancient source, if the article should not be of only antiquarian interest. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2008 (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)

By the way, there is lots of modern scholarship claiming that Zeng He never existed, and the treasure ships never existed, and this was just a fantasy. So that is why it goes where it goes. Who cares about the guesses of some modern professor? Who writes in Chinese? Who cares? The stories about Zeng He are so extreme as to be beyond belief, and it is not just the ship size that is contested.--Filll (talk) 14:25, 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)

Well let me rephrase that. What I have read is very skeptical that Zeng He engaged in such wide-ranging voyages of discovery, that he took so many people with him on his voyages, that this ocean going enterprise of such size appeared out of nowhere and then disappeared completely, that he went to the places that people claim (all over the Indian Ocean, let alone more claims that he reached the Americas), that he brought so many goods with him to give away as gifts, that he brought so many goods back with him as gifts, that so many resources were devoted to such an enterprise for no particular reason, and so on and so forth. This is all independent of the size of the ships or the number of ships or the claimed ship dimensions, all of which are highly suspicious. For example, some of the accounts I have heard of where this skepticism is expressed were referenced by Boorstein, if I remember correctly. So sure there might have been someone named Zeng He, a castrated Muslim who had lots of sway in the Chinese court. But are all the accounts of his expeditions accurate? Exaggerated if true? Those are all open questions, and there is skepticism and I will confess to being skeptical myself.--Filll (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether Zheng He's ship were indeed 120 meters is debated, but whether he existed, whether he sailed to as far as Africa, or whether he devoted so much to enterprise is mostly not up to question, at least for most scholars and can be considered verified as much as the numbers of the Spanish armada. I'm sure you can find a few if you look hard enough, just like whether Xu Fu discovered America. There is just too many sources that say otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnip (talk • contribs) 03:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it goes without saying that generally modern, critical research has priority over ancient claims. After all, this is an encyclopedia, which is meant for expanding knowledge, not an antiquarian bookshop. If we start giving wild ancient claims of 120 m long boats priority over what we today know, then what could people keep from, say, giving Herodot's claim of 4 million Persian invaders in 480 BC priority over modern estimates as well (1-200 000)? It cannot be enough stressed that we are striving here for critical research, not for taking everything the ancients said at face-value. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It's well and good to have modern scholarship, but it's unprofessional to only post those you read and delete the rest of the sources. An encycopedia should post all views, not just "one" view, no matter how much you agree with it. I myself believe that Zheng He's treasure ship size is exxagerated by 2 times, but that doesn't give me the right to delete every modern/contemporary source that disagrees with my viewpoint(seriously, have you even read Xin's paper?). One can't simply just say "modern scholarship" agrees with *blank*... when it's more like "Sally K. Church agrees with" *blank*(which is also scratching the unacceptable b/c I remember Sally K said 200-250 feet instead)... Why don't you just say "many modern scholars agree with instead"? Sure, professor Xin is modern, but so is prof He, Xu, and Wang who says to the contrary(they say 44 zhang ships existed, but weren't taken to sea). It is also accepted that older but more acknowledged sources should not be deleted when a newer/less acknowledged source contrasts with it. Besides, Sally K.(the source you are using) DID say, if memory serves me right, it's 200-250 feet, there's no need to delete that with 59 meters, which really isn't that much of a difference(7 feet). You could just replace that with 193-250 feet instead of deleting the whole thing and replacing it with one source. Than ks Gnip ([User talk: Gnip|talk]]) 11:03, 11 Feburary 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caligula's giant barge

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)

We did have in one of these articles a naval architect do a very detailed analysis of the Zeng He ship dimensions and the Noah's Ark dimensions, and come to the conclusion that they were highly unstable. Unfortunately, this material was deleted as OR by assorted POV pushers. It can probably be found in good sources, but I did not get around to digging for it. River barges prove little about sea-going ships that have to stay afloat for the better part of a year in a huge storm.--Filll (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)