Talk:Iron-hulled sailing ship

Largest Windjammer

The Article mentions both the Preussian and the France II as the largest Windjammer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.233.69.220 (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

article is not very good

Windjammers are most famous for being very fast. Time is money, especially on the scale of Australia to Europe, and a fast ship would make more roundtrips a year, and more profit.

And all that stuff about modern reasons to return to sailing ships: this has nothing to do with windjammers in particular (other than that the windjammer was the most advanced form of a sailing ship prior to their demise as commercial vessels). I mean "kites"? what windjammers flew kites?

You’re confusing windjammers with clippers. Seano1 21:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Windjammers are like the opposite to the clippers - the clippers carried small ammounts of high value/perishable cargo at high speeds; windjammers carried large ammounts of lower-value cargoes at lower speeds. Fionnlaoch (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

removed the reference to internal combustion engines

I remove

Expensive?

The article currently says: "Sailing ships in general were expensive to operate, as they required a large crew". While that is not wrong absolutely, it seems to be misleading in the context. Preussen (ship) had a crew of 45. Compared to a modern container ship, that is large. But compared to a 10000 ton 1900 coal-fired steamer with stokers and mechanics, it is not. --Stephan Schulz 08:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition, what I've read suggests that crews in sail were paid less than those in steam, sometimes considerably so. Not to mention the saving in coal (and water in some places). I don't know which would cost more to maintain; a sailing ship has a lot of gear in constant use in a harsh environment, but none of it's particularly complicated to maintain or repair, compared to a steam engine.

The difficulty is, if we say that sailing ships were cheaper than steam, we also need to say why they died out (for non-time-sensitive cargo). I don't have an answer to that. 80.41.90.80 15:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a number of answers. For one, there is not that much cargo without any sensitivity to time of delivery. For another, the world wars were dire for sailing ships, as they could not be put into convoys with steamers. But all that misses the point a bit. If we have no WP:V-verifiable reason, we should offer none at all, not one that is possibly (even likely) wrong...--Stephan Schulz 23:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The clipper page talks about the opening of the Suez canal being a factor in that using the canal was more difficult for a sailing ship. --Dan 18:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The main reason for the demise of the windjammers was the diesel engine. It proved more economical on ultra-long voyages, and it eventually eclipsed steam engine as well - nowadays the only steamships in existence are warships. Diesel engine is stoked automatically and is more reliable and needs less maintenance than steam engine. They need less bunkerage and are more fuel-efficient than steamers. Besides that, windjammers were dependent on weather. True, on good winds they could easily log 15 kn average speeds - Herzogin Cecilie logged 21 and Parma 22 kn - but while on still wind, such as doldrums, they would have gone faster by rowing. Steamers and motorships can maintain constant speed at any weather, and henceforth are more predictable than windjammers - they keep easier in schedule. Likewise, a diesel ship can be built far wider and draftier by hull than a windjammer of same length; what is lost in hydrodynamics is gained on cargo capacity.

I don't know the answares to that, but when it comes to the replacement of square rigs with for and aft rigs in the norwegian fishing fleet I think the reason where that square sails required a larger crew to handle then a for and aft sail of the same size, maybe that is relevant here too?

Yes, and fore-and-aft rig is superior to square rig on coastal waters - it is far easier to handle and to control, and provides better maneuvreability. Small coasters were built as schooners and barquentines in the end of 19th century. Another reason is that a gaff rig can be handled completely on the deck - no need for going aloft to yards or tops. But on ocean-going vessels, the square rig is better; it provides far better running capabilities, the individual sails can be adjusted exactly by the wind, and large fore-and-aft sails are VERY difficult to handle; seven mast schooner Thomas W. Lawson was known by the fact that its sails were excreemely difficult to handle. That is the reasons why most windjammers were barques: they combined the good properties of both square and fore-and-aft rig.

Then again, these ships had a large number of relativly small sails instead of one "large" one like the fishing ships had, I guess that would mean that a smaller crew could handle one sail at the time and that way reduce the amount of crew needed.

I donno, this ain't exactly something I know allot about..

And I can't exactly be called a WP:V-verifiable reason to change anything ^^

Anyways, good luck with finding the answare :)

Luredreier 16:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Eric Newby's detailed account of his round the world trip on Moshulu in 1938-1939 has much relevant information. For one thing, the spare sails were carried on the (mostly empty) first deck, just below the weather deck, and above the cargo hold. It seems there was no space conflict. The crew was small, 28; he describes it as 4 officers, cook, steward, sailmaker, carprenter, two men to run the donkey engine, and 18 sailors (9 of those apprentices). That is probably within a factor of two of what a steam ship would need for such a voyage. They handled the heavy work with the help of "patent" (differential) winches. They spent a lot of time chipping rust.

He interviewed the sailmaker, who described the sail material as the best available linen canvas, certainly not cheap, but likely the most durable material available at the time.

I think one big problem was that the square rig is a special-purpose, not a general-purpose, rig; it goes very well downwind and poorly upwind. For example, at the start of the voyage, Moshulu struggled for about a week in the Irish Sea trying to go against the wind, after coming out of Belfast, before the Captain relented and went the other way. (Probably after he was satisfied that the apprentices had had enough practice tacking.) (By the way, if you doubt tacking a square rig is tricky and dangerous, read "The Secret Sharer" by Conrad.) The Moshulu went round the world from Ireland to Australia and back to take advantage of prevailing winds. Not all trade routes have such convenient wind patterns. Many ships are chartered for individual voyages and benefit by being able to sail in any direction. Hybrid engine and square rigs suffer from huge wind resistance losses when motoring into the wind. Even fore-and-aft rigs have a quadrant they can not sail in. Most importantly though, fuel used to be cheap.

AJim (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I wand to clear up several points here: windjammers were very cheap to run. They required minimal numbers of crew, because they were fitted with steam winches. Compared to the earlier steamers, they were also quite fast. A major problem for steamers is that they reuiquired coaling stations to refuel, as on longer journeys, they couldn't carry anywhere near enough fuel for a passage. This cost the owners a lot of money. The coal also cost money, as did the enormous manpower required to operate them. Steam suddenly became more useful and economically viable with the opening of the Suez Canal which was a vital world trade route. Sailing ships could not pass through it, and therefore had to continue old routes around Africa, while the steamers cut two thirds off travel distances. As more canals opened, and steam technology became more efficient and reliable, saining vessels were gradually phased out. Fionnlaoch (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Modern use of the term "windjammer"

Some contemporary buisnesses use the term windjammer in their names and to describe their sailing vessles, which are most often actually schooners, and never square rigged sailing ships of the type described in this article. I submit that it is enough to link to windjammer cruises at the top of the page and that we ought to refrain from any other such links, as they are essentially promotion of commercial ventures. --John.james (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The narrow use of "windjammer," to refer solely to square-rigged, steel-hulled ships, differs from the original sense of "windjammer," which referred to any sailing ship. See, for example, several examples in Peter Jensen Brown's article, Windjammers, Jazz-Jammers and Jam Sessions. The term originally arose as a mocking term used by steamship "sailors" to refer to actual sailing ships. Sailing-ship sailors mocked the steamship crews for not being "real" sailors. The phrase was not used narrowly, to refer specifically to a certain type of steel-hulled, square-rigged merchant ship until much later; if ever. The businesses and clubs who use the term windjammer to refer to their sailing ships use the term in its original sense; not the other way around. This article would benefit from a broader perspective. The German language article is actually pretty good, in that it runs through all of the various senses of the word, "windjammer," in the introduction, before launching into a lengthy article about the specific type of "windjammer" covered here. Svaihingen (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

List of windjammers under sail today

I see there is a list of some windjammers in this article but I think I know of one not mentioned, the Christian Radich althou I might be wrong about it being a windjammer... Anyways it would be nice if anyone could verify that it is a windjammer and add it to the list (or prove it ain't one/give a other reason for not adding it)

Luredreier 16:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Christian Radich was built for sail training, not cargo carrying. She is also much smaller than the last commercial sailing windjammers. Her loaded displacement of 1050 tons is one fith of the deadweight tonnage (cargo carrying capacity) of Moshulu. --John.james (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I scold this article!

1. The article uses the past tense. Why? There are still some Windjammers around.
2. The article claims that Windjammers must have a metallic hull. The German article states that there are also Windjammers with wooden hulls.
3. The article doesn't give the term's etymology.

Thanks, Maikel (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've edited it some. Maikel (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

The claim that the term derives from Dutch 'jammeren' (similar to German 'jammern', or whinging), is explicitly contradicted by the German version of this page. Only one can be right. Please substantiate. heiser (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Folk etymology common?

Is that mistaken "folk etymology" actually "common"? I've read about windjammers many times before with explanations of the name and never encountered that mistaken etymology before Wikipedia.--23.119.205.88 (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Windjammers (video game) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Windjammer is a colloquialism, not a class of ship.

Ahoy wikipedians

Please note, the term 'windjammer' is never used by seamen, or ever to describe a vessel definitively. A vessel type is never described so vaguely.

It is a colloquialism used by essentially landlubbers, copy and fiction writers, to describe a variety of large old sailing ships. It was never used actually in the days when there were only large sailing ships.

Karen Hill, New York freelance writer and editor gave the best description. >>

"The earliest use of the term windjammer in English is reported to have been in the 1870’s, with the meaning of “a horn player.”

It seems probable that the nickname was coined from the German word for wind, which has the same spelling, and from the German verb jammer (pronounced yahmmer, and from which we get the English yammer), which means “to moan, cry, wail.”

Hence the horn player, who might seem to an unappreciative hearer to be making moaning or wailing sounds with his wind, was given the slang name of windjammer.

The next oldest use in English is the meaning “a talkative person, blowhard, windbag,” and since such a one, too, is making noises with his wind, this meaning seems to be a logical extension of the first.

But the most common meaning in English today, which dates from the very last of the nineteenth century, is “a sailing vessel or one of its crew.”

Here we can only suppose that, in the great rivalry between steam and sail, the men of the sailing ships bragged so loudly of the merits of sail that the supporters of steamships tacked onto them this term, from where it was transferred to the ships as well."

- - At some point this can be parsed by someone into wiki-speak - with citations of course, but I have neither the time nor the energy to sift through the heaps of errors with this and similar. Otherwise WP is a most useful of online tools.

This is the disappointing downside of crowdsourcing encyclopedic or any accurate information. I find that, for example, the SMS Seeadler (1888) is defined as a windjammer, when the word should not even be mentioned. She is a Barque or a Full-rigged ship.

Please lets keep windjammer for Jack London novels, or charterboat spiel. And fyi - 40 years a ocean going captain, neither I nor anyone near me ever used this word definitively. Ssaco (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I concur, Ssaco. This is a topic that should be brought to the attention of the respected interested projects. There's already Sailing ship, Full-rigged ship and Barque. Where do you recommend that this material go? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking at this, and also the page clipper which similarly has been hijacked to a non world view. Please feel free to dive in here. If I were to start from scratch most of this page would disappear. It's not the truth. A windjammer is a simple slang contemporary colloquialism, and I found that dictionary.com agrees. Its etymology is all but impossible to find, and Britannica does not give it a mention. The links refer to, as you say, other specific and defined components of established maritime usage. I'm glad you chimed in, changes made to improve this page or any wikipedia page are best done in concert with other accuracy-minded WPedians. It's not so big a task that I need to run it as a larger project.

Thanks HopsonRoad, and please feel free to swing the axe. Ssaco (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not the term is from German origin seems uncertain. But regardless of the origin, there is now such a term in the English language. Likewise, whether or not sailors ever used the term to indicate a specific class doesn't change the fact that it now has come to represent a large long-distance bulk cargo sailing ship. The best way to improve this article is not to complain about the contemporary use, or lack of it, of the term, but rather to improve its structure, and its wording. Mysha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting here, Mysha. I concur that the term has meaning. However, much of the content here should be directed to a better-organized, structured and written Sailing ship article. Some content should remain, such as at Tall ship, which emphasizes those remaining sailing ships that participate in festivals. Here, the the "Design" section should contribute to a "History" section at Sailing ship, where there is no such section. I'm not averse to renaming this article, somehow, e.g. "Large sailing ships", and keeping a substantial portion of material here. In this instance the lead sentences might be:

Large sailing ships, built to carry bulk cargo for long distances in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, were the largest of merchant sailing ships with three to five tall masts and combination of square and fore-and-aft sails. They are sometimes referred to, colloquially, as "windjammers" or "tall ships".

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting issue! There is nothing wrong with mentioning "Windjammer" as a colloquial term for a class of ships in an article on that class (with a redirect leading there), but we should not have an article on a colloquial term alone, as per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. - Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, personally I see no problem with a page on Griffers, even if the original description was Two-headed High-backed White Wiz-Wiz, and the term Griffers only came into usage after any form of Wiz-Wiz had disappeared. Pages should be titled for easy access, and using the current name, even if not contemporary, is a way to make it so. Hindsight will often bring groups to light that were not visible earlier. But if you can honestly find an entry at NOTDICTIONARY that says titles can not be colloquialisms, then by all means. Mysha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Be that as it may, Mysha, "windjammer" is just a term for a sailing ship—regardless of size, for which there is already an article. If there is a distinct need to describe the era of large sailing ships, then an article can be devoted to that subject. (Please remember to sign your posts with "~~~~" to provide an automated date.) Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I got so far as paragraph two before my disagreements started kicking in. My grandfather was a Master Mariner and as a midshipman went round the Horn three times before the mast on a clipper; did over 40 years on the sea, and in his retirement wemt back work as a harbour master in Dundee. He had no problem saying out loud whalers clippers, and windjammers, and all his Cape Horner mates were the same. Terms by the way created by sailors in the first place. When it comes to it (as an aside) he would often prefix a ships name with the, and refer to them as she and her. An Iron sailing ship could cover a variery of types whereas windjammer even as a colliquism is more precise, for the type of tall ship we're talking about here. Tall ship a very old term popularised by the AICH in the fifties on their invitations. Karen Hill, New York freelance writer and editor, she's the author of several children's books, right? If so she's not as old as some of the writers penning (typing) here. Broichmore (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Broichmore: that is all WP:OR, we need WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS... What about:

• Gould, Archaeology and the Social History of Ships

Where the ships are described as Iron windjammers at least twice, a book incidentally which uses the term Windjammer on at least 5 different pages, including indices. This is one of the books that has been highjacked as reference justifying the name of Iron-hulled sailing ship which incidentally is not proposed as a name anywhere in same book. Added to the fact that Windjammer is and always will be more specifuc than Iron-hulled sailing ship or even Tall ship, it's even more specific than the technically too correct term barque in this instance. Broichmore (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, here, Broichmore. However, it was clear that this article was solely about iron-hulled (and steel-hulled) vessels.The Gould discusses such vessels, extensively, and doesn't use "windjammer" in the text, either. Nor do the other sources (Grantham, Chatterton, and Anderson), cited below, use "windjammer" in the text to describe iron-hulled sailing ships. Authors are free to use "windjammer" or "tall ship" to describe sailing ships, but that doesn't delineate either term at all. Even the definition of "ship" is a murky one. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Now you've called me out as a liar. You are deliberately twisting the facts to suit here. Gould specifically mentions ‘’Iron windjammers’’ in his text at least twice (on pages 253 and 287). This article has sat here for 14 years, without complaint. Broichmore (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, Broichmore, I came to that conclusion by using the Google search window and only found "windjammer" in the index. I appreciate that you are commenting in good faith and would hope that you know that I wouldn't call you a liar. It was my mistake and not yours. I should note that in both the instances that you cite, Gould uses quotation marks around "windjammer".

This is among many articles that pertain to sailing that are in poor shape. This one was missing a bunch of references. Sailing ship is in need of development. I have started at discussion at Talk:Sailing ship#Bring substance of "Windjammer" article here and Talk:Sailing ship#Scope?. I welcome your participation there, as well as here. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed new name: "Iron sailing ship"

The distinguishing feature of the ships under discussion is not their colloquial name, but their construction from iron. See, for example:

• Gould, Archaeology and the Social History of Ships
• Grantham , Iron Ship-building: With Practical Illustrations
• Chatterton, Sailing Ships and Their Story :the Story of Their Development from the ...
• Anderson, A Short History of the Sailing Ship

Accordingly, I propose to rename this article Iron sailing ship, or Iron-hulled sailing ship, or Sailing ship (iron-hulled) since there is enough content, when properly referenced for the material to stand on its own.

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Not only iron-hulled vessels have referred to coloquially as "windjammers" and "clippers". The composite-hulled vessels like Cutty Sark or those in the Great Tea Race of 1866, which also included some all-timber ships, for example. However I would say that iron sailing ship or similar might indeed be a welcome addition, but on its own merits, not as a home for windjammer/clipper/tall ship material. Davidships (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Davidships. Lots of sailing ships are called colloquially called windjammers (see discussion above). The examples that you cite are already represented in Clipper. Tall ship has its own article, but perhaps should be limited in scope per the discussion at Talk:Tall ship#Limit scope to Sail Training International terminology -- trim gallery. This article would be about iron-hulled sailing ships. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I think one of the main problems being highlighted here is that the term Windjammer doesn't seem to have a precise meaning. Many people have used it to mean many different and overlapping types of ships. - Ahunt (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You have changed the name of this article without consensus. The title of Windjammer may have its faults, but it is certainly more specific than Iron-hulled sailing ship Please change it back till at least this dicussion has run its course. Broichmore (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

In reviewing Wikipedia:Consensus, I see that: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote." It's clear that you don't concur with the move, Broichmore, but none of the earlier commenters has reported back to discuss the move. So, given the preponderance of discussion regarding the unsuitability of the title, I made the move after giving notice at three Wikimedia projects and after receiving only one opposing comment since proposing a new name and scope on June 6 and a proposed lead on June 8. Please take note of the Windjammer is a colloquialism, not a class of ship section, for more discussion. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Sample lead

• Iron-hulled sailing ship: Iron-hulled sailing ships represented the final evolution of sailing ships at the end of the age of sail. They were built to carry bulk cargo for long distances in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. They were the largest of merchant sailing ships, with three to five masts and square sails, as well as other sail plans. They carried lumber, guano, grain or ore between continents. Later examples had steel hulls. They are sometimes referred to as "windjammers" or "tall ships".

HopsonRoad (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Like - Ahunt (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Is there consensus that Windjammer should lead to a disambiguation page? If so then we should tidy up a couple of things:

1. Move the malplaced disambiguation page Windjammer (disambiguation) to Windjammer
2. Fix the incoming links to Windjammer

I'm happy to help but need to check first whether the recent move is likely to be reverted. Certes (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Certes, I've probably made some mistakes along the way, but I was persuaded to retain a Windjammer article along side an article on Iron-hulled sailing ships (which this article already described) for which I took the following steps:

1. I placed article material in the Redirect page and removed the redirect. I copied the bottom matter from here to that page.
2. I copied the Talk page from this article across and removed the redirect.
3. I made further reference to Windjammer at [[Windjammer (disambiguation).

Obviously, the history of the previously existing pages remained the same, and "Windjammer" got a new start. I hope that I didn't make too many problems. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

From a quick glance by this landlubber, that looks like a good job. Can you find a better target for the link Age of Steam? Otherwise those pages are now off the disambiguation error lists, so I'll leave any further changes to the experts. Certes (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Reconsider?

Broichmore has voiced concern whether the title change from "Windjammer" to "Iron-hulled ship" was appropriate. Please read the discussion in the above sections (and add to it, a you see fit) and then provide your support or non-support of the current title versus the previous, here. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you HopsonRoad. Two points to note, and I'm going to repeat this at the Ships Talk page, because it may contain some statistics information of interest to others.

The first is that windjammer is in the Oxford English Dictionary. Here is it's entry. Whats to glean out of this, is that there's an acceptance of the word by the general public, even though it's ill defined; and that it's no longer contemptuous since 1899, if it ever it was for any long period. wiktionary:windjammer makes a better job of it] thanks to HopsonRoad.

The second thing is an interesting stat to look at, the pageview statistics for the article itself. Here. Incidentally when an articles name is moved, everything moves with it except its historical record of pageviews, the article starts again from zero. What the stat tells us is that the numbers of readers searching for Windjammer as a term is still the most popular specific search, even though it is now a redirect. Also its search trend has dropped about 40 percent, since the name change; this is because readers previously clicked on the word windjammer in other articles and as a result came indirectly, but still left a score for it as a search term. The bulk of these clicks came from the sailing ship article, you can see that from the Sailing ship trend which vaguely mirrors the articles trend through time. Now of course they click on [ [ Iron-hulled sailing ship|windjammer ] ] thus giving the page view score to Iron-hull.

Lastly the stat tells us that in the last 3 1/2 years 256,000 readers have visited, and on average two editors have made a change every day during that time without complaint. As have all the visitors and editors since 2005 except one. The stats are remarkable considering this article is Start class.

The project is ruthless when it come to naming conventions, that's why Perth Scotland is not Perth but the larger city (more popular on the web) in Western Australia. Therefore the more popular term wins.

In summary, the public's perception is the Wikitionary definition, possibly even one mast more; and the popular vote for the articles name has to be Windjammer Broichmore (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done See the discussion at User talk:HopsonRoad#Windjammer where Broichmore suggested retaining a Windjammer article alongside this one about iron-hulled sailing ships. I thought that it was a constructive idea and have implemented it. (See: Talk:Iron-hulled sailing ship#Disambiguation, above.) Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Is the article title or the text at fault

Seeing the above discussion about the article name, I feel I should highlight a problem. The History section starts:

• "Iron-hulled sailing ships were mainly built from the 1870s to 1900...."
  

For all iron-hulled sailing vessels, this is completely incorrect. Many iron hulled ships were built before 1870 - see for instance David MacGregor (marine historian):

• "Whereas most of the iron sailing vessels built prior to 1850 were schooners, brigs or barques of small tonnage, an abrupt reversal to this trend materialised in 1852 with the construction of iron full-rigged ships of large size, and this new development became the established pattern."

If you look at the statistics on Scottish shipbuilding, there was a significant tonnage of iron or steel sailing ships built from 1865 through to the last five years of the 19th century.

It seems that the article text is a hangover from when the article was about windjammers - but of course the article title as it is makes the content of the article wrong.

There is a lot of content that could be put in an article about iron hulled sailing ships that may be inappropriate if the intention here is simply to cover windjammers. For instance, the problems of fouling of the hull, compass adjusting, the advantages over wood, the falling costs over time, the shortage of suitable ship-building timber in Britain and the economics of competition with steam. This last point should make clear the economic equilibrium that existed between the relatively inefficient compound-engined steamers of the 1870s and sail. This, of course, was disrupted at the beginning of the 1880s by the use of steel boilers that could run at much higher pressures, thereby making the triple expansion engine possible. This gave a much greater fuel economy (fuel consumption decreased by more than 60%) and made the steamship the primary means of maritime transportation in most places. One of the few advantages left to sail was that it was "the cheapest warehouse in the world". This applied as much to the massive bulk carriers on long distance voyages as to the Thames barges that took grain from the transatlantic steamships in London docks to the flour mills of East Anglia.

Is it appropriate to rewrite this article to cover all iron and steel hulled sailing vessels, or does the problem of the article title need to be revisited? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful discussion here, ThoughtIdRetired. From what I can see, the date range needs to be corrected per the sources that you cite. I encourage you to do so. You also suggest that the scope should include all such vessels. I agree. If there is a different issue with the title, could you please state it more clearly? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Is there a place to add external links to a good period film

I am not sure that the film describes an iron hull ship but it fits the time period and nitrate route from Chile to Hamburg bypassing the Panama canal.

Four Masted Barque rounding Cape Horn 1928 - Captain Irving

Idyllic press (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

As far as it looks that video was uploaded to YouTube by someone who is not the copyright holder so it would be WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE in particular Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows, or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. - Ahunt (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)