Talk:Deck (ship)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deck (ship) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

The formulas here are lacking context (are they used to design carriers and supertankers? what about galleons? 1/2 :-) ), and where do they come from (in other words, give a reference)? Also let's be careful not to distort the text so that it only applies to present-day vessels, as for instance the emphasis on "main deck", which is a mostly a modern concept. We can put more specialized material into additional articles, for instance main deck, so that this one focuses just on what all types of decks have in common. Stan 20:52, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The formulae are relevant to any vessel, dinghy through supertanker, although of necessity a smaller boat will use heavier scantlings. They do not predict strength, but instead show the relationship between the deck and the rest of the hull. References cited (probably wrong format, will look that up.)

Agree on being careful about use of terms, although "main deck", "spar deck", and "upper deck" are all traditional and often used interchangeably.

This article could use a refactoring. I am currently writing a similar article for SailWiki. Would it be appropriate to merge/refactor the two? - Amgine 16:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did Phineas Pett use those formulas? :-) I personally have all my time taken up just by WP; my goal with these kinds of articles is for a random person to come in at the top with the usual mishmash of facts and misconceptions that people accumulate (for instance by seeing cryptic references in Dudley Pope books), and come out at the bottom with everything cleared up. A modest goal, although dealing with all the misconceptions can be a surprising amount of work! One way to refactor this into a first part that is "what is it you're seeing when you're standing on a deck or looking at an on old picture of one", and a second part that is "how are they designed and built". This is part of the so-called newspaper style, where the top of the article has the critical bits everyone needs to know, and the most in-depth stuff is at the end. Stan 17:21, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

<grin> No, but if a scholar would compare his decks to topsides it would likely fit the formula. These are descriptive, not prescriptive, although many naval engineers calculate the waterline scantlings only and use formula for topsides & deck.

Thanks for the suggestions on the refactor. I will begin working on it. - Amgine 17:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quick question about the fibreglass...

Fibreglass decks are quite slick with their mirror-smooth surfaces, so a non-skid texture is often moulded into their surface, or non-stick pads glued down in working areas.

Surely if you've put a non-stick pad on a smooth surface, that's just giving the same problem of slipperiness? I was going to edit it, but realised this might be a Clever Technical Term I'd forgotten (been a while since I had to deal with either fibreglass or boats). Shimgray 02:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mmm... Stupidicide... should have been non-skid. Thanks!

[edit] Division

I'm considering dividing this article up into individual ones and fleshing them out. Any comments? Anyone game? grendelsmother 20:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Common names for decks" section could be split off into something like List of decks (ship) or something similar. Wayne Miller 19:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)