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 articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport
I am a fourth generation American shipwright living in Seattle Wa. Having grown up reading volume upon volume about the sailing ships of the 19'th century, I hope that I can provide at least some insight into this.
First thought:The origins of the clipper ship. Though the Ann McKim had many similarities with clippers it has and is not considered to be the first true clipper. Built for Isaac McKim in Baltimore, it was actually designed as a larger example of the Baltimore schooner clipper of which he had owned a few prior and not purpose designed as a new and radical type, fast cargo ship. The raked bow mentioned in the article is ambiguous and the Clipper design does not necessarily adhere to this. Many clippers had an almost bluff stem with little to no rake, but instead had a very sharp entry, usually with a hollow and a large amount of reserve buoyancy (widened hurricane style bow) at the sheer line. The other defining features were an extremely fine exit aft(narrow stern), and an extremely narrow width to length ratio. Some of these, but not all of these features can be found in many ships pre-dating even the Ann McKim, but no ship incorporated all of these features until John Griffith's Rainbow Built in 1843.
Also the term clipper is again ambiguous. Although the Baltimore Clippers, were fast ships their design and use are ultimately far different than the Clipper ships that would come after. Moreover there is no evidence that the first true clipper ships designed by John Griffith and William Web living in New York, were at all influenced by the smaller vessels being built "down east". Basically what I am saying is that to claim any ship as the first true clipper, you must show that later designs have a true lineage from it. Only the Rainbow can make that claim as the ships coming directly after it were direct result of lessons learned from that design.
Second thought: The history of the clipper. The first building and by all accounts design of the clipper, began as discussions between freinds in the pubs of New York between the then young designer John Griffith, ships captain Nathaniel Palmer, and shipwrights William Web, and Donald McKay. (Donald McKay had been an apprentice along with William Web at Web's fathers shipyard in New York. Having been signed on by his father at age 16. (McKay's family were loyalists that fled to Newfoundland from New York after the revolution).
Griffith had come across a book written by a British scientist (will correct with proper name later), that had been discredited in England simply because it ran against principles promoted by the great English scholar Isaac Newton regarding fluid dynamics. Griffith continued and expanded upon the research creating his own test tanks and experimenting with the concepts.
These discussions led Nathaniel to design a ship while on an East Indies run that would have the entry but not the exit of the true clipper. His ship would be built in 1843 across the river from John Griffith's Rainbow and would be completed much sooner. However after the successful launch and subsequent verification of design of the Rainbow, a string of ships from the two shipwrights William Web and Donald McKay would improve upon the design. Beginning with William Web's Sea Witch, that would be captained by Nathaniel Palmer.
Third thought:The demise of the clipper ship. Though many historians place the demise of the clipper directly in the path of the steam ship this is not entirely true. There were many factors that led to the end of the clippers. The first of which was the advent of the Wind Jammer. Massively built large sailing cargo vessels built with the clean bow of the clipper but without the narrow hull. Usually these larger sailing vessels could carry drastically larger cargo than the clippers, at a much cheaper rate. The issue of speed was nominal simply because the larger ships having a water line length of 300' or more would sail at speeds close enough to the clippers as to make them overkill. Except in the cases where extreme speed was essential such as the British Tea runs. This also explains why the decline of the clipper happened much faster in the US than in Briton. With the building of the first trans-continental rail in the US. There were really no high speed long distance runs left for American shipping. Thus the steamers with their shorter range could handle most of the short distance cargo, and the long range runs could be handled by the Wind Jammers at a much lower cost. Donald McKay would continue advancing and competing with clipper ships until the construction of Glory of the Seas. At which time the ship itself was lost to creditors even before the launch and Donald McKay, basically lost everything.
I admittedly don't know much about the bust of 1857, but I do know that American shipping continued through this time, and there is no reason to believe that clipper ships would have been the sole target of such an economic downturn. All shipping would have probably been affected equally, and we do know that many ships were built during and after this time of all types.
I am sure in my library that I have at least one out of print book on the subject that would legally be in the public domain. I will check on it and then scan drawings, and give better references.
"Decline in the use of clippers started with the economic slump following the Panic of 1857" lead me to check what "the Panic of 1875" was just to find out that it was a part of US History alone (back then such an event couldn't have the worldwide effects now it would), seeing that I had say all data on the end of the golden age of sail becomes an easy target for doubt on its meaningfulness to maritime history as a hole... But I don't how to add the banner asking for les US.centric infoUndead Herle King (talk) 05:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
" Sometimes these ships could reach 20 knots." I'm very sure this is a mistake. Can anyone vet it or provide data? Modern long-distance racing sailboats average in the neighborhood of 10 knots. I did not remove the text. --Wetman 05:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cutler reports four specific instances of speeds logged at 20 or more, with an 1854 voyage of Sovereign of the Seas logging 22 knots. This is prefixed with three pages of discussion on whether any number over 15-16 knots was plausible, at the end of which he concludes that the logs ought to be believed. I should probably add a paragraph on this point. Stan 08:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Even if it were only for me. I was wrong: it is certainly an incredible speed. Good thing I didn't remove the text. What's the highhest speed for a modern catamaran I wonder? --Wetman 10:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Heh, you weren't the only one disbelieving - to some extent, I think Cutler was simply unwilling to call the captains liars or incompetent. One of the reasons day's runs are preferred as a measure of performance; more reliably documentable, and not just a momentary fluke of perfect wind and perfect water. New cats seem able to go quite a bit higher; [1] reports an average of nearly 26 knots for Playstation in 2001, with some other sites mentioning 40-knot(!) peaks. But they're "cheating"; no cargo. :-) Stan 16:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
All good entries answer the primary questions. The first question about clippers is, "How fast did they go?" So, any sourced text on this heading is grist to the mill. --Wetman 22:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You find 20 knots hard to believe ? Frigates of the beginning of the 19th century were quite often reaching the 18 knots... (with awfully anti-hydrodynamic hull shapes :p ) Rama 13:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
However I just removed the 35 knots top speed from the 'The China Clippers and the Epitome of Sail' section. I guess someone confused wind speed with boat speed here. You find a lot of articles that go up to 20 knots and a bit over what is a great speed already. Take into concideration: the boat is at 35 knots means around 50 knots + wind speed resulting in 8 meters + waves ... rummsmummel 14:39, 16 Nov 2006 (UTC)
But surely that section's current speed of 7 knots is low. Was it vandalized? See the "Speed Again" section of this discussion. Wdfarmer10:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 7 knot change first appeared here as far as i can tell. This is certainly far too low. I'm going to change it back to 20 knots and add a citation.--John.james21:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, heres what I found:
There are many ways of judging the speed of a ship: by knots per hour, by day's runs, by port-to-port records. Judged by any test, the American clippers were supreme.
Donald McKay's Sovereign of the Seas reported the highest rate of speed ever acheived by a sailing ship - 22 knots, made while running her easting down to Austrailia in 1854. (John Griffiths' first clipper, the Rainbow, had a top speed of 14 knots... ) There are eleven other instances of a ship's logging 18 knots or over. Ten of these were recorded by American clippers...
Besides the breath-taking 465-mile day's run of the Champion of the Seas, there are thirteen other cases of a ship's sailing over 400 nautical miles in 24 hours...
And with few exceptions all the port-to-port sailing records are held by the American clippers.
— Lyon, Jane D, P.138 Clipper Ships and Captains(1962)New York: American Heritage Publishing
400 miles in a day is 16.6 knots average. Since there are only 14 cases of ships exceeding 400 miles in 24 hours, and only 12 cases of over 18 knots measured, I changed the article to read: "with peak average speeds even exceeding 16 knots" --John.james22:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:AlainV has made a suggestive connection between clipper production and economic bust times. I only query his "1855" instead of the more general bank and market "Crash of 1857". Could the familiar date be substituted, or is there more information? --Wetman 09:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have never seen this term used elsewhere; as far as I know the term was "flying clipper." Can anyone think of a good reason why I shouldn't change the wording?J S Ayer02:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to use a word because it's been used before. The trouble with 'flying' is that the big German ships were given names beginning with 'P', Pamir, Preussen and so on. They came to be known as the 'Flying Ps'. The word 'flyer' was frequently used in connection with fast ships. 'Aerial' sees a good adjective for the aeroplanes - that's what they were. (RJP21:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I think RJP is talking about the Flying P Line. This line didn't go in for the P theme until later in the 19th century, and perhaps the appeal of the flying appelation was in part because of the earlier context. Theres also the Flying Cloud. I think these usages are prior to the flying P line. --John.james01:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most common phrases used in literature are the terms "extreme clipper" or "china clipper". The latter would be mostly a reference to the clippers used in the British tea trade. Ref [2]Deathguppie (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone else think that this page should be a disambiguation page, with Clipper (sailing) as a separate page? There are enough other topics under "clipper" to warrent this. Fresheneesz21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
the creater is me[reply]
"fastest of all sail vessels, with peak average speeds even exceeding 7 knots for endurances over 12 hours."
This doesn't seem all that impressive to me. I know that Stavros S Niarchos once recorded a speed of something like 16 knots and the TSYT brigs are not fast ships. Granted that is peak rather than sustained, but to record only 7 knots average a ship could do that kind of speed for half the time and then sit there motionless for the other half - and I'm pretty sure they weren't in the habit of doing that! PeteVerdon08:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved "and represented the first pronounced use of color in American advertising art." and deleted
"These cards, slightly larger than today’s postcards, were produced by letterpress and wood engraving on coated card stock. Most clipper cards were printed in the 1850s and 1860s, and represented the first pronounced use of color in American advertising art.
"Relatively few (perhaps 3,500) clipper cards survive today. With their stunning appearance, rarity, and importance as artifacts of nautical, Western, and printing history, clipper cards are highly prized by both private collectors and institutions."
Perhaps this section should be removed as the body only consists of a link to another article? That link could then be moved to the See Also section.--PlantPerson (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of clippers were British (including Baltimore Clippers) subsequently the opening picture should be represented either by a British or neutral clipper image. It was British clippers that opened up Chinese trade, US clippers and traders were represented by no more than 4% total. I suggest the Cutty Sark or Thermopylae image. In fact reading the article it seems that US-orientated content it is WAY over-subscribed irrespective of the historical reality.Twobells (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clipper ships were often used for transporting goods and travelers etc. Their speed made them popular for traders, merchants and travelers, there were in high demand during the trade with China and was later used to transport people to California during the Gold rush. The ships often made trips to India and around the Cape Horn. The ships had massive masts which made the ship quite fast. The ships use was diminished after the panic in 1857 by then stem ships had mostly taken over and there now longer was a need for the large clipper ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.129.14 (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clipper ships were often used for transporting goods and travelers etc. Their speed made them popular for traders; merchants and travelers, there were in high demand during the trade with China and were later used to transport people to California during the Gold rush. The ships often made trips to India and around the Cape Horn. The ships had massive masts which made the ship quite fast. The ships use was diminished after the panic in 1857 by then stem ships had mostly taken over and there now longer was a need for the large clipper ship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.129.14 (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the particular painting of the Water Witch on the page accurate as to her sail plan? I pulled up a search for other, clearer images of her sail plan but, aside the the one on this page, all images of her showed the mizzenmast as having a fore-and-aft rigged course sail with only square rigged sails above (main and foremasts were consistent with the image in being entirely square rigged). Could the painter have made a mistake (possible painting the ship while given only a description)? Or was the Water Witch rerigged at some point? -Orodum 2601:0:5600:72:BDF6:BF0F:1C1B:2337 (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the article be expanded with a introductory technical discussion of what attributes of Clippers results in their high speed. Perusing the pictures and text would suggests to me that the large area of sails compared to hull size might be an important factor in speed, but it would be helpful if someone with more nautical engineering knowledge could actually shed some technical insight on this topic.OttawaAndy388 (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be helpful if the term "deadrise" was explained or linked to another article that explains it. I know nothing about nautical engineering, myself and the use of the term without explanation was annoying. Wastrel Way (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Eric[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Clipper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I'd not spotted it before, but the lead on this article is in need of a serious rewrite: The sailing vessels known as clippers were not developed from Baltimore Clippers - certainly not those built in the UK (and see later in the article for the US situation).
"Narrow for their length" - not universally - there was quite a range of hull types as builders experimented with different hull forms.
"...routes between the United Kingdom and its colonies in the east" - a real howler, this one: the tea trade was mostly into ports in China, which was not a British colony. Some tea was bought in Hong Kong (which was British at the time) but that was not locally produced but brought in from other areas.
The "boom years" of the tea trade were caused more by the loss of the East India company monopoly than an increase in demand - the demand was a result of increased availability and a lowered price.
There is also the ambiguity over use of the word ship (been a lot of discussion about that). The article should be rephrased to swerve around the inherent ambiguities in the term. It is important to make clear that a few clippers from the clipper ship era were built as barques: for instance Ziba, a well-liked Aberdeen-built clipper, was a jackass barque. "Well-liked" is based on the date that she loaded tea in the various years in that trade - being loaded early meant that the local agents expected a fast passage. (pg 116-117 in MacGregor). Also some clippers, in the years of decline, were reduced to barque but still continued in fast trade.
Quickly looking at the rest of the article, decline in the predominance of the clipper was primarily due to 2 things: the Suez canal and the technological advances of maritime steam engines. Alfred Holt was instrumental in the latter, managing to obtain Board of Trade approval for higher steam pressures which gave more fuel efficient steam engines. The relevance of the 1857 slump in trade is, I believe, due to the cessation of the Crimean War, which had given rise to a large demand for ship charters. (Incidentally, Holt used his profits from Crimean War charters to finance his experiments with more efficient steam engines and to finance his first commercial long-distance steam ship.)
I thought I should flag this up whilst other work is ongoing on the article - because it would be quite a bit of work to rewrite and reference just the points listed above. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with "...continued to be built into the 1870s, they were largely replaced by newer Iron-hulled sailing ships."
Clippers generally carried high value cargoes, often where speed was needed to secure the best prices in a seasonal market. When tea clippers lost out to the next generation - it was to steam ships, not the large capacity windjammers that were built for lower value cargoes. This is very clearly spelt out by MacGregor from page 209 onwards in The Tea Clippers, their History and Development 1833-1875. He gives example rates of freight for steamers and sailing vessels, with steamers usually getting £2 per ton more than the clippers. He mentions the lower insurance costs for the cargoes carried by steamers, and the 45 steamers being built for Far Eastern trade in 1871 on the River Clyde alone (though to be fair, that is where most of the UK's steamships were being built at time).
So, as it stands, this sentence implies that clippers were replaced by windjammers, when they were actually replaced by steamships.
I am no expert on USA clippers, but I would guess that much of their trade was lost to the railways in 1869 - who wants to sail round Cape Horn when you can much more quickly travel across the continent by train? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this observation, ThoughtIdRetired. I have replaced the text to read, "While clipper ships such as Hallowe'en continued to be built into the 1870s, the next generation of sailing ships were iron-hulled." Perhaps this will solve the problem that you identified. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have identified the point that the original text was trying to convey - that a few iron-hulled sailing vessels that could be classified as clippers were built in the 1870s, but these were generally not carrying the traditional clipper cargoes (depending on your definition of wool from Australia in that category). That is really too complex a point for the lead, especially if not fully explained in the article. The section on "Decline" is highly deficient - for instance it was the development of the steamship, not its introduction, that precipitated the end of the clipper. A good re-write is needed. I would have a go, but am currently over-run with things outside Wikipedia - and this needs a proper job doing. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled by User:HopsonRoad's intent with the change of "vessel" to "ship"[3]. Is this based on the premise that all clippers were fully rigged ships? If so, it is clear that, though the more famous clippers tended to be rigged in that way, there are many that were not - especially opium clippers (see Basil Lubbock's book on the subject for confirmation that these are correctly called clippers). This would also be clear, for instance, from a reading of MacGregor's Fast Sailing Ships, and the detailed descriptions of tea clippers in his book on the subject (several that were built as barques are listed). If something else is intended, please explain.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for engaging here, ThoughtIdRetired. I appreciated the distinction, regarding full-rigged ships, even before I rewrote the Sailing ship article (see the "Sail plans" graphic at the beginning of the article). My intent is that "vessel" extends to include boats and is therefore too broad. Clippers were all ships. Additionally, sailing vessel links to Sailing ship, which makes the word "vessel" seem further lacking in specificity. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noted - thanks for answer, User:HopsonRoad. At this point I think the problem is more with the English language than anything else (ambiguity of "ship"). Perhpas the article probably needs an explanation of the diversity of possible rigs, despite the preponderance of fully rigged ships. There are plenty of other problems with this article, which I will chip away at when I get an opportunity.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While the first application of the term "clipper" in a nautical sense is by no means certain, it seems to have had an American origin when applied to the Baltimore clippers of the late 18th century......
This implies that the word "clipper" was applied to sailing vessels in the late 18th century.
In Howard I. Chapelle's definitive book on the Baltimore Clipper he states (on page 65)
.....The most common name, "Baltimore Clipper" was popular at the time the type was dying out, in the last days of the slave trade, say from 1835 to 1850.
Chapelle makes clear that in the time when most Baltimore Clippers were built, they were variously described as "Virginia-built", "Virginia model", "pilot boat model", with "Baltimore model" appearing during the War of 1812.
I am embarrassed to be throwing further criticism at this article when having contributed nothing of significance to its contents, but this point, in conjunction with others, suggests the need for a thorough review of content and sourcing.
I am particularly puzzled by the appearance of David MacGregor's book "Fast Sailing Ships" in the references, but on close examination of the article, find that this simply points to an online copy of the index of this book, with little evidence that any contributing editor has actually read it. MacGregor is probably the definitive author on British clippers. (I note, also, that Howard Chapelle wrote the introduction to this book, giving it further authority - because the two of them represent a big chunk of the expertise in this part of maritime history). I appreciate that the views stated by MacGregor in the introduction to the first edition of Fast Sailing Ships may not go down to well with clipper-related Wikipedia contributors:
This myth of the 'first clipper' has been created by the custom for reserving the title of 'clipper' exclusively for ships built in the years 1840-1875....
Nor would Chapelle's comments in the introduction to the same book be appreciated by the same audience:
...English construction and evolution of clipper ship design paralleled American development and construction of the extreme clipper model......The claims that English designs were influenced by American principles are completely exploded.
Thanks for these observations, ThoughtIdRetired. There seems to be few better-qualified than you to improve this article. It's an important one, so it would be great, if you did! I realize that you have been occupied elsewhere. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the criticism well. Lots of organised reading to do before any big editing changes could be done here and I am only doing sporadic and more minor editing at the moment. But this is on my list of things to do. No idea when this will get to the top. (Unpredictable world at the moment!)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Naval ships get a lot of attention on Wikipedia, merchant ships, very little. The standard of articles in this area is generally pretty bad, with bits and pieces added randomly by people with little knowledge of the topic and little commitment. Having said that, almost every ship article I look at contains factual errors, naval or otherwise. Lots of articles have been created very quickly and without much attempt to corroborate material, it really amazes me how much work has gone into the WP:SHIPS area over all these years and yet how much remains to be done. Gatoclass (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Although there were more oppose !votes than supporters of any of the other options, some of these !votes were simply assertions that this usage is the long-term primary one for "clipper", without supporting evidence or arguments. Such !votes will not be given much weight. However, there's also a concern that "ship" may not be the technically correct terminology. And although pageviews are one of the main factors to consider in terms of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it's not the only thing. (t · c) buidhe20:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even if one was to assume that "Clipper" alone is the most appropriate title for the ship the ship fails WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:ASTONISH. Google returns things like tea, lighters and the other tools, Images returns the lighter and hair clippers. Books on the other hand does mainly return the ship but as noted above most of those use "Clipper ship(s)" for the ship anyway. Many editors argued that "Clipper" alone refers to the ship but that clearly isn't true since hair and nail clippers are also called "Clipper(s)" alone if the context is clear, I have a hair clipper kit and it says "8 piece clipper kit" without mention to "Hair clipper" in other words the ship is only called "Clipper(s)" alone if the context is clear which also applies to the other types, if this was an encyclopedia about ships then we may well use "Clipper" alone just like we might use "Clipper" alone if we were an encyclopedia about hair cutting etc. The ship has 8,933 views but Clipper (electronics) has 3,241 (suggesting its not "much more likely than any other"), Clipper (lighter) has 2,999, Clipper (programming language) has 1,464, Clipper (automobile) has 54, Clipper (video game) has 40, Clipper, Washington has 25, Clipper (steam automobile) has 22 and Clipper (nickname) has 15. That makes 7,862 views for topic qualified v 8,933 for the ship. Hair clipper has 4,187 and Nail clipper has 3,751. [[4]] So even if you assume that the ship is usually called "Clipper(s)" alone and hair and nail clippers aren't known as "Clipper(s)" very often there is still unlikely to be a primary topic by usage and the tools also have long-term significance, quite probably more than the ship again because their every day items unlike the 19th century ship. Also Clipper chip has 3,119 views and Los Angeles Clippers has 39,748 but those probably aren't known as "Clipper(s)" very much at least the sports team probably isn't known as "Clipper" (singular) much.
The ship fails ASTONISH because its not well known relative to the cutting devices (and also fastening ones but we don't appear to cover those) hair and nail clippers are everyday words while many won't even have heard of the ship, I hadn't until I can across it on Wikipedia.
While I realize I made a RM at the DAB page previously that was 17 months ago and was solely about disambiguation while this proposal is also about common name (hence the reason the RM isn't on the DAB page this time) and the previous RM was close with the outcome of no consensus with the reason "The page view stats can support each side" but that also has been addressed by the fact that the ship isn't the only meaning known mainly by this alone in a specific context.
I think both the move to "Clipper ship" for the ship and the DAB to plain "Clipper"(A) should both take place but if not I'll provide a list of options below:
C move the ship to Clipper (ship) and the DAB page to Clipper. This is the same as the last RM but given "Clipper ship" being the common name I don't think that this is needed at least per WP:NATURAL.
Comment - I don't know about this one... the most common names I can think of are clippers (used for hair/nails) and the Los Angeles Clippers. Both of these are with the s plural which as you pointed out probably aren't known as "Clipper(s)". If I were to make an estimate... those looking up Clipper (electronics) more than likely have an interest in that field or were redirected from another article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
C – Wiktionary has seven senses for "clipper", starting with "anything that clips" and including ships and weather fronts. Since it's not necessary to add "ship", when talking in a nautical context about a clipper, I support "Clipper (ship)" as the most direct primary title. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A "clipper ship" is a subset of "clipper" (meaning a fast sailing vessel). The term "clipper ship" is something of an American term, as the clippers that sailed round Cape Horn to the California Gold Rush were largely rigged as ships. Some tea clippers were rigged as barques, Opium clippers were often schooners or brigs, Baltimore Clippers were largely schooners, etc., etc. Unfortunately, in modern usage "ship", when applied to a sailing vessel, is ambiguous - it may define the rig or it may just mean a large vessel. Given that, it would be entirely improper to have an article name that is, in the context of a historical sailing vessel, lacking in clear meaning and may exclude (in one of the possible meanings) valid content of the article. Incidentally, List of clipper ships was specifically set up to exclude any clippers that were not rigged as ships. See that article's talk page and edit history for confirmation.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In singular, the vessel is surely the primary topic. Clippers correctly redirects to the disambiguation page since there's a lot more options there, but the singular one in common parlance is the ship. SnowFire (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is worthy of debate, but I think in the singular the ship is the primary topic by long-term significance. And I can see difficulties with any use of "ship" (common usage vs. purist usage). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shhhnotsoloud: what are the difficulties with common v purist usage? As I've shown in sources the ship is usually "Clipper ship(s)" rather than plain "Clipper(s)" which would be general common usage while "Clipper" alone if the context is established (in purist usage). As shown "Clipper ship(s)" have numerous links despite the article being at "Clipper" since editors often don't link to redirects or change the wording in an article to match it for example Cutty Sark uses the term "Clipper ship" and a mainspace search for "Clipper ship" returns 607 results. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion seemed to be about how to disambiguate (individual) ships but interestingly Full-rigged ship is linked at that discussion. Note that with Schooner Britannica uses "Schooner" alone but does use "ship" in the title (as opposed to description) for this type, when I check other sources like Books they use "Schooner(s)" alone probably because that's relatively unambiguous unlike clipper so I think common usage is for "ship" here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"As I've shown in sources....". It all depends on which sources you choose to look at. Maritime historians generally use "clipper" without "ship", unless they are denoting the rig. You can see this from book titles: David R MacGregor (the definitive expert on Tea Clippers): British and American Clippers and The Tea Clippers ( ISBN 0 85177 256 0); Basil Lubbock (prolific writer on clippers): The Opium Clippers, The China Clippers (ISBN 0851741096) (and other similar titles); Howard I. Chapelle (possibly the most influential of the USA's maritime historians): The Baltimore Clipper, also if you look in the index of his The Search for Speed Under Sail, you find entries for "clipper bark", "clipper brig", "clipper schooner" and (unsurprisingly) "clipper ships" (and if you read the entries he means sailing vessels rigged as ships). I don't follow the argument based on searches of Wikipedia to establish English usage, since we all know that Wikipedia cannot be used as an RS.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide evidence to support the claim that "Clipper" (singular) almost always refers to the ship? In my experience it never does and the evidence of page views and Google also don't support this. While the tools are normally in the plural they aren't always which is why the articles are at Hair clipper and Nail clipper. While I realize I hadn't linked to it, this was pointed out in my statement I made a RM at the DAB page previously that was 17 months ago and was solely about disambiguation while this proposal is also about common name (hence the reason the RM isn't on the DAB page this time) and this request has significantly more information than the previous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUser:Crouch, Swale highlights the fact that, whereas among Wikipedia articles the ship sense of "clipper" may be primary, in the English language at large it is not. That's why I recommend "Clipper (ship)". HopsonRoad (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HopsonRoad yes that's my point, when the context is clear that you mean the ship you can use "Clipper(s)" alone, since Wikipedia articles are aimed at a general audience then we can use natural disambiguation as noted here. You would also use "Clipper(s)" alone if you were in the hair sense rather than "Hair clipper(s)". If "Clipper" and "Clipper ship" are both acceptable then using the alternative from instead of qualifying it makes sense as an effective tie breaker per WP:ATDAB even if the ship if more often called "Clipper" alone in a general context than hair and nail clippers. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As stated last time we had this discussion (and per Necrothesp, above) hair clippers, horse clippers, etc. are usually in the plural. We have several, and I have checked the boxes and instructions: all in the plural.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usually in the plural maybe but even the articles here are in the singular namely Hair clipper and Nail clipper. That doesn't make the ship primary anymore than the likes of Shoe and Twin that have singular articles here even though they are usually in the plural or are we suddenly assuming people mostly search for terms that are more often than not in the plural in the plural? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There appears to be no compelling argument since the last discussion. Charts and graphs were thrown out before with evidence trying to discredit "Clipper' as the primary topic. If we are talking about consistency "Clipper" is the clear winner. [6] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have tackled some points in the article today. I particularly targeted text referenced by Men Ships and the Sea by Alan Villiers and others. Taking a look at this reference, it is mostly written by un-named authors - Villiers is just the "headline" name to sell the book. It has some "fuzzy"/wrong concepts - like implying that only clippers used studding sails, when the majority of square rigged ships until the last quarter of the 19th century had them. (I've just checked some current reading: The Merchant Schooners by Basil Greenhill - there is a diagram of studding sails drawn by one of the sources consulted by the author when he researched the book before its first publication in 1951. You can also see studding sail gear on a few old photos of ordinary merchant vessels - though the camera became common after their useage reduced.) On top of that, the definition (from Villiers, or whomever) can easily be substituted by consulting named, recognised maritime historians - which is what I have done.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Need to tackle the usage of Baltimore clippers as slavers next. This was a significant trade - it is covered by Chapelle in his book on Baltimore clippers and also by MacGregor in Fast Sailing Ships. Putting a proper section in for each major type of clipper may be appropriate - so that would be Baltimore clippers (privateers, blockade runners, slavers) Opium clippers (another unsavoury trade) American clippers (California gold rush, to which is added the tea trade) Tea clippers all the other clippers (for instance South American coffee trade, Florida and West Indian fruit trade see pg 322 of Search for Speed Under Sail - more refs to find on this point.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Caricature of reefing a topsail. The studding sail boom has been triced out of the way - print made in 1832 when studding sails were common in all sorts of merchant vessels.Wrong of me to imply it was Villiers who was at fault, more the editor who cited him - but it seemed to me that the article implied that studding sails were used mostly by clippers, when they were common on all working sailing vessels in the middle of the 19th century. Even if this assessment is wrong, I would hope that the replacement text is more of a more encyclopaedic tone.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Done Used Merriam-Webster citation. Thanks for the suggestion, Wastrel Way! HopsonRoad (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
_RMG_PW3760.jpg)