Talk:Brig

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Needs to be reviewed by Military history WikiProject[edit]

I came here off the Wikipedia:Most wanted stubs page, made additions and destubbed the article. I had User:Beland check the work and he removed the stub class rating that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history had on this talk page and reccommended that I request they classify it. If it has areas that need to be improved or are missing I hope they will list them here after their review is done.--Wowaconia 16:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment was made below--Wowaconia 20:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brig, Switzerland?[edit]

Text removed from brigantine:

Brig redirects here, for an alternate use see: Brig, Switzerland

The target article does not exist. Suggest adding

This article is about the sailing vessel. For the town in Switzerland, see Brig, Switzerland.

if and when it does (assuming it's a town). Andrewa 17:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The town has a wiki-page moving last suggested formulation to top of article suggeston.--Wowaconia 16:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are more articles named brig so went with other uses tag.--Wowaconia 16:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Must have two square sails to be a brig.[edit]

All the sources I'm seeing are saying that to be a brig both sails must be square not as the current article says "at least one". I think the modern usage takes precedence and its not as modern as you might think because I found a LOC ref to a brig George Washington had and they say that at that time 1774 there was already a common distinction between Brig and Brigantine. I'm going to change this if I find historical usage that indicates that at one point a ship could be a brig with just one square sail I'll note it in a historical perspective segment.--Wowaconia 01:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This info is all in the segment "Development of the brig".--Wowaconia 18:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On merging[edit]

I don't think these articles should be merged, while the brig evolved from the brigantine they had seperate histories after that and to try and weave them together into one article would confuse the reader. When these articles were both small that might have made sense, but I think this article can now stand on its own and perhaps the brigantine article should be cleaned up and expanded.--Wowaconia 18:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were ships converted between brig and brigantine rigs with any frequency? If not, I don't think a merge is called for. -- Akb4 20:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

Just looking over the article, I would say expanding the introduction and adding an infobox should be enough to move this up to "B class" status. For now I still think it is a "Start-class". Cheers--Looper5920 19:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These were added and Looper5920 upgraded class to B.--Wowaconia 20:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

list of brigs[edit]

I alphabetized the list of brigs. Removing the Mary Celeste, as the painting on her page makes clear that she was a brigantine. Chrono would likely be a better order than alpha, but I wasn't quite up for that. -- Akb4 20:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO Brig, Brigantine[edit]

Sorry, my English is very bad. I hope, you'll nevertheless understand me.

What you describe is no Brig, it" a Brigantine: Brig has both masts full square-sail-rigged! Brigantine is different in having main mast full or partetly fore-and-aft sail rigged. That this is not only my opinion and aswell not based on different definitions in engl. or german did show me aswell your own article Brigantine:

is a principally fore-and-aft rig with a square rigged foremast,
as opposed to a brig which is square rigged on both masts.

So of course aswell the Lady Washington is no brig, but brigantine and her foto is here wrong. As wrong as the whole infobox: Place of origin is not Mediterranean - might be Atlantik, might be Chanal. Weight, length and crews are nonsens, brigs are only specyfied on their rigg: if you'll build tomorrow a 100-m-2-mast-square-rigged ship, it will aswell be a brig. Please, change these misstakes, before no-sailors will begin to lough. --Skipper Michael 18:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to understand what you are saying. There are references provided concerning the rigging if you take issue with them provide alternative references backing your position. The Lady Washington (recreation) is a brig as shown on her own article page and if one follows the external link to her own internet homepage it states the same thing. Remember within Wikipedia any claims you wish to make must have references to third-party experts.--Wowaconia 16:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brig Unicorn = PotC's "Black Pearl"?[edit]

Am finding conflicting info regarding the use of Brig Unicorn from St. Lucia and its appearances in Pirates of the Caribbean. It's being marketed on various St Lucia websites and elsewhere as being the Black Pearl in at least the first film (and with appearances as other ships in the other 2 films). The official unofficial PotC website Keep to the Code said that the brig played a different role in the movie (at least in the discussion forums). If someone can shed some light if they know more and update both this page with the Unicorn's participation as well as adding it to the appropriate PotC / Black Pearl page, that would be swell. SpikeJones 20:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military prison[edit]

How'd the transition get made from brig to military prison, etymologically speaking? Probably relevant here, innit? MrZaiustalk 13:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the use of these vessels as prison ships led to the use; see http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=brig&searchmode=none should we make a note of this in the article?

--Wowaconia 23:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POP Culture[edit]

The brig is also the title of the 19th episode, 3rd season, of the tv series Lost. The main event of the episode takes place inside a brig.

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move as proposed. The discussion makes clear that the proposed move is not correct. However the discussion raises the issue of what is the primary use of brig? That question was raised but not given, in my opinion, a fair hearing. So if someone wants to raise that as a possible rename to some form of brig (ship), feel free to open a new discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brig → Brigantine — Both articles describe the same thing, except for a small paragraph that can be moved to the article "Military Prison" InternetMeme (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • But page Brig says "They [= brigs] are not to be confused with a brigantine which has different rigging.". Does "brig" mean one thing in England and another thing in USA? Can someone who knows about ships' rigging please comment? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What's going on? A brig and a brigantine are not the same thing (technically quite distinct, in fact). Why all the moves, and where is the discussion? Shem (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The articles correctly distinguish between a brig (two masts, both square rigged) and a brigantine (two masts, only the forward one square rigged). The technical distinction is important, and thoroughly encyclopaedic. I'm not saying both articles couldn't use a re-write to improve quality, though. Shem (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural speedy close the nominator made out of process moves to take away an existing article into limbospace to seemingly hide it (Brigantine (old article)), then makes a merge request here, which is not a requested move at all. The removal of edit history required by the requested move is against policy WP:MAD. 65.94.232.153 (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close, these are two distinct topics, both correctly named, and this appears to be a merge request rather than a move and proposer's other actions seem questionable too. Clean up and assume good faith, but at best proposer simply does not know what they are talking about, neither with respect to sailing rigs nor Wikipedia procedures. Andrewa (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This takes the biscuit - InternetMeme has moved the article Brig to Brig (ship). Brig is now a redirect to Brig (disambiguation). Firstly, a brig is distinct from a ship in technical terms (as ship has three square rigged masts), so the new title is a nonsense in technical terms. Second, Brig needs no disambiguation, and the naming convention was correct in the first place. Third, the moving of this article was under discussion, with an obvious consensus against when InternetMeme made the move. This now needs an admin to undo the changes. Shem (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - (edit conflict) why is this article now called Brig (ship)?? That's a hideous title, and technical self-contradictory. Martocticvs (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Part of the general mess. Getting worse. Hang in there! Andrewa (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many people (usually via Star Trek) know "brig" as "onboard prison" who do not know what sort of ship a brig(ship) is. In these days of diesel power, is the sort of sailing ship now a dominant meaning? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my OED has the nautical vessel "brig" as the first and primary meaning. "Brig" as a naval prison is a chiefly US term. I'd be interested to hear what Websters says, but I don't have a copy. Wiktionary agrees with the OED, that the vessel type is the primary meaning. Shem (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there's also the issue that about 1500 links for Brig now route to a disambiguation page. Shem (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good questions. Let's close this unhelpful RM and set up a neat discussion on whether the rig is really the primary meaning of brig, and if not, how to best disambiguate. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A brig is not a brigantine as, judging by the comments above, most people are aware. Nor is it a 'ship'. Brig as a sailing vessel is, in my opinion, the primary meaning. I propose therefore, that this article is renamed 'brig' with hatnotes to 'brig (guardhouse)' and 'brig (disambiguation)'.--Ykraps (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Hey guys, sorry about the mistake. My only intention was to separate out the two different items ("Brig" as in "ship" and "brig" as in "prison"). According to the lead section of this article, a brig is indeed a ship:
"brigs were seen as fast and maneuverable and were used as both naval war ships and merchant ships"
Also, I have no opinion on whether a brig is a ship or a sailing vessel, but given that the lead section of this article already refers to a brig as a ship, I would suggest that whatever semantic battle Martocticvs is proposing had already been lost long ago. InternetMeme (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing that the word "ship" is largely synonymous with the word "vessel", but ship has another meaning, which is a technical distinction from "brig", and so making the article name "Brig (ship)" is nonsense. There is a technical function to an encyclopaedia that is not well served by dumbing down article names. In any case, in the lead section, "Merchant ship" is not synonymous with "ship", and Martocticvs' point stands. The article naming rules at Wikipedia:Article_titles#Precision_and_disambiguation are quite clear - "If the topic of the article is the primary topic (or only topic) for a desired title, then the article can take that title without modification" If the sailing vessel is the primary topic (as it has been for years) then it needs no parenthesis, and a hatnote at the top of the article directing readers to the DAB page is sufficient. That's where we were before you moved the articles around without any consensus. Shem (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prioritization of the word brig as a sailing vessel is historical. These days a brig is far more likely to be a prison. InternetMeme (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In your opinion. My dictionary doesn't agree with you, nor do the first three internet dictionaries I pulled off Google, including Websters - [1], [2], [3]. Shem (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it's my opinion. Why would I promote someone else's opinion? Let me put it a different way: If you were to count the number of brigs in use around the world, what number of them would be military prisons, and what number of them would be sailing vessels? InternetMeme (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Utterly irrelevant. Show me a source (dictionary, encyclopaedia, thesaurus) that makes the military prison the primary meaning, and I'll show you a hundred that put it the other way round. Shem (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't count occurrences as a means of determining what is a primary subject. If we did, the total number of brigs, current and historical would far outnumber the number of naval military prisons (try looking at the number of links within Wiki?)- but I wouldn't dream of using such an irrelevant argument. Shem (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal[edit]

Move to brig (ship) and move brig (disambiguation) to brig.

This assumes that there is currently no primary meaning for brig, and that there's no better disambiguator for this article than ship.

I'm going to offer no evidence regarding primary meaning, but others are welcome to. If the primary meaning is the ship or rig, then we need do nothing. If it's anything else, then we still need to disambiguate this article title.

My main concern here is, if we do move this article, where to? Some other possibilities:

  • Brig (rig). My second choice, but just doesn't feel right. The term brig refers to the whole ship, not just its distinguishing rig.
  • Brig (sailing rig). Even worse, and makes it sound like it could include smaller sailboats.
  • Brig (sailing ship). No advantage over ...(ship), and needlessly long.
  • Brig (sailing ship rig). The worst of all worlds.

Interested in other suggestions. Andrewa (talk) 10:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(boat) or (vessel) ? -- PBS (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends soley on whether Wikipedia is supposed to use current English definitions for article titles. If it is, then no discussion is needed: a Brig is simply a ship. InternetMeme (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really as few if any brigs are built today and as the OED says: "A vessel with two masts square-rigged like a ship's fore- and main-masts," so dabbing it with an extension (ship) would make the name confusing. -- PBS (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point. The current usage of the word ship describes any large vessel. It doesn't matter when it was built; it doesn't matter what kind of masts it has: A Brig is a large vessel, and is therefore a ship.
One might as well argue that—technically speaking—computers aren't manufactured, because they aren't made by hand. The meaning of the word manufacture has changed, just as the meaning of the word ship has changed. InternetMeme (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to pull out the OED, it's best not to skip the first, 1-a, definition in favor of the one that supports your argument: "A large sea-going vessel (opposed to a boat)" - simple as that. ViniTheHat (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, though, this article isn't about a ship, putting aside whether the word ship should be applied to a brig. It is about the sailing rig. The only demands the brig rig places on a hull is that it be of a sufficient size for it. Beyond that the hull is irrelevant, so the term brig applies to the rig first and foremost, and only by extension to the whole vessel carrying that rig. I wouldn't have any issues with someone writing a sentence along these lines: 'the squadron consisted of 8 ships, of which 3 were ships of the line, 2 were frigates and the remainder brigs.' But since the article is specifically about the rig, as to consider it to be about a complete vessel makes no real sense, including the word ship in the title just confuses things completely. The article is not about a ship, or vessel: it is about a type of rig. I don't think any disambiguation is needed in the first place, but to me Brig (ship) is absolutely the worst possible title that could be used. Martocticvs (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, this article refers to many, many specific ships, all of them "brigs". If it was about the sailing rig, would these be "ships which used a brig sailing rig" rather than just calling them brigs? ViniTheHat (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your knowledge on this subject. From what you say, it seems the word "brig" can describe two separate things: A type of rigging configuration, and a type of ship (this definition is also clear in the article). To clear this problem up, we'll need to split this article into two separate articles, such as:

1) Brig (ship), which would describe the type of ship.

2) Brig (rigging), which would describe what you're talking about.

InternetMeme (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A vessel becomes a brig by virtue of being brig rigged. It is completely possible to turn that very same vessel, with the minimum of effort, into a brigatine, simply by altering the rig. So yes, the vessel as a whole is called a brig, but if you were to change the rig it would become whatever that new rig makes it. I may not be making my point very clear, in which case I apologise. A vessel that is brig rigged is a brig, and anything else is not, but a vessel is only a brig because it is brig rigged - hence it is the rig that is the important thing here. So there is no possible way you can split the article into two. Because the term brig is so intractably related to the rig itself, saying Brig (ship) doesn't work - do you see? So in an attempt to clarify my point about as far as I can, let's take the following example. HMS Racehorse was a Cruizer-class brig-sloop. I have no real objection to someone referring to her in her article as a ship when referring to the vessel as a whole, because this is modern, common usage of the word, as has been said, and the subject (ie Racehorse herself) is a tangible, definite thing. However, she is a brig (ignore the term sloop here, it is a Royal Navy designation bearing no relation to the sloop rig) because she is so rigged. Now, if we contrast her with HMS Snake, a ship-sloop, perhaps things will be a little clearer. Snake shared the same hull design as the vessels of the Cruizer-class - the only thing that made them different was their rig - Racehorse was brig-rigged, Snake was ship-rigged. In other words, it is all about the rig, and so Brig (ship) reads to me exactly the same as BMW (Audi). They are both rigs, and both makes of car, but neither title makes any sense at all. Ship has multiple meanings whereas Audi does not, but the alternative meanings don't make any sense in this context. Hopefully now you can see where I'm coming from on this one. Martocticvs (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article needs to be rewritten from the start because it says, "A brig is a sailing vessel with two square-rigged masts." A sailing vessel, which is a ship, ship being "the modern, common usage of the word.," rather than "A brig is a sailing rig." ViniTheHat (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first meaning in the OED for brig is "a. A vessel" given that definition then the statement "A vessel with two masts square-rigged like a ship's fore- and main-masts," is internally consistent with the rest of the entry. It is clearly more than rigging: If that was all it was one could call a mock up of the rigging on land and call it "a brig" (as opposed to "a brig's rigging") -- something that most would find odd -- and if a brig was de-masted in a fight one would not usually stop referring to her as a brig until such time as the damage was repaired. I suspect for clarity one needs to think of brig as a class of vessel rigged in a certain way not as a type of rigging. -- PBS (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The primary meaning of the word is the ship type. The hatnote covers the situation adequately. Mjroots (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, solution in search of a problem, there's nothing wrong with the current title (Brig).--Kotniski (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's already been demonstrated that there is a problem: The term Brig is very commonly used to describe a military prison, and a town, etc. InternetMeme (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In situations such as this, in which the title of an article refers to two closely-related but separate objects (in this case a class of vessel and a system of rigging) the title is usually disambiguated with a term that refers not to either type of object, but to a subject category that covers both objects.

Vessel classes and rigging systems are both topics that are within the field of sailing, so in this case, I would nominate the article title:

Brig (sailing)

InternetMeme (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, brig is used for naval prisons, not those of the army or air force, at least in the US. So I think your case to move the article is even weaker than you originally thought.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I see what you mean, but my resoning was purely anecdotal. I've heard the term 'brig' used many times, and I've never heard it in reference to a ship (I'm not from the US). InternetMeme (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert this move[edit]

InternetMeme moved the article Brig to Brig (ship). This move needs to be reverted immediately for the following reasons:

  • The move was made while a discussion was in progress on the subject of a similar move requested by InternetMeme, the consensus of which was against any move
  • The primary meaning (according to every dictionary I can find) is the sailing vessel, and according to our own rules, that means the article should be entitled Brig without any disambiguation
  • Disambiguating Brig as Brig (ship) is technically perverse, since one of the vessels that a brig is not, in a technical sense, is a ship
  • Most importantly there are now upwards of 1500 links to Brig that are in context of a two-masted square-rigged sailing vessel, but which now link (via a redirect) to a disambiguation page.

This move requires an admin, since the article Brig (ship) cannot be moved straight back to Brig without Brig being deleted first. Please can we go back to the (correct) previous naming conventions as soon as possible. Shem (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that a simple revert (but leaving a redir) is helpful at this stage. No significant history at target. Done. Andrewa (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But see above for a formal proposal to reinstate it. Andrewa (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soap[edit]

I'm not at all comfortable about this edit which added In the narrow technical field of sailing rigs, a brig is distinct from a three-masted ship by virtue of only having two masts to the already overly long lead paragraph. This is more about what a ship is than about what a brig is. It's probably too long-winded for this article at all, let alone the WP:lead, let alone the first paragraph. Andrewa (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Category:Two-masted ships and related categories and articles. Note two-masted ships. Is the lead of the article on the brig rig really the place to split hairs like this? In normal conversation, even among sail enthusiasts, a brig is a ship. Andrewa (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that a couple of hundred years ago, the word ship was a very technical term that described a particular vessel with three or more masts. By virtue of this old definition, virtually no vessels today are ships—they have no masts, as they are powered by diesel-electric motors.

I'm guessing you are right... but before basing any decisions on this I'd like to consider evidence from reliable sources. This old definition is one I've sometimes seen authorities use when comparing rigs, but not consistently.
P.S. but I should have said, few ships have diesel-electric motors. Some do, mainly ferries, cruise ships, icebreakers and conventional submarines. Andrewa (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, today we use the word ship to describe a vessel without regard for of its number of masts. Any vessel bigger than a boat is a ship. The question is, in this article, should we be using the term ship in the historical sense, or should we be using the term ship in its current sense? InternetMeme (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This current sense seems to be the sense in which Wikipedia has mostly used the term to date, for example in the category names I listed above, and it's the sense in which I tend to use the term, with some exceptions... A submarine of any size is a boat, and in some contexts a vessel of any size is a ship, for example if it carries a cat it's the ship's cat (and some surprisingly small yachts do). These latter contexts tend to be formal and even affected speech, including humour and even ridicule.
We should of course use current English, I think that question is rhetorical. In the article lead, and title, if we use the word ship at all it would be better to use it in the more general sense, but it may be best avoided. Perhaps we should have a later section that contrasts the rig to a fully rigged ship.
But even in this technical sense the word ship in modern usage seems ill-defined. Are three-masted rigs such as the barque and barquentine ships? There is a sense in which they are not, in that ship is short for fully rigged ship, and another in which they are, in that a ship has three or more masts. I suspect it depends on the authority.
As an example of this problem, see the article on the 338-foot schooner Pretoria. Note that we disambiguate this article ship, and that she's a very substantial vessel. But the cited newspaper account of the time calls her a boat. This is not an accident! Andrewa (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, in modern casual usage, the word 'ship' is amorphous - not just modern, but throughout history. However, in the specific context of rigs, ship takes on a very particular meaning. So whilst in casual speech you might refer to any kind of vessel larger than a boat as a ship, if you are talking about the rig of a Brig, or a Ketch, or a Schooner, or a Xebec.... to throw in the word ship gives you a contradiction. Do you mean Brig (etc), or Ship? Thus Brig (ship) is a really bad title. The category 'Two-masted ships' is badly named, however - Wikipedia should strive to achieve at least some degree of technical accuracy, despite not being a technical publication. Martocticvs (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should certainly strive for accuracy. But in the choice of an article title, we generally follow current English usage, and it's sometimes illogical but the policy is that Wikipedia still follows current usage and in particular doesn't try to reform the current language. (That's why I headed the section soap.)
With that in mind, disagree that Category:two-masted ships is badly named. But glad that you see the issue. How about Category:Ship types, Category:Ships by number of masts, and even Category:Ships, of which all of these, directly or indirectly, are subcategories? Andrewa (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be getting out of hand. Of course the word ship has evolved to mean any large ocean going vessel (too large to be carried on another, I believe) but in sailing circles the word 'ship' still retains its old meaning. Is it really such a problem to avoid the use of the word in articles such as this one?--Ykraps (talk) 09:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see a major problem: yes, the category is badly named (anyone fancy changing all those ship categories to "vessel"?!), and yes, the distinction between ship and full-rigged ship is one that crops up regularly. It's worth noting however, that some of the links to brig are there to highlight the technical difference between a brig and a ship (for an example, see the infobox of HMS Grasshopper (1813)). We should strive to ensure that the article explains the technical distinction clearly for the benefit of readers. That's why I made this edit as pointed out by Andrewa at the top of this section. Nevertheless, if you can think of a better way of doing it, please go ahead and change it. Shem (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that in sailing circles the word 'ship' still retains its old meaning, it's just among tall ship enthusiasts that the word still has this meaning, and it only had this meaning in general for a relatively short period of time even in the age of sail.
But the practical question is, if we decide we do need to disambiguate this meaning of brig, either because there's another primary meaning or because currently there is no primary meaning, what's the best disambiguator? And I think ship needs to be considered. Tall ship enthusiasts may wish to impose their meaning on the general public, but we don't need to go along with them, and in fact our policy is not to.
See above for a formal proposal along these lines. Andrewa (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it absolutely had to have a disambiguator (which I do not agree with), 'sailing rig' would be vastly better than 'ship', since the former is exactly what the article is about, and the latter is exactly what the article is not about. Disagreeing that the word ship has a meaning in a different context from the commonly used one is a bit irrelevant - in the context of sailing vessel rigs, ship does, and always will have, a specific meaning. No one is arguing against the idea that in normal usage out of this context it can be, and indeed is, used to describe just about anything that floats. But this is an article about a sailing rig that is distinct from a ship rig. The term 'full-rigged-ship' is a fairly modern term that tries to get around the fact that the word ship has obviously come to be applied to anything due to the ending of the age of sail - in general usage. As soon as you get into talking about rigs though, it is as I have said. So Brig (sailing rig) I would not have a problem with, if there was to be consensus that a disambiguator is needed; Brig (ship) I will never agree with because it is simply wrong. Martocticvs (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent summary of the case against brig (ship) so far, and it lacks any basis in official Wikipedia policy. This is a general encyclopedia, and article titles are selected to be recognisable to the layperson as well as to the expert. No expert will be misled by the title brig (ship). The information that some people object to the common practice of calling these vessels ships belongs in the article, not in the title. Andrewa (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS And, as has been said above, the same arguments also apply to the names of Category:Two-masted ships and even Category:ships, and many, many others.
They are weakest regarding Category:ships, in that the main problem there is that the subcategories include, for example, Category:Ships by number of masts, and whatever we end up naming Category:Two-masted ships I think it's unlikely that we'll then remove it from Category:Ships by number of masts (on the grounds that two-masted vessels allegedly aren't ships).
But they're strongest for Category:Two-masted ships. My suggestion would be, if others think that the argument above rejecting Brig (ship) as an article title is important, then surely you should propose a rename of Category:Two-masted ships.
If and when a consensus forms to rename this, then there'll be some basis to apply the principle more widely, such as in this discussion. Andrewa (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the question is: Do we need a disambiguator at all? If "Brig" as used here is the primary meaning, then we do not, as I understand it. This also happens to be the status quo. I would suggest that every dictionary I have consulted has the sailing vessel as the primary meaning, and that I'd be interested to hear of a counter argument that argues powerfully against the dictionary usage - all I hear at the moment is personal opinion. Shem (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Until and unless evidence is presented and a rough consensus reached that a move is required, there's no problem deciding on a disambiguator, because we don't need one.
My raising a formal proposal for such a move above is intended to promote such discussion. I think it would have been better to just close the messy original nomination and open a fresh one, but I felt I was too involved to do this, and nobody else took my hints. Andrewa (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A ship is a large vessel that floats on water. (according to my most valuable reference (wikipedia))ViniTheHat (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see ship. Andrewa (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
have the article under the "Brig" namespace with a link at the top "this is an article about ships not military prison? ViniTheHat (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean name not namespace. Yes, a hatnote is an excellent idea. Andrewa (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, this is an excellent idea. I wish you'd done this long ago, before I caused all that kerfuffle! InternetMeme (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired and confused. will someone do this? I'm also lazy today.. ViniTheHat (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

awesome!ViniTheHat (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


confusion[edit]

If you read the descriptions on Hermaphrodite_brig, brigantine and brig, there seems to be a conflict about how the mainmast should be rigged.

The hermaphrodite brig is distinguished from a brigantine in having exclusively fore-and-aft sails on the mainmast, while the brigantine has one or more square sails on the main topmast, above a gaff rigged main-course, or "spanker".

Meanwhile,

In sailing, a full-rigged brig is a vessel with two square rigged masts (fore and main).[1] The main mast of a brig is the aft one. To improve maneuverability, the mainmast carries a small (gaff rigged) fore-and-aft sail.

Is the difference the presence of a square rigged main course in addition to the gaff-rigged spanker on the brig vs. the hermaphrodite's main course being gaff-rigged and therefore 'not' technically a spanker? ViniTheHat (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the brig-sloop ... 184.144.166.27 (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The brig and brigantine articles are correct. Hermaphrodite brig should be a re-direct to brigantine (which states at the bottom that "Early American usage was to refer to a brigantine as a hermaphrodite brig.")
A brig-sloop is a brig-rigged sloop-of-war (and is thus a brig). Confusingly perhaps, a sloop-of-war is not sloop-rigged, but is instead defined by having an officer below the rank of captain in command.
Unfortunately I'm pressed for time; if you give me a few days I'll improve the relevant articles. Shem (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brig Niagara[edit]

That is one sexy photo! ViniTheHat (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Russia[edit]

Well, how typical for Americans to forget about us once again.

In this article there the World's one of most famous brigs, Russian brig "Mercury" wasn't mentioned by even couple of words! In those battle in 1829 those Russian brig "Mercury" (armed with 18 light guns) had against 2 line battleships (flagman and vice-flagman, 90 and 120 guns each by Turkish data) of Ottoman Empire, Russian brig fatally damaged both of them, demanding Turkish ships to lie down on the drift, and then escaped. Nobody couldn't believe in this until Ottoman side confirmed the fact.

See for brig "Mercury" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_brig_Mercury — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troske (talk • contribs) 07:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usefull Diagram[edit]

The following is a usefull diagram to show the different two masted vessels rigging plans, in relation to their classicifaction.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ship_Rigging_differences_in_schematic_view.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refundpolitics (talk • contribs) 14:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

article is self-contradicting[edit]

The Section

Development of the brig
(...) "that the sails, being smaller and more numerous, are more easily managed, and require fewer men or 'hands' to work them."

is in contradiction with:

Historic usage
(...) They were replaced in commercial traffic by gaffsail schooners (which needed fewer personnel)

Let me explain why: The difference between a Brig and a Brigantine is in the mainsail. A brig has a square-rigged mainsail, while the Brigantine had a fore-and-aft rigged mainsail. This fore-and-aft mainsail was identical to that of a gaff rigged schooner (at the time, bermuda rigged schooners did not yet exist). It is my understanding that square sails needed more man to handle than fore-and-aft sails (I don't have a source ready, but will see if I can find a credible one). So while the second quote is correct, the first one is really odd.

The information in the Development of the brig section has on the Ocean as a source. This very source also fails to note the difference between cutters and sloops (at the linked page); so it may not be the best source nautical correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.54.197 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brig and Brigantine[edit]

Please see Talk:Sail-plan#Brig and Brigantine. --62.19.46.1 (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brig. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brig. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weight[edit]

The term "Weight" in the info box is meaningless. The term should be "Tons burthen", and the measurement is volumetric with respect to the cargo capacity. The measure of burthen was Builder's Old Measurement, usually abbreviated "bm".Acad Ronin (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article deficiencies[edit]

(1) Use of RM Ballantyne as a reference is questionable. What special knowledge does he have of the subject? There are other sources out there.
(2) The omission of the collier brigs that served the North Sea coast of the UK is quite surprising. The article is generally very light on merchant vessels of this type.
May add more to this list on further study. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(3)The references for this article include:
Teacher's Guide for teaching a history class and setting various tasks for students.
A scuba diving site that has some information about wrecks. (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS?)
R. M. Ballantyne - as above.
A glossary put together for the website for the Texas Navies
Essentially, the article is based on whatever can be found on the internet, with little consideration for the level of expertise that the website operator might have in the subject. There is only one book listed, written by Howard I. Chapelle and it looks as though he has been quoted out of context (I believe he was talking about the multi-masted schooners - but I do not have a copy to hand at the moment). There are ample books on maritime history, written by authors with significant credentials. That should be the reference base for much of the article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brig&oldid=1200354730"