Talk:Watercraft

odd comments in odd position

Not sure it's actually of interest to half of these wikiprojects - at least not without substantial work on the article, but I've not trimmed them out. EdwardLane (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ship and boat have a lot of material that applies to both, notably the distinctions between them. All of it should be moved to Watercraft and referenced by both of the others. --Jerzy(t) 20:33, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

• Actually, most of my recent addition (other than what i moved from ship) probably belongs in Hull (watercraft), where i've now moved it. --Jerzy(t) 03:42, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

---

Could we please have a history of watercraft? We have a sketchy history of boats, but nothing comparable for ships, and nothing for watercraft as a whole. --Simetrical 20:38, 2004 Dec 23 (EST)

Merge

Can watercraft be merged with boat in order to simplify the articles (boat, boating, ship, watercraft) and provide a more clear article (with 1 meaning for each) ? Would allow to add more specific and better information for each rather than give a general view/modification of text for each individual article.

Also, boating can then be described as the activity of moving a watercraft over water (something which is hard if it were only to describe boats)

Definition should also be changed to A watercraft or boat is ... KVDP (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The article makes clear that 'watercraft' and 'boat' are not the same thing - all boats are watercraft, but a watercraft is not necessarily a boat. Merging the articles would serve no purpose but to confuse this --Saalstin (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we really sure .....

that "watercraft" (or "water craft" - the article doesn't spell it consistently!) is the professional word? All the professional nautical people I've ever known (and I've known quite a few) have used "vessel" for anything biggish, and "boat" for anything else (including subs, which, as far as I'm aware, are always called "boats" by their commanders and crews), although, technically, a vessel is anything which floats by displacement, of course. While appreciating that "watercraft / water craft" covers everything that floats and and can be usefully steered, I can't help the feeling that it's a term invented for that purpose by officialdom and (therefore!) amateurs - it just sounds that way, sorry! Maelli (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am amused by your suggestion that there has to be a professional word. In view of the apparent dominance of usage I think we will have to stick to watercraft (despite what I note below) as a single word. I see that there are references dating back to the 16th century for the word.

Watercraft is used in the sense of any man-made object floating on the water which in one or way or another is engaged in navigation. Buoys for example are not watercraft, and it is debatable if a fixed pontoon is a watercraft. It is the most general term possible.

Rule 3 (Definitions) of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea states under

a)The word “vessel” includes every description of water craft, including non-displacement craft, WIG Craft and seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water; We may note that here the IMO gives preference to the two word "water craft" spelling and includes watercraft in the set called "vessel". Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking through again ....

I'm beginning to think this article is a mess and even, maybe, a con. It not only doesn't refer to the professional term for any boat, ship, etc. (vessel), it also goes on about various elements, such as "great ships" (not a very common term) as if these were an important part of the overall picture (which, by the way, is severely lacking here!). Diverting would-be readers here from "marine vessel" is a liberty. Could it be that the author is starting from the German term "Wasserfahrzeug", and trying to make the English definition fit it - it almost looks like it. Maelli (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And looking through yet again .......

I find this article contains loads of utter nonsense and numerous inadmissible assumptions; here, for example:

"Water crafting therefore requires several orders of complexity (what????) in the design to be successful: flotation, propulsion, navigation for steering, and skilled operation. For these reasons, perhaps the best known and largest wooden construction in early human history, the Noah's Ark, is not a watercraft, but a large enclosed flotation device since it lacked the last three prerequisites."

a) I would think "buoyancy", rather than "flotation" b) "navigation for steering" - not the other way around ??? c) Noah's Ark may not be history - there are many who think it isn't!

In short: English, assumptions, clarity, necessity of this article at all - and especially as a diversion from "marine vessel"! Maelli (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

hungarian link wrong

the link to the hungarian article is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacdegemecs (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"Great Ships"

I can find no proof that this "Great Ships" term ever existed, this section should be removed. Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Having seen no objections in the intervening four months, I have removed this unsourced section. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge

If you look at the Watercraft registration page, a merge has been requested and granted by afd. The aim of this thread is to foster a discussion about how to best accomplish this merger. Sheepythemouse (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Singular/plural

User:Kent Dominic is making repeated edits to deal with an alleged grammatical problem with "watercraft" having the same form in the singular and the plural. This is despite being reverted with an edit that listed the full current entry to the OED as justification. I suggest that the best way to deal with this is to stop making these changes and discuss here on the article talk page. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The edit summary to [1] suggests that "hovercraft", in the plural, should be "hovercrafts". Reference to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) (online version, so totally up to date) says quite clearly that the plural is "unchanged" – so "hovercrafts" is incorrect. Hovercraft seems to agree.

Looking at the main point, the usage of the plural of "watercraft", the OED says "A boat or other vessel designed for use on water. Also with plural agreement: such vessels collectively."
Looking at an academic source within the specialist subject of watercraft, A Maritime Archaeology of Ships: Innovation and Social Change in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe by Adams, J. R. (ISBN 978 1 84217 297 1) has 28 search hits for "watercraft", all of which are used in the way this article did before the recent edits in question. There are none for "watercrafts".
The website for the Society for Nautical Research has no search hits for "watercrafts" and ten for "watercraft".[2]
The search engine for the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology does not differentiate between words with or without an "s" on the end, but I cannot find an example of "watercrafts" among the 201 results for "watercraft/watercrafts". Sampling this list, all have an English usage consistent with this article prior to the recent edits.
I am satisfied that the English usage suggested by User:Kent Dominic is, at best, a particularly rare form. My initial search for that usage in academic publications by those working in a relevant subject do not find any examples to support it.

I invite comments from others. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Checking an American author (for version of English considerations) Ancient Ocean Crossings by Jett, Stephen C.(ISBN: 978-0-8173-1939-7) has 178 instances of "watercraft" and the one example that has an "s" on the end is a possessive. Otherwise the usage is consistent with this article before recent changes. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed I do not maintain "watercraft" has the same form in the singular and the plural. Rather, watercraft, as a mass noun (not a collective noun) regarding the category and range of things re water propullsion, has no plural form. By contrast, watercraft, as an enumerable noun regarding things re water propullsion, is pluralized as watercrafts. See watercrafts@Merriam-Webster, watercrafts@OED (i.e., its Dictonary.com site), or watercrafts@Wikipedia. An analogy: I like pizza versus I like pizzas: the former sense relates to the concept; the latter sense relates to items associated with the concept.

My point: this article mostly mentions watercraft in its enumerable sense, not its mass sense. It's the same as noting how an article on the various oceans would distinguish the vast waters (i.e., enumerable bodies of water) worldwide from the vast water (i.e., a mass amount of H₂O) worldwide. So, waters entail water but water doesn't have waters; watercraft entails various kinds of watercrafts, but not vice versa.

It seems the sources in your database are semantic relics. I'm not saying they're categorically wrong since this isn't a right/wrong issue. It's purely a matter of practical usage that your sources might have skipped over, or perhaps they're inured to an old school phraseology. Check the trends for yourself: watercrafts versus watercraft. By way of trivia, you'll notice the same trends apply to aircrafts and spacecraft.

I stand by my edits from a linguistic POV without comment whether, in each instance, the text initially intended a mass or enumerable sense of watercraft. E.g., the propulsive capability watercraft can be construed as having an enumerable or a mass referent, so the "Watercraft usually have a propulsive capability" is equivocal. (Neither can we rightly say that "Pizza have a piquant quality", "Water have a solvent quality", and so on.) I.e., it's either "watercraft has" or "watercrafts have". In context, from the article's lede, the meaning is presumably enumerable items of watercraft, so the sentence correctly reads as, "Watercrafts usually have a propulsive capability (whether by sail, oar, paddle, or engine) and hence are distinct from a simple device that merely floats." Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Kent Dominic, I disagree with your assessment of current usage. The sources that I have cited are all recent or current:
A Maritime Archaeology of Ships: Innovation and Social Change in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, published 2013
Ancient Ocean Crossings, published 2017
Both the Society for Nautical Research and the Nautical Archaeology Society are modern research organisations concerned with watercraft, publishing their respective journals on a regular basis.

I am not sure that you are reading the statistics from google books correctly. Firstly, this is very much a blunt instrument, as you have no knowledge of the intended meaning of the word that is detected. Interestingly, this is demonstrated by the graph for watercrafts having a peak in 1856. This is when a different meaning was used which has nothing to do with transportation on water. I don't have a precise definition from that era, but a list in an advert from 1822 gives a clue: "decanters, watercrafts, tumblers and wine glasses". In a modern advert, you can find a plumber describing his business as "watercrafts". Unless you are going to check a good sample of entries, you will never know for sure what you are counting.
More importantly, you are looking only at trends and not at absolute numbers. For "watercrafts", the frequency is measured at 0.06 per billion (that is the thousand million version of billion, or 10⁹). For "watercraft" the latest frequency is about 2 per billion. That is substantially more common.
Then there is another defect with the google books search. Titles tend to have a time lag before they end up in google books. There is a practical delay getting books scanned. So with more recent titles you may be looking at a much smaller sample size – this is concealed by the results being expressed as a percentage. This may well invalidate any conclusion, due to simple stochastic effects.
The possible influence of small sample size is suggested by reducing the graph smoothing to zero. This gives substantial inter-year variation. Compare this with a more common word (I used "dog"). There is a much more stable result with a more common search word – though "dog" has interesting fluctuations from about 2010, which may well be due to small sample size.

Then there is the issued of Wikipedia's role in any language change. It is not this encyclopaedia's job to be at the forefront of that process. Instead it should follow. Wikipedia is based on its reliable sources. It would be bizarre if the language used in reasonably up-to-date sources had to be translated into a new version of English – over and above the risks of errors in that process, it would make it extremely tedious (and irritating?) for an encyclopaedia user who used some of those sources to have to deal with different English versions between them.

I note that you have no regard for the Oxford English Dictionary entry on watercraft in their main online site[3]. There is no evidence that the site you label as an OED site has anything to do with them. I discount Wiktionary as, just like Wikipedia, it should not be used as an RS.

Ultimately, I believe that you have a criticism of the authors of the sources on which this article is (or should be) based. It is also my conclusion that such criticism is not well founded. If you believe that I could not be persuaded on such an issue, I suggest that you consider the language change issue in Wikipedia from "slave" to "enslaved person". That is an example of accelerated language change in an emotive subject that was driven by a wish to avoid using a term that some felt offensive. The correct approach for Wikipedia is to look to the sources. In the history of slavery, those sources are academic works by historians. Such changes can be demonstrated – arriving in a very short timescale of around two years. (Incidentally, google books would not have differentiated between academic and other sources. Nor would it have picked up on the change by, specifically, historians.) In that debate, I researched academic sources and changed my position on the correct term for Wikipedia to use. The issue with watercraft is not at all similar. The rate of change (if it truly exists) is much, much slower and there is nothing in specialist literature on watercraft to support a change. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

To keep it short, I think that Kent Dominic is constructing an semantic argument to prove a point which is misguided, mainly by the almost bizarre Merriam-Webster page quoted - note that it is from a thesaurus, not the dictionary itself, which it directly contradicts, and where, helpfully, several of the recent examples demonstrate the use of "watercraft" as an enumerable simple plural. That dictionary's entry for the generic "craft" has the explicit "plural usually craft". Labelling dictionary.com as an OED product is a falsehood, readily discernable here. Wiktionary is indeed not a RS, but interestingly accepts either.Davidships (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Also to be brief, I wouldn't recommend relying on the sources I mentioned. Use them only as a basis for consideration. Again, it's not a picayune matter of insisting that watercraft is properly used only as an enumerable singular or unenumerable mass noun and that watercrafts is properly used only as a plural/collective noun. Instead it's a matter of pointing out that linguists, including lexicographers on a hit-or-miss basis, do in fact distinguish a collective versus a mass sense of a noun. Accordingly, it's our job as editors to determine which sense is intended with each mention of watercraft in this article. Look at my edits and see if you agree with my interpretations. Change stuff as you see fit. From my POV, there's no harm in formulaically making the relevant distinctions by using a specific form that corresponds to the relevant singular/plural/mass/collective sense entailed. Last bit of trivia: no one that I know says "arts & craft." So, there! Kent Dominic·(talk) 00:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

No disrespect to the watercraft pros. They know their field. Yet, I wouldn't rely on their generalized linguistic expertise nor would I expect they really ever delved deeply into distinctions between a singular enumerable noun (e.g., I have a watercraft) versus a plural enumerable noun (e.g., I have two watercraft watercrafts) versus a mass noun (e.g., this article is about watercrafts watercraft) versus a collective noun (e.g., all of the watercraft was watercrafts were docked during the storm). I'm not criticising any cited source for less than stellar semantics, just saying it's our job as editors to emend any semantic shortcomings. And I'm not denying what's in the OED entry for watercraft while I empathize with anyone who misinterprets it. Trivial FYI: OED bought the Dictionary.com domain in August of this year and migrated the majority of its own (edited) corpus to that website. OED's former internet site was the now defunct Lexico.com. Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

As for the trivia, dictionary.com doesn't support your thesis either (and still only quotes OED's competitor, Collins). But I think that you are confusing ODE and OED. OED's website is still [4]. More importantly, it is not our job to "determine which sense is intended with each mention of watercraft", on the basis of a dichotomy which is not widely accepted. We follow how modern reliable and serious sources write about the subject in hand. Davidships (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Not my thesis; I'm merely reporting plain English usage as given in the sources I've noted. You might want to check dictionary.com again:

watercraft

noun, plural wa·ter·crafts or, for 2, wa·ter·craft

1. skill in boating and water sports. [i.e., a mass noun]

2. any boat or ship. [i.e., an enumerable noun, with watercrafts as the plural form, as tagged below the entry's heading]

3. boats and ships collectively. [i.e., a distinctively British interpretation; the American interpretation largely requires pluralization of any collective sense]

True: Merriam-Webster is a bit schizo re pluralizing watercrafts in its thesaurus while being silent on the matter in its dictionary. Yet, let's not argue that fault or whether this or that dictionary is better, more authoritative, etc. It seems you're interested in neither (a) accepting the utility in the dichotomy associated with watercrafts as enumerable items versus watercraft as a singular item or mass item, nor (b) determinining whether the former or latter sense more appropriately corresponds to each mention in the article. IMHO, a lazy way out is to ignore any distinction and to rationalize how the dictionaries disagree, so let's just go with the traditional ambiguity of a one-size-fits all watercraft in every case.

Correct. I am not interested in making changes to language based on "utility" (which perhaps implies that all plural enumerable nouns should end in "s"). And I do understand "plural wa·ter·crafts or, for 2, wa·ter·craft" = for meanings 1 & 3 the plural is watercrafts, and for meaning 2 it is watercrafts or watercraft. (The link to the thesaurus, which is not part of the dictionary, is irrelevant to the question in hand.) Davidships (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not one to presume (or really care) what interests or motivates editors. I don't presume to know (or really care) what editors do or don't understand. Instead, let's discuss how to provide readily grasped, unequivocal, and unambiguously worded articles. As I found it, this Watercraft article failed those three expectations in instances that I amended. The link to the thesaurus, as well as the links to Dictionary.com, Wiktionary, and Google Book Ngram User, is relevant to how watercrafts is a word that is readily grasped, unequivocal, and unambiguous re anyone who cares to look it up. If only the authors of the RSs listed above had known. Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Case in point: according to the Types section, "Most watercraft would be described as either a ship or a boat". The word most denotes watercraft in its collective sense (despite how I favor using watercrafts in this instance), so the sentence should read as, "Most watercraft(s) would be described as either a ship ships or a boats boats". It's not one ship or one boat. Don't blame me for criticizing how the current text ignores typical parallel syntax construction by inexplicably switching from a supposedly unenumerable collective noun in a singular form (i.e., watercraft) to enumerable nouns in their singular form (i.e., a ship and a boat). The meaning is consequently ambiguated - some might say negligibly and harmlessly ambiguated, but I would say negligently and needlessly so.

Do I have better things to do than to point out such nitpicky stuff that few people notice and fewer seem to care about? Indeed, I do. Apparently not. Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: Upon further review, per Dictionary.com's definition 2, I suppose it could be, "Most watercraft(s) would be described as either a any ship or a any boat".--Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

More sources, focussing on people/organisations who use the word "watercraft" as part of their job, with the solitary exception to the rule of never using "watercrafts" shown below:
RYA[5];
The Times reporting a Government consultation: "The consultation document said there were between 14,000 and 16,000 personal watercraft in the UK..."[6];
Practical Boat Owner, "small sailing boats and personal watercraft"[7];
various UK government and government agency publications (which consistently do not use "watercrafts" as a plural), for instance this accident report[8];
US Coast Guard has many search hits for "watercraft" and none for "watercrafts"[9];
Boating.[10] This is the only example that I can find of such a source using "watercrafts" but in a very clear minority of their content (about 3 out of a large number of articles using just "watercraft" – I have closed that tab and it took a while to do that search). These are cases where the abbreviation "PWC" was used in the plural (so, "PWCs"), with the abbreviation expanded to say "personal watercrafts". These instances are so rare, one could reasonably suggest they snuck past their style guide.

I don't think it matters too much about grammatical theory on this. What counts (for Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia based on its sources) is what the usage is in any cases that might reasonably qualify as an RS. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I really do appreciate all of that, and I'm not disputing what's in the sources you've cited here and above. Yet, those RSs relate to the relevant subject matter, not to a linguistic distinction between watercraft versus watercrafts. Show me any RS that niggles the semantic distinction rather than blithely using watercraft in both its mass sense AND in its collective sense regardless of the ambiguity that watercrafts obviate and I'll buy you coffee or tea for life. Unlike Davidships, who thinks "it is not our job to 'determine which sense is intended with each mention of watercraft,'" I'd say it sometimes requires tough, thankless, and excrutiating amounts of discernment that might exceed some editors' interest or abilities.

Kindly make room for the whole quote before your collective put down ("..., on the basis of a dichotomy which is not widely accepted.") Davidships (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I intententionally redacted your quote since I didn't want to repeat the unsubstantiated and nonrelevant claim that the dichotomy isn't widely accepted. The dichotomy nonetheless exists for those who are nimble enough to recognize and use watercrafts when the underlying meaning is collective or plural. The lack of its use in uncited RSs belies its cogent use in the article for the benefit of readers who have an ordinary grasp of English usage. Do a web search on "arts and craft" if you want to digress re parsing the *ahem* widely accepted *ahem* generics of craft versus crafts. To pluralize or not to pluralize? Yep. Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I give credence to an argument that my edits (i.e., in the article) conflict with prevailing yet bygone semantics evident in the RSs' indiscriminate usage of watercraft, which disregards its contextually intended sense as (1) a mass noun, (2) a collective noun, or (3) a singular noun - especially in cases where the intended sense is plural. I also empathize with anyone who can't make heads or tails of the lexicographers' conflicting attempts at making sense of the distinctions. Look [here] for a summary of my lament on this issue.

As a footnote, my interest in the article relates to whether I can, in good conscience, link the article to benefit readers of my own proprietary work. I can't defend a lede that says, "Watercraft ... are vehicles", which syntactically conflates a mass noun with a collective noun. By contrast, I can defend "Watercraft ... is any vehicle", which uses a mass noun re both watercraft and vehicle. If there's a consenus to revert my edit (i.e., based on achieving conformity with the semantically challenged usage in the otherwise RS on watercraft), I don't intend an edit war. My simple solution is to use the currently tweaked watercraft definition in my own work and to forsake linking the corresponding Wikipedia article whose subject matter is useful to my readers but whose oddly-worded lede would be, for their interests and my own, indefensible. Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The core problem, to my mind, is whether or not "watercraft" is an irregular noun. From the examination of English usage, as given above, it is clear that it is. (Please take on board the extensive searching I have done to examine current English usage on this, in both British and US English.) To examine this further, substitute a noun with an irregular plural in any of the sentence examples that are under consideration. It is easiest if that is done with a word that is very familiar – I suggest "children", then moving on to one of the "no-change" irregular plurals. These tend to be words of less familiarity: "sheep" is probably the one most known to people. Note that those unfamiliar with a word may still mis-use it: "sheeps". Also, if language change were to have recently started on "watercraft", rare examples of "watercrafts", with the meaning that includes boats and ships, would be encountered. These would not be significant for a Wikipedia editor until frequency comes close to 50%. It is absolutely clear that we are nowhere near that and highly likely that language change is not happening. (Note the criticism of the googlebooks ngrams given above.)

Incidentally, in looking online for a list of irregular plurals to jog my memory, I found "Aircraft, watercraft, hovercraft, and spacecraft are all the same whether singular or plural" on Grammarly.[11] I am no fan of that particular product, but they are expressing a point of view in the field in which they make their living. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Rather than considering whether watercraft is an irregular noun (as I contend it's not like child/children or man/men), consider the following:

1. watercraft as an unenumerated mass noun [singular in form but plural in meaning]: "This article is about watercraft;" "Most people enjoy watercraft.'

2. watercraft as an enumerable, singular noun [singular in form and singular in meaning]: "I own one watercraft - a paddle boat;" "I want to buy another watercraft."

3. watercrafts as an enumerated, plural noun [plural in form and collective in meaning]: "I want to change watercrafts from my paddle boat to a sailboat. (To say, "I want to change my watercraft from a paddle boat to a sailboat" implies that I want to outfit my watercraft² with a sail.)

4. watercraft as an unenumerable attributive noun [singular in and form and mass in meaning]: "This is a watercraft article;" "Evinrude is a watercraft company."

It's no different than the conundrum re any noun that doesn't have an irregular form but whose mass and collective senses are often conflated. E.g.

1. family as an unenumerated mass noun [singular in form but plural in meaning]: "This article is about family;" (i.e., the social unit concept; not about the Corleone family and the British royal family)

2. family as an enumerable, singular noun [singular form and singular in meaning]: "I love my family;" "I want to start a family."

3. families as an enumerable, plural noun [plural in form and collective in meaning]: "Our respective families finally met." (To say, "Our respective family finally met" implies a sort of atypical meeting of consanguine members who were separated before an initial meeting.)

4. family as an unenumerable attributive noun [singular in form and mass in meaning]: "This is a family restaurant;" "Our family belongings were destroyed by Ian."

Keep in mind that British English historically pluralizes the verbs corresponding to a mass noun (e.g., "My family¹ are on vacation" whereas American English shuns that practice (e.g., "My family¹ is on vacation.") Credit the British for inventing English and the Americans for improving it even if the consensus disagree disagrees. Or, as a semantic punt: "even if the consensus might disagree." Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

However interesting all this grammatical theory is, there is no escape from the fact that "watercrafts" does not exist to any significant degree (with the meaning "2 or more boat-like things"). So any solution to the suggested grammatical problems discussed here that uses the "added s" is, quite simply, not a solution.

I can imagine the enormous ridicule one would encounter on insisting that two or more sheep should be called "sheeps" (I appreciate others might not, but I live in a place where the agriculture is dominated by sheep – I have a former Sheepdog trialing national champion as a neighbour.) Perhaps I am missing something, but if "sheeps" is risible, why should "watercrafts" be used? There may or may not be some sort of language change starting for "watercraft". If it is happening, it is at a level that is difficult to differentiate from mistakes in English usage (which, of course, are the origin of most language change). In other words, it has not gained enough critical mass to be identified as language change.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

An earlier digression about "arts and crafts" was a specious distraction. The "crafts" associated with handiwork inhabit a very different realm than a fleet of tangible vessels meant to float on or under water. There should be little confusion regarding "fishes" or "peoples" among fluent speakers, and even less among competent writers of English. (cf. "When the Jewish People was Young")

Saying things like "there were several aircrafts tied down by the FBO" or "several watercrafts tied up in the marina" seems likely to prompt derisive jocularity amongst bystanders. I see no need to mention nonstandard plural terminology in an article about physical objects. This article is not about a word. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Coudn't agree more, both watercraft and aircraft are the commonly used singular and plural. We shouldn't use terms that imply we are clever and that detract from the article.Broichmore (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Watercrafts and aircrafts are just as standard as fishes and peoples when the context requires distinguishing a collective noun from a mass noun. Your rehash re "arts and crafts" (i.e., as it was initially offered in reply to Davidships' comment that 'generic "craft" has the explicit "plural usually craft"') neglects how the etymology is apropros to the derivative watercraft. Also, this article is about a word - namely, watercraft, but it's not about the lexeme, watercraft. Look at the article on "Family" to see an instance of proper editing re a word used as a mass noun (i.e., "Family is a group of related people") properly distinguished from a a word used as a collective noun (i.e., "families offer," not family offer.) Yep, the editors there knew I'd come after them if they weren't up to standards or if they mix-matched American versus English usage. Kent Dominic·(talk) 22:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

No love lost for "watercrafts"?

In the interest of achieving a stable version of the lede without using the supposedly verboten watercrafts, consider this lede change, which comports with my rationale from the talk page discussion above:

Any vehicle used in or on water as well as underwater, including boats, ships, hovercraft and submarines, is a watercraft, also known as a water vessel or waterborne vessel. A watercraft usually has a propulsive capability (whether by sail, oar, paddle, or engine) and hence is distinct from a simple device, such as a log raft, that merely floats.

Note #1: Such a lede omits watercrafts, which is a red herring objection re RS, since neither this lede nor its predecessors cite any RS in the lede.

Note #2: The above lede uses "any vehicle" in a singular but enumerable sense. Similarly, watercraft is used in parallel via its enumerable but singular sense, not in its mass sense (i.e., watercraft) or collective sense (i.e., watercrafts).

Note #3: The second sentence of the current lede (as I recently amended it the article) is equivocal. It should have been: "Watercrafts usually have a propulsive capability (whether by sail, oar, paddle, or engine) and hence are distinct from a simple device that merely floats, such as a log raft any simple devices, such as log rafts, that merely float." With that correction, the plural parallelism would have been salient and the misplaced "such as" modifying phrase is remedied. Cheers, all. Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to throw a spanner in the works, log rafts (and bundle rafts, too) are actually considered to be a type of watercraft, and they do actually have methods of propulsion. These include punting with a pole (in shallow water), paddles and there are some very notable sailing rafts that were used up until modern times. Examples include the seagoing sailing rafts found along the coast of Peru in the 17th century and the ones in modern use in the coastal waters of the Bay of Bengal. These can be quite sophisticated, using dagger-boards inserted at various points along the hull to provide balance and steering. Also consider that drifting with a tide or current is another method of water transportation. These are all discussed in, for example, Early Ships and Seafaring: Water Transport Beyond Europe by Seán McGrail, ISBN: 978 1 47382 559 8 and in The Sea-Craft of Prehistory by Paul Johnstone, ISBN: 978-0415026352. It is important to remember the rafts that are presumed to have been used to populate Australia around 50 to 60 thousand years ago. Of course, their existence can only be deduced from the voyages made and the constructional technology that was then available. Most who work in the field believe that they were propelled by sail. So sailing rafts were probably involved in the populating of a continent. Rafts were probably the only method of transportation on water until boats were developed, and that needed the increased technical ability of the neolithic, even for a logboat (according to current thinking, anyway). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

You make some good points. Why don't you work some of that into the article? Please just mind any relevant distinctions re watercraft(s). One other thing: You might want to consider whether the parenthetic text is properly included in the article's assertion that. "However, numerous crafts, such assurfboards (when used as a paddle board), underwater robots, seaplanes and torpedoes, may be considered neither a ship nor a boat." Seems to me that a surfboard qua surfboard is a watercraft regardless. RS, anyone? Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted "(when used as a paddle board)." Whoever disagrees with the edit, no need to rant or ramble. Just revert it. Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Dearth of cites

The article now has TWO cites that comply with the template soliciting them. Please refrain from merely deleting cites but feel free to substitute ones that are arguably more authoritative. Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is the lack of breadth of coverage that the article has. From my own area of interest, there is absolutely nothing about the history of watercraft. There are several good sources on this – the only problem being disentangling those writers' terminology from the article's subject title. To explain: McGrail uses "craft", rather than "watercraft", and he uses a list of "floats, rafts and boats" when he needs the full extent of the books' subject matter. I question (and am looking for the answer to that question) whether floats are included in the definition of watercraft. My suspicion is that they are not – but such a basic fact needs a totally clear reference. Similarly, Johnstone does not use the word "watercraft". His statement "James Hornell has argued that, rather than the lashed raft or the reed-bundle boat, the earliest of all contrived craft was probably the bark canoe" suggests that floats are not included in the list of specifically-built water transportation devices. (Note the term "contrived craft".) Making a decision on this might be easier if there was a definition of modern water-craft, as a point of reference. There must be, for example, legal definitions of the word in the various English-speaking legislatures. Whilst these are not necessarily the best sources (there are some quirky definitions in some laws, just to make the drafting easier), they would be a start. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

There may not be general legal definitions of "watercraft", even in one jurisdiction let alone across many, unless there is a legal need for one, eg a desire to tax them differently from other objects - or it may be that for regulatory purposes they are just defined according to the purpose in mind (for example, in the UK the government refers to "personal watercraft (PWC)" specifically in relation to the common description "jet skis", because the latter is a trade mark). But they are just as likely to build their definitions around "boat" or, more commonly, "vessel". Davidships (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I've just been reading an interesting paper in the Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce[12]. I think the conclusion of that is that lawyers tend to define things to do with ships and boats in a way that suits them and many be unrelated to anything else. To quote a random snippett: "the word ‘vessel’ includes every description of water craft, including non-displacement craft and seaplanes, used or capable of being used [as] a means of transportation on water." So, from that I infer that "water craft" or "watercraft" is the broadest category, with the lawyers making "vessel" mean (as far as I can see) pretty much all of them. Since this paper appears to be a summary, I think that avenue of research could be closed off with the label "confused/contradictory/complicated" – and hence of limited use to the article.

Then going to an anthropological journal of 1952[13]: "Floats: The people of the coastal region of Arnhem Land are, then, expert in the use of watercraft. In additions to the wooden lippa lippa and bark canoes of two types..... they make use of floats and rafts". From this I infer that floats are included in the term "watercraft", since rafts are, from a wider range of references (both Johnstone and McGrail). (The 1952 paper has a photo of log floats in use, and also a bark raft which is propelled by swimming.) So that answers one question in my mind.

Going back to the legal stuff, there must be something on Personal Watercraft (a.k.a. Jetskis), as British legislation had a gap into which they fell which has now been corrected by recent legislation. I would hope there is some news article that would summarise that aspect and avoid any editor being accused, probably rightly, of OR. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Note the comment in the legal paper (above) that says that a Jetski is not a boat because "the jet-ski was, unlike traditional watercraft, not hollow structured." This is reminiscent of McGrail "Boats derive their buoyancy from the flotation characteristics of a hollowed vessel as water is displaced by its watertight hull."(McGrail, Seán. Early Ships and Seafaring: Water Transport within Europe (p. 8)) Makes me wonder what a sailboard is – a raft? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Davidships: I'm going to run and duck for cover after mentioning this, but it needs to be said: the breadth of this article is limited to various items of watercraft, i.e. watercrafts, not watercraft in its etymological sense (i.e., re "skill in aquatic activities" or "skill in boating and water sports" as attested in Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, inter alia). That observation isn't intended (a) to fault the article or (b) to rehash the rants from above or (c) to disparage the sense of however watercraft is used in any given source. It's merely an alert re a distinction that this article doesn't need to make (but should be taken into account as the term is defined in the lede) despite how any similar, contrasting, or other discrete sense of the term might be presumed or used in any prosepective cites or laws. Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

wordhippo.com

Presenting itself as a recreational thesaurus, with anonymous authors, that site does not look anything like a reliable source for Wikipedia content. The parent organization is in the business of app development; I have not yet seen any evidence of academic lexicographic expertise there. For all we know, they could be basing their content on crowdsourced sites such as wikisaurus.

The editor who offered it as a source was being "admittedly lazy". I agree that was a low-effort edit. Removing that cite entails no obligation to replace it with something "more authoritative". The refimprove tag notwithstanding, I see no pressing need for citing a few uncontroversial synonyms in the lede. Just plain Bill (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The WordHippo cite (not a substantively "fluffy source" despite its 2-bit logo) isn't a testament to the site as a whole, so ditch any digressive preoccupation with site's parentage and creds. And kindly avoid presuming our agreement about what my "admittedly lazy effort" reflects. For the contextually challenged, the phrase represents an interest in obviating the rancor of watercrafts-averse editors seeing as Merriam-Webster has a rival list of synonyms under that entry but not under watercraft while Dictionary.com has a comparatively paltry list of synonyms under watercraft.

Try to avoid a penchant for battling for the sake of winning an obsessive and ridiculously trifling point of interest re-self evident reliability (i.e., each entry under the watercraft heading checks out at the WordHippo thesaurus) and conspiracy theories re the basis of a site's content. Simply pick and choose an alternative cite if you're more allergic to WordHippo than to watercrafts]. Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This looks more like marketing fluff than serious lexicography. It is refspam. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

See this example of sketchy reliability, where the unknown authors or editors at wordhippo seem to have conflated a collective noun and the plural form of a singular, countable noun. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The given example is accurate on all counts.

• Countable or uncountable < common noun
• In more general, commonly used, contexts, the plural form will also be [the same as the canonical form] < mass noun
• In more specific contexts, the plural form can also [have an "s" suffix] < collective noun

The same is true for watercraft versus watercrafts. Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Are barge, water skis watercraft?

Are barge, water skis watercraft? Nemohuman (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Barge (as in an unpowered cargo-carrying vessel) - yes, because it is used for transport, even if it needs to be towed. Water skis - no idea, and would need an WP:RS to put anything in the article to say yes or no. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Dearth of cites, part II

The article continues to have a template soliciting cites. Above, I wrote "The article now has TWO cites that comply with the template soliciting them. Please refrain from merely deleting cites but feel free to substitute ones that are arguably more authoritative." An editor recently ignored that request (and presumably all the wrangling that preceded it and the resulting consensus) by merely deleting a cite without substituting a different one. I've since restored the cite since it includes a comprehensive list of watercraft entries not mentioned on any other site I've found. Specifically mentioned in the cited source:

ferry, boat, barge, catamaran, packet, ship, shuttle, vessel, craft, ferryboat, pont, traghetto, ferry boat, packet boat, passage boat, water bus, water taxi, train ferry, passenger boat, passenger ship, roll-off ferry, roll-on ferry, car ferry, drive-on ferry, sightseeing boat sailboat, barque, keelbottom, sloop, ketch, raft, lifeboat, yacht, tub, pinnace, canoe, scow, gondola, dinghy, bark, skiff, ark, schooner, steamboat, launch, bateau, bucket, dory, hulk, float, pontoon, vehicle, liner, sailing boat, steamer, tanker, ocean liner, flatboat, rowboat, balsa, sampan, lighter, junk, life raft, bundle raft, bundle boat

The editor who twice deleted the cite objects that the source is unreliable. I say: judge its reliability on its own merits. The same editor also objected that a "cite for synonyms not needed, nor is it an improvement." Everyone, please avoid making an unlearned (if not, a casual or hasty) distinction between a synonym versus hyponyms that might interest readers.

The same editor additionally ridiculed my statement that the the given cite was "the best I could do via an admittedly lazy effort to offer SOME manner of citation." To clarify, I had limited my due diligence to checking only the then-extant materials at Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Columbia, and American Heritage and didn't do a Google Scholar search to see if there might be a more comprehensive list of hyponyms out there somewhere. If anyone has the time and initiative to substitute a comparable cite for the lede's assertion that a watercraft is "also known as a water vessel or waterborne vessel" (while also providing a myriad of hyponymous terms), by all means have at it. [NOTE: Merriam-Webster has since emended its entry for watercraft in a way that might satisfy some editors here.] Otherwise, I repeat: Please refrain from merely deleting cites but feel free to substitute ones that are arguably more authoritative. Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

If a cited source is not an RS, it is perfectly in order to delete it. It is, of course, then helpful to go and find an RS that supports the article. However, if that cannot be done, it rather suggests that the article text, after suitable investigation, should also be deleted. Otherwise this would cease to be an encyclopaedia based on reliable sources.User:Kent Dominic, you are well aware that the status of Wordhippo is being discussed. It is not helpful to throw in a load of links to that source whilst the matter is unresolved. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

1. "If a cited source is not an RS, it is perfectly in order to delete it." Indeed.

2. "It is, of course, then helpful to go and find an RS that supports the article." That's what I recommended at the outset. The recommendation was ignored by you know whom.

3. "However, if that cannot be done, it rather suggests that the article text, after suitable investigation, should also be deleted." I'm with you 100%. I'd prefer to see the "also known as a water vessel or waterborne vessel" text kept in the article, but I'm not opposed to seeing it deleted along with the given cite.

4. "It is not helpful to throw in a load of links to that source whilst the matter is unresolved." Good point. It's a hangover from consideration of the WordHippo site as a whole, as discursively addressed at WP:RSN#wordhippo.com. Yet, bear in mind that the load of links - firmly evincing the breadth and depth of work at that site - pretty convincingly contradicts officious invectives like 'WP does not need a fluffy "source" for uncontroversial content'. A conscientious, reasonable, and circumspect editor would have done exactly what you suggested under abovementioned points #2 or #3 instead of using WP:RS via post hoc rationale to support a conclusionary reversion. Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)