Talk:Matthew (1497 ship)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Matthew (1497 ship) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Bristol High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	At least one photograph is included in this article
	This article has an infobox

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Replica?

The modern ship is not a replica because:

There are no drawings of the original
It is extremely unlikely that 15th century shipwrights could have created the highly curved stern. Flat sterns were the norm for such boats. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What term would you suggest? The web site for the Matthew says it is a "faithful reproduction".— Rod ^talk 17:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult, I am just raising the issue and will see what sources I can find. I have found this, which is about another "replica", constructed at Bonavista. [1] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matthew (ship). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This ship is not a caravel.

By the shape this Ship is not a Caravel of this time, the forecastle is too high. If this ship really looks like this and they have actual drawings from the time it was probably a Barinel. Sail plan looks like Caravela Redonda, but at this time Caravela Redonda was not an actual ship as it was made later, (later Caravela Redonda actually had a high forecastle), Caravelas Redondas from this period were just normal caravels with square rigged sails, they had not high forecastles. So, if this ship looked like this it was a Barinel, and if there is proof this is huge because until now there is little factual evidence of how Barinels actually looked like, only broad descriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.108.238.214 (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]