Talk:Pink (ship)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pink (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

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

Military history: Maritime Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force

Question

Wait: are they slow and sluggish or fast and flexible? Which one? zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--They're both. Depends whether you're looking at them in their historical context. That new part of this article is dismal though. . . 'pink' from the colour of reefs? Preposterous. We already know where they got their name from. However, the first part says they're slow and sluggish because they're square rigged, which is a totally absurd claim. I'm going to change it. Sigma-6 (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait again: the picture (c. 1900) of what look to me like two small cutters doesn't fit the description (large-capacity square-rigged cargo vessel) at all. Which is correct? Is either? 64.60.100.162 (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made so bold as to remove the picture to here for the time being.

Two pinks on the beach of Scheveningen, Netherlands (photochrom, c. 1900)

64.60.100.162 (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1693, they (Edmond Halley and Benjamin Middleton) made a proposal to the Admiralty for an expedition to find ways of improving navigation at sea, in particular by studying terrestrial magnetism in different parts of the globe. ......on the direct order of the Queen (Mary II) a small ship, a kind known as a pink, was built specially for the task and launched on 1 April 1694. (When William of Orange invaded England in 1688, his fleet had included sixty pinks.) She was known as the Paramore , and was just fifty-two feet long, eighteen feet wide at her broadest and drew nine feet seven inches, with a displacement of eighty-nine tons......for a voyage to the far South Atlantic (originally the idea was for a voyage around the world!)" John Gribben, History of Western Science 1543-2001, The Folio Society 2006.80.176.138.207 (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]