This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 Military history: Maritime / Technology / Weaponry 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 Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Norse history and culture Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article reeks of amateurish layman penmanship. The most commonly mentioned ship type in the Old Norse sources is the Knörr. Yet this article seem to cater to popular media pseudoscholarship found only in the blogosphere and third hand sources, such as the denomination Drakkar (Which is not even an Old Norse word) and other lesser important types. Anyone with even the most basal knowledge in Old Norse sources would see this as a huge red flag for the quality of this article and the penmanship. Not including Knarr/Knörr in nominations of longships is fairly inexcusable. The whole "Types of Longships" section is missing most of its sources and should be removed entirely if not amended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vettlingr (talk • contribs) 01:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the ropes the Vikings used on their ships were made of walrus hide or lime bast fiber (bast is an inner tree bark). Source--"Vikings" by J.M. Clements, Sterling Publishing, N.Y. 2007, pg. 29. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We know that vikings in Greenland traded with Inuits who commonly used walrus hide "ropes".Rather like the old fashioned leather bootlaces around in the 1930s.Greenland Vikings traded with Scandinavians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Walrus was also hunted in Norway. Walrus hide ropes are said to be incredibly strong and durable. I guess it can tolerate saltwater so much better? Read about Walrus hunting in Norway on the Vikings page - I just recently put it in under "Farming and cuisine"; yes they also consumed the flesh. The climate was different back then, and Walrus was in Norway. If I remember correctly even polar bear RhinoMind (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back again. Here is some on-line information on the rigging of Viking ships: sail and rigging. Be sure to also read the section on Ropes, where walrus rope is discussed. RhinoMind (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that the Viking sails were made from a local Norwegian wool which allowed the sails to billow in an elastic mode, providing more sail power, hence the greater speed. Anybody heard of this or which breed of sheep/goat to use? 50.202.81.2 (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might be of some help in this. We only know about the Viking ship sails from experimental archaeology. We know that it requires a lot of wool for one thing. If you want to narrow down some proper sources, try searching for "experimental archaeology, longship and wool". There is some evidence pointing to a an organized textile production in Scandinavia as far back as the Nordic Iron Age. You can find a source discussing this on the page Vikings under the trade section. RhinoMind (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some introductory on-line information can be found here: Woollen sailcloth RhinoMind (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. For some time a sentence mentioning Sumerians has been up in the lede. A user inserted what was probably supposed to be a ref to the claims, but it had a bad syntax. I have moved the sentence here, for several reasons:

"A similar design was sailed by the Sumerians many centuries before [ref Cradle of Civilization, p 84, pub Time Life}}"

The reasons are:

• The article about longships does not contain any information about this in the body, so should not contain any in the lede either.
• The ref does not have a correct syntax and lacks important information to qualify as a ref.
• The claim is controversial to say the least and it is not possible to verify or check the ref easily. (That does not mean it could not be correct though)
• It does not make much sense without a more thorough explanation.
• The Sumerian ships might (?) have had a similar appearance, but I doubt they had any other similarity with longships. I doubt they were clinkerbuilt and of a similar design. It would indeed need more details and refs.

RhinoMind (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reference apparently is this book, which according to a Google Books search (which might be less than exhaustive) does not mention the word "longship", or "Viking". Huon (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly about a specific ship design that flourishes in Northern Europe in the Dark/Middle Ages. It is possible to define galleys in general as "longships", in contrast to merchant vessels ("roundships")but this is not the premise of the article. As wikipedia has a perfectly good Galley article, there seems little reason for a discursion into other types of ship that are superficially similar. Monstrelet (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reorganised this section a little into real ships and replicas. before it was a mixture of both, potentially confusing to readers. Although I added to the historical section and am confident this is a useful selection, I am less sure about the replicas. Why these ones in particular? Could someone more knowledgeable about these reconstructions please review and ensure we have only particularly notable vessels listed?Monstrelet (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Seems like a good idea. It would also be important to note somewhere in these ship-descriptions which ones are still existing originals and which ones are mythological or only known to have existed. And about replicas. The Seastallion and Dragon Harald Hairfair are indeed noteworthy and important. I have not checked up on the last two of the four mentioned though.

And a word of caution: When we mention or discuss replicas, it is very importabt to descripe whether they are authentic replicas or just inspired by some longship designs. By "authentic replica" I mean replicas that are made exactly like original longships were made, either as true copies of original ships or using the same authentic methods that Vikings used. RhinoMind (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd be happy with a three way split of notables. On notable replicas, should we include Viking (ship), possibly the first replica and certainly the first to cross the Atlantic? Monstrelet (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes this seems like a ship worth adding. But is it really "an exact copy" (and thus an authentic replica)? The article does not say anything about how it was made, but just states that it is "an exact copy". But a noteworthy ship nonetheless I think. RhinoMind (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back again. I have read up on some of the ships mentioned and it would probably be a good idea to replace one of the Gokstad replicas and The Munin with a more diverse and covering seletion. They could be mentioned on the Gokstad ship page instead. I will look into it at some point, if I find some good candidates to substitute them with. I was also thinking of removing the Dragon Harald Hairfair, but since it is the longest one built in modern times it might qualify. Just some notes on my thoughts. More later. RhinoMind (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Longship. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041211030348/http://home.online.no/~joeolavl/viking/index.htm to http://home.online.no/~joeolavl/viking/index.htm

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) 23:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article states: "The longship's design evolved over many centuries, beginning in the Stone Age with the invention of the umiak and continuing up until the 6th century". The umiak is a Yupik/Inuit design. This assertion of the longship's heritage suggests that there was contact between the Northmen and hunter-gatherers of North America and the Eurasian Far East before the 6th century. This seems dubious to say the least. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Good idea to add the tag you did in the article. From the top of my head I believe it was meant to refer to primitive hide-boats. These boats were also used in Scandinavia in the Nordic Stone Age. Actually I think the umiak itself was inspired by Stone Age boats that came before it. Stone Age technnology spread across cultures and regions of the world over many millenia and you can find Stone Age dug-outs, canoes and hide-boats in many places. RhinoMind (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed the umiak from the lede, mainly because it is only mentioned in the lede and nowhere in the article. It is also unreferenced.

Apart from that, the umiak is constructed in almost exactly the opposite way of a Scandinavian boat in most fundamental aspects. There is a more or less "solid" archeological development progression, but no known connection to hide boats, AFAIK (which, of course, does not mean all that much). But without a ref I would regard the hide boat connection as highly speculative. T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drekar was changed to Drakkar, without explanation by an IP address.

Karvi and Drakkar have no 'meaning'.

And check They took a year to make comment, added in Jan 2018.

MBG02 (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drakkar is not an Old Norse word, and it doesn't matter how often random angloslop people want it to be. It is not in any Old Norse dictionary so just stop this stupidity. In fact it is only present in circlejerks in the blogsphere and amateur sources. It is not fit to be on Wikipedia.

Unless you can find the word drakkar in https://onp.ku.dk/onp/onp.php it does not exist (It's not in there).

It's weird that I seem to be the only one with proper scholarly knowledge of Old Norse and Icelandic on here, yet I get doubts from pretty much anyone who put things on here that they've heard from their dad.

The real term is dreki 'dragon'

You should do thus that the term "drakkar" redirects to this page, but having it in the article as a correct term is AMATEURISH and beyond stupid. Vettlingr (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah. You sound like someone who hasn't had sex in a long time. You should go out and get laid, man. Carlstak (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such unserious comments deserve no answer. Vettlingr (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect an answer. It was a serious suggestion for someone using such hateful expressions indicating their bottled-up rage. Carlstak (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vettlingr (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vettlingr, you have not asked a question. Nor is it likely that you need administrator intervention. It looks like this is a content dispute and the discussion needs to be handled more civilly by you and Carlstak.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute. I am not arguing in favor of "drakkar". I simply provided a reliable source for the etymology of dreki. Carlstak (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Jesch, an expert in runic inscriptions, says in her Ships and Men in the Late Viking Age: The Vocabulary of Runic Inscriptions and Skaldic Verse:

Another image we have from the Viking Age is of the dragon ship, or the ship with a carved dragon's head on the prow. The word dreki (m., pl. drekar) 'dragon' is used of a ship in only seven stanzas. Many writers assume dreki was a technical or semi-technical term for the 'biggest warships of all' (Foote and Wilson 1974, 237; Simek 1982, 39) and that it was broader than a skeið (AnS, 104; Simek 1982, 35). Falk (AnS, 107) suggests that the term was originally the name of a particular ship, and compares the use of Ormr 'worm, dragon' as a ship's name. Certainly the different etymology of dreki (compared to other ship words which are originally descriptive of their shape or actions) seems significant. While it is possible that the term was used in the late Viking Age of particularly large and ornate ships, such as those belonging to Haraldr harðráði, it is worth noting that the poets also call these same ships skeið (ÞjóðA IV,18,19; Valg 6,9,10). It is more likely that calling a large warship (with or without a dragonhead prow) a 'dragon' is a poetic conceit rather than a terminus technicus.

Carlstak (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source provided does not mention the word "drakkar" but "dreki". This is because "drakkar" is a made up term with no support in scholarship.

"Dreki" on the other hand is a Valid Old Norse term. Vettlingr (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Longships which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed the spurious etymology of "snekkja/snekke" from "snake", from some childrens' book on vikings. The Norse word for "snake" is "orm" and the ship is not called an "ormkja", so there. Snekke, Schnaak and a dozen other variants are a common Norse/Low German word for a small ship, but the etymological roots of the core "snac" are uncertain, as stated in the ODS dictionary.
Also, the article "Viking Ship" seems to double this one in intent and substance, but makes a much poorer job of it. I suggest they be merged into one GA article. T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the average Longship dimensions are between 20-30 meters in length 3-4 meters in airdraft 4-6 meters in width and the mast is between 15-25 meters in height — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factualmaniac (talk • contribs) 00:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article states that "The planks were riven (radially hewn) so that the grain is approximately at right angles to the surface of the plank". That's a weird description (or my English is not up to par): in a riven plank, the fibres, aka the grain, go end to end in the plank. How is that 'at right angles'? T 2A02:FE1:E16B:CC00:C8AB:894C:F21D:1126 (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed (belatedly) You are correct. Thanks for pointing this out. Carlstak (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carlstak, good catch on finding the long-ago copyvio, identifying two edits by 125.237.36.191 starting at 04:18 on 2012-08-10, and removing the offending material in this edit. I've added a revdel request at the article in section § Rudder (which imho ought to go on the Talk page due to its size, but that's a separate question; not my call) and make sure it looks right to you. Thanks again for finding this and dealing with it. How did you find it, by the way?

It also makes me wonder whether other edits by 125.237.36.191 (talk · contribs) are suspect as well; what about this one at Gokstad ship, or their edits at Seakeeping, Rowing, or Boat building? Mathglot (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It just looked suspicious to me, being rather well-written, though its information was not unimpeachable. Rather than launch Earwig and review the results, I just googled a couple of stand-out phrases and was pointed straight to the "Drakkar Viking Ship 9th -13th century" blog where I saw the date in the url. I used the "Who wrote that" browser extension (created by the WMF Community Tech Team, also available for Chromium-based browsers) to see who added the copyvio, and on what date at what time. I will check those others in a bit.

I suppose now is a good time to say that I intend to rewrite this article, which has been bugging me for a while now because of its hodge-podged nature, and its large amount of unsourced content. It's pretty bad. I am still preparing for the rewrite by reading everything thing pertinent that I can access. I do have access to most academic journal collections through the Wikipedia Library. I will request some books I want to consult through the inter-library loan system.

I've already started a dedicated Google docs document to assemble cited texts and their urls, along with my notes, and will create another couple docs to organize them. I will proceed in my usual fashion, ie, slowly ;-), and add information to the text gradually, with citations, of course. I spend at least an order of magnitude more time reading sources than I do actually writing. Carlstak (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo, your last sentence, and ditto; well done overall. Rewriting definitely seems like an option. As you are assembling some texts and urls, you might be interested in some of the sources listed at {{Reflib/Ancient seafaring}}. Not all will be relevant here, but some might be. Feel free to copy them into your document, or invoke them using the ready-made template at {{reflib}}. Good luck, and keep me informed. Mathglot (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do. I'm getting old now (what a shock!) and this is one of the things that keeps me going, along with my daily hard-charging bike ride on the beach, reggae playing loud.;-) Carlstak (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot:, I did look at the IP's edits to those other articles, and didn't find any copyvio. It had occurred to me that whoever wrote the content of the "Drakkar Viking Ship 9th -13th century" blog might be the IP who added the copyvio content to this article. The author of the blog post is certainly very knowledgeable about the actual process of Viking ship-building, and their information is extremely detailed, as if written by someone who has actually worked on the reconstruction of a Viking ship. I could not determine who wrote the material, and couldn't see any contact info on the web site. If this person were amenable and able to provide some sort of bona fides concerning their work history or academic credentials, and release the text with proper licensing for use on WP, it would benefit the article greatly.

As for the IP's edits to the Gokstad ship, seakeeping, rowing, and boat building articles, they are quite sloppy, especially compared to the writing in the blog, but they are obviously written by someone with knowledge of the subjects (I didn't look at every single edit).

Carlstak (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby suggest we keep the article to what the intro promises, "the Norse warships used during the Viking Age" (replicas used as illustrations is of course ok). The issue at stake is the Norwegian ship "Draken Harald Hårfagre", which cannot be taken as representing the topic of this article. Edits forthcoming. Trondtr (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Elaborate. Why should we only focus on the ships of the past and not on the whole design as a whole? Blockhaj (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one, the disambiguation intro of the article says This article is about Nordic sea-going ships of the Viking Age.. The restriction I suggest is thus in line with the expressed scope. This could of course be changed, but I think the restriction is good: Typically, readers will be interested in the past, and use the article as a source for what happened in the Viking age. Historicising use of Viking culture has been a popular part of Nordic, German and English culture for appr. 200 years now (since national romanticism), and deserve several articles in its own right. This should be kept apart from articles on the original ships, though. Trondtr (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Well, experimental archeology is still of the same topic, its not a separate thing. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 19:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As our Draken Harald Hårfagre article itself points out, according to Eldar Heide, the ship is not based on any archaeological finds from the Viking Age. It's based on descriptions in the Norse sagas that are now deprecated as inaccurate. As I've quoted Heide before: "The ship was developed by boatbuilders from the modern Norwegian clinker-building tradition. They are skilled in their craft, but they were at odds with the academic community." And, as he quotes Arne-Terje Sæther, part of the core group of builders: the ship is “a construction, not a reconstruction”. Sailing it doesn't tell us about the sailing qualities of actual Viking longships. Carlstak (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS:Eldar Heide is professor of Norwegian at Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, and holds a PhD in Old Norse studies. Carlstak (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see how Draken Harald Hårfagre is inaccurate? As far as i can see and read, it is accurately constructed according to technique, with some modern liberties ofc, like rowing benches and a steering chappel. It has given us insight into how realistic the massive saga ships are. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 23:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what reliable sources say, not editors' opinions. Heide is an authority on the subject, you are not. Carlstak (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Trondtr that we need to tighten the scope of this article. Per Heide:

...knerrir referred during this period to warships like Oseberg and only later to cargo ships like Skuldelev I. "A ship with a backwards curved stem seems to have been the original meaning of knorr... most introductions to old Scandinavian ship types, such as knorr, snekkja, or karfi are problematic... much of the literature on Old Scandinavian ships still understands High Medieval terms as referring to (early) Viking Age ships, despite the fact that maritime technology underwent a radical change in the intervening period, developing from fleets of many swift, small craft suitable for beach landings into fewer, much larger 'floating castles' for sea battles.

Carlstak (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eldar Heide is a Philologist, how can he be seen as an authority on experimental archeology and shipbuilding? The quote: "It's based on descriptions in the Norse sagas that are now deprecated as inaccurate." This requires elaboration. The sizes given in the sagas have always been considered as probably inflated, thus a ship like Harald Hårfagre was built to test out how feasable such constructions would be. I do however agree that we should tighten the nomenclature per Heide. The etymology to knorr makes perfekt sense. I have some other ship types, like barða below, that i want to introduce to the article, but i need time to collect sources first. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 02:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have a habit, 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧, of commanding other editors to "Elaborate"—please show us some academic sources that say Draken Harald Hårfagre is "accurately constructed according to [Viking] technique". Heide, whose website says his areas of research include language history, etymology, terminology (especially that related to Viking ships and traditional folk boats), and Norse literature (Eddaic poetry, Old Norse sagas, and Icelandic sagas), is eminently qualified to tell us that the descriptions of Viking longships in the sagas are not in accordance with modern scholarly interpretation of archaeological findings.

As I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, Arne-Terje Sæther, a member of the core builders of the ersatz vessel, admits that Draken Harald Hårfagre is not a reconstruction. It deserves no place in this article, and the promotional hype surrounding it is misleading (not to say outright bullshit, which it is). It's completely unnecessary to encyclopedic coverage of the actual subject, and we should not degrade our article with such. Carlstak (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated that i dont think this article should be locked to reconstructions of archeological ships, and instead rather focus on the ship type as a whole, thus including modern creations built on the same principles and design, obviously exluding creations which takes creative liberties which greatly deviate from this, of which i dont think Draken Harald Hårfagre does with its increase in size to the historic ships we have found. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 15:28, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have run this thread on the secretprojects forum for a few years, about the longship type called a "barða" in the sagas: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/viking-ironclads-bar%C3%B0a-j%C3%A1rnbar%C3%B0a-j%C3%A1rnbar%C3%B0i-iron-barde.42673/page-2 I just realized we do not cover such on this article and suggest we plan out a segment for it, both with and without iron plating. See here for example: https://www.axelnelson.com/skepp/ovriga.html My dad, an old archeologist, have spoken about this theory before, about longships with stem-extensions, as depicted on various picture stones and thereof. I just realized this is probably the same as what the sagas call barða. Blockhaj (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds fringe; including it in the article would require some academic sources. I don't see barða or "iron plating" (in Swedish) in the axelnelson.com article. Carlstak (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The axelnelson.com article merely describe the hypothetical stem extension (Swedish: stävskägg, lit. 'bow-beard') which is thought to be mentioned on the sagas. The Danish Viking ship museum calls them "stem-beards": https://www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk/en/professions/education/the-longships/picture-sources/the-ships-on-the-rune-stones

The correct Norse term im referencing is barði, not barða (genitive, my bad). Blockhaj (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your own source says: "The rune stone from Tullstorp in Skåne. The ship is equipped with “stem-beards” both fore and aft, a construction feature that has not so far been recorded in archaeological finds." That doesn't support what you're saying about iron plating, and there's no mention of iron in the article. It sounds like you want to do synthesis, ie, your own original research not supported by what sources actually say. Carlstak (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iron plating is mentioned in some sagas, so called járnbarði ("iron barde"), ie, barðis with iron plating. The most famous of these is Járnbarðinn from the Battle of Svolder.

• Here are some textual examples. https://onp.ku.dk/onp/onp.php?o41461

Blockhaj (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ONP website is a very good resource, and the information is worth a mention in the article at some point, in my opinion. It should be presented strictly in the context of its few occurrences in the sagas, as there is no archaeological evidence of iron-clad Viking ships, and therefore, of their actual existence, so there's really not much to be said about them. Carlstak (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe i overstated the ironclads; the main focus would be the hypothetical "stem-beards", the so called wikt:barði, with the ironclads being subject to those. Blockhaj (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Quebec99 needs to stop damaging articles with his bad script, the use of which he is trying to spread, that removes so-called "duplicate" reference names. See this edit. He appears not to understand, although I've mentioned it in an edit summary on Viking Age: "These are not "duplicate" ref names, author names with year of publication are standard academic citation style and facilitate finding cites when in Editing mode". Carlstak (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss this, revert his changes and notify he/she on the proper talk page. If they refuse to elaborate then report them to an admin. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 23:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The errors are listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_duplicate_reference_names...
There is no "script"... I simply remove errors listed as
Cite error: The named reference "example_reference_name" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).Quebec99 (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is about editing this article to improve it, Blockhaj, so this is the appropriate place to discuss the problem. Thanks for your reply, Quebec 99. When a reference is defined multiple times with different content, like so:

<ref name="Jesch2001">{{cite book |last1=Jesch |first1=Judith |title=Ships and Men in the Late Viking Age: The Vocabulary of Runic Inscriptions and Skaldic Verse |year=2001 |publisher=Boydell & Brewer |isbn=978-0-85115-826-6 |pages=127–128 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=p8ZK3v0hrk4C&pg=PA127}}</ref>

and

<ref name="Jesch2001">{{cite book |last1=Jesch |first1=Judith |title=Ships and Men in the Late Viking Age: The Vocabulary of Runic Inscriptions and Skaldic Verse |year=2001 |publisher=Boydell & Brewer |isbn=978-0-85115-826-6 |pages=123-127 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=p8ZK3v0hrk4C&pg=PA123}}</ref>

the proper fix to the problem is simply to change the second useful "ref name" by adding the first page of the different page range like so: from <ref name="Jesch2001"> to <ref name="Jesch2001 123">, not to remove one of the ref names. I know you're acting in good faith, do you get it now? Carlstak (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the way I fixed the problem in the article after your edit was to simply change "123-127" in the "pages" parameter of the cite template to "123-128", so that the range encompassed the extra page. This is an alternative solution that allows one to use the shortened ref markup when practical: <ref name="Jesch2001"/> for duplicate cites. That's one of the nice things about ref names. Carlstak (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we cover the Sutton Hoo ship in the article? For some context, see this video (specifically 8:20 to 9:40), ie, the ship that was found in the ship burrial at Sutton Hoo.

It is a longship by my definition, "a long slender Germanic warrior-culture (clinker built) ship", although not pertaining specifically to the existing typology we cover (althoug it is comparable to the skeid imo). We do not know if it had a mast, and since it stems from around 600–620 ish, we have no direct cognates in the archeological record to compare too. It is similar to the Nydam ship, which i know some have called a longship, and it is covered in our article. The Sutton Hoo ship (to a lesser extent also the Nydam ship) is similar in shape to the rowed ship found on this Gotlandic picture stone: https://digitaltmuseum.se/0210213406797/bildsten which cant be dated exactly but by comparative art typology would be something from the 500s. It does not feature a sail but does feature a weird roof, maye a raised burrial platform? It is heavily erroded however. There are more picture stones which can be compared but this is the one i had at hand.

In extension to this, some of these even call the Danish Iron Age "Hjortspring boat" (400 BC) and the Bronze Age ships on petroglyphs in Sweden as "longships". Ive seen a basic unexplored typology of "paddled, rowed and sailed longships" before. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 19:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sutton Hoo ship is beyond "heavily eroded"—it's little more than an imprint in the ground, along with all its rivets. It is certainly a longship, but it's not Norse, it's Anglo-Saxon, and it doesn't belong to the Viking Age, it dates to the early 7th century. Since you rewrote the lede, our article's first sentence is, "Longships... is a collective name for the Norse warships used during the Viking Age; being part of the Viking ship (Norse ship) family...". So by your own words, The Sutton Hoo ship is outside the scope of this article. Carlstak (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a mistake and has become obsolete since ive dug more on the accepted English definition. With Norse i meant North-West-Germanic (etc), of which the Anglo-Saxons were. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 19:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blockhaj Can you please provide sourcing for the material you added here? The text looks fine, but it needs reliable sources. Carlstak (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source to the Nydam ship ribs, was that what u meant? ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 23:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought you had added uncited text, which the article certainly doesn't need more of, but apparently you had just moved some already unsourced content around. It's hard for my brain to process editorial changes sometimes when content is switched, as indicated by the little indicator arrows that show on edit revision diffs. Of course, I move content in articles all the time myself. Similarly, I know that the green font rendered by the "talk quote" template for quotes on article talk pages is standard, but I have a hard time reading it. Carlstak (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found this great article on Norse sails: https://textileranger.com/2014/04/24/on-the-trail-of-sail-history-the-vikings/ Question is, should we cover the devellopment of sail in this article, or the Viking ship article, or its own article? ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 15:34, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a personal blog and it isn't a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED which says: "Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs..." I think any extended discussion of sails belongs on the Viking ship article, not here, because the subject would apply to all Viking ships, not just longships. I have some material on sails that I will be adding to this article today. Carlstak (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested we use the blog as a source, however, it does supply its narrative with sources. But anyway, sails goes in Viking ships then. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 17:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you used a citation of the Woodbridge Waterfront personal blog, which I've just removed and left a tag. Carlstak (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the website of a shipyard, not a blog. It should be valid as a source. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 17:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an official publication of the shipyard. At the top of the page it says that it's a "personal account" of Paul Constantine, whoever that is. Carlstak (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As with barða above (il include it again), there are more types of longships we should include:

• barde (barða), a longship with a "beard", a low beam extension, sometimes as a ram
  • iron barde (iarnbarða)
• ellide (elliði), a longship with a very tall tail
• galeid (galeið), a karve with low sides
• knarr (knarr), in relation to its etymology

ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 19:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlstak you can't write articles like scientific journals per WP:NOTHOW (note 7). If u are gonna include an author in the text (this author says bla), then u must clarify to the reader who this person is and why it is relevant to mention them. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 09:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation density says:

"Some articles (e.g., articles about controversial people) will require inline citations after nearly every sentence. Some sections (e.g., dense technical subjects) may even require more than one inline citation per sentence.

The "In-text attribution" section of the page says:

"In-text attribution sometimes involves naming the source in the sentence itself: Alice Jones said in her 2008 book, The Sun Is Really Big,... This is technically a valid inline citation for Wikipedia's purposes—it permits the reader to identify which source supports the material, right there in the line of text—but it is normally used in addition to some other system of inline citation for quotations, close paraphrasing, and anything contentious or distinctive...

I find it odd that you were fine with the article when it was mostly unsourced original research from Joe Blow on the internet's blog, but here you are exercised about stylistic matters now that I'm citing academic sources. You even tried to dismiss Neil Price as an authority with handwaving and meaningless "etc, etc, etc", as if your opinion outweighs that of distinguished authors with academic credentials. It doesn't. Besides the fact that in the same breath you admitted you hadn't heard of the great increase in iron production of Viking Age Scandinavia, which is grade-school level knowledge of the subject, and as if that wouldn't be the natural, common sense result of Viking shipwrights building thousands of vessels with iron rivets and fittings.

Nevertheless, to satisfy your complaint, I'll go through the article and add identifiers to the various authors' names I've cited inline. Carlstak (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧 20:18, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]