Talk:Mayflower

I came to this article because I was interested in ''Mayflower'' as a ship, but was a bit confused by the layout, content and balance. I think the article needs some work, and I would be happy to take it on, over time, if no one objects. These are some of the things I would do:

Start the article with as much technical detail about the ship as possible; there is no reason not to include information from other similar and contemporary ships, and shipping, provided it is sourced

Reduce the emphasis on the Pilgrims, as there is a very good article at Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony) and many articles on other aspects of the earliest colonists

Include some information on Mayflower II under Legacy

Find sources to answer the citation needed tags or if absolutely necessary delete the information for now

Rewrite the lead to reflect the changes made

Happy to hear other editors' views. It might be possible to get this article to GA with a bit of work?

Tony Holkham (Talk) 18:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC) Reply

I came here to say this, and agree with this comment. I would think the ship history should have prominence as this is an article about the ship, not the voyage. I was here to find out about the early history of the ship and had to scroll past its later history to find its early history. Mikeymo1741 (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC) Reply

I support this. The current article places disproportionate emphasis on the colonisation narrative, relative to the actual vessel. This is inconsistent with WP:TITLE, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Coverage of people and events is already extensive elsewhere, notably: Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony), Plymouth Colony, Puritan migration to New England (1620–1640), List of Mayflower passengers.

I suggest a substantial refactor to foreground Mayflower as the primary subject, with passenger/colonisation material condensed to summary context and spun off where appropriate per WP:SPINOFF. This would allow fuller maritime and technical coverage while retaining necessary historical context.

Raising this here to seek consensus before making structural changes which could look something like this:

• Lead
  • Concise smmary of the ship: type, approximate tonnage, owners, principal voyages, fate, historical significance.
• Design and construction
  • Ship type (merchant vessel)
  • Build location and date (if known)
  • (Hull, rig, tonnage (with caveats/uncertainty)
• Ownership and voyages
  • Known owners and operators
  • Early voyages (pre-1620)
  • 1620 Atlantic crossing
    • Brief overview of passengers and purpose
    • Conditions aboard (space, provisioning)
    • Clear summary with links to main articles
• Later history and fate
  • Final years, decommissioning / dismantling
• Legacy and representations
  • Cultural and historical symbolism (brief)
  • Replicas and commemorations (e.g. later ships named Mayflower)

Cornellier (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Please amend

Her tonnage was 180+

as follows

Her tonnage was 180–200 tons

Reason: The lead should reflect the main text, were the tonnage estimate is specified. Thank you. ~2026-22820-12 (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Notdone for now: The body of the article gives different estimates for her tonnage: 180 tons in 2 places and 180–200 tons in another. Closer examination of the sources will be needed to determine what should be listed. Day Creature (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Please reconsider. "180–200 tons" and "180 tons" are not a contradicton. Whereas saying a ship is larger than 180 tons is nearly uninformative, and it is also mathematically wrong in this case, as two sources state that the size is 180 tons.~2026-22400-01 (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Not done: Since the article seems to contradict itself, we first need to examine the sources and determine which tonnage figure is actually correct. I'm not going to change it based on speculation. Day Creature (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Any progress? If not, please specify where you think there is a contradiction, and we can look up the sources that you think are contradictory.~2026-22400-01 (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

The article says the Mayflower was "about 180 tons" in the "Mayflower sets sail" subsection, "est. 180-200 tons" in the "Mayflower ship history" section, "180 tons" in the "Mayflower design and layout" section, and the lead and infobox give the tonnage as "180+". All these numbers need to be checked against the sources and reconciled with each other. Day Creature (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

We can check to confirm that those three estimates are indeed in the sources (but why do you doubt the three estimates?). However I am not sure what you mean by "reconciling" - the three estimates already agree with each other so do not need reconciling. ~2026-22400-01 (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't think they do agree with each other. Saying the tonnage was 180-200 tons is different from saying it was "about 180" tons. The next step should be to check the sources and figure out where these different numbers are coming from. It could be that the different numbers are found in the sources, or it could be that the sources all give the same estimate and it's just imprecise writing in the article. But we're not going to get anywhere until the sources are checked. Day Creature (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Ah, I think I understand: you suspect that historically, there has been only one tonnage estimate (for example "180-200 tons"), and the literature has been based on that single estimate, but that various Wikipedia editors have misquoted the literature (for example by converting the estimate "180-200 tons" into "about 180 tons"). Have I understood your point correctly? If so, can you find out the editors responsible? ~2026-22400-01 (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

It's possible that they may have happened, yes. Rather than continuing to go back and forth about this, or trying to find out which editors are responsible, what we need to do is check the sources to see what they say. Day Creature (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

According to Google AI, naval architect WIlliam Baker in the 1950s is considered the definitive modern attempt to calculate the Mayflower's dimensions and tonnage. He calculated a "burden" (cargo capacity) of 181 tons, in close agreement with William Bradfords historical estimate of 180 tons. However this cargo measure is distinct from the ships displacement, which Baker calculated at 236-238 tons. Over to you. ~2026-22400-01 (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Why would you ask an AI instead of checking the sources that are cited in the article? We don't use AI chatbots as a source on Wikipedia. Day Creature (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Because you do not trust the cited sources nor the Wikipedia editors. Checking the accuracy of the sources is your project, and I have generously given you the pointer to William Baker. And indeed it does look like there is a significant error in the Wikipedia article, confusing cargo capacity with displacement. What I set out to do is much less ambitious: simply aligning the lead with the existing main text of the Wikipedia article. If you are not willing to implement the Baker estimate of 236-238 tons, then I suggest you put a warning in the header that the tonnage needs verification. ~2026-22400-01 (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'll clear up a few things, since we seem to be talking past each other a bit. I never said that I do not trust the cited sources or the editors who wrote the article. Checking what the sources say is not my project: since you initiated the edit request, it's on you to provide sources that justify it. Otherwise, no changes can be made to the article. You say you merely want to align the lead with the body, but the whole point is that the body gives different estimates for the tonnage. I am not at all interested in the output your AI chatbot has given you; rather than a generous pointer it is merely a waste of time. Day Creature (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

You have convinced me that the tonnage needs investigation, and now you back away. Pity. Can you please invite a third Wikipedian as arbitrator, ideally a naval expert, to decide whether the article needs a warning header for tonnage inaccuracy. Surely that is something we have now agreed on. ~2026-22400-01 (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I will tag the tonnage figure in the lead with Template:Dubious, which will link to this discussion. Day Creature (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Please amend

The trip across the Atlantic

as follows

The voyage across the Atlantic

Reason: "Voyage" sounds appropriate for the Atlantic crossing, whereas "trip" makes the crossing sound trivial. Thank you. ~2026-22820-12 (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Done Changed the heading to "Voyage across the Atlantic". Day Creature (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Must an inanimate object be referred to as "she"? Loses credibility when the goal is to educate. US Embussy (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

This piece is not exactly an answer, but may throw some light on the subject. Best wishes, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC) Reply