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 Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology Philately Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philately, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of philately and stamp collecting 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.PhilatelyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilatelyTemplate:WikiProject PhilatelyPhilately Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following five articles about the same subject need to be merged:

• Packet ship
• Packet boat
• Packet (sea transport)
• Packet trade
• Post Office Packet Service

I have just changed a sixth article, a one-liner called Steam Packet, to a redirect to Packet (sea transport). —O'Dea 12:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These do seriously need merging. Although can I suggest that we merge into Packet trade rather than Packet boat, as the trade is the business which brought about the need for packet sea-going vessels. If such an article looks too big then it might be worth merging into two articles; one for the trade and the other for the vessels. Zangar (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest the following:

• Packet ship - merge into Packet (vessel) because a ship needs to have three masts
• Packet boat - (Merge into Packet (vessel) because a boat is too small a craft for packet service
• Packet (sea transport) - Merge into Packet (marine service) - because oceans and lakes were included
• Packet trade - Merge into Packet (marine service) - because trade implies commerce and packet included public services also
• Post Office Packet Service - Merge into Packet (Marine service) - because services other than the postal were included

So that brings us to two, the service and the means of its provision. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What about Mail steamer ? Is it OK to have a different article for steamers or should it be merged ? Teofilo talk 16:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Packets existed before the invention of steam.--RM (Be my friend)
• How about Packet Craft, as is mentioned in the Packet Boat article itself? Marcberm (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that a packet boat generally runs a domestic route along the coasts or in rivers, while a packet ship crosses oceans.--RM (Be my friend) 01:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree some kind of merger is needed. I agree with the idea of two articles, one (Packet trade?) to cover the various varieties of packet service, and the second (Packet ship?) for the various ships, boats, and steamers. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Klbrain (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkmaar_Packet

Scheduled Postal service makes the the vessel is a Packet . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A452:7D4C:1:1896:73A3:78CE:1A70 (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkmaar_Packet This is a real Packet, scheduled postal services by a boats, taking passengers too. it's the service that makes the vessel a Packet boat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A452:7D4C:1:1896:73A3:78CE:1A70 (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made a change after doing the hard work of research, I indicated why I made the change, and it got reverted by somebody too lazy to do research. The ship Batavia does not meet the criteria of a packet boat, so it does not belong in the packet boat article. Here is my diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Packet_boat&type=revision&diff=1000573799&oldid=999229230 2603:8001:9500:9E98:0:0:0:9A7 (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My impression of the mention of the Batavia in the article is that it was a precursor of packet boats, although a reliable source that made that explicit would help. - Donald Albury 19:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

here's the lede: "Packet boats were medium-sized boats designed for domestic mail, passenger, and freight transportation in European countries and in North American rivers and canals, some of them steam driven. They were used extensively during the 18th and 19th centuries and featured regularly scheduled service."

Here's the paragraph in question: "Packet craft were used extensively in European coastal mail services since the 17th century, and gradually added cramped passenger accommodation. As early as 1629, the Dutch East India Company was carrying some passengers on the ill-fated Batavia from Texel in Holland to Java.[1] Passenger accommodations were minimal: transportation, "firing" (i.e. a place to cook), drinking water (often tasting of indigo or tobacco, which the water casks had previously held), and a place to sleep.[2]"

As you can see, an ordinary ship, the Batavia, sailing from Holland to Java (1/2 way round the world!!) has absolutely nothing to do with a small boat used for domestic mail service, often on rivers or canals, nor with regularly scheduled trips, nor with adding passengers to a boat with minimal passenger accomodation for items such as sleep, food, water... The Batavia is an ordinary ocean going ship with nothing in common with a packet boat or the history of packet boats except bouyancy. It does not belong in this article. Ocean-going ships need high freeboard in order to handle heavy seas, and they need extensive human accomdations for survival on long trips; it's entirely different nautical engineering from near coastal and inland water craft which take day trips. These are the salient differences in the boats which lead to one being suitable for maintaining a regular schedule, and the other for long journeys. There is no other point to this article. 2603:8001:9500:9E98:0:0:0:9A7 (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As no one else has weighed in on this, you can be bold and remove that statement, if you want to, refering to this discussion in your edit summary. - Donald Albury 23:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gjs238, your RM was not successful and there definitely isn't consensus for the change, yet you renamed it anyway. Was that in error? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that permission or consensus was necessary for a page move. Above I pitched several options seeking input, but received only mockery. The query was terminated with a procedural close. Gjs238 (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The RM was closed with a request for you to try again because it was improperly formed, not because it was successful. And yes, nothing is stopping you from making a page move without consensus, but since an RM was opened and objections were raised, it's good editorial behavior to respect the outcome. Pinging Paine Ellsworth and Andy Dingley for awareness. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, editor Gjs238, there was no intent on my part to mock you, an editor who has been registered on Wikipedia for nearly 20 years. The usual way to propose a title change along with other alternative proposals is to open one move request to one proposed title, and then include alternative possibilities in your nomination statement. I think the only opposition above was mainly because there were more than one RMs opened at the same time, so if the opposer, editor Andy Dingley, is okay with the new title, then I see no reason why it cannot stay at its current name, Packet boats and ships. If, however, there is controversy, then the name should be reverted back to Packet boat and a fresh move request can then be opened if you so desire. Thank you, editor Gjs238, and I sincerely hope this all works out satisfactorily for all concerned! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Had there been a clear RM for the current title, Packet boats and ships, I would have opposed per WP:AND. I support reverting and opening a fresh RM for wider discussion. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used List of Philippine boats and ships as an example for using "boats and ships" in the title. Gjs238 (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a list article. This is an article on a single topic. WP:SINGULAR would apply, as would WP:LISTNAME and as has already been cited, WP:AND. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if the opposer, editor Andy Dingley, is okay with the new title: Was Opppose all moves in any way unclear? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:>) Yes, of course it was unclear to me, because you gave no rationale, no reasoning for your "!vote". Both support and opposition must be accompanied by rationales, preferably policy-based arguments. If they are not, then I don't count them when I close a discussion. But then, you already know all this because you also have been registered on WP longer than I've been, so is there anything about this that I am missing? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not unclear, even to you. There is a world of difference between being unclear in intention (Oppose means oppose) and unclear in justification. Per WP:RMCOMMENT, it is incumbent upon the person suggesting the move to justify the reasons for that change, and also (which has previously been assumed to be so implictly obvious that it has not been stated) that they should favour one new name, not a whole raft of them with some presumed intention of moving the article in four directions at once, however they expected that to be achieved! But it is not a requirement that those opposing need do anything more than indication opposition, in order to force this into a fuller and non-precipitate discussion, as was ignored here.

Nor will it be accepted to use a legalese sophistry to insist that each Oppose !vote be accompanied by a full rationale. The technique of making opposition more lengthy than nomination is an old and tired technique on WP and some of us lost patience with that sort of fillibustering a decade ago. If reasons are unclear then by all means request clarification. But in no way was it justified to make a very unclear multiple nomination to move a page, have it opposed, then override that and move it anyway within hours, with no further discussion. That's simple disruption and could easily become grounds for the removal of page move privileges. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Mr. Dingley, for clearing that up. Perhaps a good restudy of one of the five pillars and WP policy will help. Get well soon! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]