Talk:HMS Victory/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about HMS Victory. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Notes relating HMS Victory to USS Constitution
Couldn't help but notice that a note at the beginning of the USS Constitution article references her relationship with HMS Victory, so thought that a similar note should be added to this article. Neither is really needed as the text later down in both explains their relationship, but both notes should either be there or both be eliminated. Jmdeur (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- The reason I added the note to Constitution was to try and cut down on the number of reverts necessary from people not understanding the difference and adding Victory into the lead of Constitution. This revert problem probably doesn't effect this article as much as it did Constitution. I've noticed that a lot of work has been done to this article since the last time I saw it. Looks nice! --Brad (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking of Constitution, which is older, Vicotory or Constitution? because both ships articles claim the respective ship is oldest Commisioned war ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Victory is older by several decades, and as the article states, is the oldest commissioned warship in the world. Constitution is still afloat, while Victory is drydocked, making Constitution the oldest commissioned warship afloat, though not the oldest commissioned warship in the world. I think both articles make this distinction pretty clear in the notes. Benea (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Fact is that HMS Victory is the oldest commissioned warship in the world. If someone is confused by this, i.e. believes that USS Constitution is older, he or she should look up the facts about USS Constitution in the article about USS Constitution, because that's where this information belongs. Whatever USS Constitution is should not be subject of the article on HMS Victory, but the one about Constitution. This article is about Victory
- If there is a need to make Constitution "oldest" by introducing some qualifier like "afloat" or "with only one gundeck" - which in this sense serves the same purpose - fine, but this information surely hasn't got anything to do with HMS Victory.
- In order to reduce "rogue editing" by people who are convinced they are right "Note 1" in this article surely makes sense though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.216.244.67 (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. USS Constitution is a featured article and it makes the distinction with a simple footnote. I see no reason for this article to make any further clarification. A simple footnote is more than sufficient.--Ykraps (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- While I enjoy an imperious and high handed approach to our readers as the next person - and personally I believe I should be able to use terms like heuristic-holistic approach, and ultranationalist populism based around a palingenetic mythos - this doesn't really help provide a clear understanding to our readers, which is really the whole purpose of the project. It is a large counter factual to many people reading this, and vice a versa on the Constitution page, so having some explanation there rather than forcing a break in reading for them to go down to the note section does us no harm and helps the readability. There is little reason to remove it that I can think of other than some misguided jingoism. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Really? I would suggest that if there is any jingoism, it is on behalf of the Americans who appear to want the "oldest" commissioned warship in the world so badly, they need to add some mis-leading and unremarkable qualifier. This in turn has apparently caused some confusion which could just as easily be dealt with in the Constitution's article. I personally don't believe this to be the case however. Stating Victory is the oldest commissioned warship is a fact that doesn't need an explanation or an apology, but if you think it does, then a footnote should suffice. As I said above, it is the way the Constitution article has chosen to deal with it and that is a Featured article. Or are you suggesting this article is better?--Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- That isn't really a very good argument, is it? Or are you saying the absence of that text is what makes it FA? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - and personally I'd have the corresponding text on Constitution. There isn't an apology (not sure how one could read the existing text in such a way), just a clarification that helps avoid breaking up the flow of someone's reading the article and also signposts another interesting ship while doing so. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am saying that Constitution has made Featured article despite the absence of multiple and over-explanatory explanations, and I see no good reason why we should deviate from that example, particularly as it is not this article that needs to explain itself. Furthermore, I don't believe this confusion is as widespread as some editors claim it to be.--Ykraps (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is humorous to see that this discussion is still going on, some four years after I introduced the note to this article echoing the note that some Brit had appended to the Constitution article. Obviously, the real footnote is that HMS Victory, while claimed to be a commissioned warhship, is a static museum piece, basically a building on dry land. When last I visited her, I didn't see one member of the RN anywhere, just a bunch of civilian workers. Whereas, Constitution, while a museum ship, is still a ship - floating every day at her pier, even going out for a spin once a year, and occasionally sailing under her own power. When you visit her, you see USN personnel manning her - not just one or two, but an entire crew (something the admittedly Victory doesn't need, as she is after all just a building now). Constitution has a far better claim to being a commissioned warship while Victory has a claim to be a very nice museum. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.16 (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am saying that Constitution has made Featured article despite the absence of multiple and over-explanatory explanations, and I see no good reason why we should deviate from that example, particularly as it is not this article that needs to explain itself. Furthermore, I don't believe this confusion is as widespread as some editors claim it to be.--Ykraps (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- That isn't really a very good argument, is it? Or are you saying the absence of that text is what makes it FA? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - and personally I'd have the corresponding text on Constitution. There isn't an apology (not sure how one could read the existing text in such a way), just a clarification that helps avoid breaking up the flow of someone's reading the article and also signposts another interesting ship while doing so. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- Really? I would suggest that if there is any jingoism, it is on behalf of the Americans who appear to want the "oldest" commissioned warship in the world so badly, they need to add some mis-leading and unremarkable qualifier. This in turn has apparently caused some confusion which could just as easily be dealt with in the Constitution's article. I personally don't believe this to be the case however. Stating Victory is the oldest commissioned warship is a fact that doesn't need an explanation or an apology, but if you think it does, then a footnote should suffice. As I said above, it is the way the Constitution article has chosen to deal with it and that is a Featured article. Or are you suggesting this article is better?--Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- While I enjoy an imperious and high handed approach to our readers as the next person - and personally I believe I should be able to use terms like heuristic-holistic approach, and ultranationalist populism based around a palingenetic mythos - this doesn't really help provide a clear understanding to our readers, which is really the whole purpose of the project. It is a large counter factual to many people reading this, and vice a versa on the Constitution page, so having some explanation there rather than forcing a break in reading for them to go down to the note section does us no harm and helps the readability. There is little reason to remove it that I can think of other than some misguided jingoism. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. USS Constitution is a featured article and it makes the distinction with a simple footnote. I see no reason for this article to make any further clarification. A simple footnote is more than sufficient.--Ykraps (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Victory is older by several decades, and as the article states, is the oldest commissioned warship in the world. Constitution is still afloat, while Victory is drydocked, making Constitution the oldest commissioned warship afloat, though not the oldest commissioned warship in the world. I think both articles make this distinction pretty clear in the notes. Benea (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking of Constitution, which is older, Vicotory or Constitution? because both ships articles claim the respective ship is oldest Commisioned war ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The fact is that as commissioned warships they are both pretty much useless to their respective navies other than as museum pieces. If you have a sensible idea for a footnote I'd be happy to hear it. The current one is somewhat misleading, almost suggesting that Constitution has always been afloat, which couldn't be further from the truth. Added to which, when Constitution next has to spend 3 years in dry dock, as she did in 1992, the footnote will be a complete nonsense!--Ykraps (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Seems like a way to try and 'get one over' the Victory because ultimately it made a far bigger impact than the Constitution (which, let's face it, took on far inferior frigates to itself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.214.208 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's really funny to see that after all these years the USS Constitution is still annoying the British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.226.40 (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Funnier in so far as Victory actually took on ships in its own weight class (and above) rather than picking on weaker and less crewed vessels then claiming it to be some magnificent defeat of the Royal Navy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.88.186 (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- It was the captains of the Guerriere and the Java who brought their "weaker and less crewed vessels" willingly into combat with her. The Java basically chased Constitution down, spoiling for a fight. 76.6.20.64 (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- It still doesn't change said fact. The Constitution faced off against vessels weaker than herself (from the scantlings to the crew strength), the Victory took on, or rather, was bombarded by the Santísima Trinidad. Says it all really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.143.235 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, we British liked those frigates so much we used several of them ourselves: HMS President and HMS Chesapeake. Pity we eventually broke them up, or we could have let you have them back. Mind you if you fancy a visit, you can still see parts of one.
- BTW, it's never a good idea to attempt to boast, unless one actually has something to boast-about. Otherwise what impresses one person may just make other people with somewhat higher-standards laugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- It still doesn't change said fact. The Constitution faced off against vessels weaker than herself (from the scantlings to the crew strength), the Victory took on, or rather, was bombarded by the Santísima Trinidad. Says it all really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.143.235 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- It was the captains of the Guerriere and the Java who brought their "weaker and less crewed vessels" willingly into combat with her. The Java basically chased Constitution down, spoiling for a fight. 76.6.20.64 (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Funnier in so far as Victory actually took on ships in its own weight class (and above) rather than picking on weaker and less crewed vessels then claiming it to be some magnificent defeat of the Royal Navy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.88.186 (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's really funny to see that after all these years the USS Constitution is still annoying the British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.226.40 (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Victorian era
Someone added Victory to Category:Victorian-era ships of the line of the United Kingdom but I don't think that's right. Victory was moored in Portsmouth in 1812, and Victoria was crowned in 1837. So I don't think we can say Victory was a ship of the line during the Victorian era. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- No more so than it is a ship-of-the-line today, no.--Ykraps (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Automatic archiving proposal
This Talk page has posts going back more than 10 years. In order to shorten the page display I propose to set up automatic archiving of the page to remove threads more than 90 days old. If anyone has an objection, they can discuss it here. Dabbler (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Seeing no objections I am implementing an automated archive bot for this page. Dabbler (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- How would an interested person get to the archive? - simply use history and see an older version? --- Also as I read this page today; It seem more as if removal of threads occur if more than 10 years old.--Wfoj3 (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- If you look at the top right, you will see just above the posts below the rest of the headings a box labelled Archive with a number 1 in it. Click on the 1 and you will see the archive. If the Archive page grows too large a second archive page will be automatically created with the number 2 etc. Dabbler (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- How would an interested person get to the archive? - simply use history and see an older version? --- Also as I read this page today; It seem more as if removal of threads occur if more than 10 years old.--Wfoj3 (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on HMS Victory. 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/20130927005205/http://www.rnca.org.uk/node/1035 to http://www.rnca.org.uk/node/1035
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016023729/http://www.historicdockyard.co.uk/dockyard/trafalgarsail.php to http://www.historicdockyard.co.uk/dockyard/trafalgarsail.php
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) 12:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Admirals who have hoisted their flag
Do we have an error in the dates for Admirals Eberle and Cassidi, as they both seem to have hoisted their flag simultaneously for the whole of 1983? — Arwel Parry (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Arwel Parry (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Courts-Martial
Sometime in the late nineteenth century, Victory was used as a venue for courts-martial. I have seen references to this over the years, but not sure where to find them. If this can be verified and sourced, it should be put in the article as an item of interest. 46.33.130.38 (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
churchill's WW II
I have an italian edition of this work where (page 242 of volume 3 (VIII edizione Mondadori 1963)) there is a photo with the caption
"Churchill visita la Victory dalla quale Orazio Nelson diresse la battaglia di Trafalgar. Il glorioso cimelio e' stato affondato per ordine del governo britannico nel gennaio 1950 alla presenza di unita` da guerra che resero gli onori militari"
i.e.
"Churchill visits the ... The glorious vessel was sunk by order of the British Government in january 1950 ..."
I guess that WC wrote "will be sink" before january 1950 and the italian translator rendered "was sunk" in the first edition of april 1950 without checking if the intention had became reality.
It seems interesting to check if this intention was real (by the way, WIKI speaks of an USN sailer that was "sunk for preservation" and reafloated about 200 years after)
pietro151.29.177.129 (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
"On" Victory vs "In" Victory
British English usage has sailors serving IN ships, not ON them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DulcetTone (talk • contribs) 21:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Ship of Theseus
Although it is called HMS Victory, because so much of its original wood, masts (steel now), cannons (fibreglass reproductions), rigging (nylon), metalwork, decking etc has all been replaced overtime, can it really be called HMS Victory?
The Ship of Theseus philosophical problem posits this simple question: is a "restored" ship still the same object as the original if its parts are replaced?
By now I would say that the ship in dry dock in Portsmouth should be referred to as a reproduction of the original due to the fact it contains almost no original parts from the time it was Nelson's flagship. 81.159.165.20 (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Given that much of the original wood had been replaced before the Battle of Trafalgar, was it HMS Victory then?--Ykraps (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- While it may be a philosophical question, legally it's still the HMS Victory, and has always been. Calling it a reproduction would be original research on our part. BilCat (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Update to "Admirals who have hoisted their flag in Victory"
The table under the section "Admirals who have hoisted their flag in Victory" needs to be updated to include Adm. Sir Ben Key, who recently became First Sea Lord & hoisted his flag in HMS Victory.
"The historic setting of HMS Victory’s great cabin was the venue for the transfer of office. Proceedings then shifted to Victory’s quarterdeck and the last act of the ceremony, where Admiral Radakin’s standard was lowered and Admiral Key’s flag raised in its place." [1] [2]
Fieryaleeco (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
ships wheel picture
I am 99% sure that the picture of the ships wheel is a steel framed ship. I am betting that it is a picture from HMS Warrior which is part of the same museum in Portsmouth. please replace with an actual picture of Victory's wheel or remove entirely. 2601:198:100:3450:C964:111B:BCEA:246C (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for spotting that. I agree totally. The frames above are metal I-beams, and anyway, Victory's wheel is on the weather deck as a quick Google search shows. Moons of Io (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)