Talk:Tarleton (1780 Glasgow ship)

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 / British / European / French / Napoleonic era

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

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Colledge equivocation

Acad Ronin or anyone else, do we know why Colledge (and also Winfield) equivocate over whether the post-1793 HMS Tarleton is the same as the 1782 vessel? I appreciate French records make the link, but the British ones seem deliberately vague. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: I think the problem is the lack of smoking guns (other than the name) making the link. She is not in Winfield's 1793-1817 book. I don't know if she is in his 1714-1792 book; Google books hides a lot. She is not in Hepper's book of losses. Even in Winfield and Roberts's book on the French ships 1786-1861 there is almost nothing. (They are working on a prequel to that book and then there may be more, but I doubt it.) The National Maritime Museum equivocates too, in the sense that it has two entries.^[1]^[2] The second entry attributes the continuation to French records, but there is an unwillingness to declare them the same vessel. Probably a big part of the problem is that she never went back to Britain and so no measurements. (I am more and more coming to the reaiization that the farther things happened from the Channel, the worse the records are.) As an aside, the 1799 Lloyd's Register has two Tarletons, but neither is a successor/continuation. Does all this "definite maybe" help? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Acad Ronin: yes, and thanks for doing the research. Have checked the hard copy of Winfield 1714-92 and its not there either. He tends to exclude vessels first commissioned away from England, but its weird that this Winfield has no entries at all while the other Winfield/Roberts book lists it twice (as does Colledge). Nothing really hangs on it in terms of the way this article is worded, it's just curiosity. Thanks again for looking it up. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: It gets worse. I am having to rewrite the Tarleton article. I had a lot wrong, particularly about her origins. You mentioned that Winfield and Roberts have her twice. I have the p.203 reference, but where else does she show up? Regards,Acad Ronin (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "NMM, vessel ID 377671" (PDF). Warship Histories, vol x. National Maritime Museum. Retrieved 30 July 2011.
^ "NMM, vessel ID 377672" (PDF). Warship Histories, vol x. National Maritime Museum. Retrieved 30 July 2011.

Jervis' view removed?

@Acad Ronin: Thanks for your extensive rewrite of this article, even if the records remain annoyingly vague. Just wondering why Jervis' opinion was removed here, as it seems relevant to the state of the vessel at the time, and sources what is still in the article re her rotten condition. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC) @Euryalus: Pure screw up on my part. I suspect that as I was cutting and pasting and moving things around, I just lost it. I am about to restore it. "Never attribute to malice what is more easily explained by stupidity." :-). Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Acad Ronin: No worries, I wasn't attributing it to anything at all. If anything I thought it might be because you'd discovered Jervis was talking about a different Tarleton - if so I was going to suggest also removing Pope from reflist as that's the only mention he makes of this ship name. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: Sorry. Didn't mean to imply that I was charging you with malice. Just a favorite saying of mine. Tarleton has been an interesting challenge. For an unusual name, it is surprising how many there have been (see: List of ships named Tarleton, which doesn't fully exhaust them), several with histories worth expanding upon. Because the Tarleton family was active in the slave trade, several are slavers and that is a trade that deserves more coverage in Wikipedia. Cheers. Acad Ronin (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[NMM-WH-377671-1] "NMM, vessel ID 377671" (PDF). Warship Histories, vol x. National Maritime Museum. Retrieved 30 July 2011.

[NMM-WH-377672-2] "NMM, vessel ID 377672" (PDF). Warship Histories, vol x. National Maritime Museum. Retrieved 30 July 2011.

[1]

[2]