Talk:USS Constitution

see also

we should add a see also for hms vicotry and any other historic commissioned ship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.7.27 (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I love the use of the word "floating" at the top of this wiki page so that the Constitution can be called the world's oldest commissioned warship, along with the note added (probably by the same person) to the wiki page of the HMS Victory, which is still a commissioned warship, pointing out that the HMS Victory is in dry dock and therefore not floating. No doubt should the HMS Victory be restored to floating condition that person will be weeping and gnashing their teeth. Just the same, i know the majority of Americans and navalsexuals everywhere would love to see the day where HMS Victory and the USS Constitution sail side by side. Perhaps the 100th anniversary of the ending of WWII? Who knows. no doubt the French won't be too happy to see it take the water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.43.180 (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

actually victory lovers should be concerned that the swedes might just put vasa back in commission. this wouldn't make a difference to constitution as she'd still be the oldest commissioned warship afloat, but to another building like victory, it would be quite a blow. there is no doubt when visiting constitution that you are aboard a commissioned ship manned by naval personnel. visiting victory is, well like, visiting a museum building manned by a museum staff. victory is no more a commissioned ship than say a pressed flower is a living biological speciman. dream on about victory ever being put back in the water or being manned by the royal navy.

Minor overhaul in progress

It's been almost 3 years since this article passed FA. Since then the FA requirements have become stricter and some deterioration has set in from others' edits that I never bothered to fix. I've fixed up the media licensing and have begun to replace some less than reliable sources with stronger ones. While writing 3 other FAs about Constitution's sister ships I've learned a lot more and discovered more usable sources that are being brought here. Sources being replaced are Cooper, Abbot and Hill. Brad (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a post to prevent bot archiving. Brad (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of inflation template

The following was deleted following $11,000 in reparations: "($150,635 in 2011 dollars)(comment:in truth not quite accurate template - it covers only consumer prices, not strictly government. Better than nothing IMO)."

The reason given was "original research." This actually resulted from use of a template, using the figures supplied by the original editor. I cannot vouch for the $11,000. THAT may be original research, for all I know! But the template gives a figure in current (constant) consumer dollars, a bit more accurate than $11,000, which is chicken feed today. It simply cannot be appreciated by a modern audience without some projection into constant dollars. This was not taken out of "petty cash" but was a significant sum. There is no other way to appreciate this in modern terms without the inflation template. Student7 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That template should not be used for expenses such as the one being discussed here. Please read the warning at the top of the template's page: "This template is only capable of inflating Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets). This template is incapable of inflating Capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich. Incorrect use of this template would constitute original research. If you yourself do not possess it, please consult someone with economic training before making use of this." (emphasis added). Besides, the results are misleading. —Diiscool (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That is correct and the reason I removed the information. Another habit is editors who go to a website and enter the numbers themselves; that is also original research. The figures mentioned in this article are backed up by sources. The only acceptable way to give modern day equivalents would be to use a "high-quality and reliable" source as per the 1c requirements for Featured articles. Brad (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You've made your point. Allow me to make mine.

The figure "$11,000" is useless information in today's context. Student7 (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears useless but a reader could always take the figure and convert it themselves. The edit you made here is also incorrect from the sources that back up this article. The Castle Island weaponry were described as cannon. Whatever they might have been called we have to stick with cannon. Brad (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

GI Joe

There was a GI Joe episode where Cobra had a weapon which could disable all electronic systems, so to save the world the Joes attacked Cobra with the USS Constitution (expressly mentioning its status as the oldest active warship. This was a triumphant moment which moved me to tears. I strongly feel it deserves to be mentioned in the article. I feel it also should be mentioned that this is highly unlikely to happen in real life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.199.35 (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Here it is [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.199.35 (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A four word answer: Over my dead body. Brad (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Brad, there is no reason to put that in this article, which is about an actual historical war ship. The usage by the ship in the GI Joe movie is completly irrelevant. And if that moved you to tears...P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Cannon

An editor has declined my piping Culverin#Field_culverins to the word "cannons" for one of the lighter weapons. Today, anything clunky, big, iron-like, is called by the generic word "cannon." People of the time were more sophisticated, differentiating between the weapons. My original intent was to link the word to "18-pound cannon" if there were such an article, figuring that it might have different characteristics. I discovered there was no article by weight, per se, but rather articles about various smaller weapons that were not specifically called "cannon." An editor has twice removed these links for some reason. Student7 (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually two editors have reverted this, one of whom is myself. If you want to have a more specific word than "cannon" then you need to provide a reliable source for the new word and reach consensus for the change here on the talk page. —Diiscool (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's the article itself, of course, Culverin#Field_culverins. Then there's Ships Arms, shows them aboard ship (don't know how accurate Wapedia is).

Look, I don't name these things. If you have a "Mark 7 cannon" or whatever to link them to, be my guest! I was trying to link them to 18-pounder. There is no such article because they weren't cannon at that size. I didn't make up the name! I think "culverin" is a stupid name! My suggestion is to delete the article on culverins. They probably just made up the article anyway!

Anyway, I didn't change the word. I piped the correct explanation under culverin to the word "cannon" just in case someone was interested in the details. Be it far from me to try to change modern expectations! Student7 (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This still an issue about what sources call them. We cannot link to "Culverin" when the sources used in this article do not use that terminology. The sources used here are largely available online but this one in particular is from the US Navy itself and there is no mention of the word "Culverin". Therefore linking to culverin to explain "cannon" is not warranted. Brad (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Brain Lavery, in The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War, 1600 - 1815 (Naval Institute Press, 1987), writes that "Until the early years of the eighteenth century, English guns were identified by their traditional names, rather than their weights or calibers." (page 97) On page 100 he identifies the culverin as being an 18-lber, but based on his earlier remark I interpret this as meaning that by the late 18th century, terms such as "culverin" were obsolete. Admittedly, Lavery is writing on the Royal Navy, rather than the U.S. one, but I would be surprised to learn that the U.S. Navy deviated from the Royal Navy here, especially as by the time the U.S. Navy came into existance, culverin was deprecated. I think that linking to culverin would be anachronistic at best. --Badger151 (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)