Talk:HMS Victory

restoration date

"in 1928 King George V was able to unveil a tablet celebrating the completion of the work, which still continues." - how can the work be said to have been completed in 1928 if it's still underway three-quarters of a century later? This sentence could do with being made a bit clearer (though not by me, as I don't have the requisite knowledge!). Loganberry 11:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A 250 year old wooden hulled ship requires constant attention. The plaque commemorates the completion of a major restoration but things do not stand still. For instance the ropes of the rigging will not last 75 years and the ship will require ongoing regular painting. Although the sentence may appear self contradictory in reality its true and should stand. Restoration work on the ship will never be finished for more than a day or two. --LiamE 11:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

One could rephrase to clarify that one restoration project was completed 1928, but that a number of additional projects have been undertaken since then. Stan 20:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Signal School

In 1889 HMS Victory was fitted up as a Naval School of Telegraphy, which became the School of Signalling - this school was moved ashore in the early 1900's, but surely it merits a mention?? (Further details can be found on the Royal Naval Communications Association website [1]) Jaycey 23:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll insert it then! Jaycey 13:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Toro island?

Victory was passing the island of Toro on April 4, 1805, when HMS Phoebe brought the news that the French fleet under Pierre-Charles Villeneuve had escaped from Toulon.'

Is this a reference to Bocas del Toro? - Eric 11:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

HMS VICTORY II

Does anybody know exactly what hms victory II was during world war I. Was it a training ship in Portsmouth? It has shown up on my great grandfather's wwI navy records.

Have a look at this page - http://www.gwpda.org/naval/rnshore.htm - I think it might probably help you. Jaycey 14:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Media Appearances

This noteworthy ship has not only been remarkable at sea. A section on its media appearances should be added, one that I know of affirmatively, its appearance as "HMS Battledore" in the Miss Marple movie "Murder Ahoy" (1964). Maybe other major media usage of the ship have occurred over time. Unfortunately, it was not used for the also noteworthy Hornblower TV series.--80.145.199.218 00:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we'd need considerably more than one appearance to warrent a specific section. Also, I wouldn't say this was the place for it anyway. A page titled 'HMS Victory in Popular Culture' could be created if we could gather enough references. It'd save cluttering up the article, and fit with already existing pages, eg. Stonehenge in popular culture. Benea 01:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Edited Ship Infobox: Marines

I removed the word "aloft" in the Ship Infobox from the sentence "Marines armed with muskets aloft". While I am not sure about Victory's fighting methods pre-1805, this was definitely not the case at Trafalgar. Lord Nelson was opposed to employing men with hand weapons in the rigg, for fear of fire (among other reasons). Moreover, he was of opinion that the taking out of officers (what these men should do and what happened to himself at Trafalgar) could not have a decisive influence on the general outcome of a fight once the ships were within musket shot at all. With that, he was right, and Trafalgar is an example: Nelson's influence and guidance was over half an hour after the Victory entered close combat, and yet the battle was won. Orders not given before the first broadside was fired could hardly influence (let alone determine) the outcome. --Kauko56 (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right about Nelson's aversion to sharpshooters, mainly because of the risk of fire in the sails. Unfortunately for Nelson, Jean Jacques Étienne Lucas of the Redoutable thought differently and had especially drilled squads of crack sharpshooters to target the officers of the enemy ships. As to the influence of officers, the case is probably not so clear cut. The overall strategic plan of the battle had been decided before hand, Nelson's officers were encouraged to take their own initiative anyway and once battle was joined, Nelson's personal influence only really extended to directing the fighting of the Victory, though that was mainly Hardy's work. Nelson's death didn't really affect the outcome. But targeting officers could deprive a ship of leadership at crucial moments, weaken resolve, cause hesitation. But the overall effect of this eventually turned out to be slight. Cooke of the Bellerophon and Duffy of the Mars were killed in the battle but their ships went on to hold their own as command devolved, fortunately to capable subordinates. Nelson was therefore probably right in the final analysis. Benea (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Admirals

This part of the article has been bugging me for a long time. A pretty big chunk of the article is taken up by a long list of admirals who have hoisted their flag in Victory. While this is definitely useful information, I can't help but feel it would be much better, both for itself as a resource, and for the Victory article, if it were given its own page and merely linked to from within this article. Martocticvs (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been bold and made the admiral list table collapsible. Martocticvs (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nelson / Trafalgar

The end of this section indicates Redoutable's boarding attempt was repelled by small arms fire, but all other related Wiki entries for the battle indicate it was in fact prevented by the intervention of another British ship, and that Victory's crew had been forced belowdecks by French grenades. 198.103.221.51 (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Lucas, captain of the Redoutable reported how "...more than two hundred grenades were thrown on board the Victory with the utmost success...Midshipman Yon and four seamen sprang on board the Victory by means of the anchor and informed us that there was not a soul on her decks..." But as Lucas was preparing to give the order to board "... the three decker..." [Eliab Harvey's 98-gun Temeraire] "... ran foul of the Redoubtable to starboard and overwhelmed us with the point blank fire of all her guns". Despite the claim that 'there was not a soul on her decks', there were continued exchanges of small arms fire throughout the engagement, but by the point of the boarding attempt, there were few defenders left on deck, and a successful boarding attempt could have been made, were it not for Harvey's arrival. Benea (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

News article: The HMS Victory, Famed Shipwreck, Is Found

• The HMS Victory, Famed Shipwreck, Is Found Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Copied to Talk:HMS Victory (1737) (the article for the Victory that was wrecked. Woody (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Small point

This ship is featured in the game Empire total war- should this be included somewhere??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.153.207 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is too small a point to be included in this article, perhaps the article on Empire: Total War would be a good place? Dabbler (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Length

Anyone knows the total length of the ship including bowsprit etc? Is it 328 feet (100.0 m)? [2] Najro (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Privatization

User: Ralabaf has added unsourced text about privatization talks, and User: 92.4.111.245 has twice restored it. I have no idea if these talks are real or not, but one of our fundamental principles is verifiability. Such a claim needs to be backed by a reliable source - a newspaper article, or at least a press release, or something comparable. Please don't re-add it again without a source or at least without discussion here about why this claim should be in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ive tried searching for the information but found nothing, if such consultations started in July i would of thought media would of picked it up, even if it was just local media but i cant see anything. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I am a reliable source, I work there. The Commanding Officer and Deputy Command Secretary have personally briefed the ship staff and a formal announcement is due at a grand event on 18 September. You won't see the details on the internet or in the media until the announcement occurs. But it is happening. Ralabaf (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have inside information on this you should contact The News (Portsmouth) ([3]) because they would look into it and report it, or one of the national papers. But we can not have unreferenced claims here on wikipedia so we will have to wait until its announced officially BritishWatcher (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not inside information, which sounds like it's a secret. It's even on the local trade union website. Is that sufficient for a reference? http://pcsportsmouth.jimdo.com/news/ Ralabaf (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)