# Talk:HMS Victory

This issue was raised by User:Martocticvs in July 2008 but as there wasn't much discussion (see Talk:HMS_Victory/Archive_1#List_of_Admirals) so I think it might be useful to ressurect it. Apart from USS Constitution, this doesn't appear to be usual practice so I am suggesting moving the table to a stand-alone list with the hope someone will eventually make it an article. I personally don't see a need to replace it with anything, although a prose section with some of the most notable admirals might be appropriate. Thoughts? --Ykraps (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the list in its current form should not be used. It's unreferenced and unwieldy. If we can dig up some reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the list outside of the ship article then it should be moved over. Either way, mentions of admirals who raised their flag on Victory should be converted into prose as appropriate. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for reitterating your view here. I can only really reference admirals up to and including Saumarez. You said you thought John McKay's 100-gun ship Victory held a list of admirals. Do you have access to that book? --Ykraps (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
There was a discussion at wt:ships a few years back about Lists of Commanding Officers on ship articles, and the consensus at the time was to avoid such lists, leading to WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS. Generally the preference was to see COs added to the narrative prose as part of the chronology. There could be separate articles, where appropriate, such as List of commanding officers of USS Oklahoma (BB-37).This list on it's face seems like a candidate for a separate article. There may be an issue with sourcing. With some lists, attached refs often aren't required if the list entries are linked to another article, (such as the case here), with the belief that the entry is sourced in that article. Every entry here is linked, but when looking to confirm, there is an issue. Starting with the first five entries; Kepple, Hardy and Parker, there is no mention of Victory at all. Drake has a single mention of Victory, but no source attached, and finally Geary, has a single mention of Victory in the prose, with a source attached (a book).TL;DR - this list probably shouldn't be in this article, all the admirals should be noted in the prose instead. The list could be forked off on it's own, but there may he sourcing issues. - \\'cԼF 23:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I also checked the admiral articles for sources and found them wanting. My thoughts were also, if an admiral's tenure was notable, it should be included in the main body of the text. --Ykraps (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
With most of the USN lists, it was fairly easy to to add notable COs to the prose as most of them didn't have careers notable enough for articles. The exception to that was aircraft carriers, where every CO is a Captain (O-6), and leading a carrier usually means they're on their way to admiral. So with the CO lists on carrier pages, we had to basically add all of them, which was more work.My point is, every CO on this list is considered notable, and there's many more here that on any CVN page. How would you determine which ones to add and which ones to leave out? Personally, I think the better move here is to fork off the list as a standalone article, keeping them all. Then all it needs is a decent lead, much of which can be lifted from this page, and then add any missing refs, which shouldn't be that hard (or just add cn tags where needed, which is even easier). Jmho... - \\'cԼF 01:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild:@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: My preference would be to move the list from the HMS Victory article to draftspace until we can find some reliable sources and then move it to mainspace as a list article. As far as inclusion of admirals in the HMS Victory article goes; I think we should follow the guidance at WP:SHIPSNOTCREWS. Does that sound a reasonable course of action? --Ykraps (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Go for it. - \\'cԼF 22:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I confess I had never heard of this, and it doesn't appear to be mentioned in any of the books I own. It is referenced to the Liverpool Mercury (and is indeed in there) but doesn't appear to be reported in other contemporary newspapers apart from a single Wiltshire newspaper. The local Portsmouth papers did not carry the story, which you might reasonably expect them to. Does anyone have 'better' sources? Or can we relegate this to a footnote. --Ykraps (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The sources already being cited are reasonable enough. We either include information or we don't, we don't relegate things we're not sure about to footnotes, that's not what footnotes are for. What we can do, if there's sufficient doubt about that sinking, is word it differently - "The Liverpool Mercury reported that the ship sank" or words to that effect - but personally I don't think that is necessary here. WaggersTALK 11:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:HMS Victory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Ykraps (talk · contribs) 07:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 17:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Hi Sturm, Is this still on your to-do list? --Ykraps (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Images appropriately licensed
Where are Davies and Ireland?
Oops! Added. --Ykraps (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
I strongly suggest deleting the CPI calculation as warships were capital costs, not consumer. The given figure of 10 million pounds is laughable considering that modern frigates of the same displacement are in the hundreds of millions.
Agreed. Done. --Ykraps (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Spell out the numbers of guns if you're using digits for their sizes, ie. thirty 42-pounders, etc.
Done. --Ykraps (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Explain what first and second captains are
I've added as a footnote to avoid disrupting the flow too much. --Ykraps (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Hood, assisted by Rear-Admiral Richard Goodwin Keats Which Hood is this?
Samuel Hood, who has already been mentioned at the start of the French Revolutionary War section. As this is a while ago and there are multiple Hoods, I've added his first name for clarity. --Ykraps (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Karlsrona?? Do you mean Karlskrona?
Indeed. Good spot. --Ykraps (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
not fully accomplished therefore until 1990 awkward, rephrase
Done. --Ykraps (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
What's a "prop system"?
As I understand it, the original steel cradle was replaced with a system of individually adjustable props. This was already present in the article and I haven't done any additional research. If you can give me some time, I'll see what I can dig up. --Ykraps (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
I've had a go at rewriting this bit, see what you think. --Ykraps (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Cite 176 needs date accessed and date of original publication
This link was dead so I've replaced with a book cite. --Ykraps (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
External links generally need the date accessed
I've added where I've noticed they're missing. Are there any I've missed? --Ykraps (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Or do you mean the external links in the external links section? --Ykraps (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
No, the external links don't need retrieval dates because they're not used as sources.
Nicely done--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Sturmvogel 66:, Do you have anything further to add? --Ykraps (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for the wait, but I'm satisfied.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The visitor numbers of 300,000+ 20 years ago refer to the website, not the ship. The figure of 350,000 in the Daily Echo reference are not supported by any other source, but would equate to about 960 visitors a day on average, throughout the year, which seems unlikely given the size of the ship and the time a tour takes. A lot of people go to see the ship, of course, and don't necessarily go on board. Can we find any more reliable figures? Tony Holkham (Talk) 08:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Tony,
Eastland, Jonathan; Ballantyne, Iain (2011). HMS Victory - First rate 1765. Barnsley: Pen and Sword. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-84832-094-9.  - says 350,000 per annum
Goodwin, Peter (2004). Nelson's Victory - 101 Questions & Answers about HMS Victory. London: Conway. p. 93. ISBN 9 780851 779881. - says 360,000 per annum
Goodwin, who served as curator for many years, also says that in the height of the season, as many as 2,500 people a day passed through the ship. Ykraps (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)