# Talk:Prince of Wales (1786 ship)

Given all the ships at HMS Prince of Wales, perhaps the title should be Prince of Wales (1786 ship)? - The Bushranger One ping only 04:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)b

It's not an HMS as it was never commissioned into the Royal Navy - it was a private craft hired by the Government for this voyage and returned to private ownership once it left Australia. So we cannot list it among the HMS Prince of Wales vessels.
The ships naming convention mandates the standard Wikipedia naming conventions for civilian craft like this. So we could legitimately call it Prince of Wales (1786 ship) (ie not HMS) if you prefer. But arguably this might be unnecessary specificity, as no other civilian ships of this name currently have Wikipedia articles so it wouldn't be clear what we were differentiating it from. Euryalus (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
In passing the article should make clear it was not a naval vessel - give me a little while and I'll add it in. Euryalus (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I know it wasn't an HMS, just that "Prince of Wales (ship)" seems a bit ambiguous to me as those would also technically be "Prince of Wales (ship)". I can see both sides of that argument though.  - The Bushranger One ping only 05:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, re-reading your comment it was clear what you meant but I didn't understand it. I'll still add to the article that it was a hired ship, as this is relevant to its voyages.I don't really mind either way re name - either (1786 ship) or just (ship) is fine by me and there's precedent on both sides. I'll ask at WP:SHIPS and if no one had a strong view, will move the page to (1786 ship) for clarity.Euryalus (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on a DYK!  Amandajm (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a ship)&diff=623829223&oldid=608695836 disagreement over the number of male prisoners brought aboard Prince of Wales in May 1787 after the Scarborough mutiny. I have restored the number to two, based on the source in the article, which relevantly reads - 

"Captain Shea had the two ringleaders transferred to Sirius where they were lashed and sent to the Prince of Wales to be heavily ironed and subject to the discipline of Lieutenants Davey and Timins." (Moore p48).
That seems pretty clear. I note there is always scope for some dispute on numbers with the First Fleet, given there is not even an entirely reliable record of the total number of transportees. However we have a scholarly source for two males brought aboard after the mutiny - if there's a case to be put for one it would be great if a source was provided, so that we would discuss it further here.  Euryalus (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, also a primary source from Sergeant James Scott's journal: "Sunday 20th: The Commadore Ordd 2 Male Convicts from the Scarbr,o Transpt on Bd the Prince of Wales As the was, the Ring leaders of a Number that intended to Rise & take the Ship."
Euryalus (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added a hatnote to the, ahem, disambiguation page listing all the Royal Navy ships of this name. It occurs to me that the name of this article should most likely be changed - perhaps it might be Prince of Wales (Australian ship) or something of that sort. The current name seems to me to be somewhat misleading. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This vessel must at the very least be renamed "Prince of Wales (1786 ship)". Seven other vessels named Prince of Wales sailed for the British East India Company alone. Renaming this article would free up the general name "Prince of Wales (ship)" for a disambig page for these vessels, and perhaps even more.Acad Ronin (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Move article to "Prince of Wales (1786 ship)" and create disambiguation page (Ship Index) for Prince of Wales (ship). Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prince of Wales (1786 ship)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 19:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Sources look fine.
CorenSearchBot shows no copyright violations. Googling three random phrases showed nothing matching but Wikipedia mirrors.
Construction:
Links for "captain of marines", "judge-advocate"?
Not required, but probably want a citation for the sentence "Both marine officers would sail with the Fleet to Australia, Tench as a captain of marines and Collins as judge-advocate for the new colony." eventually.
First voyage:
Link for "Governor of New South Wales", "storeships"?
"She was the last transport to be added to the Fleet before it sailed." duplicates the information in the last sentence of the "Construction" section. Suggest just moving the bits from that last paragraph of construction to this sentence/paragraph, where it fits better.
Marines:
Link for "Sergeant of Marines"?
Return to England:
Not a requirement but probably need a citation for "Twelve of Prince of Wales '​ sickest crew members were hospitalised in Rio while the remainder recovered on board." eventually.
Second voyage:
Not a requirement but "On 16 January she came within sight of Formosa but was unable to make landfall due to heavy seas." will probaly want a citation at some point.
None of these are enough to keep the article from GA status - they are just points to consider if you're going to take the article up for FAC. I do suggest a Peer Review or someone else copyediting it before FAC also, as prose isn't my strongest point. I did make some copyedits along the way, nothing major. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ealdgyth, and I will certainly address the above points over the next few days.
I doubt I will take this to FAC as the available materials are a bit bare - they cover the points in this article but there are no further records of her merchant career outside the Australian voyages. Absent these additional service details the article cannot be entirely comprehensive, and so is probably not worthy of an FA.
Also agree that it needs further prose improvement, though with respect I think you sell yourself short in your second last sentence. Thanks again for the review. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I read this article and found some areas that feel more like research notes than a Wikipedia article (especially "Origins" and remarks about surprise that it is or is not in Lloyd's register further down). These appear to be sections that have been added or modified significantly since it was promoted to GA. Could someone familiar with either the topic or the GA criteria please have a look at it? Pinging major contributors: @Euryalus, Ealdgyth,  and Acad Ronin:. Thank you. --Scott Davis Talk 01:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: thanks for the ping. Took this through GA some time ago, but since then is been extensively edited by Acad Ronin, who is probably our foremost expert on the pre-19C Lloyds Register and the East India Trading Company. The Register records are a great source, but they often have annoying gaps, and records of private vessels are pretty poor throughout the entire period.
To advance the Review, I'll give my original parts of the article a copy edit for style (my original prose is from some years ago), and also move some of the more speculative bits to this page for discussion. This is principally in the "Origins" section, as you note above; the conclusions are probably accurate, but absent clearer sources they might come across as original research.


### For discussion #1: origin accounts
To kick off the Review, I've brought the following paragraph here for discussion:

It is possible to reconcile these accounts somewhat. There is no mention of Prince of Wales in Lloyd's Register until 1787, when she appears in the supplemental pages as being of 300 tons (bm), launched in 1779 at Sidmouth, with master J. Mason, and owner John Mather. The reconciliation between the two origins may rest in the notation that she had been almost totally rebuilt in 1786. It is therefore quite reasonable to suppose that she was launched at Sidmouth in 1779 and rebuilt at Rotherhithe in 1786.
The conclusion seems reasonable, but it seems to be based on an interpretation of likelihood, and not a direct secondary source. Absent a secondary source reconciling the two accounts, suggest we may have to leave both accounts in the article but without an explanation for why they differ. Other views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


### For discussion #2: Hannibal
Lloyd's Register is a reliable source. It records that a contemporaneous vessel in Mather's ownership was renamed from Prince of Wales to Hannibal. 

Questions:

Should this be mentioned in the "Origins" section, and if so, in how much detail?
Supporting documentation is understandably a bit limited. To what extent should we seek to interpret the data?
Opinions(all other views extremely welcome):

We should certainly include a reference to this vessel and name change in the article. However the full enunciation of the theory (with table) seems a bit too detailed for this article section. I've temporarily converted it into a single sentence, and brought the bulk here for discussion. Please revert if there's disagreement with this temporary change.
I think we risk running into original research: I entirely agree with Acad Ronin's conclusions in developing this theory (and again, he's our leading expert on Lloyd's Register), but as he says, the records are too fragmentary to form a solid conclusion on whether Mather's 1787 Hannibal is the same vessel as Prince of Wales, which is otherwise a fairly common vessel name for the time. as above, contrary views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Prince of Wales (1786 ship). 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/20130418033700/http://da-academy.org/AfricanstoDominica.pdf to http://da-academy.org/AfricanstoDominica.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 22:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)