Talk:HMS Shannon (1806)

message: Where did the Shannon name come from? I'm assuming the river in Ireland? It might be worth adding this to the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ship names are always tricky. HMS Shannon possibly came from the river, but possibly from the title Earl of Shannon, or from one of those specific people who held the title.  Or she could have been named after one of the earlier HMS Shannons (there were three). Since we don't know for sure, it's probably best to avoid claiming one way or the other. Benea (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I think this merging this articl with the capture of the Chesapeake is a bad idea.
I see no place where it was discussed.  That's worse.
Please stop.Geo Swan (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag was updated in March, but while nothing was removed from this article, a fair chunk was copied over to Capture of USS Chesapeake. Since this seems to have been the completion of the work, I've removed the tag, pending further discussion. Benea (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The objective was to merge the section on the capture of Chesapeake over to the main article on the battle. It was not suggested that the entire article on Shannon be merged. I copied over the contents of the battle section to Capture of USS Chesapeake as that article was barely a stub. What I did not get around to doing was summarizing the section in this article. If you look at  you will see how I'm trying to set that article up so that both Shannon and Chesapeake have a summary of the battle while all the details are in the article about the battle. --Brad (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bad idea 

message: I've added a bit to this article, frankly you'd never know the Chesapeake fired a shot in anger from the reading of this article.  Apparently according to this British fan boy article Capt. Broke and his sunshine boys marched over and handed the yanks both dead and wounded without so much as a bloody nose... now take that yank...   You take the bloodiest 15 minutes of warfare in the history of sailing gun and turn it into a one sided self congratulation of the Royal Navy.  Oh I really enjoyed the 2/3 of the American gun crew dead or wounded without a single citation to support it... not to mention it was wrong but we were more than happy to leave it up with a fact tag on it anyway. Not a single mention of the other ship other than a target?  Really?  I don't know where you thought you could write an article like this without the slightest bit of balance, sheesh this is infuriating and you darn well know better.Tirronan (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: ugh

message: I think this section should be shortened since we have an article on it. I also think that article needs some work with refs and whatnot. Certainly the current version seems one sided as noted above. Colincbn (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In point of fact, the battle section in the other article is much better, this should be recommended for speedy deletion.Tirronan (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Chesapeake battle 

message: I removed the following sentence:
''
Shannon was one of the largest frigates built by the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars, at a time when the Admiralty concentrated on producing vessels in larger numbers but to smaller builds and less heavy armament.
This sentence is factually incorrect. Shannon was one of the very numerous Leda-class, which was smaller than the equally prolific Lively class. And this is just the 18-pounder frigates. By the end of the Napoleonic Wars the British had many larger 24-pounder frigates as well. Furthermore, Shannon is slightly smaller than other Ledas.
Lastly, by the time of Shannon's construction the British had largely abandoned the principle of building smallish frigates, and at no time did British frigates compromise on the size of their armament. See Robert Gardiner's 'Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars,' especially the first chapter, entitled 'A Return to Moderate Dimensions.' 184.16.245.253 (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct on all counts. Neither the Shannon nor the Chesapeake were particularly large. Tirronan (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed sentence concerning Shannon's relative size 

message: I have added a link to what is said to be a photograph of the warship Shannon. As this photograph forms part of a collection hosted online by the Bodleian Library (Oxford University), I presume the caption of the photograph must be reasonably credible. However, someone with specialist subject knowledge may wish to check. 92.13.14.148 (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: Is the amount of guns listed correct? The battle invitation from it's captain that's cited in the page doesn't make any mention of 9-pounders in the broadside, nor do any other ships of the same class carry those guns. I don't really see where they would mount them either. 2A02:A46D:8026:1:B583:BC5A:8C8B:4EA8 (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amount of guns