Talk:HMS Conqueror

message: Hello,
Thère is an other ship with the name of Conqueror. A british armed yacht HMS Conqueror (LtCdr E. M. McCausland) which have picked up 18 survivors of the british steam merchant Rhexenor on 3 february, 1943. 
Sorry for my bad english.
Regards
René
:Do you have any documentation that references this? It's not mentioned in Colledge, could be an omission, or could be that the vessel was not an "HMS". In either case, it would be good to have a link to an article from here. Stan 16:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like she might have been one of the many small ships requisitioned by the Admiralty but never formally commissioned into the Navy, especially as at this time they had the battleship HMS Conqueror in the yards, and presumably still expected to launch her at some point.  They also tended to reserve the traditional 'battleship' names, like 'Conqueror' for the Navy's capital ships, hence the shuffling of names at the end of the war, where they switch names between the few major ships under construction to make sure those that ended up escaping the budget cuts and actually being launched, did so under the proudest names. I'd therefore be very surprised to see them commissioning a mere armed yacht with that name.  Oh and I see where you've got that information from now.  Uboat.net is notorious for slapping 'HMS' in front of British ships that were not entitled to the prefix, and never bore it. Benea (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another ship 

message: ( Something wrong here my greatgrandfather ,( AB William Shoesmith) was serving on the Conqueror from 1860 to March 1862.- I have his original cerificate of service ) 86.140.86.73 19:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is accurate. The first rate Conqueror was lost on 29th December 1861. The Waterloo was renamed Conqueror on 27th February 1862. Given the short gap I'd suspect some sort of accounting practice - perhaps the gap between your great-grandfather leaving service on one ship (after she sank) to his receiving a posting on another is not mentioned. Or he was listed as serving on Conqueror as an administrative procedure for sorting pay while a berth was found elsewhere. That is that you're sure it is Conqueror he was on, and not Conquestador, which was in service between those dates? Benea (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed comment from anoym... reposted at talk page

message: I am dubious about the recent edit.  Under this edit, four of the vessels have their class recorded; the previous version recorded the class of five.  The most recent vessel's claim to notability has been removed.  The ex-120 gun 3-decker that was cut down to a 2-decker when converted to steam does not record this.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed the Caledonia class, it was mentioned but not linked, I'm happy to restore it. As to the other pieces of information, the ship index pages don't really go into their notability, this is left for the articles, hence battles, wars, commanders, etc, as for some ships this list could run and run.  Again, specifics about the design of ships are also better explained on the articles, such as number of decks. But a mention of her being razeed and the new number of guns carried would not be a problem. Benea (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit