Talk:Continental Navy

message: As you'll notice, I have significantly increased the size and scope of the article as well as adding a number of new images.  This article at the current date (5/24/06) remains under construction as I plan the new sections I have in mind, so please bare with the manipulations as the article is toyed with to make it look efficient, professional, and ship-shape.  Auror 00:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Overhaul

message: Please take a look at the History section of the article on Mayagüez, Puerto Rico and please confirm or validate my reference... Demf 13:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find reference anywhere to Continental Navy ships with these names. Perhaps they were privateers rather than commissioned vessels? Jinian 21:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Endowok and the Henry

message: I am curious as to why an article about the Continental Navy does not include a mention of John Barry.  Shoreranger 03:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I designed the article to revolve around ships' combat records, not individual officers' achievements.  If one seeks to know the commanders of the Alliance, one merely has to click the pertinent link and find information on Barry.  If the reader must know even more history on Barry, they have only to click Barry's link. A ship-based format showcases strategy better than fluid officer's combat biographies.  The captains change ships, retire etc. but the ships continue service unless noted.  Auror 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That explaination does not seem to account for the numerous mentions of Paul Jones as a captain, nor John Adams, as political oversight.  Surely the just and defensible mentions of Adams are proof that a navy is much more than just the ships.  Despte design, it seems that a number of captains besides Paul Jones have at least a mention. The suggestion that a reader of this article would already have enough knowledge of history to know to look for Barry elsewhere on the Alliance is dubious, as well.  Surely, the man is more well-known than the ship in this case.  Would not Barry, as commander of the last Continental ship of the war to engage the British, and a victory to boot, alone be worthy of mention? Shoreranger 21:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly an addition just to get Barry's name in there is not opposed on this end, though I may disagree on the note of his fame compared to his ship as well as his overall importance.  You'll notice that the only section heavy in officer mentionings is the foreign service section where certainly the name John Paul Jones is far more notable than Bonhomme Richard or Serapis, likewise with Wickes and Conyngham.  Auror 01:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is not "just to get Barry's name in there."  Besides the historical significance of a generally successful high-reanking officer in a war (not to mention a branch of military) which did not see many victories, in addition to the significance of the final naval battle and victory, Barry's career was much longer and fruitful and provides continuity and a bridge between the Continental Navy and the US Navy which Jones and just about anyone else cannot claim.  Therefore, since you write you are not opposed, I will draft a contribution of suitable length for the article and add it when convenient.  Shoreranger 19:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: John Barry