Talk:HMS Endeavour

message: Whitby also has had the replica of the HM Bark Endeavour visiting the town for lengthy periods. The article lacks information on this. Computerjoe's talk 15:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of Information Relating to Whitby

message: I've removed the following para:
On this voyage Cook became the first captain to calculate his longitudinal position with accuracy. He used a chronometer, known as K1, which was made by Larcum Kendall and was a copy of John Harrison's fourth timepiece. Cook's log was full of praise for the watch and the charts of the southern Pacific Ocean he made with its use were remarkably accurate - so much so that copies of them were still in use in the mid 20th century.
Cook's trial of Kendall's K1 chronometer was later, on his second voyage, in the Resolution, not the Endeavour.. --cjllw | TALK 00:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: K1 chronometer

message: In constuction and statistics, it has a link in "the then earl" that doesnt make much sense. also, shouldnt the link be in the italics before that?
-- Will James  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.19.196 (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rephrased, thanks. Hesperian 10:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammatical

message: I have changed the modern White Ensign in the infobox for the Red Ensign of 1707 to 1801.
Some readers might assume that the Red Ensign denotes a merchant ship and the White a naval vessel but it seems that that usage only dates from 1864 and that the Red Ensign shown is the one in use at the time of Cooke's voyage.
On the other hand please comment if you think that the flag used by today's Royal Navy is the correct one to use.
Petecarney (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Red Ensign

message: Much of the information about Cooke's first voyage of Discovery is duplicated elswhere and so perhaps doesn't really belong, in so much detail, in an article focussed on the ship herself.
Equally the info about the search for the wreck of the Endeavour and the other Newport wrecks may merit an article of its own if there isn't one already. What do you think.
Petecarney (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a first step in this direction I have added  to the appropriate section. Are there others like this that could be added? (sdsds - talk) 00:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Overlap with other articles

message: Per the above user, I've been requested to explain why the tags are on this article. In this order,
*It needs additional references or sources for verification.
*It may contain original research or unverifiable claims.
*It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources.
*Its tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
*It reads like a personal reflection or essay.
*It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.
*It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. The tags are not to be removed until these issues have been satisfied and they are absolutely not to be removed because they are aesthetically displeasing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That list gives no further explanation of your concerns than the tag itself. Please explain in more detail, giving specific examples of statements you don't like. -- Avenue (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please make (judicious) use of  tags in this article. Choose several assertions you particularly wish to challenge. Place tags immediately following those assertions. Wait awhile, and then if no reliable source is cited for the assertion, remove the assertion along with the tag. Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is policy, makes clear this is a high priority effort for this (or any) article. (sdsds - talk) 22:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

text: *Every statement in this article needs a source. Currently, only about 5% of this article is sourced. Large sections concerning Endeavour's voyage with Cook are completely unsourced. These sections read like a personal narrative written for an essay. Some of the references are dead (the link to the National Maritime Museum of Australia, for instance). Most of the other references are either immaterial or entirely irrelevant. Citing a biography for Dr. Solander to prove he was on the ship doesn't seem as important, say, as citing Endeavour's length, beam, sail and armament. Beyond that, it needs serious copyedit work and it needs to have its narrative tone rewritten in the expository to make it encyclopedic. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of policy, "any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged" should be reliably sourced. Please don't be gentle! If you see unsourced material and you doubt its veracity, be WP:BOLD and remove it. Maybe no one will restore it, in which case you may have improved the encyclopedia by removing untrue material. If some other editor does restore it, the obligation to provide a source citation lies clearly with that editor. (sdsds - talk) 23:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just now peeked at User talk:Cumulus Clouds, and notice that others have already mentioned to you the essay at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I'm sorry if my comments above thus seem to you like dull repetition of material you've already covered! (sdsds - talk) 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes and I happen to think that's a very stupid essay. I'll wait and see if anybody has any questions first before I start taking this one apart. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: The section headed "scurvy" in the article is interesting but not relevant to the subject of this article (the actual vessel HM Bark Endeavour). You cannot write about the Endeavour without including material on Cook, but that material must surely be about Cook in relation to the vessel, rather than general practices by Cook aboard all his voyages or a discussion of Cook's crew management technique. As an example of what I'm talking about, the HMS Victory article includes a long section on Horatio Nelson but only in the context of the use of the ship, not his personal theories or behaviour.
The "Scurvy" material is probably better located at either James Cook or First voyage of James Cook. I'd move it there directly but wanted to check with others as it involves the removal of a sizeable chunk of this article's text.
Anyone else have a view? Euryalus (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the section should be removed, for the reason stated. Melburnian (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Hesperian 07:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick response. I've moved the relevant bits to First voyage of James Cook, where it remains largely unsourced but at least in the right place. Despite improvements from a number of editors, this ACOTF is now actually shorter than when it was tagged. Euryalus (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it has already gone from 13 citations up to around 40, which is great! --Melburnian (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of "Scurvy" section?

message: There's a decent picture of what appears to be the Endeavour replica here, under attribution license on flickr. No time to upload it right now, and that's probably better left to somebody who's 100% sure it's the right boat. --Fullobeans (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Replicas and their photos

message: I have removed the following from the article, and wanted to explain why:
::The Endeavour is known to history as HMS Endeavour or HM Bark Endeavour although the prefix HMS did not come into use until the very end of the 1780s and the abbreviation HM was not used in formal communications.
::In Cook's published narrative of the Endeavour voyage he mostly uses "His Britannick Majesty's Bark" and only rarely "His Britannick Majesty's Ship".
::In the same way that ancient custom mandates the title of Captain for a ranked Lieutenant while commanding a ship, all Royal Navy vessels are customarily referred to as HMS even though they may have a different rating on the Admiralty's ship lists.
::Thus "Captain Cook of HMS Endeavour" is a correct customary usage for both the man and the ship while "Lieutenant Cook of HM Bark the Endeavour" exhibits the correct technical register of the language used in correspondence between the Admiralty and its officers.  Another popular contemporary usage is to refer to "Captain Cook of HM Bark Endeavour", which is a combination of both the customary and the technical.
The content is technically correct but is neither unique to the Endeavour nor directly related to it. The customary use of "HMS" in Royal Navy vessel names is appropriately discussed at Royal Navy and at Rating system of the Royal Navy - all such ships were technically "HM bark (or sloop or bomb escort) Smithville" as well as customarily "HMS Smithville", and there is no need to specifically denote this in each individual ship article. The same is true of Cook's rank as Lieutenant but the customary use of the title Captain - true but not relevant to this page.
Secondly, the section is unsourced and to a degree, unsourceable. No doubt we could go through Cook's journals and count the number of uses of "ship" v "bark" but its not clear what that would prove, especially as the section also makes the unsourced claim that the term HMS was probably not in use at the time.
Essentially, general information like this is best placed at the broad-brush Navy articles like those listed above.
That's a longwinded explanation, and I'm happy to discuss if there's opposition to the deletion. Any other views? Euryalus (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Euryalus, I agree with the removal.  It bothered me also and you've managed to explain the issue well.  Moondyne 03:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a reader who knows nothing about British ship naming conventions, it seemed to me like the title of the article was an error if the ship was officially called HM Bark Endeavour. I think the article definitely needs more explanation. I understand the concern about verbosity, so I added back a shortened version, and put it in a footnote rather than the main text. If this could be accomplished with a link to an explanation for all ships in a similar situation, that would be even less verbose, though I couldn't find a good link target. (And it wouldn't help printed-on-paper Wikipedia readers who couldn't click through to read it.) -- Beland (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomenclature section

message: I've removed the following good-faith addition to the article and wanted to explain why:
:All of the commercially available models, and all of the current replica vessels, have this oddly shortened mizzen as all have been constructed using this potentially incorrect annotation.
Firstly, in the absence of sources it appears to be original research. Secondly its plainly inaccurate, as I doubt all commercial "Endeavour" models include this erroneous mizzen-mast length. I think this removal is uncontroversial and wouldn'thave raised it here except that it does make an interesting point - is there any evidence the mizzen mast notation misconception has persisted in modern times? If so, that would make an interesting addition to the page. Euryalus (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mizzen mast notation issue

message: The book Wind beneath my wings is used in the article to reference the replica Endeavour departing on its final ocean journey from Whitehaven rather than Plymouth, but the IP that added the reference hasn't included a page number.
If anyone has a copy of this book, could they please add the page number for this statement to reference 70 in the article? Alternatively, if the book doesn't actually state the Endeavour left from Whitehaven (I've not read this anywhere else), please feel free to remove the reference entirely. Euryalus (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wind beneath my wings

message: At Whitby there is a 40% scale steel frame Endeavour 'replica' named the Bark Endeavour Whitby built after the very successful visit of the 'real' replica.  It is intended for the tourist trade offering coastal excursions to tourists and is operated with safety in mind.
During the 1970s (during some Cook centennial celebration???) a one tonne model of the Endeavour was housed  in a large atrium in the Cleveland Centre shopping mall in central Middlesbrough.  The model was suspended by wires from the very high ceiling, slowly rotating about four or five feet above the floor while the occasional small boy would walk under it.   Long ago it was removed and replaced by even more retail shops.  Where it is now I don't know.  This sounds a bit surreal as though I dreamt it, but I am sure this all happened.  Slap me if it didn't.  Stuffed cat (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it did, and you didn't dream up the giant snowman either. Melburnian (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bizarre, especially seeing as the only thing visible from below is a fairly uninteresting hull. Notice how they used the erroneous mizzen mast measurement? Amazing that a 250-year old typo has survived to plague the Middlesbrough shopping centres of today. Euryalus (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Replicas' and Models - Point of information

message: Apologies - I had not looked at the discussion here before I moved the article (I will try to be more careful in future). However, while we are on the subject, I believe accuracy should be the main issue in an encyclopedia, and "HM Bark Endeavour" is the name the ship was given and how it is referred to in the early journals. Calling it HMS Endeavour is rather similar to the common referral to James Cook as "Captain James Cook" on his first voyage when, in fact, he was really Lieutenant James Cook at that time. Both these loose usages are to some degree misleading and I think something is lost when people resort to them. It is easy enough to retain accuracy while preventing confusion by using redirects and disambiguation pages. John Hill (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Accuracy can be achived by stating, within the article, the naming of Endeavour in as much detail as necessary. There is no need to move the article itself to achieve this. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

text: an article name is not simply meant to be unique, but also consistent with other names and how something would normally be identified by the general public (who will be typing in the common name). I don't think 'bark' scores on either of the last two counts. Sandpiper (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As i said above, your comments about the "general public" are not relevant. Policy says "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Hesperian 02:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Apologies

message: I'm with Moondyne on this: though I'd prefer HM Bark, I see here an absence of consensus for the move. I reckon policy says we ought to move it back to the stable title. And, more importantly, Euryalus has put a hell of a lot of effort into this article, and it offends my sense of an Aussie 'fair go' for him to be presented with a fait accompli like this. I'll give you mob 12 hours to make your closing arguments, and unless consensus for the move suddenly emerges, I'll move it back. Hesperian
:Well, I guess we will never get consensus on this question as the opinions are roughly equal in number. But it seems very sad that we will be sacrificing historical accuracy and clarity in the name of consensus. Maybe I should have a look at how consensus rather than accuracy became a guiding principle of deciding disputed points in Wikipedia, and if this can be changed. In spite of my opposition to User Euryalus on this point, I would like to thank him for his excellent work on the article. Thanks also to all involved in this discussion for giving their serious consideration to this matter - I hope it has been both as interesting and instructive to you all as it has been for me. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving it back

message: The Naming Conventions say:
Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
This is justified by the following principle:
:The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.
Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.
The Naming Conventions for Ships says:
For ships of navies that have standard ship prefixes, use the prefix in the name of the article:...However, it is common practice to backdate the use of a prefix so that it applies to ships of that navy that historically would not have been referred to with that prefix, and Wikipedia follows this practice:
Can anyone tell me whether the Ship Naming conventions should overrule the General Naming Conventions?
My view would be no, and that HM Bark fits the general criteria better.
All ships of the navy were "His Majesty's Ship" and so can be referred to as HMS. Some were also commissioned with differrent titles, eg. HM Armed Schooner Diana so it is a matter of choice, dependant on context, whether to use the commissioned title or the common-language title. We make a similar choice in referring to Captain Cook or Lieutenant Cook. Both are valid.
Wharton's 1893 edition of "Captain Cook's Journal During the First Voyage Round the World" avalable from Project Gutenberg makes reference to Endeavour both as HM Bark and as H.M.S.
My point is that both HMS and HM Bark are historically accurate and whichever one is chosen for the article title the first sentence should reflect that fact. It is embarrassing that the Australian Maritime Museum should choose to use the apparently fictional prefix HMB. They own the Endeavour replica so they can call that ship whatever they like but using HMB to refer to the historical ship as they do seems absurd. Perhaps some mention of this should be made in the article. Petecarney (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The question whether specific naming conventions can, and should be allowed to, over-rule general naming conventions is unresolved at present. In practice it happens all the time—look no further than Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom; who the hell calls her that?!—but there is disagreement over whether or not this is a problem. Hesperian 14:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, my personal opinion is that specific guidelines should be unfettered. There is a faction who would impose consistency across all of Wikipedia, without a thought for the expertise and experience of the people who actually write articles in particular fields. I don't like that. Whilst I prefer HM Bark in this specific case, in general I support the idea that the WP:SHIPS people know what they're doing, they have good reasons behind their naming convention, and those reasons should be honoured. Hesperian 14:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What the Naming Conventions actually say

message: I've been mildly bold and begun the tortuous process of reducing the clutter in the references section by creating a Bibliography for books and the RIMAP report (so far), then converting the references that link to them into the traditional format of author name, date, page number per WP:CITESHORT. This is per the suggestion by Brad here.
It's a work in progress but I thought I'd save an interim version to avoid edit conflicts. If anyone opposes the format change let me know. Euryalus (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Decluttering" done - I left the web and news citations as is, and I haven't used the Harvard system as it wasn't the one the article started with. Disagreements, proposals to change it back welcome. Euryalus (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography section

message: There's an apparent difference between otherwise reliable sources over the purchase price of Earl of Pembroke by the Admiralty:
*2840 pounds: - stated in Hough (Captain James Cook: a biography), Blainey (Sea of Dangers) and the Captain Cook Society; vs
*2307 pounds - Hosty and Hundley (the RIMAP report), the Young Endeavour scheme and the Encyclopedia of New Zealand
There's also Portcitieslondon, which supports both 2800 pounds and 2307 pounds, and therefore disqualifies itself as a particularly reliable source on this issue.
I've noted both in the article, eacvh with one reference though more exist on either side. I suspect the difference relates to the amount allocated by Admiralty, and the amount actually paid - the RIMAP wording, for example, refers to a decision to purchase for 2307 pounds, while Hough notes an actual purchase for 2840. But thats just a personal opinion - views, comments welcome. Euryalus (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha! It's nice to have a mystery solved :) Thanks for finding that - can you update the article if you have a moment? Alternatively I can do it based on the googlebooks snippet, though if you have a hard copy of the Mariner's Mirror edition you'll have better citation details than I will.  Euryalus (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The purchase price is recorded in the Navy Treasurer's ledger under the date of October 31st, 1769, as follows: To  Thomas Milner1 £2840. l0s. 11d. By Bill dated 24th June 1768 for the value of the Earl of Pembroke now called the Endeavour, bark, Burthen 368 71/94 tons, together with her masts and yards on the day above said £2800. Interest on £1000, part thereof from 9th October 1768 to 13th October 1769 being 370 days at 4% per annum £40. 10s. 11d = £2840. 10s. 11d.
Cheers, Petecarney (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources differ on purchase price

message: I have just reversed some changes made recently where it was claimed the Endeavour only spent two weeks at the mouth of the Endeavour River for repairs. I have just corrected this to 7 weeks and given a reference. The ship sailed into the mouth of the Endeavour River and was beached on 18 June, 1770 and it sailed again on 4th August. I haven't time to find them now but these dates are clearly recorded in Cook's journal. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, my mistake. I added the "seven weeks" because I remembered it from the Log, then thought I'd add up the days to make sure. Bizarrely, I added the 13 days of June to the 4 days of August and came up with two weeks instead. Good thing John has this watchlisted. :) Euryalus (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Endeavour was beached at what is now Cooktown for almost 7 weeks, not 2.

message: I added a paragraph about a fragment of the Endeavour being flown on the shuttle Endeavour in 1996, as I am myself the primary source - I was personally responsible for the acquisition of the fragment and its delivery to NASA. I have never written about this event before, and though it was covered in the Sydney press at the time, it has never been represented in an online format, and it predates online press. I do not have in my possession any of the press coverage made at the time. Astronaut Andy Thomas referred to it verbally during the mission, but this is impossible to verify online as neither the entire mission in video format or mission transcripts have been published. I do own hard copy correspondence between myself and Dr Thomas, but this is again primary source (and personal correspondence is of itself not material that I should be obliged to publish); as are photographs of the artefact, myself and Dr Thomas on his return from his mission and a plaque from NASA awarded to me in expression of appreciation for my participation in STS-77.
The paragraph in question reads as:
It is therefore impossible (without me setting up a website somewhere and telling the story, which frankly would bear as much veracity as the above paragraph, at the end of the day) to verify this story against other online sources. There is simply nothing to cite. Removing this paragraph simply removes the principle source of this information. What is the recourse? The paragraph's removal was frankly unwarranted, even though there is an insistence on reference, as this is the only presence online of this information. What is primary information to do? Is Wiki to remain secondary only? Surfren (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I am afraid so. Wikipedia is based on a number of key principles, one of which can be found in more detail at WP:VERIFIABILITY. Basically it does not matter for the project that something is true, it must also be verifiable by other users. The user in question acted correctly to revert the information, especially as this is a featured article and the highest standards of referencing must be adhered to. Wikipedia is not the place to publish new information or research, as we are a tertiary source. A solution might be to find the details of the papers which covered the story at the time. Many papers have online archives which can be searched, and which would give you references to support what you say. Benea (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Relics - primary information

message: Livestock on board included pigs, poultry, two greyhounds and a milking goat.
* Bleve the term livestock usually refers to domestic animals destined for milking, shearing or slaughter. Assume they didn't eat the greyhouds.
* Why then did they take dogs on a long voyage in a crowded ship — particularly, why a breed that wants room to run? Sca (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Belated comment - the greyhounds were pets of Joseph Banks. They didn't eat them, but in January 1769 Molyneux's journal makes clear there's only one of them left, so the other one must have died somewhere between Portsmouth and Rio. (ref Beaglehole 1968, p46). Agree re livestock, will shift the greyhounds out of the grouping. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Dogs

message: Fothering and careening are linked to explanations, but neither process is complex and could be explained simply in the text. Also, it's not specified what was done on the east coast of Australia to repair the hull, although it's hinted at in the description of later repairs at Batavia. Sca (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Damage, initial repairs

message: Of possible note: Wreckage of Captain James Cook's ship Endeavour found, guardian.com. Needs fact-checking.
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  captain-james-cook-endeavour-ship-found 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on HMS Endeavour. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/oaiFiles/EndeavourRPT2000No2b2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on HMS Endeavour. 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/20110521101826/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/endeavour.html to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/Endeavour.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080721065703/http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=34 to http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=34
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090706134055/http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/oaiFiles/EndeavourRPT2000No2b2.pdf to http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/oaiFiles/EndeavourRPT2000No2b2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002015627/http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/anchors_cannon.pdf to http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/anchors_cannon.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521101826/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/endeavour.html to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/Endeavour.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on HMS Endeavour. 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/20081030074920/http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Endeavour_info.pdf to http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Endeavour_info.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030074920/http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Endeavour_info.pdf to http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Endeavour_info.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on HMS Endeavour. 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  tag to http://ndpbeta.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1376345?searchTerm=James+Cook
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513202356/http://www.hmbarkendeavour.co.uk/the-endeavour-%26-cook/8/ to http://www.hmbarkendeavour.co.uk/the-endeavour-%26-cook/8/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918230535/http://www.rimarinearchproject.org/rimap_endeavor.htm to http://www.rimarinearchproject.org/rimap_endeavor.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719200716/http://www.nationaltrustqld.org/property-jamescook.htm to http://www.nationaltrustqld.org/property-jamescook.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120203156/http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/currency/money/0094086.html to http://rbnz.govt.nz/currency/money/0094086.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219143727/http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Signals_71_p5-7-Endeavour_sails_home.pdf to http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Signals_71_p5-7-Endeavour_sails_home.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140505023418/http://www.transportmuseum.co.uk/endeavour.php to http://www.transportmuseum.co.uk/endeavour.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160815030647/http://rgssamachupicchu.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/action-off-cartagena.html to http://rgssamachupicchu.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/action-off-cartagena.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Dead link replaced with an alternative in the article. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I belive someone needs to tell us how many flags were on the boat!   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.47.50 (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Endeavour flew two flags: a red ensign and a red, white or blue jack. Cook didn't hold flag rank and had no additional flag noting his presence. These flags were common to every similarly sized Royal Navy vessel at the time. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  how many flags does it have? 

message: I read that the mast height cite the file whose name is ZAZ6595 from National Maritime Museum Greenwich Endeavour, but i find that the file is from different vessel.
This is the link 
https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/86386.html. Did i read the wrong file? Agus Damanik (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of the mast height. 

message: The shorter mizzen mast height that is debated above is shown in the roughly contemporary painting that is in the article. To be clear, it is the lower mizzen mast that is thought to be unusually short. This is discussed by maritime historian David R MacGregor in Merchant Sailing Ships: Sovereignty of Sail 1775-1815. He suggests that the recorded lower mast height would give a mizzen topsail that is proportionately large - which is what we see in the painting. MacGregor also states that a sister ship of the Earl of Pembroke had the mizzen stepped on a block of wood that sat on top of the keelson - so offsetting a short height to some degree.
The article states "Late twentieth century research suggests the annotation may be a transcription error with "19 yards 29 inches" (18.1 m) being the true reading..." The reference for this is Marquardt - but it is not clear if he is reporting the opinion of a number of maritime historians or simply his own findings. If the latter, the article would certainly be misdirecting the reader on how widely it is accepted that there was a transcription error. On the face of it, we have MacGregor, who is known for meticulous detailed research on the design of sailing ships of all types, against Marquardt, whose primary interest is in model-making. What does the cited reference actually say on the matter? How does this match with the near contemporary painting? How likely is it that a clerk in the Admiralty dockyards would have made a mistake in recording lengths of spars - when that is what he did for a living? At present, I feel that the article reads as though Wikipedia thinks the historic record is a mistake - but possibly without good evidence that it is. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorter mizzen mast height supported by 1794 illustration in the article 

message: There are some options to improve the readability of this article.
The first would be to use  for the footnotes. That would mean that the reader would be able to use a mouseover to display the text of the note, rather than clicking the superscript to travel to the footnotes section and then the footnote number to return to the place where they were reading. It would resolve the (to me) bizarre ordering of the footnotes, which would more usually follows the order in which they arise in the main text. It would also comply with the warning in  "This is no longer the recommended method of citing sources. If a note list separate from the list of references is desired, ,  and  may be used". I recommend  as it is much more common than the other two options quoted here (202,000 versus 34,000 and 4,600 articles).
The second would be to use a template such as  for the references. The mouseover functionality allows the reader to see the full reference (as a simple two step process) without moving away from the point in the article where the reference occurs. This is important as at present, if you want to know the full reference you have to manually go to the References section and then find your own way back to your point in the main text. Since the full references make use of various cite templates, half the work of making the necessary changes has already been done. We already see  being used in the article for the reference Tracking Apollo to the Moon, so the article has an inbuilt demonstration of the functionality.
I appreciate that some editors have strong opinions about referencing methods. However, I feel these changes would improve the article for the reader. What do others think? ThoughtIdRetired  TIR 19:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In absence of any comment, I have gone ahead with the change to  as this seems less contentious. I will wait a little while longer to see if there are any opinions on changing to  for references. ThoughtIdRetired  TIR 18:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving readability