Talk:HMS Speedy (1782)

message: Added info on the apparent fate of Speedy following capture by the French Duncan (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fate

message: The infobox needs reworking. Currently, it give the impression that Speedy spent her entire career with the Royal Navy, which is not the case. One question that does need answering is what is the correct flag for the Papal Navy? Is it that of the Vatican, or a different one? Mjroots (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Using old flag of the Papal States as that is correct for the period. Infobox now expanded to show full career. Mjroots (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: According to Spanish accounts about the event, the convoy was composed by 8 small merchant craft, 3 lightly armed feluccas and a 160-ton, 16-gun privateer xebec. Moreover, it seems that Speedy and Kangaroo failed to achieve their goal, since the Spanish commander, Fernando Dominicis, ordered all his vessels to be driven ashore, where 2 cannons of Oropesa's tower gave them additional cover, contributing to reject the attack. Except two vessels which were taken by the British and later set fire and abandoned (being one of them salvaged by 4 Spanish schooners), the convoy continued its passage unmolested and having lost only 1 sailor killed and another 2 wounded. The account given in the article is very different... ElBufon (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the action of Oropesa 

message: Where should the word link? The city of Koper (historically called Caprea)? --Eleassar my talk 00:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Caprea

message: My change of Peterel to Peterell has been undone. The spelling of the ship's name at the time was Peterell (London Gazette). We should not rewrite history by changing names to suit the modern parlance. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:PSTS.  Spellings were much more flexible in the 18th century than now, and historians know not to take spellings from newspapers of the time as definitive.  That's why Wikipedia has a "secondary sources" policy: to remind us that we're not trained as historians, and we need to accept their opinions, rather than reading the original documents and making our own calls.  Does anyone have additional scholarly secondary sources that give a spelling? - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, someone already asked to verify the spelling in the FAC earlier and I did; I checked multiple sources and the spelling matches the source cited. Kirk (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also spelled Peterell in contemporary issues of The Times, such as 20-5-1788. As we're discussing a C18th ship, we should use C18th names. Mjroots (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your reasoning - the idea behind WP:PSTS is to rely on professionals to do the synthesis for us; you've decided to do your own research and synthesize a different answer. Dank, additional sources: Source1 source2. Kirk (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My reasoning is that we don't change history. Therefore Greenwich was in Kent if we are talking about dates before 1888. Liverpool and Manchester were in Lancashire until 1974. We use historic flags where appropriate, instead of defaulting to the current one. Changing names to modern spellings, to my mind, comes under this. College is as reliable source as Winfield, is he not? Therefore we have a modern secondary source using the contemporary name, as well as the reporting in contemporary newspapers. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No my point is that what we do not have here is a contemporary spelling and a modern spelling. We have two alternative spellings. Churchill's The life of Lord Viscount Nelson, duke of Bronté, published in 1808, used Peterel, as does a volume of the Universal Magazine published in 1796. Nelson, in his dispatches, uses Peterel on a number of occasions, and he'd be one to know since she was under his orders at the time. Some modern sources use one version of the spelling, some use the other. Benea (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you've convinced me. If Nelson used both spellings then maybe a note in this article re the alternative spelling would suffice. The issue of the naming of the ship can be fully covered when an article is created on the ship. Mjroots (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I don't think a note is necessary in this case; maybe if the article for that ship ever gets created beyond a stub it could be noted, or maybe a note in the DAB article, since its , and using that spelling for the first two versions, and cites Colledge. Kirk (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Peterel or Peterell?

message: So Lord Cochrane was appointed in March 1800,   and in May 1800 he was involved in actions near Italy.
But the article about George Caley,  the botanist,  claims he arrived at Sydney on this ship in April 1800.    Now speedy as it may be,   this ship cannot sail from Europe to Australia and back in two months.  So something is wrong here.Eregli bob (talk) 05:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Could well be a different Speedy.  Do you have a citation that would enable me to do some follow-up research? Acad Ronin (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No question that it's a different Speedy, this one was never in Australia. The link was made here by , changing it from the plain Speedy, which is another ship just of the same name, in existence in the same time period. There was another HMS Speedy (1798) in existence in 1800, he could just as well have linked to that one, and then have you wonder how that ship ever left the Great Lakes. The relevant entry in the adb has the same wording - 'Caley sailed from Plymouth in the Speedy, arrived in Sydney in April 1800'. It's a ship named Speedy, it's most likely this one - Speedy (1779), which is recorded as having arrived in Sydney on 15 April 1800. Another good example of how a little basic research when making links in the first place will avoid confusion. Benea (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: Great job making this a featured article! I'm a big P O'B fan so I got really excited when I saw the ship that inspired the Sophie on the main page - just wanted to let y'all know I appreciated your work. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great job! 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :HMS Speedy (1782)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "WR":
From French frigate Sérieuse (1779): Wifield and Roberts (2015), p.125.
From Action of 31 May 1796: Winfield and Roberts (2015 forthcoming), Chap. 9.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:HMS Speedy (1782)]] 

message: Cochrane has the largest and the strongest pockets in the world, to carry fourteen kilos of metal in his trousers... Is this really serious or is this an old marine joke ? Or maybe i didn't understand the term "pockets"...--Sammyday (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The page does not say that it is in his trousers. Most likely in the pockets of his coat. The year is 1800. And the fact (true or not) was notable enough to have been noted. So, yes this is serious.--Joe McNeill (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large pockets : question 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :French ship Saint Pierre and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 7#French ship Saint Pierre until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "French ship Saint Pierre" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]