Talk:Ship of the line

message: "Although Spain, the Netherlands, and France built huge fleets, and in France's case even with better ships, they were rarely able to match the skill of British naval crews."
From what I've read, this is untrue: http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-057.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.84.26 (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: French Shipbuilding

message: The rating system should perhaps have its own page. Stan Shebs 17:30 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)
The rating system needs a brief overview of who used it and when, for example "The rating system given in this table was used by the Royal Navy from the 17th century to the 19th century." And something about how it related to the rating systems (if any) used by other navies. Gdr 13:07, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)
:Moved rating system to Rating system of the Royal Navy and moved first-rate article with pictures to here. Petersam 03:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating system

message: The structure and layout is very good; no changes need to be done with it.  But it could use some more information within each subsection:
*Brief descriptions of Sovereign of the Seas and Mary Rose and Vasa perhaps.
*Descriptions of significant battles in which these ships operated.
*More info regarding any existing ships; Vasa and Mary Rose need to be briefly touched upon.
Carajou 23:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's about right; and more about the decline of the ship-of-the-line. Is here the right place to talk about the fleeting introduction of screw-powered ships? The Land 11:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would think so, like something that goes with the last picture.  Carajou 12:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some additions needed

message: Under the section "Today", HMS Victory is classed as the "only original ship-of-the-line remaining today".  There is the 5th rate 46 gun frigate Trincomalee at Hartlepool Historic Quay.  Was a fifth rate ship classed as a ship of the line?
:No.  Frigates, by definition, were not to stand in the line.  They were used for reconnaissance, relaying signals, escorting merchant convoys, and for fast courier service.  The required number of guns for a ship of the line changed over time, but by the late 18th century 64 guns was the minimum.  Pirate Dan 14:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only argument against the Victory would be the status of the USS Constitution, which was called a 44-gun frigate by the USN even though it carried upwards of 60 guns into battle. The Royal Navy regarded it as a fourth-rate, which can be a ship of the line, and ordered its frigates not to fight it or any other USN ship of its class. Of course, the USN never fought in line of battle, and the Victory was/is a first-rate with 104 or more guns. It's clearly a ship of the line without splitting hairs. Jsc1973 (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship-of-the-line and frigate 

message: In the Ottoman archives, the size of Mahmudiye (1829) is given as 201 x 56 kadem (1 kadem = 37.887 cm) or 76.15 × 21.22 m (249.8 × 69.6 ft). The ship carried 1,280 sailors on board. These figures would make it the largest ever ship-of-the-line in history (even larger than Valmy). 
However, in some sources, the dimensions are given as 62x17x7m.
Can an enthusiast of the subject determine which of these measures are correct? 88.242.37.64 (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood the reason: 201 x 56 "kadem" is often mistranslated as "feet", but "kadem" and "feet" are not exactly the same. 201 x 56 "feet" = 62 x 17 m. But, 201 x 56 "kadem" = 76.15 x 21.22 m (the correct size). 78.176.105.37 (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahmudiye (1829) 

message: The links for lists of ships by nation all state the relevant nation, except one. The ships list for the British Royal Navy is listed as just "the Royal Navy", as though there were only one navy that deserves the title "Royal".108.207.121.139 (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not prejudice, it is normal usage. See Royal Navy: "Due to ... historical prominence, it is common – even among non-Britons – to refer to it as "The Royal Navy" without qualification." Shem (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: National Prejudice Issue

message: This article has only 11 inline citations, for an article with a lot of text and many sweeping statements. Relying on a bibliography does not substitute for a proper citation for statements like the ones marked in the lead with the citation needed flag, and so many other in the body of the article. Examples of sentences of fact or judgment that would do well with a citation include
:This aspect of the cog was kept in the newer style carrack designs and proved its worth in battles like that at Diu in 1509.
:With the growing importance of colonies and exploration and the need to maintain trade routes across stormy oceans, galleys and galleasses (a larger, higher type of galley with side-mounted guns, but lower than a galleon) were used less and less, and only in ever more restricted purposes and areas, that by about 1750, with a few notable exceptions, they were of little use in naval battles.
:As broadsides became increasingly dominant in battle, tactics changed. 
All these are before the very first inline citation.
:The adoption of line-of-battle tactics had consequences for ship design.
:The largest sailing three-decker ship of the line ever built in the West was the French Valmy, launched in 1847.
There are more places needing inline citations. There are many wikilinks to specific ships, battles and wars, but it is not clear that any of them would support the main points of this article so as to replace the need for the inline citations.   --Prairieplant (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  very few inline citations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ship of the line. 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/20070528195028/http://www.cronab.demon.co.uk/gen1.htm to http://www.cronab.demon.co.uk/gen1.htm
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) 15:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified