Talk:Original six frigates of the United States Navy

message: While the British broke up Chesapeake, its timbers were auctioned off and sold to construct what is known as Chesapeake Mill. This mill exists to this day.  67.172.25.52 (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a note in regards to the US ship Chesapeake 

message: With reference to ship status/classification? what is "in ordinary" .... what is a "receiving ship"? These need links. The Ship Commissioning article and the "lifecycle of a navy ship" bottom nav box don't seem to cover these concepts. (note that I see "in ordinary" in a LOT of USN related articles, and it's never linked that I have noticed... this may be due to the writers all knowing what it means but we landlubbers do not...) Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 00:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fancy meeting you here! I've added interwiki links to both. Briefly, "in ordinary" means in reserve - literally deactivated (no armament, no stores, no crew), and often actually decommissioned as well. Receiving ships were used to bunk new recruits offshore, to keep them from running off once they found out that the Navy was hard work! I'll remind folks to be a bit more liberal with the linking :) Maralia (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classifications 

message: She is still afloat in Baltimore Harbor!  74.243.194.192 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: is in Baltimore Harbor and not . --Brad (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the USS Constellation ?! 

message: In trying to follow ship naming convention somewhat more closely I believe the article title should be Original six frigates of the United States Navy or perhaps The original six frigates of the United States Navy. Thoughts welcome. --Brad (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: --Brad (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think perhaps the article should be renamed again. The frigates are referred too as Humphreys frigates" because of the designer, Joshua Humphreys. My source is the Naval Academy Illustrated History of the United States Navy, written by E.B. Potter, a professor of Naval History at the United States Naval Academy.76.235.196.213 (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In point of fact, USS Chesapeake was designed and built by Josiah Fox; so they were not all the work of Joshua Humphreys. See Toll, Six Frigates pp. 138 & 289.  Jrt989 (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Josiah Fox article indicates he worked under Humphreys, as part of his design and construction team, and not independently. His alterations for USS Chesapeak were unique and unathorized, but not enough to challenge that Humphreys is labeled as the designer of all six frigates, even in Fox's article.76.236.182.38 (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Since en.wikipedia has articles on ships from many different countries it's important to name articles so that they identify the subject. So type of ship, country of origin and military branch has to be kept in mind for the title. In all of the reading I did for Constitution there never was any common term used for them except for references to original frigates or the first six frigates and mostly the Naval act of 1794. --Brad (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming proposal 

message: Some controversial additions to this article regarding the ship described as a  along with Constellation class and Chesapeake class. The references were:
*
*
The conversation about these additions took place on  talk page here. The consensus gathered there between myself and Bellhalla seems to point towards the naming as a modern day interpretation of 44-gun and 38-gun frigates. Archimedean has not responded to the conversation but it was suggested that this article might benefit from a mention of modern day interpretations. --Brad (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I have never seen classes assigned for these ships except for 44-gun or 38-gun, it seems like any references that do something different are in the minority and it is telling that DANFS does not assign classes either. -MBK004 14:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that using a ship class infobox on this article confuses things but I didn't see any other way to do it. Maybe I can fit in one of my famous notes to the infobox and explain things. I'm not doubting that the references given are incorrect but there are so many sources that counter the idea these ships had named classes. --Brad (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think placing these ships into classes is taking a desire to re-write history along modern lines a little far.  Ships from that period, even if designed to a general plan, were always unique in practice.  I vote that they should be classified simply as 44-gun or 38-gun frigates, and left at that. Jrt989 (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Named classes for these frigates 

message: I see that when 44 or 36 is pluralized, an apostrophe is used.  Since the intent is to describe a plural noun, rather than to indicate the possessive, would anyone object to my removing the apostrophes, yielding 44s instead of 44's, etc? --Badger151 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be the correct way. --Brad (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of apostrophe-s 

message: The article says that each gun needed a crew of 12 men. Assuming 40 guns, this results in 480 men needed just for the guns, more than the entire crew. Could somebody explain?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.148.35 (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, no that isn't correct.Tirronan (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well shut my mouth!  It is correct and here is the documentation on it.http://www.2ndfloridalightartillery.com/Documents/NavalGunDrill.pdf and so that you know, no more than 1/2 the guns were manned as typically you only fought 1 side at a time.Tirronan (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as it stands now explains that if both sides of the ship were engaged the gun crews had to be divided. Each team was responsible for a gun but were usually assigned other duties. Brad (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun crew size 

message: I am not the one who described the Constitution’s main batter as having “24-pounder guns in her main battery” however I do agree, in fact it is common knowledge and isn’t controversial. I have read a lot on the subject and nobody has ever claimed anything different. The way I see it, the requirement for citation would only be appropriate if someone were trying to claim something else.
Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of her referred to as anythng other than a 44, 24lber frigate, either, but someone thought it important enough to question.  You and I are in the know, I guess, but as an encyclopedia we have to cater to those who aren't.  In any event, I cited the Navy's fact file on the ship, which should suffice. --Badger151 (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning the request for citation about main battery 

message: Short Bet #53: What's your wager that I'm absolutely, without question...Positively Codified right on this one. ~~Dutch. The Apollo Seed (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  $688,888.82: Establishing the United States Earned Value Management Baseline. 

message: I've reverted a good faith edit that the USS Constellation currently preserved in Baltimore was in fact a rebuild of the original Constellation. It is in fact not. 1850 Sloops of War were built differently and plans and a model half hull support this. If this becomes an issue I have documentation as to the facts I can present. Please do not change the article again without one hell of a lot of documentation. Tirronan (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been wanting to make this post for awhile now and since HansMair seems to be convinced that Footner is the end all of any further discussion. There are several places I could have posted, but a centralized discussion here seems to be the best solution. The 'old ship vs new ship' camps have been arguing their points for decades but WP articles must remain neutral and present both sides equally. We cannot just decide to choose one over the other. The Wegner report Fouled Anchors is the most accepted version of the ship's history. In the years after the report was published, the US Navy changed its Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships article about Constellation and split it into two articles 12 reflecting different ships. The modern website of the current Baltimore ship makes no claims to the 1797 heritage. Again, there is no right or wrong in regards to the ship's histories. Brad 20:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assertions that the USS Constellation is the original rebuilt