Talk:Rating system of the Royal Navy
Reason for creation of this page
Moved the rating system of the Royal Navy table from ship of the line as suggested (Talk:Ship of the line) and because many other pages (mostly sailing ships) have rating links to the previously individual rating pages. Also merged all six rating pages (which were mostly stubs) here so that readers can easily compare the six different ratings in one place. The sixth-rate page was in process of being moved to Wiktionary. Moved the pictures from the First-rate page to ship of the line to speed loading of this page Petersam 03:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think all the redirecting - what's happened is that six short but succinct articles have been made into a giant indigestible blob. Think about the reader - if the reader wants to know what a "third-rate" was, he/she wants to see "a third-rate is a type of ship of size X", not a lengthy list of types and tables. The individual articles should link to this overall discussion/table, for the benefit of those readers who are interested in the overall concept. Remember, this is a hyperlinked encyclopedia, long multi-subject articles are counterproductive. Stan 02:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Good points. A picture or table is worth a thousand words. I've removed all the text from the separate sections that could be easily found in the table. The table also shows the differences better than what can be stated in the sections. The ship references have been moved to their respective pages ship of the line or frigate making those articles more richer (more editing to be done later!) And I reduced the rate descriptions to the basic minimums so the reader knows how they are different. Readers can go the the 2 other articles for more information. The sixth-rate article of 26 Aug 2004 had a Move to Wiktionary template placed on it because it was so small and most of the others were also small. The first-rate article was not short or succinct so readers may not find what they wanted very fast. Also, the six rate pages were of different lengths and the first-rate and fourth-rate articles include ships that probably should have been placed in other articles instead (see all rate pages together). So, I think I now have one short, but succinct article about the rating system which does answer what the reader wants to know what a "third-rate" was and that "a third-rate is a type of ship of size X" and also can see how that third-rate ship compares with other rate ships. ..............OOPS! (in response to recent Stan message)...... I'm a newbie and perhaps was a little too bold? (Gotta to read that page again!} I saw your original comment on the ship of the line page to move the rating system to a separate page (Talk:Ship of the line) and I thought it would be also a good idea to combine all the rate pages together after checking the separate talk pages for any problems (only the first-rate page had comments). Right now it is getting much too late for me!! I need to sign off now, so I'll expect more comments later. I expect I'll be doing a lot more editing soon. (Boy, this place can sure be addicting!!!.... Petersam 07:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The net effect is that you deleted a bunch of content, plus which there is more to say about each individual rate (construction particulars for instance), plus it doesn't work with the categorization system. When thinking about merging articles, one important thing to consider is whether the article is small because it's new and needs more content, or it will always be small. In the case of the RN rates, all have much to say about them - rationale, evolution, employment, plus a picture or two so we can see what they looked like. This article should be about the system as a whole (who introduced it and why? When did it go out of use? How did it compare to other nations' systems?) - once you have adequate treatment of all that, plus the two screenfuls with two representative pictures per rate, that's a pretty hefty article, no longer easy for reader to get the basic definition of "third-rate". When considering organization like this, it's worthwhile to look at history of all the articles concerned, and maybe query the editors who set it up, because what you've effectively done is to destroy article structure that I and others carefully set up some time ago. Talk pages are mostly used for debate, so lack of talk page bits combined with multiple editors in history indicates that all the editors agreed perfectly, no need to discuss. Stan 08:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oops! and Great points!! I will revert the rate pages back again by tonight. I'll add a sentence at the top of each page which will tell the readers that it is one part of six parts which make up the rating system for the RN which should address the "move to wikitionary" issue on the sixth-rate page. Sorry for creating all these problems as a newbie learning the hard way. Perhaps we can get together in the virtual ship's gallery later over some virtual chow -- I have a lot of hash we can use Petersam 18:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The net effect is that you deleted a bunch of content, plus which there is more to say about each individual rate (construction particulars for instance), plus it doesn't work with the categorization system. When thinking about merging articles, one important thing to consider is whether the article is small because it's new and needs more content, or it will always be small. In the case of the RN rates, all have much to say about them - rationale, evolution, employment, plus a picture or two so we can see what they looked like. This article should be about the system as a whole (who introduced it and why? When did it go out of use? How did it compare to other nations' systems?) - once you have adequate treatment of all that, plus the two screenfuls with two representative pictures per rate, that's a pretty hefty article, no longer easy for reader to get the basic definition of "third-rate". When considering organization like this, it's worthwhile to look at history of all the articles concerned, and maybe query the editors who set it up, because what you've effectively done is to destroy article structure that I and others carefully set up some time ago. Talk pages are mostly used for debate, so lack of talk page bits combined with multiple editors in history indicates that all the editors agreed perfectly, no need to discuss. Stan 08:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Good points. A picture or table is worth a thousand words. I've removed all the text from the separate sections that could be easily found in the table. The table also shows the differences better than what can be stated in the sections. The ship references have been moved to their respective pages ship of the line or frigate making those articles more richer (more editing to be done later!) And I reduced the rate descriptions to the basic minimums so the reader knows how they are different. Readers can go the the 2 other articles for more information. The sixth-rate article of 26 Aug 2004 had a Move to Wiktionary template placed on it because it was so small and most of the others were also small. The first-rate article was not short or succinct so readers may not find what they wanted very fast. Also, the six rate pages were of different lengths and the first-rate and fourth-rate articles include ships that probably should have been placed in other articles instead (see all rate pages together). So, I think I now have one short, but succinct article about the rating system which does answer what the reader wants to know what a "third-rate" was and that "a third-rate is a type of ship of size X" and also can see how that third-rate ship compares with other rate ships. ..............OOPS! (in response to recent Stan message)...... I'm a newbie and perhaps was a little too bold? (Gotta to read that page again!} I saw your original comment on the ship of the line page to move the rating system to a separate page (Talk:Ship of the line) and I thought it would be also a good idea to combine all the rate pages together after checking the separate talk pages for any problems (only the first-rate page had comments). Right now it is getting much too late for me!! I need to sign off now, so I'll expect more comments later. I expect I'll be doing a lot more editing soon. (Boy, this place can sure be addicting!!!.... Petersam 07:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Talk:First-rate
Copied from the only rate page which had any talk on it. Petersam 03:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
These should maybe be "first rate", without the hyphen. I don't know of a rule, noun vs adjective or whatever, but usage seems to lean more towards omitting the hyphen. Stan Shebs 18:38 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)
The article claims the lowest deck was useless in all but the calmest weather. That would be true when attacking (from windward), but surely the lowest deck would often be usable when defending against a windward attacker because the heel of the ships would then be favourable? The article also claims that "first-rate" meaning "excellent" derives from "first-rate ship". Is that really so? Gdr 19:06, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)
- Ship bobs up and down, and likely needs to turn at various angles to the wind, plus the heel would only raise the gunports by a couple feet. It would be an exceedingly bold captain who would run the risk of being swamped, especially with the admiral glaring at him. Etymology of "first-rate" as adjective is attested by OED - in fact the first references in literature begin appearing within a couple decades of the introduction of the rating system. OED reports without attempting to explain, but one can imagine captains at parties and balls bragging or complaining about the rate of ship they got, and sharp-eared wits picking up on it, just as today's writers use computer slang for their own purposes. Stan 21:09, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)