This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Continental Navy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
As you'll notice, I have significantly increased the size and scope of the article as well as adding a number of new images. This article at the current date (5/24/06) remains under construction as I plan the new sections I have in mind, so please bare with the manipulations as the article is toyed with to make it look efficient, professional, and ship-shape. Auror 00:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find reference anywhere to Continental Navy ships with these names. Perhaps they were privateers rather than commissioned vessels? Jinian21:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I designed the article to revolve around ships' combat records, not individual officers' achievements. If one seeks to know the commanders of the Alliance, one merely has to click the pertinent link and find information on Barry. If the reader must know even more history on Barry, they have only to click Barry's link. A ship-based format showcases strategy better than fluid officer's combat biographies. The captains change ships, retire etc. but the ships continue service unless noted. Auror 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That explaination does not seem to account for the numerous mentions of Paul Jones as a captain, nor John Adams, as political oversight. Surely the just and defensible mentions of Adams are proof that a navy is much more than just the ships. Despte design, it seems that a number of captains besides Paul Jones have at least a mention. The suggestion that a reader of this article would already have enough knowledge of history to know to look for Barry elsewhere on the Alliance is dubious, as well. Surely, the man is more well-known than the ship in this case. Would not Barry, as commander of the last Continental ship of the war to engage the British, and a victory to boot, alone be worthy of mention? Shoreranger21:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly an addition just to get Barry's name in there is not opposed on this end, though I may disagree on the note of his fame compared to his ship as well as his overall importance. You'll notice that the only section heavy in officer mentionings is the foreign service section where certainly the name John Paul Jones is far more notable than Bonhomme Richard or Serapis, likewise with Wickes and Conyngham. Auror 01:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not "just to get Barry's name in there." Besides the historical significance of a generally successful high-reanking officer in a war (not to mention a branch of military) which did not see many victories, in addition to the significance of the final naval battle and victory, Barry's career was much longer and fruitful and provides continuity and a bridge between the Continental Navy and the US Navy which Jones and just about anyone else cannot claim. Therefore, since you write you are not opposed, I will draft a contribution of suitable length for the article and add it when convenient. Shoreranger19:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]