Talk:HMS Yarmouth (1695)

Military history: Maritime / British / European Start‑class

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Ships

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

Merger proposal[edit]

This article and HMS Yarmouth (1694) appear to be referring to the same ship. There is a difference in launch year that seems to have caused the duplication - which is correct? Martocticvs (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colledge uses 7 January 1695. Rif has written his new book on the navy of this period, so he probably has the clearest idea of any of us. A note to him might clarify the matter some more though. Lavery has occasionally made this sort of error before. Benea (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing this to my attention, Ben. In fact, this is one of Brian Lavery's few slips, and the real culprit is the Julian calendar. As you may know, until Britain adopted the Gregorian calendar in September 1752, the beginning of the new year was 25th March rather than the modern 1 January. Thus in the contemporary records the day following 31st December 1694 was shown as 1st January 1694, and the day following 24th March 1694 was 25th March 1695. Sometimes the dates between 1st January and 24th March were recorded with both years indicated, e.g. "1694/5" or "1694/95", but this was not always done. In September 1752, when the Gregorian Calendar was adopted in Britain (so that 11 days were omitted and 2nd September was followed by 14th September), the beginning of the new year was moved from 25th March to 1st January.

Normal practice among historians is to automatically adjust the end of the year, so that for dates recorded between 1st January and 24th March the 'modern' method is shown, e.g. "1694" or "1694/5" or "1694/95" is adjusted to "1695" - because it gets too confusing to explain otherwise. In the case of the Yarmouth, her launch date is recorded as 7.1.1694/95, so I would ask you to merge any material into the article for HMS Yarmouth (1695) and remove the title of HMS Yarmouth (1694), adjusting any links accordingly. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for that, Rif... I wondered whether it might have been that when Benea brought it up again yesterday. Martocticvs (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rapid reply. Incidentally, while you correctly show her measurements/tonnage as built in 1695, I notice that you do not include measurements as rebuilt in 1707-09. She emerged still 150ft on the gundeck, but with the keel shortened to 123ft 4in and the breadth and depth in hold enlarged to 41ft 1¾in and17ft 4in respectiovely, so that her tonnage became 1,110 60/94 bm. I leave you to amend the article accordingly. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following this discussion, I've merged hopefully all of the details not already covered in the 1695 article from the 1694 one, and redirected that to here. Apologies if I've left anything out, or confused any details in doing so, a quick check by someone else to make sure this hasn't happened, and the details are as accurate as they can be may be a good idea. Benea (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and following the discussion at WT:SHIPS, I've fiddled with the tonnage/tons burthen to remove the conversions per the consensus that seemed to be reached. Hope that's ok! Benea (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]