Talk:HMS Cornwall (1692)

Military history: Maritime / British / European

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 has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion 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

Cornwall Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:

Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!

This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help!

The pointlessness of an image box

I have commented-out the image block, as it doesn't make any sense at all to have one here. 3rd-rate ships wouldn't have been painted (or at the very least, rather unlikely to have been), and it was scrapped in 1761. Let's be rational in applying policy (or, rather, suggested guidelines which have been written, approved, and followed by a Special Interest Group without other input).

But please revert me if I'm proving myself a fool. :-)

James F. (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible. Putting an image marker is fine, if it is an article where there's a fair chance of someone sourcing one some time soon. But in cases like this it will probably leave us with an ugly big box for years. If some wikiproject is demanding that, then they clearly need to rethink.--Doc^g 17:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested at WT:SHIPS that the word photo be substituted for image, as it would make more sense, I agree. The use of the image though is intended to allow us to identify articles that currently lack images. Your input is of course most welcome in that particular discussion. Martocticvs (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although, the idea that a third rate wouldn't have been painted is actually completely wrong - a great many ships other than first rates were painted for whatever reason. Martocticvs (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "image" should be substituted for "photograph". However my point remains, whilst many such ships may have been painted, there is absolutely no way of knowing that this one was. Thus an ugly big box, bigger than any other text in the article, might remain indefinitely. That's not good. If you need a list of ships without images, there is surely a much less ugly way of generating that.--Doc^g 17:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, my mistake (typing too fast). I think your input would be valued at the WP:Ships discussion, WT:SHIPS#No Photo or No Image? as we are attempting to decide the best way around this issue, and still be able to keep track of articles lacking images. Martocticvs (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]