This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ships B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Military history: Maritime / Memorials / African / North America / United States / Napoleonic era B‑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 B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force Military memorials and cemeteries task force African military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815) United States: Massachusetts / Boston This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Museums B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. National Register of Historic Places B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Maintained

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Information on Victory is in the intro and need not be repeated later in the text. Jinian 14:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I keep thinking the information on Victory needs to be further down.--J Clear 16:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speaking of the Victory, I'm re-arranging that part of the intro for better flow.--Raguleader 20:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more in terms of moving any mention of Victory out of the intro. Put the Victory exlaination down in the history section. I don't mean to ignore it, just having parenthetical info in the intro dilutes the intro. Look where the Victory article mentions the Constitution--J Clear 00:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made my change. We have sufficient qualifiers in the intro, and Victory is not ignored. I added emphasis on afloat in the intro. Does anyone know if we need to change ship to warship in the oldest commissioned afloat claim? Are there older non-naval ships in commission?--J Clear 00:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google reveals nothing that beats Constitution's record, so we might as well leave it as it is for now unless someone comes up with something to contradict it.--Raguleader 02:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added a few paragraphs about the HMS Victory towards the bottom of the page. While informative, it wasn't relevant to the article about USS Constitution, so I removed it. --Unsigned

I just reverted a change that put HMS Victory back in the intro. The relation to Victory is adequately explained in the body of the article and there is no such mention of the Constitution in the Victory intro. Both articles make the correct claim and explain it in their body. I'm for keeping that symmetric arrangement unless someone has a persuasive reason to do otherwise.--J Clear 16:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can a ship still be "in service" when it's sitting in dry dock in a museum? That's rubbish. Ninquerinquar 20:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a commissioned warship of her Brittanic Majesty, is on the 'rolls' and is infact the flagship of the second sea lord. As such she is, despite her current permanent state of drydock, very much in service. Narson 20:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this is rather a disingenuous response, isn't it? It's a bit like saying "Even though my car is in a breaker's yard with no wheels, it is still in service because I have taxed and insured it." Want to see if Victory really IS in service? Hey! Open the flood-gates! Fill the dry dock! Make sail! (NB I'm a Brit) I suggest that this phrase about Victory being in service is pompous nit-picking and should be struck from this entry. RicardoJuanCarlos 18 October 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 08:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh. I think you will find any ship on the rolls is still in service. She is not sea worthy and totally obsolete, she is however still a comissioned warship and as I said before, she is the flagship of the second sea lord, last I checked. It is not a 'disingenuous' response, it is simply answering the facts. The definition of a ship being in service is not whether it can float but whether the navy states it as such. Or would you say the USS Cole stopped being in service the second it got a hole in its side (because it couldn't float/put to sea after that)? Narson 09:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm sure that it's strictly true that "...any ship on the rolls is still in service..." this is a distinction that's really only of academic interest. To the man on the top of the Clapham omnibus it is simply silly to suggest that a ship could be in service when it hasn't seen water in 85 years, and action in nearly TWO CENTURIES.RicardoJuanCarlos 15:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then arn't we lucky we are an encyclopedia and can enlighten people? (I also seriously doubt if the Constitution has seen combat in the same two centuries). Narson 15:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<deindent>If we are going to forgo mention of Victory in the lead, then without the explanation I think we should go for clarity and state constitution is the second oldest comissioned ship, then go into detail as to why she is the oldest in one regard (in that she is afloat) while not being the absolute oldest when other editors feel mention of other articles is permissable. Narson 05:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find this perfectly clear:

lead: "she is the oldest commissioned ship afloat in the world"

body: "While Constitution is the oldest fully commissioned vessel afloat, she is not the oldest commissioned. HMS Victory holds the honor of being the oldest commissioned warship by three decades, however Victory is permanently drydocked."

What exactly is lacking? Maralia 05:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was perfectly clear as it was with both in the lead. It provided context, without context we should go for the simpler (and equally true) statement and leave the more confusing one for when we can provide context. Narson 06:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck that. Realised I was just making a WP:POINT. I still think the lead was better with Victory mention in, mind. Narson 06:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (Edit conflict) Concur. I didn't realize until after I wrote my summary that the Victory was mentioned in the text. In the Victory article, it also mentions the Constitution in the main text, but not in the lead. - BillCJ 06:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution is more noted for being the oldest commissioned ship afloat, not as the second-oldest commissioned ship. Remeber, this article in not about the 'HMS Victory. The Lead ought to focus on the topic of the page, not introduce other tangents, unless they are absolutely necessary. - BillCJ 06:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, that the Constitution is the oldest commissioned vessel afloat is mentioned three times. I think that's overkill. Jhobson1 (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Victory is more important to Constitution than Constitution is to Victory, in that the Victory forces qualification of Constitution's 'record', where as Constitution forces no such qualification on Victory. I think a clearer lead is important, however removing this info, in my opinion, reduces the clarity. However, as you will note, I reverted the anon's second removal of the information (annother editor had reverted his deletion earlier) but when the revert was reverted I ceased, I will not force the issue and leave it up to other editors. Narson 06:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Constitution is just as important to Victory as vice versa, given the nature of what constitutes a ship. If you want a qualification about Victory in the intro to an article about Constitution, then there's just as much reason to put a qualification about Constitution in the intro about Victory. Yes, I put a corresponding footnote in Victory's intro and it got pulled almost instantaneously as irrelevent - therefore such a footnote in Constitution's intro is just as irrelevent. Mentioning Cole in this context is a bit odd as she is currently alive and well serving at sea having been repaired and put back into service - when Victory is back in the water and able to set sail, I'd be more than happy to see the qualifications removed in both articles and Constitution can then just be the second-oldest commissioned warship. Until then, Constitution is the oldest commissioned warship afloat and Victory is the oldest commissioned warship, er, not. 08:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.25.86 (talk)

First of all, its important to know that while comparing wikipedia articles can be useful, they do not provide precedents for one annother. My mentioning of the USS Cole was in reference to the claim that HMS Victory is not in service due to it being unseaworthy and that such a measure would be awkward as it would mean ships would constantly be jumping from service to not in service in any kind of combat, so being in service should be defined simply by being on the respective rolls of the country in which is serves. I don't see how Constitution in any way impacts Victory however, to back up your assertion that it should be a both or neither. If Constitution was blown up tommorow, what would change for Victory? Sweet F A. She would still be the oldest comissioned ship. On the contrast, if Victory was blown up, Constitution would get the asterisk removed from its record. Narson 09:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm not asserting anything. It's pretty clear that Constitution is the oldest commissioned warship afloat (which doesn't need any clarification relative to Victory) and that Victory, while the oldest commissioned warship, is in permanent drydock (which again doesn't require any clarification relative to Constitution). If Victory were to be decommissioned, Constitution would still be the oldest commissioned warship afloat. If Constitution were decommissioned (I'd avoid talking about things blowing up, etc.), then Victory would still be the oldest commissioned warship, but permanently drydocked. Both ships have asterisks by their names. 15:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.25.86 (talk)

Reverted the footnote about HMS Victory in the intro since there is no similar footnote in the HMS Victory article pointing out that USS Constitution is still afloat and Victory is on dry land - both articles point out their relative status later on. jmdeur 22:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe if you look at the Various Nimitz class and USS Enterprise (CVN 65) carriers you will see that they also sank enemy gunboats, missile boats and other surface ships with their aircraft. Aircraft are one of the many weapons a Carrier has on board. Now with direct missile or gunfire, I would say the statement is correct which is that the USS Constitution and USS Simpson are the only two ships to had sank enemy ships with Direct Gunfire or Direct Missile Fire.Magnum Serpentine 15:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well after making sure I was logged in before writting the above, I totally forgot to sign my post. I totally apologizeMagnum Serpentine 15:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that USS Constitution is one of four ships that have sunk enemy ships. The other three ships are USS Simpson (FFG-56), USS Porter (DDG-78) and USS Carter Hall (LSD-50). I think they sunk enemy ships from direct gunfire or missile fire but there might be other ships in US navy that have sunk ships through the use of aircrafts. Hope this help.

Noneforall (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put citations in where the three other ships besides Constitution have "sunk enemy ships" though I believe we're stretching it a bit. Some pirate skiffs were sunk by gunfire but a skiff could likely be sunk with a shotgun and not need a Navy destroyer to do the job. This is also a hair splitting claim since we have to use the disclaimer regarding sinking by aircraft or sinking by weapons fired from a ship. That along with the hair splitting over "oldest commissioned warship afloat" is beginning to make this article a bit silly. --Brad (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution herself is a ship of the line in the sense that she is a...4th Rate Ship Of The Line, IIRC. Not sure what this sentence adds (Though I wouldn't add in mention of 4th Rate as its a British measuring system, and I am sure carries negative connotation...just feel that this line is misleading). Would first rates be appropiate in this sentence, such as 'She was considered by many to be a capable opponent, even for First Rate Ships of the Line'? If so...how can we prove this? Britain deployed no first rate ships AFAIK to the Americas during the war of 1812, so isn't this just opinion, similar to someone putting 'Beckham beats the pants off Brazilian footballers' in a football article? --Narson 00:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From my extensive research in the works of Forester, O'Brian, Kent, et. al., a frigate is not a "ship of the line". I believe over on HMS Victory, Nelson or the Battle of Trafalgar article, they mention "ship of the line" is only used with 1st through 3rd rates. Admitedly IX-21 was a "heavy" frigate, but had the US ever assembled a real sailing line of battle, she would have likely been out on the flanks like RN frigates of the era.

Frigates did not generally go one on one with better gunned "ships of the line", they were fast enough to escape them, so did. Had the Constitution been forced to slug it out with even a 3rd rate, we probably wouldn't have had her around to brag about. Think of Old Ironsides in boxing terms as the lightweight champion of the world for her day. You would not put her in the ring against a decent heavyweight boxer.

Was Old Ironsides the fastest and best gunned 4th rate of her day? Reminds me a bit of the Iowa's--J Clear 01:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do recall reading that she (and the other 5 American frigates built in that run) was faster and more heavily armed than her British opponents, and that this was a combination of engineering (she had a new style of structural support which made her sturdier than other ships of her size) and maintinance (most of the battles happened far from England and the British ships were suffering the various effects of long times at sea without refitting, while the American ships needed only to slip past a British blockade around their base to get into the theatre of battle)--Raguleader 22:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution and her sisters were heavier than the typical frigate of the day, and carried heavier weapons, too, which may be more to the point. I understand that the typical frigate of the time might have had 30 or 36 guns, which might have thrown 12 or 18lb balls. Constitution mounted 44 guns throwing 24lb shot. I think that the Americans also had much more timber and other raw materials available to them, enabling them to invest more of those materials into each individual ship. --Badger151 05:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution was rated a 44, but frequently that meant more than 44 guns were installed (present web site shows 54). Also all her guns are not 24 pounders. Most of the spar deck guns are 32 lb. carronades. ISTR reading the use of Live Oak in her construction was unusual, and contributed to her great strength ("iron sides"). I always wondered if Live Oak was simply not available to European boat builders.--J Clear 13:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While Constitution was rated a 44 and nominally carried primarily 24 pound cannons and 32 pound carronades, I understand that during the War of 1812, she typically carried around 60 guns of various types and calibres, rating from 12 pounds up to 32, and they also briefly experimented with mounting a howitzer on the quarterdeck, but found it to be impractical. Also, I'm not sure what was typical for a British frigate, but most of the ones I've read about being involved in engagements with American frigates tended to carry 28 guns at most.--Raguleader 22:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution would carr up to 60 guns into battle. Basically, she was armed to the teeth, and if properly handled, was almost unbeatable by any contemporary frigate. We know that when Constitution fought Guerriere, she carried 30 24-pounders, 24 32-pounders and one 18-pound gun. (http://aviationartstore.com/uss_constitution.htm) The Royal Navy regarded the Constitution and its sister ships as fourth-rates because of their armament and even went so far as to order their frigates not to engage in single-ship combat with them. 74.251.200.217 (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some looking around (admittedly, not an exhaustive search, nor anything like it,) but this site states that Royal Navy frigates during the Napoleanic war carried between 20 and 44 guns, throwing balls weighing up to 18 lbs each (I'm looking at the cannon, not the carronades). Unfortunately, it doesn't list its sources. I do remember Patrick O'Brian mentioning that Jack Aubrey's 28 gun Surprise, carrying either 9 or 12 lb cannon, was heavily outclassed by modern frigates. I forget exactly when Aubrey makes the remark, but it would have had to have been before 1820. Also, the in-house articles on the Guerriere and Java state that each carried 38 guns. HMS Shannon, who took the Chesapeake, also carried 38 guns.

The smallest line-of-battle ships in the Royal Navy were rated at 50 guns. Due to the poor quality of British ships of the era, [I]Constitution[/i] would have been more than a match for a 50-gunner in ship to ship duels, and equally effective in the battle line. The next step up were 64-gun ships, which would have a firepower advantage, but would lack maneuverability. Ironically, this lack would have been more fatal in the Nelsonian era than any other, because until Lord Rodney, maneuvering was sharply limited in fleet actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.5.169 (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, the armament of the USS Constitution varied greatly depending on which period of her service she was in (something that was particularly easy to change based on needs and resources back when all the cannons were tied to the deck, rather than being part of the ship). Is there any particular point in history when her armament is known to be what it is listed in the article? If so, it might be worth it to put a mention of that somewhere.--Raguleader 00:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I visited this fine ship last year she was sporting British cannons. They were clearly marked with the British crown and ordinance mark (arrow). This was especially strange as the guided tour made much of the USS Constitution's victory agaisnt the Royal Navy. When asked, the crew did not want to discuss.86.136.23.210 (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the guns on the Constitution today, but it is not unusual at all for US ships of her day to bear guns made elsewhere. The weapons might come through trade or through spoils. I expect they did not want to talk about it because they did not know... and "I don't know." is one of those things they are taught not to say. ;) I am curious. Anyone have any facts for this?

On a related subject... there is no main article for the armament of the Constitution that I can find, nor do I see it listed in AFD. I am going to search a bit more and if there is none, kill the link. It seems odd.sinneed (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, I was collecting references for what I thought was an originally written article but then I found this! Apparently it was copied word for word and then incorrectly attributed to DANFS which explains why I saw little if any DANFS text in the article and believed it to be substantially reworked. --Brad (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following was removed from the article and may be eligable for reinsertion if a source is provided. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In the video game, Crysis, a fictional Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier is named The Constitution

Eventually I'm going to eliminate the Faux trivia section by working in a couple of mentions to the main article and the rest will be dumped. Seems all we do is revert silly trivia and of course the frequent mention of Victory in the lead section. --Brad (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Constitution is one of only six presently commissioned ships in the U.S. Navy known to have sunk an enemy vessel. The other five are USS Simpson (FFG-56)^[1], USS Porter (DDG-78)^[2], USS Carter Hall (LSD-50)^[3][4][5], USS Cape St. George (CG-71) and USS Gonzalez (DDG-66).^{[citation needed]} She is the only ship in the world on active duty to have sunk an enemy with cannon fire.^{[citation needed]}

I've removed the above paragraph as it appears at this point that its nothing but original research as I've not been able to find any independent sources to cite this theory. Going around and counting how many ships have sunk something and comparing them to Constitution's record is unfortunately OR. --Brad (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• C. S. Forester's Hornblower and the Hotspur has Constitution berthed at Cadiz, Spain in 1803 during the mission against the Barbary States, where she plays a role in the "Doughty" subplot.^[6]

• Space Shuttle Enterprise (OV-101) was originally planned to have been named Constitution.^[7]

• In the fictional Star Trek universe there are Constitution class starships.^[8]

I've removed the three points above from "Pop Culture". I'm not familiar enough with Hornblower and the Hotspur to know if the depiction of Constitution is entirely fictional or not. If entirely fictional then not worth a mention. The other two points are barely worth mentioning either. The Space Shuttle was supposed to have been named Constitution but it wasn't. I see no use for the mention of Star Trek in tis article. Entire Pop section is now gone. --Brad (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In August, 1986 the Constitution was the site of a celebration held to honor the retirement of Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, who received the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the nations highest non-combat award. At the time of the award, Admiral Hopper was the oldest officer in the United States Navy (age 80), and aboard the oldest ship in the United States Navy (age 189).^[9]

Removed this mention. While Admiral Hopper is certainly notable, her retirement is not notable in the context of this article. Many, many retirements and reenlistments have taken place on board and I've tried to limit mentions of people visiting to only leaders of a particular country. --Brad (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2007 Constitution was armed below decks with cannons marked with the British crown and ordinance mark (arrow).^{[citation needed]}

Please site a source. --Brad (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a real cite, but a tour guide on board the ship said this was not true, even though the current cannons have the crown on them. He said the cannons that are currently on board the ship are replicas and at the time they were cast it was assumed that they had the crown on them because they were purchased from Britain. Later research showed this be inaccurate, but error wasn't fixed for the cannons that are on board. --sethaw —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My relevant refs are in storage, but I would be astonished if the cannon were replicas - even if this day and age, massive iron castings are not something you can run down and buy at Cannon Barn. :-) Very few countries had the technology to make such massive castings successfully; it would have been easier to buy large naval cannons "under the table" from Britain, and those would have had the monogram on them because it was a state-regulated business, much like high-tech weaponry today. I have pictures of the monograms on the cannons, is it OR to say "see, look at the photo"? Stan (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I was in Boston, but HMS Victory in Portsmouth has mostly plastic replicas, to decrease the strain on the decks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, guess they are replicas - look at the entries for 1907 and 1927 on http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/historyupdate.htm . Stan (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's called Great Guns instead of Cannon Barn, but you too can buy full-size replicas! - http://www.nvo.com/cannons/fiberglasscannons/list.nhtml . Stan (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember hearing from a teacher (many moons ago) that the hull was made with ironwood, alleged to be a very hard wood, and one reason enemy cannon balls seemed to bounce off. Brian Pearson (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That could be true but according to Carpinus caroliniana the tree is not very tall growing. I've only found one reference to that type of wood being used and its vague about where it was used. I don't think this wood was part of the hull but could have been used elsewhere. --Brad (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All my sources say oak and more oak. Anyway, the bouncing off is easily explained if you compare Constitutions framing - just a few inches between frames, where contemporary British ships had more widedly-spaced frames, and planks hardly thick enough to slow down a ball. :-) Stan (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to help with a copyedit review, and I just made some minor fixes to apostrophes and quotes where they were too close to the preceding italicized text. I noticed then that there is an inconsistency regarding use of the term Old Ironsides. The lead has it italicized in bold, "Old IronsidesTemplate:"pad, but it is styled normally later in the article. While the bold for the first instance is correct, I think it should always be normal type, see [McGraw-Hill's site] for example(bad example). The Navy site uses USS CONSTITUTION for the ship and "Old Ironsides" for the nickname, and other examples did not italicize the nickname. If an editor confirms my thinking and changes the bolded second paragraph example, the {{"pad}} template can be removed and replaced with a normal close quote mark. Sswonk (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would go with "Old Ironsides" in that second paragraph, bolding the quote marks as well. Sswonk (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The italics may have been left over from the old version of the article. Only the proper name Constitution should be in italics. --Brad (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "Old Ironsides". Good work on the article, by the way. I'll keep checking for typos, etc. Sswonk (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the wikilinked dates as I find them so if you see any please remove. --Brad (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also was planning to mention that but there is another issue as well. The dates are inconsistent. The infobox shows the style: September 17, 2008, yet in the article there are various styles including: 17 September 2008 and 2008-9-17, as well as instances of "on 17 September" later followed by "on September 17" style. My preference is for 17 September 2008 which is formal military style (see [1]) or it could be September 17, 2008 which is more familiar to readers. WP:DATE discourages any other styles. Which one do you think should be used throughout the article? Sswonk (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should go with the day month year format. Thanks for your help. --Brad (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]