USS Constitution is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 4, 2008 WikiProject peer review Reviewed September 27, 2008 Good article nominee Listed October 22, 2008 WikiProject A-class review Approved November 8, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted December 14, 2009 WikiProject peer review Reviewed Current status: Featured article

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

Military history: Maritime / Memorials / African / North America / United States / Napoleonic era FA‑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 FA This article has been rated as FA-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) Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ships FA‑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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States FA‑class High‑importance 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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. 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 (assessed as High-importance). 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. National Register of Historic Places FA‑class High‑importance 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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-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. Museums FA‑class Mid‑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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Maintained

we should add a see also for hms vicotry and any other historic commissioned ship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.7.27 (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Chase of the Constitution, July 1812.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost 3 years since this article passed FA. Since then the FA requirements have become stricter and some deterioration has set in from others' edits that I never bothered to fix. I've fixed up the media licensing and have begun to replace some less than reliable sources with stronger ones. While writing 3 other FAs about Constitution's sister ships I've learned a lot more and discovered more usable sources that are being brought here. Sources being replaced are Cooper, Abbot and Hill. Brad (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished upgrading an image used on this page from the National Archives. As the original image has a tag requesting that it not be overwritten with a different version, I have created a separate file. The new file is somewhat brighter but its clarity and sharpness has dramatically been improved, which is readily apparent in full view. i.e.The rigging is no longer blurred and much more discernable. Also, because the original file is a 'TIF' file, it is not readily viewable in full view with some browsers without first assigning the software for which to view it. If the new version meets to everyone's approval I would recommend using it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is much better thanks. I've replaced the tiff file. Brad (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aye Brad, never saw a ship of that sort with a canopy. Guess they were planning for a picnic that day. :-) The day before I also brightened and enhanced the color of the image of the Constitution you had uploaded. On retrospect I am hoping that I have not changed the way the original painting looks in that it's the oldest known illustration of the Constitution. (See image file history for comparison.) Perhaps it's best if it's left sort of dark and gloomy looking if that's the way this old illustration looks in real life at this point in time. If I have rendered it such that it's no longer historically representative of this old painting then perhaps we should put the original back. Then on the other hand, maybe this is the way it looked when it was first painted. Just a thought. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following was deleted following $11,000 in reparations: "($197,482 in 2024 dollars)(comment:in truth not quite accurate template - it covers only consumer prices, not strictly government. Better than nothing IMO)."

The reason given was "original research." This actually resulted from use of a template, using the figures supplied by the original editor. I cannot vouch for the $11,000. THAT may be original research, for all I know! But the template gives a figure in current (constant) consumer dollars, a bit more accurate than $11,000, which is chicken feed today. It simply cannot be appreciated by a modern audience without some projection into constant dollars. This was not taken out of "petty cash" but was a significant sum. There is no other way to appreciate this in modern terms without the inflation template. Student7 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That template should not be used for expenses such as the one being discussed here. Please read the warning at the top of the template's page: "This template is only capable of inflating Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets). This template is incapable of inflating Capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich. Incorrect use of this template would constitute original research. If you yourself do not possess it, please consult someone with economic training before making use of this." (emphasis added). Besides, the results are misleading. —Diiscool (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct and the reason I removed the information. Another habit is editors who go to a website and enter the numbers themselves; that is also original research. The figures mentioned in this article are backed up by sources. The only acceptable way to give modern day equivalents would be to use a "high-quality and reliable" source as per the 1c requirements for Featured articles. Brad (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your point. Allow me to make mine.

The figure "$11,000" is useless information in today's context. Student7 (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears useless but a reader could always take the figure and convert it themselves. The edit you made here is also incorrect from the sources that back up this article. The Castle Island weaponry were described as cannon. Whatever they might have been called we have to stick with cannon. Brad (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a GI Joe episode where Cobra had a weapon which could disable all electronic systems, so to save the world the Joes attacked Cobra with the USS Constitution (expressly mentioning its status as the oldest active warship. This was a triumphant moment which moved me to tears. I strongly feel it deserves to be mentioned in the article. I feel it also should be mentioned that this is highly unlikely to happen in real life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.199.35 (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.199.35 (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A four word answer: Over my dead body. Brad (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Brad, there is no reason to put that in this article, which is about an actual historical war ship. The usage by the ship in the GI Joe movie is completly irrelevant. And if that moved you to tears...P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has declined my piping Culverin#Field_culverins to the word "cannons" for one of the lighter weapons. Today, anything clunky, big, iron-like, is called by the generic word "cannon." People of the time were more sophisticated, differentiating between the weapons. My original intent was to link the word to "18-pound cannon" if there were such an article, figuring that it might have different characteristics. I discovered there was no article by weight, per se, but rather articles about various smaller weapons that were not specifically called "cannon." An editor has twice removed these links for some reason. Student7 (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually two editors have reverted this, one of whom is myself. If you want to have a more specific word than "cannon" then you need to provide a reliable source for the new word and reach consensus for the change here on the talk page. —Diiscool (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's the article itself, of course, Culverin#Field_culverins. Then there's Ships Arms, shows them aboard ship (don't know how accurate Wapedia is).

Look, I don't name these things. If you have a "Mark 7 cannon" or whatever to link them to, be my guest! I was trying to link them to 18-pounder. There is no such article because they weren't cannon at that size. I didn't make up the name! I think "culverin" is a stupid name! My suggestion is to delete the article on culverins. They probably just made up the article anyway!

Anyway, I didn't change the word. I piped the correct explanation under culverin to the word "cannon" just in case someone was interested in the details. Be it far from me to try to change modern expectations! Student7 (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]