Talk:HMS Highflyer (1813)

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

Military history: Maritime / British / European / North America / United States / Napoleonic era

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 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
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Questionable...

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone used {{HMS|Poictiers|1809|2}} and {{HMS|Acasta|1797|2}} for these Royal Navy vessels. This renders as Poictiers and Acasta.

However, the usual way of describing RN vessels, [[HMS Poictiers (1809)|HMS ''Poictiers'']] would render as HMS Poictiers. As I read this article I was puzzled? Were Poictiers and Acasta RN vessels?

No one is going to object to using sensibly written templates, so long as they work right, and are used right.

However, IMO, either the template is broken, or it is not being used right.

There is a principle in engineering and related disciplines, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I think this template breaks that principle. 00:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong on both accounts. Template use is correct. No need to repeat prefixes. Llammakey (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic