Talk:Kronan (ship)

Regalskeppet Kronan

Shouldnt the title be Regalskeppet Kronan? --Dahlis 17:25, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

-Why? Regalskepp is just what it was. The page on HMS Victory isn't labelled "Ship-of-the-line Victory" for example.

But the HMS Victory page is named exactly that, "HMS Victory". The name "Regalskeppet Kronan" would follow the same convention. (And yes, I know that this contradicts wiki guidelines, but these are very US-centric.)

Yes, but HMS is a prefix; "regalskeppet" is not. Equivalent to "Regalskappet Kronan" would be "Ship-of-the-line HMS Victory".

This seems to be a rather widespread misunderstanding, especially among Swedish contributors, but regalskepp (lit. "regal ship") is not a specific type of ship, but rather a very specific kind of classification. The closest equivalent would be the first-rate ship within the rating system of the Royal Navy. Of what I've understood of ship construction, most regalskepp built in the 17th century would probably be best described as being a transitional design between a galleon and a ship of the line.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added coordinates to the page, based on the Kronan museum website which describes its location as "4 nautical miles due east of the church at Hulterstad". I translated that into 7.4 km and then added approximate coordinates. - Gump Stump (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed the coordinates to the equivalent of 3.4 nautical miles east of Hulterstad (6.3 km), according to the most recent journal paper about the Kronan: "A cross-staff from the wreck of the Kronan (1676)", by L. Einarsson and W.F.J. Morzer-Bruyns, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 2003, v.32, p.53-60. - Gump Stump (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

666 years?

In the first paragraph, the article states "after 666 years, the ship foundered..." I think there is an error. Since I do not know anything about this, would someone please research and correct this?MacEachan1 (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)MacEachan1

Background info

Is the first part of the historical background section really necessary? I feel like if people wanted to know about Sweden in the 1600s they would go to Swedish empire and not an article about a ship. Brutannica (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It's an historical article about a fairly notable warship. A political historical context of the conflicts it was intended to fight in is very relevant in my view. Readers who aren't interested can always just skip those two paragraphs.

Peter ^Isotalo 05:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization

Swedish Navy is capitalized in its own article, but "navy" is lowercase in this one. Is one or the other wrong? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this in the FAC. The linked article is about the modern organization that has a proper name. This is about the early modern predecessor, a very different entity that doesn't really have a proper name like the Royal Navy.

Peter ^Isotalo 05:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If they're "very different entit[ies]", then isn't the link misleading? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

That goes for all navies with a long history, I suppose. We don't have articles like Tudor navy for Swedish naval history, though. So it's either the modern navy (which also covers some history) or redlinking. Piping to the former seems like a better choice than simply redlinking.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if the article covers both, then shouldn't the article be downcased, with only the portions that cover the modern navy using the capitalized version? Something should be done, anyways—it's confusing. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Swedish Navy is about the modern navy first and foremost, just like Sweden is mostly about the modern country, even if it's technically the same state as in 1676 (or 1523). That doesn't mean we refer to it as "Swedish Empire" as a synonym. I'm not a fan of assigning "official names" when those names aren't used consistently in the literature.

Btw, If you ask WP:MILHIST's naval taskforce about this, they'll likely say "capitalize everything, everywhere". But that's because something like 98% of their work is on modern history.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kronan (ship). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220174557/http://www.sjohistoriskasamfundet.se/fn/fn55-lag.pdf to http://www.sjohistoriskasamfundet.se/fn/fn55-lag.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)