Talk:Action of 18 November 1809

Latest comment: 4 years ago by 2601:589:300:CA70:0:0:0:32A5 in topic British ship "weight"...
Good articleAction of 18 November 1809 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starAction of 18 November 1809 is part of the Mauritius campaign of 1809–1811 series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 16, 2008Good article nomineeListed
February 28, 2009Good topic candidatePromoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 18, 2017, November 18, 2018, November 18, 2020, and November 18, 2024.
Current status: Good article


Comment

edit

As a courtesy I am leaving a notice that I am preparing a new, expanded and sourced version of this article in my Userspace and it should be pasted up here in about a week. If anyone has any comment then by all means drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Text is now complete and in place ahead of schedule. For the history ofthe constuction of this in my user space, see the history of the redirect User:Jackyd101/Action of 18 November 1809.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

British ship "weight"...

edit

The usual confusion over tonnage which afflicts non-nautical authors was present in this article. The British East Indiamen were approximately 800 tons burthen, which is a measure of volume, not weight. The displacement (weight) of a ship cannot be determined from it's burthen; an East Indiaman of 800 tons burthen would have displaced around 1200 - 1400 tons (displacement is always in long tons or tonnes, except for vessels on US inland waterways). Ship builders of the early 1800's did not calculate displacement, since there was no conceivable use for such a measurement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:CA70:0:0:0:32A5 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply