Talk:HMS Cornwallis (1805)

Vessel naming

Re Benyoch edit, 27/02/2012: East Indies, Pacific and Indian Campaigns: I have bundled these as the fluid nature vessel's movements do not make for easy differentiation of campaigns, not withstanding activity in the Pacific (Australia and New Zealand, and south and central America).

Vessel naming and article title: the article's interchanging use of both Cornwallis and Akbar, reflecting the mix of popular and official naming during the vessel's service, does not make for an easy read. This aspect could do with improvement. Suggest using official name according to time of service, with Akbar from 1806. A discussion on why the name Akbar was resisted (if that is the case) or not readily embraced may be useful.

Benyoch (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Benyoch, That fluctuating naming issue bothered me as I started to look over the article again. One problem is that frequently the source uses Cornwallis even after Akbar becomes official. Someone clicking on the source and searching, or googling, under Akbar, may not find her. I have no idea why there was so much resistance to Akbar, except that perhaps Cornwallis felt more "British". Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Gday Acad, Do you have any knowledge/source of the Admiralty officially using Cornwallis after the name change? Maybe a long shot but am wondering if the Admiralty used both names intentionally to confuse the enemy as to the Navy's strength, especially since vessel was used as a troop ship (naval brigades and marines, I suppose - see William Augustus Montagu). Yet I agree on your 'more British' idea as Adm may have also wanted to honour Mq Cornwallis (a socio-political British use of name). But if that's the case why change the name at all? I note Marguess Cornwallis died in India in 1805 and the vessel's name changed late 1806. Significantly, Akbar Shah II became the second last Mogul emperor of India from 1806. This may explain the name change: a geo-political re-naming, perhaps, as a form of appeasement and/or affirmation of British-Indian relations, especially given the theatre in which the vessel operated. This may also go some way to explaining any resistence to using Akbar by the Admiralty. In any event, something needs to be done to both disambiguate the text and, I believe, include HMS Akbar in the title. If you care to change then you have my support. Regards Benyoch (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Benyoch, I have started to work on the article. There is a lot of info missing, as are references/citations. As far as the name is concerned, I have seen too many articles on the Royal Navy to think that there was any cunning involved at all. That just doesn't seem to have been the Admiralty's style. Occasional bizarre and obscure classical Greek or Roman references, sure, but nothing cunning. I think the "more British" is the simplest hypothesis. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Acad, good to see some development. Benea seems to have nailed the renaming issue which, on the face of it, seems quite probable. Benyoch (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

One source has her purchased in 1801 and renamed in 1806, at least two others I have consulted have her purchased in March 1805, registered in August 1806 and not renamed Akbar until February 1811. This talk of 'resistance to a new name' is more likely because the ship had not been renamed at all. She was called Cornwallis right up until she was renamed Akbar, at which point the new name was used. No mystery there. Anyway, a deliberate naval deception is extremely improbable and I think can be discounted. If you mean to include Akbar in the title somehow as well as 'HMS Cornwallis (1801)' then this is mandated against by WP:Naming conventions (ships), which for very sound reasons uses one ship name only, and does not bring multiple changes of name or nationality into titles. Cornwallis/Akbar was renamed once. Some were renamed half a dozen times over their careers. Benea (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh and if you want a reason for a renaming (and a further reason why the 1811 renaming date is more likely), a new 74-gun ship was laid down in 1811, to be named HMS Cornwallis. To free the name for the new ship, the old ship was renamed. Benea (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Benea, Good to see the rationising of names for this vessel. I am interested to know of your source for the date of the renaming of the vessel from Cornwallis to Akbar - previously 1806, now 1811. Is it an attempt to ease the conjection based on releasing the name for the new vessel? Thanks for advice re naming conventions and I can agree on the improbability of both naval deception and resistance to using the new name. Regards Benyoch (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Robert Gardiner's Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars has the details on the dates, as does Winfield's British Warships in the Age of Sail. Benea (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Benea, Thanks. Benyoch (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Cornwallis (1801) conflicts with Talk:Invasion Ile de France - Solution?

In the orders of battle at Talk:Invasion of Île de France , Cornwallis' guns, rating and captain differ from here. Please see Talk:Invasion for query and to comment or provide solution. I have no ready access to sources. Perhaps only a dyslexic typo. Thanks, Benyoch (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Need to rename

Currently the vessel's name mixes her launch year as Marquis Cornwallis and her purchase into the Royal Navy in 1805 as HMS Cornwallis. I would like to move the article to "HMS Cornwallis (1805)". Although one could make a case for "Marquis Cornwallis (1801)", she had a longer and more interesting career as Cornwallis. I am easy on the choice, but the article should definitely be moved. Relatively few articles link to the present name so changing links would be relatively easy. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Cornwallis (1805). 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/20110721093016/http://www.houghton.idv.hk/chapter18.htm to http://www.houghton.idv.hk/chapter18.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)