Talk:Chilean cruiser Esmeralda (1883)

Untitled
Possible image:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/artists/edoardo-de-martino

©Geni 19:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

why is writed first protected cruiser? the Leander class are a fewer oldest.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.239.221.77 (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Its or She
The ship is referred to as both she and its in the article. I went through the article history and saw that the article started out in this confused manner and therefore request guidance in which to use before changing anything. Llammakey (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible source
Brooks, Warships for Export, remarks that The Times "printed a lengthy article at the time of her speed trials written anonymously by W H White, Armstrong's chief naval architect." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No sails?
The article claims "Esmeralda built out of steel, with no wood, and carried no equipment for sailing." Yet the 1891 illustration clearly shows two masts, complete with crossed yards, spanker booms, and ratlines for crew to access the yards. Where does the notion that she had no sailing equipment come from? The later (1908) image of her as Izumi in Japanese service shows the masts in a more modern fashion, stripped of braces, tops, yards, and booms. Clearly by that point there was no capacity for sailing. --Pete (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting question, ! I did some digging here and the reference used (Sondhaus) does definitively say that there were "two military masts and no sailing rig." Osbourne's Cruisers and Battle Cruisers concurs, saying that the ship's designers were able to dispense with the sails.
 * However, there are two potentially contradictory sources that I can find. First, a contemporary source says that there was some sort of sailing equipment, albeit "barely enough to steady her in a seaway." (see the top right on the page). Second, page 97 in a modern source says that it was "the first cruiser actually designed for cruising without sails," which is not necessarily the same thing as not having them. But that's in snippet view and only viewable in a Google Books search, so I'm not comfortable citing that currently.
 * I wonder if it was some sort of temporary provision made for crossing the Atlantic, and the illustration was based off an outdated rendering? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no contradiction. The picture is a picture, not a photo; being designed for use without sails does not mean the ability to use sails was not there. 'Sailing equipment' is open to interpretation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Warships for Export has a photo of Esmeralda upon delivery: two military masts, both with gaff spars, but none of the accompanying booms. The forward mast has two yards crossed, but I don't know if the rigging for the forward mast can handle sails or not.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Unsheathed hull
I came across a passing reference to Esmerala having an unsheathed hull, but thought the details about the amount of maintenance required to keel the hull clean was interesting - see page 30 here (and you can crib the full ref from FRENCH CRUISER Duquesne if you want to include it - it's the one for Hichborn). Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! I've added a sentence on this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool, glad it was useful! Parsecboy (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:PRONOUN disagreement
@The ed17, I disagree with this reversion by you. Per WP:PRONOUN, "Gender-neutral pronouns should be used (or pronouns avoided) where gendered language is not necessary, and especially when gender is not specific or unknown." That is not the case in the sentence "Rendel gave Esmeralda large ten-inch (254 mm) guns and a high speed so its captain could choose the range they wanted to fight at." Women could not serve in the Chilean Navy until 2018. We therefore know that any captain of the 1880s Esmeralda must have been male. Using the gender-neutral pronoun "they" is therefore misleading, as it conveys the opposite impression, which will confuse readers.  Sandstein  18:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I'm surprised to see that you believe this is a big deal, but you quoted the relevant guideline yourself: "" It's not necessary to use gendered language in that sentence, as no additional understanding of the topic is imparted by using male pronouns. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But the use of non-gendered pronouns ("they") imparts a misunderstanding of the topic, in that it falsely implies that the Chilean Navy commissioned people of either gender to captain their warships. I'll ask for a third opinion.  Sandstein   21:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the definition of "they," which can and often is used to generically refer to people. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Our article Singular they tells us: "Singular they (...) is a gender-neutral third-person pronoun." The reason for which we use such pronouns is if we want to refer to a person of any gender, which is not the case here. MOS:S/HE provides: "Use gender-neutral language (...) if this can be done with clarity and precision." Because we know that all possible captains of this warship would have been male, "they" is less precise than "he", and therefore the use of "they" violates our manual of style.  Sandstein   21:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me.  Sandstein   05:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That works for me as well. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Ship plans (but only the index)
US National Archives Identifier 177104145 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)