Talk:HMS Cornwall (1692)

The pointlessness of an image box
I have commented-out the image block, as it doesn't make any sense at all to have one here. 3rd-rate ships wouldn't have been painted (or at the very least, rather unlikely to have been), and it was scrapped in 1761. Let's be rational in applying policy (or, rather, suggested guidelines which have been written, approved, and followed by a Special Interest Group without other input).

But please revert me if I'm proving myself a fool. :-)

James F. (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems sensible. Putting an image marker is fine, if it is an article where there's a fair chance of someone sourcing one some time soon. But in cases like this it will probably leave us with an ugly big box for years. If some wikiproject is demanding that, then they clearly need to rethink.--Docg 17:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have suggested at WT:SHIPS that the word photo be substituted for image, as it would make more sense, I agree. The use of the image though is intended to allow us to identify articles that currently lack images. Your input is of course most welcome in that particular discussion. Martocticvs (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Although, the idea that a third rate wouldn't have been painted is actually completely wrong - a great many ships other than first rates were painted for whatever reason. Martocticvs (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "image" should be substituted for "photograph". However my point remains, whilst many such ships may have been painted, there is absolutely no way of knowing that this one was. Thus an ugly big box, bigger than any other text in the article, might remain indefinitely. That's not good. If you need a list of ships without images, there is surely a much less ugly way of generating that.--Docg 17:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite right, my mistake (typing too fast). I think your input would be valued at the WP:Ships discussion, WT:SHIPS as we are attempting to decide the best way around this issue, and still be able to keep track of articles lacking images. Martocticvs (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)