Talk:HMS Endeavour

Barque?
Should the correct spelling be "Barque"?


 * Both spellings are correct, and several links already pointed to "Bark." --the Epopt


 * I think the more common spelling is "barque". The article Barque refers to a US registered example the Falls of Clyde as a "barque".  The US coast guard themselves refer to their own U.S. Coast Guard Barque Eagle . Having said all that, HMS Endeavour does seem to be more commonly described as a "bark". - Ian &equiv; talk 02:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The English use of the French form of the word is relatively late and clearly refers to the partially fore and aft rig. It appears to have been used to distinguish the rig from the miscellaneous small vessels, at the time when the rig was beginning to be used on larger ships. The problem was that 'ship' was a rig as well as a size of vessel. Hitherto, the ship rig had gone with the bigger, decked vessel but things changed and it became necessary to express the distinctions clearly. The Oxford English Dictionary's earliest secure reference to the use of 'bark' in connection with the rig is from 1769 but this will have also have been a relatively small vessel. There is however, a 1693 reference to a barkenteen though the rig is not described.


 * The word's eighteenth century and earlier use by the Admiralty was a continuation of the very early meaning of the word as a large boat, particularly one for carrying goods - a barge. I think a barca is the sort of boat which takes goods around Venice, for example; but una barca a remi is an Italian rowing boat. Barge and bark are really the same word but again, they have been separated as a distinction became necessary.


 * The answer to the question is: in the case of Endeavour - no. (RJP 08:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC))

An apparently reliable reference (already cited in the article) An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand explains, "She was renamed Endeavour and registered as a bark, that is, a vessel without a figurehead and a straight stem. She was not a barque. In fact, she was square-rigged on all three masts though she also had a spanker sail." If in fact as it appears there are several uses of "Bark" and "Barque" with different meanings, should the link to the Barque article from the word "Bark" be modified? Is there need for a disambiguation page of some sort? (sdsds - talk) 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What about HMB Endeavour rather than HMS Endeavour? Wimbledon32 (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This was debated at length under Talk:HMS Endeavour. -- Beland (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Lack of Information Relating to Whitby
Whitby also has had the replica of the HM Bark Endeavour visiting the town for lengthy periods. The article lacks information on this. Computerjoe 's talk 15:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

K1 chronometer
I've removed the following para: On this voyage Cook became the first captain to calculate his longitudinal position with accuracy. He used a chronometer, known as K1, which was made by Larcum Kendall and was a copy of John Harrison's fourth timepiece. Cook's log was full of praise for the watch and the charts of the southern Pacific Ocean he made with its use were remarkably accurate - so much so that copies of them were still in use in the mid 20th century. Cook's trial of Kendall's K1 chronometer was later, on his second voyage, in the Resolution, not the Endeavour.. --cjllw | TALK  00:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Grammatical
In constuction and statistics, it has a link in "the then earl" that doesnt make much sense. also, shouldnt the link be in the italics before that?

-- Will James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.19.196 (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rephrased, thanks. Hesperian 10:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Red Ensign
I have changed the modern White Ensign in the infobox for the Red Ensign of 1707 to 1801. Some readers might assume that the Red Ensign denotes a merchant ship and the White a naval vessel but it seems that that usage only dates from 1864 and that the Red Ensign shown is the one in use at the time of Cooke's voyage. On the other hand please comment if you think that the flag used by today's Royal Navy is the correct one to use. Petecarney (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Overlap with other articles
Much of the information about Cooke's first voyage of Discovery is duplicated elswhere and so perhaps doesn't really belong, in so much detail, in an article focussed on the ship herself. Equally the info about the search for the wreck of the Endeavour and the other Newport wrecks may merit an article of its own if there isn't one already. What do you think. Petecarney (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As a first step in this direction I have added to the appropriate section. Are there others like this that could be added? (sdsds - talk) 00:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tags
Per the above user, I've been requested to explain why the tags are on this article. In this order,


 * It needs additional references or sources for verification.
 * It may contain original research or unverifiable claims.
 * It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources.
 * Its tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
 * It reads like a personal reflection or essay.
 * It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.
 * It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. The tags are not to be removed until these issues have been satisfied and they are absolutely not to be removed because they are aesthetically displeasing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That list gives no further explanation of your concerns than the tag itself. Please explain in more detail, giving specific examples of statements you don't like. -- Avenue (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, please make (judicious) use of fact tags in this article. Choose several assertions you particularly wish to challenge. Place tags immediately following those assertions. Wait awhile, and then if no reliable source is cited for the assertion, remove the assertion along with the tag. Verifiability, which is policy, makes clear this is a high priority effort for this (or any) article. (sdsds - talk) 22:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Every statement in this article needs a source. Currently, only about 5% of this article is sourced. Large sections concerning Endeavour's voyage with Cook are completely unsourced. These sections read like a personal narrative written for an essay. Some of the references are dead (the link to the National Maritime Museum of Australia, for instance). Most of the other references are either immaterial or entirely irrelevant. Citing a biography for Dr. Solander to prove he was on the ship doesn't seem as important, say, as citing Endeavour's length, beam, sail and armament. Beyond that, it needs serious copyedit work and it needs to have its narrative tone rewritten in the expository to make it encyclopedic. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As a matter of policy, "any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged" should be reliably sourced. Please don't be gentle! If you see unsourced material and you doubt its veracity, be WP:BOLD and remove it. Maybe no one will restore it, in which case you may have improved the encyclopedia by removing untrue material. If some other editor does restore it, the obligation to provide a source citation lies clearly with that editor. (sdsds - talk) 23:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just now peeked at User talk:Cumulus Clouds, and notice that others have already mentioned to you the essay at BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I'm sorry if my comments above thus seem to you like dull repetition of material you've already covered! (sdsds - talk) 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes and I happen to think that's a very stupid essay. I'll wait and see if anybody has any questions first before I start taking this one apart. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hawke's views of civilian commanders
I have removed the following sentence - Hawke may well have had in mind a recent case of Dr Halley who was given such a commission and the sailors refused to recognise his authority. because:
 * It appears to be original research - I cannot find any reliable source indicating Hawke was thinking of Edmond Halley when he refused Dalrymple's command. Its equally possible it was simply naval suspicion of non-military personnel, or a reflection on the contemporary difficulties experienced by the Spanish Navy in using landsmen as both crew and officers on many vessels.
 * The Halley matter was seventy years earlier in 1698 - two decades before Hawke was even born. Halley's vessel was small and of little naval consequence, and the problem was subsequently addressed by commissioning Halley as a captain and sending him back to sea. This is hardly a matter of such import that it would shape naval decision-making so long afterward.

Obviously if anyone has a source explaining Hawke's thinking by all means re-add the sentence with the reference. As always, other comments and views are also welcome. Euryalus (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Bizarre as I think it for the reasons listed above, Kerr's 1824 account of this decision clearly states hawke was influenced by Halley's difficulties. I've readded the sentence with the appropriate reference. Euryalus (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem for the sailors in having a 'landsman' commanding was that they were in-effect putting their lives in his hands, hands that it would be difficult for any naval person or seaman to claim were qualified for such a voyage.


 * That is why on such expeditions while a scientist may be in overall nominal command, a qualified Master or naval equivalent will be the 'Captain' responsible for the safety of the ship and ship's complement. When it comes to running the ship his word over-rides anyone else's.


 * Even today going to sea can be dangerous. You don't want to go to sea with a 'fool' or 'idiot' in command who might get you killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "Scurvy" section?
The section headed "scurvy" in the article is interesting but not relevant to the subject of this article (the actual vessel HM Bark Endeavour). You cannot write about the Endeavour without including material on Cook, but that material must surely be about Cook in relation to the vessel, rather than general practices by Cook aboard all his voyages or a discussion of Cook's crew management technique. As an example of what I'm talking about, the HMS Victory article includes a long section on Horatio Nelson but only in the context of the use of the ship, not his personal theories or behaviour.

The "Scurvy" material is probably better located at either James Cook or First voyage of James Cook. I'd move it there directly but wanted to check with others as it involves the removal of a sizeable chunk of this article's text.

Anyone else have a view? Euryalus (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section should be removed, for the reason stated. Melburnian (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too. Hesperian 07:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. I've moved the relevant bits to First voyage of James Cook, where it remains largely unsourced but at least in the right place. Despite improvements from a number of editors, this ACOTF is now actually shorter than when it was tagged. Euryalus (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But it has already gone from 13 citations up to around 40, which is great! --Melburnian (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Construction date
Sources differ over when the vessel was built - the UK Maritime Museum says she was built in January 1767 but the NZ Encyclopedia says she was three and a half years old in March 1768, giving her a construction date of June 1764.

Both are reliable sources but on balance I think the Maritime Museum has it wrong - the 1764 date is supported by various other sources so I've retained it in the article. Anecdotally, this earlier construction date would also fit better with the obvious decrepitude of the vessel after 1775, though any collier dragged all around the world and wrecked on a coral reef would be forgiven for showing serious wear.

We could also include both dates and note in the article that sources differ, but where all sources point to one date and only one points to the other, and the issue at hand is a number rather than a body of text, it may be a simple transcription error rather than a genuine disagreement.

Any other views? Euryalus (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

PortCities London, referred to above as "the UK Maritime Museum" is not a reliable source, in fact it's rubbish. As an example, it gives the following statistics:
 * · Weight: 400 tonnes (397 tons)
 * · Carried a compliment[sic] of 107: Captain and crew

Firstly the use of the word "weight" should ring alarm bells. Presumably this is intended to mean displacement.

The single most authoritative published source must be C. Knight's 1933 article in the Mariner's Mirror which transcribes original documents. Knight gives the burthen (which is nothing to do with displacement) of 368 71/94 tons and the age at purchase of three years nine months so this is likely the source for the 1966 NZ Encyclopedia article.

The Project Gutenberg transcription of Captain Cook's Journal has a table entitled "PERSONS WHO LEFT ENGLAND IN H.M.S. ENDEAVOUR, 26TH AUGUST, 1768", which lists 72 crew (including Cook), 12 marines and 11 civilians, a total of 95.

There are similar howlers in PortCities article on the Bounty. PortCities is ultimately a publication of the National Maritime Museum but it should not regarded in the same category as scholarly publications from that source.

Cheers --Petecarney (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Replicas and their photos
There's a decent picture of what appears to be the Endeavour replica here, under attribution license on flickr. No time to upload it right now, and that's probably better left to somebody who's 100% sure it's the right boat. --Fullobeans (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is now a Wikipedia Commons photograph of this linked to the Whitby page. The boat is a (coastal) sea-going 40% scale "replica" intended for tourism purposes equiped with safety very much in mind and can be made out in Whitby harbour on Wikimapia. (I reckon the photo was taken from the very end of Whitby outer west pier as the boat was entering the outer harbour) Stuffed cat (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In the seventies (presumably for the 250th year celebrations) there was a (not too convincing) one tonne model of the Endeavour in a large atrium inside the Cleveland Centre shopping mall in central Middlesbrough, suspended at the height of a small child and very very slowly rotating by a pivot in the atrium roof above. I believe this model has been relocated a few miles south in the Captain Cook Birthplace Museum in Stewart Park, Middlesbrough. (this needs confirming) Stuffed cat (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature section
I have removed the following from the article, and wanted to explain why:


 * The Endeavour is known to history as HMS Endeavour or HM Bark Endeavour although the prefix HMS did not come into use until the very end of the 1780s and the abbreviation HM was not used in formal communications.


 * In Cook's published narrative of the Endeavour voyage he mostly uses "His Britannick Majesty's Bark" and only rarely "His Britannick Majesty's Ship".


 * In the same way that ancient custom mandates the title of Captain for a ranked Lieutenant while commanding a ship, all Royal Navy vessels are customarily referred to as HMS even though they may have a different rating on the Admiralty's ship lists.


 * Thus "Captain Cook of HMS Endeavour" is a correct customary usage for both the man and the ship while "Lieutenant Cook of HM Bark the Endeavour" exhibits the correct technical register of the language used in correspondence between the Admiralty and its officers. Another popular contemporary usage is to refer to "Captain Cook of HM Bark Endeavour", which is a combination of both the customary and the technical.

The content is technically correct but is neither unique to the Endeavour nor directly related to it. The customary use of "HMS" in Royal Navy vessel names is appropriately discussed at Royal Navy and at Rating system of the Royal Navy - all such ships were technically "HM bark (or sloop or bomb escort) Smithville" as well as customarily "HMS Smithville", and there is no need to specifically denote this in each individual ship article. The same is true of Cook's rank as Lieutenant but the customary use of the title Captain - true but not relevant to this page.

Secondly, the section is unsourced and to a degree, unsourceable. No doubt we could go through Cook's journals and count the number of uses of "ship" v "bark" but its not clear what that would prove, especially as the section also makes the unsourced claim that the term HMS was probably not in use at the time.

Essentially, general information like this is best placed at the broad-brush Navy articles like those listed above.

That's a longwinded explanation, and I'm happy to discuss if there's opposition to the deletion. Any other views? Euryalus (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Euryalus, I agree with the removal. It bothered me also and you've managed to explain the issue well.  Moondyne 03:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As a reader who knows nothing about British ship naming conventions, it seemed to me like the title of the article was an error if the ship was officially called HM Bark Endeavour. I think the article definitely needs more explanation. I understand the concern about verbosity, so I added back a shortened version, and put it in a footnote rather than the main text. If this could be accomplished with a link to an explanation for all ships in a similar situation, that would be even less verbose, though I couldn't find a good link target. (And it wouldn't help printed-on-paper Wikipedia readers who couldn't click through to read it.) -- Beland (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Mizzen mast notation issue
I've removed the following good-faith addition to the article and wanted to explain why:


 * All of the commercially available models, and all of the current replica vessels, have this oddly shortened mizzen as all have been constructed using this potentially incorrect annotation.

Firstly, in the absence of sources it appears to be original research. Secondly its plainly inaccurate, as I doubt all commercial "Endeavour" models include this erroneous mizzen-mast length. I think this removal is uncontroversial and wouldn'thave raised it here except that it does make an interesting point - is there any evidence the mizzen mast notation misconception has persisted in modern times? If so, that would make an interesting addition to the page. Euryalus (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wind beneath my wings
The book Wind beneath my wings is used in the article to reference the replica Endeavour departing on its final ocean journey from Whitehaven rather than Plymouth, but the IP that added the reference hasn't included a page number.

If anyone has a copy of this book, could they please add the page number for this statement to reference 70 in the article? Alternatively, if the book doesn't actually state the Endeavour left from Whitehaven (I've not read this anywhere else), please feel free to remove the reference entirely. Euryalus (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

'Replicas' and Models - Point of information
At Whitby there is a 40% scale steel frame Endeavour 'replica' named the Bark Endeavour Whitby''' built after the very successful visit of the 'real' replica. It is intended for the tourist trade offering coastal excursions to tourists and is operated with safety in mind.

During the 1970s (during some Cook centennial celebration???) a one tonne model of the Endeavour was housed in a large atrium in the Cleveland Centre shopping mall in central Middlesbrough. The model was suspended by wires from the very high ceiling, slowly rotating about four or five feet above the floor while the occasional small boy would walk under it. Long ago it was removed and replaced by even more retail shops. Where it is now I don't know. This sounds a bit surreal as though I dreamt it, but I am sure this all happened. Slap me if it didn't. Stuffed cat (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed it did, and you didn't dream up the giant snowman either. Melburnian (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Bizarre, especially seeing as the only thing visible from below is a fairly uninteresting hull. Notice how they used the erroneous mizzen mast measurement? Amazing that a 250-year old typo has survived to plague the Middlesbrough shopping centres of today. Euryalus (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the Russell Museum's website their one-fifth scale replica was built in 1969 and sailed in harbors of Australia and New Zealand before being donated to the museum in 1970. Yet the Wikipedia page makes an unsourced claim that it sailed 24 000 kilometers (over halfway around the globe) during that same time period. I find it unlikely, especially when it doesn't look very seaworthy. I've edited the page to match the information provided by the museum. --Aginwald (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Article name
There's various opinions about the correct name for the article, and a consensus seems needed one way or the other. All opinions are welcome on any of the following:


 * "HM Bark Endeavour" - this was the original article name, and most accurately describes the type of vessel. However, it is not in accordance with the ship naming convention which requires either "HMS Endeavour (1768)" or simply "HMS Endeavour".
 * "HMS Endeavour (1768)" - this would accord most squarely with the naming convention for ships linked above, and would clearly differentiate this ship from its contemporary namesake 9and all the other Endeavours since). However, it is reasonably evident this Endeavour is significantly better known than any of the others, and in cases like this there are precedents in the naming covnention for using option 3 described below
 * "HMS Endeavour" - the naming convention also states "In a few cases, one ship is so much better-known than her namesakes that she need not be disambiguated." The two examples given are HMS Victory and HMS Beagle. This Endeavour would be a candidate for this exception clause as well, and this naming option received an apparent consensus in favour when discussed at WP:SHIPS - the conversation being here.

On balance I'd prefer option 3. It meets the naming convention and appears to have a consensus of support from other editors. Option 1 is my least preferred, as it doesn't meet the convention and is not the most common name for the article subject - most texts refer to this ship simply as HMS Endeavour, not Bark Endeavour. Option 1 therefore breaches both WP:NAME and WP:SHIPNAME, and was not supported by any contributor to the naming discussion wikilinked above.

Other views are welcome, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euryalus (talk • contribs)


 * I think that the article should remain at HMS Endeavour. She is the most famous ship of the name, and although HM Bark is the formal name of the vessel (actually, His Most Britannick Majesty's Bark Endeavour is the formal title used by Cook, but that's too complicated for an article title), HMS is equally valid under Wikipedia naming conventions, and is far more commonly used in published sources (see the peer review discussion for examples). Per Naming conventions should be the title of the article. -- saberwyn 03:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NC says "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Despite the greater popularity of "HMS" amongst the great unwashed masses, an inspection of the many excellent scholarly sources referenced by the article indicates an extremely strong preference for "HM Bark" or "HMB". Hesperian 04:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Our naming conventions call for the standardisation of the prefix across articles. So not 'HM Sloop xxx', 'HM Cutter xxx', 'HM Brig xxx', etc for the many vessels of this period that were not ship-rigged, but rather 'HMS'. Discussion of the alternative names and prefixes can then take place in the article. Support the reversion of the move, back to the previously agreed 'HMS Endeavour'. Benea (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest using HMS Endeavour - and just have a redirect page for HMS Bark Endeavour, but I'm no expert on these things - I'm just an ordinary user, but in that capacity, I'd probably look for HMS Endeavour rather then HMS Bark Endeavour. PhantomSteve (talk)
 * HMS Endeavour or HMS Endeavour (date). My initial reaction to the term 'bark' was what's trees got to do with it. My moderately large dictionary confirms bark as an americanism of Barque. Which might be wrong, but obviously is a common meaning. The discussion above did not make it clear to me that a definite precise meaning of Bark as a different kind of ship to barque, exists. I'm not wholly convinced it ought to be simply HMS Endeavour without a signifier (ie date), because people will inevitably type in HMS endeavour if they are looking for a ship without knowing its precise date, and the actual date is helpfull in immediately identifying the right one Sandpiper (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there! Just writing to assure you that "bark" is definitely NOT an "Americanism for "barque"; Cook himself, as well as Banks and Parkinson in their journals all use the term "bark" for their ship, and that was how the British Admiralty named the vessel. Barque and bark are equivalent and refer to the same sort of vessel. Any small sailing ship can be referred to as a barque or bark, but it's more precise meaning is of any "three-masted vessel which has the foremast and mainmast square-rigged and her mizzenmast fore-and-aft rigged." Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1976). This is, indeed how Lt. Jame's Cook's bark, the Endeavour, was rigged. I would also point out that anyone familiar with sailing vessels would immediately be able to tell from the name what kind of a ship it was - another reason for using the proper name. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Im not an expert and had no idea precisely what bark/que means, but did know Cook had a ship called HMS endeavour, which is what I might expect to be the wiki name, what most people would recognise. The only reason to depart from calling a ship HMS Endeavor (xxxx) would be if instead the commonly accepted name was used. But I doubt anyone except experts would call it the bark endeavour. That is doing the opposite of the principle reason for making a naming exception, using  a non recognised  name instead of the standard one. Sandpiper (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies
Apologies - I had not looked at the discussion here before I moved the article (I will try to be more careful in future). However, while we are on the subject, I believe accuracy should be the main issue in an encyclopedia, and "HM Bark Endeavour" is the name the ship was given and how it is referred to in the early journals. Calling it HMS Endeavour is rather similar to the common referral to James Cook as "Captain James Cook" on his first voyage when, in fact, he was really Lieutenant James Cook at that time. Both these loose usages are to some degree misleading and I think something is lost when people resort to them. It is easy enough to retain accuracy while preventing confusion by using redirects and disambiguation pages. John Hill (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Accuracy can be achived by stating, within the article, the naming of Endeavour in as much detail as necessary. There is no need to move the article itself to achieve this. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * an article name is not simply meant to be unique, but also consistent with other names and how something would normally be identified by the general public (who will be typing in the common name). I don't think 'bark' scores on either of the last two counts. Sandpiper (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As i said above, your comments about the "general public" are not relevant. Policy says "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Hesperian 02:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The name HM Bark Endeavour, and why it should be used here
I am getting a bit tired of this argument and fear that it is getting nasty for no reason. I notice today that User:Sanpiper refers to the proper, accepted name of this vessel as a "perverse departure from standard", and as a "non recognised name instead of the standard one." S/he also says: "I doubt anyone except experts would call it the bark endeavour." Well, s/he should take a trip here to Cooktown, Queensland, a town proud of its history and where Cook spent some 7 weeks, and ask a few of the residents whether it is O.K. to change the name of HM Bark Endeavour to "HMS Endeavour" and, I feel sure, s/he will be treated to an earful of history. Many locals feel quite strongly about this issue.

Now, let's get this straight - no one is suggesting that the vessel should be referred to as "the bark endeavour" - the real name of the vessel (a refitted collier) - the standard one, the one the British Admiralty named it, the one used in the journals of Cook, Banks and Parkinson, and the one used in almost all histories and other books that mention it, is "HM Bark Endeavour", or the "Endeavour", for short. The modern replica, commissioned in 1994 also proudly carries the name "HM Bark Endeavour". This is the proper name, this is the standard name, and it helps distinguish it from the many ships which were actually named "HMS Endeavour" (the Wikipedia disambiguation page lists 9 of them).

If some people are not aware of its true name, perhaps it is time they learned it - it is not that difficult. If they don't know the proper name of the vessel, and type "HMS Endeavour" into Wikipedia's search engine, they will reach a disambiguation page where they can find the proper name (and perhaps learn something). I object to pandering to the lowest common denominator by sacrificing historical accuracy in Wikipedia articles. Yours, John Hill (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * John, I'm sorry that you're getting tired, but I don't see any nastiness here, so please don't ramp it up unnecessarily. I happen to agree with you though that the accepted name in the reliable sources say HM Bark Endeavour and that thats how we should name our article.  And that it nicely disambiguates as well is a bonus.  –Moondyne 01:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Moondyne - you are right - I shouldn't have got so "hot under the collar" - I take it back - but sure hope we can keep with the vessel's real name as the title for the article on it. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. As mentioned above, this issue has been discussed in a lot more detail here.  At this time we appear to have slim majority wanting to reinstate the shorter version, but nothing that could be described as a strong consensus:
 * HMS Endeavour — Euralys, Saberwyn, PhantomSteve, Benea, Sandpiper.
 * HM Bark Endeavour — Hesperian, Moondyne, John Hill, GraemeLeggett.
 * More eyes are neeeded. –Moondyne 06:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * New eyes:) the status quo seems correct to me. I typed in HMS Endeavour and landed here, as I would expect. The article name then told me the correct title, with a redirect for other ships of same name. Educational, and historically correct. Works for me. --IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is - the naming convention for ships says we should use either "HMS Endeavour (1768)" or simply "HMS Endeavour". The naming convention already has consensus. If anyone wants to vary this convention the onus is on them to establish consensus for doing so. So far at least, there is no such consensus.


 * Secondly, because the previous consensus here was unilaterally overturned via a move over redirect, we now have the odd siuation that "HMS Endeavour" is a redirect while all the other Endeavours are at HMS Endeavour (disambiguation). If this article is the primary topic it should be located at the "HMS Endeavour" name. If it is not the primary topic (or if the issue is disputed as it is here), we should follow the disambiguation editing guideline which states - "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)""


 * If that was too long, didn't read, the summary is
 * Because the naming convention already has consensus, the onus is on supporters of "HM Bark Endeavour" to demonstate consensus for changing it; AND
 * If they can do so, "HMS Endeavour" should once again become a disambiguation page and not a redirect. Euryalus (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Lastly, I endorse Moondyne's comments - this isn't exactly a die-in-the-ditch issue and any apparent hostility is entirely accidental and apologised for in advance :) Euryalus (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Solely with respect to your comment
 * "If this article is the primary topic it should be located at the "HMS Endeavour" name."
 * this is not actually the case. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states
 * "If the primary topic for a term is titled something else by the naming conventions, then a redirect for the term is used."
 * It is my understanding that this situation is not at all unusual. Hesperian 05:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't claim to know anything in particular about ships, but I must say that, as a member of the "unwashed masses", I was rather astonished to find that this discussion was going on at all. Never mind, I'm up to date now. The key thing here seems to me to be following Wikipedia's established conventions. I notice it says that it is "common practice to backdate the use of a prefix so that it applies to ships of that navy that historically would not have been referred to with that prefix, and Wikipedia follows this practice". The guideline goes on to say that "this is consistent with the ordinary Wikipedia naming practice of using modern names for articles even if different from the contemporary name". I see no reason why this article should be an exception to this established policy, so at this point I would agree with Euryalus that it should be moved back to "HMS Endeavour". Frickeg (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Users Euryalus' and Frickeg's notes
User Euryalus says the "onus is on supporters of "HM Bark Endeavour" to demonstrate consensus for changing it (that is, from "HMS Endeavour"). User Frickeg seems to be of the opinion the use of "HMS Endeavour" is the accepted modern usage. I don't know how we can determine which title is most used today - as both seem to be quite common. In truth, it is often referred to under either title, and probably a case can be made that either is technically correct, though the full, official and proper name was clearly "H.M. Bark Endeavour".

I quote here from the introduction to "CAPTAIN COOK'S JOURNAL DURING HIS FIRST VOYAGE ROUND THE WORLD MADE IN H.M. BARK "ENDEAVOUR" 1768-71 A Literal Transcription of the Original MSS. WITH NOTES AND INTRODUCTION EDITED BY CAPTAIN W.J.L. WHARTON, R.N., F.R.S." published in 1893, and available for free download online at Project Gutenberg:


 * "His ship, the Endeavour, was a Whitby built vessel of three hundred and seventy tons, and was known as H.M. Bark Endeavour, there being another vessel, a cutter, of the same name in the Royal Navy."

Also, the letter of commission given to Cook on 25th May, 1768 begins: "Whereas we have appointed you First Lieutenant of His Majesty's Bark, the Endeavour, now at Deptford, and intend that you shall command her during her present intended voyage; and, whereas, we have ordered the said Bark to be fitted out . . . ."

It is true that it is sometimes referred to (rather loosely) as "HMS Endeavour" - which is technically not incorrect, as it was, indeed, one of "His Majesty's" ships. It is also frequently referred to as just "the Endeavour". However, my contention is that we should use not use a nickname for the title of an article, but rather the correct name and have redirects for the nicknames "HMS Endeavour", and "the Endeavour".

Looking at the relevant books I happen to have here on my self I find:


 * Ray Parkin. (2006) H.M "Bark Endeavour" The Miegunyah Press. (First published as H.M. Bark Endeavour: Her Place in Australian History in 1997) ISBN 978-0522853117. (I think here the title says it all, so I won't have to give page numbers).


 * J.G.H. Gill. (1988). The Missing Coast: Queensland Takes Shape. Queensland Museum. ISBN 0 7242 2903 5. This book first mentions the vessel on pp. 70-71 as "HM Bark Endeavour" and, thereafter, uses its nickname, "Endeavour", throughout the rest of the book.


 * John Robson. (2004). The Captain Cook Encyclopædia. Random House Australia. ISBN0 7593 1011 4. It is referred to as "H. M. Bark Endeavour" throughout the entry on the ship and also its replica on pages 91-93, but as "Endeavour, HMS" in the index on p. 284.

Or, perhaps readers might like to check out the Australian National Museum's article on the "HMB Endeavour Replica" at:

(I should add here that the modern replica proudly carries the title of HM Bark Endeavour and has been sailing to ports around the world for some years educating people about Cook's voyages and their importance and that all these many thousands of people would have been exposed to the true name of the vessel - not HMS Endeavour).

This will be my final comment on the subject: Why should we use a nickname instead of the real one - especially as there will be no difficulty in anyone finding the article who searches using either of the common nicknames?

Over to the rest of you out there with an interest, Cheers, John Hill (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that "HM Bark Endeavour" is the most technically correct title, both because that was what it was registered as, and because the RN did not apply the customary prefix "HMS" until 1789 (see British_Royal_Navy. I'm also aware of the sources above, some of which are referenced in the article. Cook himself referred to the ship as "His Most Brittanick Majesty's Bark Endeavour", which would be even more technically correct but overly long for an article name. In practice every vessel was customarily referred to as "His Majesty's Ship" just as every commander of every vessel was accorded the customary title of "captain" regardless of their actual rank (Cook for example, was only a Lieutenant). So either name has currency - one as the more accurate descriptor and the other as a fairly universal custom for RN ships.


 * However, "HMS" also has the advantage of fitting with the Wikpedia naming convention for ships, which I've linked a couple of times above. I won't rehearse it again - I'll just add the view that naming conventions should be adhered to unless the adherence is a nonsense (eg. Category:Australian players of Australian Rules Football), but if we are going to vary a naming convention we should seek consensus to change the convention itself to allow the exception, or if the exception applies to just one article then get consensus at that article's talk page. In the absence of such a consensus we should stick with the naming convention that applies to every other article of that type. There's arguments on both sides here, but at the very least I'd argue its there isn't a consensus for a variation to the convention for this one page. Euryalus (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am going to change what I had suggested earlier, following the reading of various comments here. I now think that the article's name should be HM Bark Endeavour as it currently stands, with the HMS Endeavour being a redirect to the article. I think that the arguments given in favour of HMB Endeavour being the title are valid. If someone looks for HMS, they'll get the right page, but will see the correct title of the ship. We could also have a redirect from 'HMS Endeavour (1768)' as well, for the completists! Incidently, I have created a wikilink on the Earl of Pembroke article linking to this one!  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 08:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * User:John Hill boldly moved the article, in good faith but without consensus to do so, and unknowingly breaking the established naming convention. It was up to him to have gathered a clear consensus to have moved the article to a new title, and since one did not (and does not) exist, the article should be moved back to the original title and the status quo resumed. We have been presented with a fait accompli, and are having to present arguments for why this article should be moved back, totally against established process. Why should this article be named HM Bark Endeavour, and not all the other RN ships we have be renamed HM Sloop Speedy, HM Brig Favourite, HM Cutter Nile, HM Brig-Sloop Pygmy, HM Pink Quebec, HM Snow Confiance, HM Frigate Blanche, etc, etc? All these are doubtless more historically accurate, but creates a hugely confusing hodge-podge of styles. We have an established convention, how Endeavour is referred to in current and historical documents is relevant, but its part of the house style of those particular sources, same as whether as ship is called she or it. We too have our house-style, which establishes a standardised form, and where other well established forms and variations exist in the real world, we have an army of redirects to direct them all the same place. Benea (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should now be moved back to HMS Endeavour. We're clearly not going to get a strong majority either way as there's good arguments for both.  And whichever of these 2 names we choose won't be wrong —I certainly won't lose any sleep over it not being my 1st choice.  Defaulting back to the status quo gives fairness to process as well as being consistent with naming policy.  A review of The Wrong Version is good reading at times like this.  –Moondyne 16:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just above at the start of this section
 * "His ship, the Endeavour, was a Whitby built vessel of three hundred and seventy tons, and was known as H.M. Bark Endeavour, there being another vessel, a cutter, of the same name in the Royal Navy."

Lets have a detailed look at the time period this vessel was sailing there were a number vessels sailing that can be referred to as HMS Endeavour this vessel was distinguished by the name H.M Bark Endeavour the second is H.M Cutter Endeavour National Archives of UK additionally there was a sloop(1765-1780), in 1775 the year HM Bark Endeavour was sold there was a vessel commisioned call the HM Scooner Endeavour. I recognise that the name HMS Endeavour has been used to describe the HM Bark Endeavour by many writers / historians in the last 200 years, and is equally in terms of usage but the reality is that there are sufficient reliable sources and significantly the official name uses HM Bark Endeavour along with alternative vessels from the same period that are HMS Endeavour that the we should be using the name HM Bark Endeavour. Gnangarra 06:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving it back
I'm with Moondyne on this: though I'd prefer HM Bark, I see here an absence of consensus for the move. I reckon policy says we ought to move it back to the stable title. And, more importantly, Euryalus has put a hell of a lot of effort into this article, and it offends my sense of an Aussie 'fair go' for him to be presented with a fait accompli like this. I'll give you mob 12 hours to make your closing arguments, and unless consensus for the move suddenly emerges, I'll move it back. Hesperian


 * Well, I guess we will never get consensus on this question as the opinions are roughly equal in number. But it seems very sad that we will be sacrificing historical accuracy and clarity in the name of consensus. Maybe I should have a look at how consensus rather than accuracy became a guiding principle of deciding disputed points in Wikipedia, and if this can be changed. In spite of my opposition to User Euryalus on this point, I would like to thank him for his excellent work on the article. Thanks also to all involved in this discussion for giving their serious consideration to this matter - I hope it has been both as interesting and instructive to you all as it has been for me. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What the Naming Conventions actually say
The Naming Conventions say:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is justified by the following principle:
 * The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

The Naming Conventions for Ships says:

For ships of navies that have standard ship prefixes, use the prefix in the name of the article:...However, it is common practice to backdate the use of a prefix so that it applies to ships of that navy that historically would not have been referred to with that prefix, and Wikipedia follows this practice:

Can anyone tell me whether the Ship Naming conventions should overrule the General Naming Conventions? My view would be no, and that HM Bark fits the general criteria better.

All ships of the navy were "His Majesty's Ship" and so can be referred to as HMS. Some were also commissioned with differrent titles, eg. HM Armed Schooner Diana so it is a matter of choice, dependant on context, whether to use the commissioned title or the common-language title. We make a similar choice in referring to Captain Cook or Lieutenant Cook. Both are valid.

Wharton's 1893 edition of "Captain Cook's Journal During the First Voyage Round the World" avalable from Project Gutenberg makes reference to Endeavour both as HM Bark and as H.M.S.

My point is that both HMS and HM Bark are historically accurate and whichever one is chosen for the article title the first sentence should reflect that fact. It is embarrassing that the Australian Maritime Museum should choose to use the apparently fictional prefix HMB. They own the Endeavour replica so they can call that ship whatever they like but using HMB to refer to the historical ship as they do seems absurd. Perhaps some mention of this should be made in the article. Petecarney (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The question whether specific naming conventions can, and should be allowed to, over-rule general naming conventions is unresolved at present. In practice it happens all the time—look no further than Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom; who the hell calls her that?!—but there is disagreement over whether or not this is a problem. Hesperian 14:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, my personal opinion is that specific guidelines should be unfettered. There is a faction who would impose consistency across all of Wikipedia, without a thought for the expertise and experience of the people who actually write articles in particular fields. I don't like that. Whilst I prefer HM Bark in this specific case, in general I support the idea that the WP:SHIPS people know what they're doing, they have good reasons behind their naming convention, and those reasons should be honoured. Hesperian 14:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography section
I've been mildly bold and begun the tortuous process of reducing the clutter in the references section by creating a Bibliography for books and the RIMAP report (so far), then converting the references that link to them into the traditional format of author name, date, page number per WP:CITESHORT. This is per the suggestion by Brad here.

It's a work in progress but I thought I'd save an interim version to avoid edit conflicts. If anyone opposes the format change let me know. Euryalus (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Decluttering" done - I left the web and news citations as is, and I haven't used the Harvard system as it wasn't the one the article started with. Disagreements, proposals to change it back welcome. Euryalus (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion for those involved in editing this article: contains useful information which may help resolve a number of issues and add detail. Southforelandlighthouse (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources differ on purchase price
There's an apparent difference between otherwise reliable sources over the purchase price of Earl of Pembroke by the Admiralty:
 * 2840 pounds: - stated in Hough (Captain James Cook: a biography), Blainey (Sea of Dangers) and the Captain Cook Society; vs
 * 2307 pounds - Hosty and Hundley (the RIMAP report), the Young Endeavour scheme and the Encyclopedia of New Zealand

There's also Portcitieslondon, which supports both 2800 pounds and 2307 pounds, and therefore disqualifies itself as a particularly reliable source on this issue.

I've noted both in the article, eacvh with one reference though more exist on either side. I suspect the difference relates to the amount allocated by Admiralty, and the amount actually paid - the RIMAP wording, for example, refers to a decision to purchase for 2307 pounds, while Hough notes an actual purchase for 2840. But thats just a personal opinion - views, comments welcome. Euryalus (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

From C. Knight, extracted in snippets from Google books:


 * Valuation by Deptford dockyard : £2307 5s 6d,
 * Agreed price: £2800,
 * Total paid inc. interest due to delayed final payment: £2840. 10s. 11d.

Petecarney (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha! It's nice to have a mystery solved :) Thanks for finding that - can you update the article if you have a moment? Alternatively I can do it based on the googlebooks snippet, though if you have a hard copy of the Mariner's Mirror edition you'll have better citation details than I will. Euryalus (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have access to a hardcopy. The full paragraph about the purchase (from two snippets) is:

ledger under the date of October 31st, 1769, as follows: To Thomas Milner1 £2840. l0s. 11d. By Bill dated 24th June 1768 for the value of the Earl of Pembroke now called the Endeavour, bark, Burthen 368 71/94 tons, together with her masts and yards on the day above said £2800. Interest on £1000, part thereof from 9th October 1768 to 13th October 1769 being 370 days at 4% per annum £40. 10s. 11d = £2840. 10s. 11d.
 * The purchase price is recorded in the Navy Treasurer's

Cheers, Petecarney (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Endeavour was beached at what is now Cooktown for almost 7 weeks, not 2.
I have just reversed some changes made recently where it was claimed the Endeavour only spent two weeks at the mouth of the Endeavour River for repairs. I have just corrected this to 7 weeks and given a reference. The ship sailed into the mouth of the Endeavour River and was beached on 18 June, 1770 and it sailed again on 4th August. I haven't time to find them now but these dates are clearly recorded in Cook's journal. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, my mistake. I added the "seven weeks" because I remembered it from the Log, then thought I'd add up the days to make sure. Bizarrely, I added the 13 days of June to the 4 days of August and came up with two weeks instead. Good thing John has this watchlisted. :) Euryalus (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Relics - primary information
I added a paragraph about a fragment of the Endeavour being flown on the shuttle Endeavour in 1996, as I am myself the primary source - I was personally responsible for the acquisition of the fragment and its delivery to NASA. I have never written about this event before, and though it was covered in the Sydney press at the time, it has never been represented in an online format, and it predates online press. I do not have in my possession any of the press coverage made at the time. Astronaut Andy Thomas referred to it verbally during the mission, but this is impossible to verify online as neither the entire mission in video format or mission transcripts have been published. I do own hard copy correspondence between myself and Dr Thomas, but this is again primary source (and personal correspondence is of itself not material that I should be obliged to publish); as are photographs of the artefact, myself and Dr Thomas on his return from his mission and a plaque from NASA awarded to me in expression of appreciation for my participation in STS-77.

The paragraph in question reads as: A five centimetre (two inch) fragment of the stock band from the abandoned bower anchor was flown on board OV-105 Space Shuttle Endeavour on mission STS-77 in May 1996. Australian-born Mission Specialist Andy Thomas requested the fragment to fly on his mission with him. Along with the fragment flew medallions, curated in Sydney, Australia by the Powerhouse Museum, originally made in England in the late 18th century using clay collected from Botany Bay during Cook's expedition there. For four months in late 1996, the returned fragment was exhibited at the Powerhouse Museum alongside a fragment of the Space Shuttle Endeavour and a piece of the heatshield from Apollo 15 command module CM-112 Endeavour (which had been named after the HMB Endeavour), briefly bringing three historical Endeavours together. The flown stock band fragment is now on display in the James Cook Museum in Cooktown, the fragments of the two Endeavour spacecraft returned to their private collection.

It is therefore impossible (without me setting up a website somewhere and telling the story, which frankly would bear as much veracity as the above paragraph, at the end of the day) to verify this story against other online sources. There is simply nothing to cite. Removing this paragraph simply removes the principle source of this information. What is the recourse? The paragraph's removal was frankly unwarranted, even though there is an insistence on reference, as this is the only presence online of this information. What is primary information to do? Is Wiki to remain secondary only? Surfren (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC) surfren


 * Yes I am afraid so. Wikipedia is based on a number of key principles, one of which can be found in more detail at WP:VERIFIABILITY. Basically it does not matter for the project that something is true, it must also be verifiable by other users. The user in question acted correctly to revert the information, especially as this is a featured article and the highest standards of referencing must be adhered to. Wikipedia is not the place to publish new information or research, as we are a tertiary source. A solution might be to find the details of the papers which covered the story at the time. Many papers have online archives which can be searched, and which would give you references to support what you say. Benea (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dogs
Livestock on board included pigs, poultry, two greyhounds and a milking goat.


 * Bleve the term livestock usually refers to domestic animals destined for milking, shearing or slaughter. Assume they didn't eat the greyhouds.


 * Why then did they take dogs on a long voyage in a crowded ship — particularly, why a breed that wants room to run? Sca (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Belated comment - the greyhounds were pets of Joseph Banks. They didn't eat them, but in January 1769 Molyneux's journal makes clear there's only one of them left, so the other one must have died somewhere between Portsmouth and Rio. (ref Beaglehole 1968, p46). Agree re livestock, will shift the greyhounds out of the grouping. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Damage, initial repairs
Fothering and careening are linked to explanations, but neither process is complex and could be explained simply in the text. Also, it's not specified what was done on the east coast of Australia to repair the hull, although it's hinted at in the description of later repairs at Batavia. Sca (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

captain-james-cook-endeavour-ship-found
Of possible note: Wreckage of Captain James Cook's ship Endeavour found, guardian.com. Needs fact-checking.

T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 05:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on HMS Endeavour. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/oaiFiles/EndeavourRPT2000No2b2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on HMS Endeavour. 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/20110521101826/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/endeavour.html to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/Endeavour.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080721065703/http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=34 to http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=34
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090706134055/http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/oaiFiles/EndeavourRPT2000No2b2.pdf to http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/oaiFiles/EndeavourRPT2000No2b2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002015627/http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/anchors_cannon.pdf to http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/anchors_cannon.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521101826/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/endeavour.html to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/Endeavour.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HMS Endeavour. 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/20081030074920/http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Endeavour_info.pdf to http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Endeavour_info.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030074920/http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Endeavour_info.pdf to http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Endeavour_info.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on HMS Endeavour. 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 tag to http://ndpbeta.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1376345?searchTerm=James+Cook
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513202356/http://www.hmbarkendeavour.co.uk/the-endeavour-%26-cook/8/ to http://www.hmbarkendeavour.co.uk/the-endeavour-%26-cook/8/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918230535/http://www.rimarinearchproject.org/rimap_endeavor.htm to http://www.rimarinearchproject.org/rimap_endeavor.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719200716/http://www.nationaltrustqld.org/property-jamescook.htm to http://www.nationaltrustqld.org/property-jamescook.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120203156/http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/currency/money/0094086.html to http://rbnz.govt.nz/currency/money/0094086.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219143727/http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Signals_71_p5-7-Endeavour_sails_home.pdf to http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Signals_71_p5-7-Endeavour_sails_home.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140505023418/http://www.transportmuseum.co.uk/endeavour.php to http://www.transportmuseum.co.uk/endeavour.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160815030647/http://rgssamachupicchu.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/action-off-cartagena.html to http://rgssamachupicchu.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/action-off-cartagena.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Dead link replaced with an alternative in the article. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

how many flags does it have?
I belive someone needs to tell us how many flags were on the boat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.47.50 (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Endeavour flew two flags: a red ensign and a red, white or blue jack. Cook didn't hold flag rank and had no additional flag noting his presence. These flags were common to every similarly sized Royal Navy vessel at the time. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Source of the mast height.
I read that the mast height cite the file whose name is ZAZ6595 from National Maritime Museum Greenwich Endeavour, but i find that the file is from different vessel.

This is the link https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/86386.html. Did i read the wrong file? Agus Damanik (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Shorter mizzen mast height supported by 1794 illustration in the article
The shorter mizzen mast height that is debated above is shown in the roughly contemporary painting that is in the article. To be clear, it is the lower mizzen mast that is thought to be unusually short. This is discussed by maritime historian David R MacGregor in Merchant Sailing Ships: Sovereignty of Sail 1775-1815. He suggests that the recorded lower mast height would give a mizzen topsail that is proportionately large - which is what we see in the painting. MacGregor also states that a sister ship of the Earl of Pembroke had the mizzen stepped on a block of wood that sat on top of the keelson - so offsetting a short height to some degree.

The article states "Late twentieth century research suggests the annotation may be a transcription error with "19 yards 29 inches" (18.1 m) being the true reading..." The reference for this is Marquardt - but it is not clear if he is reporting the opinion of a number of maritime historians or simply his own findings. If the latter, the article would certainly be misdirecting the reader on how widely it is accepted that there was a transcription error. On the face of it, we have MacGregor, who is known for meticulous detailed research on the design of sailing ships of all types, against Marquardt, whose primary interest is in model-making. What does the cited reference actually say on the matter? How does this match with the near contemporary painting? How likely is it that a clerk in the Admiralty dockyards would have made a mistake in recording lengths of spars - when that is what he did for a living? At present, I feel that the article reads as though Wikipedia thinks the historic record is a mistake - but possibly without good evidence that it is. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Improving readability
There are some options to improve the readability of this article.

The first would be to use for the footnotes. That would mean that the reader would be able to use a mouseover to display the text of the note, rather than clicking the superscript to travel to the footnotes section and then the footnote number to return to the place where they were reading. It would resolve the (to me) bizarre ordering of the footnotes, which would more usually follows the order in which they arise in the main text. It would also comply with the warning in "This is no longer the recommended method of citing sources. If a note list separate from the list of references is desired,,  and  may be used". I recommend as it is much more common than the other two options quoted here (202,000 versus 34,000 and 4,600 articles).

The second would be to use a template such as for the references. The mouseover functionality allows the reader to see the full reference (as a simple two step process) without moving away from the point in the article where the reference occurs. This is important as at present, if you want to know the full reference you have to manually go to the References section and then find your own way back to your point in the main text. Since the full references make use of various cite templates, half the work of making the necessary changes has already been done. We already see being used in the article for the reference Tracking Apollo to the Moon, so the article has an inbuilt demonstration of the functionality.

I appreciate that some editors have strong opinions about referencing methods. However, I feel these changes would improve the article for the reader. What do others think? ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * In absence of any comment, I have gone ahead with the change to as this seems less contentious. I will wait a little while longer to see if there are any opinions on changing to  for references. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 18:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

a problem...
I have a problem with "...died on 6 February, followed six days later by ship's carpenter John Seetterly, whose skilled repair work in Batavia had allowed Endeavour to resume her voyage." I don't have access to the reference Beaglehole, but I am guessing that the ref simply confirms the date of his death. The issue is that the Cook biography Captain Cook: Master of the Seas by Frank Mclynn says on page 157, covering events in Batavia: "....finally on 18 October he moved the ship from its anchorage to the dry dock on Kuyper's Island. There was a further shock when Cook discovered that his men could not do the necessary work, as the Dutch claimed a monopoly on all dry dock repairs and could consequently name their own price. Further haggling meant that the technicians at the yard on Kuyper's Island did not actually start work until 6 November." We also have: "Satterley for his part was deeply impressed with their [the Dutch shipwright's] expertise – they were particularly skilled at careening – so the long wait before they started work proved worth it in the end."

From these I infer that Seeterly/Satterly was not the person who did the repair work in Batavia – he was simply the customer who specified what needed doing. If that is the case, the article will need amending. Perhaps he should be credited with the repairs in Australia, but not those that were actually carried out by the Dutch.

Is all of this thinking supported by other sources? What does Beaglehole actually say on the matter? ThoughtIdRetired TIR 20:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think I was the one who originally wrote that sentence. Unfortunately am not sure I still have the Beaglehole book. I'll check but from memory the "skilled repair work" was Seetterley's work at Endeavour River in restoring the ship to a point that it could reach Batavia, rather than any work in Batavia itself. This is supported by the Cook quote in the article, marvelling that this was achievable. The sentence is in any case descriptive, largely to remind the reader of who Seetterley was.
 * Absent the Beaglehole wording, one option would therefore be to change the sentence to read "... John Seetterly, whose skilled repair work in Batavia had allowed Endeavour to continue her voyage ..." That way we maintain the reminder for the reader that they've heard of this person before, without needing to resolve the question of who actually oversaw the Batavia repairs.
 * Views welcome, and as above I'll also look for the Beaglehole. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Noted. In the source that I have to hand, we find "In the third week died John Satterley the carpenter, whose skills had enabled them to leave the Endeavour river...". So we could go one step further and simply substitute "Australia" for "Batavia". ThoughtIdRetired TIR 08:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)