Talk:USS Wanderer (1857)

Tone
There's a lot of great information here, but I think that some of the writing needs to be smoothed out a bit. Check the articles in the "Warfare" section at WP:FA to see examples of what we are striving for. Phrases like "after a pleasant visit" and other "chatty" turns of phrase should be phased out, towards making this a more neutral encyclopedia article. Also, I'm concerned for copyright reasons. If this information was taken from a US government site, that's fine, but if there's exact wording taken from a copyrighted book, then that needs to be changed immediately. Other than that though, this is an excellent addition to Wikipedia, and thanks for the work! :) --Elonka 17:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tone and copyright concerns
The original contributor copied the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS) entry - see http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/w2/wanderer-i.htm - for the ship into Wikipedia verbatim. There's nothing wrong with that -- I do it all the time -- but DANFS was published in several volumes between the 1950s and 1970s, and its tone varies, with some entries using too much Navy slang and jargon and too many Navy abbreviations to be accessible to the Wikipedia audience and with spme entries being rather jingoistic and folksy in ways that may have been approrpiate in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s but are not appropriate in Wikipedia. I edit for that; some contributors do not.

I have edited the article for tone and style and done things like improve and add links, add metric conversions, add a public domain image, improve the reference link, add categories, added an otherships template for ships of the same name, and so forth. I also cut the distractingly large number of sections and subsections (which did not come from DANFS) down to a manageable few. I think what I have done addresses your tone concerns, so I took the tone tag out.

There should be no copyright concerns about the text. It all comes from DANFS, and DANFS, whether in hard copy or online, is a U.S. Navy publication and completely in the public domain. (See the Wikipedia DANFS tag.) The image I have added also comes from the DANFS entry about the ship, and therefore also is in the public domain. -- MdNavman, 28 October 2008

The Image of "Wanderer"
Doubt has been cast on whether this is in fact an image of the "Wanderer" of 1857, or an earlier British schooner of the same name which had been wrecked in 1851. See message (and excuse the Wikipedia dig) at https://lists.queensu.ca/cgi-bin/listserv/wa?A2=MARHST-L;194ed108.1102 At present no further discussion on that forum. Davidships (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Later relevant message now at https://lists.queensu.ca/cgi-bin/listserv/wa?A2=ind1102&L=MARHST-L&T=0&F=&S=&P=81149 Davidships (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Consolidation of articles?
Hello all - It seems to me like the two articles USS Wanderer (1857) and The Wanderer (slave ship) ought to be consolidated into one article, because they are both about the same ship, albeit during periods when the ship was put to different uses. Could editors more familiar with the subject matter please comment on this? (Posting this comment on the talk pages for both articles.) Thanks. KConWiki (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge - Agree - the ship is the same, and it only confuses issues to have two articles.Parkwells (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge - Agree - the 2 pages should be merged --Legenderfox (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)