Talk:Vasa (ship)/Archive 1

Greatest ship of its day
.. Its day being, of course, 10 Aug 1628...

Title Issues
The definitive discussion of the naming of Vasa is in Cederlund pages 15-16. Actually Vasa I should be considered the definitive reference about the ship when there are any discrepancies between sources because it has cleared up many misconceptions found in earlier works. Professor Cederlund was one of the original archaeologists who worked on Vasa after it was brought to the surface in 1961 and he retired shortly after writing this book in 2006. Vasa2 01:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this ship really known as "HMS Wasa"? I'm pretty sure "HMS" applies only to British Royal Navy ships. The "HMS" does not appear anywhwere on vasamuseet.se or other Wasa sites that I can find.


 * No, of course not. And the W in the name is really just an archaism (isn't used at the museum site either). The page should probably be moved to Vasa (ship) (where it has been before). / Uppland 21:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not an archaism, it's a difference between English and Swedish standard orthography. The usage of V and W isn't consistent between various European languages, because of differences in pronunciation. (My father, who grew up bilingual in English and Yiddish, always pronounced "Volkswagen" as "Folksvagen"; I think that's also the pronunciation in standard German.) I don't recall the standard orthography, but I know it's not unusual for a word to be spelled with a V in Swedish but with a W in English. Bottom line: we should go by English standards for spelling words. Though even those are not terribly consistent... Isaac R 05:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No, "Wasa" is 17th century Swedish orthography (which had no very consistent standard) and "Vasa" is modern Swedish orthography. If one feels the need to settle for an English standard form, based on other usage of the same name, it would probably be Vasa. One may argue that using 17th century Swedish is motivated in this case, but hardly for any reason having to do with the English language. / Uppland 08:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, you've convinced me. I'm going to change the article to plain old Vasa as soon as I teach myself how. I'll also note that archaic spelling is still sometimes seen. Isaac R 21:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The name appears in contemporary sources as (in decreasing order of frequency) Wasan, Wasen, Vasan (the n at the end is the definite article). When the project was beginnning, the organisers chose to use the most common 17th-century spelling, which persisted until 1990. When the new museum was opened, a conscious decision was made by the National Maritime Museum to change the official spelling in the museum to Vasa in accordance with the rules of modern Swedish orthography.80.217.242.79 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bugger in. British is: His Majesties Ship Sweedish: Hans MajestÃ¤ts Skepp. I highly feel it should be named as HMS as it suits better than the redundent (ship) -- Cat chi? 21:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Err ok I read above, how about Regalskeppet Vasa? -- Cat chi? 21:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Regalskeppet Vasa is the proper swedish name of the ship. Maybe Royal Warship Vasa in english?
 * If I may, the term "Regalskepp" in Swedish is not entirely unproblematical. It is normally reserved for ships named after the Royal Regalia (like the "Kronan", the Crown). Vasa is a name of a dynasti and thus not a Royal Regalia. Nor can the term be readily translated as "Royal Ship". The Warship Vasa, or simply the Vasa are the preferred terms. However, with so many Vasas around, I do appreciate the need for some signifier as to which Vasa we are talking about.Cobrabob 23:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The current name is not appropriate and quite contrary to the naming conventions. Please move it back to Vasa (ship) instead of using this rather exclusively Swedish-language term that doesn't even seem to be a tad colloquial to begin with.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think regalskeppet Vasa is the best place for the article. Maybe Royal Warship Vasa if it has to be in English. Vasa(ship) is a horrible suggestion. --Dahlis 15:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The term "Regalskeppet" is not a colloquial expression in Swedish, I would rather call it formal.


 * HMS Vasa is certainly misleading and wrong. But I'm not sure about using 'Regalskeppet' either. Admittedly, it is the term used in Swedish when disambiguation is needed (both the ship and family are very well known). See Naming_conventions (ships), the name should be "Swedish battleship Vasa". --BluePlatypus 19:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That Wikipedia naming convention says that it should be named "HMS". Which is what the Swedish Royal Navys ships are called today. But which I think is wrong, as Vasa was never called that. If Vasa should loose "Regalskeppet", it could be argued that the british ships should lose the "HMS". And vice versa. And to answer an earlier commment: according to the Swedish National Encyclopedia, the term "regalskeppet" applies to Vasa. I vote for keeping the article name as is.


 * Hmm.. Well, the question is if you should back-date the prefix or not. The guidelines point out that this is common practice and Wikipedia practice. But it's not common practice for Swedish ships. It isn't really common practice on modern ships, even. E.g. people tend to say "korvetten Visby" instead of "HMS Visby" or "jagaren Norrköping" instead of "HMS Norrköping". --BluePlatypus 21:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The term "regalskeppet," which would best be translated as "regal ship," has often been applied to the ship in the modern period, but there are no original documents that do so. As pointed out in one of the other posts, the term was applied to capital ships which also usually carried names of the royal regalia, but the term was not in common usage until after Vasa sank. HMS is also a modern convention, and is not usually applied in recent Swedish documents to ships of Vasa's period. As the ship is no longer a commissioned vessel in the navy, the Swedish navy does not use the HMS when referring to it. Whether this is relevant for Wikipedia's nomenclature conventions is another matter. 80.217.242.79 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

People might do. But the Swedish marine does not. They call their ships HMS. http://www.marinen.mil.se/


 * Neither does people who actually know what they talk about. HMS is the proper prefix. These prefixes are usually not pronounced in any language, but that doesn't make it less correct.

"Regalskeppet Vasa" is a terrible title of an English article. First, non-Scandinavians have no idea that it's actually a term, not a part of the name. How many of you Swedish users would find article titles such as "Schlachtschiff Bismarck" or "Senkan Yamato" good? Secondly this kind of naming is not used anywhere else on wikipedia, EVEN if "regalskeppet" would be translated to English. I suggest it should be removed without further ado.

Infobox
What's the point of having an infobox which contains almost no info and is clearly custom-made for the U.S. Navy in any case? Uppland 15:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Fixed.

Didn't see the "fixed", anyway, more pleasing for the eye to see neatly ordered infoboxes. They can be fully custom tailored. Scoo 11:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Vasa and the Challenger space shuttle
An anon. ( added the following, which i have removed:
 * A documentary film shown in a small theater in the museum discusses the immediate aftermath of the Vasa's sinking. For context, consider the vast quantities of oak consumed in her construction, coupled with oak's status as the sole property of the King, the stealing of which was a capital offence.  It is not too great a stretch to think of the Vasa's sinking as the 1628/Swedish equivalent of the Challenger disaster in the USA in 1986.  As in the Challenger aftermath, there was also an official inquiry into the cause of the Vasa disaster.  However, largely because of the central role of the King's inexpert meddling in the ship's design, contributing to her unseaworthiness, the inquiry board officially came to no conclusive findings as to the causes of the sinking.

To make this comparison in the article, we will need a cite from a written source making it. Otherwise it is original research. The film shown at the Museum is difficult to check for anyone not actually at the museum, or at least in Stockholm, and it is in any case not quite clear from the removed passage that the comparison actually comes from the film. Uppland 16:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Name of captain?
The article currently has two names for the captain, Söfring Hansson and Söfring Matsson. According to this page at the Museum site, it was Söfring Hansson, but I wouldn't take that as gospel if there is a better printed secondary source which refers to contemporary sources. Uppland 18:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops. Hansson is correct, I was confusing him with a boatswain named Matsson. Thanks for pointing that out! Henrik 18:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The captain's name was originally probably Hansen, although he is referred to in some original sources as Kjöldsen, and in Swedish sources from the time of the sinking as Söfring Jyte, since he came from Jutland (Jylland) in Denmark. 80.217.242.79 20:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Paavo Nurmi
There are plentiful Finnish sources describing the HUT students' most famous prank - placing a statue of Paavo Nurmi into the Wasa mere days before its lifting. It's well-documented in the Finnish Wikipedia, too. Can anyone find an English source so we can add this little fact here? --Kizor 19:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Somebody added it to the article, but I removed it with the following edit summary: "even if the unsourced Paavo Nurmi statue thing is correct, it is obviously a result of later contamination of the site and not relevant to mention here". If it should be noted, it should be sourced and the nature of the find has to be very clear from the context where it is mentioned. Uppland 08:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed this rather distracting factoid. If someone wants to explain how it is relevant to an encyclopedic article about a 17th century ship, they're welcome to reinsert the material. That it's verifiable or among HUT students doesn't mean it has to be included here.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a clear source at http://web.archive.org/web/20040713124028/http://www.ttky.tut.fi/jaynat/nurmi.html That's an archive org recovery of the tampere university of technology student unions website. And the scan is from the one of Finland's best selling evening magazines. I think this very well could be a part of the recovery section as a. yes it is contamination, but it is worth noting that such contamination was able to take place (the ship was suposed to be under the Swedish navy's guard) b. as lifting of the regalskeppet wasa was a big national and patriotic event for Sweden it also is a very well-known story in Finland, that at the time still suffered greatly the little-brother complex, and got a bit of payback for pranking big brother Sweden this way ;) Gillis 20:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sourced information is not per definition worthy of inclusion and a single mention in a Finnish tabloid really isn't a good indiciation of notability. It's not even a particularly reliable source. I've worked at the Vasa Museum gift shop throughout the summer and heard a lot of anecdotes about Vasa and the recovery, but never once has Nurmi popped up. This factoid has had little or no impact on perceptions about Vasa. And while Vasa is certainly a source of national pride for Sweden, it's still something that is relevant to historians and arcaeologists all over the world. Finnish-Swedish rivalry is in this context extremely insignificant. I can't help but sensing that we're including this because merely to be smug about a very pointless tech student prank.
 * Peter Isotalo 08:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well surely a tabloid with hundreds of thousands of readers would not invent an interview with the person resonsible. And if they did i doubt ttky would put it on their website. Try googling "+vasa +teekkari" or "+vasa +teknolog". The story is _widely_ known in Finland, i remember being told about it for the first time when i was about seven years old by my father. It's in every presentation of the University to freshmen etc.
 * Here is for instance a link to the polytechnic museums exhibit pieace that is a similar statue . It does say it is not the same but a simialr statue, and that the original statue is not on display in the vasa museum. That article also says "To make sure the statue would be discovered as a prank the boys responsible held a press-conference and ended up pictured on the cover of two large Swedish newspapers and had ilta-sanomat run a story about them."
 * Of course if you still think it miught be an urban legend then why not call the divers, if they are still alive their names are in the article and their contact info should be possible to get from any finnish phonebook i guess :)
 * That someone could do something like that really exhibits the amateurishness of the recovery, and really is quite funny after all. (I personally like the part of the joke that it gave a mild blow to such patriotic wooing as lifting the vasa was :))
 * I personally also think you are being a bit anal on this issue :) Gillis 10:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can certainly believe that it would be more well known in Finland than in Sweden. It's something which could be mentioned in as trivia about the Vasa (but trivia is of course generally discouraged here, with good reasons). It's not really relevant to the Vasa itself, which this article is mainly about. A sentence or two in a future Recovery of Vasa-article could be devoted to this prank, but I'm skeptical about including it here.  henrik  • talk  10:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it was originally put in as trivia, but it's better to keep trivia sections away from articles since they usually grow fast and start containing thinfs that could be listed elsewhere. Gillis 10:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not taking sides whether the incident happened or not, but I'm saying that one minor clipping from a Finnish tabloid might not be the best way of supporting the fact.
 * That the recovery of Vasa was hailed as a national(ist) triumph doesn't mean that the historical and scientific importance of the endevour was lessened. Proclaiming an extremely ambitious and risky project as being amateurish because a few determined tech students were hell-bent on getting attention through site contamination still smacks of mere "we sure showed those haughty Swedes a thing or two"-smugness. Jeopardizing the scientific validity of such a major find just for a laugh and nationalist pride was both destructive and irresponsible.
 * And we're still really just discussing mere trivia, no matter how popular the prank might be in Finland. Whether it was amusing or not is not in the least relevant to the history of the ship. I think the inclusion of this info lessens the quality and validity of the article.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that leaving a few kg statue on board of a ship is pretty far from being even considered by the most purist archelogist to be even by a long shot jeopardizing or contaminating the site (as it was never intended to be kept secret). At least not if that archeologist is in for such risky rockstar archeologism as lifting a ship from the bottom of the sea can be (okay there was ~probably little risk deemed for the ship being broken up, but if it was so i doubt a small statue did anything to increase the risk). And we are not talking about the most hidden dive-site ever... You still seem to argue the article should be limited only to Vasa as a phenomenon of archelogy and history, but sure as hell it is a phenomenon of many other virtues as well wherein such a "ridiculous act" of "attention craving" fits right in. Gillis 17:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Contamination is always a risk and the deed proved only that it could be done. It's not like we're talking about clever social critique or political satire. Most prank are about getting attention and having fun, and this one fits the description quite nicely.
 * But we can ignore the value of the deed itself and focus entirely on its notability: It seems to be absent from general ship lore with the exception of a few contemporary articles in tabloids and websites related to Helsinki tech students. In the scheme of things, it hasn't altered people's perception of the ship and appears to have been ignored in the large body of literature on the ship. I would expect to find this type of fact in an article of curiosities about the ship, but not a serious encyclopedic article. It's what I'd expect from a Wikipedia that thinks that excluding distracting and trivial oddities is tantamount to being uptight and anal.
 * Since I believe this incident is so minor and apparantly non-notable I'm removing the mention until proved otherwise. It's simply too minor to include in a main article about the ship itself.
 * Peter Isotalo 05:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Having an entire paragraph on a student prank while the entire recovery section is still barely started is giving this fairly trivial fact undue weight. It's a kind of fact that seems to have more value for those who already know about it, than to those unfamiliar with it. When there's a more general discussion of site contamination, of which there was plenty, it will get due coverage, but right now it's completely out of place and is merely trivia.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to just add a me too, but an entire paragraph about Paavo in a section that is barely four paragraphs long about an event multiple books spend hundreds of pages covering isn't at all balanced. Gillis, would you be willing to hold off until the recovery section is more fleshed out and then reevaluate how and whether we can and should incorporate this factoid in the text? henrik  • talk  07:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, i have to remind you this is wikipedia. It is in the nature of wikipedia that it does not have to be perfect whole the time, as long as it is being developed into better and better by information added by multiple users and then eventually sorted out. But fine, we can add in a trivia section, but i think it fits better in the recovery section. That the recovery section is not thorough enough on other matthers relating to the recovery is not a reason not to include something else, but a reason to make it more thorough on those areas. Gillis 10:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought i'd post my posting onto Peter Isotalo's talk page here instead of writing it here as well Gillis 11:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Perfection is something that editors strive for and facilitate through their own endeavours, not something that appears or disappears spontaneously. We are the ones who decide whether trivia should be added or removed, not some mystical force majeure. I suppose Gillis' determination to include this piece of somewhat gloating nationalist trivia will force others than himself to put in the hard work of providing contextual and stylistic framing for the insignifican blurb. What really irks me about this, though, is that this is all done while hadning out lectures about respecting "the spirit of Wikipedia".
 * Peter Isotalo 11:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? this is Wikipedia, not nupedia, that "strive through their own endeavour of editors" never worked so well in the case of nupedia, now did it? I on my part strongly object to your attitude agaisnt me as a fellow active wikipedia-editor who puts loads of my time on editing articles on wikipedia, just as you do. In fact i take it as a blatant insult and slap in the face after the hours of my time i've spent on wikipedia. I'm sorry, but you don't own wikipedia, a fact that sometimes is hard to grasp for people who have gotten stuck too hard on some certain article. And there is no nationalism whatsoever in my postings (funny, there is a small edit debate on another article where I am accused for being a Swedish nationalist) i would have felt adding this fact would have been just as important or unimportant if it would have been done by Swedish students or chinese students. And honestly, it is not so much the matther of the factoid as the matther of principle of your personal crusade to own an article here. HAND. Gillis 11:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (unindent) Please, take it easy. There's no need to resort to attacks on either side. Frankly, I'm getting tired of this, and would much rather go on to constructively improve the article rather than arguing this. henrik  • talk  11:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Fine Peter wants me to post it here:

Dear peter, i am starting to think you have not read the talk-page as i have written several thousands of characters onto it.

Do not get me wrong, i see you have worked very hard on the article and brought it to a readable standard, close to FA-class indeed.

I feel there is not an earth-shattering need to add in this factoid, but i neither feel there is an earth-shattering need to remove it either. And as i deem the article has not reached such a huge size that it would be kludged to read, then i do feel such a factoid should be added and that refusing such a revision is clearly against the spirit of wikipedia. If you want to write a FA-class article you should be ready to edit in whatever meets the joint threshold, and as i am not the only editor to propose this addition and it is not against any wikipedia policy I think that level of content is met. I've done some reviewing of fa-proposals and i feel that imho the most fa-valued articles are the ones that have reached their quality "in the spirit of wikipedia" as i'd put it.

My main argument is that the Vasa is so much more than simply a wreck and archaeological project, it's part of the zeitgeist of that time and therefore non archaeologically related topics could be covered as well.

In addition I'd like to point out that the Finnish wikipedia did feature this fact, and the Finnish wikipedia is the most rigorously control-edited wikipedia i know of (and i'm editing on five wikipedias.). If you say the factoid is only known in Finland, then i just think that is yet another reason to add it onto the English one.

Gillis 11:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice!
Nice stuff Peter, the new placement of the factoid is much better than the old one and makes it a better fit for the article. As i guess you are working on this article for FA-status, so my guess is somone might want to see a source for the "many more recent objects", but this is notthing i object to. Gillis 16:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources wanted
Hello everybody. Nice to find some experts on the Vasa's destiny. I'd be interested in some more detailed sources. Is there a good book that covers most facts? I would also like to see some pictures from that time. Are there any pictures (drawings e.g.) showing the (so-called) "stability test"? --62.214.54.227 16:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The National Maritime Museums of Sweden have recently published a major work on the history of the project, which corrects many earlier misconceptions about the origins, sinking and recovery of the ship. See Carl Olof Cederlund and Frederick M. Hocker, Vasa I: The Archaeology of a Swedish Warship of 1628 (Sotckholm 2006). 80.217.242.79 20:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Four ships, two larger of around 135 feet and two smaller of 108 feet
135' and 108' refer to the ships' keel lengths? Their lengths at the waterline? Their lengths from stem to stern? My sense is that it's the keel lengths, but I'm not certain enough to change the article. --Badger151 09:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There were in fact two different contracts for the ship, one signed in December, 1624 and one in Janaury 1625. The earlier contract specifies 135 feet on the keel for the larger ships and "the same size as the ship Gustavus" for the smaller. The later contract specifies 64 aln (128 feet) on the keel for the larger. The prices are different for the two contracts as well. Later correspondence indicates that the earlier specification was the one actually followed. See Carl Olof Cederlund and Fred Hocker, Vasa I: The Archaeology of a Swedish Warship of 1628 (Stockholm 2006) pp. 42-43.80.217.242.79 20:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

War ensign
The triple-tailed war ensign of Sweden wasn't introduced before the mid-1600s. Before that, a swallow-tailed (double-tailed) ensign was used. --Camptown 09:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't true. There are depictions of Swedish naval vessels flying triple-tailed flags as early as the late 1620s. I spoke to the director of the Vasa Museum about this and he said that there was no proper standardization of naval flags before the late 17th century.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's wrong. There are no such depictions, and I'm afraid that the director of the Wasa Museum (he obviously hasn't got an acacemic degree) is out for lunch regarding the matter... The absence of a standardization doesn't justify a flag that was most likely not used; and BTW, the Wasa Museum displays the wrong flag at the wrong part of the ship(!), so I wouldn't trust the folks at the museum as regards to vexillological issues... --Camptown 23:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. I think we should use the double-tailed flag until there are some evidence that the triple-tailed flag was used in 1628. Maybe Isotalo is thinking of triple-tailed pennants used by the Swedish fleet back in the 1600s? Bondkaka 08:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Camptown, the director showed me a detail of the painting and I'm looking at the full scene right now. It's a water color painted around 1627-29 depicting ships off the port of Pillau in Prussia. It's credited to Krigsarkivet and the book I found it in is called Glorious Vasa: The Magnificent Ship & 17th Century Sweden on page 247. It shows Swedish ships and what looks to be one Dutch vessel. The types of flags on the Swedish vessels actually vary, but most of them are triple-tailed and none are double-tailed. And no, they're not pennants but flags like the one that was reverted by Camptown.
 * So where's the source that puts the authority of the Vasa Museum to shame anyway? What are the sources for flag usage on Vasa, for example?
 * Peter Isotalo 01:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Regalskeppet Vasa → Vasa (ship) — Using the title Regalskeppet Vasa is cumbersome and fairly irrelevant in an article in English. It sounds overly formal even in Swedish (at least for encyclopedic purposes) and means absolutely nothing to speakers of English. —Peter Isotalo 18:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support I've been to the Vasa Museum and I didn't notice anyone calling it Regalskeppet Vasa... Vasa (ship) is clear and short, and easy to link to. --Kjoonlee 19:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Having a Swedish word in the title is cumbersome and unnecessary. Vasa (ship) is a clear improvement. Henrik 20:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I protest against the move. Although Regalskepp is a Swedish word, it is a term without clear corresponding meaning in the English language. (As a sidenote, it can be added that Royalskepp was used as a synonym for Regalskepp). In my opinion was "Regalskeppet Vasa" the obvious name of the article. --MoRsE 01:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Galleon
From what I can tell by reading the various articles on ship types, Vasa appears to be better described as a galleon, not a ship of the line. If anything, the high stern castle would be a clear indication that she's quite different from ships like  Nelson's Victory. I've changed this in the article until the issue has been discussed a bit more.

Peter Isotalo 10:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Peter. The Land 11:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is that you can't really use the word 'Galleon' for the ship, as it was never used in the Swedish navy. The correct terminology is Regalskepp. The Swedish crown had started to classify its ships in 1620 (before that it was really the wild wild west). "Large warships" were now called Regalskepp or Royalskepp, "Medium warships" were called Medelstora örlogsskepp, and all others were called Mindre örlogsskepp. The chancellor Axel Oxenstierna specified the definitions 13 years later (in 1633). "Regalskepp" were now ships weighing 400-500 läster (one so-called Swedish heavy läst was about 2.5 metric tons), a stort örlogsskepp (large warship) weighed 200-250 läster,  mindre skepp (smaller ship) weighed 150-200 läster and minsta skepp (smallest ship) weighed 100-150 läster. --MoRsE 01:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't think that follows - we generally use the English term to classify foreign ships, where there is an equivalent. By all means make the point that she was a Regalskepp, but she was much more a galleon than a ship-of-the-line. The Land 10:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Swedish ships were of different size, weight, had other weaponry etc...I still believe that it should be classified as a separate type. --MoRsE 10:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Were they more different than the differences between French, English and Spanish galleons? As always, naval classification is a nightmare ;-) The Land 10:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Regalskepp" was about what the Swedish navy called their ships, and it didn't seem to have anything to do with any specific design, but size. And we're not trying to imitate Swedish 17th century naval terminology anyway, but to describe the ship in the best available English terms used today.
 * Peter Isotalo 01:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Referencing
I know it's popular to use many of various citation templates for footnotes, but I'd like to stress that the use of these templates is largely gratuitous and serves little practical purpose. These templates include a lot of code that exacerbates editing even for experienced editors, not to mention newcomers. If anything, standardizing footnotes within a single article hardly requires such excess amount of wikicode. I also strongly recommend referencing content within the article itself, instead of in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the article. In short, try to avoid duplicate referencing.

As for that the year that the museum opened, this is a fact that is so easily and quickly referenced that it should hardly require its own separate citation.

Peter Isotalo 19:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the wikicode becomes ugly. It is a technical deficiency of the referencing code used here on wikipedia, that full references becomes unwieldy in the wikicode. If we had proper bibtex style referencing, they would be easier to handle. The ideal solution would be if one could introduce the refs in a separate file from the article itself, and just refer to them by name in the text. Alas, that isn't how its done.
 * However, I disagree that that is in itself a sufficient reason to not use the cite templates, the templates do make editing and handling the refs easier (You could for example generate different citation styles from the template, something you couldn't do if you'd written the ref manually)
 * Unwieldy as it may be, the custom on most articles is to use these templates inline.
 * As for the museum opening reference, that particular reference can be (and is) used to reference other parts of the article, it is merely introduced at that point. Henrik 20:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know how common citation templates are but there are plenty of FAs that do fine without them and they're certainly not mandatory. It's rather a question of how much info you want to include in each citation, which is often limited to just two or three parameters. The issue can also often be solved much easier by keeping shorthand footnotes and placing the bulk of the actual information about the sources in a separate "Sources" or "Reference" section below. If it's a matter of making sure that the citations are standardized, I have no problem in taking responsibility for it.
 * References are generally avoided in the lead because it's supposed to be a summary of the article, not the other way around. And we're not talking highly controversial or even obscure info here.
 * Peter Isotalo 04:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has not enough inline cites for GA status, I am afraid.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I'd like to point out that this article follows a slightly unusual cite style, largely inspired by Peter, in that it generally cites a paragraph at once, minimizing the distracting footnotes which impairs the flow of reading a more voluminous cite style has. But don't mistake that for the article not being sourced - if you have any specific concerns about any claims needing a reference, I'd be very glad if you could point them out. For reference, here is a few FA-rated articles written in the same style: Medieval cuisine and Swedish_language, and this article has more inline cites than either of those.  I have nonetheless added more inline cites, and will continue to add a few more, as there were some paragraphs that were undercited. henrik  • talk  10:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's rare for an entire para to come from one source, but if this indeed the case, than it's of course all right. But indeed there were unref paras, and they must be reffed before GA review starts.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the article is in fact based on a few select sources (earlier versions used a variety of minor online sources). Mostly "Vasa I", which represents up to date research by Vasa scholars (Kvarning provides a secondary source for some sections) and should be considered the definite source. Each paragraph ref points to the appropriate pages where the material comes from. The main exception is the "Ornamentation" section which is mostly referenced from Soop's work.
 * In any case, the number of inline cites is about 50% higher now than it was this morning, thanks for providing the needed push for us to improve it. Any sections you think require further citing? henrik  • talk  18:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just saying that the article doesn't have enough footnotes doesn't make for a terribly actionable critical comment, Piotr. I'm not a GAC regular, but that the criteria should be interpreted this strictly seems like trying to pushing the demands too far. Are there any statements in particular that you believe need bolstering becuase controversy and such?
 * Peter Isotalo 17:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To do section
I've added a to do section with some initial thoughts, please modify and expand. The initial goal would be to try to summarize what needs to be done to move this article to good article status. Henrik 21:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of aiming straight for an featured article nomination, but I won't object if someone wants to do a GA nomination first.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nuancing the blame
Has anyone read the chapter Catastrophe in Vasa I? It presents a much more nuanced picture of who was to blame for the disaster. Since this is the latest research on Vasa it might be prudent to rewrite some of the history section based on information from this book.

Peter Isotalo 12:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested in reading that, unfortunately, I don't have access to Vasa I. None of my local libraries seem to have it, and it is rather expensive. Not all of us are so luckily placed as you are. But please edit away, the current text blames the King rather heavily, which I guess might not be accurate?  henrik  • talk  21:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. To me, Hocker appears to have very convincing and well-referenced arguments, and he is after all the series editor. It would be good if the article didn't seem too eager to radically revise old, accepted truths at the drop of a hat, though. That's why I'm soliciting a second opinion. But as Hocker mentions, people do have a very unfortunate tendency to look for scapegoats when disasters happen, even if complex circumstances, rather than any one person (or even persons), are to blame. If anything, the reaction of Swedish media to the 2005 tsunami is a very good example of that.

Peter Isotalo 07:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've gotten hold of Vasa I now and it certainly paints a very different picture than the other sources, both with the role the king had and whether or not the ship was inherently flawed. So..


 * * Did the king force the addition of a second gun deck and lengthening of the keel after construction was started? Hocker paints a fairly convincing argument that it is unlikely.
 * * Was the ship inherently unstable, or was it sailable with an experienced crew? Conventional wisdom is that the ship was flawed. Hocker says the shape, size and weight wasn't really that far out of line with successful ships of the same era. It seems to me that the difficulties in calculating the center of gravity is the core of the issue - whether the fault lay with the builders or the sailors.


 * I'm personally generally inclined to think that the reason for a large engineering project like the Vasa failing are many small causes rather than one big. henrik  • talk  07:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Good thing you got hold of the book, henrik! The article is really starting to shape up. If anything, the chronology of correspondance between the king and the shibuilders doesn't add up if you believe the story about the ship being altered after the keel hade been laid and there doesn't seem to be any letters that actually say "alter the design". The most convincing argument of all, though, is that Hocker says that there is no indiciation in the ship itself that it was altered during construction.

What I think needs to be updated and expanded after the latest additions would be the following:
 * Information Vasa's sister ship Äpplet. A somewhat forgotten episode, but deserves some mention in the historical prelud or construction section. Some mention of the other large ships that were built around the same time as Vasa would be good too.
 * There seems to have been other recovery attempts than those in the late 17th century. Some authors appear to hint that dives with heavy diving suits were made in the late 19th century, and sea folk familiar with the waters off Stockholm appear to have known from tradition that there was some kind of large object or anamoly at the site of Vasa's sinking.
 * The archaeological digs and the the findings (other than the sculptures) need a throrough run-through. All the clothing, personal items, cutlery, weapons, rigging, equipment, etc.

After all of this has been worked on, I think the article will be ready for a peer review. After today's additions, I'll be away on study-related wikibreak for about a week.

Peter Isotalo 06:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Armament, Size
A few comments: Regards, The Land 14:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article needs to state how many decks of guns Vasa carried. (Two). This is a quite important point in making comparisons between her and later ships.
 * Infobox says six mortars were carried. This is remarkable, mortars are an unusual weapon for a warship. Can anything be added to the article about it? Where did the mortars fire from, how big were they, intended for use against shipping or shore, successful or not?
 * Occasional statements that Vasa was 'relatively small'. She wasn't, certainly in terms of length (69m is as long as any wooden warship); her draught and beam are much less than say HMS Victory. Can we make some explicit comparisons, perhaps against a 'typical' warship of the day or a 'typical' 74-gun ship of 150 years later.


 * The mortars are the so-called stormstycken (or skrotstycken), the short, large-caliber guns on the upper deck that were used to fire canister shot and other type of anti-personel ammunition during boarding actions. There might be a better English term for this, but most sources seem to translate them as "mortars".
 * Ah, ok. You could try describing them as 'similar to carronades' (carronade itself would be anachronistic, but they are virtually identical to what you have described).
 * Vasa was small for the amount of guns she carried. Hocker speaks of how the cannons were "shoehorned" into her, and this has now been somewhat more carefully specified in the article. As for comparison with later warships, trying to go merely by gun-counts is pretty useless, since the size of guns varied. If anything should be compared, it's broadsides.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Gun count remained the standard measure of a ship until the 1850s, in spite of its weaknesses. However, yes, comparisons of broadsides would be interesting. The Land 18:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hocker seems to think differently, and I doubt 17th century naval commanders were unaware of this fact. Also, if I'm not mistaken, gun counts in the 18th and 19th century weren't made in the same way as in the 17th century. Later rating systems excluded the short, large-caliber anti-personel guns on the upper decks, like carronades and falconets. For Vasa, all guns, both long and short, are included.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mickey spreads joy
Henrik hid the image in "Literature and popular culture" because he felt it was too trivial. I was the one who inserted it, so naturally I'm for having it. Could we get comments from other editors on this one?

Peter Isotalo 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I found it a bit redundant as well. maybe something shorter(?) Gillis 01:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to the caption or the pic itself?
 * Peter Isotalo 09:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So are we not including this picture in any way? It would be nice to have some feedback before it gets deleted October 17 for not being included in an article.
 * Peter Isotalo 08:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was away on vacation last week and didn't see the above until now. I'm sorry it got deleted, do you still have it locally? I'm somewhat ambivalent, I still don't think the Mickey Mouse story is that interesting, but an image in that section would be nice. What would you think of a photo of a few of the books written about the ship, perhaps? henrik  • talk  20:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take a photo of one of the shelves at the gift shop on Wednesday. That'll include both souvenirs and some of the book titles.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I uploaded a pic of the kids' section of the gift shop and included it here to illustrate both the books and the variety of merchandise that are sold in the name of the ship or in one way or another associated with it.
 * Peter Isotalo 06:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Archology intro
"Vasa I" states that there had been no experience of a structure of this sort before then.
 * I thought that was regarding the conservation of such a large wooden structure (which is indeed mentioned in the "Conservation" section)? That is it of an unprecedented scale of any kind of archaeology project seems doubtful (KV62 or the excavation of Pompeii comes to mind). There's no rush, and I don't have my Vasa I here now, but I'll check it when I get back home tonight, unless you can beat me to it with a quote :-) henrik  • talk  15:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't be able to do it until earliest this weekend. I believe the information is in the very beginning of the first chapter on the archaeology.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out and get back to you then. henrik  • talk  17:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. The exact quote is "There was no real precedent in the history of archaeology for an excavation of an essentially intact, four-story structure full of it's original contents." (page 298). I still think the wording may be a tad strong, but that is a stylistic rather than a factual matter. That'll teach me not to edit at work. henrik  • talk  20:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

— Cromdog 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your the favorable review and the comments, Cromdog. If you have the time, do you think you could specify any particular problematic sentences? By the way, I agree that "Ornamentation" is pretty lengthy (it's my doing since I'm quite interested in iconography and symbolism). I'm sure it can be condensed.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "When the foremast was detached and salvaged, the painting disappeared, probably washed away with the outer layer of wood and all that was left was some paint residue." A bit awkward with that last 'and.'
 * "Among them were not just hundreds, if not thousands, of ordinary Stockholmers, but also foreign ambassadors, and in effect spies of Gustavus Adolphus' allies and enemies." Again, nothing big, but a bit hard to read.
 * Also, since the to-do list includes adding something about artifacts, it may be possible to combine ornamentation and artifacts into a seperate article. In the main article, just mention the overall colorfulness of the ship and its design, then describe it all in more detail in a second article, since a number of ornaments were recovered, even if the paint had deteriorated.Cromdog 21:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Before FAC todo
Hi again! Seeing that we've seem to have accomplished most on the todo list now, it might be a good idea to discuss what we need to do before this article is ready for a round of WP:FAC critique. Some of the third party suggestions so far is to remove or trim the "See also" section and to trim the ornamentation text. Anything else? henrik • talk  19:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm...you fixed up that one sentance I flagged. Good job. Other than that, I can't see anything more than what you mentioned.Cromdog 20:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have done so, and it only took me three edits to do it! :-) henrik  • talk  21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, we need something more organized and substantial on the archaeological findings. The summary now is a bit too brief and doesn't inform about about all those interesting objects found on the ship: the weapons, naval equipment and household items such as spoons, bowls, glasses and some of the food and drink. And, of course, the human and animal remains that were found on board. We could trim the deterioration section to make room for some of that info.
 * I asked Fred Hocker to have a look at the article and he did so last week. He e-mailed me and said he was pleased with the updated article, and gave me a few comments:
 * He stands firm about Vasa being an unprecedented dig. Buildings in Pompeii were mostly just one floor, Ostia and Ephesus had buildings with two flooers, but no original contents. Sites in Bergen and Novgorod apparantly had 27, as he puts it "stratified levels", but this appeared to be several successive structures right on top of one another. He said "There have certainly been larger excavations and more complex sites, but nothing that compared directly to Vasa."
 * "Regalskepp" was actually never used during Vasa's existance and the term was not actually a size classification, but simply the term for ships that bore names associated with the royal regalia. In actuality, however, whey were usually the largest ships.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)