Talk:First-rate

These should maybe be "first rate", without the hyphen. I don't know of a rule, noun vs adjective or whatever, but usage seems to lean more towards omitting the hyphen. Stan Shebs 18:38 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

The article claims the lowest deck was useless in all but the calmest weather. That would be true when attacking (from windward), but surely the lowest deck would often be usable when defending against a windward attacker because the heel of the ships would then be favourable? The article also claims that "first-rate" meaning "excellent" derives from "first-rate ship". Is that really so? Gdr 19:06, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

Ship bobs up and down, and likely needs to turn at various angles to the wind, plus the heel would only raise the gunports by a couple feet. It would be an exceedingly bold captain who would run the risk of being swamped, especially with the admiral glaring at him. Etymology of "first-rate" as an adjective is attested by OED - in fact the first references in literature begin appearing within a couple decades of the introduction of the rating system. OED reports without attempting to explain, but one can imagine captains at parties and balls bragging or complaining about the rate of ship they got, and sharp-eared wits picking up on it, just as today's writers use computer slang for their own purposes. Stan 21:09, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First paragraph is navigational aid

Please do not remove the first paragraph as it functions as a quick navigational aid to the other articles in this series. Thank you. Petersam 03:50, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Statistics

I have a source here (The Wooden World by N.A.M. Rodger) which says that (in the Georgian Navy at least), first rates carried 90 guns or more, had complements from 780 men and had tonnages from 1,800 tons. However, I can see that the round figures are more dramatically powerful, and will understand if someone reverts my edits. --David.Mestel 14:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

David, the problem is that whoever wrote the original articles had a poor knowledge of the history of the Rating System. The numbered Rates were established in 1625 or 1626 (the exact date is unrecorded), not in 1670 as this article suggests (the amendments I have put into the main article on the Rating System gives more details of the history) and the basis for the rating changed over the years. By the time of the Georgian era, certainly all First Rates had 100 guns or more. By this time, too, ships of 90 or 98 guns were clearly classed as Second Rates. But if you look back to the Restoration era (1660-1688), First Rates had as few as 90 guns. Might I refer you to my series of volumes on "British Warships in the Age of Sail" for a more detailed response. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation

It has become apparent that the words "first rate", "second rate", etc have become capitalised over the last year or so. This seems to me to directly contradict the guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters), and I have changed them back again. To clarify, if we were talking about frigates, we would use lower case, because it's not a proper noun; "first rate" is exactly analogous. The usage on Category:Set indices on ships follows the lower case usage almost exclusively, as far as I can tell. Please address any concerns here before making wholesale changes back again.

On another note, some of the hyphenation has been rather patchy. Adjectival use will require a hyphen (first-rate ship) but when used as a noun (first rate), it does not. Again, I've made the changes were I've spotted the need.

Apologies if I've missed any or introduced any errors, since we all err from time to time. Shem (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Shem, I have to say that I totally disagree with your action, as I have stated on Acad's userpage. I feel that you have grossly distorted the Wiki pages dealing with the rating system, and made the rating system much more difficult to understand for the lay reader. Having carefully looked at the Wikipedia guidance (and it is "guidance", mark you, not "regulation"), this clearly states that the writer should take the cultural and linguistic context into account. By removing the capitals you have made it appear that the wording is being used as an adjective. I must make clear also that the hyphen is out of place when referring to the Rate of a ship. In fact, its use is always as a noun, and if the word "ship" appears afterwards that extra word is a tautology. Rif Winfield (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Rif, firstly may I make it clear how much weight your opinion holds with me; for this reason it is surprising to find that we are diametrically opposed on this issue. Let me lay out the reasons clearly here:

• Wikipedia is a 21st century encyclopaedia read by 21st century readers; it follows contemporary rules of grammar, spelling and capitalisation. Historic spellings or capitalisations have no bearing on the way we write here - the article on Chaucer does not use Middle English, not does the article on Shakespeare employ blank verse, except where quoted.
• "First rate" is the name of a type of ship, like "frigate" or "destroyer". It is not a proper noun, and therefore it ought not to be capitalised.
• The Manual of Style is quite clear on the issue of capitalisation; and if you go to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Military_terms, you will find that it says "the words for types of military unit (army, navy, fleet, company, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name".
• You're misquoting the MOS when you say "the writer should take the cultural and linguistic context into account". The full quote (under the capitalisation sub heading) is "There are differences between the major varieties of English in the use of capitals (uppercase letters). Where this is an issue, the rules and conventions of the cultural and linguistic context apply." The major variety of English used in this article is British English, and the use of capitals in British English does not allow for a non-proper noun like "first rate" to be capitalised.
• You say "its use is always as a noun, and if the word "ship" appears afterwards that extra word is a tautology". This is not correct; we talk of fifth-rate frigates (in contrast to sixth-rate frigates) and first-rate ships-of-the-line. Here the term is used adjectivally, and thus needs to be hyphenated (when so used).

I am applying the principles laid down in the MoS, and will revert your capitalisation of these terms unless consensus is reached here that an exception should be made for such terms. I'll publicise this talk at WikiShips, and see if we can't get a wider range of opinion. Yours, with the greatest respect, Shem (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen (I presume sex and acknowledge manifest behavior), As you (Shem) know, I agree with Rif on this. I looked up "Term of art" in Wikipedia, which redirects to Technical language. My position is that "First Rate" is a Term of art or technical language, as the lawyers would put it, and so usage should follow the field. I take Shem's point about Wikipedia being a 21st Century resource, but an encyclopedia's job is to inform and educate, and in this case we can educate people reading about naval warfare in the Age of Sail to the usages of that period, especially when doing so reduces ambiguity, removes redundancy (e.g., Second Rate ship-of-the-line; ship-of-the-line being redundant, as Rif has pointed out), and provides insight into the evolution of language. Incidentally, when I went to the Glossary of nautical terms the Rates were missing. They do show up in Category:Nautical terms, but there they are isolated under the sub-category of Rating system of the Royal Navy. Even worse, Wiktionary uses "first-rate" to describe all three uses: noun (i.e., First Rate), noun used as an adjective (e.g., Fifth Rate frigate), and adjective used to describe the quality of something (second-rate First Rate). If we accept Rif's point about redundancy, and I do now that he has pointed it out, we should remove most/almost all cases of the use of the noun as an adjective. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There are several relevant usage trends here, and I don't know how to balance them. First, how do you alert the reader that a phrase that usually has one meaning is being used in a different sense? Capitals aren't the "correct" way to do this, but they're used for just this purpose sometimes, including in the New Yorker and the New York Times. Second, I never criticize people when they leave out "required" hyphens, because the trend towards self-publishing means that there are fewer hyphens year by year, including in the most carefully copyedited American publications. Although I support the basic position at WP:MOS that Wikipedia wants to stick to a slightly old-fashioned view of hyphen usage, because it's so much easier to learn and apply and because our writers are often reading sources that are older, it's impossible to know the precise point in time that it has become "okay" to omit a certain hyphen. - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I realize this article is British English, but I generally aim to copyedit so that the text makes sense to as many readers as possible. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The subject of hyphenation isn't really the issue here (it's clearly explained at Wikipedia:MOS#Hyphens) - what we're most interested in is the issue of capitalisation. Shem (talk)

The rates as used on wikipedia are not proper nouns, and therefore their capitalisation is unusual in modern English usage, though it does appear to be fairly common in scholarly works. The OED has examples of contemporary usage of both capitalised and uncapitalised terms, both as a noun and as an adjective, suggesting that even during the period usage varied and was not standardised. The OED itself uses the uncapitalised form for both types, in common with the modern English usage of not capitalising nouns which are not proper nouns, unlike historical usage where capitalisation of common nouns was widespread to the point where practically every noun, proper or not, was capitalised. This practice died out centuries ago though. I disagree with the statement that 'fifth rate frigate' for example indicates a redundancy, as it would only do so if 'fifth rate' were synonymous with 'frigate'. As the two are not, and the term 'fifth rate frigate' can give greater understanding and meaning to readers unfamiliar to rating systems and warship types, the phrase should not be changed out of hand. Benea (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Benea, nice work. I just want to add that if you guys decide to go without capitals, I don't think we can count on our readers to click on the link the first time "first rate" or "second rate" shows up in an article because they may think they know what the term means since it already has a common meaning, so a little more explanation is needed, something like: the blah-blah, designated "first rate" (one of the largest ships of the line), was ... - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Benea, apologies for reverting HMS Ethalion without explaining first. Mea culpa, but I just didn't notice. That said, I must say that I agree with Rif and disagree with you re redundancy. All Fifth Rates are frigates, so Fifth Rate frigate is redundant. Frigate of the Fifth Rate would not be redundant, but it would feel a little clumsy. As far as Sixth Rates are concerned, some are frigates and some are post ships. In all these cases I have found that that in the initial paragraph formulas such as, "...was a 38-gun Artois-class Fifth Rate. Tom Smith built this frigate for the Royal Navy ...", or "...was a 24-gun X-class post ship. Tom Smith built this ship..." have the nice properties of removing the redundancy, providing most of the explanation, and reducing use of the passive voice. I believe Dank is correct in worrying that using the adjective fifth-rate (or even the noun Fifth Rate adjectively) leads one to infer that the quality of the vessel was somehow deficient. This would be especially the case for the formula, "second-rate ship of the line". Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Acad, after a little thought, and Benea's comments, it is apparent that not all fifth rates were frigates. The term "fifth rate" emerged in about 1640, but the frigate did not develop until about 1750. Therefore it is quite possible for a fifth rate not to be a frigate. As you know, some sixth rates were also frigates, so it is clear that the term fifth-rate frigate has an exclusive meaning not fully explained by either "fifth rate" or "frigate". Shem (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shem, Good point. I had forgotten about the two-decker Fifth Rates. However, the formula, "...was a Fifth Rate. This two-decker..." can handle this situation and avoids using the Rate as an adjective and hence the ambiguity between Second Rate and the quality second-rate. Now, unless I have overlooked something, which is always possible, all post ships are Sixth Rates, so sixth-rate post ship is redundant. The formula "...was a Sixth Rate. This frigate..." handles the case of frigates that were of the Sixth Rate quite adequately. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think there is no value in changing fifth-rate frigate and the like to avoid "confusion", especially where you're changing sixth rate to "post ship", which will mean something quite different to the uneducated reader. On the subject of capitalisation, I see no change from last week's position, which is that your edits are not in accordance with the MoS - except that Benea has pointed out that the OED uses the lower case form. I think it's time to come round to the "house style" and concentrate on writing new articles rather than spending hours of your time modifying old ones to little or no benefit. Think of it like this - if I change "Fifth rate" or "Fifth Rate" to "fifth rate", citing the MoS, on what grounds will you revert me? Yours, Shem (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shem, I too prefer writing new articles. What I have been doing is going back over my contributions and tidying them up to make them clearer, simpler, non-redundant, and in the active voice. As for the issue of capitalization, the house style is a suggestion that acknowledges Terms of Art. Given that currently the vote is two vehemently for capitalization (Rif and I), vs one vehemently for the house style, and one supportive, I do not see a consensus around one approach or the other. I have stopped reverting your changes (i.e., I am not changing the uncapped version of the rate to the capped version), and will hew to that. However, I would ask that you tolerate my capped versions. Can we agree to disagree? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: this disagreement aside, I appreciate your clean-up of my contributions. As I have mentioned before, after working on an article I just stop seeing the extra word or the missing paren. Proofing does require a fresh eye and I am glad when you provide it.Acad Ronin (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as agreeing to disagree, in this case I don't think it will work. What we have is an accepted style as supported by the MOS on the grounds of capitalising nouns. We still need to have a common approach to formatting of these articles, what there is is no consensus to change from the uncapitalised style to introduce capitals, nor is there one for removing the term frigate or ship of the line from opening sentences on the grounds that they are redundant when paired with the rate. Given that there is no consensus, this majority usage should remain. Developing an alternative style with sufficient reason to cause capitalisation and use of terms to jump around dramatically depending on what article a user is reading will require considerable consensus. Benea (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Benea all the way; a consensus already exists, laid down clearly in the MoS as far as capitalisation is concerned. Rif & Acad, for all their "vehemence" do not constitute a consensus (let alone a considerable consensus) against the current usage. Benea also rightly notes that removing terms such as "frigate" and "ship-of-the-line" from opening lines of articles also has no support, and I think we would breathe a sigh of relief if it were to cease. Shem (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

One possible solution that might meet everybody's approval can be seen at HMS Belvidera (1809). It has the advantage of being in accordance with the MoS, reducing confusion to zero and keeping a full description. I like it - but then I would, since I wrote it. Please consider. Shem (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at HMS Belvidera. What you did sort of works, but requires substantial effort to implement. When I get back in early July I will look at the pages the individual ratings connect to and think about whether there is a better way of using the original link (e.g. first rate). Acad Ronin (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a copy of a book dated 1832 by John Edye, reagarding the rating system of that time. He does capatilize First Rate, and does not hyphenite it. The headings on the tables are First Rate, Second Rate, Third Rate, Forth (Razee), Forth Rate, Fifth Rate, The Razee Corvette, 6th Rate, Sloop, Sloop Brig, Schooneer and Cutter. He also has a 52 and 46 gun frigate listed between Razee and Razee Corvette. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.196.93 (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

But Wikipedia does not capitalise these words - see WP:MOSCAPS. As for the hyphenation, I agree that this article should be at the unhyphenated form. Do you fancy starting a move request? Shem (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I realize this is an old discussion, but I only just found it. My vote is heavily in favor of Rif in that I believe capitalizing things like "First-Rate" is very much to the benefit of the reader. I do not believe it is mandatory for all articles to follow the MoS. Furthermore, allowance for exceptions is always necessary for any type of guideline. --Trifler (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Other usage

As it now stands, there is nothing in the article that refers to the most common usage of the term "first-rate", which means of high quality and has no reference to a former naval vessel. Is there somewhere a verifiable reference to this term being of naval origin? This would seem to be important to the article if verifiable, especially since "second-rate" and "third-rate" mention the modern usage of the terms and their context of inferior quality. 75.200.37.120 (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point; sorted. Shem (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

80 guns minimum

The page on the HMS Royal Charles indicates it was a first-rate ship, but had 80 guns. The indication on this page, that a first-rate ship needs to have at least 100 guns is therefore incorrect. Or the number on the page of the HMS Royal Charles is incorrect, but since that is a more specific number, I'm assuming that one is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.168.219 (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

poor description of first-rate's usability

The article states "There was also too little storage space to stow provisions for long voyages, and the ships themselves routinely proved unseaworthy in winter weather. As a consequence the first-rates were restricted to summer cruising, and then only in the English Channel and nearby waters". This would undoubtably be surprising news to Admiral Nelson, who sailed HMS Victory from Toulon to the West Indies, back to Portugal, to England, and back to Portugal to fight at Trafalgar, at the end of October. I suggest those lines be removed, or at least properly qualified that they apply to first-rates of the 1600's, not those of the Napoleanic era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:380:130B:0:0:0:4CF3 (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

HMS St Lawrence

The HMS St Lawrence does not "survive intact" as mentioned in this article, but instead has rotted to only the keel and ribs of its frame. The dedicated article for the HMS St Lawrence says as much, and the same is clear from videos of the wreckage. I suggest the wording is changed to reflect the actual condition of the ship. 198.208.47.92 (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)