This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the
current tasks, visit the
notice board,
the attached article or discuss it at the
project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all
Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please
join the project, or contribute to the
project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
The flag in the Spanish edition by Editorial Juventud
"El Unicornio" flies a white flag -which, incidentally, was the French 18th-century pre-revolutionay naval ensign. At times, by the Spanish editor's mistake, I presume, it can be hardly noticed what seems to be the vessel's original ensign: a blue flag dotted with golden fleurs-de-lys, that is, a French 17th-century naval ensign. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.85.148.202 (
talk)
11:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)reply
A mistake on the part of the English editor. The 17th-century English warships, with the exception of Cromwell's fleet, flew the
Red Ensign and the
Blue Ensign, in both cases with the English red cross of Saint George in the canton. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.85.148.202 (
talk)
11:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Great comment. The warship in the book prominently shows the
Union Jack (barely visible in the image from the Tintin book appearing in this article but more visible in other views of the ship in the book). In the original Casterman edition, as you say in the previous comment above, I have no doubt the French flag is shown. The English publishers may have substituted the wrong flag. We'd better leave the text in this English-speaking article according to the source.
Prhartcom (
talk)
17:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)reply
I feel it should be expanded to at least two paragraphs (the current para remaining as it is and the second para explaining about Sir Francis's Battle with Red Rackham).
"In Hergé's original French version as well as in many international versions," — "many international versions" sounds anonymous. I feel "In Hergé's original French version," would suffice, (even though the international versions may have the same name).
I see that you have made several changes to the article yourself rather than stating them here in the review. I agree that all of your changes are an improvement (with one exception); I appreciate the second pair of eyes. Question: Can you think of a single sentence description of the Unicorn we can add following mention of the 2011 film (in the Fictional history section)?
Prhartcom (
talk)
22:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Prhartcom: Don't need to as Spielberg reproduces that portion as per the book. But, if you insist, we can add that "the difference being that Haddock remembers it while walking through the Sahara desert with Tintin, while in the book, he reads Sir Francis's journal and narrates the story in his apartment to Tintin". —
Ssven2speak 2 me06:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)reply
Ah yes, that was the difference. I couldn't remember any difference but felt the need to say something. I agree that it isn't worth mentioning anything after all.
Prhartcom (
talk)
11:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)reply
I think the article is confusing as at one point it states that "No ship named the Unicorn was listed in the annals of...the Royal Navy" but in the notes (and in my own research) it is clear that a ship of 50 guns from c. 1650 was named Unicorn. (I cannot verify that a Haddock was the captain, as the notes say.)
(Sorry for late reply, don't come here often.) The two reliable sources listed are books on Tintin, whereas I have a book on The Royal Navy, which lists a ship named Unicorn several times in the 'annals' of the fleet. So the claim seems factually incorrect, and at the least imprecise.
Lordjim13 (
talk)
14:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)reply