User talk:Benea: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:13, 12 May 2009

Template:Archive box collapsible Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/New articles
UK changes
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject Ships|class=|importance=}}
{{Ship infobox request}}

HMS Crocodile

Ben, thanks for putting in the disambiguation page for HMS Crocodile. I have added to the entry on the 1867 troopship - really there should be a separate article on the Euphrates class troopships to link together the five vessels of this class. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. I might work one up myself at some point. While the technical details and specifications are easily found, information about their careers is a little harder to come by. Would you have any suggestions? Benea (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can insert details of their commanding officers, and when each took over. Their lives were relatively unexceptional, as they were solely employed on a regular run between India and the UK, virtually as navy-operated passenger liners (although NOT, as stated when their articles were written, "commissioned by the Indian Government"). I shall try to expand with those service details I know (I've begun with the Crocodile entry), but would be obliged if you could set up the article on Euphrates class troopships. I have inserted links to this future article in place within the existing articles for the five individual vessels. Rif Winfield (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for George Murray (Royal Navy officer)

On March 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Murray (Royal Navy officer), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Liffey

I have made a stub disambiguation page for HMS Liffey. Please could you add to it. The one of interest to me is the Liffey in service in the 1890s.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in the missing ships. The 1890s one is the screw frigate that had been launched some 40 years previously, though she had been hulked at Coquimbo since 1877. Benea (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Collier Baronets into Sir George Collier, 1st Baronet

Hello. I put a proposed merge tag onto the Collier Baronets page to propose merging it into the Sir George article. Johnhousefriday (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something over which I'd really lose any sleep, although to be honest I think all those other ones could probably stand to be merged too. The fact is that the Baronetcy itself isn't notable for any reason other than the person to whom it was awarded, and all the information about him contained in the Barontecy article is already contained in greater detail in the person's own article. But as I say, I'm not really that fussed, feel free to remove. Johnhousefriday (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big issue for me either to be honest, but I'll remove them. Thanks for getting back to me. Benea (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April Fool's DYK for SS Letitia

On April Fool's, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Letitia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contribution to the April Fool's Day fun! Royalbroil 00:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley face! I like! Benea (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Admiral Nelson"

Sorry, that was what was in the BCGNIS ref....Skookum1 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, the distinction is a fine one so I thought it was probably best to remove it, or maybe alter it to 'future vice-admiral ...' or something like that. Incidentally perhaps you could at a cite to the information you added to HMS Agamemnon (1781). It's a good article, so to retain that status it really needs citing, or the information will probably be removed. Best wishes, Benea (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Raid on Boulogne

On April 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Raid on Boulogne, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Navy ships of Napoleonic Wars

I'd be very grateful if you'd take on creating these articles! I've often thought of asking you, but the effort involved can be fairly extensive and I didn't want to impose. I've always wanted to make more of the ship articles I put together, but my sources and interests tend to only cover the period 1793-1815 and thus their creation, design and service outside this timeframe take more effort for me to develop than time I have available. That is why I used Ships of the Old Navy to create them, because it is a simple and easy to access resource.

I've always been impressed with your ships articles and would be very pleased to have your help on these redlinks. Would you want me to do as I do with Rama and drop you a line when I need a hand?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! First ports of call then might be HMS Jason (1794) and HMS Spitfire (1783) from my latest article Expédition d'Irlande. Anthing you can add to the Order of Battle on Invasion of Martinique (1809) would be appreciated as well. I also had HMS Cleopatra (1779) and HMS Amethyst (1795) planned for the near future. Thanks very much and let me know if you need any help with anything yourself.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Algerine

I have started another HMS Algerine.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)--Toddy1 (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Hyacinth (K84)

Thank you a lot. It was unjust that such ship had no page. Voldemar (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree, sadly with well in excess of 13,000 RN ships, there are still many gaps in our coverage. Benea (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New index pages

Hey, Benea. I've come across two RN ship names that may need to have index pages: HMS King Alfred and HMS Roxburgh. Also, what is your assessment of the name of HMS Calgarian? Is HMS right, or should it be moved to SS (and leave the HMS redirect)? Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch with King Alfred, the First World War-era cruiser was the only major ship of that name, though it was also used by a hired trawler also during the First World War, and for a number of naval bases since then, including the current RNR establishment at Portsmouth. I'll try to sift through the details and add the index page, though the shore establishments are the most confusing to get your head around! Roxburgh is more tricky, the cruiser of that name has been the only RN ship so named, though there was a Town class destroyer named HMS Roxborough (the former USS Foote (DD-169)). I'd be inclined to redirect both undisambiguated names straight to those articles and add a brief note explaining the link between them, what do you think? Calgarian spent most of her short life as an AMC so I don't mind leaving it at HMS, as it seems to be a common wikipedia convention, but I'll leave it to you whether you think something like 'HM Armed Merchant Cruiser Calgarian' or 'SS Calgarian' are clearer options. Otherwise redirecting SS Calgarian to it would probably cover all our bases. Hope this was of help! Benea (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd say redirect HMS Roxburgh and HMS Roxborough to the right articles. I figure if you're alright with HMS Calgarian as named, then it's OK by me. (It also looks like both RMS Calgarian and SS Calgarian already redirect there so no need for anything more.) Thanks for the help. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bueno

Jamie^☆S93 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hi – I just wanted to say that your new article Sir George Collier, 1st Baronet is really fantastic. And you've made dozens of other similar articles, too! I honestly tend to marvel at those who write nearly-GA pages on the first edit. Keep up all of the amazing mainspace work, and all those DYK submissions! :D Cheers, Jamie^☆S93 00:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sir George Collier, 1st Baronet

On April 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir George Collier, 1st Baronet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Collier, 1st Baronet on GA hold

Dear Benea

An editor recently nominated George Collier, 1st Baronet for GA status. I have concluded a review of said article, and determined it is almost up to that level, save for a few citation needed tags I have added for sentences I think need to be sourced. More information can be found at the talk page. If you can add citations, that would be brilliant, and I am sure then I would have no problem with passing the article. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMS C11

[1]

I meant the article doesn't have any inline citations. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about that. Still, no reason to change it to a redirect. Benea (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it hadn't been edited in almost six months, I figured nobody cared about it enough. But we can move on. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like that. Benea (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SHIPS request

There was a request at WT:SHIPS for assistance cleaning up the index page HMS Endeavour. I thought since you always do such a fine job on the Royal Navy index pages (and have access to the info), that maybe you could take a look at it if someone else hasn't already? Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defaultsort

Is there a reason for using U0192 rather than U-192 as a sort field for German submarine U-192? I noticed it did not sort in sequence on Category:Disappeared ships, so stopped until someone responded. I am happy to sort the remainder of the articles in there. Finavon (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

already answered. Thanks. Finavon (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes, I stated the reason at Talk:German submarine U-116 (1941), but I don't think it was very clear. The DEFAULTSORT key reads alphabetically down the line of whatever you enter. For example, let's take German submarine U-1, German submarine U-11, German submarine U-111 and German submarine U-1111. Adding the defaultsort key for U-1 ({{DEFAULTSORT:U-1}}) it reads the 'U' and the hyphen, and then the one, and assigns it a position in the list accordingly. Doing the same for U-2 ({{DEFAULTSORT:U-2}}), it reads the 'U' and the hyphen, and then the 2. The two is the only differentiating feature between the two, so it assigns it a position after U-1 in any categories. All well and good so far. But when you come to do the same for double digits ({{DEFAULTSORT:U-11}}), the key reads the 'U', the hyphen, and then the first 1, and duly assigns it a position after 'U-1', but before 'U-2'. Similarly U-111, U-1111, and any submarine sorted this way with the 'U-1??' format will all precede 'U-2' in category listings, despite U-2 being the lower numeric value. The way to get round this, and have them all listed numerically is to first of all decide what the maximum number of digits can be. The highest numbered U-boats had four digits. So we develop the formula 'U0000' (the hyphen is immaterial to any sorting, as it would be a common feature shared by all of the articles). Putting this in gives {{DEFAULTSORT:U0001}} for U-1, {{DEFAULTSORT:U0011}} for U-11, {{DEFAULTSORT:U0111}} for U-111 and {{DEFAULTSORT:U1111}} for U-1111. Now the key reads U and then 0001 for U-1, and assigns it a place in categories preceding any higher value. U-11 is also read as 0011, and is assigned a place based on that reading, following any values that use U000?, but before any that use U0???. This way all U-boats can be listed numerically in any categories they are placed in.

I see you've caught the explanation at Talk:German submarine U-116 (1941). Hope this gives any further clarification you need, and doesn't just muddy the waters some more :) Benea (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Anthony Deane

Ben, could you kindly sort out the disambiguation pages for Anthony Dean and Anthony Deane for us? Sir Anthony Deane appears under the WRONG one (he spelt his name with an "e", and this is wrongly given without an "e" in the title of the article, in which he was simply credited as Mayor of Harwich, with his knighthood omitted. I have corrected and expanded the article on him, but it needs re-titling as well as entered on the correct disambiguation page. Many thanks. Incidentally, thanks for sorting out the French frigates (Sané's 18-pounder classes); we now have articles on each of the four classes, and I have altered the article on Jacques-Noël Sané to mention them. However, can you remove the comments re Virginie class frigates which state the article has no sources or links - I have put some of each in, so the comments are no longer true? Rif Winfield (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for swift compliance! Rif Winfield (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for HMS Spitfire (1782)

On April 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Spitfire (1782), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Sir Robert Kingsmill, 1st Baronet

Hello! Your submission of Sir Robert Kingsmill, 1st Baronet at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jamie^☆S93 16:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for List of bomb vessels of the Royal Navy

On April 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of bomb vessels of the Royal Navy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 10:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Sophie (1809)

Hi Benea: I was thinking of doing a page for this vessel. However, before I do one, would you happen to know whether her name is "Sophie" or "Sophia"? Phillips says "Sophie" and that is what I have used in the HMS Anaconda and some other pages, but several 19th century accounts refer to her as "Sophia". I don't have access to Colledge and as I have caught Phillips out on a couple of other small items, I don't want to take if for granted that he is correct. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Sophie is correct in this case. Regards, Benea (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. TTFN. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked up an article at HMS Sophie (1809) in a spare moment. Feel free to add to it. Benea (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acad Ronin, if (as I believe) you're in Malta, you can access a copy of British Warships in the Age of Sail, 1793-1817 in the Maritime Museum in Vittoriosa, as I donated a copy to them. This volume covers the Sophie and 2,000+ other vessels of the era. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Minotaur (1793)

The Netherlands was annexed by Napoleon Bonaparte on 13 July 1810 and became part of his empire. The British Walcheren Campaign ended just a year before. Terms like Dutch authorities, Dutch chief officer of the marine district of the North coast, and Dutch Admiral are all very questionable, since the Dutch state existed only outside of Europe at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.32.2 (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable or not the terms are those used in the sources, often in verbatim quotes, and are meant to primarily refer to officials of Dutch nationality. But the point remains, the fact the countries were at war, and that a military campaign in the country had only just been concluded, were not seen as legitimate excuses for not sending aid to a shipwreck, and the local authorities (hence the stress on 'Dutch' in the sources) were criticised by both the survivors, and by later historians. Benea (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for HMS Jason (1794)

On April 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Jason (1794), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Manly (1804)

Hi Benea: Thanks for the tidying up on HMS Manly. I apologise for the cheek, but is there anything that Colledge can add? I am especially concerned about the second recapture, the one in 1813, as I can find no book source for that. If one can confirm it, I think Manly might make a good "Did you Know?" Twice captured and twice recaptured.

I also started a page on HMS Diana (1824), a little paddle steamer. I put the story together out of various sources, but as I am increasingly discovering, the sources are not always consistent. Again, any info from Colledge would be great.

Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem at all. I can confirm second capture and recapture, I'll try and add a few sources to detail and support this, and expand a little on some details, in the next few days so it can go forward for DYK. I'll take a look at Diana as well. Benea (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bulldog class survey vessel

On April 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bulldog class survey vessel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ship Index request

Dear Benea
Could I request HMS Larne? As always, thanks indeed. Shem (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! Best, Benea (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Algerine & Tigress

Hi Benea - I could have sworn I worked on those two articles, but the revision history starts with you. Did you have to recreate them to clear up my confusion? No worries if you did. I just want to verify that my memory is working. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You edited the HMS Algerine shiplist page to add some details. I then wrote those two articles and moved the details from the list page to their respective articles, thus freeing up the list page from extraneous detail and adding some detail to the new articles themselves. I think this may be where the confusion has arisen. Hope this clears it up! Regards,

That explains it. I read quite a bit more, but clearly hadn't gotten down to putting down all but the most basic details. I will have to return to that soon. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Rising Castle

Ben, another request for a correction ot an article's title, please. The title of the article HMS Rising Castle (K494) is wrong, as HMS Rising Castle never had the pennant number K494. She was given the pennant number K398 when ordered and continued to have the same number until her transfer to the Royal Canadian Navy. At that time both her name and her pennant number were changed, as she briefly became HMCS Arnprior with the new pennant number of K494. She was of course transfered in 1946 to Uruguay as the Montevideo. Can you kindly change the title to HMS Rising Castle (K398)?

Note that this change of pennant number applied equally to all of the Castle class corvettes transfered to the Royal Canadian Navy; someone in writing the article on Castle Class corvettes wrongly included their RCN pennant number against their RN name for every one of these vessels. I have changed the numbers within the article for all the other ships, which do not yet have an individual article under their name, but cannot do so for the Rising Castle article. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sir Robert Kingsmill, 1st Baronet

On April 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir Robert Kingsmill, 1st Baronet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for HMS Vengeance (1800)

On April 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Vengeance (1800), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens...

You haven't archived this thing since I did it last fall! Will get right on that.

As usual when popping in here, though, I've a favor to ask. I'm helping User:Brianboulton who's done fabulous work on many British polar exploration articles. He is currently working on Clements Markham, and I'd like to see HMS Assistance (1850) turned blue. Can you help, kind sir? Maralia (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where would I be without you ;) I was hoping you would pop up and save me from myself at some point! HMS Assistance (1850) is a very small gift in return, its pretty stubby but I'm sure it'll get added to. ttfn, Benea (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as always! Thanks much. Maralia (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Culme-Seymour

In light of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#British_peerage POint 4 and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Articles_on_baronets please explain your move.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'When necessary for disambiguation (as is often necessary, as these families tend to reuse names), the baronetcy can be included in the article title in the form "Sir Forename Surname, Ordinal Baronet"; for example, Sir William Mount, 1st Baronet and Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet. (The 3rd Baronet, Ferdinand Mount, would not be at "Sir Ferdinand Mount, 3rd Baronet" even if he used the title, as it is not necessary for disambiguation.) The baronetcy alone should not be used for disambiguation without the preceding "Sir": "John Smith" or "Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet" are fine, but "John Smith, 17th Baronet" should not be used.' - If you had made the effort to determine this in the first place, you would not have made an unnecessary move. Benea (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary to create a disamb page for individuals that dont have an article. I would suggest that if you dont want to be distruptive then you should create articles for them if they are notable individuals. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am halfway through writing one on the fourth baronet. But ample notability is already established on the disambiguation page for these people. I see this is a matter currently being discussed with you, and have nothing further to add to what has already been said. But don't accuse me of being disruptive. Write an article on the 5th baronet instead. I'll send you a link to an online copy of an obituary if you like. Benea (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the article.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deliberately misrepresenting what happened here on ANI! Much appriciated!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted to be of service. Yours as ever, Benea (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets hear ya then!

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kittybrewster_editing_disruptively--Vintagekits (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for SS Empire Morn

On May 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Empire Morn, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYKQ

I have left a comment on your DYK nomination here. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

HMS Hermes (1811)

Hi Benea, I've done a page on HMS Hermes (1811), but would appreciate a ship infobox, if you have the time. I have most of the necessary info on the page, but haven't yet figured out infoboxes. (I am rather pleased with myself on having figured out images; infoboxes soon.) Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving so quickly. By the way, I have created a multiple names listing page for HMS Manly and HMS Bold. I think I have the individual vessels correct, except for the last HMS Bold, which the USN transferred to the RN in 1942. Still, a quick glance would be kind. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work on the HMS Manly ship index page. As you can see, I am inclined to keep some of the details in the shipindex page, even though doing so is unconventional. The problem is, many vessels had short, undistinguished careers, and will never merit an article, and the general reader may not find the Talk page. Also, the shipindex page is not a bad place to store info until an article is written. Thoughts? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to have replied here before but doing something and then getting called away. Well all of the Royal Navy ships will eventually one day have articles (the guidelines at WP:SHIPS are that any commissioned naval vessel is inherently notable), so there's not a problem there. It's just that there are so many it will take a while for even stub articles on all the smaller vessels to be written. The problem with storing information on the ship index pages (which are not meant to be articles) is that they become very bloated with details such as design elements, comprehensive dates and action listings etc, and become very difficult to navigate. Our guidelines are therefore to keep ship descriptions as short and concise as possible, while giving a general overview of the key dates in a ship's life. Even the tiny vessels eventually run to long and detailed articles, as I'm sure you're aware, so it's a question of choosing only the key details that are standardised over our thousands of shiplist pages. It's not something I would ever want to see an edit-war break out over though. Benea (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll just have to get to the HMS Manly (1812), and now HMS Bold articles where there is some additional info. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if I can help in any way. Regards, Benea (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the bulk of the material on HMS Bold (1801) and HMS Bold (1812) off the shipindex page to their own articles. Any tarting up you can do would be great.Acad Ronin (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triple DYK

On 4 May, 2009, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Gay class fast patrol boat, HMS Gay Viking, and HM Motor Gun Boat 2007, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Another triple=

On 7 May, 2009, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles HMS Cleopatra (1779), HMS Milan (1805), and Sir Robert Laurie, 6th Baronet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

HMS Zebra (1780)

Hi Benea: I have built up the article with a picture and added info. Should you have the time, an infobox would be great.

Congrats on the new DYKs. I looked at the gunboat ones and something puzzled me though. Why did Gay Viking have a name, and the others of her class only numbers, e.g., 2007, and was Gay Viking somehow the inspiration for the latter Gay class?

Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I started Zebra yonks ago, it's good to see that article being filled out. It already has an infobox, though I've fleshed it out a bit more, is that what you meant?

The namings of these eight MGBs (sometimes termed the Gay Viking class) are a little odd to be honest. Five of them briefly ended up having names, though this was unusual for the time. Most of the MTBs/MGBs serving with the navy at this time did not have names, and were only designated numbers, hence HM Motor Torpedo Boat 341 for example. The 8 vessels acquired from Camper and Nicholson were also given numbers (they were 502-509). 502, 503 and 509 entered service under those names and were later reclassified in 1945 when the numbers of the surviving class were all advanced by 1500 (they became 2002, 2003 and 2009). The remaining five received civilian names as part of their clandestine operations (this was part of a sop to Swedish neutrality, that also saw them sailing under the red ensign, and crewed by civilian sailors). 504 became Hopewell, 505 became Nonsuch, 506 became Gay Viking, 507 became Gay Corsair and 508 became Master Standfast. Master Standfast was lost in 1943. Hopewell, Nonsuch and Gay Corsair all drop their civilian names and return to their official designation in 1944, by 1945 they too are advanced to the new numbering scheme and become 2004, 2005 and 2007 respectively. Gay Viking, as far as I know, does not, and continues to sail under this designation until being lost in early 1945. This was how I approached the naming of the articles. I used the last official navy designation for MGB 2007, but for Gay Viking, which seems never to have sailed under the official number, I used the name she used while in service for the operations.

The later patrol boats of the navy certainly trace a large part of their pedigree back to the Second World War-era coastal forces craft, the MTBs and MGBs, and these vessels filled the immediate post-war patrol boat role. The Gay class patrol boats inherit their role from these earlier vessels, and possibly the name too, though none of them reused 'Gay Viking' or 'Gay Corsair'. But the naming conventions for the post-war patrol boats were for 'adjective noun', examples are the 'Bold' class (Bold Pathfinder, Bold Pioneer), the Dark class (Dark Avenger, Dark Killer), the Brave class (Brave Borderer, Brave Swordsman). The 'Gay' class were an expression of this convention. Regards, Benea (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements to the HMS Zebra article. What with picture, infobox, more incidents, inline citations and references it looks quite respectable now. I keep thinking I should stop all this Age of Sail stuff and spend more time on banks, but every article I do has a red link or two just crying for removal, and the process never stops. What is stunning is the inter-relatedness of the Royal Navy of that time. So-and-so served with so-and-so2 on the Such-and-Such, which joined with the Such-and-such2 in the battle of Whatever, etc. Talk about six-degrees of separation.

Good info re the MGBs. Some of what you just said should go into one of the three articles. As best I recall, most of it was there, but not all. Don't worry about it. I will check and "do the needful", if necessary.

Further re the MGBs. We could definitely use some similar vessels on anti-piracy patrols off Somalia today, though for that they would be over-gunned.Acad Ronin (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been meaning to write all that up into an article on Operation Bridstone, and probably one on Operation Moonshine as well, which can cover the admiralty's intentions when they acquired the vessels, how they were operated and so on, as well as writing articles for the other six boats in the 'class'. There's a few sources around so I'll get to it one of these days I suspect. They were small, though daring, operations in the war stuffed full of similar escapades, so it's probably no surprise that the operations don't have articles yet. I was reading a newspaper article a while back, referring to how US and Royal Navy commanders occasionally dealt with instances of piracy in the nineteenth century. It tended to involve sending landing parties into ports, burning any pirate vessels they encountered, capturing any pirates they could find and shooting any that resisted, and then sending a stern note not to even think about piracy again while there was a British/US warship on their doorstep. The newspaper was a little wistful about those times. The problem nowadays is probably not the amount of guns these ships carry, but how they're allowed to use them. You had better get out while you can, this can be addictive! I've had a spate of writing one article on a ship, then finding another ship I could relate directly to that ship, then a naval commander linked to both ships, and so on! The gaps in our coverage are pretty huge when you look closely.

I get the feeling that I've been a bit scattergunned in my approach to your requests. I've been in and out with on and off wiki things, so while I try and get things done as soon as there's a request (which I'm always happy to oblige if I can), if I don't do it straight away, I tend to lose track of it. If that's the case, it's most likely that I need prodding again about, so don't worry about doing that if it looks like I've forgotten to do something. Best, Benea (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Charles Elphinstone Fleeming

On May 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Elphinstone Fleeming, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

HMS Asia (1764)

Hi Benea: I have just added a picture and info to the article. Should you get a chance, could you look it over for tidying, tweaking, etc.? Thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few tweaks and link fixes, otherwise everything looks fine! Some good pictures as well. Benea (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What's the significance of the line in the intro paragraph that she was the only vessel of Slade's built to her draught? Was she particularly shallow draught, or deep draught? Was it a design flaw? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Draught here refers to the overall design of the ship, including her Draft (hull). It's basically saying that she was the only ship built to Slade's design, the only ship of her class. Ships could be described as being 'built to the draught of xxx', where xxx was a ship of a particularly successful design, that the Admiralty wanted to replicate. In the case of the Asia, she was a particularly groundbreaking ship, Lavery calls her the first true 64. She was an experimental design, so was the only one built to it while it could be evaluated. It was very successful, no more 60 gun ships were ordered, and production began on more 64 gun ships, but incorporating alterations learnt from trials with Asia (subsequent ships are bigger), hence she was the only ship of her class. Benea (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll notice should you return to the Asia article, I have incorporated your explanation above into the article. It is clear that you know a lot of good stuff that isn't in the articles, but should be. I'll do what I can by asking questions and taking advantage of the answers. (Same thing happened with the vessels built of fir, as you might recall.)

Re your last comment to the Zebra item above, I feel a little diffident about asking for your assistance with articles as we are all volunteers, no one owes anyone anything, and we all have other lives as well. Doesn't mean that I don't appreciate it, just that you are under no obligation to do anything you don't feel like doing, and shouldn't feel the slightest bit guilty about it. Having said that, what do you think about tarting up the article on Manly that we discussed earlier and turning it into a DYK? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you quickly find in reading around is the gaps that exist in our coverage. Most ships exist only in stub form, and most of them are only about 6 months to a year old. Articles tend to grow organically, the problem is which to start with first with such a long list. I tend to concentrate on writing small numbers of new articles to a detailed standard, but with a little reading I'm sure there's a lot you could put into the existing stubs. Gardiner for example has a lot to say about the Cydnus and her class (a development of the Leda class) in terms of construction, armament, etc. The trick is knowing what to put in the ship articles, what to put in general class overviews, or in articles on ship construction, types, etc. As to the Manly I realise now that I'd forgotten all about it (it was the 1804 one?) DYK articles have nto be nominated within 5 days of their creation, (or 5x expansion) so Manly is over the limit for consideration. Totally my fault I'm afraid, and it would have made a good DYK too! Sorry about that. Benea (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benea, too bad about Manly (1804), but not a problem. We all have multiple demands on our time. Any chance of adding in the info confirming her second recapture, jsut to be complete? Thanks for the lead to Gardiner. Looks like lots of good info. I am not ready to do a class article, but some of that info should go into the Cydnus article. My own approach to articles is to pull on threads by creating links, and then bit by bit turning red links into blue, or filling out stubs a little based on the story that led to them. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of pennant numbers in articles on pre-1948 ships

When first ordered and built, all the RN Darings had "I" flag superiors with two-digit pennant numbers, and were only later re-allocated new pennant numbers with "D" flag superiors. All the articles on the completed Darings are titled with the later pennant numbers rather than the original ones. This does indicate the stupidity in using pennant numbers as a means of identifying wartime vessels in Wiki-article titles, instead of using the years of launch. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Sherborne

Thanks for the shipbox and the additional info. Apparently, while under the command of Lt. Garbadian, Sherborne had some encounter with the American privateer Montgomery. I haven't been able to track down the details yet, but will get to it after I get back from a business trip. Acad Ronin (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sounds interesting! Benea (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulo Aura

Hi there, I noticed that you have been working on the article Nathaniel Dance recently and wanted to give you a heads up that the next article I'm planning to work on is the Battle of Pulo Aura, as part of a wider series on Linois' cruises in the Indian Ocean (see User:jackyd101/Atlantic campaign 1805–1806 & Cruise of Linois). It will probably be a couple of weeks before I have a draft text ready, but when I do will you be willing to look it over and assist with additional information and sources?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like an interesting project, I'd be happy to help out! I seem to be attracted to these unconventional naval figures, they make for interesting articles. Benea (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for List of fireships of the Royal Navy

On May 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of fireships of the Royal Navy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

List of British Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank

Hello Benea again, as you are a relatively new kid on the block, I would suggest that you do not preach to those who have been here sometime. I am not very pissed off with you - but if you persist - I will report you for vandalism! This is my project - please leave it alone! Enough said. Medcroft 03:11, 12 May 2009 (BST)

@@ Line 423: / Line 423: @@
 }}{{#if:|, and '''''[[{{{6}}}]]'''''}}, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know? talk page]].
 |}  [[User:Shubinator|Shubinator]] ([[User talk:Shubinator|talk]]) 00:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
+== List of British Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank ==
+::Hello Benea again, as you are a relatively new kid on the block, I would suggest that you do not preach to those who have been here sometime.  I am not very pissed off with you - but if you persist - I will report you for vandalism!  This is my project - please leave it alone!  Enough said. [[User:Medcroft|Medcroft]] 03:11, 12 May 2009 (BST)