This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Scilly Disaster OS Date "Important Contextualization"
What the hell are you talking about?
There is no need for any reader to know anything about Julian dates. None. Not in context, and not out of context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.155.98 (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Grappler
Thanks for the multiple tune ups on HMS Grappler (1856) that I started last night and for the thorough job on fixing links when you moved it to its proper place. Cheers, KenWalker | Talk 22:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem, well done on working up a solid article! Best,
Having just created this article, I thought you might like to run your eye over it to make sure it conforms to Wikiproject Ships guidelines and add any templates. The information in the infobox is from Rif's book but I didn't know how to reference it. This ship is mentioned in a number of articles, is there a special tool to check the links or does it have to be done manually? (Not sure that I've explained that very well)--Ykraps (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that and for sorting out the infobox. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
DYK for MV Spiegelgracht
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. 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, quite a minor little contribution really, but I'm glad there was no need to delete it. Well done yourself, and thank you for adding something from your particularly large expertise!
Hi Benea, I was wondering if you advise me whether this ship William and Ann (1759), is actually HMS William and Ann? I have been advised of a possibility via the talk page and link to a newspaper article. My references do not identify, but UK archives site does identify a bomb vessel? Any help would be appreciated. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea, I've had a look at the article and there is possibly something to it. But I would be very wary, as there is so much confusion over ships of the same name. I only have access at the moment to a few of my sources, but no bomb vessel of that name seems to appear in a list I have of that period. There was however a certain William and Ann, an armed ship, hired by the navy. But the dates are earlier than yours, 1757-1758, and she was a smaller ship by some 35 tons. My feeling is this is probably another ship. When I have a look at my other sources I might be able to determine if there were other ships of this name in the navy, and perhaps if there was a ship with connections to the battles the newspaper mentions, though which battle of Copenhagen and which of the sieges, is not immediately clear. I'll keep on at this though, this is an interesting puzzle.
Thanks. I have found another article (p.3), which states "the vessel which conveyed General Wolfe on his expedition to Quebec is still afloat under the name William and Ann". Also states she was a "bombketch". She might have served with RN under a different name. I will await your results. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I have found that Wolfe travelled with Admiral Saunders aboard HMS Neptune to Louisbourg. I can deduce that this is not William and Ann, however will keep looking. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, I will also get in touch someone I know who has written about the ships of this era. Incidentally the fate of another ship,
Ok, thanks. I have also found out that Wolfe travelled aboard HMS Richmond to the Island of Orleans, prior to the seige of Quebec beginning. Richmond was travelling with HMS Goodwill, which I cannot find any info on. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I have put some notes on the Talk:William and Ann (1759) page, mostly other vessels of the same name. I agree she was not at Copenhagen (1807). Viking1808 (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I've had a look through and cannot find any naval connection for ships of that name, beyond the hiring of an armed ship prior to when your ship was actually built. No other naval ships with that name are listed, no battle honours have been assigned to it, no reference to her as a bomb vessel, or anything like that, and no records of her at these varied engagements that the newspaper assigns to her. Its a fascinating story, I would love to know what records the person who wrote it based it on or whether it was just heresay. Possibly it is rooted in some sort of truth and the records are incomplete, but without any further evidence I'd have to regard it more likely as being a bit of a tall story. Perhaps some more details will come to light in time.
Thanks Benea. I am tending to believe that if there is any truth to the newspaper articles, she may have had a different name to begin with? If I find anything I will let you know. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I think I may have found out a possible link via Google Books. Wooden Ships And Iron Men: The Story Of The Square-Rigged Merchant Marine Of British North America
by Frederick William Wallace in 1924 and has a quote similar to the newspaper article. Unfortunately this is a snippet view and I cannot read the rest of the book. I will see if I can view a copy of the book via a libary. Regards Newm30 (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi - could I ask that if you intend to overwrite a disambiguation page with a new article, such as you did at
run!
06:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Canterbury Cricket Week DYK
I've responded to your concerns on the Canterbury Cricket Week DYK and added a new hook. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Very little I'm afraid, his circumstances appear to be very obscure. Incidentally the birth date in the article is given as '21 June 1781' but on the memorial it is '21 June 1782'. Which is correct? Bonner Smith's Commissioned Sea Officers of the Royal Navy gives his dates of commissioning as lieutenant as 11 January 1800, commander on 20 October 1801 and captain on 28 April 1802. He does not appear to have commanded any ships other than Santa Margarita before his death however. Given the station he died on, we might presumably attribute his death to the usual run of infectious diseases.
John Leveson-Gower (1740-1792) article has been flagged with a "ref improve" a while back and am asking if you would kindly add the sources (other than Hansard) to the wealth of detail you have added, or tell me your sources, so I can add it in your stead. Fritzelblitz (talk
) 13:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Examining the article's history, I actually added little, other than the infoboxes, succession boxes and cats, etc, which simply incorporated the information already in the article, which appears to have been the result of a copy-and-paste from the scanned versions of the Dictionary of National Biography now available on wikisource. The additional information I think comes from the same source, albeit the online and updated version of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Your comment in the Afd discussion asked why an author would nominate their article for deletion, did the assessment by Brad101 have anyhing to with it, or was it something else. Yes and yes. These {{
new page}} tag was removed by an editor within the hour and slapped with the above mentioned tags. Specifically regarding Brad101 (who appears to be highly qualified and respected within the ships project), the Type C6 ship article was judged at Start assessment overnight despite being tagged as ongoing. (It currently reads unassessed.) So in a nutshell, go delete it. Anyone so thin skinned that they cannot handle other editors being who and what they are doesn't belong here. Articles and don't meet project standards don't belong here. Mariepr (talk
) 02:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I was rather afraid of that. I hope you don't get too disheartened by what's happened. Those templates you've linked to say 'More editing may be needed to meet standards.' and 'You are welcome and encouraged to assist.', i.e. that other editors are welcome to make changes and edits. Edits like those Brad made should be seen in the light of perfectly routine maintenance edits. He has no idea whether you intend to add categories, or improve the urls, and such tags can act as a friendly reminder to you to address these issues, or if you finish the work and haven't addressed them, to alert other editors that the article can be further improved. Similarly the rating he gave is simply a placeholder for the state of the article as it was at the time. I regularly expand articles, and when I've done so, I blank the rating on the talkpage and request a reassessment, which Brad has indicated he is perfectly happy to do for you. There is no obligation not to assess an under construction article, but given the nature of wikipedia it is acknowledged that these ratings are temporary and primarily used to give hints as to what can be improved.
I would encourage you to continue editing. The afd was overwhelmingly closed as a keep, so the article is well within wikiproject standards and you shouldn't feel that because it wasn't given a higher rating, it doesn't deserve to be on wikipedia. No featured article springs into existence from one edit. If you want to avoid this in future, I would suggest using your sandbox rather than the mainspace, until you have developed the article to your satisfaction. Personally if an article I've written gets tagged for some problems, or is given a low rating, I simply work on it until the tags can be removed and the article re-rated.
That’s pretty much how I now see the situation. Having neither professional experience (defined as service on a military or merchant vessel) nor academic credentials (defined as an advanced degree in military history, marine engineering or the like), I admit to being totally unqualified to be involved in the ships project. In looking up the vessels of the defunct United States Lines some were discovered to have had a fascinating history such as the MS American Leader and USAHS Marigold. I decided to draft articles on them and just “fly under the radar” of those more seriously absorbed in ship history. What I did NOT count on was the aggressive patrolling and scrutiny of those who actively monitor that project. Rightly or wrongly so, it is what it is. I’ve been swatted like a pesky fly and it’s no fun. Going forward, any drafting and editing of ship articles will be left to those with some real knowledge and qualifications in the subject matter. Mariepr (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Edward Hawker
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello, Benea. You have new messages at M'encarta's talk page. Message added 14:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello. I added a hatnote referring to the Sinking of the RMS Titanic as on the 15th (the anniversary) that article received less than half the visits that the main article got, and it seemed to me that most people that day would have been looking for sinking information. Can you tell me on what grounds you reverted it? Rumiton (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I see. So how to you suggest we draw attention to the existence of this new article? Rumiton (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
It's linked prominently in the very first paragraph of the article, in the infobox, and again with the 'main' template directly from the sinking section. That's a lot of links and ought to be entirely sufficient. Hatnotes aren't the way to draw attention to other articles, they are for disambiguation. In this article the sinking daughter article seems to be very well exposed to those wanting more details on that aspect.
I see that you are credited with the idea of "moved page List of Captain class frigate to List of Captain class frigates"
I was under the impression that the grammatically correct plural would be "Captains class frigate" and not "Captain class frigates" rather that risk initiating an edit war I thought I'd discuss the subject here with you. --Thefrood (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It depends whether it is the captains or the frigates which are being referred to. The grammatical form "Captains class frigate" or "Captain class frigate" would be a reference to the captains that that ships were named for (i.e. whether the class name used the plural to recognise that there were multiple captains that were so honoured by having a ship named for them). The sources used follow common RN usage (Flower class, Loch class, Castle class, etc). Whether it should be "frigate" or "frigates" is a different grammatical issue, and in this case since a collection of things are being referred to, the generic class type takes the plural. (See other examples,
That makes sense, liking what you did with the Evart table --Thefrood (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
NB: While we are on the subject of the Captains I've recently given the
Captain class frigate article an overhaul, given that grammar is not my strong point would you be willing to give the article a quick once over to make sure I've not messed anything up with an inadvertent semi-colon etc. --Thefrood (talk
I see you were a principal author of this article. I've assessed it as a B-class, and I think it may be GA if expanded slightly more (see talk). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
DYK for John Bligh (Royal Navy officer)
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Benea, just in case it's not on your watchlist could you look at HMS St. James. I'm about to revert my own edit. Thanks in advance. JRPG (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
On behalf of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the A-Class medal for your outstanding work on HMS Speedy (1782), HMS Temeraire (1798) and HMS Bellerophon (1786), promoted to A-Class between August 2010 and June 2012. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
DYK for James Coutts Crawford
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, did you know that you can tag a fact with '{cn}' to request a citation? There is no need to delete it, an action which can be misinterpreted. Best regards, Ephebi (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you, I am well aware of the fact tag. But are you aware of
Publications such as DNB, MEB, etc have a policy to include that information where available. Place of burial is already cited in most of the biographical publications in the refs. I have instead provided the legally-definitive source. Indeed, if you visit, I can show you his coffin! Ephebi (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no policy in those publications concerning giving a place of burial, rather it is common practice to do so where known. To take William Young as an example, the ODNB does not provide his burial place. None of the sources used in that article do. What publications and references are you speaking of when you say 'biographical publications in the refs'? What is a legally-definitive source? I don't mean to split hairs here, but I struggle to make sense of your response. If you are saying you don't have to give a reference when you add new information because you assume it will be in the sources already listed in the article, that flies in the face of
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi. You reverted me here.. I don't understand why. The link now points to the wrong place, and the one sentence description doesn't say the most notable feature about the ship. Which is more important: It was broken up in 1775, or it was commanded by James Cook?
So unless you have a good explanation, is it okay if I undo your revert? Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The point of the shiplist page is not to include the most notable elements of a ship's history (a ship may have many notable commanders or incidents in her service), though I don't mind the additional inclusion that she was commanded by Cook. Their purpose to trace the history of the names of the ships. With ships that share the same name, it is important to know when one ship leaves service and another enters. So if you know event x concerning an HMS Foo occurs in 1765, you can know which ship was in service then, and use the correct link. You'll notice the other Grenvilles have both an in service date and an out of service one. You've also created the article in the wrong location. HMS Grenville was not HMS Grenville in 1754, she wasn't purchased for naval service until 1763. The name of the ship and the date do not correspond. The article will need moving.
Oh I see; it's not just a normal disambiguation page. As for the naming conventions,
WP:NC-SHIP seemed to indicate the date of launch was the most important.. but I suppose it wasn't clear on cases where that differs from the first date of service. Mlm42 (talk
) 17:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
User pages
You're entirely right, those weren't meant for mainspace. (I knew something would go wrong...) TBH, I have no clue how to fix that. If you would...? Thx. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 22:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem at all, just happened to crop up in some of the new page feeds, which caught my eye. I've transferred them, having only managed to make it slightly more difficult for myself than I needed to, so it should be sorted now!
Butterfingered or no, better you than me. :) I can see the headlines: "Wikipedia crashes" "Massive cyber attack blamed" ;p TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 23:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I didn't do much really, just tweaked a few things. Thanks for your contributions, nice to see articles appearing on these smaller ships.
Hi Benea. Could you have a look at these edits to HMS Wild Swan (D62)? They added a huge amount of unreferenced information, as well as that personal account that was removed earlier. I see from other edits made by the user in question, that they tend to add loads of unreferenced info to destroyer articles. Manxruler (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
HMS Valorous (1917)
Since the material is a summary of the copywrite material (and I suppose it is the Service History info). Summaries are okay along as proper reference is given.
Also, I am trying to maintain the templates as given within Wilipedia. I do NOT modify them, when people modify them them become worthless and then there is no sense in even trying to follow them.
You are not interpreting the usage of the ship infobox templates correctly I think, and somehow your edits continue to overwrite valid improvements to the article. And furthermore your edits are not merely a summary, you are copy and pasting unaltered text into the articles throughout, and are making very minimal rewording elsewhere that may not pass the threshold of originality. Since you continue on this course of action, and having looked more closely at the original text, I have had to blank it and request further input.
I do not want you to quit, as I have said several times on your page, we welcome your contributions, we ask only that you contribute within the accepted guidelines and policies. This means editing collegiately and respecting the input and edits that other editors make to your articles. But very importantly, you need to be aware that copyrighted material cannot be pasted into articles, even with the word order altered. You need to use the sources to explain things in your own words. I have tried to explain this several times, and edit the articles to remove these problems, but you continually reverted me. I would encourage you to discuss exactly how things like citing material, templates, style edits and other policies work before you decide to leave.
Bullying is when you attempt to intimidate an individual to do something in a certain manner without explanation and when you do not get your way you take retribution.
The accepted method is through discussion so that both parties can reach an agreement or at least see each others point of view that way a positive experience is left with both and more work of better quality can be accomplished.
I have spent thirty years in the miltary fighting the attitude of 'because I said so'. I found it was easier to explain why something needed to be in a certain manner rather than trying to brow beat them into it. In the almost ten years since my retirement I have found that this works on 'civy' street as well.
If you are the person in charge of this area then you need to explain to your contributors that you perfer the Infoboxes formatted in a certain way as they contribute to this project instead of trying to intimidate them. It will actually save alot of time and some hostility. It also save us time and agravation.
I have decided to continue to produce user pages; however, until I receive a reply from www.naval-history.com I will not post them for submission or convert them to talk pages.
I have made several attempts to raise these issues, you ignored me every time. Please do NOT produce articles as user pages along the lines that you have been doing, they are still copyright violations even if they are not posted immediately into the mainspace. Let's work amicably towards producing a model of a destroyer article instead, using the sources, that can serve as a good template for referencing and formatting. I'm not in charge of any area, but a number of editors have produced guidelines on how to write ship articles, in addition to wider article guidelines. We do prefer things formatted in a certain way, and would be happy to talk you through these. Finally can you please assure that you won't make edits that overwrite edits made by other users. I tried several times to raise this with you, and you did not reply.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I am currently working on HMS Whitehall a modified V and W Class destroyer.
I have also contacted the copywrite holder at naval-history.com and will verify with him if arcticle violates copywrite rules for him.
I am actively searching for an amicable solution to this and improve my writing level for the article as my ultimate goal is to complete the V and W Class Destroyer item
After contact with Gordon Smith at Naval History.com I have acknowledged and given credit to the web site ant LtCdr Mason as he stated and as stipulated on the main page of the web site.
Also I have added line citations to the article.
Are you able to it as my user page or do I have to post it for creation? Right now I am unsure on how to proceed. I have placed the article on my user page and am unsure if I should post it for creation. Please advise.
Thanks very much for this Rgdem999, I've had a look over it, and a lot of the basic style and formatting are much improved over your previous articles! I'll have a more in depth look tomorrow, but what I will say with regards to the copyright, is that is not merely enough for an external source to allow for his work to be used on Wikipedia. This is because Wikipedia is, by its nature,
I have looked at the articles for requesting copywrite permissions and will send it to Mr Gordon Smith. I have found maybe two other sites I will try and get permissions from. I will keep you informed
just saw that you cleaned up my article, and wanted to say thanks. Im still relatively new, but appreciate all the help I can get from the community. If you have any suggestions on my work, that would be greatly appreciated.
expeditions pages, if the actions there are too small to warrant separate pages (debateable), I’d question whether the infobox is necessary at all (the one at the Troude page particularly, which deals with both the frigate actions together, adds nothing that isn’t in the text, and is actually misleading as it stands).
I’m thinking of bringing this up on the various pages, but I thought I should run it by you first. What do you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
HMS Volunteer (1919)
I have recompiled HMS Volunteer with some improvements. Could you have a once over to see if it is ready for release.
I sent Mr Gordon Smith the informal request for text and I have copied and pasted his reply
Dear Robert,
I've had a look at the attachment, and hope I have understood it.
As far as my colleagues and I are concerned, anyone is welcome to use any of the material on www.naval-history.net. All we ask is the the original researcher/information supplier (always listed in the headings) and NHN are acknowledged.
Thank you for what I understand is an invitation to contribute to Wikipedia. As I semi-jokingly say to others, I have a backlog of about 100 years work, so I am afraid I do not have the time.
However, if you or any other Wiki contributor would like to discuss the broader issue of how to make naval history more widely available to the general public, I'm only too happy to oblige. That especially goes for Citizen History.
You added[1] a claim that HMS Naiad (F39) had 2030 sonar fitted. If you have a source for this claim please add it, else please remove it, for it is inconsistent with both the article on the Leanders and Jane's[2] description of which ships had 2031(I) sonar fitted. Please also review your related edits, since you may have made the same apparently incorrect addition to other Leander articles. Jamesday (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello my friend
I'm back around these parts a bit, and wondering how life is treating you. Started to send you an email, then saw the lamentable state of your talk page and felt responsible. Shall I do my old archive deal and update your DYK list? I could continue with the old quarterly scheme, but it probably makes more sense to do one big catch-up archive through perhaps September. Let me know (I'll see a response here), and do drop me an email as well. Maralia (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Copywrite infringement
I have sent you the response from Mr Gordon Smith of Naval History.net and have had no response. I need to know if I can use thier web site as a source or not.
If I cannot use it you will need to look at all Royal Navy ships within Wikipedia as some if not most are straight copy and paste of Naval history.net material.
I have continued to write articles but will not post them until this issue is resolved. I cannot write articles that are not base on facts and the article must be complete. I am fustrated over this and may take my material somewhere else for publication.
Hi Benea. How are you? You haven't edited in over five weeks, so I'm getting a little concerned. Hope all is well. Manxruler (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, sorry about that, just popped out for a little while, as
