User talk:Benea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/New articles
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject Ships |class= |importance= }}
{{Ship infobox request}}

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Benea! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! John Vandenberg 05:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
-
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

[edit] Warship categorization

Hey Benea! Welcome to Wikipedia. You seem to be interested in naval vessels, so I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject Ships. It's a project dedicated to improving articles on all ships.

We have a categorization guideline that you might like to look at. There's a lot of categorization to be done, but some of your edits work against the guideline. For example, we don't put era categories (like Category:Victorian era battleships of the United Kingdom onto class categories (like Category:Lord Clyde class battleships), because not all ships of the class will belong in the same eras.

Also, we don't put country categories (like Category:Battleships of the United Kingdom onto ship articles (like HMS Swiftsure (1870)) when their class category already belongs to the country category. We did this at one time, so you still see it around, but we've stopped because it's redundant.

We don't really use navy categories, like Category:Royal Navy battleships, because they're redundant when a country category is in use, and they're more confusing than country categories for people unfamiliar with ships. I hope you'll consider categorizing according to the WP:SHIPS guidelines.

I also think there needs to be some separation between battleships and ships of the line, but there's been a lot of debate on that issue. Could you stop by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships and give your input? TomTheHand 13:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Phoenix

So Charles John Austen really was Jane's younger brother?Pustelnik (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently so, at least according to that source. Benea (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Nice adds to the Battle of Denniwitz! Tirronan 19:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi Benea, thanks for your contribution [1] to List of shipwrecks in 1940. Could you give me your sources so I could double-check the submarine designations? I got the numbers you edited from uboat.net so I wondered if you had found a better source site for future use?

Anyway, thank you for your very helpful Manxruler 01:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)edit. I appreciate it.
Hello again. That makes sense, sometimes the pennant numbers are those first used, sometimes the ones used later. Personal preference of the Wikipedians that created the red links, I guess. Here's a great website for British subs of WWII:
British Submarines of World War Two. Keep up the good work. Manxruler 15:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Submarine badges

There are some great images here which you can copy to your machine then upload. You need to use this text:

== Licensing ==
{{Non-free symbol}}

in the licensing box of the Upload file page and you should be OK. I've added a badge to Storm's page and think it's a nice addition. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have a barnstar, great work with the badges and photos!

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For tirelessly beautifying pages on British WWII submarines with badges and photos. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 12:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Seven Wonders of the World

Not sure why you think it is "disputed" and not relevant that Stonehenge failed to be voted one of the New Seven Wonders of the World ? Teapotgeorge 16:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Benea...understood Teapotgeorge 17:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leutnant - Lieutenant

Hi,

in HMS Seal (N37) you corrected "Leutnant" to "Lieutenant", commenting "spelling". Actually, the former is the correct German title and it was a German officer. Is there any convenience in the English Wiki how to deal with such things? I thought it was to use the "native" title. Otherwise, "Fregattenkapitän" in the same article should be changed to "commander", too. Mausch 07:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Actually, I don´t care, which convention should be choosen, but it should be the same in every case. Mausch 15:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:TIGRIS_badge-1-.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TIGRIS_badge-1-.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 21:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Submarine Badges

Hi, I note your recent uploads, It would be much appreciated if you could provide a detailed rationale for thier inclusion, I can appreciate your reasons are presumably to illustrate the badge of or identify a particular vessel. ShakespeareFan00 21:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image tagging

Hello, I'm fairly new to uploading to wikipedia, I do it through the commons where I can. What sort of detailed explanation would you think appropriate? I notice other users uploading something similar have put something like "used under fair use to illustrate submarine x. Which seems pretty close to what I've been putting. Your guidance would be much appreciated. Thanks. Benea 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at some of the FULLER examples other people have been using, One line rationales aren't usally enough. In respect of Submarines, the following is a good basis on which to expand " The following image may be subject to copryight, but is belived to be usable under fair use in <article name> because: The badge is not defaced, misrepresented or used in a misleading manner; The image is of low quality compared to the original badge; A free image is not obtainable; The image is used soley for the purposes of identifying the related vessel, or illustrating that vessels badge directly; The use of the image on Wikipedia does not unduly impact upon any commercial use the Royal Navy may make of the badge." ShakespeareFan00 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
That fine, although I will make one tweak to ensure it's OK :) ShakespeareFan00 22:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I may take out the comment, as I don't think it's applicable, BTW do you have a list of the crests used? Thanks for ulpading

them by the way. HMS Thetis is somewhat important is it not? ShakespeareFan00 22:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, It was actually the 'Thetis clip' (aka Thetis lock) was why I remembered it, That modification was significant in terms of

contemporary and later submarine designs. IIRC Most modern military subs still use a variation of it on torpedo tubes. ShakespeareFan00 22:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Submarine badges

Would appreciate it if you could add: [[Category:Royal Navy Submarine crests]] to your image uploads as image categorisation helps people find related images quickly :)

In addition I have created a template to rapidly fill in the rationales, to use it you need to replace any existing text on the image description page bar the Source URL with {{subst:User:ShakespeareFan00/SubBadge|<vessel name>}} where <vessel name> is the title of the related wiki article without the [[]] brackets. Hope this helps.

The template is a spell checked version of the rationale text. I'll take another look at them in the morning. ShakespeareFan00 23:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


OK, That should be most of the uploads now with rationales and duly categorised :) ShakespeareFan00 11:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) ShakespeareFan00 11:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Vandal (P64)

Updated DYK query On 21 July 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Vandal (P64), 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.

--Congrats on making the lead :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angel Thomas Lopez

Hi there; we are always happy to see new users becoming active in newpage tagging, but please use a little discretion in doing so. An article about an author cannot be an advertisement, although if it is a short article, as is this one, it might well be a stub. To qualify as an advertisement an article must include a clear invitation to buy/partake/attend/use, which this clearly does not.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, you have a valid if somewhat convoluted point, and in the case of a longer and more detailed article it might be that a grey area may develop. My point was that in this article the advert tag was incorrect, although the act of {{speedy}} tagging was clearly appropriate, because we were not being incited to buy,partake/attend or use the author. Had the focus of the article been his books, then unless they were themselves notable an advert tag would have applied. It is a fine point, and other admins might apply different interpretations; this is why we have human admins, not bots. But I think we would all have deleted the article.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do not think that I was criticising. I was not. Just trying to help a new user. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fehler

please read Disku "HMS Drake (1901)" --84.134.101.172 18:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks and good night. --84.134.101.172 18:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Sometimes changes need something time in Wikipedia and other languages.

[edit] Peter Larkins

Hello. My edit to "Battle of the Nile" was my second on Wikipedia, my first relating to the poem Cacabianca. I am delighted that someone else has constructively improved it. It makes the whole thing worthwhile. I was aware that a like to a disambiguation page was bad-news but did not know how to avoid it. Now I do. Thankyou.

[edit] Peter Larkins

Hello again. I am now in someting of a quandary. Nearly every edit I made to "Casabianca" has been undone. This leaves me feeling precisely opposite to the way I felt after your amendment to "battle of the Nile". Is it worth bothering? I happened to know the Felicia Herman was a Mrs. so added this in. It has been removed as being "unencyclopedic". Is this valid? I would have thought that anyting true was "encyclopeic", am I wrong? Also a parody I entered was removed, along with others, though I suspect mine is better known then those which remain. It seems to me that someone has constructed this page, is watching it and will undo nearly any amendment on the basis that it isn't their own work. Would you care to comment?

[edit] Michael Burhan Scott

Why did you delete the page when it was done regarding specification of wikipedia, i referenced it on an actor why did you do this14091? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bbay (talk • contribs) 20:00, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

but i took a look and he has a reference on imdb for heavens sake, to me it sounds that this whole wiki thing is biased, you can reference jade bloody goody but not this, i think you all should be ashamed--Bbay 20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)--Bbay 20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] good pov cut on Siege of Danzig (1734)

I get so tired of 'gallant' attacks and 'brilliant' generals. Keep it up. -Gomm 21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 5 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Ark Royal (1587), 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.

Cheers, Daniel 09:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting of HMS Marlborough (1767)

I have found a new article on HMS Marlborough (1767), but it has got some formatting problems. You are are good at fixing this kind of problem, could you help please?--Toddy1 16:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks for sorting out the formatting! Rif Winfield 16:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Williams's 64-gun ships

Benea, can I draw your attention to the note on my talk page asking you to correct the disambiguation page and links concerning the fifteen Intrepid class 64s. This is needed to dispell any misconception that the Magnanime, Sampson and Diadem were to a different design from the other twelve ships of this class (i.e. there was NEVER a separate Magnanime Class). Thanks. Rif Winfield 16:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Inconstant

There is similarly a need to remove reference to an Inconstant "class" of iron-hulled frigates from disambiguation. The Inconstant, Raleigh and Shah were all similar in concept, and by the same designer (Reed), but did not constitute a class as they differed in design. I have made appropriate changes in the three ships' individual articles, but linkages still identify a non-existent "class". Thanks again. Rif Winfield 13:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know...

Updated DYK query On 8 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Carlisle (D67), 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.

--Allen3 talk 11:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Somaliland

Hi Benea, I used the article (the) as that what was used in the main article (before you corrected it). Sorry for the confusion. --Camptown 22:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know...

Updated DYK query On 9 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Ceres (D59), 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.

--Allen3 talk 10:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratuations! Another item for the picture slot. --Camptown 11:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Cohen (economist)

New information making Lauren Cohen (economist) a notable athlete, I believe. Please reconsider.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy

As you can see I have made a bit more progress tonight. Thanks for doing corrections to ones I sorted out last night. However I am a bit puzzled why you deleted the following three ships:



    • Minden 74 (1810) - Sold 1861

All three ships are listed in David Lyon's The Sailing Navy List, pub Conway, 1993, ISBN 0-85177-617-5. --Toddy1 20:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Cohen (economist)

I have renamed Lauren Cohen (economist). Can you please reconsider your AFD statement especially considering my comment 4.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know?

Updated DYK query On September 17, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Nigeria (60), 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.

Daniel Case 15:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gunboats and gunvessels of the Victorian Navy

We do not appear to have a category for these among the ships and vessels of the Royal Navy. I would suggest that it shoulkd include the paddle gunboats and gunvessels, as well as those screw-driven. Unless I have overlooked it somewhere, do you think you can provide the necessary stubs and links. I shall be happy to provide a full list and names and dates once the stubs are in place. Thanks! Rif Winfield 18:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 18 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Nigeria (60), 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.

Cheers, Daniel 05:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 18 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article German ship Lauenburg, 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.

--Carabinieri 12:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 19 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS James B. Stephens, 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.

--Carabinieri 19:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fantastic!

Love the work you did on the Tirpitz (pig) article!! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Growth of the Ship of the line

I have put the following graph on the Ship of the line and Battleship pages. Please could have a look at this, and if you feel appropriate tidy up what I have done.--Toddy1 17:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Weight Growth of RN First Rate Line-of-Battle Ships 1630-1875.gif.gif

[edit] Displacement Growth of RN 1st Class Battleships 1630-1950

I have extended the previous graph to the end of the 1940s. The trend for sailing ships was 3.66% compound growth per decade. The trend for steam ships was 30% compound growth per decade. Note that the first rate steam 2-deckers and 3-deckers lay on the steam trend line not the sail trend line.--Toddy1 11:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Image:Displacement Growth of RN 1st Class Battleships 1630-1950.gif

At that rate, current battleships should be 300,000 tonnes? But they haven't! Have they? Actually, aren't battleships obsolete now that there are anti-ship missiles? Archtransit (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That's right, the last battleships were built in the 1940s, HMS Vanguard (23) for the Royal Navy and the Iowa class for the United States Navy. They ended up displacing about 45,000 tons, quite a way short of 300,000! The Iowas were heavily modernised to continue in service up into the end of the 20th century, but have all been decommissioned now. The battleship fell out of favour in the Second World War because of the rise of the aircraft carrier. The sinking of HMS Prince of Wales (53) and the Battle of Taranto are good examples of how air power made these ships largely obsolete. Since air power and as you rightly point out, anti-ship missiles could sink a battleship long before their big guns could come in range of enemy ships, they became largely useless. By the end of their careers, the Iowas were largely being used as missile platforms. The post war trend has been for carrier based battle groups, built around one or more aircraft carriers and supported by a number of anti air cruisers, destroyers and frigates. Sadly the era of the battleship is well and truly over, though it remains a fascinating subject to read and research about. Benea (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Although the planned, but never built American Montana class battleships would have displaced 65,000 tons. This is about the same as the largest battleship ever built, the Japanese battleship Yamato (in 1940). But I think eventually they'd have reached a point beyond which it wouldn't have been practical to build on such a scale. In comparison, the largest aircraft carriers, the Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers which will enter service soon displace around 100,000 tons. These are the new capital ships it seems. Benea (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy

I have more or less completed List of ships-of-the-line of the Royal Navy (1785–1830). I need to recheck those ships you deleted last week (discussed in your post of 13 September 2007).

  • Please could you give some thought to the naming of articles about captured ships.

Regarding the list of ships-of-the-line of the Royal Navy (1830–1847), there are two options: (1) Show those ships completed as sailing ships (2) Show those ships started as sailing ships

The advantage of (1) is that it is brief. However it has the disadvantage of not showing the big programmes of the Symonds era.

Which approach do you think best? --Toddy1 21:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that can be a tricky one. My suggestion would be to create the links for the Royal Navy ship names, together with the date they were captured, i.e. HMS Implacable (1805) was the French ship Duguay-Trouin. The exception would be if an article on the ship under its previous name already existed, i.e. French ship Scipion, which became HMS Scipion. The basic guide is to use the name under which it had the most notable career. If this is clear cut, you can create the article under that name, with a redirect from the other name, whether its French ship such-and-such, or HMS so-and-so. If it's a bit more ambiguous, I'd suggest using the RN name, and we can later decide whether to rename it, or create a seperate article for her career with the other navy.

I found [[HMS Implacable (1805)]] to be very odd given that the normal convention is the date of launch.--Toddy1 20:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the list, my preference would be "(2) Show those ships started as sailing ships", as then we get a good overview of that transition period, and it illustrates the period and rate of conversions. We can then have a note alongside them, such as "converted to screw propulsion, 18??" Just my opinions these, but I hope it helps. Let me know if I can help out anymore. Kind regards, Benea 03:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I will implement (2)--Toddy1 20:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RN ships

Hey, I'm helping work on the article Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher, and I wonder if you could help me make it look prettier by starting stubs on a few RN ships linked in the article. The relevant ones are:

  • HMS Highflyer (1851)
  • HMS Furious (1850)
  • HMS Vernon (shore establishment, torpedo branch split from HMS Excellent)

I'm blindly asking you for help, as my knowledge of RN resources consists of, um, having read the words 'Colledge' and 'Lavery' a lot. Any chance you magically have some data on these ships?

Also - Tirpitz is haunting me - my son started to choke (on a piece of HAM) at dinner tonight. Nothing serious, he was fine immediately, but all I could think of was THAT DAMN PIG trying to get me back for laughing at war pigs. Maralia 04:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you fabulous! It's like magic; request three articles, go to sleep, wake up, and here they are! I wonder what would happen were I to request Incendiary monkeys of you tonight! Maralia 14:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm very grateful for (and enormously impressed by) your help, fixing the red links for the Fisher article. May I trouble you to look at the stub I created today for HMS Donegal and check whether it's accurate? Coincidentally, one Donegal became part of HMS Vernon later in her career. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you're already on the case. Thank you. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Would I be pushing my luck to ask you to do something on HMS Donegal (1858)? I have books but cannot safely interpret them .... --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Awarded, with grateful thanks, for converting numerous warship-related redlinks in Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher into finished supporting articles. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know

Updated DYK query On 22 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tirpitz (pig), 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.

--Allen3 talk 12:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Lovely story. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could you please ...

take a look at my stubs for HMS Northampton and HMS Valorous for accuracy, content etc? Ideally, some more material on Valorous (1851) would be good. Many thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

More than okay, perfect. Thanks for your hard work, and for sorting out my tangles. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 25 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Durban (D99), 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.

--Carabinieri 13:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 26 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Donegal (1858), 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.

--Carabinieri 19:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eilat

I have copied all of this to the relevant talk page, which is where it should have been put in the first place. Benea 12:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Fart

An honest question here: if the word "fart" is, as you've said, "a concept" (in the sense of "not just a word"), what words would not be "concepts"? Powers T 19:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked an honest question. You left three comments on my talk page, none of which answered my honest question. And you accuse me of being "disruptive"? What exactly am I disrupting here? I really don't appreciate it. I came here, proverbial hat in proverbial hand, trying to get some perspective on this, and all you did was repeat the same things you were saying in the AfD. Powers T 02:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
What I'm actually trying to do is to understand your position more fully so that I can decide what the next step should be. I'm genuinely curious what you believe: that all words are valid topics for an encyclopedia, that "fart" is among a small number of words that are valid topics for an encyclopedia, or some other possibility I'm missing. I'm not trying to create an argument; I'm trying understand the arguments presented. If you feel that's disruptive, put a notice up at WP:AN/I. Powers T 17:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Here're my thoughts, as precisely as I can put them. I think that articles about words belong in a dictionary, with the very rare exception of a few very notable words that have significant cultural relevance beyond their definitions. ("Fuck" and "nigger" are the only English words I can think of that probably deserve an encyclopedia entry, and then only because of their extraordinary cultural baggage. "Cunt" is borderline; I would only consider it because of the information about "reclaiming" the word (Cunt#Feminist viewpoints).)
Now, an encyclopedia can certainly incorporate dictionary articles. However, in the specific case of Wikipedia, it is explicitly defined as not a dictionary, and Wiktionary is designated as the proper place for articles about words. While Wikipedia is intended to be both a general-purpose and a multi-specific-purpose encyclopedia, the specific purpose of "articles about words" is explicitly excluded. The very few exceptions of "articles about words" are really articles about the specific cultural impact of those words.
One of the keep !votes in the AfD referenced the fact that detailed usage history is something that Wikipedia can cover that Wiktionary would not. I believe that's incorrect; a paperless dictionary such as Wiktionary could easily include historical usage information. In fact, I would say a fully comprehensive dictionary ought to. That Wiktionary does not currently is a reason to transwiki the article, not to keep it on Wikipedia.
Now, I think the discussion has been bogged down in talk over "concept" and what is and what isn't a concept. I think this is misguided. If you read WP:DICDEF, the word "concept" is used there specifically in contrast to "word" -- "articles about concepts" versus "articles about words". Obviously, words are indeed concepts; what WP:DICDEF is saying, though, is not that "words are not concepts" but rather that we have two categories of concept: words and not words. One of those categories is the domain of an encyclopedia; the other is the domain of a dictionary.
A rule of thumb to illustrate this dichotomy could be this: If an article is specific to the language of its title, it belongs in a dictionary; if an article and its title can be translated into another language without losing its meaning, it belongs in an encyclopedia. For example, a Japanese article on the Japanese word that translates as "fart" would be completely different from the English article on "fart", because the two words have entirely different histories, etymologies, and even usage; that means they're dictionary articles. On the other hand, the Japanese article on "flatulence" could be substantially the same as the English article on "flatulence", even though they have different titles; that makes them encyclopedia articles. In short: a dictionary is language-specific; an encyclopedia is not.
Make sense? -- Powers T 15:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a guess

By the looks of things around here, I'm betting you could use some of this today! Maralia 20:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] HMS Speedy

(moved from my own talk page, because I'm a dumbass)
Could I trouble you to look into a trio of ship articles that could use renaming/moving and a disambig page?

There isn't enough info in the articles for me to deduce what the proper renames would be. Maralia 20:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CNS prefix for Chilean ships?

Does the Chilean Navy actually use the CNS prefix? It's never used in that context on their web site. TomTheHand 18:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undo

Hi, I have made an undo on [edit], putting my rationale here. Please let me know your thoughts if you disagree. Regards, Emoscopes Talk 17:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Mind enabling your email long enough to drop me an email via wiki interface, so I can respond? Want to discuss something with you, but prefer to do it off-wiki. Maralia 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Ariadne

Many thanks for your comprehensive improvement of the article I started. You are obviously well ahead of me in the editing stakes! I started the article as my father served on this ship in the 1944-46 period, so thanks once again.Paste 08:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On October 30, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Jamaica (44), 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.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates for cruisers and destroyers of and before WWI

(copied over from Talk page for [C class cruisers]) Ben, having completed entering the dates for all the WWI (and earlier) destroyer classes, I am now starting on the cruisers as and when time allows, beginning with the Carlisles. There is something seriously wrong with the armament you quote in this Talk page. The Ceres and Carlisle class cruisers as built each carried five 6-inch guns (45 calibre Mk XII guns), plus two 3-inch A/A, and a number of smaller weapons. It was only at the 1938-39 conversions that they received the twin 4-inch mountings. Please remember that these histories should cover the entire histories of these vessels, not simply their last few years in WW2; of course, I recognise that the original ordnance is listed in the main article. Rif Winfield 20:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Rif, yes you are quite right that the articles should cover their entire histories. It wasn't me that originally quoted those figures though, I just updated the infoboxes and corrected an earlier mistake over the number of guns the ships mounted after their refits. As to how to cover this in the infoboxes, that often comes down to a matter of personal preference on the part of the original editor. The most complete solution is to list them all, with original configuration, then after refit, then after second refit, etc. For example - HMS Argonaut (61). If you want to expand those infoboxes to cover them in that detail, then by all means feel free to do so. I suspect that the original editor used the World War Two configurations as that was when the ships of the Carlisle class were engaging in their most notable actions. Kind regards, Benea 12:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ben, many thanks. We can try and expand to include all refit histories in due course; but at least we start the articles with the original history of a vessel or class. Trying to start with later configurations and work backwards will lead to problems in altering original articles, a problem exemplified by the query raised earlier on this user page in relation to the various Speedys. This also is extra evidence why trying to refer to vessels by their pendant numbers is ridiculous; presumably those who created these articles (not you, I know) were unaware that pendant numbers were a 20th-century creation and thus could not be used for pre-1900 vessels, and was likewise unaware that RN pendant numbers were not only allocated randomly, but also changed. Regards. Rif Winfield 14:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bismarck

Hi, the pic. of Bismarck firing is one of the most famous of the war. But she was definitely firing at Prince of Wales, not Hood, which had already been sunk. See the dedicated websites, e.g. www.kbismarck.com Regards, bigpad 09:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[The Imperial War Museum disagrees, which is a bit odd. Perhaps it would be better to say something like Bismarck firing during the Battle of the Denmark Straits to remove the contention? Benea 11:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)]

Hi again, The IWM, while a wonderful treasure, is incorrect. Both the Kbismarck and the "Bismarck and Tirpitz" sites, through careful analysis of the salvo tracks and courses of the ships, agree that the pic. was taken while Bis. was firing at POW. The relative closeness of Bis. to PE is a giveaway. Over the years there was an assumption that Hood was the target, and "The World at War" magazine, in its "Battle of the Leviathans" issue, captioned the picture accordingly. This was probably due to the dynamic 'mythical' impact of the rapid sinking of the Hood. Some of the early books on the battle may also have captioned the pic. in this way but I can't say off hand. The IWM is still acting on old information. Thanks, bigpad 12:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 12 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Frobisher (D81), 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.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 14 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Atheltempler, 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.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Epic Barnstar
Awarded to Benea for his series on historic battleships! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On November 15, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Bryony (K192), 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.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) follow-up

Hi. You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) which has now closed as "keep". I think it's worth having a more general discussion as to the notability of small noncombatant auxiliaries such as harbour tugs and I have raised this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force#Follow-up. I'm inviting all the AfD participants, both pro and con, to join in with their thoughts on the topic. --A. B. (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An article which you started, or significantly expanded, HMS Alarm (1758), was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On November 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Alarm (1758), 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On November 23, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Amphion (1911), 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.

Kindly nominated by Victuallers. Thanks again, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Loch Achray

Terrific work, well done. Nick mallory (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Rose

Hi Benea, thanks for rv my edit on Mary Rose. I was hasty and did not properly understand what the author was trying to say. However, the sentence as it stands is still incorrect. Having the gun ports cut too low does not lead to decreased stability. In fact, if cannon were to be installed lower rather than higher, it would increase the vessel's stability.

One of the main contributing factors towards the Mary Rose's instability was the installation of heavier cannon, higher up than orginally intended, during the refits of 1528 and 1536. The problem with the gun ports being too low is that it increased the probability of water influx whenever the ship listed, rather than contributing to an increase in instability per se.

The article requires a little rewording. Rather than get into a possible edit war, would you please attend to this when you next have a moment? Thanks. Secret Squïrrel, approx 05:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RN Destroyers

Hello. As you know I'm trying to at least start an article on all these early destroyers. My book doesn't really differentiate between the different classes of the 'thirty knotters' as the list here [[2]] does. It's got the individual names and builders and specs, but quite which ship is in which class is a bit of guess work I don't want to do, as I'll probably make a mistake. I could work it out for the 27 knot jobs. If you've got a book which is better could you put the ships names into the classes? Then I could start an article on each ship and nail down which is which. Thanks a lot. Thanks for tidying up after me as well, I'm not trying to make work for you, honest! Nick mallory (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I've already sorted these into the various designs/classes - please see under [B class destroyer], [C class destroyer] and [D class destroyer], as they were finally grouped in 1913 under these generic titles, with every destroyer placed under the design group as approppriate. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] CS Faraday

Just to say thanks for matching my article CS Faraday with the house style and adding the sterograph image. This is the first ship article I have written and I only came across it whilst writing Alexander Siemens which is within my usual area of contribution, Cheers Dumelow (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Balchen

Hi, you have changed the number of guns on HMS Victory in the above article from 110 to 100. I am aware that a) gun ratings were very changeable during the period in question, b)ships usually carried more guns than they were listed as carrying and c)most sources give Victory as 100 guns, but the sources I used to write this article all give a figure of 100 guns (I suspect they are all loosely based on the oldest one from 1757). Given that your edit here contradicts the sources, what is the best course of action? Stay with the sources or change the number of guns it based on a rather vague rating system?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sounds fair.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Lotus

Thanks for tracking that one down. I knew the link pointed to the wrong page but an internet search failed to track down the right ship.

BTW, I was just reading your new article SS River Afton. While making a couple of minor tweaks, I noticed that the account doesn't quite make sense. It says the ship was torpedoed and broke in two, after which U-702 delivered the coup de grace with two more torpedoes. It would seem an odd thing to do to torpedo a ship after it's already broken in two, was the text meant to indicate it broke in two after being hit by all of the torpedoes? Gatoclass (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 9 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Stalingrad, 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.

--Carabinieri (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ok ok ill lighten up but hes been stalking people and he won't talk to any body.

ANOMALY-117 (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC) so any ideas?--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 11 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Benbow (1913), 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.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USS Abraham Lincoln

the ship you editied was sunk in the movie and the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOMALY-117 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I've figured out what you're talking about. Please try to be a bit clearer in what you want to say in future however. I'm afraid you're wrong however.
Pg 48 - "The frigate?" replied Conseil, turning on his back; "I think that master had better not count too much on her." "You think so?" "I say that, at the time that I threw myself into the sea, I heard the men at the wheel say, 'the screw and rudder are broken.'" "Broken?" "Yes, broken by the monster's teeth. It is the only injury the Abraham Lincoln has sustained. But it is a bad look out for us - she no longer answers her helm."
And after that the Abraham Lincoln disappears from the story, and the narrators enter the Nautilus, where the rest of the story takes place. The Lincoln was attacked, but not sunk in the novel, so I will revert your change. Benea (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK!

Updated DYK query On 12 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Gulfamerica, 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.

- Mailer Diablo 19:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You have been awarded the WikiProject Ships Barnstar!

WikiProject Ships Barnstar
You sir, are an article writing machine! Thanks for all of your hard work to fill in the gaps on Wikipedia's naval knowledge. Our project is all the better for having your aboard! Kralizec! (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Bombay

Do you have access to Ships of the Royal Navy? If so, could you help with the above page? Thanks. Neddyseagoon - talk 12:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SS Gulfamerica

Hey, this article was on my todo list, no fair beating me to it! I mean, I only added it four months ago, I would've gotten to it sometime this century! Maralia (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 14 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Fury (H76), 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.

--Carabinieri (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 18 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Tartar (F43), 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.

Cheers, Daniel 22:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Torbay

Thanks for fixing these edits; I didn't get a chance to finish. Xyl 54 (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. Benea (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SS City of Cairo

A very interesting article! I don't blame the lady survivor for refusing to cross the Atlantic until after the war. Hope it will see DYK tomorrow! Archtransit (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fingers crossed! The man who survived the sinking, was picked up, survived the sinking of that ship and then nearly had his next rescuer blown up must have been cursing and blessing his luck at the same time. Benea (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It did see DYK! And it deserved to be chosen! Archtransit (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 23 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Legion (G74), 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.

Delivered on behalf of Anonymous Dissident. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 08:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 23 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS City of Cairo, 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.

Thanks! --JayHenry (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 24 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ellerman Lines, 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) 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is right up your alley

Definitely the first time I have seen both {{primate-stub}} and {{naval-stub}} on the same article: Monkeys in ships. Maralia (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Pirate monkeys ahoy! Benea (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ship's cat? Oh, but you do indulge me. The Churchill photo is delightful, but the hammock made for Convoy. . .priceless. Perhaps we humans aren't such a bad lot, eh? Maralia (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't miss King Neptune (pig)! I'm getting ideas for the next Wikimedia fundraising drive. . . Maralia (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 5 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Fanad Head, 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.

Keep up the great work! --Royalbroil 14:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William King (Sailor)

Thank you for cleaning up my article on Bill King.

However, I am very concerned about the designation "Sailor" in the title.

According to my dictionary, "sailor" refers to "a seaman below the rank of officer."

This hardly describes Bill King, who was not only a commissioned officer but is also a decorated WW II survivor and circumnavigator.

Could you alter this to reflect some of my concerns, please?

DocDee (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Royal Navy" is fine, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DocDee (talk • contribs) 23:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William King (anatomist)

While you are working on the William King (Royal Navy) page, do you know how to fix the reference to Bill King's grandfather on the article William King (anatomist)?

How can we fix it so that the title reads William King (GEOLOGIST) rather than the completely inaccurate descriptor "anatomist"?

Even the William King (anatomist) article admits: "He is commonly mistaken as a professor of anatomy - King never taught anatomy."

So why not change it? Otherwise it remains another inaccuracy for which we hardworking Wikipedians get blamed!

Thanks for the help, DocDee (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! DocDee (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
PS: don't forget to add the change to the general "William King" page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_King —Preceding unsigned comment added by DocDee (talk • contribs) 04:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 10 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ship's cat, 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.

Interesting topic! Thanks for sharing it. --Royalbroil 14:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting and great photos. I was surprised this topic didn't already have a page. Any chance of some non-British ships cats being mentioned? Or is it a particularly nuts-about-animals-British maritime thing? 86.133.240.138 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
As was I. Chibbley is Canadian I believe, though the British seem to have a soft spot for animals, and have turned some of them into celebrities as a result. Celebrity ship's cats seem to be a rarity in other nations. Benea (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

WikiProject Ships Barnstar
Ship's cat was one of the coolest articles that I've read in quite some time. Nice work. You also get a ship's cat to go with with the Ship's Barnstar. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SS James Longstreet

[edit] Various ships

  • Thanks for fixing my edits. Salmanazar (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem, the renaming of ships can cause a lot of confusion! Benea (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ping!

You've got mail. Maralia (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded. Also, check out User:Maralia/Collins headquarters—I'm overly ambitious, but at least I'm organized about it, right?! I've asked User:Barek if he'd like to help with some of the other articles, since he's an ocean liners kind of a guy. (Plus, I don't want you to thoroughly hate me by the time we're done.) Maralia (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Medusa

Another dose of Colledge please? Thanks! Ying tong iddle i po. Neddyseagoon - talk 15:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Esper Ukhtomsky

Updated DYK query On 23 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Esper Ukhtomsky, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Pages

Benea - thanks for everything you've done with stuff I've added or amended. You must have the wisdom of Solomon! Could you do your magic on the talk pages of HMS Daring (1932), HMS Daring (1874), HMS Defender (H07) and HMS Defender (1804)? I'd do it myself, but I have no idea whether that's a good idea or not. Shem1805 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cherokee Class

WOW, thanks for your help making the page. I only noticed the class page was missing due to the story on the front page about the Chanticleer and Beagle. Had no idea there were so many others of her class! :)

Thanks! --Curuxz (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

im just really impressed how fast and must you have done on these pages!!! Somewhere I have an old picture of the Medusa (the one thats now a museum piece i think) if I can dig it out would it be any use to you for making a page about her? --Curuxz (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Estonian submarines

Why do you remove the (otherships) - kalev class had 2 submarines specially ordered and build for Estonia in 1930s? Karabinier 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Donegal

Benea, you've done it again! I'm very impressed by your work on Donegal - I like to think that if I'd had another year or two, I could have come close to it myself ... Outstanding. Shem1805 (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 5 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Mutine (1797), 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.

--Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On February 8, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Donegal (1798), 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.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Italian cruiser Garibaldi

Hello Excuse me for my very poor english, but i'm italian. i think that Garibaldi and Garibaldi reconstructed must be separated, but after your message i merged them again. There are too many differences, but if you says don't separate i do it. Greetings--Gaetano56 (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ship infobox debate

Hi Benea! There's been a discussion going on at Wikiships for a while now on fields for the new ship class infobox. Your input would be very much appreciated if you can find the time. The relevant thread is here]. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Black Joke

Benea
I'd really appreciate it if you could cast your expert eye over my latest project - HMS Black Joke (1827). Apart from correcting any mistakes, I would particularly appreciate advice on categorisation - she was a tender, so she doesn't fit into the 'brig-sloop' category. Thanks in advance, Shem1805 (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful - but I can't believe how many spelling mistakes I left in. I tend not to link dates (eg 2 March) because I feel it is trivial, but if you think I ought to, I can start doing so. Incidently, Black Joke was a Brig-rigged vessel (square rigged on both fore and main) rather than a Barque (square rig on fore only). Her administrative status was as a tender to a larger ship (Sybille at first, then Dryad), which meant she didn't keep her own books, didn't have a purser, and had only a Lt RN in command. She isn't a rated ship (and therefore doesn't count as a 'sloop-of-war'), and I doubt there are many Wikipedia articles on other ships of her type. Perhaps a category of 'un-rated RN ships' would be appropriate? I'm doing HMS Dryad next - I'll let you know when it's ready for consumption. Thanks - Shem1805 (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The light dawns on linking dates - sold! Shem1805 (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK congratulations!

Updated DYK query On 12 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Shannon (1806), 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.

Congratulations! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Lake Erie - vessels involved.

Apologies if I ruffled any feathers with my comments. As you say, "Our conventions ... would indicate using the scholarly accepted works, even when this differs from what may have been used at the time - This is consistent with the ordinary Wikipedia naming practice of using modern names for articles even if different from the contemporary name. If the scholarly works describe the ships in a certain way, I encourage you to use that, no matter what you think they should be based on how contemporaries are describing them". I hope that the list of works I quoted indicates that I have researched reasonably widely, and I doubt whether any later work matches that of Roosevelt for scholarly content. I would therefore use Roosevelt as the accepted source. Most of the more recent histories concentrate on the land side of the war and rather skim the details of the naval action. They also show little consistency in describing the vessels involved. HLGallon (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Richard Strachan, 4th Baronet

Outstanding - and an obvious gap in Wikipedia properly filled. Thanks, Benea.
Shem1805 (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the article because I found that he was in fact the 6th baronet in the line not the 4th. See Google Books "A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies" Dabbler (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean, I found a couple more sites (including an old Debretts) indicating that he was 6th baronet and another site that has him as 8th baronet! Dabbler (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Calliope (1884)

Thank you for your edits to this. My sources are limited and some of them conflict. In particular, it is not clear when she became a shore establishment (sometime between 1905 and 1908), and whether she resumed her name in 1931 or 1936. The article could use more information on other service (did she participate in the Boxer rebellion?), and how noteworthy and inspirational her escape was held to be at the time. But with my sources I cannot do much more. My regards, Kablammo (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind note. I have corrected two dates, but not the references, as I do not have the page number(s) for Colledge. I am not entirely satisfied with my terminology for section headings (Active duty and Reserve service). Are there better titles for these? Feel free to make any other improvements. And thank you for cleaning up the redirects. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RMS Saga Rose

Indeed not. That's what happens when you steal the infobox wholesale from RMS Queen Elizabeth 2. Well spotted. Ingolfson (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. When I've done similar infobox copy and pasting, I've often absent mindedly left things in I shouldn't have, occasionally leaving the name is one of the more embarrassing things I've done, so just having the wrong prefix is fortunately small beer! Benea (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Strachan

Updated DYK query On 21 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Strachan, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solway Harvester

Updated DYK query On 21 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Solway Harvester, 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.

--Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Trafalgar order of battle and casualties

Please could you review Trafalgar order of battle and casualties.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MS Stolt Surf

Hi, was the Stolt Surf scrapped as a result of the damage sustained from the freak wave, or did she see further service? It's not entirely clear from the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure is the answer. The few sources which cover anything other than the wave are uniformly silent over her eventual fate. I think it highly likely though that she continued in service. The damage was considerable but mainly superficial, and does not appear to have affected her hull integrity. She was also only 7 years old, rather than writing her off it would have made economic sense to replace the hatchways, windows and gangways, repair the damaged pipes and refurnish and refit the interiors and return her to service. Unfortunately I cannot say this with any certainty, so I deliberately left the article vague, in the hope that later I or someone else could chase up some more information. Benea (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Ambuscade

Benea, could you please cast your eye over HMS Ambuscade, when you have a chance? It could use checking by somebody who has a copy of Colledge. Thanks - again. Shem (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A few minor tweaks, but otherwise a comprehensive list. Well done! Benea (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the revert! J.delanoygabsadds 17:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

J.delanoygabsadds has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

God bless you sah! Benea (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On February 26, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Entreprenante (1801), 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.

Well donea again Benea. Great to see you cruising along! Blnguyen (photo straw poll) 02:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We'll get there one day I suppose! But hopefully not too soon, this is a rather enjoyable (and addictive) hobby. Pip pip! Benea (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A non WP Ship project you may be interested in

Having bumped into you on a couple of articles recently, and seen your interests listed at WP:SHIPS, I wonder if you might also be interested in this project, http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=Your_Archives:Royal_Navy_ships_project that The National Archives is just starting? The main aim is to improve the quality of data in the online catalogue, starting with 18th century vessels. The project is specifically not going to duplicate information in Wikipedia, but it struck me that there might be some synergy between the two tasks. As the TNA data is initially going in thier own wiki, it probably won't count as a reliable source for purposes here, but it might be a valid external link on the appropriate artilces here. I shouls probably make it clear that I do have a strong connection with TNA, but I'm not directly involved in this project. David Underdown (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the main aim of the this particular project is to improve access to/cataloguing of original documents. Some catalogue descriptions currently include the name of the ship for a log for instance, but not all. Hopefully in the future, it will be possible to simply look up the ship name here and be given a complete list of all original Government documents which refer to it. Obviously, since these are primary sources, the info is potentially not suitable for using as a references within Wikipedia, but it seems to me that it might be a valid external link, and ultimately the two resources should complement each other. The article on page 16 of this magazine gives a good overview of the overall aims of Your Archives (though not the Ships project in particular). The main TNA website already has quite a big online resource about Nelson and Trafalagar (created for the bicentenary), which is probably why there isn't much in Your Archives, which is still only a year old, and has only ever been given a very "soft" launch. David Underdown (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations on your DYK!

Updated DYK query On 27 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article MS Stolt Surf, 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.

Keep up the good work Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On February 27, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Locker (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.

Well done again! You have the pictured slotBlnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 00:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Westmorland / HMS Westmoreland

Were any other ships known by that name? Thanks for the help on Cameron class steamers by the way! Neddyseagoon - talk 01:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Is there any particular reason you don't link the years when you give a full date, my understanding ws that they should be per WP:MOSDATE as full linking allows user preferences to work. David Underdown (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's now much disagreement over the case where you're supplying a full day month and year, all parts should be linked, so people can use their user preferences to determine how they see the date. If it's a standalone year, these often will be unlinked since linking serves no purpose in formatting, and generally does not provide much useful context. By the way yyyy-mm-dd is a standard form, but mostly used in computing contexts, as it's much easier to sort dates formatted this way, I should however have linked it, so taht those with user preferences set would see it as they prefer. David Underdown (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing early naval stuff

Hi Benea. Thanks for filling in the details on the disambiguation page HMS Sparrow. Would you mind giving me some pointers on how you source this stuff? --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] latest DYK

Updated DYK query On 2 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Bonaventure (F139), 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.

--Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 3 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Forbes (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.

--Daniel Case (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 4 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS President (shore establishment), 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.

--Maxim(talk) 21:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Lestock

Updated DYK query On 6 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Lestock, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 7 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Benbow, 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.

--—Dark (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Little help please

Hi Benea, could you open that book of Colledge again please if you still have it? HMS Hecla. From one of my sources, it mentions that the latest one is the eighth ship to have the name. We only have seven listed on HMS Hecla. I think there was another one active around 1880 during the Mahdist War. I am going through final checks on the List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy and it seemed out of place. Thanks. Woody (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for confirming that! The source was more of a flippant remark in a web source, it just made me want to check it out. Thanks for that. You don't happen to have anymore info on HMS Foylebank which I just created? Thanks again. Woody (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That is what I was thinking on my hunt for sources. "auxiliary anti-aircraft ship" seems to be a common term. Royal Navy day by day says AA-ship 1930, so I think it is most likely that is the case. Thanks for all your help, much appreciated. Woody (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK twofer

Updated DYK query On 10 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Richard Kirkby (Royal Navy), and George Walton (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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Serpent

Appreciate your efforts, but why do none of these ships have an article yet at Wikipedia? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Navy disambiguation

Hi Benea. I see you have been doing a great job adding disambiguation pages for Royal Navy ships. There doesn't seem to be any agreed style for these. Personally, I like the way you enter them, and this style might have merit as well. Do you think it might be worth trying to get some consensus on WikiProject Ships? --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Have a bell! In the guidelines you directed me to, it states (in an unnecessarily obscure way) "Don't obscure a ship article's name behind piping—if the article name is disambiguated by a year or hull/pennant number, the link to it on a shipindex page should display this.".
Thus we should list [[HMS Pinafore (1652)|HMS ''Pinafore'' (1652)]] and not [[HMS Pinafore (1652)|HMS ''Pinafore'']].. But you and I have been doing the latter. What says you now, forsooth? --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Geez, I see, you did address this. I jumped the gun without finishing what you actually said! --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I've added more dab pages but I'm running into trouble when I try and clean up existing dabs. Mwtoews has reverted my work here, also wiping out many links which have nothing to do with style. I think it is a waste of time continuing without wider agreement about how it should be done. This means either getting the guidelines changed or changing ourselves to work within them. Anyway I've invited Mwtoews to comment. --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think your example of HMS Beagle, merely shows what a total mess it creates when you use that style, because some names have launch dates and some names don't. Given that some of the article names get changed, the normal style (hiding the full article name behind piping) has advantages, as the redirects will take care of things.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you Toddy, and it does seem to me that this "normal" style is the de facto practice these days. But the problem is that the guidelines don't agree, see here and also here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah I see what you mean. The user in this case was not really justified in referring you to the general manual of style in that instance. By using the shipindex page we (as it was intended to do so) freed ourselves from a number of the restrictions, and created a style that the community felt was more useful to users. Also he has actually pointed out a good reason why we don't use the number system. There are many many cases where there are two (or in at least one case as many three ships) of the same name possibly in commission at the same time. Similarly a ship may have been renamed, then revert back to the original name, in which time another ship may have borne that name in the meantime. So while the Beagle example is all neat and tidy, many others aren't, so it is far better to remove any ambiguity and confusion. So the Beagle page is in fact out of line with the standard guidelines as we implement them on that front. As to the guidelines as they exist at the ship naming conventions page, we could raise the issue over at wpships as I think for Royal Navy ships at least, the issue of pennants and launch dates is fraught with confusion and uncertainty. Also the date can mean very different things, a date of launch, capture, purchase, other acquisition, general build date or sometimes the only date recorded for that ship. Far better I think to have it referred to in the text and explained exactly what it means rather than rely on its inclusion in the title. Also there is the concern that the official name of the ship was HMS Beagle (1804) if we continue to pipe them like the guidelines say. But I'd be interested to hear Mwtoews' specific reasons in this instance. Benea (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey all, I figure I'd weigh in here. The two big things from MOS:DAB that I tend to adhere to are: (1) hiding article names behind pipes should be avoided, since the user is trying to look for a specific article name, and hiding the article name through a pipe doesn't help them find that specific article; (2) if the item has a linked article, then no other links should be added in the DAB description since they (should) appear in the linked article, and these extra links don't help the user find the specific article in the DAB page. Red-link articles should ideally have only one good blue link to describe the class of ship. My first point is discussed throughout this thread. I can't say too much about ship disambiguation, since I only have HMS Beagle (disambiguation) on my watchlist, however I encourage these principles to be adopted since they are on other properly kept DAB pages. (I also probably won't be able to reply to anything for a few days due to work, so happy discussing!) +mt 05:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
So I guess I'll carry on for now. And later if there is a need bring it up for more formal review. Two final nitpickers:
  • to HMS or not HMS? In articles about ships, I add HMS if no ships have been mentioned for a while, but then omit the prefix for subsequent ships if they are nearby. But on dab pages I don't know. Can we plump for one or the other? I think I prefer to leave them in.
  • this has nothing to do with dab pages, but I saw someone assert that to refer to "the Beagle" was wrong, you should never preface with "the". Is that right? I think it is inappropriate to refer to "the HMS Beagle", since you would not refer to "the Her Majesty's Ship Beagle, but "the Beagle" can be okay and on occasion can read better than just Beagle. Is there anything set in stone here? --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Point 1, I agree with your use in general articles. The general rule is to use HMS, HMCS, HMAS, USS etc on the first mention of that ship, but then it's at the author's discretion as to whether you repeat it or not. As to disambiguation pages, I think it's fine to use HMS and I prefer that style as well.
Point 2, The user was wrong to say that you would never say "the Beagle". Never "the HMS Beagle" but again it's just personal preference whether you want to say the Beagle or Beagle. Benea (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much Benea for your patience and help. --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ping!

You've got mail :) Maralia (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] another nice article nominated

Thomas Phillips in a painting with two Admirals
Updated DYK query On 19 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Phillips (engineer), 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.

The image was used too. Great job! --Royalbroil 01:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colledge and disambiguation

Hmm, issues don't go away. Take a look at the last two entries in HMS Penguin. The last Penguin listed was RAN from start to finish. Colledge seems also to include many RAN and RNZN ships. And it get murky when you go back to the nineteenth century. For example, he includes, as far as I can tell, some but not all of the boats that were purchased by the New Zealand Colonial government for use on the Waikato - though these were manned by the Royal Navy.

Also, Colledge lists ships that were cancelled before completion. If they weren't completed then they weren't yet a ship and didn't formally carry the name would be my take, and we should ignore them. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd certainly noticed that. I tend to do as you've done with Penguin and say something like "there were also two ships of the Royal Canadian Navy..." or if there were a sizeable number, to have a link to their specific disambiguation page. As to ships that were only planned, I do something like I've done at HMS Alarm, which acknowledges the presence of the proposed ship in the name's history, but I don't bother putting a link as there probably won't ever need to be an article about it. Benea (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be useful for me to mention that until recently the official Navy List listed all ships from the time that they were ordered, not from the time of completion. Thus vessels which were later cancelled would appear on this list, sometimes for years. In the days when 'rebuilding' was practiced, ships' names were also left on the official list of Vessels throughout the period; in some cases this could be a decade or more, so that a ship would happily be listed -with its tonnage and details - while all that physically existed was a few timbers lying in a corner of the dockyard awaiting re-use. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Powerful (1895)

Hi - last year you started the article on HMS Powerful (1895). I have left a message on the article talk page concerning whether she was laid up in 1904 as apparently indicated by the article or a flagship of Australia Station in 1908 ? I would be pleased if you have any further information on her and her role in Australian waters in 1908. Regards Matilda talk 06:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ok?

[edit] Sorry

for my cranky edit summaries. I was worried that you'd fogotten to create the new article, especially as the HMS Mosquito article made no mention of the base as one of the uses of the name. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stonehenge

What I mean is that it is an NOPV violation to suggest that stonehenge is really that old. There have been various theories about stonehenge in the past, andit is a POV to suggest that it was not simply built by Roman for instance. Wikipedia should not give one theory credibility over all others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray-Ginsay (talk • contribs) 20:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary we are giving credibility to the only credible, scientifically proved, scholarly accepted theory. The Moon article does not open with "Most people believe the moon is made of rock...", and it is certainly NOT a violation of WP:NPOV that that is the case. Benea (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If we say that the Scientific theory is true, no chance for it being false, we might as well say that christian theories of creation are crap and that no religion is true. The two may seem different but really go quite hand in hand. We must treat all viewpoints equally on Wikipedia. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not true. If you actually read WP:NPOV you will find in the opening section "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". The emphasis is mine. Benea (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

How has the scientific theory been proven anyway? -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 24 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Codrington (D65), 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.

--Maxim(talk) 19:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Early English Warships

Ben, can I direct your attention to my comments on my own userpage in reply to your question? Rif Winfield (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stalingrad Madonna

Updated DYK query On 25 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stalingrad Madonna, 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.

--Bobet 18:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stalingrad Madonna confusion

I'm sorry if I confused you. I simply added the second template to underline that more citations were in fact needed. Citations are a vital part wikifying an article, as the Wikify template states, thus I only added the "Wikify" template to begin with. Wikifying is about more than just wikilinks. I wasn't "looking for reasons to add templates" to the article, I don't do that. I simply stated that more citations were needed, nothing more, nothing less. Now that the citations are in place there's no need for more templates. I hope that cleared things up and that you're not habouring any ill will towards me. Manxruler (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate it. Swords officially put away. Keep up the good work and have nice evening. Manxruler (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brig-sloops

Ben, I have added articles on the Fly, Crocus and Seagull classes of brig-sloop, and listed the 30 vessels concerned (as well as completing the listings of the Cherokee and Cruizer classes); can you categorise them please, as I don't know how this is done? Thanks! Rif Winfield (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming issue

After a post on my talkpage I have started looking into a naming issue. I was wondering what Rodgers Colledge says about the naming of the Flower class corvette. Someone at Talk:Flower class corvette thinks it should be at Gladioulus class corvette as HMS Gladiolus (K34) was the first in the class. Any light shone on this before I wade in would be much appreciated. Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If that was short, I would hate to see what my initial reply would have been called after reading into it. There seems to be one user just pushing what tantamounts to a point of view and a fringe theory, whose main idea is based on a major fallacy that shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. I will warn him about continuing to edit in a tendentious manner. Thanks for looking into it and commenting. Always appreciated. Woody (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your intervention on this page . I was losing perspective, and I’m glad to see I wasn’t completely crazy. Thanks again! Xyl 54 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Not at all, happy to help. Feel free to ask if there's anything else I could help with. Benea (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Beaver

Updated DYK query On 27 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philip Beaver, 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.

--Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 29 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Kimberley (F50), 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.

--Wizardman 02:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 30 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frederick Lewis Maitland (Rear Admiral), 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.

--Wizardman 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK25

Someone has to give you this before you get past 50, eh! :-)

The 25 DYK Medal
Congratulations! Here's a medal for you in appreciation of your hardwork in creating, expanding and nominating 25+ articles for DYK. Keep up the good work, Benea! Happy editing. PFHLai (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, I'm on 48 at the moment! I had no idea it was so many. Ta very much! Benea (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] your presence is required!

I need to talk to you about any number of things: Ark Royal, Nelson, my Arctic, a couple of great dog stories, and probably more that I've already forgotten. Do hop on AIM sometime soonish, or I may be forced to send you the world's longest email. Maralia (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK50

The 50 DYK Medal
Awarded to Benea for meritorious service.Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On April 2, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles SS Fort La Monte, and HMS Arrow (H42), 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.

Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A double hook and pictured slot to celebrate! Heh, I wish you would write some Vietnam related boats....Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] iwoa vs yamato

can you ref between me parsecboy so we don't cause an edit war?--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC) or someother trouble we could get into.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOMALY-117 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what Anomaly's talking about; I haven't had any interation with him in quite some time. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
no the problem is me because i tend to keep arguments going and going and sometimes i might go a little to far or overboard and im afraid that i might do something.. and if i do i would rather not drag you into it its really just a safty incase i go off..plus i don't know all the rules on wiki and i'm still learning acutually i see that i could be losing this argument but hey i will learn something and i don't know a whole lot on some of the subjects most i don't know any thing but im 14 and im still learning.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

really im pretty sure i will get beat but i don't give up usually at all and im hopeing that benea will let me no when i have totally lost the argument and its time to give in which i will but sometimes i get carried away and i cold really drag things out and make a mess, plus i don't want to go to far and make you mad parsecboy because you are fun to debate with like most of the people on this site and i like to debate.. so um... yea.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK (one more :)

Updated DYK query On 12 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Order of battle for Convoy SC-7, 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.

—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ship badges

Just curious as to why you placed the ship badge outside of the infobox afer my edit. I was under the impression that the badge should belong in the infobox, as there is a specific section for it (see for example HMAS Melbourne (R21). If there was a section of text describing the badge itself that the image was being used to illustrate, it would be a different story. Also, placing it at the top left of the article means that the starting text is wedged between a 300 pixel image on the right, and a 100 pixel image and the Wikipedia sidebar on the left. On my reasonably sided monitor, the text is starting to be a bit 'pinched in', and smaller monitors would make it very difficult to read.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to understand your approach, and maybe learn from it. Hit me on my talk page. -- saberwyn 11:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not gonna change my ways, but I'm not going to change any articles set out your way either.
On a completely unrelated note, you appear to have a fair handle on British naval history. I'm in the process of userspace-rewriting HMAS Queenborough (G70), and am wondering if you would point me in the direction of some quality British sources for her time in the Royal Navy during World War II? -- saberwyn 08:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 13 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Quail (G45), 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 05:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Four Freedoms

With all the debate about the hook for Four Freedoms (painting series) it seems there was no agreement on a hook and the thing is getting passed over for the main page. I would have moved it to T:DYK/N myself, but you are not suppose to move your own hook.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 13 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Assyrian, 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.

Congrats Benea --Gatoclass (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK well done

Updated DYK query On 14 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Blairspey, 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.

--nice Victuallers (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On April 21, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article USS Scout (MCM-8), 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.

Good to see you again! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cruizer class brig-sloop

Ben, someone has bodged the wikitable format for the list of Cruizer class brig-sloops which I completed. The data is still there, so could you kindly put the formatting right please? I will be completing the wikitable for the Cherokee class shortly. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! Rif Winfield (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Liverpool

Hi, Benea. Can I query you about the total number of vessels named Liverpool? There's a discrepancy between the official Royal Navy 'site and the disambig' here. Colledge indicates that the fourth Liverpool served as an East Indiamen and was commissioned into the RN as Imaum when presented to Britain by Muscat in 1836. The Royal Navy doesn't appear to recognise this vessel as being part of their "lineage" but I've not found anything definitive as to whether the frigate was commissioned as Liverpool and then renamed. I'm inclined to err on the side of caution; mention the fourth Liverpool but defer to the verifiable position of the Royal Navy and identify only seven commissioned vessels being named Liverpool. What do you think? SoLando (Talk) 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The contradictory sources are quite intriguing; while Colledge identifies an 1826-built East Indiamen that entered RN service in 1836 as Imaum (ex Liverpool), other sources suggest that ship was commissioned as Liverpool. But that ship's omission from the RN website does make that possibility unlikely. Gah. Again, thanks. SoLando (Talk) 17:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Gladiator

Apologies, in my haste I stupidly didn't notice the reference at the bottom of the page. :) Abtract (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heinrich Bleichrodt

Updated DYK query On 4 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Heinrich Bleichrodt, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Oxford

How many ships were there with this name please? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 13 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Friedrich Guggenberger, and Unterseeboot 81 (1941), 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.

Nice little twofer there. --Gatoclass (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review request - List of Peruvian Navy ships

Please could you review List of Peruvian Navy ships and put suggestions for improvement & style changes in the talk page. The reason for requesting this is that I want to improve the page, for one thing taking the list back to the mid-19th century (the Peruvian navy was an important regional navy from the 1850s to 1881).

I have two reasons for wanting to attempt this. (a) it is a comparatively small task, so I have got time for it. (b) The recent mention of Loa and the Victoria on the Ironclad_warship, which are not mentioned in Conways, and which King's 1880 book said were armoured gun vessels.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your review is very helpful, thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ark Royal copyedit

Hi. I've noticed your request for copyediting help at the Logistics section of WP:MILHIST, and decided to see what I can do.

Not much. Your article has blown me away... its much better than my carrier article. There are things that need polishing, so what I've done is:

  • Cut down on the spacing in the citations. Although not horribly important to the article, it brings the filesize down and makes the editing window a bit easier to read
  • Removed italics from the citation templates. There was a bit of a hodgepodge of use/non-use, and it peears to my untrained eye that the template does it automatically, so, I've removed it.
  • Image hardcoding. Per Wikipedia:MOS#Image_size, this is A Bad ThingTM, so I've removed it for all but the lead image.
  • Some spelling, grammar, punctuation, and phrasing tweaks... the ones all articles need, no matter the standard


Things you may want to look at:

  • Removing the un-needed fields in the ship infobox to reduce the article size and pretty up the editing window
  • I've put a few hidden notes in where the context is a bit fuzzy and could either use a few more words to explain it, or an appropriate wikilink. Stuff like clarifying or changing a piece of nauticalese I don't understand or suggesting that "the operation" be changed to [[Operation FooBar]]
  • I've noticed an inconsistency in the use of "the" to refer to various ships (Ark Royal vs. the Ark Royal, Bismarck vs. the Bismarck, etc). You should go through and make a decision on which way to swing... I personally prefer not using due to the whole "The His Majesty's Ship Ark Royal" grammar problem/convention, but its your baby, so you make the call.
  • You need to go through and provide conversions for everything. If you do this manually with nbsp's or via template is up to you, but it will save you pain at FAC (I assume that's where you want to end up, and I'd really like to see you get there). Again, consistency is vital.
  • The paragraphs relating to the immediate aftermath of the attack may need some reorganising and rephrasing to achieve a smooth flow-of-events (i.e. explosion -> immediate damage -> effects). It also gets very confusing as to what order events happen in, and how the intended damage control and rescue effort occurred.
  • All number ranges (i.e. dates, citation page numbers), need to be given with an 'en' dash

Let me know if I can help out any further, or have done anything horribly horribly wrong and deserve punishment. -- saberwyn 00:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of stabilising without damage control, I concede the point. I may be able to find some spare time to mess heavily with the sinking section, because at the moment that's the only part of the article that really jars from my view. Time pending, and with your permission of course. -- saberwyn 21:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I request your attention at User:Saberwyn/Ark Royal sinking, where I've taken a hacksaw to the final section. There are a couple of hidden messages that require your attention, a few dot points of text that I wasn't cetain how to completely work in to the body of the text, and the images have been taken out of the body completely. Make suggestions and take what you like for the article. -- saberwyn 03:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
All the hidden notes have been answered and integrated. From now on, I'm going to list any hidden notes I add to the article at User talk:Saberwyn/Ark Royal sinking...feel free to comment on them there. -- saberwyn 09:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've got to take a wikibreak for a week or so because of uni assignments. As soon as they finish I will resume copyediting the article. Sorry. -- saberwyn 08:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi, I'm back. I've incoproated all the fixes you've mentioned so far... but I'm having a lot of trouble getting my head around the sinking and the related inquiries and rediscovery. You've also mentioned your own concerns with this section. Would you be so kind as to look at what I've got so far, take the sources and overhaul the lot so it is correct? -- saberwyn 04:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Frak me! That's an article in itself (or at least the core of one)! I'm going to get some generalisations from what you've written and hammer it out as a paragraph so you can see if its worth adding. You'll find it in the usual place. -- saberwyn 08:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright... it currently stands in userspace as a paragraph briefly describing the approximate numbers of aircraft and squadrons, the types of aircraft, and the roles performed, as well as a collapsible list of the squardons, aircraft, times aboard, and anything else kinda cool. It may be a little small, but you might be able to flesh it out, or we can write a paragraph on the weapons (type, quantity, locations) and have a combined "Armament and Aircraft" section. Thoughts?

[edit] Disambiguation

Hello Benea. I replied to you on the WP:Ships talk page. You folks have and continue to do an excellent job on naval vessels. (I dabble once in a while as well, as mentioned above.) My concern is that preference for military usage can lead other editors, particularly new ones, to errors. I first began editing ship articles when I found a claim that a 100,000 GT cruise ship "weighed" as much as an aircraft carrier. The ship template being used in many articles only specified displacement. I went through the entire list of ocean liners and cruise ships to fix those errors where I could. There are still many articles with the same error.

I did the same with launch dates, as many cruise ships fans were relying on cruisecritic.com's incorrect use of the term. I have several hundred edits correcting these fundamental errors.

This led to creation of a new commercial ship template, discussed by several folks and mentioned on the WPShips page (without much response). As I recall, we decided not to use displacement or launch date, but rather tonnage and service entry date, in order to reduce errors.

We may be back where we started from, with a unitary template with many fields that have little general application. We see now insertion of DWT and Net into the displacement field; they are not the same. "Launch" dates are a problem for the reasons I mention. And while naval ship articles seem to be well-policed, merchant ship ones are not. (I have taken them off my watchlist as I got tired of the effort.)

Please keep in mind the dismal state of many articles on ships other than naval vessels, and how specifying certain information can lead to errors. Thanks for considering these thoughts. Kablammo (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replied as well, but to address some points you've raised. I'm a bit worried that this is starting to develop a naval vs commercial aspect, whereas in reality the issues affect both areas of work as the same problems are routinely encountered from both. You're right to say I'm a one of the 'naval folk', but I also work in commercial areas as well. This morning I was playing around with the new articles MV Lady Rose and MV Maj Bernard F Fisher (T-AK-4396), and I've also authored at last count 44 articles about individual merchant ships, and the Clan Line and Ellerman Lines articles are largely my work. So I work in both areas and I am sympathetic to the issues you raise. But one thing about working across both areas is that you see that these problems are not solely encountered in commercial articles, but naval ones as well.
There are huge numbers of naval articles in pretty appalling states, and because they are more of them, they can be even harder to police than the merchant articles. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, or that frustration with people continually making mistakes should make us get tired of sorting it out. I agree, it can be very frustrating, I've been there as well.
I'm not entirely sure what your point about Infobox Ship Begin is, it was developed with community consensus and the old templates were then duly phased out. It still has some specific commercial code though. But if people make a mistake we can correct it, we can add the information to the right field. If a source is in error, then we can amend the article. Believe me it happens just as often in non commercial ship articles. I really can't see any justification for treating these ships differently based on the argument that people may get things wrong when they add information. Even the smartest of us can do that from time to time. That's the nature of wikipedia, but that same nature means that we can put it right. I've replied to the thread though, so we may be thinking along the same lines. Benea (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The real solution might be to use the Infobox Ship as a base template, with specific iterations for vessel types. That way we will not have folks filling in inapplicable fields. Only the ferry template would have lanemetres; only the one for container ships, TEUs; etc.
I had thought of starting the a stub for Clan Line at one point, but did not have enough information. I was glad to see that you added it, as it fit in well with Turret deck ship, perhaps the vessel typed most closely associated with that line, as the line was the largest user of that design. This may be another source for your article. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a interesting thought. I tend not to get involved in the template discussions, it's a little beyond my capabilities, so I'm not sure to what degree that option was considered. An alternative is to remove the fields from the infobox that you won't use as you're filling it in, or editing it. That often removes the temptation, as it can happen that when someone sees a field, they have to fill it with something. Hence long infoboxes with 'none' next to nearly every entry, or having entered 'in service' into the 'status' field, they then add 'still in service' to the following 'fate' field.
I think I expanded the Clan Line article when I was writing up some Second World War merchants. I was a little confused to have my links vanish off to a preserved steam train. I didn't know that about the turret ships (a fascinating article by the way! Them and whalebacks are delightfully outlandish designs compared to nowadays). One thing I found about the sources is that there's not much about the prewar activities (beyond merges, takeovers and the like) so it would be good to get a bit more on that side of things. Thanks for the suggestion. Benea (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Badger (1911)

I did not understand the last sentence of this article. "In May 1921, she was sold for breaking" what does this mean? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Mercury

Thanks for help in formatting and with conventions. All the best. Tom Stewart 1984 (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for posting impressive research on HMS Mercury - great to see it getting the recognition it deserve(ed?)s. Thanks also for useful pointers - I am most certainly interested in taking part. All the best again. Tom Tom Stewart 1984 (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Kent (1652) & HMS Westminster (L40)

Thanks for your input with HMS Westminster, especially the photos.

Why are you sceptical about HMS Kent being a prison ship? I doubt this site would be wrong about that. Prison ships weren't that rare were they? Anyway, I shall not change it as I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else.

Also, your Kentish disambiguation page lists this ship to be HMS Kentish. Was it ever called that? I thought the HMS prefix was only given to it when it was changed to Kent.

Great work though! Thanks!

Mjb1981 (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairly obviously, NONE of the Commonwealth warships bore the prefix HMS at any time, since they had just (1649) executed His Majesty and abolished the monarchy, it would have been ridiculous to use the "His Majesty's Ship" description. In fact, the description "His Majesty's Ship" was not in use until after the Restoration in 1660, and the acronym "HMS" is much more modern - a 19th century introduction. The name Kentish was changed to Kent at the same time (i.e in June 1660), as were the names of many of the Commonwealth era warships which had been built with names that were unwelcome to the new monarchist regime. Remember also that "His Majesty's Ship" only referred to proper ships (i.e. vessels with a three-masted ship rig) and not to brigs, ketches, schooners or any other type of rig. We have a problem in our formatting in that Wikipedia habitually (but wrongly) uses "HMS" for all early British warships, and of course they didn't use that descriptor. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 19 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Ganges (shore establishment), 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) 06:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 19 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Hector (F45), 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.

--Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSS for Coast Survey Ships?

Thank you for moving these articles, but I hope that you can provide an explanation of what I'm missing. The sources that I have for officers commanding the several ships that I created articles for all give the prefix as "CSS". I included a link to the Google Books pages from a book published in 1898 which included the CSS prefix. Is it that the CSS prefix was unofficial? Was it only used for a short period of time? (Such as at the time the book was published, prior to name standardization?) Or is there something else going on that I don't see? Thanks for your help. I want to make sure I name these articles correctly in the future. JRP (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

After posting, I see that there is now a discussion on this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. JRP (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your contribution to Operation Caesar

Thanks for creating links for the dates on the Operation Caesar article, I meant to go back and do them, but forget. Once again, thanks. Fredrik Wilhelm (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your quick work on the Silliman and the Gedney, twice I had edit conflicts and twice you beat me to expanding them! Your quick fingers are to be commended. If I can ever be of assistance to you, please let me know. JRP (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Orange added

Thanks for dropping a line and letting me know to add it. I've already done so.

Cheers, SpellingGuru (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sir John Moore, 1st Baronet

Updated DYK query On 25 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir John Moore, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Woolston (1918)

Thanks for adding to the page I started on HMS Woolston. I hoped somebody would have a bit more info than I did !

Do you think the ship shown on the crest for HMS Woolston is actually a Viking longboat rather than a Roman galley. Do you have any information on that ?

I query this because Woolston apparently derives from "Olafs Tun", a name given to the area in Viking times. A Viking longboat is also shown on the local comprehensive schools coat of arms. It thus makes more sense if the boat on the HMS crest is Viking rather than Roman.

Do you have a picture of the crest for HMS Woolston, which we might be able to compare against the coat of arms for Woolston school ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hethurs (talk • contribs) 07:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Kempthorne (Royal Navy officer)

Updated DYK query On 29 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Kempthorne (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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Ferret (shore establishment 1940)

Updated DYK query On 2 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Ferret (shore establishment 1940), 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Price (Royal Navy)

Updated DYK query On 5 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harry Price (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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re "RMS" perfixes

Hi, The prefix "RMS" is not part of the ships name otherwise you would have "RMS Titanic" on the bow and stern of the ship for example.

The term "Royal Mail Steamer" only applied to ships that carried Royal mail and to keep adding the "RMS" title to every ship in any article is not needed and is irrelivent to most article apart from at the start.

I would welcome your input on this subject.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)