User talk:Acad Ronin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Spesutie Island[edit]

Thanks for your compliments and tweaking on Spesutie Island. I added a reference to the London Gazette from the HMS Highflyer article. I had no clue such a wonderful resource was available nor that there is a template for citing it. I will be using it very soon when I finish the article on the Raid on Havre de Grace. I'll let you know when that one is finished and perhaps you could take a look at it too. Regards. —Diiscool (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the London Gazette great? I have found that almost all subsequent accounts of actions originate in the letters published there. Sometimes later authors such as James and Marshall add info, but the core and the bulk is usually in the Gazette. Do let me know re the raid. I would be glad to look it over. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Young Teazer[edit]

Great edits on the Young Teazer site. The professional editing on these sites inspires me to continue to contribute to them. It's satisfying to see them polished. If you are interested, it would be great to have you review the Father Le Loutre's War site. --Hantsheroes (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I have briefly looked at the Father...War article. It looks in better shape than the Young Teazer article and some of the ambiguities I noticed would require more specific knowledge than I have. Still, I will return to it on occasion to see what I can do. I too like to see articles improve with editing, additional info being added by different editors, and the like. In my own areas of specialization I am seeing cases where the Wikipedia article is more correct than many of the major sources as research turns up info that had been overlooked before. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I also find the same for my areas of specialization - for the military history of Atlantic Canada (e.g, Father Le Loutre's War, Expulsion of the Acadians, Raid on Dartmouth, Raid on Lunenburg, etc) the best and most comprehensive treatment of these events is actually on wikipedia rather than in any of the major works on histories for atlantic canada or the individual provinces.--Hantsheroes (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by[edit]

Hi. I poked around a bit at this vandal user talk page with vandalism on ICICI Bank page (see above), but am out of steam for now.

I assume you noticed that the vandalism you reverted by IP on Bank of Hawaii was the second in short order. I'd reverted the first just a day or so prior. But in case you didn't, or in any event, I thought I'd get this on the record here, now.

I couldn't figure what the protocol for "warning" and "final warning" was, at this point.

I'll check back to see/and see if there's more I could/ought to do. Thanks for now. Swliv (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw your earlier reversion. Unfortunately, I don't know the procedure for warning off vandals either. One problem with just an IP address is that it may be a shared computer, for instance, in an internet cafe, in which case warnings are of limited utility. My sense is that when vandals get reverted quickly, they start to get bored. We just have to remain vigilant. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
With another round from a new or restyled editor, and counterpoint, here, and your answer above, I'm going to do a brief link over here from Talk:Bank of Hawaii#Vandal(s)?, maybe someone can help from there. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There's some more on the BoH talk page, and here, and and here. A little confusion on IP#s at the moment, but I'll straighten that out. On. FYI. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

re Revolt of the Lash[edit]

Just a note to say that I thought this was a nice edit, tightening up and improving the wording. Thanks. Herostratus (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The article clearly was written by a non-native English speaker. The whole article needs a little more polishing and I will touch it up periodically. There were some sentences I couldn't really touch because I wasn't sure what was meant. In any case, I want to encourage non-Anglos to write for wikipedia so that it gets coverage of topics that otherwise wouldn't hit the radar, and sometimes viewpoints that aren't Anglo. Again, thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
For your marvellous work at Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM/Warship Histories Done, putting the rest of us to shame! The Cavalry (Message me) 01:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Decimal inches[edit]

Re your post at User talk:Lightmouse, 23 feet 7.625 inches (7.20408 m) should really be entered manually as 25 ft 7⅝ in (7.20 m) (IMHO). Mjroots (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for heads up. I didn't know the template could handle fractions. Henceforth I will stick with fractions. Regards,Acad Ronin (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently {{convert}} can handle fractions, so {{convert|23|ft|7+5/8|in|m|2}} would produce 23 feet 7 58 inches (7.20 m). Where fractions are halves, quarters and eighths only, I prefer the display of ⅛ rather than 18. Where other fractions are used, the {{frac}} template has to be used in manual conversions. Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I don't anticipate fractions other than the half, quarter or eighth, so that's no problem. Is it possible to ensure that you get a small 1/8 rather than the large 1/8 as output from frac template? Acad Ronin (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I have just come across this discussion. ½ can be achieved by holding down the Alt Key, entering the number 0189, and then releasing the Alt Key. ¼ is the same method, using 0188. Alt 0190 gives ¾. Similar method applies to foreign letters such as ö, Ä, ñ, é, ß etc. If this helps, good! If more detail is needed, just ask. Viking1808 (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png For encouragement and tuition over the past year, you deserve a pint! Of Carlsberg, naturally. Viking1808 (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be only too glad to drink it, with herring. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


I have to undo all of my work and leave it for someone else. Thanks for the catch. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 14:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

John's Rock[edit]

User:Viking1808/Johns Rock This is a new section which might become an article, or its contents might be fitted into notes on HMS Belette. The text in Danish was supplied by one of the marine archeologists from Frederickshavn who are searching for the wreck. Viking1808 (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You will see Johns Rock is now in article space. On Belette, was the convoy heading towards Russia, or leaving the Baltic for the wider world? It might help understand what happened. Also, is there any indication of wind direction, or weather? Viking1808 (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I had always assumed that the convoy had left Russia heading for the UK, but there is nothing in the term "Russian ships" to support that assumption. I will check my Hepper later and see if there is anything more precise there.Acad Ronin (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, Belette appears to have been sailing towards Gothenburg, according to an item on the Danish Naval History Web. [1] I don't know the source of this item, but I suspect it was Hepper, based on the court martial, and a report in the Naval Chronicle, which I can't access.Acad Ronin (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I have checked in Hepper and he is the source for the statement that Belette was heading for Gothenburg, though from the wording in the Danish Naval History web, I suspect that both are getting this from the courtmartial, via the Naval Chronicle. More interestingly, could the Laeso Rende lighthouse be on the shoals and perhaps on the actual location of Johns Rock? That would be consistent with the later reports of a lighthouse on the reef. There is another reef, ending in an island, more to the north of Laeso, but it doesn't have a lighthouse, as far as I can see. What is strange is that Belette was that far west when it would be more logical to head for Gothenburg by sailing to the east of Laeso, not west. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
if the wind served!! with a northerly wind the direct route to Gothenburg roads seems not to be possible. See the New Seamen's Guide and Coasters Companion 1809 text. Viking1808 (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers[edit]


New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Acad Ronin! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Lolland and Belette[edit]

User:Viking1808/Lolland and Belette There is only one mention of Belette in Wandell's Søkrigen, the appropriate pages having been sent to me by the five Danish marine archeologists. Have a look at the linked page above, and use anything that looks good. Viking1808 (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

hi Acad - "By 1812 she was in the Baltic.[1] Danish records suggest that she was there already by the summer of 1811" I have just added to the bibliography of HMS Belette, the two danish books Topsøe and Wandell, plus a reference to Wandell that did not carry over to your recent edits. On a matter of emphasis, Egersund is not strictly in the Baltic, but still in the North Sea just some 35 miles south of Stavanger. Could Belete still be on North Sea Station for this abortive raid? I leave it to you! Viking1808 (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Viking, Check out the Belette article now. I have amended it to correct the geography and have found additional info re the fight at Egersund in the form of the names of the two British ships that were accompanying Belette. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
That's great. Have you looked at the Google map for Egersund? A beautifully twisted passage past Egersund from West or from South! Viking1808 (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I just found the date of the attack and have added it. At your suggestion I looked at the map for Egersund sound. I wonder which of all the skerries was the one the Danes hid behind? On a side note, I think we are accumulating enough info for you to do an articles on H.P. Holm, and another on the Loland. What do you think? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I never cease to wonder how different approaches to the same subject have a wonderful synergism! I will be off Wiki until 14 November, and will start looking at new articles then. I have some info on HMS Quebec (1781) and her exploits in early 1808 that I want to get down. Then H P Holm will be easy, and LOLLAND (two Ls in the middle) will follow. Viking1808 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Viking1808/Hans Peter Holm (1772) is now ready for your comments. I do not have a picture of him (in digital form). As his grandson had the same name, I have tried a section Four Generations to disambiguate (what a word) - the final Wiki title should probably be Hans Peter Holm (1772 - 1812) unless you have a better suggestion. Viking1808 (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I should add that the link in the article Naval Artistis in English and well worth reading. I have sent an email to the g'g'g'g'daughter in America whose address is given, for her interest and in hopes of deeper comment. Viking1808 (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Russian War (1807–1812)[edit]

I read you post. I will reply in more detail within 24 hours. I have to trundle of and do something in the real word now. -- PBS (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I would have got back to you before but I had assumed that Johnbod had reverted my edit (I had not looked at the article) and so the need for a prompt reply had gone.
I reason why Bibliography and Source are not good names is mentioned in WP:LAYOUT (confusing in a lot of articles). The other reason is that Bibliography implies books and not other types of documents, including web pages. The fact that you say "The citations usually include things like the London Gazette that could be in the bibliography", Well yes and no, personally I think that having an alphabetically sorted list out ways the clutter (Particularly if someone is printing a hard copy), and from an editors point of view it may discourage them from adding web articles and journals articles to a section called Bibliography. Also the citation guideline recommends against mixing short and long citations, and I think there are big advantages to short citations. For example see Sir James Pulteney, 7th Baronet before and after my edits to that page. The text with embedded LondonGazette citations was next to impossible to read in edit mode. In that case I choose to place them into a reference list, but generally I think it better to use short citations, because the results mean we have our cake and can eat it. -- PBS (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I like what you did with the London Gazettes in terms of getting them out of the text. I also take your point of "Bibliography" being too restrictive a term when some sources are journal articles, web pages, and the like. However, I would still favour separating Notes, Citations and References. The way you did the Pulteney article meant that references were in citation order and not in alpha order and I would still prefer to keep the references in alpha order. I also believe in keeping true notes separate, especially as they may require citations themselves. Then the issue becomes, do we have three rubrics all at the == level, or one rubric at that level, and three sub-rubrics, and if so, what is the name of the overall rubric? Acad Ronin (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
See Battle of Berlin#Notes for possible solution that is used in a number of other articles. -- PBS (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


Saw your note on my user subpage. I should probably apologise that I have not been at all hands-on with this project over the last several months, I have been very much sidetracked by running the Wikimedia fundraiser in the UK. I certainly appreciate your efforts and I'm sure the NMM do to. I'll be having a meeting with them early in the new year and will be looking at how to involve more people and make it easier to participate at that stage... Regards, The Land (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

HMS Cambrian (1797)[edit]

Hello Acad, Thanks for your contributions to HMS Cambrian (1797), without which the article would be a mere stub. --Ykraps (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Additions to featured articles[edit]

Acad, can I ask you to please be very careful what you add to featured articles like HMS Speedy (1782). These articles adopt a summary style for a good reason, and no attempt is made to list the details of every capture or encounter with ships that occurred in her career, and which there are sources for. As you are of course aware, there are often huge numbers of these in records like the London Gazette. The use of primary sources is also discouraged, and instead of using the LG articles directly, the article instead uses James' work, and the commentary that it contains. I am aware that you like to list these encounters in fairly exhaustive detail (viz HMS Cambrian (1797)) but I would ask you not to approach articles of these levels in the same way. I also strongly dislike the approach of many small paragraphs, and deliberately avoid this to aid the flow of reading. Benea (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Benea, 1) I take your point about the summary style for featured articles. That said, the listing of individual captures can give a sense of the economic war that was a large part of the era. Sloops such as Speedy spent much of their time capturing enemy commerce, without a shot being fired. They also tried to capture commerce raiders. Through the prize system the captains and crews even of Royal Navy vessels were on commission, and that clearly was a part of their motivation. All that comes through the details. The focus on headline events distorts the mundane reality. That said, I agree that mentioning every convoy is probably overkill, though that too was a large part of the reality. 2) The London Gazette, as a newspaper, is a secondary source. The primary sources are the logbooks and the original letter. James and Marshall are frequently tertiary sources. When one can go to the secondary documents that James or Marshall are using that would seem to add to verifiability. 3) I prefer shorter paragraphs that separate separate ideas, issues, or events. I have also noticed that writers for the general public such as reporters and essayists prefer shorter paragraphs. These professional writers and their editors too seem to feel that shorter paragraphs aid readability. Clearly, your mileage varies. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

HMS Quebec (1781)[edit]

Hi Acad - another new ship article that might interest you. HMS Quebec (1781) . It started as an adjunct to HMS Falcon and to the Battle of Zealand Point, but grew and grew! Viking1808 (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Lolland Notes[edit]


Hi Acad, I am a little punch drunk from reading too much danish and norwegian, but I think we now have most of the story of the Lolland. Norway's story continues after 1814 with fights against the Swedes and attempts to run food convoys. The notes on the above User Page still need bashing into shape, and anything that you have in English. Much can be discarded - uninteresting officers - Please pick out what you need and see what you can make of it. Viking1808 (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Viking, As you can see, I have converted your notes into an article. Why don't you check it over and when it is good to go post it. I would suggest that you pull out the stuff after the categories, i.e., from Captains on, and save it elsewhere. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Acad, Thanks for the constructive edits on HDMS Lolland. I have changed a few to emphasise Lolland, rather than the source article, and checked a few facts. We make a good team. HDMS Lolland (1810) is now live. Viking1808 (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Viking, the article looks good. I like that your willingness and ability to translate Danish and Norwegian gives the English language article an input that otherwise would be lacking. Makes for a more complete article and reduces the Anglo bias to Wikipedia. I look forward to collaborating on some more articles. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Acad - see my note on the Lolland talk page. I am beginning to get thoughts together for HDMS Langeland, although she has not featured in much action that I can see. 1810 she was up north for certain. Do you have anything? Regards ( or med venlig Hilsen) Viking1808 (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Viking, I have incorporated some of this in the articles on Lolland, Brev Drageren, and Algerine. As for Langeland, there are going to be vessels that have fairly dull careers. That means the article will never be more than stub-sized, but so be it. Even then, there may still be an interesting nugget there. I haven't seen anything on Langeland, but then I haven't looked. Still, I doubt that there is anything in that we have over several ship articles and the article on the Gunboat War, covered almost every engagement of the war, and she hasn't shown up. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Langeland and Lougen[edit]

Hi Acad HDMS Langeland (1808) is now launched.
There is also a new section in HDMS Lougen (1805) which you may have seen already. Regards Viking1808 (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Viking, So, Langeland turned out to have a couple of interesting anecdotes. If you google "Nightingale Snake Gallant Hammerfest", yoo will find the following book: Kiær, Anders Nicolai, Johan Vibe, Amund Helland, and Boye Strøm (1906) Norges land og folk: Finmarkens amt (H. Aschehoug & Co.), which has some discussion on p.16, unfortunately in Norwegian, of the events at Hammerfest. There may be something to add from there. I have checked the London Gazette, and so far have nothing. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! I have now looked at the reference - which I may translate later - but it is relevant to us only with reference to the attack on Hammerfest in 1809, with lots of captains names. Briefly Hammerfest battery ran out of ammunition after half an hour - a "Parlimentaire" went on board from the town and it was agreed no harm to any citizen provided resistance stopped - then the British plundered everything, including the church. Battery rebuilt in 1810.
Caveat: The Danish Naval Museum card for Valkyrien has her launched in Bergen in August 1810, two weeks after she is reported at Hammerfest with Lougen!! I have a query out on Balsved's (Danish) Discussion Forum to see what comes of this.

A different source has Valkyrien launched on 10 March 1810 - which fits the other known facts! Viking1808 (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

On Sailing Navies (English language) forum there is a thread started by a Russian "Vladimir" with a story of a Russian ship captured then retaken and escaped to Kola. So far, no real link to our two ships.
Finally, there is a reference in Pomor trade to the Finnmark Squadron (that did not come from me) Keep digging Viking1808 (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am going to have to try and link the Pomor trade into the Anglo-Russian War (1807-1812) story and some of the vessels. Can we place Langeland into a footnote on the Pomor trade article? I.e., was she lead vessel/part of the Finnsmark Squadron? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I just glanced at the "Vladimir" thread. You should pass on the info that HDMS Najaden (1796) is probably the English ship he is looking for. It's boats conducted the raid on Kola. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi acad - we just got into an "editing conflict" on pomor trade a few minutes ago, so I came out. I was going to add another note listing the two brigs and three newly built gunships (schooners with cannon) by name after "Finnmark Squadron".
and yet again, another potential article - our J N Müller met Nelson after the former struck at Copenhagen. He (Müller)was not impressed by the small man, but a flag lieutenant told Müller that the British had never had such a hot reception.(with suitable references)
I will concoct a reply to Vladimir as you suggest.Viking1808 (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Viking, I was just on Pomor trade so could have been me, or maybe not. Re Vladimir - Nayaden wasn't it. It could have been Alexandria. She was on the Lieth station from about 1810 to 1813+. In 1811 she captured several Russian vessels and in 1813 tried to engage the USS President near Archangel. I am also trying to find out more about Snake to see if she could have been in the area in 1810. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Just found the following: on 31 August 1810, HMS Gallant captured the St. Peder.The London Gazette: no. 16589. p. 644. 4 April 1812. The date is the right time for the Evlus 2 incident, and Gallant apparently was in the area according to your Lougen/Langeland info. Will continue to look. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am also still digging - two unnamed British frigates appeared off Hammerfest later in 1810 but harbour was well fortified by then!! (ref: i krigens tid). Will edit it in when translation complete. Viking1808 (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

caveat above now resolved Viking1808 (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

More Ships in the North[edit]

Two more ships - frigates in danish eyes, but possibly not in british classification - are named in the danish source that I am working on (Krigens Tid). Once spelling is corrected to English spelling, a London Gazette search yields this
8 September 1810

HMS Belvidera (Captain Byron)

HMS Nemesis (Captain Ferris) (28) 598 ton

found three danish gunvessels at anchor near Studtland [unidentified on map - perhaps Stuttland near Stavanger?.] - battle - two Danish two-gun schooners Balder and Thor struck. (but danish ships records do not have either Balder or Thor captured!) The smaller danish vessel - Gunboat Number 5 - was chased up a fjord, abandoned by its crew, and destroyed by the British.
We seem to be accumulating enough for at least a separate section in the Gunboat War (War in the Norwegian Sea ?)Viking1808 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Viking, the British account is already in the article on Belvidera, and apparently I put it there, as well as in the article on the Battle of Silda. Someone else wrote a Danish account, which is not completely consistent with what you are finding. By the way, both Belvidera and Nemesis were frigates. As for a separate section, I am less enthused. The problem is that we have two dimensions, time and waters, and one-dimensional pages. The one thing we could do, though it would be unconventional, is for those years in the Gunboat War article where we have something going on in Norwegian waters, is to create a table with two columns, one for Danish waters and one for Norwegian waters. That way we would keep the time dimension while introducing a parallel space dimension only where it made sense. By the way, there is an additional issue, and that is that operations in the north overlapped with the Anglo-Russian War (1807-1812). Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

War in the North[edit]

Hi Acad I have now put some of the translation on this user page User:Viking1808/War in the North just in case I lose it! There are several other leads to follow so treat it as very raw data! Lougen had an interesting voyage south in 1810, running aground and then nearly again.Viking1808 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is another offshoot of HDMS Langeland! Can you have a look at User:Viking1808/Norwegian Gunships and see what it may need to launch? Thanks Viking1808 (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Viking, Nice work & good research. You can see what I have done. As you find more info, you can add it to the table. Now, can I ask you to look at HDMS Kronprindsens Lystfregat (1785)? I looked on the Orlogsmuset's website and my impression was that they don't yet have a card for it. If you happen to have access to any additional info, that would be much appreciated. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
One other thing - you need to think about the translation of the Danish/Norwegian for the vessels. In the 18th & 19th Century, "ship" had a specific meaning that did not include schooners. The British term is probably gunvessels. See: HMS Shark (1794). Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for all the above! It will not go live for a while, as there may be other things to check, so we have time to consider the final title. Also, I will see what is said about the Royal Yacht - Kronprindsens Lystfregat.Viking1808 (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

HMS Phoebe[edit]

Hi Acad, I appreciate and thank you for your work in further developing HMS Phoebe. For your reference: You may wish to adjust ... 'On 31 May 1814 Phoebe and Essex set sail for England with Lieutenant Pearson of Phoebe in commanded the prize crew on Essex... according to your knowledge and preference, rather than me 'top' your considerable effort. :) Regards, Benyoch (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

HDMS Kronprindsens Lystfregat (1785)[edit]

Hi Acad
All Danish Ships ( Sorte Registrant) leads to the record card at Orlogsmuseet but the notes are very faint and difficult to read. The word Chefer (=Commanders or captains) gives references to
T. A. Topsøe-Jensen og Emil Marquard (1935) “Officerer i den dansk-norske Søetat 1660-1814 og den danske Søetat 1814-1932“.
thus TJ II 13 (= Topsøe-Jensen Volume 2 page 13) gives
Koefoed, Georg Albrecht second in command of Kronprinsens Lystjagt in 1786 (and 1792 observer on the brig Lougen - sea trials), 1807 Governor of Bornholm where he died 1808. (plus much other irrelevant detail)
but a further reference TJ II 128 on the same record card appears to be wrong as
Lütken, Christian captain of the Kronprinsens Lystfregat Ørnen in 1787-88 , during which time he carried the Crownprince to Norway. Died 1803 Copenhagen
and Ørnen (the eagle) variously designated Royal Yacht (kgl. jagt), kronprinsens lystfregat. (pleasure frigate) and lystskonnert (pleasure schooner) was built in Denmark 1776 and was taken out of commission in 1791.
Concerning the dimensions, there is a small discrepancy between those reported by you and those reported on the Danish Naval History website, although the rest of the story is the same. I leave you to recalculate length, breadth and depth - possibly using 1,00 Dk-fod = 0,3139 m which is the factor you can access via Alen and a link there.
I will keep my eyes open for anything else relevant. Viking1808 (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Viking, many thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian Gunships - Title?[edit]

Hi Acad - I am happy now with this article User:Viking1808/Norwegian Gunships including all your input. But what about the final title? Various option include

  • Norwegian Gunschooners ( a direct translation) but to me this sounds too literal and not good English
  • Norwegian Gunboats but we should keep this name for the smaller vessels that darted out on calm days and back to port within 24 hours.
  • Norwegian Gunships - my favourite, but you have doubts
  • Norwegian Gun-Ships (i.e. with a hyphen, as you have added in defaultsort, I think)
  • what else??

Once we agree, the article can be "søsat" (launched) And once launched, my Danish contact may be able to find out the fate of the others where the box is blank. Viking1808 (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Viking, Got to run to my paying job, but I would vote for the direct translation: Gun-schooner, with the hyphen. Ship had a technical meaning at the time, and is readily confused nowadays with armed helicopters. Gunvessel or Gun-vessel would be OK, but it's a bit generic. We know more than that. If Gun-schooner was waht the Danes wanted to call them 203 years ago, I would be completely comfortable with it today. Still, your article, your call. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Acad - I still feel happier with Norwegian Gunship, so have gone with that. If there is any feeling for a better title, it can always be changed later. Alongside this is an article about the 1810 captain of Lougen, Müller. The translation notes in the user page User:Viking1808/War in the North will stay there meanwhile, in case expansion is required. Thanks as always Viking1808 (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

National Maritime Museum again[edit]

Hello! Thanks for your continued work with the National Maritime Museum data. I was just talking to them earlier with a view to setting up a real-life event. The kind of event we're discussing is an editathon where we go along and pull resources from their archive which we can then use to update articles (including the chance to scan documents/photos where any IP issues can be resolved). This isn't yet definite, but they've asked us to have a look through their online archive catalogue and think about what use we could make of it. Let me know what you think! Regards, The Land (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi The Land, I like the idea. I don't know my way around their archives though so can't be much help there. What struck me was that there are mysteries in some of the stories I have worked on that I would love to see if we could resolve with more digging in places I don't have access to. Do you think they would be amenable to a list (half a dozen or so) mysteries?

Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. As a first step, you could try typing search terms relevant to the mysteries into the search tool on the archive and seeing if anything interesting came up :-) The Land (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the odds of low-hanging fruit are pretty slim.I looked up 11 vessels, of which 6 weren't in the database. Only got a hit on one vessel, which was in the database, and the info was irrelevant. I did not do indirect searches, but I would doubt that the capsule archive description would include obscure info. In a sense I am not surprised. things that are easy to find would probably already have been found. But it does call the idea of an editathon, at least for my period, not likely to be highly productive. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Placentia class sloops[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Placentia class sloops. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Placentia class sloop. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Placentia class sloop - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Tripnoted (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Norway's Seven Brigs[edit]

Hi Acad - Have a look at User:Viking1808/Seven brigs postscript which could be fitted into several of your ship articles. I have been into some complicated translations recently but occassionally come across a nice snippet like this. Regards Viking1808 (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Viking1808, welcome back. I had feared that you had wandered off to other, more lucrative, pastimes. Thanks for the heads up re the brigs. I think that should be a separate article, with a table showing the brigs, and a section on the gunboats. That way, we don't try to repeat the same info several times. What do you think of an article titled something like, "Dissolution of the Dano-Norwegian Navy"? Acad Ronin (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a better title would be "The New Norwegian Navy (1814)" eventually. Meanwhile, I think I need to work a bit more on the officers involved (currently stubs or poor articles only) plus the Danish side of Allart (no article yet), and keep the strings together on HDMS Lolland whose section on the norwegian navy might eventually be moved to the new article. Viking1808 (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Acad - Thanks for the improvements to Gunboat War recently.

Some more pages for you to look at.

The Allart article is pretty well complete as far as the Scandinavian input goes, but needs the British angle and extra references. As you suggest above, there is a need to run all these brig and schooner articles into one whole, plus perhaps all the Norwegian officers. Could these fall into a new category - (say) add category: New Norwegian Navy 1814 perhaps. How does one do that? Or what do you suggest? Viking1808 (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Viking1808, You can see what I have done with Allart. I am not finished with the British stuff - I will need a couple of more days grace and I will let you know when I have added all that I can. I think a category and article for the new navy is a good idea, however, I am not the one to ask about setting up categories. I have tried to do so a couple of times and have botched it each time. If I recall correctly, Brad101 came in and cleaned up my mess. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Acad! Taking on board your latest suggestion, I have put together the skeleton of a wikipage at User:Viking1808/Norwegian Navy 1814 that can act for general connections and will be of use if we get a Category set up. Any input from you most welcome. As that page matures, we could then approach Brad101 for his advice !? ( am I overworking you?? ) Viking1808 (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Viking, Don't worry about over-working me. I can always just disappear into the ether if I so choose. On the Norwegian navy page, I would drop the stuff about the past battles of the gunboat war, and any mention of graves or careers of officers who did not actually transfer. I would keep the page to the actual separation. A final paragraph about the strategic issues facing Norway from 1814 might be a way to reintroduce mention of the Gunboat War, the Pomor Trade, Havic, and some such references. Also, I am done with Allart. I have exhausted my sources there. I believe that article is now ready to launch. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Mange tak igen! Thanks - Allart is now launched. You have been busy with 1814- I will take a while to take it all in. Regards Viking1808 (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Acad Ronin. You have new messages at ChrisGualtieri's talk page.
Message added 00:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Actually... see my talk page again please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I'll try to make sure to prevent it from being changed again in the future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)



it is always with great interest that I follow your contributions, and I would like to seize the occasion of your findings regarding Entreprenant to testify my great appreciation. This ship is a bit of a mystery, and I was very pleased to read your additions. Congratulations and thanks, and good continuation! Rama (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rama, Thanks for the kind words. As I specialize in minor vessels, I tend to fly a little under the radar. I am still digging on Enteprenant, and hope to be able to add a minor addition or two. This business of keeping the name while changing the vessel is a new one on me. Let me reciprocate your kind words with my own expression of appreciation for your work on the French vessels. Given the co-evolution of the French and British navies, having input from the French side makes for a more nuanced and complete picture. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Copenhagen 1807[edit]

Hi Acad - another challenge!
In Note 1 to the HDMS Allart (1807) you include the first reference in English to the names of ships taken by the British after the Battle of Copenhagen (1807) that I have ever seen. (exciting!!). Currently there is a flag on the section of that article "Ships Surrendered" quote This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability. unquote.
Last year I put two sections into the talk page of Copenhagen (1807) using Danish sources but drew no further comment. Can you have a look and see if our two heads can improve the "Ships Surrendered" section and remove the tag.?
Perhaps further discussion should be on that talk page? Viking1808 (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Acad Ronin. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 02:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Magdala Battery[edit]

Hi AR, thanks for your work on the article. I did try and fix a missing ref prob but I'm not sure I used the same ref layout as you. We are very involved with the fortifications of Gibraltar as part of the GibraltarpediA project. If you have an especial interest in this area - or know someone who might then we will be adding wikipedia based signage and would value some input. Victuallers (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC) That sounds ideal. As you know Gib is covered in fortifications. Is there a group of you? If there was free accomadtion (maybe, I'm just trying ideas out) then would the travel sound attractive? Victuallers (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Although the idea is attractive, and very kind, I live some distance away from Europe. I mostly get my fortification visiting done when I go to conferences and tack on a day or two after the conference. The Guernsey walk was a bit of an aberration. (For some unfathomable reason, my wife does not find visiting fortifications compelling. We couldn't miss the Guernsey towers because we kept passing them as we walked.) Unfortunately, I am not aware of any conferences in my field scheduled for Gibraltar, which my wife and I visited back in 1996, before I got active on wikipedia. A secondary issue is that I would be loath to compromise my anonymity, given that I suspect my colleagues would look askance at my wikipedia hobbies. On a more positive note, should I add HMS Calpe, and particularly HMS Calpe (1800), to the category History of Gibraltar? There may be other vessels RN vessels with ties to the Rock. Also, should I put some of the Gibraltar project links on the relevant pages? What do you think? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Askance? hmm do you know that there are american profs who claim tenure based on wiki articles (partly). Well I'd be very pleased to have your help - we are planning to run a wiki conference in march next year in gib - I'm guessing that isnt your field! Still I can see good reasons for keeping yourself anonymous.

We have just found a complete list of all of Gibs fortifications .... its actually an aircraft carrier that would give nimitz a run for its money. HMS Calpe? Well I think thats certtainly on the g'pedia category. (When we did monmouthpedia we included all the hms monmouths) Please add some gibraltarpedia project pages - that would be great. .... and you can add your anom. name to the list of helpers at Very pleased to have met you. Victuallers (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


Could you finish this ... ok bad joke!? Actually I thought you might use this as a source]? but its only an option being as you mentioned hms calpe Victuallers (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


'Domesday Book'
Please translate the text below into the language of your wiki

We would like to invite you to contribute to the GibraltarpediA project, the world's first WIkipedia City. The project needs writers, photographers, translators and others to help build the first wiki city which bridges Europe and Africa. We are going to transform Gibraltar and the surrounding areas in Morocco and Spain into areas rich with encyclopedic content immediately accessible using QR codes and NFC on plaques for visitors and local people.

There are prizes to reward contributors in the Gibraltarpedia Multilingual challenge for the best editors, photographs and cartographers... whoever you are. More at

'Domesday Book'

Just in case you decide to study more Gib fortifications ... Victuallers (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Reversions to the Xhosa Wars page[edit]

Dear Acad Ronin,

Apologies for the recent reversions to the Xhosa Wars page. Unfortunately, while you did correct many genuine grammatical errors (I've also been working on fixing that page; while I've fixed some of its problems it does indeed still have many issues that need tackling), you also inserted a great deal of sentence fragments, incorrect subclauses and misplaced prepositions (e.g. "the Xhosa people lost of most of their land") in place of genuinely correct sentences. These are common errors for second language speakers of English and totally understandable (I used to work as an English teacher when I was younger so I know how bizarre and difficult English preposition usage is!) but they are nonetheless errors.

I will go through your suggested edits properly later and incorporate the valid ones (especially those referring to links and paragraph structure where you made valid corrections).

PS. Xhosa/Zulu grammar is prefix-based but these prefixes don't need to be expressed in English. The normal practice regarding Nguni names is to omit the prefix in English text. (e.g. You wouldn't say "He was speaking isiXhosa" and more than you would say "He was speaking Français". The normal practice is to say "He was speaking Xhosa/French")

Abu Shawka (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Fortifications of Gibraltar[edit]

Hi there, thank you for your help on some of the history and fortifications of Gibraltar, it's much appreciated! Would you be willing to help populate this upcoming article? --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 12:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gibmetal77. thanks for the invite but I am going to have to pass. My obsessive project is Napoleonic Era minor RN vessels. Other projects, like Napier of Magdala Battery, usually arise out of a trip. In this case, it was a trip to Malta, where I saw Fort Rinella and the 100-ton gun, which led me to Napier. That Battery led me to Rosia Bay, where I tried to edit what I saw as a haphazard collection of incidents in random order, only to have ACP2011 revert pretty much everything I had done, and tell me to stop messing up the Gib project to maximize DYKs. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

An award from us (and the signpost :-) )[edit]

Signpost Barnstar Hires.png The Signpost Barnstar
This month the Signpost said that the Gibraltar project was a " ludicrously productive GLAM project". Thank you for helping us with that achievement (anyway). We have got behind with the barnstars so this is one to say thank you for helping. is now showing the list of about 100 plaques - do take a look and see the languages we will be featuring. Victuallers (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyedit of Parsons Lodge. I was told that the Hodgkiss gun was a vickers - do you know? I have no idea and I based the filename ob est advice at the time. Hope that makes sense! Victuallers (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure youve done great stuff that didnt get you a barnstar! Yep I'll fix the filename. Victuallers (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Colonial Marines[edit]

Hello, I have noticed that you have contributed to the Corps of Colonial Marines article in the past. The introduction needs a re-write. Most of the details (corps were formed from former slaves aleit for different reasons, outline of each of the two Corps, legacy in Florida), but the style needs reworking. Would you be able to cast an eye over the introduction, and improve the flow, as it needs refining. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for having tidied up the introduction. I will be moving one paragraph, but that is the only change for now. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

George Heneage Dundas[edit]

Hi - I am engaged in the closing stages of a wikiproject to increase the quality assessment of all articles on First Naval Lords / First Sea Lords to B, GA or A status. I am about to start work on the article on George Heneage Dundas, an article to which you have contributed. I will need to remove all material that is unsourced or not directly relevant to the subject and expand the existing material to include more information on the subject's political and administrative career. I hope you are OK with this and in the meantime if the there are any more in-line sources you could add to the article (particularly in relation to which ships he was posted to and when) that would be great. Thanks in anticipation. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Alexander (East Indiaman)[edit]

Hi Acad, I was wondering whether you could help me with this one. I am thinking of moving the page to create a dab page, similar to what you did at Ocean (East Indiaman). I have two questions: 1. The Alexander to be moved, I do not know the year of build/launch so was wondering whether you had any details. 2. Alexander (1783) was also apparently an East Indiaman, with the EIC ships website entry indicating that she was built in 1784 and lost after First Fleet to Australia. This account defers slightly from my records. Can you confirm. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi Newm30, I will see what I can find re Alexander. Once/if we have that we can go from there. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk)
  • OK, here is something: Apparently there was a plethora of contemporary Alexanders. The Liverpool Alexander is well documented in the National Archives and is definitely not our ship. The NA also has a short item that suggests that the French captured the First Fleet Alexander of the coast of West Africa. Am still looking. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I have added some info the wrecked Alexander, but have not done anything about the date. There is some suggestion that she was not an Indiaman but rather a country ship out of Bombay. Furthermore, there was an Alexander (1803) that was an HEIC Indiaman. This is the vessel in the National Archives. There may have been a Bombay Alexander built in 1802, of 746 tons burthen as well.Acad Ronin (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I have created the dab page at Alexander (East Indiaman) and moved the ship to Alexander (1803 Bombay). Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Asia (1814)[edit]

Another question. I am researching vessels named Asia that transported convicts to Australia. I found that Charles Bateson identifies an Asia a 492 burthen ton ship built in 1814 at Bombay as having transported to NSW in 1825, he also identifies an Asia a 523 burthen ton ship built in 1814 at Calcutta that first transported convicts in 1827. I have found that the first Asia was captained by Captain W. L Pope and the second Asia by Captain Henry Ager. From Llyods Register in 1825, the 1825 vessel is identified as being built in Calcutta, not Bombay. In 1825/1826, the first Asia appears to undergo some repairs or modifications as stated in Llyods Register in 1826 (I dont understand the jargon). In the Llyods Register in 1826 there is a note below the ship register about "Ager" and owner changes to Pope. In 1830 she changes owners to Hockett &...., and in 1832 she appears to be re-rated as 513 burthen ton. There is mention of transport to NSW and 523 burthen ton in appendix. I am tending to believe that Asia's identified are in fact the same ship. Do you have any comments? Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Newm30, once I started in on Ocean and Alexander I came to realize that the tons burthen data was really flaky. It is good for RN ships, but for these merchant ships it is all over the place. On one Ocean, the HEIC rating or classification, the National Archives figure, and the letter of marque figures are are all different, and noticeably so. What ties the vessels together is captains, and times, so I put more weight on those than on tons. But one cannot be certain when the vessels have almost generic names. I keep looking for more evidence if I can, with the result that I have had on occasion to go back and reverse a mistaken identificatrion. Good luck. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

About admiral Robert Mann[edit]

Dear Sir. I've just created an article about Robert Mann (admiral), an admiral from the age of Nelson that you may find interesting. It needs to be really started... Greetings Pietje96 (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: User talk:BDD#HMS Staunch[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Acad Ronin. You have new messages at BDD's talk page.
Message added 19:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Danish Naval Information - missing links[edit]

Hi Acad

Sorry to say, none of the links to danish ships' record cards under the old "sorte registrant" will work any more. Budgetary cutbacks have forced their removal from the internet. Below is a reply from the museum following a query from me.

"Due to our new homepage and cutbacks, we do not facilitate “Den Sorte Registrant” anymore.Instead you can visit You can also try to use this homepage: I hope you can manage with these homepages. I am sorry that we cannot provide the same service to you anymore."

I will work slowly through the ships we have works on, removing the links - unless you know of a quicker way!! I will also ask Saddhiyama if he has any ideas. Viking1808 (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Viking1808, Good to hear from you, even if the news is bad. Do the homepages the orlogs museum sent you to have the same info? If not, that is a loss. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Click on > choose DATABASE > choose AVANCEREDE (advanced search) > Navn - type in ship's name, Datering - type in launch year, +/- allowing for uncertainty by 5 or 10 years > choose Søg (search) and with luck you will see the restricted information available. It is not as good as the original. Grinder and Seagull are missing. Others are reported in some detail, with designs or models linked in.

Another glitch, that Saddhiyama came up with recently, was that the Topsøe-Jensen book of Danish naval officers is no longer downloadable. Luckily, I have my own copy on two discs and so can still find the biographical information! Viking1808 (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You will see I have put the following on HDMS Najaden's External Links section
  • Individual record cards in Danish for ships of the Danish Royal Navy can be no longer (Feb 2013) found on the internet at Orlogmuseet Skibregister. The Danish Naval Museum is building a new website at which details, drawings and models may be available. For individual ships already listed, including Najaden, see here.
When I get round to it, unless there is a quicker way, I propose to paste the same message for each Danish vessel we have worked on, provided the entry is indeed in the new database. The English language version of the website, and some parts of the Danish, are still incomplete. Viking1808 (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Finally got my computer build working. Your proposal sounds like a good compromise until the new website is up, which hopefully contains the old databases (seems an odd place make cut backs, since the work making the database is already invested, and the money needed to maintain it must be peanuts compared to the educational value it provides). --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


I need some time to gather information. I will respond in few days. Thanks and --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a very interesting issue, but we can discuss it in another time. I reverted my controversial change and now the article bear the previous name. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I saw that. Thanks. It seems the best compromise in that it focuses on the Chilean importance without causing confusion. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Technical Issues with ship of the line template[edit]

Hello, Your edits have used a more pleasing ship of the line template, comprising the following elements:

  • "HMS" prefix (when applicable)
  • Ship name
  • year of ship's construction
  • rating of warship

I've tried to emulate this whilst editing HMS Asia (1811), but to no avail. Have you had any similar issues recently? Regards Keith H99 (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kieth, I am afraid I am not following you on the nature of the problem. A long time ago I simply copied the template from some article, while in edit mode, and stripped out the ship-specific info, before saving it in an MSWord Doc file. Now when I am starting a new article I just put that template in and fill in the info that I have. If you could give me a little more guidance on where you are running into problems perhaps I can be a bit more precise in my answer. As you can see from my edits to the Asia '​s armament, I had no trouble editing the template. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, now I see! This issue was affecting HMS Tonnant. With regard the fourth element, I had believed this to be the rating of the ship of the line, whereas it appears it is the iteration of the ship. (I had recorded Tonnant as having a 3, to indicate third rate, whereas I see you changed it to 6, and now it appears fine. I'll perform similar edits for Severn and Surprise. Thanks for the intervention. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Glad to have been of help, even if it was more by accident than design. Best, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits at Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)[edit]

Acad, thanks for taking a look at the Fort Dobbs article. I would like to point out that per WP:STRONGNAT, articles involving U.S. topics take the MDY format, not DMY. Since this is an article that is exclusively about a U.S. subject, I chose to write it with the MDY format. In fact, if you look at some of the documents at [2], you'll note that even in 1757 (around the time of the fort's construction), the MDY format was common (if not preferred) in colonial usage, whereas strictly govermental documents (like letters from the Board of Trade) were written DMY. Cdtew (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Acad Ronin. You have new messages at A930913's talk page.
Message added 18:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

930913(Congratulate) 18:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


Congratulations on your work on the several East Indiamen Kent, it is most clarifying. Surcouf's story has become one of these propaganda stunts like Vengeur du Peuple '​ sinking, the Action of 14 December 1798 or the Action of 7 February 1813 (or, I suspect, the aftermath of the Action of 18 August 1798); in Surcouf's case, there appear to have been several layers of successive gilding of the tale, during the Napoleonic war, during the Restoration and after the war of 1870, and some modern French historians let themselves be fooled occasionally. In this castle of mirrors, it is refreshing to find oneself on firm ground for once.

One of the little mysteries of Kent that I have been trying to pry is the presence of one "general Saint-John" aboard; he is said to have "commanded the Marines of Kent" (quoted in Granier), to have been married "a German princess, daughter of the margrave of Anspach" (Les corsaires français sous la République), and to have become a friend of Surcouf's after the event (quoted in Granier). Assuming there was a general Saint-John aboard, the first is appears fancyful (he might simply have taken command of during the battle, or have had a few guards attached to his person); the second could be specific enough to be a legitimate clue; and the third, well, what can you say. I wondered whether your sources said anything at all on the matter?

I'll try to see if I can identify the ship whose crew Kent had rescued earlier. I am really delighted to see that we have sources available on these HEIC Indiamen; for years, it has been as if a small nation went undocumented.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: probably Frederick St John (general) and Queen, respectively. Cheers! Rama (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Name by which ship known[edit]

French frigate Aigle (1782)

Hi Acad,

I have some letters written by a Midshipman while he served in Aigle under Samuel Hood from which it seems clear that they referred to their ship as L'Aigle rather than Aigle. Has this come up in your researches? Scribes52 (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Scribe52, It's a tricky issue. General practice, or at least what Winfield, who has the most comprehensive book on the RN vessels of the period, does is to use the French name, with the article and any accents, for the vessel when she is in French service, and the name without the article and without the accents when she is in RN service. I tend to drop the article in both cases. The problem with including the article is that any listing of vessels will clump all the French vessels under the letter "L" (e.g., L'Aigle'', La Nourice, etc.), all Dutch vessels under "De" (e.g., De Komet, De Kamphaan, etc.), and similarly for Danish and Spanish vessels. If you include the article, some editors also end up writing "the L'Aigle", which gives you a redundant article. Does that help? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Goetzen / Liemba[edit]

I think, we must talk about the guns of the Koenigsberg. The ship had taken for overseas use additional guns on board, but were driven as a load. i.e. they were not installed. Therefore, you can not just write, the guns were of the Konigsberg like the 105 mm guns.--Ihnen (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

OK! The formulation I agree--Ihnen (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

talk]]) 17:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Acad Ronin. You have new messages at Insulam Simia's talk page.
Message added 14:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 14:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

HMS Grecian[edit]

All sorted as you suggested, Mjroots (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

HMS Peterel (1794)[edit]

The prose is what is important and where the citation should go in a GA/A/FA article; the infobox should just be a summary of the cited facts in the article and ideally have no citations. That's why I added those facts back in. The rest of it looks pretty good! Kirk (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Union Bank of India[edit]

Edits admittedly in Good faith is NOT vandalism. Please source the text you have restored. Thanks Unfitlouie (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thomson and Thompson[edit]

Not a Tintin topic but HMS Colibri (1809)! It seems that while many sources list his name as Thomson but quite a few have Thompson. As I am actually directly descended from him and know it was Thomson, I was wondering how to reference the name change! Dabbler (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

re:French brig Nearque (1804)[edit]

Hi Acad. You should definitely make it a proper quote. Right now it isn't a quote. Are you re-using James's paraphrasing? If you are, then you must put in quotation marks. As the text is, it is like Wikipedia is saying that it's fortunate that the volley didn't cause casualties, and that's point of view. Manxruler (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well fixed. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for you at my talk[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Acad Ronin. You have new messages at Manxruler's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Manxruler (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

HMS Dart[edit]

Acad, you changed HMS Dart to make the 1796 ship a frigate instead of a sloop - but the given reference (Colledge) says she was a sloop. What's the basis for your change? If you have one, please insert a suitable reference. Given that she was carronade armed, it's quite possible she was a sloop, rather than a small frigate. Thanks, Shem (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Port Harvey attribution[edit]

Re this, the BC Names Port Harvey link says "Work in Progress: Origin Notes for this name have not yet been transferred from paper records and maps to the website", as do many of their entries. This whole area is filled with Royal Navy-related names; as per Hull Island (British Columbia), which is also mentioned and cited on Havannah Channel. So I took a leap of faith; similarly Chatham Channel's citation also has no name origin, but the Chatham is connected to many other names in the vicinity. I'm in regular contact with BC Names, I'll betcha dollars to donuts the captain of the Havannah *IS* the correct attribution for the namesake of Port Harvey. Unless you know of some other guy named Harvey and know it's named for him?Skookum1 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Re the "the" re Beaver (steamship)[edit]

Hi, I saw you reverted my addition of "the" before the Beaver's name on its article. That may be a British idiom, I don't know, but the ordinary, most common usage in nearly everything I've seen on this locally-famous vessel is always "the Beaver". Note my addition of the {{Canadian English}} template to the article's talkpage. Canadian idioms and usages should be respected on Canadian articles, and our usage for most ships is with the "the", not without. I could provide endless historical citations and magazines/books and more to demonstrate this. In fact, the only place I've ever seen it without the "the" is here in Wikipedia.Skookum1 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

HMS Boxer (1812)[edit]

I'm checking unusual usage of {{convert}} and found HMS Boxer (1812) which has a broken convert. On looking, it appears it was always broken (I think back in 2009). However, I then noticed something else and I'm hoping you can clarify or fix the article if needed.

In this edit, two converts were changed. In each case, "0.25" was changed to "0+1/2". I guess you meant to put "0+1/4"? Or possibly you found a ref with a different value?

The convert which has been broken for a long time currently reads:

|Ship hold depth={{convert|11|ft|m|0+1/2|abbr=on}}

Assuming that 0+1/4 is correct, the convert should be:

|Ship hold depth={{convert|11|ft|0+1/4|in|m|abbr=on}}

It's a trivial difference, but I'm trying to clean the converts up and am hoping you will work out what is needed and fix it. Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Born -> Borne[edit]

It may make you feel better to know that Merriam-Webster shows the past participle of "bear" as "borne also born", though other dictionaries do not allow "born" for this use. I think that for most readers, "borne" makes more sense. Happy editing! Chris the speller yack 15:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

Gaufre biscuit.jpg I appreciate the edits to Hollandsche Bank-Unie Sargdub (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


I appreciate that you're taking the time to look over articles like hemmema. I don't agree with all your tweaks, but I do appreciate them overall. But I urge you to be more careful before making changes like this one.[3] You've split referenced paragraphs, leaving some paragraphs without references. Those paragraphs were clearly cohesive, so editing them down to just to match the length of other paragraphs seems a bit arbitrary. And in this edit,[4] you lifted out statements belonging to a specific reference (diagonal bracers) and made it look like it belonged to a completely different ref.

I recommend that you edit text in "reference blocks". If copyediting leads to shuffling around referenced statements, it should be solved "within" the specific range of the relevant references. If not, take care to preserve the actual references. Unless there's a need to solve confused grammar, moving stuff around might create more problems than it solves.

Peter Isotalo 07:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)