User talk:Shem1805

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

HMS Hornet and references[edit]

When you are copyediting HMS Hornet (1893), you have twice removed the 2003 edition of DK Brown's Warrior to Dreadnought and replaced it with the 2010 edition, despite the fact that the 2003 edition was used to write the article and is still cited as a reference. If the 2003 edition is still cited, then it should be retained as a reference per Wikipedia:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - I got a bit confused. In the first case I corrected the incorrect ISBN, and then things went downhill from there. I will try to be more careful in future.

Now I've got a copy of Lyon's The First Destroyers, I can see what a state the destroyer articles are in. I'm slowly working through them, and your efforts are much appreciated, not least correcting my errors. Shem (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


Fair enough. "MOS:BOLD specifically states that bold should not be used for emphasis" is a very different response to the vague and inaccurate "Inexplicable emphasis" - the emphasis was a long way from "inexplicable". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're absolutely right - but then the "Inexplicable emphasis" comment was made by an anon ( I was just putting it right. Shem (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
And you, too, are absolutely right. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Type 45 destroyer[edit]

Hello! The provision for an extended VLS (either A70 or Mk 41) was the design concept touted by BAE systems at the request of the MoD. The 'Provision for but not fitted with' concept is very much the case in this regards, as actual allocated space and the necessary wiring exists for the extra silos. Not wishful thinking.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Highlighting and quoting from the For but not with article:
  • "Provision is made physically with power supply and data wiring to a hardpoint or through software..."YesY What on earth makes you think this gets a tick?
  • "as a method of future proofing a design..."YesY
  • "there should be enough warning time to purchase the system, install it in the vehicle, and train operators in its use..."YesY
  • "Fitting for but not with can range from leaving sufficient space for any future upgrades, to installing a weapon system during construction but not purchasing ammunition until it is needed."YesY
In this case then, the type 45 destroyer is indeed featuring a 'Provision for but not fitted with' design concept. It was designed so by BAE systems at the request of the MoD, furthermore the article provides citations referring to the destroyers capacity for an extended VLS. Thank you.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Look, I salute your optimistic outlook, but what makes you think power supplies or data are provided for either Tomahawk or an extended VLS? The fact is that it's not true, so please show me your reliable source that say it is. The fact is that these systems are no more likely to be fitted to T45 (along with the much-touted 155mm gun) than they are to any other vessel afloat. This is not "fitted for but not with", this is un-informed speculation. T45 was "fitted for but not with" Harpoon and Phalanx - and it has got or is getting both. Have you any idea how much work would be involved in fitting a new launcher? We're talking about rebuilding the front of the ship. Your additions to this article damge the encyclopedia, so please pause and take some perspective. Shem (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "The Type 45 will initially carry 48 Sylver A50 launchers, but the ship is designed to carry up to 64 - including strike length Mk 41 or Sylver A70 - and full space, services and structural provision has been made so that fit of the extra silos is very easy." Navy Matters, Type 45 ("D" Class) Destroyer - Daring Class (
  • "If a requirement for TLAM arises in future, the Type 45 has been designed with substantial space and weight margins to enable its capability to be upgraded through life. We currently estimate that up to 16 TLAM missiles could be mounted on a Type 45 Destroyer" House of Commons Hansard Written Answers - Tomahawk Cruise Missiles (
As I mentioned before, type 45 has allocated space and all the necessary wiring present for an additional 16 silos, bringing the total up-to 64. The 16 TLAM that the Hansard reference mentions would require the additional 16 strike length silos to be installed. You said: "We're talking about rebuilding the front of the ship." Absolutely incorrect, this comment (and I mean no offence) would suggest you have little knowledge regarding naval architecture or the design concepts of the type 45 destroyer class.Antiochus the Great (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Just briefly, this citation concurs with my edits too and makes reference to the 'Fitted for but not with' design concept: I.e Harpoon, Additional A70/Mk 41 VLS for TLAM/SCALP. Naval War College Review, Summer 2013, Vol. 66, No. 3 Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You're using every effort at your disposal to prove something that isn't true. As you acknowledge yourself, "Type 45 has been designed with substantial space and weight margins to enable its capability to be upgraded through life" - that doesn't mean it's "fitted for but not with" TLAM, or any other weapon system. It was designed "for but not with" Phalanx and Harpoon, which means far, far more than space and weight.

You assert I have little knowledge of naval architecture or the design concepts of the T45. Both statements are incorrect.

On the one hand I get grief from Hcobb because he thinks I'm trying to stop him from highlighting problems with the class, and on the other I get grief from you because you want to "big them up". Perhaps the real story, along with Wikipedia policies, lies somewhere in between.

I'm curious as to why you wish to assert these points? Do you believe them to be true, and you think I'm just being difficult, or do you want to make out the T45 as somehow better or worse than it really is? If the former is the case, please understand that you are inadvertently pushing a POV with no verifiable basis in fact. If the latter is the case, please take your POV elsewhere. Shem (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If Hansard and other reliable sources make the assertion then whats the problem? Yes I do believe it to be true, based on evidence available in the public domain and on what I have witnessed with my own eyes. But that is besides the point. I feel the issue here is based on our slight different interpretations of 'For but not with'. Whereas you feel all the necessary provision needs to-be in-place to qualify, I do not. In fact even the 'For but not with' article says: "for but not with can range from leaving sufficient space for any future upgrades". This is the case for type 45 regarding TLAM, she was designed specifically to allow additional strike length silos for TLAM if the need arose. The Hansard reference I provided at the article supports this. Anyway, I do not with to engage in a dispute or disagreement of any kind, so I will leave the matter in your hands as I believe you mean well. Enjoy the heatwave!Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you came to a very comfortable compromise in your latest edits, by the way.

If you accept the assertion in 'for but not with' that mere space alone is sufficient, then you could credit all ship classes with the most fanciful of upgrades - and people do. When you look at the references used to support the statement (Friedman & Leschen), they're both about seapower, not about naval architecture - it is probable that they deal with the issues in only the most superficial way. This strikes me as poor referencing. Unfortunately neither are available online.

Type 45 was designed with space and weight for future upgrades - and at one stage that could have been a 155mm gun. TLAM is just one of the missiles touted for the ship, but UK defence policy doesn't support that view. SDSR 2010, for example, identifies TLAM as a submarine-launched system.

I'm sure you mean well yourself! Have a great weekend. Shem (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Admiral (Australia)[edit]

superfluous picture removed - Is not a photo of "the real thing" more "interesting" (whatever that means) than a constructed image? (BTW: "No", with an explanation, is not a preferred (by me) reply, but is a reasonable reply.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on which is more interesting, the photo of the real thing or a graphic; I just removed one of two images which were essentially duplicates. I think you have a good point though - and I note that one of the images left is a duplicate of the pic at the top, so I'll do a little more editing. See what you think. Shem (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that if I open my mouth and put my foot into it, I have no one to blame but myself.
Objectively: Yes, that does the job. (Thanks.)
Subjectively: I think I prefer "gallery", but personally, I wouldn't class this as "a major issue". (Nor, for that matter, a minor issue, either.)
"Case closed"? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer a "gallery" too. I couldn't find another way to put a border round the admiral's command flag, which was otherwise a rather odd white on white effect. I'd be grateful if you know a way to do it using "gallery". Shem (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I remember that I solved that problem several years ago, but for the life of me I can't remember what I did! I'll give the problem some thought and get back to you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd appreciate that - thanks. Shem (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, lots of physical effort has produced no useful results; I'm rather disappointed. I suggest you lower your expectations. My apologies. (However, I haven't given up yet - I KNOW I found a solution previously ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Your technical move request[edit]

I did the move as you requested, but will you please take a look at Other Ranks? To be consistent, most likely it should be Other ranks. I don't know whether this would be controversial. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

An excellent point - I have now made the request for other ranks as well. Certainly it isn't controversial (although I get the occasional warrant officer who objects to being placed in the lower case, the rules of English, as explained at WP:MILTERMS are pretty clear). Very many thanks. Shem (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:MILTERMS: "The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper noun, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized." Do you have any sources regarding 'Other Ranks'? EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
A proper noun would be something like "John Smith" or "Hamburg". "Other rank" or indeed ranks at all are not proper nouns. See "Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under Titles of people above. For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general" from WP:MILTERMS. In any case, common Wikipedia usage is for lower case in this sense - see enlisted rank, Comparison of United Kingdom and United States military ranks, British Army officer rank insignia, British Army ranks etc, etc, etc. Shem (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
You've mentioned a number of Wikipedia articles, which is fine if we are discussing consistency. But I'd like to know whether 'Other Ranks' is capitalized in the real world. For example, in reliable sources which talk about the British Army. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
In short the answer is yes, I can show you sources - but I can also show you some sources that will capitalise. This is largely irrelevant, since style is a house issue, while facts require sources. That is to say that some publications will use capitals for "Corporal" (the British Army magazine Soldier does, for one), while other publications will use lower case "corporal". This doesn't make one style right or wrong - but Wikipedia has its own style guide, which I have linked above. If you're not following me, or you think I'm making this up, it's worth a read of Wikipedia:Specialist style fallacy, which discusses the issue at some length. I hope that makes it clear. Yours, gratefully, Shem (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm quite aware that WP has its own house style. But WP:MILTERMS takes the unusual step of deferring to external capitalization. You did use MILTERMS in your move rationale, right? EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:MILTERMS says "as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources". There is no consistent capitalisation for "other ranks" in sources, so nobody is going to be able to show you that it should be "Other Ranks"; furthermore, I cannot show you a source that proves it should be "other ranks" - nor would it be of any value if I pretended to. Since there is no consistent capitalisation in sources, per WP:MILTERMS it should be "other ranks". Shem (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
To make this argument you actually need to *provide* the sources. Give some examples, please. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
That's the point - I could show you a source that does not capitalise (like this or this) and I could show you sources that do capitalise (like this). You may prefer the Daily Telegraph over the internet sources, and the house style of the Daily Telegraph does not capitalise "other ranks". But as I've said, it proves nothing. Wikipedia's house style is the important factor, and for that "other ranks" would be correct. I don't want to con you into doing the right thing for the wrong reasons! Shem (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The first and third links don't include the term "other ranks", and out of the three sources that you provided only the Daily Telegraph is a reliable source. The plain language of MILTERMS says that we defer to external capitalization. Perhaps this is not a weighty enough issue to belabor the point, but if there is a formal move discussion later on, people will ask you these things. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The first link contains the phrase "Non-Commissioned officer and other ranks"; the third contains the phrase "So a short description of Warrant Officer & Other-Ranks and Commissioned Officers on the next page will try to give a basic introduction". I agree that the the other sources are not reliable, but I have repeatedly stated you're missing the entire point. It's not about sources. Move or don't move; the choice is yours. Shem (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
You're right, I overlooked those two mentions of the phrase 'other ranks.' Still, the one you found in the Daily Telegraph is the only reliable one. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


Please note that abbreviations of bolded terms appearing in brackets in the first line of an article should be themselves bolded, not contained within inverted commas. See WP:BOLDTITLE#Abbreviations and synonyms. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I had formed an incorrect impression thst the bold for abbreviations was wrong. Yours, Shem (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I note however, that you have re-inserted bold in sections within the text; per MOS:BOLD, this is reserved for the lede only. Shem (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Divisional general[edit]

I moved the other three but declined this one because there's already a formal move discussion on the talk page, though not focused on capitalization. You might comment there that regardless of whether the move to division general is accepted, the first letter of the second word should be made lower case.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll have a look at it. Shem (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Pennant numbers[edit]

Thanks for changing them. I wasn't sure when I glanced over the rules so I thought "add them just in case". Sorry for making all that work for you. I'll make sure to not add them in any future article.Foxxraven (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Aircrew Survival Equipmentman (PR)[edit]

Thank you for the information about cut-and-paste moves, and welcome to Wikipedia. However, I believe you are absolutely wrong about the guidance on military title. The reason I moved the page was because the current Wikipedia policy, just like the U.S. Navy Style Guide, also states that each name of a compound titles should be capitalized.
Below is an excerpt from the Manual of Style regarding this matter:

  • When an unhyphenated compound title is capitalized (unless this is simply because it begins a sentence), each word begins with a capital letter
  • The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper noun, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized. Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page.
  • Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under titles of people above. For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general.

Enlisted personnel in navies and coast guards capitalize each particular name of their rating. For example, Aviation Boatswain's Mate (notice the all caps) Chief John Smith.

According to the Manual of style the See Also list was perfectly relevant, unless that is you don't consider parachute rigging and skydiving relevant, or have never served as a Special Operations Parachute Rigger for a US Navy SEAL Team, and do not understand why Specials Forces support teams are relevant to a mission. Being one of the few experts in this field, I can assure you that every single link was relevant.
Below is an excerpt from the Manual of Style regarding this matter:

  • ''Whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.

Lastly, I believe the the Aircrew Survival Equipmentman article is one of the best covering a US Navy rating. My goal when I began working on this article was to create the most well informed article on a subject of which I am an expert. My primary reason for that was to make fully aware the life, responsibilities, and opportunities of a US Navy Parachute Rigger for those brave men and women that make be thinking of a career in the field of survival equipment. Most people are not aware of the tremendous amount of study and effort that goes into earning your wings. Hopefully, you will understand that any changes I may revert or alter are only for the good of the people who's life depends on survival equipment, and also for those who simply wish to learn more about the subject of sky diving and parachute rigging.

V/R, Topbookclub 4 Sept 2013, 0200

I don't doubt your good will and your efforts in improving the aircrew survival equipmentman article. It is slightly disingenuous to quote the bit about "enlisted personnel in navies and coast guards" from WP:MILTERMS at me when you know very well that you inserted these words in the MOS yourself on 18 April. If I had noticed them at the time, I would have removed them at the time, since they miss the point completely. I have corrected that mistake tonight. You will find an explanation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. My capitalisation as it stands is as correct (as I can make it); in the same way that you are an expert parachute rigger, I am an expert grammarian, linguist and philologist. I'm not offering to pack your parachute - perhaps you might like to defer on an area in which you are not an expert?
With respect to the "see also" section, how can Survival kit (for example) be relevant to the article? If it was directly relevant to the article, it would be in the text (and would not need to be repeated). As the guidance says "many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have a 'See also' section", and I would encourage you to look at the good practice, such as Mary, Queen of Scots or 1740 Batavia massacre (both "featured articles") for examples. Stuffing the "see also" section does not improve an article, it detracts from it.
Lastly, Wikipedia is not a career guide or a manual, so it would not be appropriate to make edits "for the good of the people who's life depends on survival equipment". What the article really needs is some high quality referencing. I'd be delighted to help you if you ask me to. Shem (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Equipment operator and Engineering aide[edit]

I believe you may have mis-applied WP:MILTERMS in these two articles, because of the specific exception listed in you citation that says: "Enlisted personnel in navies and coast guards capitalize each particular name of their rating. For example, Aviation Boatswain's Mate Chief John Smith." How do you justify your changes when your citation states otherwise? Highspeed (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid the misinterpretation is yours. The general guidance is "Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under titles of people above." The specific line you refer to signals that rank-and-name for navies and coast guards should be written as "Aviation Boatswain's Mate Chief John Smith", not "Aviation boatswain's mate Chief John Smith". I'm not quite sure how it crept in there actually, since you wouldn't write "Regimental sergeant major John Smith" either, but there you go. Ranks per se (ie not as part of a name) are lower case, as is eloquently explained at WP:JOBTITLES Shem (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the offending words from WP:MILTERMS (for an explanation, see here). 21:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but ...[edit]

I might not know THE right answer, but I can tell you a thousand answers that are wrong. (Huh? What's this guy on about?) My apologies for being vague. I'm referring to your recent edit, and its comment: "UK field marshal insignia (the free use rationale is already on the file page)"
As, from experience, I expect you can explain to me far better than I to you, the existence of a FUR does not necessarily mean NFCC has been satisfied. (e.g. If the Field Marshal insignia is not public domain, then a FUR for the Field Marshal page is probably reasonably, but not necessarily so for other pages (like 5 rank.) I'm fairly sure you know more about this than I do, so I'm rather surprised to find myself in the position of trying to explain it. I suspect the most likely scenario is that I've mis-understood something. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been clearer - the FUR for the file's use on the page five-star rank was already there. I'm not sure why, if the FUR for that particular page had already been made, the file didn't actually appear on five-star rank (but perhaps it appears under another section). So. as far as I can tell, I am right. Shem (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not professing to be an expert on what's right - just an experienced person on how to do it the wrong way.
My possibly wrong / incomplete/ whatever (mis) understanding is that although it's OK to use File:UK-Army-OF10.gif on the UK FM page (if there's an adequate FUR on the File:UK-Army-OF10.gif page) that doesn't necessarily guarantee that its use on other pages (even if there's a FUR) is acceptable.
I don't have sufficient knowledge to debate the topic beyond what I've stated. If you're "happy" with the situation, then great. It's just that I have my doubts. Not knowledge. Just doubts and uncertainty. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
It's quite possible you have a point, but I can't see it. I'm certainly happy that the FUR exists for the usage, that it makes sense and does indeed describe a fair use. Nevertheless, thanks for raising it. Shem (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

(US) Army uniform[edit]

It is a pleasure to see someone else demote common nouns. I thought I was the only one to obsess on this fine point of grammar. I would object to some of the items you demoted, "Army Green" is the name on one sort of uniform, much like your "Walking Out Uniform." Or perhaps I am wrong, I would just like you to consider this. I am on vacation and will return to my quest to demote common nouns next week. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Paul, what a pleasure it is to hear from someone who not only appreciates the finer points of capitalisation, but is prepared to say so in such a pleasant way. I'm pretty sure "walking out uniform" could not be construed as a proper noun, and more than "suit", "combat uniform" or "shirt and tie", but I'm sure you'll have a good think about it and come to a valid conclusion, even if it doesn't agree with mine. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours, Shem (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I am on vacation for another 48 hours. When I get back to Saudi I will have more time for my quest to fix all the capital letters on the internet. When we talk about uniforms, it seems the Army Blue Uniform is a specific uniform, different for the much-lamented Army White Uniform. It also seems National Blue is a different shade from Sky Blue. But, as I said, I am off-duty. I agree with most of your edits on this article and I thank you for them. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Enjoy your break; but consider, colours aren't proper nouns (royal blue, for example). Just because a uniform is specific doesn't make it a proper noun either. Dress uniform, full dress and mess dress, just to name a few Wikipedia articles, don't capitalise the title (although there is a mixture of capitalisation within the articles, which I will get round to eventually, if you don't beat me to it). Consider also, would you capitalise the Nigerian Navy's "Number 7 Uniform", or the Myanamar Army "Ball Dress"? I tend to go with MOS:CAPS' first line in the absence of specific guidance: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms." Yours, Shem (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Geoff Hunt's painting of Santisima Trinidad action[edit]

Hi. This picture was scheduled for deletion next Sunday, 15 September if the artist's own message giving permission had not been submitted by then and there was mention of this in the information appearing with the image. I have no doubt that he will give permission as required because I already have that undertaking in writing directly from him, but his commitments may not have enabled him to make the submission instantly. Can the image be restored until the scheduled removal date so that he can see it in place in case he has not had a chance to do that as yet? Scribes52 (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously. Replace the picture when the appropriate permissions and free use rationales are in place. There is no deadline at Wikipedia - the article in question is fine without the image in the meantime. Shem (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I see you have removed Geoff Hunt's painting again. I put this back up some while ago only after discovering that someone had put it up on the artist's own Wikipedia page, where it remains. I don't understand why the image can appear on one page yet not be permitted on another. It is a great pity if this image cannot be included on George Thorp's page because it is so pertinent. As first lieutenant of Terpsichore at the time of the action with the Santisima Trinidad he would obviously have played an important part in the long engagement. In his correspondence he wrote that he was hoping this would be recognised by recommendation for promotion, as had the previous first lieutenant's role in the action with the Mahonesa, but it would seem that neither Captain Richard Bowen nor George Thorp received due recognition for this action because of their deaths at Santa Cruz soon after. ----
Firstly, it's nothing personal, please be assured of that. There is a genuine reason why for copyright reasons you can't just post the picture on George Thorp. Let me try to explain:
Geoff Hunt's picture is copyrighted to him, and cannot be reproduced just for the convenience of illustrating a Wikipedia article, at least not without paying a copyright fee, which Wikipedia does not do. What can be done, subject to tight restrictions, is to use it under a fair use licence to illustrate articles about, say, the painting itself (this is done a lot with book covers). A fair-use rationale must be made for each use, and if you look at File:Santisima Trinidad harried by Terpsichore.jpg, one has been made for use on the article Geoff Hunt (marine artist). That explicitly does not allow it to be used elsewhere - which would be a breach of copyright. You can read all about it in Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.
If that all makes sense, you can see why I removed it. Additionally, I would note that it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to right great wrongs, so if Thorp remains unfairly neglected because of his early death, the Wikipedia article (being an encyclopaedia entry) should merely reflect this, rather than try to set the record straight, as it were. Thanks for listening! Shem (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Reflections and musings ...[edit]

(WP:MILTERMS ... sigh ... again) - Yes, there are days when WP presents one with an unending list of situations like that ...

Y'know, there are times when I feel that, when WP policies & guidelines do things differently to the "normal" way ("normal" deliberately not defined), that perhaps WP has got it wrong. To me, given the amount of maintenance editing that MILTERMS seems to require, I wonder about the process of revising WP policy.

Do you have any thoughts, comments, reflections, etc. on the issue? (There is no urgency in this; I'm just "wondering".) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing different or abnormal about Wikipedia's policy with regard to capitalising of military ranks - just about every newspaper, for example, has the same house style. Every style guide I'm aware of is confident that a military ranks are not proper nouns. However, as you rightly point out, people get it wrong a lot. The reasons for this is obvious to me:
  1. Militaries worldwide capitalise furiously - for example, the Royal Navy capitalises every occurrence of the word "command" - it's like a fetish. Militaries also use ALLCAPS surprisingly often - I seem to remember reading a newspaper article which said that the US Navy had just decided to stop printing all announcements in ALLCAPS, because it was hard to read, and no longer necessary ... Because people use military sources a lot when writing these articles, or are themselves in the military, they tend to do the same in Wikipedia.
  2. It used to be widely accepted (say 20, 30 or 40 years ago) that ranks got a capital, and so many older sources use caps. People are still catching up, employing the usage they learned a while ago, or confused.
  3. A small proportion of people seem to worship the military and their structures to the extent of considering ranks of almost god-like importance. For example, there is considerable resistance to changing General of the Armies to general of the armies on the grounds that (I quote) "these are not ordinary ranks, rather special titles established by Congress" - as if that somehow elevates this oh-so-special rank into a proper noun.
Just because people are largely ignorant of the subtleties of capitalisation (although acting in good faith) doesn't mean Wikipedia has to go with the flow. Fortunately there are obsessives like me around ready to put them right. Care to join me in my part-time crusade? Shem (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I find your reply to be entertaining reading, at times causing me to laugh loudly. Thank you. Militaries worldwide capitalise furiously - Indeed they do!! it's like a fetish. the attribution of religious or mystical qualities to inanimate objects, known as fetishes Hmmm. Surprisingly appropriate. Some of the small caps usage is due to the once-upon-a-time use of narrow-band-width communication systems. But given how long ago "once-upon-a-time" was ... It used to be widely accepted (say 20, 30 or 40 years ago) ... - Oh dear. (Showing my age again!) People are still catching up, employing the usage they learned a while ago, or confused. - Interesting. I hadn't thought of that aspect. That would explain more than "a few things", wouldn't it. Just because ... - True, but that isn't the whole story, is it. No, WP doesn't have to bumble along catering for the lowest common denominator, or even take the middle ground. Yes, I agree that WP should strive for something above average. But then, at the other end of the scale, WP doesn't have the reputation to be able to get away with what might be categorised as being "extreme". Further, when you have been as pedantic as I have, for as long as I have, you will have become aware that pedantry isn't always appreciated ...
Care to join me in my part-time crusade? Thanks for the invitation, but not yet - I now realise that I am still embedded in what was "widely accepted (say 20, 30 or 40 years ago)", and I feel I need to move into the 21st century before becoming a 21st century crusader.
Thank you very much for your food for thought. I'll be munching on it for the next few days. Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I welcome the chat. Good luck with editing ... and the 21st century isn't a bad place at all, even for pedants - and boy, should I know! I also grew up with capitals for "Captain" and "Colonel" (but curiously not for "private" or "corporal") - but I have changed my ways. Shem (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


Regarding the Bravery Medal (Australia), the bar is indeed inscribed with "FOR BRAVERY", not "For Bravery" ... Pdfpdf (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

But have you read WP:ALLCAPS? It's not a co-incidence - I was reading your talk page, saw the link and was interested - and then noticed some errors of style. Shem (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
But have you read WP:ALLCAPS? - Not recently, but I have reread it now. By the way, I'm not about to "die in a ditch" over this, and personally, I don't like things in allcaps, but the fact is that the inscription is "FOR BRAVERY", not "For Bravery", so I'm interested to understand.
Which subcategory does this case fall into? (To me, it didn't seem to fit into any of them.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I'm glad you noticed the errors of style - the article has been much-improved by your edits. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, WP:ALLCAPS says "avoid writing with all capitals, including small caps. Reduce them to one of the other title cases or normal case, as appropriate" and then goes on to list examples of where the original is in all caps, but at Wikipedia we should reduce it. Seems pretty clear to me.

Fair enough. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You could always ask the question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters, but I know exactly what the answer will be. Shem (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


I would love to understand what's admirable about an Admin who won't discuss an issue, won't pay any attention to any opinion that doesn't match his own, won't answer questions, won't explain his point of view, choses to ignore the consensus of three years of discussion, and wishes to change the subject of an article to something that does not match the title of the article? Can you explain these things to me? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously. You make statements that imply you think this guy can walk on water. Can you explain these things to me? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Haven't you abdicated, or something? Your comments here are a great example of exactly why I said what I said. Have a read of your comments on the debate between DrKiernan and yourself, and it will save me explaining. Shem (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

In regards to your recent Wikipedia:Requested moves proposals[edit]

I noticed that you had created six separate move proposals in regards to possible capitalization issues. For future reference, if you need to list multiple moves that could be moved for the exact same reason, please list them all together (instead of listing them separately). At WP:RM/CM, there are instructions about how to list multiple move requests at once in the section "Requesting multiple page moves". Listing the moves together is preferred; with listing the moves separately, editors will try to answer every single move request separately, breaking up the discussion and making it difficult to follow. Also, listing them together helps centralize the discussion to better form a consensus on whether or not the articles should be moved.

For now, I have went ahead and moved all of the discussions together at Talk:Motor Gun Boat. This way, the discussion will be centralized and others will be able to provide better feedback on the move requests. Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Steel, thanks for your post. I became aware of the multiple move option just after the job had grown on me. I'll know better next time. Thanks for your efforts in moving the discussions. Shem (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Entering links for transcriptions of ships' logs...[edit]

...from This is a polite notice of a wave of changes being made by personnel.

We are at the point where we are getting online the transcriptions we made and are now editing from approximately 315 Royal Navy ships in the WW1 era. They will look something like this: . We are not at this time editing the articles' content. All of this material is NOT in our forum, it has its own permanent web site ( ). And while it is a primary source, it is approved for use as "encyclopedic" by Jimmy Wales.

Am I coding the example I gave you properly? We will be doing this on at least 300 articles eventually. If you know of other articles where being able to read the real ship logs might be of interest, please let me know. For instance, we have the logs recording ship actions for 9 different vessels during the Battle of Falkland Islands (WW1).

Thank you for your attention.

Janet Bein (a.k.a. OldWeather's Janet Jaguar)

Janet Jaguar (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Janet, thanks for your message. At the moment you are linking to the ship index page (eg HMS Bluebell - which talks about all RN ships called Bluebell) rather than the article about the ship (eg HMS Bluebell (1915)). In addition, the formatting is wrong, since the name (but not "HMS") should be in italics. The best way to achieve this is to use the HMS template, which looks like this:
  • {{HMS|name of ship here|disambiguation ( here|6}} - which renders as "HMS name of ship here"


  • {{HMS|name of ship here|disambiguation ( here|2}} - which renders as "name of ship here" (ie without "HMS")
So, for example, {{HMS|Bluebell|1915|6}} renders as "HMS Bluebell" - and links to HMS Bluebell (1915).
I hope this helps. I've edited Acacia-class sloop#External_links to do it correctly, and you will be able to see the changes i've made from the article history.
Yours, Shem (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Shem. One very important question: What do I put in the "disambiguation ( here" field when I'm simply pulling a list of the ships I want and have no idea of the exact disambugation key? That is where I was coming from, and the problem will get more important when I start dealing with the Merchant cruisers whose date of commission is irrelevant to their date of RMS launch, and when I don't know if they are listed as RMS, SS or HMS. I was kind of hoping your disambiguation would make our lives simpler. I thank you for that template and the examples - we will use it. Janet Jaguar (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question - I should have addressed it above. Given that you're on a page with a link to the ship in question (like the nav box at the bottom of Acacia-class sloop), just hover over the link (red or blue) and it will tell you the disambiguation. It will usually be the date of launch for the period you're working in, but it may be the pennant number. Failing that, write out the HMS template with nothing in the disambiguation, hit "preview", and provided the link you've just put in is blue, right click and chose "open in new tab"; the ship index page will tell you the disambiguation for your chosen ship. Have a go and let me know if that doesn't work for you.
As for the merchant cruisers, if there's already an article about the ship, you just use the bracketed disambiguation given. It's worth doing an advanced search to find the various possibilities. Where an article doesn't exist, leave the disambiguation out, or even easier, just use {{HMS|Nonsuch}}. In this event, there probably isn't more than one ship of the name, and therefore no disambiguation is needed. In the unlikely event we someday need to write a ship index for the ship name you've used, we'll just move the articles to the right place.
Although it's not true for all prefixes, you can use {{SS|Nonsuch}} (or {{SS|Nonsuch|1915|6}}) and {{RMS|Nonsuch}} (or {{RMS|Nonsuch|1915|6}}). Yours, Shem (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Another question (I've been studying your first answer. :) ) Template 1st: HMS name of ship here Template 1nd: name of ship here That final number - what is it for? How do we know whether to use 2 or 6?

Thank you. Janet Jaguar (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem. "6" renders "HMS Nonsuch; "2" renders "Nonsuch". I appreciate this sounds a little complex at first sight, but once you've done it a few times, it is simplicity itself. Shem (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Shem, I put what I wrote for the forum on our public boards. Thanks for the very nice help. FYI - Any additional comments welcome from you always, I want that post to be correct. Janet Jaguar (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Janet, a pleasure to help. Shem (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

HMS Dart (1796)[edit]

Hi Shem, Good catch. I went by the number of guns w/o bothering to check Winfield. She was the lead and name ship of a two-ship class of experimental and highly unorthodox vessels. He confirms that she was classed as a sloop, despite the number of guns. Crew size (121 men) is consistent with a sloop too, and that may be why she was so classified. Strange, and unsuccessful vessel. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent moves citing MoS on capitalization[edit]

The "Milterms" section does say "as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources", and in my experience Landing Craft Assault and (less experience) Motor Landing Craft are capitalized in sources. Perhaps such a wide ranging set of moves should have been flagged up a WP:Ships or Milhist first to get support. and is there a reason why you didn't move Landing Ship Logistics. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

At Wikipedia the consensus is for caps to be used for proper names and proper nouns; the sources have mixed usage. This is by no means a wide-ranging set of moves - I'm merely house keeping the one or two (or three) ship types at Category:Ship types that do not conform with the MOS. And it's not just landing ships - see my recent move on maritime prepositioning ship. And I haven't moved Landing Ship Logistics yet because landing ship logistics is a redirect, and I haven't got round to doing the RM. Yours aye, Shem (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and I cited WP:MILTERMS to support not the change of ship type to lower case, but in landing craft assault the change of "Headquarters" -> "headquarters", "Coxswain" -> "coxswain", "Bowman" -> "bowman" and (where appropriate) "Commando" -> "commando" (eg " a wounded commando is brought to a LCA"). Shem (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Shem, I am studiously ignorant of Wiki capping conventions other than the ones I've observed and copied over the past few years. I have contributed the majority of the substance on a number of the landing craft pages you have recently altered. It makes sense to my research in WW2 documents to have Ramped Cargo Lighter and Motor Landing Craft capped. They were referred to after this fashion during the war. Whatever the decision of the Wikiauthorities on this score, I hope that for consistency's sake, if historical precedent is deemed insufficient, that RCL and Motor Landing Craft follow the same capping fashion chosen for the LCVP, LCA, et. al. I'm inclined to return these pages to their original capping, but will await whatever consistency decisions are made by those who decide these things. Kind regards,AmesJussellR (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Hms Defender (H07).jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Hms Defender (H07).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TLSuda (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:771 NAS Badge.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:771 NAS Badge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:HMS Defender in build.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:HMS Defender in build.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pilot officer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Observer officer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This one was intended. Shem (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)