User talk:Benea

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

• Age of Nelson, for men-of-war histories
• Naval history of World War Two ships
• Merchant Navy.net
• Postcards
• Uboat.net
• Clyde built
• Tyne built
• Miramar ship index
• IWM Archives
• Some ship statistics
• The ship list
• Merchant Maritime links
• Three Decks

Reversion of Edits at HMCS Uganda

Thank-you for your attempt at a considerate note expressing concern that I mistakenly made inappropriate changes to HMS and HMCS Uganda. You assert that I might be unaware that I should note why the changes were made. I find this statement curious, as I did just that at the main changes I made. I guess I forgot to include the same statement of justification at the related redirect page. However, considering you reverted both edited pages, your behaviour would appear to have been intentionally dismissive, derisive, arrogant, and confrontational. I have every certainty, despite your extensive edit history, that this was completely unintentional. You might also take notice of the fact that you did not note why you presumed to just revert the pages, violating the very justification you used to dismiss my changes. Your behaviour to then send me a polite note also gives the air of pretense, since my a stated justification for the edits which you missed was that given the relatively short period of time HMS Uganda was British, compared to the extended period of time HMCS Uganda/Quebec was Canadian, not to mention that her heaviest combat was Canadian, that making HMCS Uganda redirect to HMS Uganda was highly offensive and should be switched. This would be the case no matter which two nations commissioned any ship. It is particularly problematic when it contains strident echos of the history of dismissive and condescending behaviour toward colonials by the home nation. Of course, having looked at your edit history, I see that you are quite a naval Anglophile. You should certainly be forgiven for having so easily defaulted to the behaviour of those, in the history of which, you have so clearly immersed yourself. In the spirit of civil and respectful discourse in which your note to me was proffered, and this response is offered, I would respectfully suggest that for any similar instances in the future, you respond by first sending the note querying the edit, rather than revert it. Particularly in cases where the general content has been barely altered and no reasonable assertion of damage to the information offered on the topic can be made. I trust, that in the future, I would be allowed to make such a reasonable change to these two articles without risk of summary rejection by yourself, or perhaps other, less considerate editors, who might wish to set themselves up as arbiters of orthodoxy as often happens on this site. Reversion is for damage done to articles by vandals, propagandists, self-promoters etc. Reversion is NOT editing. When it is treated as a legitimate tool because one disagrees with an edit, it is offensive and unneccesarily confrontational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.176.149 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Nelson Touch

As you clearly have an interest in this sort of thing, I wonder if you might be kind enough to visit my user page and look at an article I am writing on this subject. Do you think it should be a stand alone article, or would it be better integrated into another? If so which? The Nelson touch is mentioned in the article about his life but I don't believe the context to be correct. If you have not already gathered, I am new to Wikipedia and this will be my first article, so any advice would be gratefully received.--Ykraps (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Is it acceptable to butt into peoples talk pages in this fashion? If not do excuse me.

John Perkins (Jack Punch)

How do I change the disambiguation? Also, every source I've cited is accurate to the best of my knowledge but by all means check them yourself. Thank you for the feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corneredmouse (talk • contribs) 21:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for that. Done the small edits. The bigger edits will take more time. Unfortunately this article pretty much is original thought because as far as I'm aware I'm the only person to try and serious research on this guy. Also, do you own/operate the age of Nelson website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corneredmouse (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC) To be honest provided that the essential information is kept such as his achievements and the ships he commanded etc then I don't mind removing the opinions. Basically Perkins is a subject that I'm quite passionate about and I've written a number of articles and even a book about him. A number of publishers have been positive and keen about the book/articles but mentioned that they didn't believe he existed because he wasn't on wikipedia (a lot of the research being quite obscure and generally unavailable) so I taught myself a little about how to do things on here and put an article up. I know it's not perfect and that wikipedia is not a forum for original thought but I'm not that good with the internet and so would be happy for any help you could offer. I simply want people to be aware that people like Perkins and Paul Cuffe and Dumas existed. Black history is not simply about slavery. I'll rewrite the article on word and post it on my talk section if you wouldn't mind taking another look once I'm done. Hopefully second time lucky! I'll let you know when its up.

Better? John Perkins (Royal Navy Officer) --Corneredmouse (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Also, thanks for tidying up the Arab article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corneredmouse (talk • contribs) 22:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing those edits. Out of curiosity, how would I go about estimating prize money? I know that's a huge question but are there any definitive lists out there that you know of that would give me some ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corneredmouse (talk • contribs) 08:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Benea. You have new messages at MBK004's talk page.
Message added 06:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-MBK₀₀₄ 06:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And I have responded to your latest query. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what he has to say, but otherwise I think it's a pretty unlikely coincidence. Benea (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

HMS Drake 1779

Many thanks for sorting those edits. Corneredmouse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corneredmouse (talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

French Frigate Niemen (1808) and HMS Niemen (1809)

Hi Benea, shouldn't we merge these two articles under the French Frigate article, per usual practice? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not neccessarily. Two articles for notable careers is acceptable practice. If anything though the precedent would be the other way. with the longer and more notable service being in the RN. Benea (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Done. Neither career is notable, but the UK is less not notable. :-) Combining makes for a stronger article, with a picture even.Acad Ronin (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, both are notable, at least by our standards, but this is a case where one article will probably do to catch the most notable. Benea (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year, both of you! Just to mention that I've significantly altered the article on HMS Queen (1839) to include references to what were originally ordered as her sisterships. We could really do with an article started on the half-sister HMS Frederick William (1860), one of the few screw battleships for which no entry has been produced. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The same to you Rif! I'll see what I can do in the near future. Best, Benea (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

National varieties of English

So, why did you change "airplane" to "aeroplane" in this edit of Japanese repair ship Akashi? Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I found out later that aircraft was preferred, and its a sensible compromise. I had initially assumed 'airplane' was a mispelling or a misinterpretation, the original article was rather idiomatic, and indeed from the user's later edits to the article, this seems to have been the case. Isn't learning things wonderful. Benea (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Why in the world would you think it was a misspelling, and why would you still think that now? Are you that insulated that you've never heard of airplanes? Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think you had a bad holiday. Benea (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a rhetorical question. I just can't figure out any way that you could have thought that "airplanes" was a misspelling. Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Maurice Swynfen Fitzmaurice

On January 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maurice Swynfen Fitzmaurice, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John Elliot (Royal Navy officer)

On January 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Elliot (Royal Navy officer), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

James Colnett

Hey, nice work on the James Colnett page--and so fast. In researching I saw Colnett had an entry at the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, but couldn't access it. I thought my library subscribed, but apparently not. Looks like a great resource. Anyhow, thanks! Pfly (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its a great resource though it certainly helps to be at the source. Its an interesting article now, and an enjoyable read! Keep up the good work! Benea (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Thanet (H29)

On January 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Thanet (H29), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Almost two years ago, you participated in the deletion discussion of the Otis AFB F-94C Disappearance page here. I've finally gotten around to fixing it to something worth while, so I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at it here before I upload it to the main space. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for George Eyre

On January 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Eyre, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Princess (1740)

On January 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Princess (1740), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Alcmene (1794)

On January 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Alcmene (1794), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project 12:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

HMS Canopus

Benea-- do you know why the RN chose this name? The dab page linked above states that the vessels were named after the star. This seems dubious, as the star is not visible in the UK, and the first Canopus was taken at the Battle of the Nile which took place at Aboukir Bay, which is adjacent to the ancient settlement of Canopus, Egypt. (And both town and star were likely named for Canopus, a mythological pilot of Menelaus' ship in the Trojan war, but I have not delved that far into it.) Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting point. Paine's book on warships attributes the naming of the second Canopus to the ancient town near the Nile, though its fairly obvious I think that the choice of name was influenced by having been carried by the ship of the line. There isn't an immediately obvious link between the names chosen for the Canopus class battleships, but they all reused names from large ships of the line, all third rates or larger, and all active during the Napoleonic Wars and would have been known to Nelson. The implication is therefore that the first Canopus also takes its name from the town, and this is extremely plausible. Most of the ships taken at the Nile were brought into the RN under their French names, the only other exception apart from Franklin/Canopus was Aquilon, which became Aboukir, a direct reference to the battle she was captured in. It was not uncommon to change the names of prizes to commemorate the actions they were taken in. For example one of the ships that escaped the Nile, Guillaume Tell, was captured off Malta two years later, and became HMS Malta. Naming RN ships after stars is less common, HMS Sirius is one example I can think of off the top of my head, though there may be more (there were also ships named HMS Star, and the name North Star in the navy dates from 1810, and Morning Star from 1672.) Ships like HMS Castor and HMS Pollux are more likely to have been named after the mythological characters than the stars though. In conclusion, being named after the star is not impossible but I think its unlikely. Similarly the name may commemorate the mythological figure (names doing so abounded in the navy of the period) but I would guess this is a added bonus, if it even occurred to the Admiralty at all, and was almost certainly not the main motivation in choosing the name. The first ship appears to be named after the town with the intention of commemorating the battle fought near it, and this is implied in a written source. The second was again named after the town and hence the battle, but primarily I suspect to perpetuate the name of the first. Benea (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Your source is sufficient to negate the uncited statement on the dab page, so I will remove it. Kablammo (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John Sheridan (Royal Navy officer)

On January 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Sheridan (Royal Navy officer), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

HMS Wolverine/Wolverene

Not sure how good your references are, but since you have an interest in this era, would you happen to know whether there were two ships, one named Wolverine and one named Wolverene, serving in 1805? Very unlikely I would think, but as someone has challenged a hook at DYK I thought you might be able to check. Gatoclass (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There was only one in 1805. The former HMS Wolverine, an experimental brig (or bark-rigged) sloop converted in 1798 out of what was originally a collier, was sunk in action in the North Atlantic on 21 March 1804. The new HMS Wolverine was a purpose-built brig sloop of the Cruizer class, built at Topsham in 1804-1805, which went on to serve in the RN until 1815. Both ships were named Wolverine, but spelling was always irregular during the 18th and early 19th century (even in official records) so the spelling variation Wolverene occurs sometimes, but does not indicate a different vessel. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1942

Would this list benifit from splitting by month now? Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I wondered that as well. There's still only a small proportion of the total ships sunk that year on the list anyway, so it's almost certainly going to get a lot bigger. Might be better to split it sooner rather than later. Benea (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Caribbean

Just for the accuracy, which wreck of a Cornwallis is the one now in the coral reef park at Carlisle Bay (travelblog.org)? I didn't see anything that the SS Cornwallis was raised, so it must be a namesake. Joerg, the BajanZindy (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, there's plenty of evidence on the blogs that the Cornwallis they're talking about is the one that was sunk in the area by a U-boat, only thing is that ship was repaired and sunk again hundreds of miles away from the Caribbean. There's one source that says that it is a portion of the ship that can be dived on in the bay. Maybe a piece that broke off as a result of the torpedoing, or when she was raised, and is still down there. No other ship of that name was torpedoed during the war. Benea (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Unit_conversions

Hello, I am contacting you because you are a naval history contributor. I propose to add an additional note to the "manual of style", warning not to use literal conversions for gun names, where the calibre, gun weight or projectile weight used in the gun name is just a convenient approximation rather than an exact measurement. This applies to cases such British "4.7 inch" guns, British "18 inch torpedoes", "6 pounder guns" etc... in such cases, using the {{convert}} template produces incorrect results and should not be used. In such cases we need to hardcode "4.7-inch (120-mm)", "18-inch (450-mm)". Currently well-meaning folks keep going through these articles and adding {{convert}} everywhere without understanding the subject matter, producing rubbish like "18 inch (460 mm) torpedo" and 12 pounder (5.4 kg).. We also ne3ed, in my opinion, to agree to what degree we abbreviate calibres in conversion e.g. 12-inch = 305 mm, 4-inch = 102 mm, 6-inch = 152-mm, etc.. What is your opinion on this ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wasp

Dear Benea
Could you have a quick look at HMS Wasp and confirm the 1884 torpedo boat? Winfield doesn't list it, and a quick Google search doesn't reveal anything. Shem (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, she was apparently a 12-ton torpedo boat built by Thorneycroft at Chiswick in 1884 for service with the Australians. She was sold c. 1906, but Colledge makes the caveat that while those details were listed in Brassey's naval annual, the ship has not been traced. Lyon and Winfield have some further details on what is presumably this vessel described as a 'second class spar TB for Tasmania naval service.' Her dimensions were the same as the Defender class vessels used by the RN at the time, which makes them more or less the same as the dimensions in Colledge, making it likely these are the same ship. L&W have her as launched in late December 1883, rather than 1884, though there is a question mark over the exact date. According to them she was deleted from Tasmanian service c. 1900, and the hull put up for sale in 1917. An explanation for why this vessel is difficult to track may be that, according to L&W, the name Wasp was only used by Thorneycroft while building her, the Tasmanians never named her but used her yard number. Benea (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally this is almost certainly the TB 191 pictured. Though her fate still seems uncertain, the caption from the AWM has 'ARRIVED IN TASMANIA IN 1884 AND WAS SOLD TO SOUTH AUSTRALIA IN THE LATE 1880'S.', while our wikipedia article on the Colonial navies of Australia has 'In 1883, Tasmania purchased the second-class torpedo boat TB 191. Gillett (1977) refers to this vessel as TB 1 not TB 191. The ship arrived in Hobart on May 1, 1884 and remained in Tasmania until it was transferred to South Australia in 1905.' Benea (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Gosh - talk about a comprehensive answer! I think it is fair to say that she was never actually HMS Wasp, and I'll adjust the ship index page accordingly. Thanks. Shem (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the article at The Naval Historical Society of Australia bears out everything you've said. Thanks again. Shem (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is also borne out by Thornycrofts own records. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Speedy (1782)

I have undertaken to review the article HMS Speedy (1782) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or queries you may have during this period. ✽ Familiae Watt§ ^(TALK) 11:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have passed HMS Speedy and it is now listed as a Good Article. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 10:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I got it wrong - but if I am identified as an issue on a talk page - common courtesy would at least notify me as an interested party?. Anyways parsec has fixed the issue and I am in support of parallel tagging if it is ok with everybody - cheers SatuSuro 04:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

HMS London (1656)

Hi, Ben! Usual type of request - can you correct the title (and links) for the article on the London of 1656, which is currently incorrectly headed HMS London (1654) - the ship was not ordered until July 1654 and was launched in June 1656. Thanks.
PS: I have corrected the articles on the Charles of 1668, London of 1670 and Saint Andrew of 1670, which for some unknown reason stated they were "Second rates" - whereas the three were all completed as First rates and remained so, except that the Charles was later renamed Saint George and subsequently reclassed as a Second Rate. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem Rif, I've moved it to HMS London (1656). I don't have Lavery's book in front of me but I suspect that this may be where the earlier date has come from. Colledge also has 1656 (though with a June launch date). As an unrelated aside, do you know Nicholas Rodger at all? Benea (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for prompt action Ben. Yes, I note that Brian Lavery has 1654 in his Ship of the Line Vol.1, but that is definitely an error. Sadly there are a few small errors in the tables at the back of that book (please bear in mind it was published in 1983), e.g. he omits the 74-gun Marlborough of 1767 from the list of Ramillies class Third Rates on p.177, but quotes the construction dates of Marlborough against the entry for the Magnificent. However, I stress that none of these minor errors detract from the overall accuracy of the work.

I don't really know Nicholas Rodger, although we have spoken over the phone at one time. His two recent books on the history of the Navy are certainly superb, and strongly to be recommended.
Out of interest, my next book, First Rate, is now virtually complete and is now being advertised by amazon.co.uk although frankly I don't think the release date of July 2010 is going to be met. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Benea: Is it really necessary to list the London of 1656 as HMS London (1656)? I am aware that I came across a recommendation some time ago (was it in the Manual of Style? - I can't re-locate it) that all British warships should have the HMS prefix irrespective of date. Dubious in the case of dates earlier than the 1790s, it defies all sense and logic to apply it to a warship of the Commonwealth/Protectorate era, when there was no "His Majesty" extant, from the execution of Charles I (1649) to the Restoration in 1660. martinev (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Mary Rose at FAC

Since you have been an active commentator, reviewer or editor of the article Mary Rose, I'd like to announce that it's been nominated for featured article status. The nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Rose/archive1. I would very much appreciate your comments, suggestions for improvement or support of the nomination.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Trafalgar order of battle and casualties

Please see Talk:Trafalgar order of battle and casualties#Gravina--Toddy1 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for George Elliot (1784–1863)

On February 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Elliot (1784–1863), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Modeste (1793)

On February 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Modeste (1793), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

New Star incident

I fully agree with your comments, and have removed the offending section from the article. If there is any further disruption over that section I'll be kicking backsides, administratively speaking. BTW, ever considered becoming an admin yourself? I'd be pleased to nominate you. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, the page seems to have quietened down, so hopefully there'll be no more bother over it. I've occasionally thought about it, I've certainly no objection to being an admin if the community feels I could be of use in some way? Benea (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll start working on a nom in the next few days. In the meantime, take a look at WP:ARL and pages linked therefrom. Mjroots (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ta muchly, no rush though, I'll probably be pretty busy for the next couple of weeks so it might be better to wait until after then. Benea (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ettiquette

Don't you think it would be a little courteus to discuss things before you take it upon yourself to change the title of a page? Especially when you see that I created it and I am actively working on it. That is rude. Christopher Billop is a unique historical figure especially in New York history almost always referred to as "Captain" , nobody refers to him as "Royal Navy Officer". 7mike5000 (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The convention on wikipedia is not to use a specific rank as a disambiguating term. The obvious reason is that Billopp's (or Billop? I'm not sure if you've spelt it wrong above or in the article title?) service is not just limited to his time as captain. Have a look through Category:Royal Navy officers and Category:Royal Navy admirals for examples (William Bradley (Royal Navy officer), Basil Brooke (Royal Navy officer), Samuel Brown (Royal Navy officer), John Cooke (Royal Navy officer), Archibald Cochrane (Royal Navy officer), Christopher Cole (Royal Navy officer) are a very few examples of this convention in practice). I'm sorry if you thought it was rude, but remember WP:BOLD, and to WP:AGF. And to use Template:Inuse in future to avoid edit conflicts. Benea (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Certain historical figures are noted by their rank, he is one of them. "Captain" also differentiates him from his great-grandson also named Christopher Billopp, who is usually referred to by his rank in the loyalist militia "colonel". Billopp's claim to fame is for his activities in the colonies not in the Royal navy. I do see your point however. But it is still nice to explain beforehand.7mike5000 (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lord George Paulet

On March 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lord George Paulet, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

and sorry for letting 'mer'canisms slip in. Thanks for the help filling in and improving the quality. W Nowicki (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, happy to help! Good work on the articles. Benea (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of misleading categories

Ben, can you kindly arrange to remove the category pages "Category:First-rate Frigates of the Royal Navy", "Category:Second-rate Frigates of the Royal Navy", and "Category:Third-rate Frigates of the Royal Navy" as they were clearly put in be someone who did not understand the difference between "First Rate" and "First Class" and are highly misleading. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that issue seems to have been settled now, it's probably time to delete them. I've suggested they be tagged by their author as a self nom for speedy deletion, which will be quicker and easier than going through the CfD process. Benea (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Adamant (1780)

On March 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Adamant (1780), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jürgen Wattenberg

On March 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jürgen Wattenberg, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Give Me A Chance

Could you give me a chance to explain to you why the articles should be merged into one called "list of wars 1900-1999" and then create "list of wars 2000-2099"? B-Machine (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for James Walker (Royal Navy officer)

On March 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Walker (Royal Navy officer), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Neptune (1797)

On April 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Neptune (1797), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for French ship Neptune (1803)

On April 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article French ship Neptune (1803), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Spanish ship Neptuno (1795)

On April 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spanish ship Neptuno (1795), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ben Asdale

Hi Benea, thank you for promptly improving the article Ben Asdale – I felt a bit guilty creating it then just leaving other editors to sort it out but I know little or nothing about the subject except it didn't belong where it was. Thanks and best wishes Andy F (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I just gave it a few fixes and tweaks. Looks in fairly good shape now. Best, Benea (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cherbourg Project

Thx a lot for a wonderful editing of this paper.

Hope you enjoyed the story .

Fttxguru (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

HMS Levant

Does HMS Levant need disambiguating? The one that Constitution captured I had linked as HMS Levant (1813). --Brad (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes absolutely. There was one other warship named Levant, while another was to have been renamed Levant, but never was. I'll fix this up now. Benea (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Nelson Touch 2

Thanks for your feedback and suggestions. I appreciate that the phrase 'the Nelson Touch' was also used to describe Nelson's leadership/motivational skills and indeed this is mentioned in the main article but felt it needed some elaboration. I toyed with the idea of editing the article but thought it would get too messy. I am loathed to dilute the idea by adding elements to different articles, as you suggest, because I feel the phrase is sufficiently well known to warrant its own section; whether that is within another article under a sub-heading or on its own, I'm not certain. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this. I guess my initial reaction was to start an article that others like yourself could expand. I don't know that I have the confidence or depth of knowledge to write an entire article on my own (or the time for that matter!) Also, as a stand alone article, it could be linked to other entries where the phrase is used. With regards to the sexual connotations, this has only come to light since the Nelson Letters Project (2001?-2005) so it is comparatively recent thinking. I don't have any books by Andrew Lambert, am I missing something?!--Ykraps (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded the article to include a bit about Nelson's leadership skills if you would like to take another look.--Ykraps (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to have let this lie so long. I've given it a look over, it looks pretty good. There are a few minor concerns I have over the style and tone, try for example to avoid making definitive statements over subjective interpretations, but this is not a majorr problem. The scope still interests me, as to whether its a study of Nelson's tactics, the history of the term, etc. Some more work on defining this could be good. I think you asked me about Lambert's book? 'Nelson : Britannia's god of war '. It's a pretty thorough look at the historiography of Nelson, and would make a good addition I think to talking about the myth that's grown up around Nelson, his tactics, his personality, etc. Benea (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to me, I appreciate you are probably busy. I have moved the article to User:Ykraps/The Nelson Touch and posted a request for feedback where I was ticked off for referring to 'Nelson's genius' :) I will have a go at rewording some of the more subjective statements but starting every sentence with 'it has been suggested' or 'some people may say' tends to disrupt the flow so I find this quite difficult. I will look out for Andrew Lambert's book the next time I'm in Waterstones. In the meantime however any comments or suggestions would be gratefully received.--Ykraps (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something, Ykraps. Andrew's books on The Last Sailing Battlefleet: Maintaining Naval Mastery 1815-1850 (Conway, 1991. ISBN 0-85177-591-8) and Battleships in Transition: The Creation of the Steam Battlefleet 1815-1860 (Conway, 1984. ISBN 0-85177-315-X) are vital to understanding the post-Napoleonic war developments. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OOP5

I thought I checked the dates but patently not, Thanks for catching my error Victuallers (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sir Thomas Troubridge, 3rd Baronet

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ernest Troubridge

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Andrei Alexandrovich Popov

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on William Peere Williams-Freeman

I occasionally dump articles from the old DNB into Wikipedia, on the grounds that a 120-year-old well-written article is better than no article at all, and in the hope that other editors with other skills will improve them. It is rare that I see such spectacular and immediate improvement as the work you did on William Peere Williams-Freeman. Thanks.

I listed him as an "admiral of the fleet," but is quite clear that he never actually served in this capacity (or in fact an any capacity after 1782, when he was still a post-captain.) Is there a convention for describing a "yellow admiral" in Wikipedia articles?

By chance, would it be possible for you to add references for the new information that was not part of the original DNB article? I have no clue as to where you got all of this so quickly.

If you enjoy this kind of work, please take a look at Christopher Nesham.

Thanks. -Arch dude (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. As to the ranks you are correct to list him as an admiral of the fleet. Rank and service were not the closely connected things they are today. While an officer could be promoted through the ranks it did not guarantee him an assignment, and this went for lieutenants, commanders and post captains as well as those of flag rank. Nelson for example spent a considerable period without a posting between the end of the American War of Independence and the start of the French Revolutionary Wars. Had the latter conflict not begun he too might one day have reached flag rank and maybe died an admiral of the fleet having seen no further service. These officers were still kept on the lists of seniority and were still eligible for commands as and when they came up. An officer who had seen no active service since he was a post captain could potentially be given a command many years later as a vice-admiral or admiral (Fleetwood Pellew springs to mind as one example). Or they might never receive another command, but they would still retain their rank, and indeed expect and receive further promotions. We don't have an especial way of classing these officers as distinct from those who did receive commands, I think its enough to say that they received their promotions but did not receive any appointments before their deaths. I've put a cite in to the updated online ODNB entry, the source of a few facts which I fleshed the article out with. I'll take a look at Nesham, there are a few sources that might cover more of his life. Best, Benea (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Royal Navy

The article deals with a list of active ships of the Royal navy, not just specifically commissioned ships. The list also clearly defines commissioned and non-commissioned ships any way. Recon.Army (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you read the talk page you'll see that we've been here before and there are good reasons why this distinction has been retained. Active is a subjective term and the list has historically been used to contain only the commissioned ships (Ambush is a very long stretch since she has yet to even be launched). There used to be a section on ships handed over but not yet commissioned, which I've readded as a reasonable compromise, and explained on the talkpage.

Incidentally you've been making some edits to pages such as expanding the image box size beyond 300px, trying to force the size of thumbnails, using large amounts of whitespace and adding large list sections to articles. These are generally deprecated for a number of reasons. And the images you've been uploading appear to not be permissible on wikipedia, and may soon be deleted. Benea (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Piracy

Hello, You are invited to join WikiProject Piracy! We are an established project that has recently become inactive and needs to overhaul its activities. The focus of this WikiProject considerably covers a large historical period and specific topics, so please feel free to contribute within your own area of interest. If you would like to take a look at the project, please click the link above. If you find you would be interested in joining the project, then feel free to sign up here.

Metabaronic (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

HMS Shannon (1855)

Thanks for the edits and additional info. My copies of Lyon and College are in storage so I started this stub as pretty barebones. Thanks for moving it along! Letterofmarque (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just did some minor tweaks. Keep up the good work! Benea (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I'm trying to reformat the list of wars 1500-1799 article. I'm doing the 1700-1799 section. Somehow the stuff I was doing ended up on the bottom of page. What the hell happened? B-Machine (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you forgot to close the table coding. Adding this |} at the end of the code will close it and allow it to display properly. As long as you remember to do that, you can add in the other wars and it will still display correctly. Benea (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe I forgot that. Thanks. By the way, please tell the other editors to not go that article yet. I want to finish the section first. B-Machine (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You can put the {{In use}} template on the page, which will notify editors that the page is being worked on and will reduce edit conflicts. Benea (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about how long the list of wars 1500-1799 article is. Should it be split into three parts (1500-1599, 1600-1699, and 1700-1799)? B-Machine (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit of a grey area, it doesn't seem drastically long in itself, but I wouldn't be opposed to a split. Benea (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "first rate" and similar

Dear Benea, please come and participate in the discussion at Talk:First-rate. Shem (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Talkback

Hello, Benea. You have new messages at Talk:first-rate.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

British or English?

Hi Benea,
I suspect that nelson is one of your watched pages too so you may have already seen the recent edits. I have never considered it before, but I think 78.147.142.202 may have a point. Although Nelson was certainly English, he was a flag officer in the RN which is a British institution. Any thoughts?--Ykraps (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I tend to avoid assigning nationality when writing articles about naval officers of the period, with the format 'xxx was an officer of the Royal Navy', and later including the birthplace, if known, in the opening section dealing with the subject's early life. English and British are both technically correct, it may be better to avoid any emphasis on one over the other, by removing this from the lead and saving the statement that he was born in England for later. Benea (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That's my feeling too. Although, as you say, both are technically correct; it does lend the sentence a certain ambiguity. If you look at the article on John Elliot, you will see he is reffered to as a Scottish officer which to my mind infers that the navy was Scottish.

I believe at one time there was a Royal Navy officer who was Russian! You can see how this might cause a headache.--Ykraps (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree. I'm certainly not averse to removing it from the article, especially if it leads to any more serious disputes. Nationality is often ridiculously contested on wikipedia, I find it a good rule of thumb to avoid making definite claims, even for something like 'British' versus 'English'. Benea (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Provided you remember that pre-1707 it was definitely "English" rather than "British". And of course throughout the 18th and most of the 19th century, the 'nationality' reference in contemporary sources was almost always to 'English' even where they unquestionably meant British. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rif, thanks for your input. Although I have my own ideas, my overriding concern is that of continuity. Nelson is referred to as an English Admiral but Charles Tyler is referred to as a British one, even though he is English too. Whatever the style, I would like to see it used throughout. Or am I just being pedantic? Please feel free to offer an opinion on that.--Ykraps (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As an accomplished pedant myself (it helps when writing lengthy reference books), I would never criticise the art-form. However, in this case it is your desire for consistency which I must comment on. The Georgian era (and those preceding it) was replete with inconsistencies, and seeking accuracy (to the extent of being a pedant!) means trying to understand those inconsistencies. Some are obvious, e.g. no-one bothered abour "accurate" spelling in this period, because there was no such thing as "right" or "wrong" spelling - so trying to argue whether a name is spelt correctly or incorrectly is totally pointless.

The trouble with "British" v "English" is that the English (unlike the Scottish, Welsh and Irish) usually didn't remember that there is a difference between the two terms; of course, that situation hasn't changed to this day! But technically, the Royal Navy was English until 6 March 1707 (there was a minute Scottish Navy in existence until then) on which day "Great Britain" legally came into existence, and was thereafter British. So the ships should be described in those terms.

As to individual people, it was of course correct to say that they were both British subjects and at the same time of either English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish nationality (one could add Cornish, as most indigenous inhabitants of Cornwall considered themselves to be of Cornish rather than English nationality); of course this doesn't take account of the several thousands of people serving in the Royal Navy who were not of any of these nationalities, but hailed from overseas.

Thus someone such as Nelson or Tyler could technically be described as both British and English. However, when referring to either of them as Admiral (or any other rank) means you are using their title in the Royal Navy, and if you wish to be consistent then I suggest that for this reason you should identify the title in the same way as for ships, i.e. as "English" up to 7 March 1707 and "British thereafter.

Now let me be really a pedant and point out that Nelson was never an Admiral, either a British one or an English one! He was, of course, a Vice-Admiral. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure whether that's a yes or a no. :) In any event I don't know that I would have been brave enough to revert the IP User's edits (not least because I think he/she may be right). I don't think the Act of Union complicates matters, as you say, before that date the navy was English and after it was British. Failing that, Benea's suggestion of not mentioning the nationality and rank in the same sentence seems acceptable. For Example: Sir Henry Blackwood KCB etc. was a Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy. Then mention the fact that he was Irish later on.

At the risk of opening another can of worms; I'm not sure I concur with regards to ships. The 'nationality' of a ship depended on which navy it was in at the time and as some ships swapped sides more than once I find it difficult to see how you can assign 'nationalities' (if that makes sense). For example was Minerve a French frigate or a British one. The answer is of course that she was both (twice!). I would be inclined to describe her as a French built frigate that served in both the French and Royal Navies and elaborate on this later in the article.

Finally, I am English and British, and understand the difference perfectly. My nationality is British, it says so on my passport! Although it also describes me as a citizen and I would argue that I was a subject (pedantic?). Yours (in good humour)--Ykraps (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC):)

My solution to these problems can be seen at articles like HMS Concorde (1783) (HMS Concorde was a 32-gun fifth rate frigate of the Royal Navy. She had previously served in the French Navy under the name Concorde.) This can be amended of course to something like 'she had previously served in the French Navy as the 36-gun Concorde, etc. Details on changes of armaments, etc can be covered in the 'construction' or 'design' section of the article. My preferred approach when dealing with people, is to use something like 'Savage Mostyn (c.1713 – 16 September 1757) was an officer of the Royal Navy who saw service...' and avoid using the nationality at any stage, unless it is immediately relevant. You may get some people who insist on adding 'British' to Royal Navy, insisting that it is too Eurocentric or British biased without. Sometimes this leads to plain inaccuracies, as for officers or ships prior to 1707, etc, and this should of course be challenged. Otherwise, I rarely get involved as some people are fully prepared to be insistent and even edit war over these little details. Benea (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that describing the Minerve as a French built frigate that served in both the French and Royal Navies is perfectly justified (for the pedants like us, I suggest you add the words "at different times"). I am perfectly happy that the adjective of national identity can be helpfully omitted in most contexts when describing a Royal Navy officer.

As regards your passport, it is not true to say it describes you as a citizen (except in the notes on pp.2 and 3). Legally, the status is "subject of the United Kingdom" (but a "citizen of the European Community); some of us have been campaigning for a long while to get the word "citizen" substituted for "subject". But this is probably not a topic for a discussion on sailing warships. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Since 1948 British subject has had a very restricted meaning, and if you're English as well you are most unlikely to be one! David Underdown (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well according to that; as I was born in England between 1949 and 1982, I am a British subject and citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies! I told you I would argue it! :)--Ykraps (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

British English or US English

I made a mistake on the DYK nomination page by mis-spelling Artefact. I corrected it but in the meantime you have corrected the article. I would prefer artefact if that is ok with you? (I accept there may have been the two forms used in the article as I kept getting mixed up myself). As the article is about a British artefact I would prefer the British spelling.--Senra (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes and this is in keeping with WP:ENGVAR, ie a British English subject (a British archaeological discovery) uses British English spelling ('artefact' over 'artifact'). I was slightly surprised to see the American spelling, hence I corrected the article to use the British spelling. Benea (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

found the issue - it was not me - it was MC10 on 18:10 28 June 2010 - I thought I had been more careful than that --Senra (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

see my version here --Senra (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see it is settled, I'll edit the DYK nomination, if that hasn't happened already.--SPhilbrickT 17:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was my mistake; I had presumed that it was a misspelling. My apologies. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, its an easy and common mistake. No harm done. Benea (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

How do I nominate an article for a name change? B-Machine (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves is what you want. The instructions there are pretty complete, just list the article there and the request can be considered. Which article was it that you wanted to rename? Best, Benea (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking 2010 Kingston unrest should be renamed 2010 Kingston conflict. It kind of makes it sound like this event was a riot. It wasn't. It was an armed conflict between the Jamaican military and the Shower Posse, a Jamaican drug cartel. B-Machine (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Concorde (1783)

-- Cirt (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Masterman Hardy

Hello again, I dropped in here to get some some information on Thomas Hardy and was disappointed to find that there wasn't any (hardly). I thought this was a bit poor for someone so notable (I would say that living in Dorset) so I have added some. It is however lacking in references and the ones I have added are all from the same source and I know how Wikipedia hates that. I am quite prepared to come back to the article at a later date but I am currently busy with other things. I am concerned that some or all of this work will be deleted. Is there a way of tagging it to prevent this?
Also if you or any of your colleagues want to have a crack at dividing it into sections, adding links, citations etc. they are more than welcome! Regards--Ykraps (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its often funny how some of the most famous naval commanders have so little information. This is partly because short articles were written early in wikipedia's history, and the articles have developed slowly and organically from there. Jervis' article is another example that springs to mind. The article seems in good shape, I'll keep an eye on it for now, but I don't think there's any danger in the edits being removed. I'll give it a copyedit soon, and maybe add some more references. Best, Benea (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw Jervis needed work when I linked the Hardy article to it. May be that will go on my list too. By the way, I see now that your interest is ships. I think I had it in my head that this was one of your projects because we had a discussion about Nelson a while back. Thanks for having a look at it anyway. Do you know what project it would be under?

On the subject of ships however, the article on Minerve (later HMS Minerve) states that she was a 40 gun frigate. All the info I have suggests she was a 38. Is someone's data incorrect or was her armament changed? I know this happened a lot, particularly when it became fashionable to mount carronades and various captains would have different ideas about size, type and number etc. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I like what you've done with the page, it's much easier to read now. Do you think it's worth more than its stub status now?--Ykraps (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely more than a stub. Probably start class, but it shouldn't take much work to bring it up to higher ratings. As to Minerve, books like Colledge and Winfield agree on a rating of 38. This generally excludes carronades, and other specialised armament that the commander might have added themselves, and uses the official admiralty rating. Authors like James, et al, usually went to great lengths to track and account for the minute details of ships' armaments when describing actions and battles, and it is probably from there that the descriptions of these ships as carrying a few guns more than the official records stated come from, as they use the number of guns carried in that action, including those normally excluded from the official rating. Benea (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am still unsure as to whether I should alter the information or let it stand. The Hardy article mentions the Minerve as a 38 but links to an article that says it was a 40 and although some will assume her armament changed, others will see it as a continuity error. I thought the answer might be to refer to ships by their rating but this isn't foolproof either as the rating system changed after 1810 (as I am sure you know). As you are a member of this project I will leave it to you to decide.

Do you want me to put the Hardy article up for peer review?--Ykraps (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Like the majority of the French 18-pounder frigates which the Royal Navy captured and incorporated into the RN, the Minerve was rated as a 40-gun frigate in the French Navy but was rated as 38 guns once established in the British Navy; she remained established as a 38-gun ship throughout her British service. It is certainly true that she carried more than this in British service including her carronades - she actually had 28 x 18pdrs on the upper deck, with 8 x 9pdrs and 6 x 32pdr carronades on the quarterdeck, and 2 x 9pdrs and 2 x 32pdr carronades on the forecastle; a fairly standard armament at this date.

It was actually in February 1817 that the rating system changed, and from that time all carronades were included in the established number of guns (so if the Minerve had lasted until 1817, she would have been rerated as 46 guns, as in fact happened with most of the surviving ex-French frigates in the RN at that date). Until that date, carronades only "counted" if they were in place of long guns, in this particular case this did not apply. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Rif. Thanks for the info, which seems comprehensive. I know that some 'boats' changed all their long guns for carronades and often wondered whether they were rated as 'no guns'! Now I know the answer!--Ykraps (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but when the carronades replaced "long" guns (e.g. on the upper deck of a sloop or post ship, thus providing its main battery), such carronades were counted. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant too :). Incidentally, when I was talking about ratings, I was referring to 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. I understood that this system changed in 1810. Thus a '74' such as the Triumph was re-rated from a 3rd rate to a 4th rate after this date. Am I not correct in my thinking?--Ykraps (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It was definitely February 1817 when the restructuring of the rates took place. The recommendation from the Board of Admiralty to the Prince Regent was dated 25 November 1816, but the Order in Council establishing the new ratings was issued in February 1817.

Of course, individual ships were sometimes re-rated at times outside the general changes, when there was a wholesale change in that particular vessel's armament. I have to say that this did not happen to the Triumph, which remained rated at 74 guns. You do need to distinguish between the established armament of a vessel (which rarely altered) and the actual guns carried, which might happen quite frequently for a variety of reasons; guns might be lost overboard during a storm, or "burst" in service and thus useless, or jettisoned to speed the ship during a chase, or indeed removed down into the hold in order to use the ship (temporarily) as a troop transport. Also some of the guns were removed from a ship during peacetime service, to reduce the stress on the ship's structure, which is why there was actually a distinction between the wartime complement of guns (and men) and the lower peacetime complement - the figure normally quoted for any vessel is the highest (wartimne) establishment). There is no point in trying to list every time that guns were removed from or added to a ship, unless that change was a permament change in its established number of guns. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I need to do a bit more reading. Truth be told, I wasn't sure about Triumph but it was the only '74' I could think of, off the top of my head, that was around in 1810.--Ykraps (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Might I modestly recommend the 1793-1817 volume of my own British Warships in the Age of Sail series, which should explain most points?

There was a further major change in the rating system in 1856. From that date, the First Rate comprised all Ships carrying 110 guns and upwards, or the complement of which consisted of 1,000 men or more; the Second Rate included one of HM's royal yachts, and otherwise comprised all ships carrying under 110 guns but more than 80 guns, or the complements of which were under 1,000 but not less than 800 men; the Third Rate included all the rest of HM's royal yachts and "all such vessels as may bear the flag of pendant of any Admiral Superintendent or Captain Superintendent of one of HM's Dockyards", and otherwise comprised all ships carrying at most 80 guns but not less than 60 guns, or the complements of which were under 800 but not less than 600 men; the Fourth Rate comprised all frigate-built ships of which the complement was not more than 600 and not less than 410 men; the Fifth Rate comprised all ships of which the complement was not more than 400 and not less than 300 men; the Sixth Rate consisted all all other ships bearing a Captain. Of unrated vessels, the category of sloops comprised all vessels commanded by Commanders; next followed all other ships commanded by Lieutenants, and having complements of not less than 60 men; finally were "smaller vessels, not classed as above, with such smaller complements as the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty may from time to time direct".

Perhaps someone (Ben??) might like to add these 1856 system changes to the article on the Rating system of the Royal Navy? Rif Winfield (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, now I am truly humbled. I see you are using your 'real' name. There is an editor called Barret Bonden but I didn't think he was Jack Aubrey's coxswain. Maybe I should check that out too! Your book looks very interesting and I will certainly look out for it! Are you allowed to refer to your own books while editing or does that constitute original research? :)--Ykraps (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I try not to refer to my own books when editing (Benea and others have been very helpful by putting in references to my books). For many items however it is difficult because the only published source for that particular material is my own books; either that or I'd have to quote the Admiralty and other Public records documents that I've used which are by definition unpublished. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Naturally I use my real name - that's real rather than 'real', please, I'm not sure why you used the apostrophe. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Rif, no offence meant but not all authors use their real name when writing so I didn't know if it was your real name or not hence the quotation marks. Yours --Ykraps (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Submarine Crest Images

Thanks for updating the one you did.. If you could see your way to updating the others in a simmilar manner..

The reason for the update to the 'standard' template is so that they don't get flagged up by a WP:DBR report that's being used to find media that genuinely doesn't have FUR's (as opposed to merely un-templated ones).

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Note, Once updated the {{Standard-Rationale}} can be removed , but you already knew that :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Empire Spearhead / Ormonde

Hi, could you expand the article to show that Empire Spearhead was renamed Ormonde and give the date if possible. Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

British Warships in the Age of Sail (book series)

Hi, Ben. Might I ask a favour, provided you think it is justified? Do you think you could insert an article on the book series (the publication details of all three existing volumes, ISBNs, etc, are on all on my userpage) and link it to the Category of Naval books in the same way as exists for The Sail and Steam Navy List? I hope this might help people in identifying the series as source material; it may also help them to realise that it is a series, as I have quite often people quoting the title without any dates following it, which sometimes makes it hard to identify to which volume they are referring. For your information, a fourth volume in the series is planned, covering the 1817-1863 period, but it will be some time before I can get around to finishing it, due to other commitments (my latest book, First Rate, comes out around September from Seaforth Publishing - see details on their website) Rif Winfield (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a good idea, I don't think there would be any concern over the notability of the series, and it would fit well alongside the academic texts we already have articles on. I'll have a look at working something brief up over the next few days. Benea (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. If you have any questions, email me on sailing.navy@btinternet.com; but for obvious reasons I would rather leave the wording entirely up to you. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Terrible (1747)

Wow! Excellent job on HMS Terrible (1747). I can't believe you did all that in a half-hour! Mingusboodle (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto HMS Vengeance (1758). You're rocking these articles! Mingusboodle (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, its no problem at all! You've probably noticed how confusing it can get with different ships having the same or similar names. I have a few sources to hand that are good for this period, so just worked them in. I liked the little anecdote about Death's privateer ship with her Lieutenant Devil and Ghost surgeon! Keep up the great work! Best, Benea (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Msa1701 and his socks

I've noticed that you've done the most work in combating Msa1701 at WP:SPI recently. I have come across a brand-new account (created after his last sock was blocked) editing RMS Queen Elizabeth. This "new" editor: Mar1993tin (talk · contribs) was attempting to disguise his apparent knowledge of our procedures by removing most of the formatting of his first edits to the page to look like a newbie while retaining perfect referencing. This is not an obvious duck yet, but could definitely use some close shadowing. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd clocked him. I'll keep an eye and see if the pattern becomes unmistakable, as his socks often do. Benea (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I Need Your Help

Some stupid person using an IP address vandalized the list of wars 1800-1899 article. I don't know how I can undo all the edits. Can you help? B-Machine (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if it is vandalism, so I'm hesitant to revert it. They have inserted Saxony as part of the Confederation of the Rhine, which appears to be correct, and placed Sicily after Sardinia. I can understand your frustration, but this may be a good faith, or even useful edit. Please try to avoid calling editors stupid, or other names, as this has got you into trouble before. Benea (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William Young (1761–1847)

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William Young (1751–1821)

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Etiquette

Hi Benea,
I am acutely aware that I have taken up large amounts of your talk page, discussing issues with editors other than yourself, and wondered whether that was acceptable behaviour or whether the conversation should have been moved elsewhere. I apologise for any faux pas committed.--Ykraps (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I share the responsibility for this, Ben. Should you wish to transfer the exchange to my talk page, please feel free to do so. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all guys, you're welcome to post here, and it's an enlightening discussion to follow. Please continue at your leisure. Benea (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! Rif Winfield (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Benea. I would prefer to keep the same conversation in the same place, so I will continue posting replies here if that's ok. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Black Prince (1816)

Hi, Ben, Something has gone astray with the infobox formatting of this page, which seemed to have happened when I was correcting the ship's dimensions. I cannot make out the cause of the error, which perhaps you can correct for me. Thanks. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rif, just a minor template problem. I've fixed the formatting and it should render fine now. Benea (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, Ben. One small issue that I'd like to draw to your attention is the use in Wiki articles of design dimensions (as opposed to actual or as-built dimensions) for wooden warships, particularly where the article writer has drawn data from The Ship of the Line (Volume 1, Appendices). I'm not suggesting you are the articles' writer, or asking you to help fix the problem (I will try to do this over time), but I'd like you to be aware of the problem. Brian Lavery's practice in this book was - where a "class" consisted of more than one ship built to a common design, to quote the designed dimensions and (burthen) tonnage for the class, and then to tabulate delow the dates and as-built tonnage of the individual vessels within that class. This was of course perfectly reasonable, but the problem arises in Wikipedia is that the person extracting the data has taken the design dimensions and the as-built tonnage for the databoxes. Clearly the two do not correspond. You will be aware that the burthen tonnage is a calculated measurement of a ship's volume, which (for the vast majority of the sailing era) was arrived at by using the formula "burthen (tons) = keel length (feet) x breadth (feet) x ½ breadth (feet), divided by 94". For any wooden ship, there was always a difference (albeit usually just a few inches) between the designed dimensions and the "as-built" dimensions, which were those actually measured following launch. This is why in my British Warships in the Age of Sail series I have recorded each vessel's as-built details as well as the design details for that class. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Amphion badge.jpg

Added FUR based on the rationale - Apparently unsourced, so asking if you know of a possible source for this.

Adding the badges for other two submarines in the same class, also appreciated if they have articles :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, there is a slightly different and slightly better version on the barrow website, but I don't know where this one has come from. You may want to ask the uploader. Which other submarines do you mean? I think all the Amphion class submarines have articles. Benea (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the other subs have articles, but not crest images... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nelson

I moved as a non-contoversial housekeeping request without, I will concede, going deeply into it. The text is, after all, still intact. If it should be moved back, although I do not wholly see the rationale, I have no problem with doing so. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

HMS Speedy

I'm working on a more compact infobox in my sandbox. Currently awaiting a couple of flag issues to be resolved before it can go live. Feel free to tweak it if you think it needs improvement. Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Mj, but I'd rather you didn't use that style of infobox on the article. Warship articles so far use a different approach, which I'd like to keep to here. Benea (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's OK, I wasn't about to steam in and add it before proposing it on the talk page in any case. I've tweaked the ship length parameter in the article though. Just one slight problem, the design of the White Ensign changed as of 1 January 1801, should the second British section display both ensigns? Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The article was using the later White Ensign in any case (now corrected). How many other RN ships in service pre-1801 have the wrong flag shown? Mjroots (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Common practice has been to display the last ensign the ship flew in that period of her career, so the post-1801 flag should be displayed there. As to your second question, very few I should think. Benea (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Take another look in my sandbox. Would that work to show the change of flag? Mjroots (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not keen on putting in a new section just for the change of ensign, and its not in keeping with common usage on all our other articles for ships that served both before and after 1801. I also have deliberately not included the details on 'commissioning' and 'decommissioning', as in the navy of this period the commission referred to individual commissions to commanders and officers of the ships, and ships were not commissioned and decommissioned as in modern navies. Benea (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Monarch (1747)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

A big thank you for your corrections on my work... much appreciated and big thanks to all your other work. Nomination for Barnstar hope you don't mind. I am currently hoping to get the casualties figures and disease sorted out on Battle of Cartegena De Inias (1741). They are by far heavily exaggerated. Bruich (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2010 (GMT)

No problem, just made a few links and a little clean up where it seemed helpful. Best, Benea (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Tirpitz the Pig

Thank you for Tirpitz (pig). A story that I did not know. It made my evening. WhaleyTim (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, just a little oddity that tickled me to take a (slight) diversion from warships and naval battles. Glad to see Tirpitz is still entertaining people, shame about his fate though! People were obviously much less sentimental back then. Thanks for your appreciation, best, Benea (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Savage Mostyn

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William Martin (Royal Navy officer)

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Cap-Français

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Freedom_of_the_City_gold_box_admiral_jervis.jpg

Freedom_of_the_City_gold_box_admiral_jervis.jpg Hi there. I thought these images were under crown copyright. I've had a look at the NMM site and it seems somewhat confusing. I'm happy for it to be deleted if I wasn't right though as I would not want to break any laws. If I am right, would it be possible for you to update that file's page appropriately so it doesn't get flagged for deletion in the future as I don't know how to do that. Thanks for pointing it out. All the best Corneredmouse (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on commons Corneredmouse. I hope this helps. Benea (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

File:St vincent jug.jpg

File:Freedom of the City gold box admiral jervis.jpg

File:Admiral of the fleet Jervis baton.jpg

File:Medal commemorating John Jervis Earl St Vincent.jpg

File:Presentation sword given to jervis.jpg

I think you're right. I didn't realise. I think I've only used them in the Jervis article. It's a shame because they really highlight the point. As far as I know there are only 5. Should I nominate them for deletion? And then once I do, should I remove the reference from the wiki article? Thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, before these are deleted I might to the NMM for their approval to use these images. I've worked with a few of the curators their before and they've always been really reasonable and really good. Particularly with copyright and usage requests. I'll see what I can do. Corneredmouse (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, the image policies are often very confusing to established users, as well as new ones. I'd probably leave a note explaining that you agree with the deletions. There doesn't seem to be an option for tagging them yourself for quick deletion, as exists on wikipedia, so that's probably the best you can do. The alternative may be to tag them as speedy for copyright violations, which should settle it more quickly. I think if you tag them as {{copyvio|1=Reason}} and put your reasoning in, that should do it. In the meantime I'd remove all these images from the Jervis article. It's a definite shame, but the only way round it would be if you were able to somehow access the items and photograph them yourself, something museums are very reluctant to allow. Benea (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be careful about that if I were you (contacting the nmm). Image usage like this is a hotly contested topic currently. There was recently an issue where a legal case was brought against a user for downloading images from the National Portrait Gallery website and uploading them here. The legal interpretation of these images is not especially clear, as the US works on a much looser interpretation than the British system, and British courts may well find differently. And as a British resident you would be subject to the more restrictive British laws. Benea (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged all the photos and removed them from the article. I might add them to the external links sections as direct links to the NMM site. That's probably more appropriate. Thanks again for pointing that out. I will also try and find time to double check the duplicate photos and replace them with the original uploads.

I have now removed the duplicate pictures and copyright pictures from the Jervis article. They now just need to be deleted on commons but I can't seem to do that. I think we have requested that the copyright stuff be deleted. The duplicates are:

File:Howe's relief of gibraltar.jpg

File:Jervis 1809.jpg

File:Capture of fort louis martinique 1794.jpg

File:Surrender of San Nicolas.jpg

If you want to put in a request for their deletion. Hopefully that clears up all the commons problems. Again, thanks for bringing it all to my attention.

On another note, I've built a simple table to show line of battle orders etc. I've put it up on Battle of the Saintes. Would you mind taking a look and see if it's the sort of thing that is compatible with wiki. It's just I found the old lists a little patchy and hard to read.

Thanks Corneredmouse (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I've tagged the images as duplicates, and they should soon be deleted. You might want to tag the other images you've uploaded (eg. File:Earl st vincent in old age.jpg, etc) with the {{Attribution}} templates with {{PD-old}}. The new table looks good, a lot clearer than the previous system. I've tweaked it a little to match some of our featured lists on naval orders of battle, e.g. Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile. Benea (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Tables

Wow. That looks much better. I'm messing around with Battle of Cape St. Vincent order of battle right now and will apply your template to it. Thanks for taking a look Corneredmouse (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Pye

Congratulations on your excellent article on Thomas Pye. I have been working to ensure there is a complete set of articles on Commanders-in-Chief, Portsmouth and I was just about to embark on Pye. Great work! Dormskirk (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I saw you had been working through and starting new articles/reworking some existing stubs. Coincidentally I had just finished a fairly lengthy article on Robert Roddam, so I thought I'd knock off Pye as well to complete the set. An interesting character despite his fairly obvious lack of talent, and somewhat Nelsonic approach to other people's wives! Good work on the list! Benea (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Benea. You have new messages at Sumsum2010's talk page.
Message added 01:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Benea. You have new messages at Sumsum2010's talk page.
Message added 01:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John Jervis

Wow. I didn't know I'd made so many silly spelling mistakes. Thanks for clearing them all up. All the best, Corneredmouse (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just doing a little cleaning up. Bound to happen on an article that size! Best, Benea (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the Earl of Portsmouth. That was a silly mistake and I'm glad you picked it up. Thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Roddam

Courcelles 18:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Greenwich (1747)

Courcelles 18:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Pye

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Anthony James Pye Molloy

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Good Job

Good job on the clean up for HMCS St. Thomas (K488) :), as well the creation of the article U-877 Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Best, Benea (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for James Young (1762–1833)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for SMS Bremse

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

James Young (1762–1833)

Hi sorry in case you didn't see, is The European Magazine actually The Edinburgh Magazine? Green Cardamom (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for drawing my attention to that. No, the two are separate publications, though I had forgotten to include it when listing the references. A slip of the mind. Best, Benea (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Ian Rose (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

DYK for HMS Salisbury (1746)

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom

Hi. I've nominated John Bastard (Royal Navy officer), an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Strange Passerby (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Strange Passerby (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox source

Could you provide a source for the information in the infobox you added here? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You can find details on the Circe class submarines here, but please be aware of recent discussions on cites in infoboxes here. Benea (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to fix the cite in infoboxes issue. I am thinking about running that submarine article through GA/A-class review in the future; any suggestions and recommendations are welcome (but please make them on article's or my talk). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Chatham (1812)

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Aeolus (1801)

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Benea, there is a bit of a question here. The article on Aeolus has her capturing Nautilus on 18 July. The article on Nautilus has her being captured on 6 July. If she was captured on 6 July, that was the first naval engagement of the war. However, if she was captured on 18 July, then the American capture of HMS Whiting on 8 July was the first engagement. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

6 July, as it appears in Michael Phillips, is obviously a mistake. Dates for the capture jump around from 15th to 17th, but 16th is the actual date, as confirmed by Crane's own report of his capture. There had been naval encounters prior to this, the pursuit of Belvidera for example predates both Whiting and Nautilus. You'll notice that the wording is 'the first ship either side lost during the war', the Whiting incident was ruled invalid, and she was not lost to the British. The first British ship considered captured by the Americans is Alert by Essex on 13 August. Benea (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Plans for Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson?

Hi Benea, I was wondering what your plans were for the Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson article? Have you got any plans for an FAC anytime soon? If not, I was considering putting it up soon. I can't see anything wrong with it and all previous issues seem to have been addressed. Thanks. Woody (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly been my long term goal for the article. I'd love to see it featured, but probably won't be able to do much towards it in the immediate future, as I anticipate being both pretty busy and away from many of my sources. Would you think it needs much in the way of copyediting, etc or other work before it gets put up for review? Benea (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't got much time I am happy to do any grunt work that needs doing. Having said that I have read it through a couple of times in the last few days I can't see anything missing. Whilst it is a bit long, I think that will be accepted given how much has been written about him. I can't see anything wrong with the prose either, though I admit I'm not the best judge of prose. Perhaps find a prose expert to offer their opinion? Regards, Woody (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Complaints about your handeling of a AFC.

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Contribution history problems. Taemyr (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

HMS Cordelia (1856)

Hi, Ben. Can you kindly sort out an error in the formatting of the above vessel. Can't seem to spot the error. Many thanks. Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

HMS Speedy (1782)

Hope you are still with us? There is still an image issue at this article's FAC. I made a suggestion that involves emailing the NMM. There are also some queries from Sarastro you might want to chase up. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Submarine working group

Dear editor:
Would you like a chance to collaborate with other editors on a working group dedicated to submarines? Based on your contributions to submarine-related articles, we have determined that you probably have a interest in submarines. If you would like to join our working group, visit WP:ONAU. MessageDeliveryBot (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of ONAU at 07:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC).

Still with us, I hope?

Dear Benea
I'm hoping this is a long holiday, and that you'll be back soon. It won't be the same without you! Shem (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Seconded! I have just come over here to see where Benea disappeared to. Brad (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:HMS Sunfish-1-.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HMS Sunfish-1-.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/HMS_Speedy_(1782)/archive2

I responded to all but one; I haven't seen "Tons" capitalized but I'm not sure. Feel free to revert any of my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mike has one more question there. Also see Glitchcraft's question in the FAC and my response; my instinct is that Glitchcraft will be okay with the way you've done it, if it's your position that those references are more commonly referred to by the primary (or more prestigious) author's name. Otherwise, I'll be happy to make the changes. - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You'll like this. - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Too kind! I'm delighted this article has attracted such attention, and flattered people have enjoyed it. The references are the way I've always done them, and I'd be happy to see them left as they are, as my thoughts match your position. Benea (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Captain Daniel Roberts

Thank you for editing my article. How did you come to find it? Sirswindon (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Philemon Pownoll

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

article about the peterell and some other things

Hello Benea. Thank you very much for correcting my schedule of the battle of Toulon 1744, which was really strange. I saw that you have made some interesting changes here. As the ship was captured by the spaniards and later recaptured by the british... I think that an article relating these feats of arms would be very interesting, don't you agree? By the way, I have created this article, but i can't find any reference on the "class" of the ship HMS Admiral Pasley, give it a look if you want. Greetings.Pietje96 (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. Its an interesting article. Admiral Palsey was not a warship of the Royal Navy, but a hired merchant brig. She was hired by the Navy Board at a regular monthly rate to carry despatches on 18 July. Common practice was for the civilian master and crew to be hired along with the ship, and an officer usually of the rank of Lieutenant (in this case this is our Charles Nevin) assigned to the ship for the duration of her period of hire. Details are scant on small ships like these that were never formally commissioned into the navy, but you may be interested to know she measured 204 83/94 bm, and had previously been an ex-French vessel.

I don't tend to add to the proliferation of articles on small single-ship actions, and the loss and recapture of Peterel can't even count as one of those really. The details are that the Peterel failed to outrun a superior force and surrendered without a shot, but the following day a larger British squadron put the Spanish to flight, and the Spanish abandoned her in their hurry to escape. In neither instance was a shot even fired. Benea (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, Benea. Thanks for the info. I had deduced that "the Pasley" was a ship of war because of this link: http://www.royal-navy.org/lib/index.php?title=C1799_-_1800 , where the HMS abbreviation can be seen. 1800. Dec. 10. HMS Admiral Pasley captured by Spanish gun-vessels. Greetings!

DYK for John Bastard (Royal Navy officer)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Europa (1765)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sultanhisar disamn page

Hi! You have deleted the wikilink TCG Sultanhisar-(III) (P-111) in the Sultanhisar disamb page. Do you have a reason for that? If not, please revert to initial version. CeeGee (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes Ceegee. At the moment there is a general link to the new shiplist page which lists all three ships named Sultanhisar, at TCG Sultanhisar. You'll find TCG Sultanhisar (P-111) there, as well as the earlier destroyer. It's common practice to only use a general link to a shiplist page and not list all the ships there. For example see New York (disambiguation) and how ships named USS New York are handled. This prevents unnecessary repetition, and allows the set index pages to have more links and detail than are allowed on disambiguation pages. By the way extraneous links are discouraged in disambiguation pages, hence my removal of many of them from Sultanhisar (disambiguation). Set index pages, like the TCG Sultanhisar can have more links and information, another reason not to attempt to use a disambiguation page like Sultanhisar (disambiguation) as a shiplist page. Benea (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thanks a lot for the detailed explaination. I am convinced now. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Charles Inglis (c. 1731–1791)

Hello! Your submission of Charles Inglis (c. 1731–1791) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 13, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 13, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

HMS Ark Royal was an aircraft carrier of the Royal Navy that served in the Second World War. Designed in 1934 to fit the restrictions of the Washington Naval Treaty, she was built by Cammell Laird and Company, Ltd. at Birkenhead, England, and completed in November 1938. Her design differed from previous aircraft carriers. Ark Royal was the first ship on which the hangars and flight deck were an integral part of the hull, instead of an add-on or part of the superstructure. Designed to carry a large number of aircraft, she had two hangar deck levels. She served during a period that first saw the extensive use of naval air power; a number of carrier tactics were developed and refined aboard Ark Royal. She served in some of the most active naval theatres of the Second World War, including operations off Norway, the search for the German battleship Bismarck, and the Malta Convoys. She was torpedoed on 13 November 1941 and sank the following day. Her sinking was the subject of several inquiries; investigators were keen to know how the carrier was lost, given there were efforts to save the ship and tow her to the naval base at Gibraltar. Several design flaws were discovered during the investigation and were rectified in new British carriers. (more...)

Cesare Rossarol

Hi User Benea, this is just to let you know that the article in question is now astronomically better than before, thanks to your intervention. I began to worry if the name shoulda been italicized. Thank you once again, specially for the copy-ed ! Krenakarore (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, just needed a few tweaks to bring it up to scratch. An interesting article all round! Benea (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There's another article needing your attention too Benea. Bredenhof, anytime ! It's nice to see how you deal with this subject. Thanks for showing me how to make it better. Krenakarore (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for George Johnstone (Royal Navy officer)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Swiftsure class submarine

"this will give you the effect I think you're looking for" - Yes it will, thanks! I was unsure how to achieve that. Best regards Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick question. I just checked the page Upholder/Victoria class submarine and right at the beginning of the opening paragraph are the words "Bold text". Obviously it shouldn't be there but I can't seem to remove it. Any ideas? Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, a handy little cheat since the article titles don't allow for any normal formatting instructions that you can use in article space. The problem on Upholder/Victoria was in the arrangement of your templates, it should be fixed now. Best, Benea (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix and for showing me where the problem is. There are still many areas of wikipedia that are quite new to me. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Inglis (d. 1833)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for French ship Censeur (1782)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for for contribution on my articles. I have a number of them coming up and would welcome any assists. Pfifer11 (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Inglis (c. 1731–1791)

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Cochrane, 8th Earl of Dundonald

The DYK project (nominate) 06:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

CAP Group PLC

I see that you have contributed to the article that is titled CAP Scientific. My belief is that the article should be rewritten as CAP Group PLC. My understanding is that CAP Group had at least three major business units, of which CAP Scientific was only one; I think one of the other business units did software in support of banking and investment companies; I do not know what the other one was. I think that the authors of the article did not understand the relationship between CAP Scientific and CAP Group. As CAP Group PLC was listed on the London Stock Exchange, there must be annual reports from the 1980s somewhere. Someone who had access to these could then rewrite the article so that it presents a proper description of this 1980s British company.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A very minor contribution, just disambiguating which HMS Sheffield was meant. My expertise in companies is slight, and tends to lie in older ones than CAP. If the situation as you say is correct, then I'd support a rewrite along the lines you suggest, but I'm afraid I could probably add little to it. Benea (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

the peterel frigoop

Good evening Sir. Your changes are always really impressive. But! Reading the construction section of HMS Peterel, of which i have expanded the capture section, it seems that after 1794 she carried 32 guns, and thus, she must have been rated as a fifth rate 32-gun frigate, was she really rebuilt with 32 guns? I mean.. an sloop can hardly be re-armed with 32 guns if it's not rebuilt. According to the spanish, when they captured her she carried 26 guns, but i guess she could have been pierced for 32 as your reliable source says. What do you think? Pietje96 (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

nevermind, i totally misunderstood the section!Pietje96 (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see there's not a problem any more, was it the infobox that was the cause? The carronades a ship carried weren't generally included in the ship's rated armament, but as they become more and more popular, they began to make up the primary battery of the smaller ships like the sloops and brigs, and ships which had previously carried long guns were rearmed to take carronades in their place. The carronades were included in the rated armament but only when they replaced long guns in the same place. This was the case with the Pylades class, including Peterel. Including all the carronades she would have been carrying 24 guns after her rearmament, though as explained, her rating would have remained unchanged. 32 guns would have required a total rebuild as you say, and would put her straight through the sixth rates and into the light fifth rate category. As far as I know, no ship ever underwent such a radical change. Benea (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I must say these sloops arose my curiosity, and that i would like to see the plans of them. In my opinion, the Cormorant/Pylades class 20-gun sloops like the Peterel could perfectly have been rated as sixth rate ships, despite having been built as 16-gun sloops. For instance, when the Peterel was re-armed had the same guns, size and tonnage of the sixth rates, she was only 2 meters smaller than the Porcupine class post ships of the RN! Did Earl Spencer improve these sloops like he did with Frigates, back in the 1790's? I'm sure the Peterel was a Post ship. By the way, I've uploaded a painting where it can see the stern of HMS Lynx, a Cormorant class 16-gun sloop. :) Greetings Pietje96 (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You are indeed correct as far as the large sloops with quarterdecks go. The Cormorant class design (originally introduced in 1793) was revived in 1805-6, and the ships of this later batch, initially classed as 18-gun sloops, were reclassified by the Admiralty as 20-gun sixth rates in 1810-12, and those which survived long enough, were again reclassified, this time as 24 or 26-gun sixth rates, in February 1817. This did not necessarily reflect a heavier armament in terms of number of guns per se, but developing attitudes in the Admiralty to the rating system. Taking the Cormorants for example, the first batch were rated as 16-gun sloops, carrying 16 6-pdrs and 12 1/2 pdr swivel guns. The 6-pdrs made up her rated armament. They are later rearmed with 16 24- (or 32-)pdr carronades, 6 12pdr carronades, and 2 12pdr carronades, so they are actually carrying 24 guns of various calibres, but they are only rerated to 18-gun sloops. The 1805-6 batch start out as 18-gun sloops with roughly the same armament, and some with an extra pair of 6-pdrs, an armament which does not change, despite this some go from being rated as 18 guns to be rated as 26 guns! The Talbot class undergo a similar experience, starting out as 18-guns and therefore being in the unrated sloop category, then rated as 20-guns and in the sixth rate post ship category, with the sole survivor by 1817 being rated as 28 guns!

There was a general move towards larger and more heavily armed ships, the rise of the carronade reflected the tempting ability to make small ships punch well above their weight, and this is reflected in the development of sloops and brigs, as well as in frigates and ships of the line.

Peterel never was a post ship, her commanders were all 'Commanders' as opposed to 'Captains' but it reflected the Admiralty regulations concerning the rating system rather than the comparative physical characteristics of the vessels officers of different ranks could command. Simply by the expedient of rerating, rather than rearming, the Admiralty could move ships in and out of categories. I like the image of Lynx by the way! Best, Benea (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about DYK reviews

I've indirectly mentioned a series of reviews you did at DYK, as I'm currently trying to understand how doing reciprocal reviews works. I thought it was one review (of a whole nomination) for each nomination you do, but then I noticed you cited a review of La Maison de la Magie Robert-Houdin twice at DYK. I had thought that this would count a a single review, but might be wrong. Anyway, I've raised the matter at WT:DYK, only mentioning it indirectly (I named the article), but thought I should let you know. Carcharoth (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If it gets worked out let me know. I was following someone else's precedent, though I can't remember whose. Given that I had to review the article twice to make sure the basics hadn't changed it seemed to be within the spirit of the guideline. Benea (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I got this reply: [1]. As you say, it was precedent, and that's reasonable. I'll try and get the relevant wording tightened up to make this clearer, though I agree with you that some reviews take time, though as there is no way of knowing that until you've started to review a hook, that's unavoidable really. Carcharoth (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Russian battleship Knyaz Suvorov/GA1

I've replied to most of the concerns. Could you please look over them? Buggie111 (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John MacBride (Royal Navy officer)

The article John MacBride (Royal Navy officer) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John MacBride (Royal Navy officer) for comments about the article. Well done! Harrison49 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Benea (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

HMS Sainfoin (F183)

Hi, you expanded the HMS Sainfoin (F183) article. I'll be coming to this one before long in the Empire C ships series. Would you be so kind as to use inline references for the information you added so far, as that will make expansion a lot easier for me. Mjroots (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I see user Sturmvogel has already done so, as per my reply below my copy of Colledge is in transit at the moment, but please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Benea (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Prince William (1780)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am thrilled that my suggestion to place your hook on DYK the same day as the Royal Wedding helped garner 9,200 views on the HMS Prince William page. Accordingly, I have added it to DYKSTATS. An interesting side effect of the way the hook was written is that the William IV of the United Kingdom page got 30,700 views (it only got 9,000 the day before). While Monarchy of the United Kingdom got 66,100 views (it only got 15,600 the day before), I don't think we can attribute the 50,500 view increase to just DYK. ;) Congratulations on a successful DYK entry! OCNative (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• All credit to you for spotting the connection, I confess I had completely missed it, pure chance that I happened to write the article at the right time. Well done indeed, keep looking out for these links! Best, Benea (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Salusbury Pryce Humphreys

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Your advice is sought

Benea, your advice is sought at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Pennant_numbers, on whether the pennant number of a British warship is part of her name. Thanks. Shem (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hope that was in any way helpful. I've just realised you've added some shiplist pages to the page. More than happy to help with them, but my copy of Colledge is in transit, so it might be a day or two. Best, Benea (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Samuel Goodall

The DYK project (nominate) 18:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cedric Holland

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Alexei Grigoryevich Orlov

Hello! Your submission of Alexei Grigoryevich Orlov at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SpinningSpark 19:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Tull, page 665. There does not seem to be a page 665. But in any case what I am looking for is the book and page which says he kept chickens, then I can pass it. By the way, I also don't like your page range style like pages 11-2 for pages 11-12. I'm sure there is something in the guidelines against doing that but I couldn't say where off the top of my head. A lot of technical books I deal with actually number pages eg 4-2 meaning chapter 4 page 2 which makes it very confusing. SpinningSpark 19:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you follow this link? [2] Benea (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it. I guess I was looking at yet another botched google scan. SpinningSpark 21:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Leslie-Melville, 7th Earl of Leven

this redirects to 9th Earl which is wrong. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Blanking a redirect so it creates an empty page is more wrong. You are welcome to chose a better target for the redirect. I have not looked into the situation in any detail, but I'd suggest the Earl of Leven article, until an article on this individual is created. Benea (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Alexei Grigoryevich Orlov

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

SS Robin Doncaster

Hi, would you run your eyes over the SS Robin Doncaster article. I've a feeling this could get to GA or higher. On the description side of things, there is a lot more written at the source than has been put into the article so far. I'm not sure exactly what is and isn't worth including. Maybe you'd like to expand the section a bit? I've attempted to write this one in American English, so any corrections would be appreciated if you find an error. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it looks pretty good at first glance, probably GA worthy. In terms of sentence flow and structure there is probably more to be done before it hits higher levels. I think you're right to be aware of the danger of putting every last detail in. I've seen articles rendered virtually unreadable with that approach. I'll have a look in due course. Benea (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Italian submarine

Hi Benea, Sorry about my move of that sub. I realised right after I'd done it that it was a mistake but although I tried I couldn't revert my move. Thanks for doing it. Ericoides (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, happy to help. Benea (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Type U 158 U-boats

Thanks for expanding those articles. I wasn't able to find any reliable information about those boats, so I nominated them for deletion. Obviously this is a much more desirable outcome. --FJS15 (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, the thing about Uboat.net is that it is mainly a directory of information, only includes the boats which were active in the wars, and is weak on the overall development of the types. Better to go to print sources, but information about these boats is admittedly quite hard to find even so. Let me know if there are any similar cases you find and I'd be happy to give them a look. Benea (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. I am well rested after a week off ;-) --FJS15 (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

James Walker (Royal Navy officer) GA

Hi Benea, I've started the GA review for James Walker (Royal Navy officer). The review page is here: Talk:James Walker (Royal Navy officer)/GA1. Please take a look and respond when you get a chance. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Shiplist pages

Benea, are you still happy for me to drop suggestions into [[User:Benea/Shiplist pages]? I occasionally come across ones that need doing but don't have Colledge to do it myself. Shem (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes absolutely! I don't have my Colledge with me at the moment unfortunately, but when I do I will fill them in, as well as adding a few more I've come across as well. Best, Benea (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - and it's great to have you back. Shem (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, its good to be back! Benea (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The dDead

I suppose you know you've got to add some references to critical works., to show that this particular poem has received attention. Otherwise, as it's mostly the text, the content can be merged and the text belongs on wikisource. (obviously no copyright problems, it was written in 1914.) DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

When I prodded it a few days ago, it was merely a highschool-standard short biography of Brooke. It has been developed since then to actually include the poem. I've no strong opinions on what happens to it, applying the guidelines an upload to wikisource is best, but I don't intend to actually press for this (I'd support it if it was proposed), nor to examine the critical studies of it, poetry is not my field. Perhaps the creator will continue to develop it. Benea (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Edward Knowles (Royal Navy officer)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for William Berkeley (Royal Navy officer)

Calmer Waters 12:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Flagmen of Lowestoft

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

German submarine U-105 (1940)

Thank you for the feedback. I have begun cleanup. It will take time, but the page will eventually be up to GA standards. -cc 19:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, take all the time you need, I'll be happy to look at it again when you think its ready. Benea (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ducie Island

Hello, Benea. You have new messages at Talk:Ducie Island#Additional additional comments.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Weather ships cats

Dear Benea, thanks for picking up the wrong name for the cat "Weather ship" (sic). I should have known better - sorry. Shem (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry about, should be an easy fix, no trouble at all. Best, Benea (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens again

There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Punctuation_and_ship_classes that I think you should know about. Yours, Shem (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

List of aircraft carriers

Sorry about losing your edits. they are still there but I was in the middle of filling in most of the gaps so a lot got swallowed up with my latest efforts. Do please try again I shall stop editting the article from now. When the edit conflict came up I assumed it was the normal save glich that I usually get and didn't check what was going on.

List of aircraft carriers

Sorry about losing your edits. they are still there but I was in the middle of filling in most of the gaps so a lot got swallowed up with my latest efforts. Do please try again I shall stop editting the article from now. When the edit conflict came up I assumed it was the normal save glich that I usually get and didn't check what was going on.Petebutt (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, I was able to copy and paste most of them back in. I've just been slowly working my way through, fixing up the formatting and adding some missing ships. Benea (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

German submarine U-105 (1940), again

Hello Benea. I've finished my rewrite of German submarine U-105 (1940). I believe it now meets GA standards. I would appreciate it if you could take another look at it. Thank you, -cc 13:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I put the page up for another GA review. --cc 08:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away for a bit and completely missed this post. It's looking good, I will run through it with another review in short order. Benea (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed the issues you raised. --cc 09:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --cc 10:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:URCHIN badge-1-.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:URCHIN badge-1-.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. A typo caused the img not to display in article. Brad (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

HMS Baleine

For HMS Baleine are there any other RN ships that carried the name? Brad (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I've been away for a bit. I don't have the relevant book with me at the moment, but I'll be able to check by next week. Benea (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Colledge only lists this vessel. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Charles Lydiard a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

DYK for James Macnamara

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

HMS Phoenix (N96)

I noticed your improvements to the article and just wanted to say thanks. If you review the talk page, you can see that there are concerns that information on her activity on the China Station is lacking. Would you have any resources to help improve that? Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'll have a look and see if I can dig anything up. Benea (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the links. The things I do when I'm tired... Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ark royal reef.

Apoliagies in advance if this is the wong place to edit or dicuss this. Benea (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I have done some more digging, hope this helps

Here are some more links

http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/Metal-firm-s-pound-3-5m-reef-pledge/story-13199015-detail/story.html http://www.motorboatsmonthly.co.uk/news/527513/reef-plan-for-ark-royal http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/Ark-Royal-Reef-project-just-tonic-Bay/story-12921548-detail/story.html http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/Councillor-takes-step-making-Ark-Royal-project/story-12753865-detail/story.html http://www.visiteatstay.com/?p=1738 http://www.britishdiver.co.uk/diving-news.html?ID=72 http://www.bfbs.com/news/uk/ark-royals-future-beneath-waves-48156.html http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/evening-chronicle-news/2011/07/20/ark-royal-may-be-sunk-to-make-diving-reef-72703-29087638/ http://blog.simplyscuba.com/index.php/2011/06/scuba-divers-bid-to-sink-ark-royal/

according to wiki, This is enough to confim the edit. my edit is not "vandalism" i am just tring to bring the option for the scuttleing to peoples attention

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.214.63 (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's OK, I did some looking myself and there appear to be quite a few sources that would meet WP's definition of reliable (i.e. local news reports) that substantiate that there is this effort underway. If you do meet with opposition to an edit, it is usually a good idea to take it to the article's talkpage first, to see what objections other editors have, and how you can address them.

Just a quick update here, I am not sure if this can be included in the links/sources for the Ark Royal page, But i have found a Guardian News report, About the posability of scuttleing her. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/13/hms-ark-royal-diving-reef?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/Aircraft-carrier-sinking-plans-given-pound-3m/story-14219092-detail/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.7.254 (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Benea! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedia user, SwisterTwister talk 08:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Breadalbane

Ben, the article currently at HMS Breadalbane, should, IMO, be at Breadalbane (ship), or something similar. Woudl you care to comment at Talk:HMS Breadalbane? Yours, Shem (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for William Lechmere

Materialscientist (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Admiral John Carter

Why did you remove him from the Royal Navy Officers page? Was he not a royal navy officer? I am sure you are correct but I am just interested to know your reasoning.--ContribUnit (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Royal Navy officers is a parent category for Category:Royal Navy admirals, which you will see that Carter is already in. Category:Royal Navy officers is therefore used for all those who were commissioned officers in the Royal Navy, but never reached flag rank. If an officer did, they are placed in the more descriptive category, Category:Royal Navy admirals, but should otherwise not appear in both. Benea (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

HMS Grinder (1809)

Hi Benea, I am delighted to see that you have further info re this vessel. What are your sources for the recapture in 1811, the retention in the Royal Navy, and the disposal in 1832? I hadn't been able to find anything past the London Gazette account of the 1811 recapture. I would love to update the HMS Grinder (1809) article. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Similar question from Viking! Question is on the HMS Grinder (1809) discussion page! Viking1808 (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

HMS Temeraire (1798)

Lovely work on HMS Temeraire. Really added some colour and interesting and fascinating detail. Thanks, Corneredmouse (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Gosh that was quick, I'd only just posted my rewrite! No problem, it's been a project I've been working on for a little while now, glad you like it! Benea (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Vic Flowers DYK

I've responded to your concerns by putting a replacement hook for the Vic Flowers nom at DYK. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	‎For your excellent new article Thomas Fortescue Kennedy and similar others. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, thank you very much! Much appreciated! Benea (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Temeraire (1798)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hello Benea, I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser here at the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign we're seeking out and interviewing active Wikipedians like yourself, in order to produce a broader and more representative range of "personal appeals" to run come November. If you'd like to participate in this project, please email me at amuszalskiwikimedia.org. Interviews are typically conducted by phone or Skype and take between 30-90 minutes. Thanks! Aaron (WMF) (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Fortescue Kennedy

Thank you for supporting the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for SS Mantola (1916)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Benea! 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 11:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

DYK for Thomas Eyles

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Edward Sneyd Clay

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Linzee

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

HMS Temeraire (1798) ACR

Hi, Benea, sorry if I needlessly ping your talk page, but I'm not sure if you saw the comments that I left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Temeraire (1798). I'd be happy to support the article for A-class if you can cover off on my points. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, no problem at all. I was away for the past few days, but thank you for your comments, and I've done what I can to address them. Best, Benea (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Ship wreck

Why on earth is the template being fazed out? It offers incredibly relevant information about the fate of the ship. Shouldn't that information at least be incorporated into the main ship template? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The consensus in the TFD was that the information should be placed in the article, or if appropriate and not already present, incorporated into the fields of ship infobox begin. Once all the transclusions have been removed, the template will be deleted. Benea (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't that imply that new fields should be added to ship infobox begin? Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

HMS Temeraire (1780)

Hi Benea, I see that you are very protective of your wording. No problem. I will try to avoid stepping on your toes in the future. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

Hi there, I understand that at the time Ireland was part of the UK, but it is still a bit misleading. A person who might not know much about this topic they could easily assume that Ireland is still in the UK. Today it is very common for people to refer to Ireland as the Republic of Ireland. The following is only a suggestion; "The largest passenger steamship in the world at the time, the Olympic-class RMS Titanic was owned by the White Star Line. It was constructed at the Harland and Wolff shipyard, which is located in Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK" I know that it wasn't built in Northern Ireland but the shipyard is still active and it is in Northern Ireland Velvet1346 (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The MOS approach to this issue has been outlined on the article talkpage, and as the article currently follows this practice, then there isn't really any grounds to change it. Benea (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about Henry Heathcote

Hi, in the Family and later life section of Henry Heathcote, there's a quote containing "... it is not to much here ...". Is that "to" a transcription error which should simply be corrected to "too", or is that how it appears in the source, calling for a " [sic]"? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted, the source is grammatically correct, the error is mine, made when transcribing it. Thanks for pointing this out, I've corrected it in the article. Benea (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for checking, and fixing it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Invasion of Java (18110

Hi Benea, great to see the links to that campaign. One of the things I love about Wikipedia is the linking of stories/articles. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, writing articles on wikipedia is a two stage effort, one to write the thing and another to go around and make all the relevant links! Benea (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

British colonial Campaigns

Hello.
Feel free to add anything to this template.
It has turned out to be a monumental task & may need to be corrected in terms of places & what campaigns should or should not be put in. ChristiaandeWet (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph Spear

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Heathcote

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Action of 5 November 1813

Merry Christmas Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Scilly Disaster OS Date "Important Contextualization"

What the hell are you talking about?

There is no need for any reader to know anything about Julian dates. None. Not in context, and not out of context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.155.98 (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Grappler

Thanks for the multiple tune ups on HMS Grappler (1856) that I started last night and for the thorough job on fixing links when you moved it to its proper place. Cheers, KenWalker | Talk 22:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, well done on working up a solid article! Best, Benea (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

HMS Cambrian (1797)

Having just created this article, I thought you might like to run your eye over it to make sure it conforms to Wikiproject Ships guidelines and add any templates. The information in the infobox is from Rif's book but I didn't know how to reference it. This ship is mentioned in a number of articles, is there a special tool to check the links or does it have to be done manually? (Not sure that I've explained that very well)--Ykraps (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that and for sorting out the infobox. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for MV Spiegelgracht

Orlady (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice save on this one, Benea. Have a life-ring: Best. Haus^Talk 16:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, quite a minor little contribution really, but I'm glad there was no need to delete it. Well done yourself, and thank you for adding something from your particularly large expertise! Benea (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

William and Ann (1759)

Hi Benea, I was wondering if you advise me whether this ship William and Ann (1759), is actually HMS William and Ann? I have been advised of a possibility via the talk page and link to a newspaper article. My references do not identify, but UK archives site does identify a bomb vessel? Any help would be appreciated. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, I've had a look at the article and there is possibly something to it. But I would be very wary, as there is so much confusion over ships of the same name. I only have access at the moment to a few of my sources, but no bomb vessel of that name seems to appear in a list I have of that period. There was however a certain William and Ann, an armed ship, hired by the navy. But the dates are earlier than yours, 1757-1758, and she was a smaller ship by some 35 tons. My feeling is this is probably another ship. When I have a look at my other sources I might be able to determine if there were other ships of this name in the navy, and perhaps if there was a ship with connections to the battles the newspaper mentions, though which battle of Copenhagen and which of the sieges, is not immediately clear. I'll keep on at this though, this is an interesting puzzle. Benea (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have found another article (p.3), which states "the vessel which conveyed General Wolfe on his expedition to Quebec is still afloat under the name William and Ann". Also states she was a "bombketch". She might have served with RN under a different name. I will await your results. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have found that Wolfe travelled with Admiral Saunders aboard HMS Neptune to Louisbourg. I can deduce that this is not William and Ann, however will keep looking. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I will also get in touch someone I know who has written about the ships of this era. Incidentally the fate of another ship, HMS Resolution (1771), was definitively stated by colonial administrators in 1881 to by lying as a coal hulk in Alexandria harbour, one of several locations and fates that have her disappearing at sea or rotting as a hulk either off the US coast, or off South America, all with very fragmentary evidence and here-say. Similarly the number of 'Royal Admirals' built by the East India Company is now causing a headache in determining which eventually became HMS York (1796). My guess is that the 'William and Ann' story may simply just be that, a good story, repeated by local worthies and finding its way into newspapers and travellers' accounts based solely on the strength of a shared name. I can't immediately find any record of a ship of that name at Copenhagen (presumably one the battles of 1801 or 1807 must be meant) or of the various reliefs of Gibraltar during the American War of Independence. Not particularly conclusive, the names of smaller supply ships might be omitted, but if she was a warship, even just a small bomb vessel, then I would expect to see it recorded. But I will keep looking! Benea (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I have also found out that Wolfe travelled aboard HMS Richmond to the Island of Orleans, prior to the seige of Quebec beginning. Richmond was travelling with HMS Goodwill, which I cannot find any info on. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have put some notes on the Talk:William and Ann (1759) page, mostly other vessels of the same name. I agree she was not at Copenhagen (1807). Viking1808 (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look through and cannot find any naval connection for ships of that name, beyond the hiring of an armed ship prior to when your ship was actually built. No other naval ships with that name are listed, no battle honours have been assigned to it, no reference to her as a bomb vessel, or anything like that, and no records of her at these varied engagements that the newspaper assigns to her. Its a fascinating story, I would love to know what records the person who wrote it based it on or whether it was just heresay. Possibly it is rooted in some sort of truth and the records are incomplete, but without any further evidence I'd have to regard it more likely as being a bit of a tall story. Perhaps some more details will come to light in time. Benea (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Benea. I am tending to believe that if there is any truth to the newspaper articles, she may have had a different name to begin with? If I find anything I will let you know. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I may have found out a possible link via Google Books. Wooden Ships And Iron Men: The Story Of The Square-Rigged Merchant Marine Of British North America by Frederick William Wallace in 1924 and has a quote similar to the newspaper article. Unfortunately this is a snippet view and I cannot read the rest of the book. I will see if I can view a copy of the book via a libary. Regards Newm30 (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Convoy SC 48

D'oh!; I hang my head in shame...! Good catch! Xyl 54 (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

:) A minor slip up in the scale of things, I've made many worse I am sure! Benea (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Overwriting disambiguation pages

Hi - could I ask that if you intend to overwrite a disambiguation page with a new article, such as you did at Port Line, that you move the disambiguation page out of the way first (i.e. to Port Line (disambiguation)). This makes it a lot easier to keep the histories of the pages separate. I've managed to fix it now, but it meant a bit of juggling. Thanks.  An optimist on the run! 06:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Canterbury Cricket Week DYK

I've responded to your concerns on the Canterbury Cricket Week DYK and added a new hook. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John Hill (Royal Navy officer)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Deptford Dockyard

The DYK project (nominate) 21:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for SS Port Nicholson (1918)

The DYK project (nominate) 05:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Jeremiah Smith (Royal Navy officer)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Augustus Leveson-Gower

Just did an article on Augustus Leveson-Gower and am wondering whether you might have material to add to that article, as you did for his father John Leveson-Gower (1740-1792) a while back. Fritzelblitz (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Very little I'm afraid, his circumstances appear to be very obscure. Incidentally the birth date in the article is given as '21 June 1781' but on the memorial it is '21 June 1782'. Which is correct? Bonner Smith's Commissioned Sea Officers of the Royal Navy gives his dates of commissioning as lieutenant as 11 January 1800, commander on 20 October 1801 and captain on 28 April 1802. He does not appear to have commanded any ships other than Santa Margarita before his death however. Given the station he died on, we might presumably attribute his death to the usual run of infectious diseases. Benea (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

John Leveson-Gower (1740-1792)

That John Leveson-Gower (1740-1792) article has been flagged with a "ref improve" a while back and am asking if you would kindly add the sources (other than Hansard) to the wealth of detail you have added, or tell me your sources, so I can add it in your stead. Fritzelblitz (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Examining the article's history, I actually added little, other than the infoboxes, succession boxes and cats, etc, which simply incorporated the information already in the article, which appears to have been the result of a copy-and-paste from the scanned versions of the Dictionary of National Biography now available on wikisource. The additional information I think comes from the same source, albeit the online and updated version of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Benea (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Jonathan Faulknor the elder

The DYK project (nominate) 10:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Phipps (Royal Navy officer)

The DYK project (nominate) 09:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Bellerophon (1786)

Orlady (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Samuel Warren (Royal Navy officer)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Type C6 ship AfD

Your comment in the Afd discussion asked why an author would nominate their article for deletion, did the assessment by Brad101 have anyhing to with it, or was it something else. Yes and yes. These {{new page}} and {{newlist}} templates specifically state an article as such and 1) the author knows it requires more work and 2) intends to see that is indeed carried out. I wouldn't mind another editor coming and him/herself doing fixes. It's the "lighting a fire and running away" by slapping "no categories", "bare urls" tags and such and then disappearing that is pretty inconsiderate. Nonetheless the tag-happy sharks are eager to draw fresh blood. In the SS Santa Rosa (1932) article the {{new page}} tag was removed by an editor within the hour and slapped with the above mentioned tags. Specifically regarding Brad101 (who appears to be highly qualified and respected within the ships project), the Type C6 ship article was judged at Start assessment overnight despite being tagged as ongoing. (It currently reads unassessed.) So in a nutshell, go delete it. Anyone so thin skinned that they cannot handle other editors being who and what they are doesn't belong here. Articles and don't meet project standards don't belong here. Mariepr (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I was rather afraid of that. I hope you don't get too disheartened by what's happened. Those templates you've linked to say 'More editing may be needed to meet standards.' and 'You are welcome and encouraged to assist.', i.e. that other editors are welcome to make changes and edits. Edits like those Brad made should be seen in the light of perfectly routine maintenance edits. He has no idea whether you intend to add categories, or improve the urls, and such tags can act as a friendly reminder to you to address these issues, or if you finish the work and haven't addressed them, to alert other editors that the article can be further improved. Similarly the rating he gave is simply a placeholder for the state of the article as it was at the time. I regularly expand articles, and when I've done so, I blank the rating on the talkpage and request a reassessment, which Brad has indicated he is perfectly happy to do for you. There is no obligation not to assess an under construction article, but given the nature of wikipedia it is acknowledged that these ratings are temporary and primarily used to give hints as to what can be improved.

I would encourage you to continue editing. The afd was overwhelmingly closed as a keep, so the article is well within wikiproject standards and you shouldn't feel that because it wasn't given a higher rating, it doesn't deserve to be on wikipedia. No featured article springs into existence from one edit. If you want to avoid this in future, I would suggest using your sandbox rather than the mainspace, until you have developed the article to your satisfaction. Personally if an article I've written gets tagged for some problems, or is given a low rating, I simply work on it until the tags can be removed and the article re-rated. Benea (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That’s pretty much how I now see the situation. Having neither professional experience (defined as service on a military or merchant vessel) nor academic credentials (defined as an advanced degree in military history, marine engineering or the like), I admit to being totally unqualified to be involved in the ships project. In looking up the vessels of the defunct United States Lines some were discovered to have had a fascinating history such as the MS American Leader and USAHS Marigold. I decided to draft articles on them and just “fly under the radar” of those more seriously absorbed in ship history. What I did NOT count on was the aggressive patrolling and scrutiny of those who actively monitor that project. Rightly or wrongly so, it is what it is. I’ve been swatted like a pesky fly and it’s no fun. Going forward, any drafting and editing of ship articles will be left to those with some real knowledge and qualifications in the subject matter. Mariepr (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Edward Hawker

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Augustus Brine

The DYK project (nominate) 10:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Benea. You have new messages at M'encarta's talk page.
Message added 14:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

M'encarta (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John Halsted

Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John Ferrier

The DYK project (nominate) 09:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote

Hello. I added a hatnote referring to the Sinking of the RMS Titanic as on the 15th (the anniversary) that article received less than half the visits that the main article got, and it seemed to me that most people that day would have been looking for sinking information. Can you tell me on what grounds you reverted it? Rumiton (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:HATNOTE sets out how these should be used, but the specific bit is WP:RELATED ("Disambiguation hatnotes are intended to link to separate topics that could be referred to by the same title. They are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topic"). Benea (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. So how to you suggest we draw attention to the existence of this new article? Rumiton (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It's linked prominently in the very first paragraph of the article, in the infobox, and again with the 'main' template directly from the sinking section. That's a lot of links and ought to be entirely sufficient. Hatnotes aren't the way to draw attention to other articles, they are for disambiguation. In this article the sinking daughter article seems to be very well exposed to those wanting more details on that aspect. Benea (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Captain class frigate

I see that you are credited with the idea of "moved page List of Captain class frigate to List of Captain class frigates"

I was under the impression that the grammatically correct plural would be "Captains class frigate" and not "Captain class frigates" rather that risk initiating an edit war I thought I'd discuss the subject here with you. --Thefrood (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It depends whether it is the captains or the frigates which are being referred to. The grammatical form "Captains class frigate" or "Captain class frigate" would be a reference to the captains that that ships were named for (i.e. whether the class name used the plural to recognise that there were multiple captains that were so honoured by having a ship named for them). The sources used follow common RN usage (Flower class, Loch class, Castle class, etc). Whether it should be "frigate" or "frigates" is a different grammatical issue, and in this case since a collection of things are being referred to, the generic class type takes the plural. (See other examples, List of River class frigates, List of Flower class corvettes, etc). Benea (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense, liking what you did with the Evart table --Thefrood (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

NB: While we are on the subject of the Captains I've recently given the Captain class frigate article an overhaul, given that grammar is not my strong point would you be willing to give the article a quick once over to make sure I've not messed anything up with an inadvertent semi-colon etc. --Thefrood (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Ushant (1944)

I see you were a principal author of this article. I've assessed it as a B-class, and I think it may be GA if expanded slightly more (see talk). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John Bligh (Royal Navy officer)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

HMS St James

Hi Benea, just in case it's not on your watchlist could you look at HMS St. James. I'm about to revert my own edit. Thanks in advance. JRPG (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the A-Class medal for your outstanding work on HMS Speedy (1782), HMS Temeraire (1798) and HMS Bellerophon (1786), promoted to A-Class between August 2010 and June 2012. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)