User talk:Acad Ronin

• /DYK
• /Dano-Norwegian Navy
• /HMS

Diamond Rock

The diamond rock article was using text from 1805 to cite a practice of it being a British stone frigate and sailors being asked to salute it. This was in the immediate aftermath of the battle. It's now 200+ years after the battle and Martinique is French and Diamond Rock also. It no longer appears in the list of UK stone frigates either.

I don't believe it is a good practice to refer to 200+ year old citations as if they were current so a talk page comment was added to point this out. And after a due amount of time, the edit was made. You undid those edits; which I think means wikipedia is again misleading, Rather than get into undo war, let's discuss it in the dimond rock page. Or ideally, let's fix it so it is no longer misleading or has citation on current practice

Regards

Barath s (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix

Barath s (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Spesutie Island

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

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

Young Teazer

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

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

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

Vandalism by 65.113.118.2

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

I assume you noticed that the vandalism you reverted by IP 65.113.118.2 on Bank of Hawaii was the second in short order. I'd reverted the first just a day or so prior. But in case you didn't, or in any event, I thought I'd get this on the record here, now.

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

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

I saw your earlier reversion. Unfortunately, I don't know the procedure for warning off vandals either. One problem with just an IP address is that it may be a shared computer, for instance, in an internet cafe, in which case warnings are of limited utility. My sense is that when vandals get reverted quickly, they start to get bored. We just have to remain vigilant. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

With another round from a new or restyled editor, and counterpoint, here, and your answer above, I'm going to do a brief link over here from Talk:Bank of Hawaii#Vandal(s)?, maybe someone can help from there. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There's some more on the BoH talk page, and here, and and here. A little confusion on IP#s at the moment, but I'll straighten that out. On. FYI. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

re Revolt of the Lash

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Decimal inches

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

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

Apparently {{convert}} can handle fractions, so {{convert|23|ft|7+5/8|in|m|2}} would produce 23 feet 7+5⁄8 inches (7.20 m). Where fractions are halves, quarters and eighths only, I prefer the display of ⅛ rather than 1⁄8. Where other fractions are used, the {{frac}} template has to be used in manual conversions. Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I don't anticipate fractions other than the half, quarter or eighth, so that's no problem. Is it possible to ensure that you get a small 1/8 rather than the large 1/8 as output from frac template? Acad Ronin (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just come across this discussion. ½ can be achieved by holding down the Alt Key, entering the number 0189, and then releasing the Alt Key. ¼ is the same method, using 0188. Alt 0190 gives ¾. Similar method applies to foreign letters such as ö, Ä, ñ, é, ß etc. If this helps, good! If more detail is needed, just ask. Viking1808 (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

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

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

Pinnance

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

John's Rock

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

You will see Johns Rock is now in article space. On Belette, was the convoy heading towards Russia, or leaving the Baltic for the wider world? It might help understand what happened. Also, is there any indication of wind direction, or weather? Viking1808 (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I had always assumed that the convoy had left Russia heading for the UK, but there is nothing in the term "Russian ships" to support that assumption. I will check my Hepper later and see if there is anything more precise there.Acad Ronin (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, Belette appears to have been sailing towards Gothenburg, according to an item on the Danish Naval History Web. [1] I don't know the source of this item, but I suspect it was Hepper, based on the court martial, and a report in the Naval Chronicle, which I can't access.Acad Ronin (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have checked in Hepper and he is the source for the statement that Belette was heading for Gothenburg, though from the wording in the Danish Naval History web, I suspect that both are getting this from the courtmartial, via the Naval Chronicle. More interestingly, could the Laeso Rende lighthouse be on the shoals and perhaps on the actual location of Johns Rock? That would be consistent with the later reports of a lighthouse on the reef. There is another reef, ending in an island, more to the north of Laeso, but it doesn't have a lighthouse, as far as I can see. What is strange is that Belette was that far west when it would be more logical to head for Gothenburg by sailing to the east of Laeso, not west. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

if the wind served!! with a northerly wind the direct route to Gothenburg roads seems not to be possible. See the New Seamen's Guide and Coasters Companion 1809 text. Viking1808 (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Acad Ronin! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

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

Lolland and Belette

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

hi Acad - "By 1812 she was in the Baltic.[1] Danish records suggest that she was there already by the summer of 1811" I have just added to the bibliography of HMS Belette, the two danish books Topsøe and Wandell, plus a reference to Wandell that did not carry over to your recent edits. On a matter of emphasis, Egersund is not strictly in the Baltic, but still in the North Sea just some 35 miles south of Stavanger. Could Belete still be on North Sea Station for this abortive raid? I leave it to you! Viking1808 (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Viking, Check out the Belette article now. I have amended it to correct the geography and have found additional info re the fight at Egersund in the form of the names of the two British ships that were accompanying Belette. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That's great. Have you looked at the Google map for Egersund? A beautifully twisted passage past Egersund from West or from South! Viking1808 (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I just found the date of the attack and have added it. At your suggestion I looked at the map for Egersund sound. I wonder which of all the skerries was the one the Danes hid behind? On a side note, I think we are accumulating enough info for you to do an articles on H.P. Holm, and another on the Loland. What do you think? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I never cease to wonder how different approaches to the same subject have a wonderful synergism! I will be off Wiki until 14 November, and will start looking at new articles then. I have some info on HMS Quebec (1781) and her exploits in early 1808 that I want to get down. Then H P Holm will be easy, and LOLLAND (two Ls in the middle) will follow. Viking1808 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Anglo-Russian War (1807–1812)

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

Sorry I would have got back to you before but I had assumed that Johnbod had reverted my edit (I had not looked at the article) and so the need for a prompt reply had gone.

I reason why Bibliography and Source are not good names is mentioned in WP:LAYOUT (confusing in a lot of articles). The other reason is that Bibliography implies books and not other types of documents, including web pages. The fact that you say "The citations usually include things like the London Gazette that could be in the bibliography", Well yes and no, personally I think that having an alphabetically sorted list out ways the clutter (Particularly if someone is printing a hard copy), and from an editors point of view it may discourage them from adding web articles and journals articles to a section called Bibliography. Also the citation guideline recommends against mixing short and long citations, and I think there are big advantages to short citations. For example see Sir James Pulteney, 7th Baronet before and after my edits to that page. The text with embedded LondonGazette citations was next to impossible to read in edit mode. In that case I choose to place them into a reference list, but generally I think it better to use short citations, because the results mean we have our cake and can eat it. -- PBS (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I like what you did with the London Gazettes in terms of getting them out of the text. I also take your point of "Bibliography" being too restrictive a term when some sources are journal articles, web pages, and the like. However, I would still favour separating Notes, Citations and References. The way you did the Pulteney article meant that references were in citation order and not in alpha order and I would still prefer to keep the references in alpha order. I also believe in keeping true notes separate, especially as they may require citations themselves. Then the issue becomes, do we have three rubrics all at the == level, or one rubric at that level, and three sub-rubrics, and if so, what is the name of the overall rubric? Acad Ronin (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

See Battle of Berlin#Notes for possible solution that is used in a number of other articles. -- PBS (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

NMM

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

HMS Cambrian (1797)

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

Additions to featured articles

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

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

HMS Quebec (1781)

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

Lolland Notes

User:Viking1808/Lolland

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

Hi Viking, As you can see, I have converted your notes into an article. Why don't you check it over and when it is good to go post it. I would suggest that you pull out the stuff after the categories, i.e., from Captains on, and save it elsewhere. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Acad, Thanks for the constructive edits on HDMS Lolland. I have changed a few to emphasise Lolland, rather than the source article, and checked a few facts. We make a good team. HDMS Lolland (1810) is now live. Viking1808 (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Viking, the article looks good. I like that your willingness and ability to translate Danish and Norwegian gives the English language article an input that otherwise would be lacking. Makes for a more complete article and reduces the Anglo bias to Wikipedia. I look forward to collaborating on some more articles. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Acad - see my note on the Lolland talk page. I am beginning to get thoughts together for HDMS Langeland, although she has not featured in much action that I can see. 1810 she was up north for certain. Do you have anything? Regards ( or med venlig Hilsen) Viking1808 (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Viking, I have incorporated some of this in the articles on Lolland, Brev Drageren, and Algerine. As for Langeland, there are going to be vessels that have fairly dull careers. That means the article will never be more than stub-sized, but so be it. Even then, there may still be an interesting nugget there. I haven't seen anything on Langeland, but then I haven't looked. Still, I doubt that there is anything in that we have over several ship articles and the article on the Gunboat War, covered almost every engagement of the war, and she hasn't shown up. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Langeland and Lougen

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

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

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

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

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

I am going to have to try and link the Pomor trade into the Anglo-Russian War (1807-1812) story and some of the vessels. Can we place Langeland into a footnote on the Pomor trade article? I.e., was she lead vessel/part of the Finnsmark Squadron? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I just glanced at the "Vladimir" thread. You should pass on the info that HDMS Najaden (1796) is probably the English ship he is looking for. It's boats conducted the raid on Kola. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Hi Viking, I was just on Pomor trade so could have been me, or maybe not. Re Vladimir - Nayaden wasn't it. It could have been Alexandria. She was on the Lieth station from about 1810 to 1813+. In 1811 she captured several Russian vessels and in 1813 tried to engage the USS President near Archangel. I am also trying to find out more about Snake to see if she could have been in the area in 1810. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Just found the following: on 31 August 1810, HMS Gallant captured the St. Peder."No. 16589". The London Gazette. 4 April 1812. The date is the right time for the Evlus 2 incident, and Gallant apparently was in the area according to your Lougen/Langeland info. Will continue to look. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

More Ships in the North

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

http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/16402/pages/1342
8 September 1810

HMS Belvidera (Captain Byron)

HMS Nemesis (Captain Ferris) (28) 598 ton

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

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

War in the North

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

Here is another offshoot of HDMS Langeland! Can you have a look at User:Viking1808/Norwegian Gunships and see what it may need to launch? Thanks Viking1808 (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Viking, Nice work & good research. You can see what I have done. As you find more info, you can add it to the table. Now, can I ask you to look at HDMS Kronprindsens Lystfregat (1785)? I looked on the Orlogsmuset's website and my impression was that they don't yet have a card for it. If you happen to have access to any additional info, that would be much appreciated. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

One other thing - you need to think about the translation of the Danish/Norwegian for the vessels. In the 18th & 19th Century, "ship" had a specific meaning that did not include schooners. The British term is probably gunvessels. See: HMS Shark (1794). Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the above! It will not go live for a while, as there may be other things to check, so we have time to consider the final title. Also, I will see what is said about the Royal Yacht - Kronprindsens Lystfregat.Viking1808 (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

HMS Phoebe

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

HDMS Kronprindsens Lystfregat (1785)

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

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

Norwegian Gunships - Title?

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

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

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

Hi Viking, Got to run to my paying job, but I would vote for the direct translation: Gun-schooner, with the hyphen. Ship had a technical meaning at the time, and is readily confused nowadays with armed helicopters. Gunvessel or Gun-vessel would be OK, but it's a bit generic. We know more than that. If Gun-schooner was waht the Danes wanted to call them 203 years ago, I would be completely comfortable with it today. Still, your article, your call. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Acad - I still feel happier with Norwegian Gunship, so have gone with that. If there is any feeling for a better title, it can always be changed later. Alongside this is an article about the 1810 captain of Lougen, Müller. The translation notes in the user page User:Viking1808/War in the North will stay there meanwhile, in case expansion is required. Thanks as always Viking1808 (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

National Maritime Museum again

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

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

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

Hmm, good question. As a first step, you could try typing search terms relevant to the mysteries into the search tool on the archive and seeing if anything interesting came up :-) The Land (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the odds of low-hanging fruit are pretty slim.I looked up 11 vessels, of which 6 weren't in the database. Only got a hit on one vessel, which was in the database, and the info was irrelevant. I did not do indirect searches, but I would doubt that the capsule archive description would include obscure info. In a sense I am not surprised. things that are easy to find would probably already have been found. But it does call the idea of an editathon, at least for my period, not likely to be highly productive. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Placentia class sloops

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

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

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

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

Norway's Seven Brigs

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

Viking1808, welcome back. I had feared that you had wandered off to other, more lucrative, pastimes. Thanks for the heads up re the brigs. I think that should be a separate article, with a table showing the brigs, and a section on the gunboats. That way, we don't try to repeat the same info several times. What do you think of an article titled something like, "Dissolution of the Dano-Norwegian Navy"? Acad Ronin (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a better title would be "The New Norwegian Navy (1814)" eventually. Meanwhile, I think I need to work a bit more on the officers involved (currently stubs or poor articles only) plus the Danish side of Allart (no article yet), and keep the strings together on HDMS Lolland whose section on the norwegian navy might eventually be moved to the new article. Viking1808 (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Acad - Thanks for the improvements to Gunboat War recently.

Some more pages for you to look at.

• User:Viking1808/HDMS Allart also
• Lorentz Fisker, and
• Jens Schou Fabricius plus one which is not "mine"
• Carl Adolph Rothe.

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

Hi Viking1808, You can see what I have done with Allart. I am not finished with the British stuff - I will need a couple of more days grace and I will let you know when I have added all that I can. I think a category and article for the new navy is a good idea, however, I am not the one to ask about setting up categories. I have tried to do so a couple of times and have botched it each time. If I recall correctly, Brad101 came in and cleaned up my mess. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Acad! Taking on board your latest suggestion, I have put together the skeleton of a wikipage at User:Viking1808/Norwegian Navy 1814 that can act for general connections and will be of use if we get a Category set up. Any input from you most welcome. As that page matures, we could then approach Brad101 for his advice !? ( am I overworking you?? ) Viking1808 (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Viking, Don't worry about over-working me. I can always just disappear into the ether if I so choose. On the Norwegian navy page, I would drop the stuff about the past battles of the gunboat war, and any mention of graves or careers of officers who did not actually transfer. I would keep the page to the actual separation. A final paragraph about the strategic issues facing Norway from 1814 might be a way to reintroduce mention of the Gunboat War, the Pomor Trade, Havic, and some such references. Also, I am done with Allart. I have exhausted my sources there. I believe that article is now ready to launch. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Talkback

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

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

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

Entreprenant

Hello,

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

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

Copenhagen 1807

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

Talkback

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

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

Magdala Battery

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

Although the idea is attractive, and very kind, I live some distance away from Europe. I mostly get my fortification visiting done when I go to conferences and tack on a day or two after the conference. The Guernsey walk was a bit of an aberration. (For some unfathomable reason, my wife does not find visiting fortifications compelling. We couldn't miss the Guernsey towers because we kept passing them as we walked.) Unfortunately, I am not aware of any conferences in my field scheduled for Gibraltar, which my wife and I visited back in 1996, before I got active on wikipedia. A secondary issue is that I would be loath to compromise my anonymity, given that I suspect my colleagues would look askance at my wikipedia hobbies. On a more positive note, should I add HMS Calpe, and particularly HMS Calpe (1800), to the category History of Gibraltar? There may be other vessels RN vessels with ties to the Rock. Also, should I put some of the Gibraltar project links on the relevant pages? What do you think? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Askance? hmm do you know that there are american profs who claim tenure based on wiki articles (partly). Well I'd be very pleased to have your help - we are planning to run a wiki conference in march next year in gib - I'm guessing that isnt your field! Still I can see good reasons for keeping yourself anonymous.

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

Finish

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

Semi-retired?

'Domesday Book' Please translate the text below into the language of your wiki We would like to invite you to contribute to the GibraltarpediA project, the world's first WIkipedia City. The project needs writers, photographers, translators and others to help build the first wiki city which bridges Europe and Africa. We are going to transform Gibraltar and the surrounding areas in Morocco and Spain into areas rich with encyclopedic content immediately accessible using QR codes and NFC on plaques for visitors and local people. There are prizes to reward contributors in the Gibraltarpedia Multilingual challenge for the best editors, photographs and cartographers... whoever you are. More at Gibraltarpedia.org

'Domesday Book'

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

Reversions to the Xhosa Wars page

Dear Acad Ronin,

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

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

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

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

Fortifications of Gibraltar

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

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

An award from us (and the signpost :-) )

		The Signpost Barnstar
		This month the Signpost said that the Gibraltar project was a " ludicrously productive GLAM project". Thank you for helping us with that achievement (anyway). We have got behind with the barnstars so this is one to say thank you for helping. Gibraltarpedia.org is now showing the list of about 100 plaques - do take a look and see the languages we will be featuring. Victuallers (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit of Parsons Lodge. I was told that the Hodgkiss gun was a vickers - do you know? I have no idea and I based the filename ob est advice at the time. Hope that makes sense! Victuallers (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure youve done great stuff that didnt get you a barnstar! Yep I'll fix the filename. Victuallers (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Colonial Marines

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

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

George Heneage Dundas

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

Alexander (East Indiaman)

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

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

Thanks for your help. I have created the dab page at Alexander (East Indiaman) and moved the ship to Alexander (1803 Bombay). Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Asia (1814)

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

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

About admiral Robert Mann

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

Re: User talk:BDD#HMS Staunch

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

Danish Naval Information - missing links

Hi Acad

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

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

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

Hi Viking1808, Good to hear from you, even if the news is bad. Do the homepages the orlogs museum sent you to have the same info? If not, that is a loss. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Click on www.orlogsbasen.dk > choose DATABASE > choose AVANCEREDE (advanced search) > Navn - type in ship's name, Datering - type in launch year, +/- allowing for uncertainty by 5 or 10 years > choose Søg (search) and with luck you will see the restricted information available. It is not as good as the original. Grinder and Seagull are missing. Others are reported in some detail, with designs or models linked in.

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

You will see I have put the following on HDMS Najaden's External Links section

• Individual record cards in Danish for ships of the Danish Royal Navy can be no longer (Feb 2013) found on the internet at Orlogmuseet Skibregister. The Danish Naval Museum is building a new website at which details, drawings and models may be available. For individual ships already listed, including Najaden, see here.
  

When I get round to it, unless there is a quicker way, I propose to paste the same message for each Danish vessel we have worked on, provided the entry is indeed in the new database. The English language version of the website, and some parts of the Danish, are still incomplete. Viking1808 (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Finally got my computer build working. Your proposal sounds like a good compromise until the new website is up, which hopefully contains the old databases (seems an odd place make cut backs, since the work making the database is already invested, and the money needed to maintain it must be peanuts compared to the educational value it provides). --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Lautaro

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

It is a very interesting issue, but we can discuss it in another time. I reverted my controversial change and now the article bear the previous name. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw that. Thanks. It seems the best compromise in that it focuses on the Chilean importance without causing confusion. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Technical Issues with ship of the line template

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

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

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

Hi Kieth, I am afraid I am not following you on the nature of the problem. A long time ago I simply copied the template from some article, while in edit mode, and stripped out the ship-specific info, before saving it in an MSWord Doc file. Now when I am starting a new article I just put that template in and fill in the info that I have. If you could give me a little more guidance on where you are running into problems perhaps I can be a bit more precise in my answer. As you can see from my edits to the Asia's armament, I had no trouble editing the template. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, now I see! This issue was affecting HMS Tonnant. With regard the fourth element, I had believed this to be the rating of the ship of the line, whereas it appears it is the iteration of the ship. (I had recorded Tonnant as having a 3, to indicate third rate, whereas I see you changed it to 6, and now it appears fine. I'll perform similar edits for Severn and Surprise. Thanks for the intervention. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Glad to have been of help, even if it was more by accident than design. Best, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits at Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)

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

Talkback

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

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

Kent

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

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

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

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

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

Name by which ship known

French frigate Aigle (1782)

Hi Acad,

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

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

Note that in the new French Warships in the Age of Sail 1786-1861 (due out in early September 2015) I have avoided including the article in a French ship's name; my reason for using it in the 4-volume series on British warships is to easily distinguish French ships mentioned from the British ones. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Goetzen / Liemba

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

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

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

Talkback

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

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

HMS Grecian

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

HMS Peterel (1794)

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

Union Bank of India

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

Thomson and Thompson

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

re:French brig Nearque (1804)

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

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

Suggestion for you at my talk

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

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

HMS Dart

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

Port Harvey attribution

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

Re the "the" re Beaver (steamship)

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

HMS Boxer (1812)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Born -> Borne

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

Some stroopwafels for you!

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

Copyediting

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

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

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

Barwell (1782)

Hi Acad Ronin, I was just reading your edits to Barwell (1782 ship) and wondered if the Armenian and Cornwallis are actually the EIC Extra Ships Armenia and Cornwallis? Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, have you tried the EIC ships Earl Cornwallis or Marquis Cornwallis? Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Also I found the webpage that listed that John Poole (John Toole) as alledgely stealing her http://www.eicships.info/ships/shipdetail.asp?sid=841. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

display title and default sort

A couple of reminders:

DEFAULTSORT is properly a magic word, not a template, and uses a slightly different markup, with a colon instead of a pipe: for example, {{DEFAULTSORT:Bengal Merchant (1812)}}, not {{DEFAULTSORT|Bengal Merchant (1812)}}.

DISPLAYTITLE is also a magic word, but there are several templates that can be used as shortcuts, such as {{Italic title}}. {{Italic title}} can even be used on articles with titles like Bengal Merchant (1812 ship); it will automatically avoid adding italics to the bit in brackets at the end.

Hope this helps. — Paul A (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Copying between Wikipedia articles

Back in June 2011 you copied some text from HMS Comus (1806) to Battle of Copenhagen (1807). There is a guideline on making such copies WP:Copying within Wikipedia, and as you were the contributor of the original text attribution as described in that guideline was necessary (WP:NOATT) to include attribution back to the original article for copyright reasons.

However attribution back to the original article would have been useful for other reasons as outlined in the section "Other reasons for attributing text", because when you copied the text with a short citation, you forgot to copy the long citation to go with it. If you had included a mention in the edit history from whence the copy came it would have been easier to find the original and fix the problem. -- PBS (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

One easy way to do it is with a small or dummy edit to an article and place it in the edit history as I did here or a revert and reinsert as I recently did here.

Another option which I am no so keen on personally is to add a note to the talk page as was done here using template:copied.

-- PBS (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Cumberland-San Martin, Thames?

Hi Acad Ronin,

I found in archive.org the page of the old image:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120426041353/http://www.sanmartiniano.gov.ar/textos/parte2/texto080.php

In the caption of the image the page gives also the name "Thames" to the Cumberland. Do you have any information about?. In http://www.todoababor.es/datos_docum/nav_prov_chile.htm the name "Thames" doesn't appear.

Best regards, --Keysanger (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

[My misunderstanding] Your removal of text regarding Alpha Bank asking for emergency funding from Central Bank of Greece

Hi, I have noticed that you have undone the following addition to Alpha Bank article, stating Alpha Bank having asked for access to Central Bank of Greece's emergency funding. I have not seen any reasoning for you doing so. Please could you explain?

The part deleted by you (I have reinstated it) is:

• On 16 January 2015, Alpha Bank asks Greek Central Bank for Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA)

Awaiting your reply regards.\\

1) Please sign your comments so I can respond directly to your talk page. 2) I reverted your reversion of my edit. You will notice that I didn't remove the item. On the contrary, I moved it forward to highlight it. It had been buried at the bottom of the history section, hiding it. I wanted to highlight it as in the next few days and weeks the situation in the Greek banking sector may become quite dramatic. If it doesn't, we can move the item back into the history section. 3)The reason I didn't explain my move, not removal, just move, was because I thought the reason was blinding obvious. Apparently it wasn't to you. Acad Ronin (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for my misunderstanding.

HMS Lutine (1779)

Shouldn't you have moved French frigate (1779) to HMS Lutine (1779) over the redirect as you moved Talk:French frigate (1779) to Talk:HMS Lutine (1779). By copy/pasting the content of French frigate to HMS Lutine (1779), the article has become disconnected from its history.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello acad ronin, I was reading the entry for HMS Amelia, thank you very helpful but...I have a birth record of a Frances Hutchison,born 1809 on the Amelia to David Hutchison,shipbuilder from Bath...Mass. While at Quebec City. It was he wasPressed onto the Amelia. At least pressed is what I can read.That does not jive with the dates for the arrival of the Amelia in Quebec city as per the entry...which is 1811. I hope I am making this comment properly... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.183.78 (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Amelia was a fairly common name for vessels, and it is highly unlikely that HMS Amelia was carrying passengers from Bath, Mass to Quebec in 1809, both because the timing is wrong, and because that wasn't what Royal Navy frigates did. That would suggest that your Amelia was a merchant vessel. Lloyd's Register for 1809 alone gives the names of 11 Amelias, but none was listed as sailing to Canada. That suggests that your Amelia may have been an American vessel. I also haven't seen any accounts of Royal Navy vessels running press gangs in Canada. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is suggestive. I am afraid that is the best I can do. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

HMS Dreadnought (1801)

Hello,

if you want, you can include my photo of the ship's bell of HMS Dreadnought (1801) in the text. I tried it, I did not get it back.

Greetings from Saxony-Anhalt.

--Colin Pelka (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Asia (1815 ship)

Hi Acad Ronin. I have finally gotten around to writing Asia (1815 ship) and noted that it was in two EIC voyages. Just wondering if you could cast you eye over the article and expand on EIC voyages and the article in general. I found that the ship was doubled which is the reason for the ton variation between voyages, which confused everyone. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

French ship Bourgogne (1767)

Actually it should be 1766 rather than 1767, in accord with Wikipedia convention to use launch year rather than completion year in the title. I have made a few changes to this article, notably as regards the dimensions. Remember that pre-metric French dimensions quoted were in French feet and inches, not in UK/US measurements. The French foot was approx 6.575% longer than ours. All measurements in our new book are in French units unless otherwise stated, which is going to play merry hell with the Wikipedia auto-conversion process; I suggest that you take the metric equivalents from the book (now printing and due out at the start of September) rather than enter the French feet and inches. Incidentally, Amazon have a couple of errors in their publicity; firstly, the dates in the book's title should read 1786-1861, and not 1786-1862; more significantly, the number of pages is 464, not the 352 quoted by Amazon (they have been informed!). Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Ann/Anne 1810 East Indiaman

Hi Acad Ronin. I have been researching the 627 ton Ann/Anne that transported convicts to Australia in 1810 and subsequently undertook one voyage for the British East India Company. In the Lloyd’s Register of Ships their is no 627 ton vessel listed. There is a 629 ton vessel that was built in Batavaia listed in 1810, however master is not listed as Clarke. I have found that the 629 ton Ann was still plying in 1850 and shown as a prize and rerated at 665 tons. Earlier listings stated iron bolted in 1797 and 1799, so not sure when she could have been captured. I have also looked at the letters of marque and found that the a 627 ton Ann is also listed in 1805 again with different captain than that shown in Lloyds, however in 1811 for Captain Hamilton who is listed in Lloyds later. I am not sure whether to create an article for Ann (1810 East Indiaman) until further information comes to light when a page rename (move) would correctly identify her. Your thoughts? Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Newm30, First of, I would prepare the article as Ann (1805 ship), rather putting Indiaman in the title as she made only one voyage for the EIC. The first Letter of Marque for the Ann (627 tons bm) that appears to be the one that delivered the convicts is 1808. That would rule out the Batavian vessel. I too see that as Anne, the 627 ton bm ship had a letter of marque in 1805. The National Archives seems to confound the 627 ton Ann with the earlier Ann (1799 ship), which was a prize, but she was only 384 tons bm. The problem I have found with Lloyd's Register is that I suspect that owners did not always update the entry for their vessel. It is well possible that if you have an Ann or Anne of 625-630 tons that appears on or before 1805, and continues through 1810, that that is your ship. As you say, we can always move the article if we get better info. But again, the Batavian seems out of the running. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Bussorah Merchant (1818 ship)

Hi Acad Ronin. I have just written Bussorah Merchant (1818 ship) and noted that it was a licensed EIC ship in 1825. Just wondering if you could cast you eye over the article and expand on EIC voyage and the article in general. Thanks Newm30 (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. I have found a couple of other interesting or colorful tid-bits and will try to add them soon. Right now, though, it is past my bedtime. TTFN, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with...

I would like to remove the redirect page HMS Wellington (U65) so that I can move the article about HMS Wellington (U65) to it. HMS Wellington was the name of several Royal Navy vessels, not just HMS Wellington (U65). Eventually I would like to create a disambig or ship list page for HMS Wellington.

Acad Ronin (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Technically that would be a case for the {{db-move|1=PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|2=REASON FOR MOVE}} template; adding that to the redirect will tag it for speedy deletion. But do we have articles on a HMS Wellington other than U65? If not, there's currently no need to give that article a longer name for the sake of disambiguating it from articles that don't exist. Huon (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

We have three HMS Wellingtons that I am aware of. HMS Hero (1816) was renamed Wellington shortly after her launch and retained the name for 40 years +/-, and the French brig Oreste (1805) was renamed Wellington after her capture. In addition to that, I think one can make a case for not using a general title for an article that then complicates things for people who want to write more specific ones. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.Acad Ronin (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Glengarry Fencibles (1794)

Thank you for this edit to the Highland Fencible Corps however as all of the text in this article is supported by in-line citations please add citations for the new paragraph. -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Neptune (1814 ship)

G'day. Just wondering if you know any details on Neptune (1814 ship) which undertook one chartered voyage for EIC? Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Noticing your query here to Acad Ronin! a quick search of London Gazette yields (among many false trails) page 3934 of issue 20911 that one John Henry Martin Starcich, born London 1811, passed the exam board at Trinity House whilst serving as mate on the Neptune of London 643 tons. A useless piece of trivia?? There appear to be some 270 more entries between 1811 and 1850 in the Gazette involving the word Neptune, most involving "Neptune Street" or similar blind alleys. Not really my cup of tea! Viking1808 (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Viking1808, Good to hear from you. I did a little similar sleuthing and had to give up. There are too many Neptunes. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

HMS Boreas (1774)

Acad, there's a typo in the text of HMS Boreas (1774) which you inserted (on 29 May 2012). It says "... may have recaptured her in 1780. In 181 a vessel by the same name was struck off ..." Presumably you have access to the reference - can you insert the correct year? Thanks. Shem (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Shem, Unfortunately, I accessed Demerliac during free time while on a business trip. Checking it will have to wait until I am sent again. I have checked some other sources that I have, but so far no joy. I have tried to finesse the issue for the nonce. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick work, though! Thanks. Shem (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:HMS Emerald (1795)/GA1

Hi Acad, some time ago you added some information to HMS Emerald (1795) and used: Fonds Marine. Campagnes (opérations; divisions et stations navales; missions diverses). Inventaire de la sous-série Marine BB4. Tome premier : BB4 1 à 209 (1790-1804), as a reference. You added a link (presumably to the French National Archives). That link is now dead and I've had no luck finding a replacement. Do you have any ideas where I could find an alternative? The article is currently under GA review and although, strictly speaking, a link isn't required, it would be better.--Ykraps (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexander (1801 ship)

Hello, Acad Ronin. You have new messages at Newm30's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just found this regarding Alexander whaling ships in New Zealand waters [5]. Throws another spanner into the works. Alexander formerly Atlas? Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sinclair

Hi Acad, I was wondering if you chad any records available for the Sinclair also known as Lady Madeline Sinclair as to her build year. She appears to have an interesting story, associated with Bligh and also a privateer. She is listed in 1810, then I somehow can't open 1815 Lloyds. She disappears in 1818 Lloyds. If you have Times access can you check there? I know that she was 610 tons, built in Kingston on Hull amd had George Peat as captain in letter of marque in 1813. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sinclair (ship) - created Newm30 (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference error

Hi Acad Ronin your edit here caused a cite reference error which was asking for a close reference tag. I put one in and it looked okay on preview. When I saved the edit I could see there is still an error that you might want to take a look at. Cheers.CV9933 (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Countess of Harcourt (1811 ship)‎

Hi Acad. I just created an article of the Countess of Harcourt (1811 ship)‎. An interesting ship. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

That went rather well

Hello,

given your command of French, you will have no difficulty with this: [6]

I'll let you know as soon as I am open for business, of course. Looking forwards very much to this. Cheers! Rama (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please help me with...

I would like to use the page Duke of York (ship), which is currently a redirect to Duke of York (1817 ship), as a disambig page. We have numerous articles on Duke of York ships, one Age of sail merchantman, two HMSs, one hired armed cutter, one hired armed lugger, and two modern merchantmen. There are also two East Indiamen by that name that don't have articles, but could do with a short description on a disambig page, pending me, or someone else, writing about them.

Problem is, we have four pages from a blocked user (AFAIK), that point to "Duke of York (ship)", and are currently double redirects. If I just re-purpose the redirect page, that will cause the links in the blocked pages to be misleading.

Thanks,

Acad Ronin (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

None of the links are to any mainspace articles - breaking the redirect should be fine. Mdann52 (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec) There's actually two redirects: Duke of York (Ship) and Duke of York (ship) (note the difference in capitalization). You want your disambig page to live at Duke of York (ship), and Duke of York (Ship) to redirect there. I have set that up for you. I have also changed those 4 pages so they now point to Duke of York (1817 ship), which is the article referred to in those old archives. Now you are set to create your disambig page at Duke of York (ship). --Diannaa (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

HMS Saint Lucia (1803)

Hello,

I see that HMS Saint Lucia counts among your gigantic work. Do you happen to have any description of her? The reason I am asking is that I have photographed this model at the Musée de la Marine in a section normally devoted to naval ships, and it is said to have servied during the First Empire; Enfant Prodigue is the most proeminent 16-gun schooner listed by Roche (he says she was captained by a Lieutenant, so I don't quite know what to make of her status as a privateer or a warship, but he does occasionally list some private ships).

I realise that it's a bit of wishful thinking on my part, and that the model could be designed to be accurately illustrative without representing any particular ship, but since you have had some Holmesian results in the past, I though I'd give it a shot. Anyway, there is some light reading coming my way that could maybe contribute to the reflexion.

In any case, thank you and good continuation! Rama (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Demerliac

We are in business!

I gave it a quick glance, and it would seem that there are two different Enfant Prodigue, one being a privateer and the other a naval schooner. The disreptancies we were eondering about are consistent with one of either, as is the 14 or 16 number of cannons. More to come, I'm off making announcements on the various naval projects.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...

Do you happen to have any intuition as to which ship this model could represent? They say "English royal yacht", I was thinking maybe HMY William & Mary, but the description might match others ships, especially those for which we do not have articles yet...

Thank you very much in any case, and good continuation! Rama (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

George Sayer (Royal Navy officer)

Hi - Please can you add a source to your edits to this article. It took some time to write and properly source in the first place. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with...

I would like to free the page Prince of Wales (ship), which is currently a redirect page, so that I can create a disambig page with that title. Currently, we have five articles that refer to merchant vessels by the name of Prince of Wales, and I hope to add more over time. We also have the disambig page HMS Prince of Wales.

You can simply edit the redirect (you can find the redirect itself here) and turn it into a disambiguation page, or have it redirect to Prince of Wales (disambiguation)#Ships, which serves the same purpose. I've done the latter for now. Huon (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Halifax

The Keshen Goodman Public Library in Halfax and WikiProject Nova Scotia will be hosting an edit-a-thon on Saturday, 19 March 2016 focused on creating local articles and Nova Scotia content. We hope editors like your selves could help the less experienced members. Edit-a-ton JBignell (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with...

Someone moved the article Admiral Barrington (1781 ship) to Admiral Barrington. I have reverted the move for the article, and put a redirect on the "Admiral Barrington" page to Samuel Barrington, the individual for whom the vessel was named. However, I have not been able to revert the talk page. How do I get the talk page for Admiral Barrington to accompany the Admiral Barrington (1781 ship) article?

I managed it with these two moves. All good now? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!

Hello Acad Ronin, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016. Happy editing, Caballero/Historiador (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

HMS Integrity

Hi Acad, I need some help. Can you provide a list of vessels named HMS Integrity? I am proposing to move the exsiting article about a colonial ship, but have not decided on how to describe her. My books are still in storage and I need the ship index created. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Newm30 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles with duplicate references

Hi, just in case you wondered, I am working my way through this list, where there are quite a few HMS articles with ref errors. Some of the LG references I have left as they may need a closer look. All the best CV9933 (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. In this example, reference LG16540 is defined twice. The second time it is defined, it probably should be called LG16586. The problem for me though is the abbreviated <LG16540/> is also used twice, so do those refer to the actual LG16540 or to LG16586, or both? CV9933 (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay so these have a similar kind of issue LG16014 and LG18811 also LG15745 if you wouldn't mind taking a look. Cheers.CV9933 (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Great work and thanks for your effort - these are the last two problematic refs LG15950 and LG15874 Cheers. CV9933 (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Isabella (1818 ship)

Hi Acad, Happy New Year. I have just created Isabella (1818 ship) and a quick search indicates this was a licensed ship as well as an extra ship of the British East India Company. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks once again Newm30 (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hooghly (1819 ship)

Hi Acad, I have created the article Hooghly (1819 ship) and noted that the ship undertook two voyages for the EIC. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: Essex

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly implies that the 1799 one that had the famous run-in with the whale belongs at Essex (whaleship). Making that title a disambiguation seems particularly poor form considering that none of the other ones are even bluelinked! I recommend moving the page back and directing the reader to Essex (disambiguation) for the other ships. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Can't say I agree. WP:SHIPS has declared all ships notable. In time I, or someone else, may come up with an article for one, or possibly more of the redlinks. Furthermore, again best practice for naming ships is to include the year of launch in the article name. One reason is that in 1820 there was an Essex launched in 1820, the Essex of the article in question, and I believe an English Essex whaler, the last two both operating in the South Seas whale fisheries. (There was also a third whaler Essex in the area in 1821. It doesn't hurt to signal that fact. We already have an Essex (ship) disambiguation page that includes the sub-links to HMS Essex, USS Essex, and Essex (East Indiaman); it makes sense then to have the disambig page Essex (whaleship). Being precise is generally a good idea, especially when many readers are novices to the area of ships and shipping. I have seen readers assume that any British ship named Essex must be HMS Essex. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if all are notable, that doesn't mean they all have a claim to being the primary topic. Do you disagree that this Essex is by far the most famous, and the one that the overwhelming majority of readers will be looking for under that title? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

True. On the one hand giving Essex the higher-level name would enable people to find her with one click. On the other hand, clicking twice might provide the opportunity for a little subliminal learning. Seeing that she was only one of several whaling ships with the same name operating at that time, themselves probably a tiny subset of all whalers then operating, might induce a realization just how anomalous her story was. Also, I am concerned about how much real estate Essex may come to occupy. Does she also get squatter's rights to "Essex (whaler)", and "Essex (whaling ship)"? As one point I believe she claimed "Essex (ship)". I spend much of my time on articles about Royal Navy ships, East Indiamen, and convict transports to Australia, all of the 1793-1815 period. I have noticed a particular tendency for the authors of articles about vessels dealing with Australia to assume that any such vessel was the only one in all human history to deserve to bear the name "Pinafore (ship)". Acad Ronin (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The whaler has at least an arguable claim to Essex (ship), although I don't know enough about national ships, merchantmen etc. called Essex to say. Certainly Essex (whaler) and Essex (whaling ship) are also this one (PRIMARYTOPIC still applies, there's no notion of "well, if this one 'gets' this title, it's 'fair' to distribute the others"). Similarly, the function of alerting the reader that there are other whaleships called Essex is served by the hatnote "This article is about...For other uses, see..." not by giving them the runaround. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. I surrender. I have moved the info I put into Essex (whaleship) to Essex (ship). Feel free to revert my original move. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you make the request at Requested Moves? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Have done one of those so no idea about how to go about it. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's explained at WP:RM –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Following up about this - it seems clear from my searches that the whaleship is not only the primary Essex whaler but also the primary Essex ship in general. I think it would be best to redirect Essex (ship) to the whaleship and to direct users who may be interested in something else to Essex (disambiguation)#Transportation (or even make a "ships" subsection of that). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

As you know I disagree. However, I can't stop you from doing what you wish to do.Acad Ronin (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hadlow (1814 ship)

Please would you check that this edit I made is correct? Not sure re the change of flag. As a vessel in government service, she would have flown the blue ensign AFAIK. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The Return of Danish Ship Records

Hi Acad
The black register (Danish: Sorte Registrant) that we used a few years ago, but which then disappeared from our ken, has reappeared with a somewhat different url! https://web.archive.org/web/20051229090054/http://www.orlogsmuseet.dk:80/ This gives access to a search by first letter of name on skibsregister. [7]
In addition,
Danish Naval Museum database the new Danish Naval Museum database available here includes a wealth of technical drawings for sailing ships and includes some models. Danish built ships are separate from British built and these from Swedish built by a filter.
Although I have not been very active on Wikipedia recently, I have kept a watching brief. If you find these links useful or interesting, I will be content. If any help is needed with the Danish, I may be able to help. Viking1808 (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

HMS Brilliant (1779)

I haven't a clue how to fix one of your recent additions.... the [[hired armed vessels|hired armed]] [[lugger]] [[Hired armed lugger|Sandwich|''Sandwich'']] or hired armed lugger Sandwich|Sandwich Bgwhite (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to drop by and say thank you for creating Hired armed cutter Sandwich - it has been by far the most humorous non-vandalism title I've seen, and was surprised to learn it was a ship in our navy! Happy editing -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 21:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Featured Article review

Hi Acad Ronin, As you have shown an interest in this article in the past, I thought you might like to know that it is now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Emerald (1795)/archive1. I wondered if you might make some comments and even lend your support if you thought it met the criteria? Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hired armed tender Elizabeth

The article Hired armed tender Elizabeth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence that any of these two small ships is in any way notable. Being mentioned one or two times (without even being clear which is which) are prime examples of passing mentions, not significant indepth attention.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Useful source

Lloyd's List is available online. Covers most years between 1741 and 1826, including all from 1779 on. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hyderabad State

In deference to WP:DTR, let me point out gently that your edit to Hyderabad State was of poor quality. Unsourced and unexplained. It is not the kind of edit expected from an experienced editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hyderabad State. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Cruizer-class brig-sloop

Not to be disrespectful but I didn't remove that section for fun. Mind explaining what you are doing? Tirronan (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah! thanks!

Remote islands

Although I did a little to improve Category:Remote islands, I don't think it can be kept. It is likely to be challenged as WP:Overcategorization, because the general description is subjective, and inclusion in the book Atlas of Remote Islands is non-defining.

A better way to navigate between these pages might be to add a link under "See also" or "External links" to {{Wikipedia books|A Companion Guide to Atlas of Remote Islands}} – Fayenatic London 21:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Fredericksteen

I'm not happy with the page move in the slightest. WP:COMMONNAME and this would suggest that the ship should remain at its original name. Will you move it back or shall I? CalzGuy (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I would have thought the English language article is solely notable because of the link to Beaufort. Whatever name variation appears after HMS I'm unconcerned about, but at HMS it should stand on this wiki. By all means put it at the HDNS name on the DK wiki if you want. That doesn't bother me. You should have consulted before moving. It was a major change. If you look at the article most of the text is about her RN career. That is what complies with policy. So are you going to move it or shall I? CalzGuy (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

And here's how I see it - many years ago Jimmy Wales setup Wikipedia and editors and users frolicked to it to create articles and read them. And this community developed policies and guidelines, among them WP:COMMONNAME and this. They are what keeps the project ticking over and puts articles in places where most people will find them.These policies point to HMS Fredericksteen being the most common name. It is the variation used in the widest circulation, most notably in the 2 biographies of Francis Beaufort, the ships most notable commander, without whom the article would be a redline now. Redirects can be created from all other variations. That is how WP works. WP doesn't work when editors come along and move articles to their own pet name variations. The expansion you have made to the article is mostly quite good. You are lucky you have the time to make such changes. But suggesting that I couldn't be bothered to do the research and therefore my opinion doesn't count is plainly rude and ignorant. The article doesn't comply with policy and you seem to be ignoring that fact. You say that you "... had to move her" seems to ignore the thousands of articles on WP that are moved each week by consensus with the proposer making a suggestion on the article talk page and others collaboratively contributing to a discussion to find the most appropriate location. WP:BEBOLD is a guideline and suggests that I can safely revert your move, which I would prefer not to do. I would prefer we could agree a workable policy-bound location for the article. But it seems we can't. So revert it is. I'm always open to discuss more appropriate naming, but the the current location does not comply with WP:COMMONNAME. CalzGuy (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Seri Rambai

Hi. You looked at this article (about a VOC cannon in Penang) when I wrote it a few months ago. It's now a Featured article candidate; you're welcome to add comments. Singora (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Ships afferent to 74-gun "Victoire"

Hello,

I have just drafted something on the 74-gun Victoire; I hope to have some time to skim through other sources for more material, but I noticed some strange things on British ships mentionned in her career:

• Victoire is said to have captured the 10-gun HMS Levant on 28 August 1778, but I cannot find a corresponding ship; do you have any mean to confirm whether such a Levant in known?
• Victoire and Bourgogne encountered the 32-gun frigates HMS Thetis and Montreal on 4 May 1779. They captured Montreal; Roche states that Victoire captured Montreal the next day and brought her to Malaga, while our existing articles state that she escaped. I cannot imagine a way to conciliate these statements, yet the specificity of the details that Roche provides is troubling; do we have any further details that could nuance the story, or further tip it one way or another?

Thank you very much for everything, and cheers! Rama (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Frederikssteen in Danish service

Hi AR
At the following page User:Viking1808/officers of frederikssteen I have put together such notes on the Danish history of this ship that I can access. Have a look and comment or use as you see fit. There is obviously too much irrelevant detail, but some may fit in HMS Fridericksteen or elsewhere. Viking1808 (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Happy Trafalgar anniversary!

... many happy returns and articles! Cheers! Rama (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Zealand Point

Hi AR

I wonder if you can look at my sandbox User:Viking1808/sandbox where I have rewritten the course of the battle. I know the references should be recorded as a,b,c,d as each logbook is referred to several times, but I find this is beyond me!! My idea is that two paragraphs should totally replace one paragraph in the existing article.
If it all looks good after your attention, can you lift the section into the proper article Battle of Zealand Point

Also, can the banner at the top of the article now be removed - do you think? Thanks in advance Viking1808 (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Many thanks! Now a quick coffee. Viking1808 (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Norwegian Order of Battle 1808

Hi AR

You may find something of interest in my new notes at User:Viking1808/Norwegian Navy 1808 - not so much a nascent article as information that may fit elsewhere. The translation is a little rough but understandable, I think. The information in the reference has been summarised by me. Any comments? Viking1808 (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This page, after much tinkering, is now launched as Norwegian Navy 1808. (You may have noticed it already?) Blue linked at Gunboat War, Lorentz Fisker, and Jochum Nicolay Müller. If you have more links in mind - there it is. Viking1808 (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Butterworth Squadron

Thank you Acad_Ronin. I like the idea of separate articles for each of the three vessels, especially with the new content you've added from LLoyd's. I had considered doing that originally, but with neither beginnings nor endings for any of the vessels I didn't feel I had enough data to justify separating them. I'll be monitoring your progress with interest, and if you have suggestions for improvements I could make to the Squadron article I would welcome them. Cranberrydavid (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Very nice! I like how you addressed the frigate question. The connection to the Américaine is new as far as I know, and very plausible (and exciting!) The period from 1781-4 still needs to be filled though, if at all possible. Have you explored the Admiralty court records at the National Archives? As for interactions with Vancouver, I've been looking through my notes. They missed each other by 3 days at Nootka in Oct 1792. Vancouver seems to have first become aware of Brown when he visited Hawaii in 1793. He, Menzies and Bell were quite critical of Brown's arms trading among the Islands. Vancouver and Brown first met near Prince Rupert BC from July 20-22 1793 where they seem to have spent most of their time copying each other's logs and charts. Brown spoke of cannonading a village to the north which V later visited. They next met under sail near Cross Sound on July 3-4 1794. There's a short account of Brown sending Butterworth home and continuing on in Jackal and Prince Lee Boo. There are also references to both Puget and Whidbey each meeting Jackal on their respective survey expeditions. Their paths last crossed in Nootka Sound from Oct 5-16 1794, 3 months before Brown's death. If it would be helpful for me to flesh any of this out, I'd be happy to see what I can do. (BTW my favorite authorites, F.W Howay and W.K. Lamb, prefer the spelling Jackal, but I notice you seem to prefer Jackall. Reason?)Cranberrydavid (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Acad Ronin. Based on your comments on the significance of Vancouver to the Butterworth narrative, I've written a draft chronology of the Butterworth squadron, focusing on the vessel Butterworth through the lens of Vancouver's journals. You can find it in my sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cranberrydavid/sandbox I believe I could do the same for both Jackal and Prince Lee Boo, creating three parallel and distinct narratives for the three vessel pages. Would this be helpful? Cranberrydavid (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Of the Armed Cutter Hero, and prisoners of war.

hi AR

A strange tale! A retired Danish clergyman has contacted me for help (I think in tracing a family tree). A relation of his back in 1809, ANDERS JENSEN, was on board the Fortuna when she was captured by Hero. He wrote home (letter arrived 24 August 1811) that he was a prisoner of war in England, and "next in 1843 he visited his father in Denmark, now as a very rich farmer in Jamaica married to an English lady from bromton: Ann Riley"(misspelling of Brompton is likely, as perhaps is the lady's name)
Are you aware of any route to find where ANDERS JENSEN might have been incarcerated, or if any POWs were ever shipped out to Jamaica.?
However it turns out, it proves Wikipedia is useful!! Viking1808 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Stranger still! National Archives ADM 103/271, as reported elsewhere, have this man captured in 1807 (so not Hero), imprisoned at Plymouth, released 3 January 1812 and then taken by HMS Diadem to Chatham. History on Diadem is meagre, unless you know better. I am still trying to trace a route for this young man ANDERS JENSEN (perhaps with the additional surname SCHOUBORG), ships carpenter, to Jamaica where he was a slave owner by 1822. Any ideas? Viking1808 (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

More on Protector/Husaren

Hi AR
Have a look at De Coninck House.
I am sending you a private email, rather complicated with several links, as this trader owned Husaren and sent her to the East Indies in 1787.

Thanks also for your POW reply. Viking1808 (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

EIC ships

You might find this website of use. BTW, shouldn't the ship box flag be the East India Company flag (, or as appropriate)? Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from John Lennon (Royal Navy officer) into Hibernia (1810 ship). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh! Fortuna - 41 ships of same name

Hi AR Can you have a look at User:Viking1808/Fortuna (Captured Ships) which I have generated because I realised there were far too many ships called Fortuna to sort out otherwise. Lots of blue links still needed, but it might fit in to Fortuna (disambiguation). Or is it too un-noteworthy, do you think? Happy New Year Viking1808 (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Now launched as Fortuna (Captured Ships)(1805 - 1812) - A list of the many merchant vessels, all named Fortuna, captured by the British Royal Navy between 1805 and 1812
Many thanks Viking1808 (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

More on this Æolus

See Viking1808 talkpage Viking1808 (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Æolus' ship builder

Hi AR Try this: Google Henrik Gerner and use the translation service for the Skibkonstuktør. He seems to have been very successful, and a friend of Stibolt in Copenhagen.
Butz is a more shadowy character. There are hints there may have been a well known ship owner and trader, Hans Butz, overshadowed by someone else in Aabenraa - but nothing to hang your hat on. Viking1808 (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

and more Here is a new, useful resource

• http://www.jmarcussen.dk/maritim/skibsliste/liste.php?ini=%C6 for a private website listing all danish merchant ships from the year dot. Listed alphabetically (nb Æ, Ø, and Å come at the end of the Danish alphabet) which includes several Æolus ships including yours. Come back if translation required. Viking1808 (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Vorpostenboote

Re this edit, you could have left the link untouched. A redirect can always be created once an article is written. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

French frigate Sirène (1823)

Is there anything you can do for French frigate Sirène (1823) ? All it contains is an infobox and it's up for deletion. Brad (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

HMS Herald (1822)

In the article you write: Herald was recommissioned on 1 April 1857 in the surveying role, and was paid off in 1849.<ref name=RW/> There is something wrong with the years, I think. --Abc10 (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

shipwrecks

warning: this editor is a blithering old idiot with very opinionated ideas which hasnt brought the falling grand piano out of the sky, to land yet, however, will let you know when the piano has landed

The shipwrecks project has almost been shamelessly swallowed up by ships and related military history freaks over the last decade or so - it doesnt have a portal as such at this stage. I created Australian Maritime History project and dont have a portal for that either... I am trying to get my head around some possible issues relating to general maritime history overall - if I had enough interest, I would like to start a maritime history project.. but I have a terrible bad habit of having nice ideas but not enough time or energy for the range of interests here on wp en. JarrahTree 13:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

oops sorry, you asked a question - anything about anything would be interesting JarrahTree 13:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Roger all that. I already categorize articles with shipwrecks, founderings, etc. under "Maritime incidents in ...", and link from the "Shipwrecks in xxxx" article when I can. I will also think about how to notify the Shipwreck Project. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to think that some clever seasoned portal creator might be very magnaminious (sic) and do one for shipwrecks - I get tired of seeing the ships one where the scope/overlap doesnt get countered by a smiling wreck :) JarrahTree 13:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Dorothea in London Gazette

Hi AR
The London Gazette: no. 15582. p. 544. 7 May 1803. repeated 14 may 1803 issue 15584 page 571 gives HMS Cambrian (Hon. Arthur Kaye Legge, Commander) capturing the brig Dorothea and her cargo on 12 December 1798. If she was Danish (are you sure? why the capture a Danish ship in 1798) she would most likely have been the Dorthea (1790) - see my talk page
There was a Danish ship Dorothea Maria captured 21 October 1808 - but that is obviously too late. (LG 16309 p1693)
Ellen Dorothea reported (LG 18 Nov 1808 issue 15976 p1511) captured without a capture date
Santa Dorotea captured 15 July 1798 (near Gibraltar) by HMS Lion LG issue 15402 p1062 and on the same page Vrow Dorothea on 16 June 1798

• The search key I used on the LG was "dorothea and dates 1800 to 1809 inclusive
  

Several more entries to be considered or discarded. The thrill of the chase! RegardsViking1808 (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Talking to webmasters

Hi AR

I have always found webmasters & researchers happy to share their thoughts and accept corrections (with sources). For example, I have already exchanged emails with Jørgen Marcussen of the website where we raised Æolus to supply him with the shipbuilder in Åbenrå.
The Sea War Museum website has translations into English and German, and I imagine they will be happy to respond to any reasonable comment or request in English (especially if they think the website will get wider use!) (Kind Regards translates as med venlig Hilsen ). If you need something in more formal Danish, as opposed to mine, it is possible User:Necessary Evil would oblige, although I have not asked him anything recently.
Meanwhile, I will keep Dorothea on a backburner. let me know if you resolve that issue.
Viking1808 (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Viking1808: Roger, wilco. Thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Henrik Gerner

Hi AR
I am in process of trying to write a new page for our shipbuilding friend Henrik Gerner. See here for my first draft. It is still full of holes which will be plugged before it goes public. You mentioned you still have Volume One of the Topsøe-Jensen book digitally - is it possible for you to look up Gerner's entry and send me a screen print to my private email address? (The key Print Screen copies to clipboard which can then be pasted as a picture on the email - just in case you need that instruction!!). Any other holes you wish to fill, be my guest - there will be a few links in and out to add later.
Thanks in advance Viking1808 (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Roger that. When I get home tonight. Acad Ronin (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC) @Viking1808:

Speedwell

Hello - thanks for your great edits, esp to HMS Speedwell. I've tried to tidy it up a bit, and make links more visible. There's a question at Talk:Speedwell (ship) you might be interested in Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Neva

You're welcome. Have you seen this story, from the Alaska Dispatch News yesterday?

Archaeologists say they've found the campsite used by survivors of legendary 'doomed' ship Campfire remains, metal relics and a grave show that a remote site on Kruzof Island was the place were survivors took shelter after the Neva grounded and broke apart. Yereth Rosen

Activist (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Activist: Thanks for the heads up. I have added some info from the Alaska Dispatch News to the Neva article. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you're interested in shipwrecks. I saw a reference to this article, and expected it was about the crushing of the whaling fleet off Wainwright, AK, in 1872, I think. But it wasn't that, though something I'd never heard of:

http://alaskafx.com/2016/04/11/ghost-ship-artifacts-emerge-university-alaska-museum-north-museum/ Activist (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Activist: Thanks for the lead, but I'll give it a pass. I am pretty much specializing in the period 1793-1815, though that does take me a few years out at either end on occasion. Mostly, I am documenting warships, East Indiamen, whalers, slave ships, and convict transports from that period. (Often the same vessel moves through several of those roles in its career.) The period has its share of shipwrecks, and often they give me a relatively precise endpoint for the vessel's career. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Dear Acad Ronin, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of a well-referenced article about Christopher (1785 ship). Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 02:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Britannia

Re this edit, was she wrecked? If not, list of ships captured in the 18th century might be a better home for the entry. Mjroots (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Good point. Am working with several Britannias and will move her today. What do you think about cases where the French captured the vessel, and then burnt her? Both lists?

Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, appropriate as a capture and an actual loss. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ships Barnstar

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		I had meant to give you this prior to you giving me the invisible award. If you don't already have this one it's long overdue! Brad (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

HMS Gibraltar

Hi Acad, thanks for helping out at Spanish ship Fenix (1749) but can you tell me where you found the information about the 1810 armament upgrade? I can't see any mention of it either in Winfield 1714-1792 (p.37) nor in Winfield 1793-1817 (pp.29-30) (both these sections on Gibraltar are identical by the way). It says that in November 1781 the 18-pounders on her upper deck were upgraded to 24 pounders and in December 1781, two 68 pounders carronades were added but no mention of 1810. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ykraps: I found the info on p.29 of Winfield 1793-1817 in the article on Gibraltar. That's where I got all the dimensions, complement, and armament numbers. I have the 2008 edition of the Winfield book. Could that be the difference? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Acad, at first glance, the sections in both books looked identical but I now see that in the 1793-1817 book, after, "QD 12 X 9 pdrs + 2 X 68 pdr carronades", it says, "(by 1810, 4 X 12 pdr + 8 X 32 pdr carronades)" and after "FC 6 X 9 pdrs", it says, "(by 1810, 4 X 12 pdr + 2 X 32 pdr carronades)". These bracketed additions are not in the 1714-1792 book. Thanks for checking and my apologies for making you do so.--Ykraps (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ykraps: - No worries. Trust me, I am in no position to throw stones. Cheers. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

François Joseph Paul de Grasse

Hello, Acad Ronin - Thank you for your comment on my talk page in response to my question about François Joseph Paul de Grasse, and, in this edit, for correcting the date for when he joined the French navy and for supplying a source. Your revision of the the "Naval career" section reads well, but I don't think your revision of the paragraph about the Battle of the Saintes (in that same edit) is an improvement. I prefer the wording as it was. The article is about Admiral de Grasse, and this is the lead, so it is better for a sentence about him to start with his name. There is nothing wrong with using passive voice. (Also, in French names that begin with "de", the "de" is left in lower-case when it is in the middle of a sentence, but it is capitalized when it appears at the beginning of a sentence. However, if the original wording is used, this is a moot point.)

Is there anything in particular about the original wording that you felt was incorrect? If so, please let me know what you think it is and I will try to incorporate the correction. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: Nothing incorrect. It is just that it has been found by me that excessive use of the passive voice is commonly found in Wikipedia, and other writing, where it is suspected by me that it was intended by the writer to be read by the reader as sounding scholarly. It is agreed by me that the injunction by George Orwell that the violation of rules is to be preferred over the writing of something that when read sounds barbarous. Frequently the passive voice cannot be avoided when who something was done by is not clear, but when it is, why not use the active voice, even if the article is about the object? I just think that short, active sentences make for readability, especially by non-native speakers. (That said, I violate that often, especially when I am in a hurry.) Net-net, please feel free to make your changes; I take no offense. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your clever and cordial reply. I know what you mean, and I agree that sometimes it is better to use active voice. I just think introducing a new name (Rodney) so early in the lead, with no lead-up or background information, was jarring. I also think that, within a paragraph (or even a short section), it is not good to switch back and forth between active and passive voice. I'll take another look at it tomorrow.  – Corinne (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: In a case such as this, there are no solutions, only trade-offs between desiderata; clearly, and reasonably, your list and item weights are different from mine. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

USS Mosquito

Here's the DANFS entry for the ship. I moved the article to USS Mosquito (1775) Brad (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Brad101: - Thanks, but I knew about that entry. The problem is that there appear to have been several Mosquitos, two in the Delaware Bay alone. One was the schooner Mosquito, for which I created the article, and then there was the sloop Mosquito, that DANFS lists. That one appears to have been of 4 guns. Her crew scuttled her in 1778 to prevent the British from capturing her. We know very little about her beyond that. If you look carefully at the DANFS item, you will see that DANFS has her being destroyed after October 1777, i.e., after the Brits had burned the schooner Mosquito in July. There also seems to be an HMS Musquito out of Detroit that Virginia captured and used on some inland rivers, and a second Virginia Musquito that operated at sea and the Brits too captured. Unfortunately, the NDAR volumes, which are the best source we have, are just not that complete. The random spellings of mosquito also don't help in trying to find info. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bank of Central and South America

The article Bank of Central and South America has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Having trouble finding any type of reliable source, even a website for the bank. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG but prodding in the event the creator or anyone else can find and add one.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

quotation marks?

What quotation marks? CalzGuy (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Pot. kettle. Black. CalzGuy (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

thanks

for your help with the gilmore 1824. JarrahTree 23:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Indian Chief

The Indian Chief wrecked on the coast of County Wexford in November 1837 was reported as an "East Indian ship". Did she belong to the East India Company? Mjroots (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Indeed she was CalzGuy (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Although this suggests perhaps not? American maybe. CalzGuy (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@CalzGuy: possibly not the same vessel, given the 36 year gap. The report in the Caledonian Mercury of 23 November 1837 states that she was on a voyage from Liverpool to Mauritius, but no captain's name is given. Lloyd's Register for 1837 has an Indian Chief, full-rigged ship of 416 tons b.o.m., registered at Liverpool, captain Robertson. Hopefully other newspaper sources will be able to tie up the captain and ship. I've not got time to investigate at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: @CalzGuy: I have found three Indian Chiefs with only a cursory search. Apparently it was not a unique name. One, probably the vessel that wrecked, was of 416 tons (bm), and launched in 1826 at Liverpool for Gladstone & Co. She appears in Hackman as a licensed ship, i.e., trading with the East Indies under a license issued by the EIC. A second vessel, according to British Library records, of 402 tons (bm), was launched at Bengal in 1798. The French captured her and sold her to the Americans. Here is the permalink to the BL records:[http://searcharchives.bl.uk/IAMS_VU2:IAMS045-001115191}. Phipps confirms that info and that she was launched under that name. The third, according to the Register of Shipping for 1800, was of 400 tons (bm) and built in Philadelphia in 1792. I don't know what happened to the second and third vessels, but they don't appear to be the vessel that started this. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Standard civil flag then? Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Yes. That's how I would read it. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Duke of York

The Morning Post of 2 February 1838 reports that the Duke of York, Capt. Morgan, was wrecked on 14 August (1837) on a reef 5 nautical miles (9.3 km) south of "Facing Island" (24°S 151°E) without loss of life. Would you agree that the ship is this Duke of York? Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: The preponderance of the evidence suggests that the two Duke of Yorks are the same. The slight discrepancies in date and casualty count are too minor to raise much if any doubt.Acad Ronin (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

June

Hello,

I hope the sad news of the day do not affect you directly. On a lighter note, I should indeed be in Paris on 24-25 June, I hope we managed to catch each other; let me know your plans, if convenient.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rama: Thank you. By chance my wife has relatives in Manchester but they are the wrong demographic and we believe all are well. On the more positive note, I am delighted to hear that you will be in Paris on the 24 and 25th. I would be delighted to meet up. Lunch on 24 June might be best; that way my wife can happily spend the time exploring shops while we talk Wiki. I am in Mongolia right now but will revert in a couple of days with my hotel info so we can establish a meeting point. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow, you lead quite the adventurer's life! Lunch on 24 June is perfect, do you have a spot in mind or would you like me to think of a quiet place with the cuisine of your choice? See you soon then! Rama (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

A canon for you!

	Porcher, or Cambridge, cannon.
	Thanks for redirecting Cambridge (Armed Merchant Ship) to Porcher (1799 ship). I wondered about the origins of the ship, and you clarified. Nice catch! SamHolt6 (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Thanks. I was working on something else that led me to the Armed Ship article. Cambridge was an odd name for an American vessel, so I looked her up among the EIC ships, and found Porcher, which I had prepared some time ago. The dates matched, so I was unjustifiably pretty sure of the link. And then I found the smoking gun in the book by Fay. It is a testament to how nerdy we WP editors are that took great pleasure in solving that puzzle. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Movement Strategy reminder

Hi. You contributed in a previous part of the discussion, so this is just a reminder to you (and any interested talkpagewatchers), that it's the second week of our Movement Strategy Cycle 3 discussion. There's a new topic each week in July, and this week's is: How could we capture the sum of all knowledge when much of it cannot be verified in traditional ways? You can see more details, and suggest solutions or respond to other people's thoughts (from this week and last week) at Wikipedia:Wikimedia Strategy 2017. You can also read a summary of discussions that took place in the past week. Cheers. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Vansittart

Was Vansittart lost on her maiden voyage? There is {{Maiden voyage sinkings}} if this is applicable. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Mjroots She was. Thanks for the heads-up. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Standstill agreement (India)

I request you to review the discussion on Talk:Standstill agreement (India). 2405:204:318B:216C:2EFD:7F69:D091:E92E (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I have nothing to contribute to the discussion.Acad Ronin (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

HMS Ruby Prize (1694)

The dates are confusing me. Which of them are correct? 1790s or 1690s? The page has a mixture of both. Brad (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Brad101: My screw-up. I do so many articles from the 1793-1815 period that I automatically type 17 rather than 16. I'll go back and clean up all the 17.s Thanks for the heads-up. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I think I have them all. That will teach me to go out of my normal time period. Also, I must be tired, I appear to have made even more typos than usual, not including the misplaced century.Acad Ronin (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem. All fixed up Brad (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

HMS Madagascar (1841)

I came across an account of the loss of the wooden paddle steamer HMS Madagascar (1841) while reading a book on the First Opium War. I know she was involved in some way or another with the British expedition sent to China, but have been unable to find any significant sources about the ship save an account of her loss. If you ever find the time, could you take a look at her earlier history? SamHolt6 (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: The starting point would be Winfield's volume for the period, which I don't own. Still, I will see what I can dig up. So far, I have two candidate vessels, one built in 1837 and one in 1838. See: [8]. I think it is the 1838 one we want as she is no longer listed in Lloyd;s Register in 1840. If you look at: Phipps, John, (of the Master Attendant's Office, Calcutta), (1840) A Collection of Papers Relative to Ship Building in India ...: Also a Register Comprehending All the Ships ... Built in India to the Present Time .... (Scott); available on line, he suggests that Madagascar came out to Mauritius but then was sold. There also seems to be some info in Fay's Opium War book. See: http://www.panyj.net/UploadFiles/dzsj/2012/10/201210251624273640.pdf. Happy hunting. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@SamHolt6:There's a bit about her operations in China on p.524 here [[9]] which might interest you.--Ykraps (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Which Madagascar though? Could be the heavy frigate and not the troopship. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That I don't know for certain but it sounds like a troopship, "...the Madagascar and Nemesis conveying troops, keeping at present a little aloof.."(p.524). On p.118 here [[10]] it says "..infantry aboard Nemesis, Enterprise and Madagascar was landed without a fight.." and on p.88 it refers to "the steamboat Madagascar". Were there two Madagascars there?--Ykraps (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ykraps: I haven't yet looked into this part of the history. (I am hoping that SamHolt6 does all the heavy lifting on the vessel.). What I have seen so far is that the paddle steamer Madagascar was not a navy ship, either RN or Indian, but a purchased transport. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I will look over some of the battlefield diagrams of the Opium War to see if there is any mention of a 47 gun frigate in the theater. I am fairly confidant that the 1822 Madagascar was not in China, as McPherson meticulously listed the names and armaments of most of the British warships involved in battles in China. Regardless, thanks to both of you for the sources provided, they will be very helpful in my search.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: No worries. I figure those of us crazy enough to do this should help each other. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

P.207 here [[11]] confirms it was a purchased vessel. HMS Madagascar appears to have been part of the Niger expedition of 1841, see p.86 here [[12]].--Ykraps (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Do you mind if I intervene here, having just noted your exchange? The 1841 paddle steamer Madagascar was not a British naval vessel. While in Government ownership, and operated on government services, she was part of the Indian naval service and she was never added to the British Navy (and in any case, there being an existing British warship of that name - the frigate of 1822 lasted to 1863 - she would have had to be renamed if so added), and thus the prefix "HMS" was never applicable or used in any way, and so should be deleted from the title of and elsewhere in the text of the article about the 1841 vessel. Please remove it! Rif Winfield (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• @Rif Winfield: Hi Rif, thanks for the info. I have made the changes. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

John Craigie

Is Captain John Craigie who commanded Lord William Bentinck the same as the Captain John Craigie who commanded Hadlow? Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Never gave the matter any thought, and all of my sources are based on ship names, not those of masters. I did just check the 1829 Register of Shipping. I found two Cragies, one on Helen and one on Lord Wm Bentinck, and I also found lots of Craigs, some who clearly weren't a "J. Craig", and some who could have been. Net-net, I can't definitively say that in 1829 there was only one J. Craig(ie). I also looked in the book of Bristol ships; John Craigie only appears once, and that is as master of Lord Wm Bentinck. But he doesn't appear as master in any earlier or later vessel. So, not much help, I am afraid. Acad Ronin (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Engraving of the Battle of Cape St Vincent

Hello, I hope that this message finds you well.

I chanced upon an engraving of the Battle of Cape St Vincent in 1797, File:Saint Vincent-P7120050.JPG. The title of the original painting states that this depicts HMS Victory raking Salvador del Mundo, but I find it difficult to dismiss the impression that this looks like the early stage of the battle, when Principe de Asturias interfered with the British progression and sustained raking fire from Victory after manoeuvering to avoid colliding with her. Do you have any thoughts?

Best wishes and good continuation! Rama (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rama: Hi Rama, my apologies. I was preparing to teach a new course and this completely slipped my mind. Looking over the description of the battle, I think you are correct. However, it is hard to argue with the picture's title, especially when the National Maritime Museum accepts the title. I also don't know anything about Principe or Salvador so I can't distinguish them, even assuming that the artist didn't take artistic liberties to make the picture fit the caption. The reason I discovered this outstanding matter is that I have a new Demerliac inquiry for you. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Australian Register of Shipping

Hi Acad, just found this and wasn't sure if you were aware of such. Australian Register of Shipping (1876-1877) Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Newm30: Thanks for this. I didn't know about it. It is mostly outside of the period of most of my ships, but every now and then I stray, or the vessel just keeps on sailing. I will add the link to my list of resources. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Robert (1793 ship)

Hi Acad, I note your edits to this page of some interest to me. I write to ask if you feel there to be any doubt that Spy was previously Espion, given that this sale catalogue suggests otherwise. This makes little sense because 'espiegle' is French for 'playful' (or something like it), whereas 'espion' does mean 'spy'. A painting (captioned 'SPY Capt Welham Clarke C.Slade 1803') suggests 28 guns (with possible artistic license), whereas there were only six abord when the ship was bought.

I have a log covering 29th Sep 1803 to 16th Oct 1804. This was the last of Welham's sea voyages and he then retired to Ipswich on its considerable proceeds. Much of it is legible. AFAIK, it doesn't say anything about the purchase or sale of the Spy itself, except that the owner appears to be one Mr Hurry of Gosport.

Have you any theory, please, about this confusion?

RAClarke (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@RAClarke: Hi RAClarke, the auction notice is definitely cool, at least to people like me. First, I am highly (but never perfectly) confident in Robert's history. The Navy did sell an Espiegle in 1802, but she was slightly smaller than Robert (about 271 tons (bm)). I haven't gotten around to writing her up, so can't say much. I think what happened is that the printer, or possibly the seller, got confused, and back translated Spy into Espiegle. I would not make much of the number of guns. At the time of your sale, as the ad points out, Spy had just got back from a slaving voyage. She may have carried only six guns on that voyage; unfortunately, neither Lloyd's Register nor the Register of shipping mention guns. Note, it was not unusual for vessels to be pierced for more guns than they carried. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any letter in the London Gazette mentioning the actual capture; that might have included a line about piercing vs. carrying. Welham Clarke's letter of marque specifically mentions 24 guns, so that is consistent with the painting. Hope this helps. May I ask the reason for your interest? Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: I counted nine cannon ports. Did you mean 18 guns rather than 28? If so, it is the letter of marque that seems a little exaggerated. Acad Ronin (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

PPS: I did a little more digging and found out that in 1805 Spy became a privateer that the French captured in the West Indies. I also added to the article the painting you mentioned. Many thanks. I may also add the sale notice. Cheers Acad Ronin (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Acad, yes I would agree that best explains the discrepancy. It still seems a little odd. I raise the question as part of long term plans for a biography of Welham, based mainly on the extensive notes he made of his earlier, but calamitous, voyage in The Commerce, but Wikipedia is most welcome, however, to the painting and the sale catalogue, and anything else I have on the Spy (I have not yet found the letter of marque issued to Welham, but I do have that for his equally disaster prone brother Charles, my gt3). At least neither shipmaster deliberately invited trouble, unlike their brother William.

On the painting, I count five guns visible to starboard on the top deck, and nine on the lower deck. Assuming that the port side mirrors that arrangement then my maths says 28 in all. The picture indeed exaggerates the actual deployment. Thank you anyway for your research effort on Spy. I had nothing on its fate after 1804.

Regards RAClarke (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

NSW Vets

Saw your post at User:Euryalus#Query and wondered if these were of any use to you. [[13]] [[14]] --Ykraps (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ykraps: Many thanks for this. The first article in particular provides enough info to add to some ship articles, and to provide the basis for an article about the unit itself. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Waterloo

The "Wrecking" section has three unreferenced paragraphs. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Beulah

Was Beulah a chartered ship of the EIC? The Morning Post of 21 April 1842 states "Within the last three or four days considerable anxiety has existed amongst the authorities of India House respecting the fate of the ship Beulah, Captain Grieves, belonging to Liverpool, recently chartered by them as a transport for troops to India..." So, EIC flag or not? Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Mjroots: In 1833 the EIC abandoned its mercantile activities and sold its vessels. It had long given up flying its flag on vessels. So Beulah would have been a normal British merchant vessel (Red Ensign) that they voyage chartered. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

HMS Imperieuse (1793)

Hello,

I have noticed that you have undertaken a lot of work on the article for HMS Imperieuse (1793). I believe this article should have its name changed as there were two Imperieuses in service with the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic period. The first was the French 44 gun frigate Imperieuse, which after it's captured briefly bore that name in Royal Navy service before being renamed HMS Unite. The second was more famous as under the command of Lord Thomas Cochrane in 1808 it harassed the French along the Spanish and French coasts. A Wikipedia search for HMS Iphigenia returns the following statement: "HMS Iphigenia (1804) was a 38-gun fifth rate, formerly the Spanish ship Medea. She was captured in 1804 and renamed HMS Imperieuse in 1805. She was placed on harbour service in 1818 and was sold in 1838."

I believe there are two options:

Option A. Retain the existing HMS Imperieuse article and its association with HMS Unite and as none exists, create an article for HMS Iphigenia (1804).

This is not a good idea as both ships were only called this for a brief time. The only reason for selecting this option is if there is a Wikipedia convention for using the name under they first entered Royal navy service.

Option B Rename the existing HMS Imperieuse (1793) article as HMS Unite (1803). It needs to be 1803 as there is already an entry for Gracieuse which was a 32-gun French which was renamed to Unité in 1793. The Royal Navy captured her in 1796 and brought her into British service as HMS Unite. She was sold in 1802. in addition create a new HMS Imperieuse (1805) article.

I believe this is best option as each article should bear the name under which the respective ships spent most of their service and are best known. I'm happy to create a new HMS Imperieuse (1805) article and also put references in both it and the HMS Unite article to the naming confusion. I however I'm so sure about how you rename an article and also retain the links to it.

Regards John John Prattley (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:John Prattley - I can't respond immediately as I will need to look at the situation and the two vessels. Off hand, options include moving the articles to the vessels' original (French) names, backed by redirects. I will revert within 48 hours with my recommendation. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:John Prattley I have looked up all three Imperieuse (there was a second one between the 1793 and the 1805). Winfield lists the first and third as Imperieuse, and the second as Amphitrite (her Dutch name and the name she was commissioned in to the RN under that name before being renamed to Imperieuse in 1803, and being broken up in 1805. I would follow Winfield and name both the 1793 and the 1805 Imperieuses as Imperieuse (and the 1803-1805 Imperieuse as Amphitrite). I just don't see a problem. Between shipindex pages, in text mentions of predecessors, and the "other ships" template, it is easy to direct readers who have strayed. There are numerous cases of RN vessels being renamed while the older and the newer coexisted. There are even cases where two contemporary vessels bore the same name, though the Admiralty almost always iimposed a name change on one of them whenever it became aware of the duplication. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Acad Ronin. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Acad Ronin. AfC submissions Random submission 3+ months 1,339 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Waakzaamheid

Hi Acad Ronin, do you know any details on the Waakzaamheid that transported Captain John Hunter to England to face a court-martial after the loss of HMS Sirius in 1791/2? She arrived in Portsmouth in April 1792 after a voyage of over 12 months. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Newm30: Nothing about her in a database of VOC ships. There are two vessels by that name in the 1790 Lloyd's Register [15], but nothing to indicate which one, if either, might be the Waakzaamheid in question. There is a tiny item about her arrival in the UK with Hunter in Lloyd's List no.2395 of 24 April 1792 [16]. That's all I have. Unfortunately, it wasn't a rare name. let alone a unique one. Sorry. Good hunting. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Fanny (1811 ship)

Thank you for your contributions to the Fanny page Jgb2 (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Irlam (1813 ship) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Irlam (1813 ship) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irlam (1813 ship) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AfD troubles. Fram (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You have said at different locations now that we have encountered each other in the past, but I can't remember where or when, and I don't see my name in your talk page archives. Can you please link to that previous encounter? Fram (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Fram: I don't remember when as it was several years ago. I believe we disagreed in a similar situation about a short article on a ship where you made the same point. The disagreement would have taken place not in my talk pages but on the Afd. Probably. Your user name was seared into my memory because we disagreed so fundamentally. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Acad Ronin (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• • I'm not going to slap a {{uw-canvass}} on your talk page, but please do not canvass again. I know it hurts when an article you've written gets nominated for deletion (have lost six that I wrote that way), but canvassing can be counter-productive. A neutral notice at relevant Wikiprojects is all that is needed. I regularly check CAT:AFD/P in any case and had already noticed the nom. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Higginson

You may be interested in Irlam's sister ship Higginson. The painting is in the public domain so a copy can be uploaded to Commons and used in an article on the ship. Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Mjroots: Thanks for this. Turns out George Irlam was a partner in the noted Liverpool firm of Barton, Irlam, and Higginson, together with Sir William Barton and John Higginson. The firm made a practice of naming its vessels after the partners. Hence there were also vessels named Barton, and Higginson. The firm went bankrupt in 1847. I think I will do a small article on the firm, which will have some highly respectable sources, to provide a little context for articles about their vessels. I will be reverting on your talk page later when I have more time with some remarks/questions about improving the WP ship resources page. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

File:The sailing vessel 'Higginson', 1814 in Liverpool.jpg Broichmore (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Barton (1810 ship)

Thanks for your thanks. I'm working heavily on {{Ship}} (talk) these days (and so the sub {{HMS}}). (Please bring in your comments). BTW, I see you are a Vietnam vet, and very UK oriented. Anything interesting I could read? - DePiep (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: First, thanks for the link to the info on the ships template, and for your work on it. I have been working on ships for years and never thought to look. Second, re reading, is your interest the Vietnam War, or the UK, and within either area, any more specialized interest? I am not sure that there is anything I can recommend on either topic, at least not off the cuff, but I can add it to my mental "Things to mull over" list. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

re Vietnam & UK: since you put it on your homepage here, the diff caught my eye (a viet vet who is enthousiastic about UK stuff). That's all. See you at SHIPS. - DePiep (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: Perhaps the most useful readings that combine the UK & Vietnam are two books by Sir Robert Thompson, in order – Defeating Communist Insurgency: The Lessons of Malaya and Vietnam, and Peace Is Not At Hand. He provided very good advice that we did not really understand. We (the US) quite sensibly fight war capital intensively as the US has an abundance of capital relative to labor. But we often substitute capital not for lives, but for thought. As for my interest in things English, I grew up in Australia, which normally would not make one Anglophilic, even for someone of my generation, but I read a lot of British books for boys (such as the Hornblower series), that clearly twisted me. :-) Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Carthaginian

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

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

A tag has been placed on Carthaginian requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Richard3120 (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Moving ship dab pages

Hi Acad Ronin - I notice you've moved a few ship disambiguation pages from Foo (ship) to List of ships named Foo. Normal naming practice on Wikipedia is to have these pages at [[Foo (ship), indeed there are over 5,000 pages named in this way in (or in subcategories of) Category:Ship names. Unless there has been a widespread consensus among editors involved in shipping articles to change them all, please don't change the names to "List of..."! Grutness...wha? 13:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Grutness:, Interesting issue. If you look at the pages you moved, you will note that in probably all cases the "Xxxx (ship)" pages that I moved to "List of ships named Xxxx" were pages that I had created. This would of course suggest that I was familiar with the "Xxxx (ship)" convention. That might then suggest the question, "If he knew the convention, why did he move the page? What problem was he trying to solve?" The answer rests in a discussion on some WP Ships project page. I seconded the notion there that we need to do something about editors treating shipindex pages as dab pages. The two are quite different, but for too long we have, in the talk box, called them dab pages, instead of, for instance, List pages. The problem with calling them dab pages is that periodically well-meaning vandals come riding by, hurling WP Policy, and removing info on the pages that doesn't belong on a dab page. However, one problem with ships is that anyone may name their ship anything they choose to, and often ships with the same name are contemporaries and it takes more than a simple launch year to tell them apart, even when we know that much. Frequently I have spent a great deal of time de-conflating ships that quite serious scholars (in their books) have conflated. And in doing so, I often find bits about other contemporary vessels. These bits may be only a mention - a wrecking or disappearance, a slave voyage, a whaling voyage, capture by a privateer, etc. I put that info on the page so that someone can see that these are different vessels and so not try to assign the info on one to another. Frequently I back up some of this with citations (not permitted on dab pages), but useful for proving the distinction as well as obviating the need for another scholar someday to rediscover the fact. One could ask why not create articles for each vessel? One, that might not provide enough info to enable someone to tell one Eliza, or Mary, or Ocean, or Asia, etc. from another without clicking on the article. Second, there may not be enough info to create even a stub article, but parking it one a ship index page means it is there. Even if there is enough for a stub article, the danger there is that a Notability vigilante will smugly move for speedy deletion on the grounds that the article is not notable, not thinking that perhaps the notability rests in this Tarleton not being that Tarleton. Anyway, I did not follow the discussion, but then one day fairly recently I noticed that someone had created/moved a "Xxxx (ship)" article to a "List of ships named Xxxx page", and cited as their reason, SIA naming convention (Ship index article naming convention). I wasn't 100% happy with the solution, but it did address the problem; perhaps now dab vigilantes would stop treating these pages as dabs. As you may have noticed, I used that rationale in all the moves I made. I am open to your suggestions for another way of dealing with the issues; as I said, I am not completely happy with the "List of ships named Xxxx" approach either. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Okay, I'll leave it to you and the other members of WP Ship to work out how to deal with this, and won't move anything more. As I said though, it'll be a huge task if all similar pages are to be moved. Apologies for any misundertanding. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Iris 1866

Sorry if what I did was wrong, but after your edits in the history section it said The Iris was built in 1913, which wasn't correct. But I didn't mean to change the category, just what the history section said. I have since reverted my edit to yours. Again I am sorry of the inconvenience. GreatLakesShips (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, although I think I am already addicted to Wikipedia :).

Best wishes:GreatLakesShips (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Larkins

Do you know anything of a fire involving Larkins (1808 ship)? Reported in The Times of 5 November 1844 to have been damaged by fire at Madras on 21 August 1844. Also reported in The Morning Post of 4 November 1844 to have been destroyed by fire and have been built at Calcutta in 1808. Mjroots (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: - Ha. Found it. Google: "Ships burnt and destroyed" and then go to The Nautical Magazine and Naval Chronicle... a Journal of Papers on Subjects .., p.589. It has Larkins, Captain Hibbert, Madras Roads, August 1844, spontaneous combustion in a partial cargo of cotton, with the fire being subdued. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, only damaged then. Shall add wikilink to shipwreck list and expand article. Mjroots (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Diamond Rock

Why did you revert my grammatical correction in the article on Diamond Rock? Kindly advise what an "advice ship" is (vs. my change to "advance ship", which actually makes sense)or I'll revert it back to MY revision. TobusRex (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@TobusRex: As I said in my comment when reverting your change, I was not making a grammatical change; I was making a substantive one. An advice ship was a vessel whose primary role was carrying dispatches (advices) between commands. Advice ships (see also the French term aviso), were small, lightly armed, fast vessels. There was no type of vessel as an advance ship, except perhaps in an ad hoc use of frigates or sloops on a scouting role. I have written up the histories of several hundred Royal Navy and some French vessels of the time, and I have never seen any vessel referred to as an advance ship. Sometimes, for instance in navigating the East Indies (Indonesian archipelago) a squadron might send a tender ahead to check the depth of unknown channels, but even then contemporary usage was to describe the role, and was not to refer to the vessel as an advance ship. I hope this clarifies the issue. Acad Ronin (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC) :: Thanks for the clearing that up for me! The explanation helped. Best Wishes! TobusRex (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Kent (1799 ship)

Hello, I am not very experienced with Wikipedia and have no account so I apologize for any failed protocol in my earlier edit or if I mess up this post but on the Kent page I see the Refn page in the middle of the article talking about people with the last name Refn. I have a screenshot of what I see at this link if it helps. Thank you for your time. https://i.imgur.com/7YWKA3F.png 65.229.4.128 (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Seringapatam (1799 ship)

The infobox states she was hulked in 1860, but the article states that she came out of service in 1850. Can you reconcile this? Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: No problem reconciling. Just means her owners left her sitting at anchor in 1850 with masts up. Then in 1860 they sold her to someone who hulked her, i.e., took down the masts, bowsprit, etc., and then tied her up somewhere. As I get the time, I will try and fill in a little history between her return to English hands and her laying up in 1850.

As for Mermaid (see above), she is a problem because she was probable a country ship (i.e., launched in India or SEAsia, and trading there, so there is nothing in Lloyd's Register, or much else. Skelton Castle appears to be a unique name. However, I still need to dig a little further. The EIC listed her as lost w/o a trace in 1806, but she may have reappeered, only to be lost again in 1809. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I have filled out the Seringapatam article. Unfortuantely, I had to remove the 1846 maritime incident info as that was for a different Seringapatam. I have corrected the Shipwrecks article. I will be making up a small ship index page for Seringapatam and I will mention the incident there. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Your edits on .300 AAC Blackout

Hello. I have reverted your edits on the article, since you removed a {{citation needed}}-tag without adding a reference, instead adding even more unsourced claims to the same sentence... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Can't figure out why you reverted my changes without looking at them. Change #1 was the correction of a typo, a missing period. Change #2 was an attempt to make clearer that the first sentence in the topic was an intro to the subsequent paras. The subsequent paras do have cites, and so the citation needed template was pointless. Acad Ronin (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

List of ships on Wikidata with fewer than three statements

Hi Acad Ronin, take it they are articles about ships and they link to this list? This was part of a practical exercise to show new initiates to Wikidata that there are many pages on Wikipedia that have many facts backed up with references but that does not always translate to their Wikidata entry. RMS Titanic by way of example has LOTS of statements about it (vessel class, named after, significant event, height, cost and so on and so on etc.) but the entries on this list all have fewer than 3 statements about them. Many only have one statement (normally instance of a ship). Can be very handy to have this information represented in a structured, machine-readable and linked format. Do you edit Wikidata? If so, very easy to add some statements to existing Wikidata items... and to create a new Wikidata item upon creation of a new Wikipedia page. Trying to get myself more in the habit of doing this when I create a new Wikipedia page myself. Great if you can help improve Wikidata but no worries if not. Cheers, Stinglehammer (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer:, thanks for getting back to me. I have created hundreds of ship articles and probably would be delighted to add statements, if I knew how to do it. I had never even heard of the concept until know. Can you point me to the relevant info page? Thanks, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Acad Ronin:, that's great. Each Wikipedia page you have created should have an associated Wikidata item (accessible via a link on the left hand menus... beneath the 'what links here' and 'permanent link' options). Worth having a look at the Wikidata Introduction page in the first instance. We have created a video tutorial to demonstrate how the process of adding a statement to Wikidata works, and backing it up with a reference URL. If no Wikidata item exists yet for a page you have created then you can click on the 'Create new item' option in Wikidata's lefthand menu sidebar. This is also demo-ed in the video tutorial. There is a Wikidata Help section and a Wikidata WikiProject for Ships that may be worth posting messages when getting started as we obviously want the data on ships to be described accurately and consistently so it maybe worth flagging issues on those Talk pages if you come across any issues with how ships are being described on Wikidata. Hope that helps anyway, Stinglehammer (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

ps. The Wikidata entry for RMS Titanic is very well described on Wikidata so gives you an idea of which properties could be added to the entries for other ships. And consequently what values for those properties could be added too.Stinglehammer (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Phoenix (1785 EIC ship)

Re: William Moffat, ship owner, and William Moffat, captain. I have found a letter of 1807 where William Moffat is writing to William Moffat, "owner of the late ship Ganges". Details on Talk:Phoenix (1785 EIC ship). Kylenano (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kylenano: Nice genealogical work. Please feel free to make the necessary changes to Phoenix to clearly indicate which Moffat was which. As Moffat was an important name in the EIC around this time, I would welcome whatever you can do to identify which Moffat was which in other articles as well. Regards,Acad Ronin (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

hi Acad Ronin, thanks for your thanks over my little fixitedit at Indispensable (1791 ship).

Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Java (1813 ship)

Hi Acad, just advising that I came across this new article Java (1813 ship) that was an East Indiamen and apparently survived until 1939 as a coal hulk. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Newm30: Thanks for drawing this to my attention. I have been collecting info on her for some time but didn't realize that a WP stub existed. I will have to move her up on my list of things to do. There are reports that she ended up at Genoa where she was sunk by limpet minds in a training exercise for Italian frogmen. In any case she would be the only East Indiaman to survive to WWII. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 10:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

My apologies

I had it in my mind that I had reached a DAB. I was careless, and my edits were wrong. I apologize for the trouble I caused you. - Donald Albury 16:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: No worries. Your edit has prompted me to do a little clean-up, including separating the East Indiamen from the Bombay Marine and pilot service vessels. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

HMS Racoon (1795)

Hi I noticed in passing that there is a discord between HMS Racoon (1795), and HMS Mutine (1797) when it comes to the dates for the capture of the Mutine by the Racoon. I'd have a go, but I'm buried in major problems with the Waterwitch. Broichmore (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Broichmore: - Hi. I think you may be conflating two vessels. (Please let me know if I missed something.) Early in 1803 the RN sold HMS Mutine (1797), which had been launched in 1794 and captured in 1797, and HMS Racoon (1795) destroyed French corvette Mutine (1799) on 17 August 1803. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes that must be it. I got fooled in HMS Racoon (1795) where the image said that Racoon captured Mutine. I've changed capturing for engaging, seeing as there was nothing to plunder (the way I read it), unless you can think of a better description. I've also corrected the Mutine disambiguation page. Broichmore (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Al Qasimi

Hiya. I added a bit to your Transport vessels for the British campaign against the Al Qasimi pirates (1819-20) page, but desisted from adding other detail from the Piracy in the Gulf or Campaign of 1819 pages. I wonder if you'd be up for a title change to remove the word pirates from the headline? No biggie, but a) the charge of piracy is being increasingly disputed by local historians here and b) the campaign actually targeted a whole population, not just the 'perps'. At Dhayah, for instance, of the 800 people in the fort, only 177 were detained as 'fighters'... Let alone the other towns on the coast, most of which were fishing villages! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb:, First, thanks for working on the UAE-related articles, including the Transport Vessels page. Second, I have no objection to your moving the page by removing the word "pirates". If you do, can you put in a line or so up front to the effect that at the time, they were referred to the "Al Qasimi or Joasmi pirates"? I want to make it easy for someone to find the page who knows nothing about the topic but wants to look up a mention in some older book.

That said, the Al Qasimi were engaging in piracy, which was a common line of business for people in coastal villages in the Med, the Indonesian archipelago, China around Canton, the Philippines, Colombia-Venezuela, etc., and earlier along the Malabar Coast. The accounts of the pirates depredations make it clear that they were frequently brutal to prisoners. As for punitive expeditions, my sense is that concern for civilian casualties, and the legal principles of distinction (target only guilty parties), and proportionality (no more than an eye for an eye) took time to evolve. The Geneva Conventions only start in 1864. Even between WWI and WWII, SOP for the RAF was to bomb Afghan villages as a way of making a point while avoiding putting more discriminating boots on the ground. What I am trying to say is we need to be careful about backcasting modern sensibilities. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree on sensibilities and the Al Qasimi (and other coastal tribes) were no angels. They had no problem with doing in a few 'idolatrous hindustanees'. But the British rocked up with the Sultan of Muscat in tow (the Al Qasimi and Muscat had been at war for 50 years), made like an ally of Muscat's and then claimed that all Indian boats were British subjects. There's clear evidence that 'piracy' in the period 1815-19 was used as a causus belli for the Company to get Government Support to suppress the entire coastal trade with India. I thought it worth removing the BIG label and agree with putting in some balance text. Thanks! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: Agreed. How about putting the substance of this last comment of yours in to the Transport article to make clear the broader context, together with a "See main" link to the article on the expedition? I think that would make a nice improvement to the Transport list. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Will get around to it tomorrow! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

HMS Latona (1781)

Hi Acad, I'm currently working on HMS Latona (1781) and wondered if you are able to help with a couple of points? Regarding the capture of Caracao in 1807, the article suggests Morne Fortunee was involved but she isn't mentioned by Clowes and I can find no reference to her in the edition of the Gazette given as the citation. Secondly, do you have a reference for the Naval General Service Medal that was issued? I would love to include this information so any help will be appreciated. I'm sorry to have 'relegated' your contributions to a footnote but this is temporary while deciding how best to proceed. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Ykraps:, The only reason, as far as I can tell, for why I included Morne Fortunee was that she is listed in the London Gazette as among the vessels qualifying for the medal (fn #1 in the Latona article). The medal announcements were pretty accurate as they were made, in this case, 42 years after the event and so there was time to get the facts right. Still, Morne Fortunee does not appear in James's history, or more critically, in Long's. Still, I can see why a vessel might have been left off the list, but it is less likely that she would be accidentally put on it. As far as the NGSM itself is concerned, in addition to the WP article and list of clasps, Long's book is a pretty good description and is available online. The link below will take you to the book and to the page on Curacoa. Does that help? Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Long, William H. (1895) Medals of the British navy and how they were won: with a list of those officers, who for their gallant conduct were granted honorary swords and plate by the Committee of the Patriotic Fund. (London: Norie & Wilson)[17]

Have you seen https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/16206/page/1648 (3 December 1808) which names Morne Fortunee but agrees its claim is disputed ! Viking1808 (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Viking1808:, great find. That solves the problem. It also suggests that by the time the medal was awarded Morne Fortunee had been acknowledged as somehow participating.Acad Ronin (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ykraps: - see above info from Viking1808. Acad Ronin (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks both, that all helps a great deal. I can reinstate much of the text and perhaps add a footnote about Morne Fortunee's disputed claim.--Ykraps (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Further to the above discussion, I have trawled the London Gazette for all entries regarding Morne Fortunee ( see User:Viking1808/sandbox ). Insufficient for an article, but perhaps of use to you or Ykraps with more resources to fill out the red link. If either of you are interested, that is! Viking1808 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Viking1808:, apologies, but I just wrote articles on all three Morne Fortunees yesterday. I have all the LGs you found, except for the Guadaloupe medal, which I added to HMS Morne Fortunee (1808), so special thanks for that. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Well done. Very impressive, quick work.--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Derwent (1807), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Countess of Morley

An interesting Auction Catalogue, which has two paintings of Countess of Morley. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Also here online and a stamp too. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Newm30: That was fast work. Thanks for the heads up. I would like to use the stamp for the article. Do you know anything about the copyright status of stamps? The picture is not useable as she was never a schooner, and the vessel is not a schooner. It is also not a great picture. The author of the write-up on the stamp has some good info so that's a help too. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I have requested advice from Wikicommons, however usually it is 50 years from date of issue for UK. Regards Newm30 (talk) 07:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: Confirmed that the stamps are subject to 50 years copyright here. Looks like I will have to come back at that time and load it up. Regards Newm30 (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Newm30: Thanks for that. I am not sure when the stamp was first issued, but my reading of the life expectancy tables suggests that I will not, with probability almost 1, not be around to add it to the article. Thanks for looking it up though and providing the link to the wikicommons site. That will prove useful from time to time. There are a large number of stamps from the various current and former British colonies that have great pictures of ships, but almost all are within the copyright period. The various sites that sell stamps are probably in violation of copyright, but that doesn't help us. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

The stamp in question was one of a set of fifteen, ranging in value from 1p to £2, issued in 1986 named as "Ships of the Royal Navy" - see https://www.stampworld.com/en/stamps/Ascension/Postage%20stamps/1922-2018?page=9 ( a copy of the screen will be sent to Acad Ronin.) Viking1808 (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited French ship Auguste, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calvi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

amh tagging

yeah well there are a large amount of oz bathtub items to do [18] Australian maritime History lack of importance assessment) and looking at some of the these skeletal never worked on ancient articles gives one the beegees ) - hmm, underlinked and not update/checked they really are spooky... JarrahTree 01:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: My interest is the vessels of the 1793 to 1815 period and that sometimes brings me to Oz ships, especially convict ships. When I find one that is perhaps a little spare I do something to clean it up, and perhaps add some info. But I agree, there is a lot to do. In the early days of WP, many people just put up all manner of stubby articles just to get them on the record. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Revolt of the housewives

Noting your excellent if obscure Transport vessels for the British Government's importation of rice from Bengal (1795–1796), I wonder if you're certain about the 1794 date for "There were bread riots in July-August 1794 in some 14 towns" ... you may well be. I put together Revolt of the housewives a wee while ago, mainly because I liked the title; the source I used points to 1795, though I'd be unsuprised if there were riots in both years. Thoughts? thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Pure stupid typo on my part. Will fix it immediately. Thanks for the heads up. Acad Ronin (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I'll put reciprocal links between the two articles ... right now my article is a bit thin, being single-sourced; clearly yours adds useful new information on the government's response to the crisis. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh - you're ahead of me ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: - Feel free to continue to improve my article. Also, do you have access to the Stern article I cite? It is really thorough. If you don't, please let me know and I will figure out how to email it to you tomorrow. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I will; and I don't. Visit my page, hit 'email this user' and I'll be able to reply to you by email. Stern sounds like something I should read. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

1780 Printz Friederick

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-46144717
BBC World Service website reporting Danish archaeologists have discovered the wreck of the Printz Friedrich (18th century). Any interest?? Viking1808 (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Viking1808:: I agree we could do with an article, even if only a stub, given that the discovery of the wreck will cause an interest. However, I have no info on her. Is there anything in Danish sources? Acad Ronin (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The ship that seems to fit is recorded in the Danish Database ( see my resources on Viking1808 home page) as Printz Friderich, Ship of the Line, construction began in 1761 in the yard of F. M. Krabbe and launched 1764. Lost (free translation of Udgået) 1780. Technical drawings and description are available in the same database (by clicking "Vis") giving the ship 70 cannon and the drawing dimensions of length 1680mm, breadth 520mm. Gerner's name attaches to one of the drawings. The ship was given a new keel in 1775. I have no further information immediately to hand but will see if anything else turns up. Will you prepare the stub?? Viking1808 (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have something in danish on the discovery on U-tube, but also see in English at www.undervandsgruppen.dk which appears to be an independent research subaqua group associated with Bangsbo Museum. More details emerge from the video. is the wreck near our old friend John's Rock??Viking1808 (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Viking1808: - I couldn't access the info. I got back an error message that the Wayback Machine hadn't archived the page. Do you have a URL I could try? Acad Ronin (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a simple link to the Danish Ship database here. The old sorte registrant sometimes works but not, unfortunately, for this ship - as you say, the Wayback Machine has not archived that particular. I note that the modern website (above) for the underwatergroup is in poor English - as if translated by google, but understandable. If you look at a google map and search for Kobbergrund you will find it to the East South East of the island of Laesø. now signed! Viking1808 (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Acad! If you have time, perhaps you could look at my draft articles on the ship User:Viking1808/HDMS Prinz Friderich (1764) and on the captain User:Viking1808/Andreas Lous A cross reference to the unsuccessful search for Bellette might be useful? Viking1808 (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

and many thanks for your input. HDMS Printz Friderich (1764) and Andreas Lous are now live. Viking1808 (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Albion (1798 whaler)

I was looking at Albion (1813 ship) and found this statement "Albion was blown ashore at Mauritius in February 1824, with loss of her masts but was able to heave off." I looked at the reference provided and noted that the master was indicated as "Best". I think this may relate to Albion (1798 whaler) as the master was "West" and she is known to be at Mauritius around that time and could explain why she disappears from records shortly afterwards, possibly being condemned afterwards? Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry my bad. I was wrong. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Santa Clara Battery images

There are some images here: secretoscuba.cultureforum.net/t18323-fotos-de-cuba-solamentes-de-antes-del-1958 I uploaded them to Wikimedia, they have to be separated. 01:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Osvaldo valdes 165443: Those are some great photos. Is there any way of separating them? Also, do you have date info? On a side note, I see that you are a UPenn grad. I currently teach there under my real name. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: I can separate them in the next couple of days. Date, don't know for sure; have you been to the site? On the Barrio de San Lázaro, Havana page, the 1900 map shows the SC battery as well as the Bateria de la Reina, there is also a great image of La Reina. Penn, wow, that's great! I have my undergraduate and graduate degrees from there. In what department do you teach, I am curious...ovA_165443 (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: Happy Holidays!

Battery of Santa Clara.2 Havana, Cuba

Battery of Santa Clara.3 Havana, Cuba

Battery of Santa Clara.4 Havana, Cuba

Battery of Santa Clara.5 Havana, Cuba

ovA_165443 (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Found one more:

Battery of Santa Clara_aereal. Havana, Cuba

ovA_165443 (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting ship

Asia (1797 ship) may be of interest to you. Built at Bombay for the HEIC, she became Sir Francis Drake in 1805. Sold in 1825, possibly to Argentina, she became NRP Dona Maria II in 1831. Serving until 1850 when she exploded and sank at Macau with the loss of almost 200 lives. Mjroots (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I wish you hadn't brought up her name. :-) She has been on my list of things to do for some time, but I have been trying to stick with the smaller RN vessels when I do RN vessels. However, your mention piqued my interest and when I started to dig into her history I found much more than I had expected. (By the way between Sir Francis Drake and Dona Maria II she became the English merchantman Asia and traded with India under a license from the EIC.) So now, as you can see, I am working on her. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Being a fifth rate, she certainly fits the smaller RN vessels category. You might want to take a look at P Benyon's website and also the Three Decks entries for Sir Francis Drake and Dona Maria II. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

redirect of bombarde

Why did you redirect bombarde to bombard instead of bombard (music)? As far as I can tell, the spelling bombarde is only used for the musical denotation, i.e., either bombard (music) or bombarde (organ stop)

If you keep this redirect, there are problems that need to be fixed. For example all links to bombarde now point to a disambiguation page, so they have to be resolved as [[bombard (music)|bombarde]] or change the spelling with [[bombard (music)|]]

Coastside (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Coastside: Hi Coastside, I started to create a disambig page labelled "bombarde" because of the number of "bombardes" I had found, spelling in the 18&19th centuries being pretty flexible, especially in words of French origin taken into English. (For other bombardes see, for just one example: Delos, Apostolos (2011) "Mediterranean Wooden Shipbuilding in the nineteenth century: Production, Productivity and Ship Types in Comparative Perspective". Cahiers de la Mediterranée.) I then discovered that the disambig page "Bombard" was more complete in that it already included the musical uses as well as a number of other usages under both spellings. I therefore stopped creating a "Bombarde" disambig page and instead changed the page to a redirect rather than creating two duplicative disambig pages. I suspect that a bot will soon fix the double redirects. If it doesn't, I will fix them. Regards,Acad Ronin (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nepal Rastra Bank

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

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

A tag has been placed on Nepal Rastra Bank requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://nrb.org.np/finlit/cms_uploads/NRB_then. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

File:P1130712.jpeg

Linter errors in ship articles

Thanks for the "thanks" in response to my minor cleanup of "Bogus file options" Linter errors. There are about 110 more articles that I would like to edit like this, where the apparent resolution is to remove the text "Red Ensign". Does that change make sense to you? I am unable to clearly tell what the original editors' intent was in adding that text to the File options. Whatever caption text is chosen will appear when someone hovers their mouse pointer over the flag image. Currently, what appears is "United Kingdom".

If the resulting text should be something different, I can change them all with a script pretty easily. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Hi, the reason I thank you and other Gnomes for their changes is to signal that a) there are people, if only the original editor, that care about the article, and b) I make typos and grammatical mistakes that I stop seeing, and the work you do makes WP much more respectable/professional in its first impression. It is easier for someone to dismiss my work, or that of other article initiators, when the work is replete with visible errors. As for the flags, we (WP) are still in a chaotic state. I frequently copy info boxes for a shipbox from other articles for a new article, but without verifying that the flag is correct, modulo really egregious errors. There are a lot of legacy errors that need to be cleaned up over time. The problem is that we don't have a matrix with periods down one axis and roles (naval, government-owned but not naval (Blue Ensign), or mercantile (Red Ensign)), where we could pick the flag template appropriate to the time and role. I have often run into situations where I find that someone has used the naval ensign assuming that it is a maritime ensign, because of the word "naval" in the template, not realizing that there are actually three maritime ensigns. Then there is the issue of the the British East India Company (EIC), and its ensigns over time, together with the common assumption that the descriptive term "East Indiaman" means not just a vessel sailing to the East Indies, rather a regular ship of the EIC. It is also not always clear if a ship sailing for the EIC was a "regular ship", rather than an "extra ship", and whether that did or did not affect what ensign she flew. What makes things worse is that vessels move through time and roles, so the appropriate ensign is not constant over the vessel's life. A further complication is the empire and when particular colonies/dominions developed national maritime ensigns as distinct from British ones. Unfortunately, we lack a knowledgeable WikiGnome who will make it their life's work to get the correct flag/ensign in the correct slot. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I am all smiles reading this. It sounds like you have your work cut out for you. I love a complex answer to what I thought was a simple question. If I remove the "Red Ensign" text in order to make the (really quite trivial) error go away, is that OK? I could also put it inside a hidden HTML comment, if you want the text to stick around until you can verify or change it. I'm happy to provide a list of articles for you, if that would help at all.

I can skip these pages if you like, but you might find that another gnome comes along and does something worse than whatever you and I can work out. That would be no fun. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: No need to give me a list of articles that need fixing; I generally don't go looking for trouble. I will fix egregious errors when I recognize them, but that is more or less as far as I am willing to go. :-) Please feel free to continue to do what you are doing. Having both "Red Ensign" in the link with "Civil" is a redundancy, not really an error. If I fully understand your point, what I would like have appear in the hover over, if that is possible, is something like "UK civil ensign", assuming of course that the UK was the UK at that point; otherwise "Great Britain civil ensign". Does that help? Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

How's this? I don't have the ability (or willingness, frankly) to determine whether to use UK or GB. Here's a link to a search that will help you find all of the articles I have processed once I am done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Thanks for this. Let's see how it works. At some point I may worry about the GB/UK distinction. It shows up as a tiny difference in the Jack, one that almost no one will notice. RegardsAcad Ronin (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

your advice

when I look at the history - and see the west australian connection I consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmore_(1824_ship) I see the Australian maritime connection v strongly as so few ships actually did that particular run in that era - you ok with that? cheers JarrahTree 00:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: - Not sure what you mean, but I never object to more links, portals, etc. What makes WP better is the increasing density of connections. Besides, as WP keeps reminding us, we don't own articles. The only thing I ever object to is the destruction of information. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Ta - nah I could imagine just because a ship went somewhere in some eras does not constitute anything - but 1820s another thing JarrahTree 00:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Martin White (Royal Navy officer)

Thanks for your help on this article and for creating articles of some of the ships he sailed on. I'll probably keep coming back at it irregularly from time to time. I really need to do some real life but I have got some source content I'd like to add which keeps buzzing in my head. Thanks again.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: Glad to do it. That's how WikiPedia improves - new articles lead to improvements in existing articles. I am still not sure how to fit Sandwich in, and would love to know more about her crew incident. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Viking1808 has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. It is nice to know you are watching these entries!†

All these thanks! Thanks! You may have worked out that I am going through all the entries in the Category:Ships of the Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy checking the Danish Naval Museum and the Skibregister - Sorte Registrant links, plus anything else that comes up as I do it. So far, I have reached the letter L. Interesting that there are models in LEGO of HDMS Lougen! There will be some entries, such as Katten (Danish Ship) that I have nothing to go on. If you have any specific questions for me, I am sure you will ask them. Have fun. Viking1808 (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you help? see HDMS Trost which I can separate into two different ships with their Danish Record Cards!! it may be the first HDMS Trost is the one of greater interest. Viking1808 (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Acad. Great work you're doing in general on ships. We all slip up occasionally of course. Whilst here, may I make a polite request: please supply an edit summary per edit, per WP's established practice. Trafford09 (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please use edit summaries and preview your edits before saving. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Using the Sfnp template

Hi Acad. Firstly, I appreciate the Thanks you sent re one of my prior edits today.

However, would you like to reconsider &/or discuss your high use (& occasional misuse?) of template:sfnp? It's left a number of cases where 'sfnp' appears in Mainspace.

I have fixed a number of such articles today, and needed help with one. I think the problem you're introducing it due to interference between templates sfnp and Refn. One of these seems to get confused (me too!) when it finds the other enclosed within it, would you agree?

So, I'd recommend that one shouldn't introduce sfnp in cases where there's a nearby Refn.

Also, I note this, from sfnp:

If an article is already using a reasonably consistent type of inline citations, and you want to change the style (either to or from this type), then you should discuss that change on the article's talk page first.

So, maybe one shouldn't make wholesale changes in an article as I've noticed that, in some cases, you have done?

I wish you (or whoever clears up the remaining and current sfnp problems) plainer sailing than I've encountered thus far!

One last thing - are you also feeling a (7-year) urge to do some further archiving of this page?

Thanks for your time, Trafford09 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

A Challenge - Danish ships

Hi Acad R. There are many Danish ships listed at Battle of Copenhagen (1801) that have had red links for several years. Taking just the few in the inner harbour which were not engaged in the battle, I have trawled the Danish sources I can, and produced User:Viking1808/Copenhagen 1801 ship stubs and links. Some or all of these may be convertible to stub articles if you have the British histories as all but one was captured at the 1807 Copenhagen Battle. If you have time and inclination to peruse my notes, perhaps some will make it!
I have already renamed the only existing article on HDMS Elephanten to HDMS Elephanten (1702) to allow for the possibility of the 1769 Elephanten to have its own page. Let me know if you are interested, or not. Regards Viking1808 (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

i surely hope if my english was more skillful

if i do not know how to say a certain word or word in english, then is it allowed to help yourself in using google translate? i know that some websites are against rules, is that so? (i'm really right now so if there is no permission then please avoid punishment.Atlantic Channel (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Acad R. - this same post arrived in my talk page! Who knows how many others? You can see my reply at the bottom of my talk page.(if interested) Viking1808 (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Action of Belle-Ile in 1799

Hello,

I seen to have ran into a bit of a mystery. By way of Résolue, I got into Montalan's biography, and my sources indicate a minor naval engagement that I cannot confirm. It would have occurred off Belle-Ile at some point between 1799 and 1802, and involved Sémillante and possibly Charente on one side, and HMS Minverva and San Fiorenzo on the other. I see mentions of brushes between San Fiorenzo and a number of French frigates in April 1799, indeed involving Sémillante, but the other frigates are not those I was expecting. Do your sources say anything reliable on the subject?

Cheers! Rama (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Rama, So far I have found an action on 9 April 1799: San-Fiorenzo and Amelia on the British side, and Cornelie, Vengeance, and Semillante on the French. Source is James, Vol. 2, pp. 376-377. (I just put all five vessels' names into Google and it found the James immediately. Does this help, or should I keep looking? Acad Ronin (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think James has it on page 487 (although I suppose it might be a different version) [[19]]. Also mentioned in Clowes here [[20]].--Ykraps (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to you both. I had the same impression, maybe we have enough to start an Action of 9 April 1799. Thank you again! Rama (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

HM Brig Gibraltar

Re your enquiry in April, Spanish records confirm the capture of this brig (formerly the American Virginia) on 28 April 1781, but her RN commander's name was Lieut Walter (not William!) Anderson. Her British measurements were 63ft deck, 54ft keel x 21ft breadth x 7½ft depth in hold; 85 tons burthen. She carried ten 3-pounder guns and 45 men. She was renamed San Salvador (not just Salvador) in Spanish service. She was seemingly re-taken on 29 July 1800, although it's unclear by which ship - but the reference to her as a gunboat seems off, and she certainly didm't use the name Gibraltar at that time. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rif Winfield: - Thanks for this. I was hoping Spanish records would indicate what became of her when she was under Spanish ownership. The info on HMS Anson recapturing her is not well-suppported, see HMS Gibraltar (1779), but I haven't been able to find anything else on the English side. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• • You're welcome. Out of interest, I've added some data on the Murciano which captured her. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Ardaseer

I've reverted your change of flag. Ardaseer was registered in India at the time. The EIC was running India so we use their flag. That is not saying that she was an EIC ship. Compare India with East India Company, which is used for EIC ships. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Apologies. Knee-jerk reaction on my part. Regards,Acad Ronin (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Middelgrundsfortet -> Ungdomsøen Requested move

Hi for your information, I've opened a discussion at Talk:Middelgrundsfortet#Requested move 26 August 2019 to move Middelgrundsfortet to new title Ungdomsøen. Bogger (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Danish Shipbuilders

Hi Acad R.
You may be interested in a new page Danish Shipbuilders - same name as the category it fits in. I am sure it can be improved with more eyes on it. A better title?? Three red links for certain shipbuilders will, I hope, soon be turned blue. What do you think? Viking1808 (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

my apologies in turn

The article had so many innacuracies it had me totally beat, I do hope my edit summaries are not too rude... I inherited a copy of volume 2 of Jones, A. G. E; Roebuck Society (1986), Ships employed in the South Seas trade 1775-1861 (Parts I and II), and, Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen, Transcripts of registers of shipping 1787-1862 (Part III), Roebuck Book, ISBN 978-0-909434-30-4 just yesterday, and hope that I dont try to confound australian maritime history or shipwreck projects with too many gems from that one - hopefully it will remain on the shelf for a while yet, untouched JarrahTree 12:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: No worries Mate (;-). I envy you the Jones, and I would encourage you to make extensive use of it. I draw on Lloyd's List's SAD data often to try to resolve ambiguities on fill gaps. Unfortunately, the online issues only go to 1826. TROVE can be a big help too. There are so many open questions for the late-18th, early 19th century history that any additional info is welcome. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Countess of Scarborough

Hi, I closed some brackets here because the footnote was appearing in the article body but I reckon you're wanting a footnote with a reference in it, rather than an addition to the citations.

Am editing via mobile so can't easily play around with the formatting, so just letting you know in case you're passing by the article again. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Earl Howe

Hello,

I have happened upon a finely crafted model of an 18-gun British cutter named Earl Howe, dated 1775 to 1800: File:Earl Howe-32.144-IMG 5015.JPG. Would you have anything about this ship? She might have been a naval cutter.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rama: - This is a tough one. There seems to be no record of an HMS Earl Howe, with any dates. There is one mention of an Earl Howe, of 204 tons, in an old American journal. I will have to go to the Library of Congress to see if I can see more than Google's snippet view, but I have little hope of more info.

There is one HMS Lord Howe, a cutter between 1763 and 1771. Also, there were a number of vessels named Lord Howe in the American theater during the Revolutionary War. (see:[21]), but none of the dates match. :All-in-all, I don't hold put much hope. Did the BMA have any more info that might give us a clue?

Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I am afraid that the page of the MFAB does not give much more clue [22]. Might be worth a try to write and ask the Museum directly? I already would be curious as to whether their model of Héros displays Suffren's flagship, or if this is some imaginary 74-gun of the same name.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rama: OK. As I read the page, the years are an estimate. I found the following snippet via Google: "It is possible the Earl Howe cutter in the Boston Museum is representative of the Lord Howe cutter of 1763, though the model appears to be much larger than the dimensions for the cutter Lord Howe would indicate." Colledge gives Lord Howe a burthen of 82 tons, and the one reference to Earl Howe gives a burthen of 204 tons, which is consistent with the snippet quote. I suspect that the Boston Museum model was imaginary. As for Heros, the mentions I found are that the model was made of ivory by a French prisoner of war, and was the specific vessel, not a generic one. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, these are splendid news! We hardly have any iconography for Héros, I look forwards very much to giving this article an overhaul. Many thanks! Rama (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I will find the refs and pass them on to you later today. These are only Google snippet refs, but still. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rama: The following if from p.35 of the book: Ship Models (1957) by Richard B. K. McLanathan, and published by the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

"HEROS. France, ca. 1781. Stern. 74 gun ship-of-the-line. Model planked in whalebone, black wales of baleen. Carved details are ivory. Model probably by the French ivory workers of Dieppe, who had been impressed into British service..."

I may be able to borrow a copy of the book and copy/scan the relevant time. It will probably take about 10 days if you want me to do this. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, your find confirms what the site of the museum provides [23]. I just found a second-hand copy of Ship Models; I would be quite keen and excited to see a photograph of p.35, but I expect to have the whole book handy relatively soon, so please do not inconvenience yourself if this is difficult. Cheers! Rama (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and ask for the book via inter-library loan. even if you don't need it, I want to see what they say about Earl Howe. As for Heros, that is a beautiful model. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I hope we find clues there!

The model of Heros has its proportions slightly off, but the craft is masterpiece. I had to take the photographs hand-held and through a display window, I hope they do the model justice. Here is a preview of the current state of advancement of the detouring -- as you can imagine, the shrouds are going to be meticulous work.

Thank you again and cheers! Rama (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I got the book, it does not seem to have more written information than the museum tags have, but the photographs are magnificient, I wish they would let me do the same. Cheers! Rama (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rama: I got the book today too. As you say, no new info,but great close-ups, that would be even better in colour. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The definite article

May I ask what is wrong with using the definite article in front of a ships name? Broichmore (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Broichmore:. There is nothing wrong with using the definite article with ships' names. However, WP at some point decided that it would be house style not to use it. I therefore gave it up so as to avoid people with nothing better to do going through my articles "correcting" them and leaving snarky messages. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I see your point, but you are changing it yourself as well. I intend taking these people on at some point. There are too many of them trolling the project using thing as a way to vent their petty maliciousness at worst or indulging their OCD proclivities at best. Certain individuals are cynically levering PC editors this way and that. To my mind it's common courtesy if an article started off with the definite article or not then it should continue in that way. I was taught that the article is the standard in the language, and helped to vary the cadence and tone of the prose etc. The language flows better to my eye with it. I just don't agree with the attitude on the wiki, that original research is forbidden on one hand and yet on another you can codify / alter fundamental rules of the English language. Currently we're going through exactly this on titling. Apologies for the rant , but I think you substantially agree with what I'm saying. Regards. Broichmore (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Broichmore: I do substantially agree with you, both on the no original research, strictly defined, which when one is dealing with 18th and 19th century minor ships, is unavoidable, and on trolling. When somebody edits an article I have worked on in the past and am monitoring, I generally open the article, partly to check the changes if I don't know the editor, but mostly to go over the article looking for typos, styles, newer forms of citations, wrong flags (Great Britain vs. United Kingdom), etc. While I am doing that I remove the definite article for the reasons I mentioned earlier. You make a good point, though. I will stop removing the definite article when it is already there. Some 50+/- years ago I read Michel's book in which he introduced his Iron Law of Oligarchy where he showed that no organization, no matter how democratic in its founding and founding ethos, can avoid succumbing to rule by an oligarchy. We are seeing that now with WP where the WP:Policy trolls are becoming ever more active. I think the time has come for more passive-aggressive resistance; I will begin by ignoring the definite article. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't have put it better myself, and you've given me some ideas at the same time. Thanks. Broichmore (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Your opinion sought

Is the French frigate Maréchal de Belle-Isle (1757) and HMS Belleisle (1761) the same ship?, little bit suspicious here but I don't have the sources to nail it. Can't see what happened to the Marechal, destroyed or taken into the RN. She lost her bow sprit, so must have been badly damaged. Broichmore (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Broichmore: No connection. I have added to the HMS Belleisle article. Winfield is clear that she was the former French East Indiaman Bertin. Will scout around a little for the Marechal. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Indian flag

Been doing a bit of research as to what flag was used to represent India under the British Raj after the fall of the East India Company. The Daily News of 21 November 1863 indicates that the new flag () was introduced on or about 1 November 1863. Suggest the HEIC flag is appropriate up to then. Mjroots (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Marie Rose

Hello,

one of my finds in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston was a model of a clipper namer Marie Rose

Marie Rose

• 
• 

I was wondering whether she has any notability in your sources? She would have been a 1000-ton clipper bark, around 1870.

Many thanks in any case! Rama (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rama: Sorry, nothing. She appears to be American so I could find nothing in Lloyd's Register, and quick googling didn't throw up anything either. Either, so far she just seems to be a beautiful ship with no story. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Up for a search?

Hello Acad,

I am looking for more information on a ship, and so thought I should leave you a note given your interests.

Several months ago I created an article on Bermuda No. 2, The Schooner, a pwork in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The painting depicts Elsa, a Danish-flagged ship that was undergoing repairs in St. George's, Bermuda during the Winter of 1916-1917. She is an interesting footnote in history, as she was depicted in the works of several artists who were wintering in St. George's at the time. If you could find any information about Elsa, I would be grateful. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Look at this: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015086589630?urlappend=%3Bseq=1531. Number 180 is a wooden barque built in 1876. She is the only Danish sailing vessel listed in Lloyd's Register. However, as you can see,she is fairly large. Do we have any other info that would help us rule her in or out? Are any of the other pictures a little more conventional? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I have done some searching, but have only turned up one quality source that gives a description of the ship. The source describes Elsa as a large two-masted bark, 190ft long, with two decks. Most interestingly, the author describes the ship as weighing 1236 tons, which corroborates the Lloyd resister and implies this is the same ship. As for visual identification, I have not been able to find any non-cubist works depicting Elsa, but will note that (if this work by Marsden Hartley is anything to go on) her home port was Copenhagen. Thanks for the help. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@SamHolt6:, Damn Cubists. They miss the important stuff. :-) Glad to have been of help. Cheers,Acad Ronin (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sarah (1819 ship)

Hi Acad Ronin, I think it would be a courtesy to the reader to actually include the name of the country in which Rotherhithe is located. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cowdy001: You make an arguable point. First, obvious disambiguation is often not much help. In the case of Rotherhithe, one would have to specify that it was part of London. Rotherhithe England doesn't tell anyone much, and Rotherhithe on the Thames requires further disambiguation as to whether the Thames in question is the one in England or the one in Connecticut, or perhaps even another one. The second counter argument is that Wikipedia is not print. By creating a link anyone curious about the location can click on it, something one cannot do on dead tree media. Furthermore, we may want to encourage the reader to click: doing so may better help set the result in memory, and lead the reader into the garden of many paths. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Which Perseverance is this one?

You wrote about 4 Perseverance ships and 3 HMS Perseverance but none of them are the 99 ton schooner under British flags out of Antwerp in 1877. Jengel199 (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jengel199: No idea. It was a popular name and there are many vessels named Perseverance that I have not written about. I tend to specialize in the 1793–1815 period and favor naval vessels, convict transports, whalers, Indiamen, and slave ships. Your Perserverance sounds like one I would not likely have encountered. Acad Ronin (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m trying to upload a photo of a ships painting by H. Loos in 1877 but I can’t figure out how? Jengel199 (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2019

Henry Loos of Belgium (sometime USA)? What ship? Broichmore (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

100,000th edit!

	100,000th edit award
	Hello AR. Let me be the first to congratulate you on your 100,000th edit! You are now entitled to place the 100,000 Edit Star on your bling page! or you could choose to display the {{User 100,000 edits}} user box. Or both! Thanks for all your work at the 'pedia! Cheers, — MarnetteD|Talk 21:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't make cut-paste moves... ask an administrator for help!

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

An editor with over 100,000 edits should know better than to cut-paste move Nile (1798 ship) to Nile (1799 ship). I've history-merged the article, and moved the talk page to resync it with the article. Next time please take advantage of WP:Requested moves. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

New book on privateers from Boulogne

Hello,

I just got a new book, Échec à Nelson - les corsaires boulonnais de la Révolution à l'Empire, with a number of biographies of more or less notable privateers from Boulogne. In some cases, these mention the names of at least some of their prizes, an information that to my chagrin is not present in Demerliac. We might find interesting material there if you remember open cases. Ideally I would created articles for a number of these ships and privateers, but with the Deletionists lurking around that would be a waste of time unless we have at least one or two other sources. Our recent investigations starting from HMS Royalist could be good starting points.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rama: Excellent. We can create some ship articles when we have both Demerliac and the Echec book. If we have the name of the privateer I can always see if she or her captures made it into Lloyd's List too. If we have the name of a Royal Navy ship as captor or prey, we also have the Winfield reference.

We have many open cases, I just don't remember them. Once I post an article I just forget about it. Still, I will start looking. Lastly, remember, the WP:Ships has taken the view that all ships of over 100 tons (whatever that means) are noteable. I have been challenged on that but generally have prevailed. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

lack of detail in trove

being bugged by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albeura and "VESSELS IN PORT". Southern Times. Western Australia. 3 October 1903. p. 3. Retrieved 23 January 2020 – via Trove. - I somehow find it hard to understand the ship could be the same - 40 years + in service? I thought the average lifespans of most timber ships from the 1850s would have not be surviving into the 1900s/? or might it be the same, I know there were at least 3 19th c ships with the same name, but... JarrahTree 14:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @JarrahTree: the only vessel in Lloyd's Register that has a name even remotely close is Albuera, of 729 tons (bm; old) or 852 tons (bm; new), launched at Moulmain (Burma) in 1854. Albuera is better Spanish than Albeura. This would be the vessel that brought the convicts. The Albuera of 1903 was an iron, screw steamer of 3,460 GRT, launched in 1902, by which time the first 1854 Albuera was no longer listed. Do you want me to move the first Albeura/Albuera, and add a shipbox and a little detail? By the way, the vessels are named for the Battle of Albuera. Cheers. Acad Ronin (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - it would be very useful to add anything that makes sense ships wise to the convict ship entry; (i see the diff in spellig is fun too) the vessels in port ref from trove above about a fully rigged ship in 1903 leaves me short of anything to compare a record with... at this stage... JarrahTree 15:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @JarrahTree: Will do re 1858 Albuera. Hmmmm re 1902/1903 Albuera. That is a little too far out of my lane for me to pursue at this time. Good hunting though. Acad Ronin (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

your opinion please...

You recently edited the Christopher_Middleton_(navigator) article.

I left a suggestion its citation style be switched to the overwhelmingly most common citation style, on Talk:Christopher_Middleton_(navigator).

I'd welcome your input.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

HMY Fubbs

Hi Acad, I just uploaded a colour picture of the Katherine and Fubbs to HMY Fubbs, do you agree with my identification of the ships L-R? Broichmore (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: The Fubbs/Katherine looks good to me, but I really have no special expertise or sources to bring to it. Same-same Perseverance, where I have even less info. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hambantota

The issue in question was the statement "the plan has had somewhat limited success, with some critics referring to the multi-million dollar projects as 'white elephants'." Without any supporting citations to back it up it is just an unsubstantiated opinion, which has no place in an encyclopedic article. This is why I deleted the entire sentence, including your edit. Dan arndt (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Broken short references in ship-related articles

I see that you have noticed some of my short reference fixes. In case you are curious, I am working to clean up a new error-tracking category, Category:Harv and Sfn template errors, which tracks instances of short-reference templates (like {{sfn}}) that do not link to full citations. There are about 3,000 1,700 ship-related articles in the category right now. Almost all of them are there because they contain an {{sfn}} template that refers to, but does not link to, a full citation. The best solution is to convert the plain-text full citation into a {{cite book}} or related template, like this. In a few cases, the full citation is missing entirely because the short citation was copied from another article, but the full citation was not copied.

There is a detailed explanation of the different types of errors and how to fix them at the category page linked above. I have posted links to a few batches of ship-related articles that need cleanup at Module talk:Footnotes, where we have been discussing this new error-tracking category. Please let me know if you have any questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the diligent reference-fixing work! I appreciate it. It looks like we are down to about 1,500 articles. If you come across any ship-related reference problems that you are unable to puzzle out, feel free to get in touch. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:The 10,000 Challenge

Hi, feel free to put your articles up, keep up the good work!† Encyclopædius 07:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

USS Herald (1798)

Well done with your work on the Herald, I see you didnt like the notion of renaming it the Africaine? How do you feel about putting it up for a DYK? I'm looking for a QPG to get my article George Pechell Mends off the ground, only problem is getting a hook for it; no problem there with the Herald, I think. Grateful for your thoughts? Broichmore (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: Couldn't have done it without your finding Herald. I went with Herald for two reasons. First, that was the earliest name. Second, I think a US-centric name will give it slightly more visibility. I like the DYK idea. I haven't done one in years though. When they toughened the rules on DYKs I lost interest. I like doing articles; I don't like doing procedures. I will look at the Mends to see if any hook suggests itself to me. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, good, then with your permission I'll nominate it. Leave the procedures to me, I agree with you on the rules etc, it seems a lot more complex than even when I did it last, a year ago. Meanwhile I have another source for the Herald, which I'll include and then some prep on it prior to the approval process. So I'll aim at making the nomination by the 16th. Regards. Broichmore (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: Excellent. Thanks. Am currently tidying your Mends article. I must admit I too don't see any easy hook, yet.Acad Ronin (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I might have to dig up something new about him or just withdraw it. Broichmore (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: DYK that George Pechel Mends witnessed United States steam frigate USS Missouri burning at Gibraltar 26 August 1843 and that his sketch was the basis for a painting by Edward Duncan.Acad Ronin (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, nice; I'll try it out. Thanks... Broichmore (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Saw this https://www.newspapers.com/clip/48693969/herald-of-boston-june-1799/ and then saw this https://www.newspapers.com/clip/48694437/herald-letter-of-marque-pickstock-in/ Have my doubts about it? Broichmore (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: Have to run, but have been able to confirm that the letter of marque Herald was a British privateer of 110 tons (bm). Will later check further into the first story. Unfortunately, Herald is not a unique name. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

No hurry. Hope to get this DYK off the ground today Broichmore (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated it for the DYK so will do all to make it ready. You may want to revise or put in a different hook though? The article talk page links to the DYK. Broichmore (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: Thanks for doing the nomination and the shepherding. I already notified Gatoclass that the ALT2 hook is fine by me. We'll see what transpires. Amazing what one little clue has given rise to. Also, I did a short article (Herald (1798 ship)) about the Herald being attacked at Naples. I can't find any earlier history, possibly because of a name change, but she did have an interesting year. Cheers,Acad Ronin (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Just an update, I'm working on the QPG. The backlog on DYK's stands at around 400 I understand. The competition for QPG's is intense, and of course the whole process has been ring fenced with complications to frustrate casual entrants (outsiders) never mind newbie's. Broichmore (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: No worries. The hassles was why I gave up nominating for DYKs anything I wrote. the problem for WP is it has more to loose reputationally from a spoof DYK than it has to gain from faster clearance. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Ship linking

Hi, Can you point me to the instructions on ship linking, example HMS|Diligence|1814|6 what is the last number supposed to be? and is there more to it than that? Broichmore (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: I am sure that instructions exist, but I never looked for them. I only resort to instructions when brute force fails. 2 gives you the name without anything else: Diligence. 6 gives you the HMS as well: HMS Diligence. If I want the HMS and the year, I leave out the number: HMS Diligence (1814). Does that help? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes it does, I'm trying to work out why we're doing it, what advantage is it? Broichmore (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: Do you mean linking in general, or the formats? Linking in general is one of the wonderful things about WP – it connects articles and may facilitate readers going down rabbit holes. The format enables economy for the reader. If it is obvious that the vessel is RN, no need to repeat. When it is less obvious, then throw in the HMS. (This may be useful when the HMS in question was captured from the French and is in an engagement with a French vessel captured from the English: e.g., if HMS Moulin Rouge is firing on Bulldog.) When I am doing shipindex pages I use the date to distinguish the HMS Pinafores from each other. Also, the date situates the vessel in time. So if the reader is looking for the HMS Pinafore that their great great uncle served on in WWI, they can more quickly zero-in on the relevant vessel without reading the capsule description. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I do the same, but not with that style of formatting. Broichmore (talk)

Expédition

Hello,

I have just drafted a little article about Expédition. She appears to have been a British Expedition before, either a privateer or a merchantman. Also, there is mention of a British privateer that she captured on 27 October 1778. I realise that these are flimsy clues, but I was wondering whether your sources might cast some light on the matter. Expédition was present when HMS Quebec exploded, so she might have attracted some attention. Many thanks in any case! Rama (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Rama:, I have almost nothing.

• Expédition. French cutter, 14 guns, at Dunkirk in 1777, then from Brest in 1778.
• Expedition. French navy, 80 men, at Madras, Jan 1781.
• Here is the URL for the letter from Rambler's captain describing the action: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/12021/page/3

Unfortunately, that is all that I have been able to find. Acad Ronin (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! Onwards to our next mystery! Rama (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

New Demerliac

Hello,

I just received to complements to the Demerliac collection: one is a small volume specifically devoted to privateers under Louis XV, and the other is a thick one on the merchant navy of the 2nd Republic and 2nd Empire.

Incidentally, if you have anything about a Yarmouth (East Indiaman-sized) that Fine captured in June 1782, or about a privateer Tanna or Danner that became Diligent, I would be very grateful and interested.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rama: The new Demerliacs may prove useful, though they are a little out of my time period. No info re Yarmouth, yet. As you can see, have info re Tannah. I have to run right now, but I will return later to day and work on her pre-French history, and on the info box. Am feeling chuffed that I was able to find something about her.Acad Ronin (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations on Tannah, that was a long shot! I am puzzled that Yarmouth appears nowhere, she sounds at least as large as Fortitude, but since I had found nothing on Threedecks I suspected she would prove an elusive quarry.

I must admit I had purchased the Demerliac a bit out of a compulsion of compleness, but I think they might still be useful to document portraits of ships drawn by the Roux family, for instance.

Many thanks again and good continuation! Rama (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Rama:, you can see what I was able to do with Tannah. We are fortunate that she appeared in various sources. I have had no luck with Yarmouth. All I can find is that she was a storeship that the French captured. She was not a warship, or an Indiaman, or built in the Bombay Dockyard, or in the London Gazette, or in the National Maritime Museum's database, or in Lloyd's Register. We will just have to hope that someday something will show up. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Splendid, so gratifying to see the puzzle get solved little by little!

Yarmouth has an entry in Demerliac, I think there is enough to warrant an article under the tentative name Yarmouth (1782 ship), be it only to encourage further details to accumulate there.

Thank you again! Rama (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

HMS Arethusa

Hi, have you any ideas for this picture. On the basis that it's a primitive work it could be used? Perhaps the flags or even stern could narrow it down. 1817 or 1849? I'm leaning towards 1817? Broichmore (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Broichmore:, naive or not, it's a great picture. I too lean to the 1817, though the dates are a bit of an issue. By 1844, the 1817 Arethuse had been renamed Bacchus. Earlier, she had been a quarantine ship, which is consistent with the blue jack denoting government service, but not HMS, but I don't think of quarantine ships as sailing anywhere. She could be a fantasy, i.e., this is what she would have looked like had she been sailing. I can't read the signal flags, and if they are in code, even if I were to transliterate them I would be no better off. Unfortunately, other than identifying the jack as not Navy but government, I am stuck.Acad Ronin (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Have a look here at Frederick Chamier, tell me what you think? Broichmore (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: It is certainly possible. I am a little disturbed that the 1817 Arethusa doesn't seem to have served in the West Africa Squadron. If she did, the WP article on her is missing info. I will need t look into this. Is there any way that you can access Chamier's book and see what he says? Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: I just checked a source on the RN's anti-slave operations. The Arethusa (1781) was operating on the coast of Africa in 1811 for a couple of months. There was no later Arethusa so engaged. Means Chamier's Arethusa is not the one in the picture. Sorry. Acad Ronin (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I just inserted some detail into Frederick Chamier and HMS Arethusa (1781), could you finesse the 1811 date please? You'll find the cutting from the Caledonian Mercury particulary interesting, though I've left it as a belated easter egg, you may wish to embellish upon it. Broichmore (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

HMS Arrow (1796)

Hi Acad, I hope you are well. I noticed you've made some edits to including this one, [[24]] where you give Arrow's captain at Copenhagen as Thomas Brodie. I am currently working on User:Ykraps/Thomas Brodie (Royal Navy officer) and I am looking for sources that support that position. Do you have any? You added a cite to The Gentleman's Magazine (May 1811), Vol. 81, Part 1, p.492 and I wondered if this names the commander of Arrow when she was on her way home with dispatches. Any help appreciated. Thanks --Ykraps (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi AR/Ykraps Try London Gazette https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/16419/page/1719 for award of prize money for capture of a prize in 1808 when Thomas Charles Brodie was captain of Hyperion. This is the only reference I can find in London Gazette from 1790 to 1830 for this man. Does this help at all?Viking1808 (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. That'll be useful for later on in the article but I was really looking for something that puts Brodie in Arrow at Battle of Copenhagen (1801). --Ykraps (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ykraps and Acad Ronin: This book gives an account of his life. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Newm30. I have that book which suggests that Brodie was in command of Arrow on 2 April 1801. I was hoping to find another reliable source that supports it. If it's only Hore that has that view, it is probably WP:FRINGE. Thanks anyway. --Ykraps (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ykraps:@Newm30:@Viking1808: Hi; The evidence is ambiguous. 1) The NMM pdf - just scroll down till you hit Arrow. It puts Brodie on Arrow, though it does not explicitly put him on her at Copenhagen. 2) The Gentleman's Magazine is his obituary that appears verbatim in other newspapers of the time and it does list him as having both commanded her at Copenhagen, and as having brought back the dispatches. 3) The British Flag Triumphant! ... being copies of the London Gazettes, containing the accounts of the ... victories ... of the British Fleets, during the last and present war ... to which is prefixed, an address by Sir J. A. Park to the officers, seamen ... of His Majesty's Fleets. Edited by Admiral Lord Radstock has a list of vessels and commanders at Copenhagen in its Addendum and that lists Brodie as commander of Arrow at Copenhagen. Just Google "Thomas Charles Brodie Arrow Copenhagen". On the other hand, the list of vessels and their commanders that received the NGSM for Copenhagen puts Bolton in command of Arrow at the battle. I can also find some other rosters in books that do likewise. Hore is really the key. In Brodie's favour, it is worth mentioning that Arrow was rated a sloop, not a sixth-rate, and as such her commander would have been a commander, not a post-captain. It is therefore unlikely that Bolton was promoted to post-captain into Arrow. If he was promoted to post-captain in 1800 it would have been out of Arrow, not into her. The WP article on William Bolton relies heavily on Phillips, who is not a reliable source as he does not give his sources, which were mostly the Naval Chronicle and Marshall, the latter of which is not relevant in this case. Brodie was not promoted to post-captain until 1803. Does any of this help?Acad Ronin (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that helps a great deal. My search engine (not Google) wasn't picking any of that up! --Ykraps (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

French frigate Méduse

Hello Acad, I hope I'm not being a bother, but I was a little confused by your edits to the Méduse You wrote that the Méduse captured several merchant ships in December 1814, but wasn't the United Kingdom at peace with France at the time? Maybe you could clarify the information using your sources? Regards, Snagemit (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Snagemit: Never a bother to get things right, especially when I have been wrong. (Something my wife and children assure me does happen on rare occasions. :-)) I will have to look into this shortly. I may not have written the bit you mention, but in any case, will follow up. Acad Ronin (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I meant [[25]] this edit. I could be wrong, but I was just curious, that's all. I mean, it is a pretty famous ship.Snagemit (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Snagemit: You were right to be curious. Pure ID10T move on my part. I had shifted the event forward in time by a year. Shift it back to be congruent with the Lloyd's List item and there is no problem. Thanks for catching this.Acad Ronin (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sun (1819 ship)

You added a short reference to Nicholson (1996), without making the associated long reference a WP:CS1 or WP:CS2 template citation. That meant that the link from {{sfnp}} didn't work. I converted the citation to a {{cite book}} so the short footnote links to it correctly. You can install User:Svick/HarvErrors.js to get noticed of such issues in articles when making use of short footnotes. If you don't know how to install that, let me know, I'll walk you through it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Thanks. I think I have many other failed citations because some time ago I changed to short citations without always converting the reference to a {{cite book}} format. Don't yet want to install the app you mention, but I will get back to you when I have the time for that particular project. (I recently did several hundred such that someone drew to my attention.) Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Really up to you if you want to install it or not, but it'll flag every such problem, so it's really useful to have. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

For example, Union (1799 ship) has Williams 2011 missing, HMS Terror (1759) had Winfield 2007 broken (which I've fixed), HMS Foxhound (1909) had issues with Dorling 1931/1932 which I've fixed, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Some other ones

• Britannia (1798 Kircaldy ship)‎ Kert 1997 vs Kert 2015
• Sir Edward Hamilton (1800 ship)‎ Neumann & Kington 1992

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Thanks for finding and fixing some of these problems. In the case of Sir Edward Hamilton (1800 ship) I have found and added the ref, but I don't know the citation templates and so don't know how to apply them in this case. In the case of HMS Albacore (1804) there is a different problem. The reason I cite Marshall as (1823-1835) is that over that period he published several volumes seriatim, together with supplements, some in parts. So p.374 in 1833 refers to the specific volume published in that year, so changing the year to 1823-1835 is meaningless. What we need is the specific volume, or part of the supplement, that 1833 refers to. That further requires that the citation format can deal with volumes, supplements, and parts. I don't have a list that maps years into volumes, etc. What should we do? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Took care of the first. For the second, changing the year to "1823-1835" makes the link work, so that's why I did that. I don't really know how to deal with missing information though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Mystery British frigate

Hello, I hope you are well and in good spirits!

I have found ourselves a little mystery. Armand Le Gardeur de Tilly was captain of the frigate Concorde. On 18 February 1779, Concorde encountered a 32-gun British frigate. There was a 2-hour engagement before the ships broke contact. My sources identify her as "HMS Congres", which I cannot reconciliate with any frigate in the Royal Navy lists. Would you happen to know whether somebody in the British side was in action on that day?

Cheers! Rama (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I will look. I have a couple of ideas where I can look, but absent a decisive outcome, the action may not have resulted in a letter for the London Gazette. Still, "essayons". Acad Ronin (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rama: sorry, but I have been unable to find anything. I have one wild suspicion, but it is so wild and unsupported by any evidence that it is not useful. In 1778 the British captured the Congressional frigate USS Raleigh (1776) and took her into service as HMS Raleigh. She remained in service in the American theatre until 1781. Someone hearing about the action with Concorde could have referred to her as HMS Congressional frigate. Outlandish but the best I can do for now. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for trying! Another shadow in the fog of war. Cheers! Rama (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

I have found myself a new reason for perplexity: on 5 July 1778, Engageante had an engagement with a 26-gun British frigate, which two of my sources consistently name as Rose, under a Captain Duncan. But the story is not consistent with that of HMS Rose (1757). Could she have been a privateer, or a naval ship of a different name?

Cheers! Rama (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rama: Rose was a privateer. See: https://books.google.com/books?id=8r4MD8I34OEC&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=%22Engageante%22+Rose+Duncan&source=bl&ots=ZKjxLbAWLO&sig=ACfU3U37VVEKyQwmPQW5b1VvXL_nBwztRA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwixt4XviL7pAhXUl3IEHX2GA3cQ6AEwC3oECGEQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Engageante%22%20Rose%20Duncan&f=false

If you google: ""Engageante" Rose Duncan" you will find the relevant volume of the NDAR - Naval Documents of the American Revolution. There are several mentions in the volume. The index to that volume also has more info re Rose. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Darn, I had not tried that particular keyword combination. Impressive performance for a privateer, by the way. Thank you! Rama (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

List of your created articles that are in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors

I went through your ~2400 created articles and these are the ones that came out with ref errors:

1. Action of 10 September 1782
2. Aguilar (1801 ship)
3. Ann (1801 Fowey ship)
4. Ann (1805 ship)
5. Asia (1780 EIC ship)
6. Auspicious (1797 ship)
7. Baltimore (1810 ship)
8. Barrosa (1811 ship)
9. Bellona (1796 ship)
10. Betsey (1768 ship)
11. Boyne (1787 ship)
12. Britannia (1798 ship)
13. Butterworth (1785 ship)
14. Ceres (1787 EIC ship)
15. Comet (1800 ship)
16. Cora (1812 ship)
17. Countess of Sutherland (1801 ship)
18. Duke of Montrose (1804 ship)
19. Dutch brig Komeet (1789)
20. Dutch corvette Scipio (1784)
21. Dutch cutter Kemphaan (1781)
22. Dutch ship Minerva (1787)
23. Earl of Mornington (1799 ship)
24. Euphrates (ship)
25. Europe (1803 EIC ship)
26. Fame (1779 ship)
27. Fame (1786 ship)
28. Fame (1812 ship)
29. Fame (1818 ship)
30. French brig Alerte (1787)
31. French brig Lodi (1797)
32. French brig Observateur (1800)
33. French brig Pandour (1804)
34. French corvette Blonde (1781)
35. French corvette Diligente (1794)
36. French corvette Etna (1795)
37. French corvette Fraternité (1793)
38. French corvette Jalouse (1794)
39. French frigate Aigle (1782)
40. French frigate Alcmène (1811)
41. French frigate Mignonne (1767)
42. French gun-vessel Torride (1797)
43. French ship Généreux (1810)
44. French ship Sans Culotte
45. Ganges (1797 EIC ship)
46. Ganges (1806 ship)
47. General Goddard (1782 ship)
48. General Graham (1811 ship)
49. Gloire (1799 ship)
50. HCS Vestal (1809)
51. HMS Apelles (1808)
52. HMS Atalanta (1814)
53. HMS Barbuda (1780)
54. HMS Camilla (1776)
55. HMS Canso (1813)
56. HMS Cerbere (1800)
57. HMS Challenger (1813)
58. HMS Charybdis (1809)
59. HMS Curieux (1804)
60. HMS Diana (1807)
61. HMS Diomede (1781)
62. HMS Dolphin (1799)
63. HMS Dolphin (1813)
64. HMS Echo (1797)
65. HMS Fama (1808)
66. HMS Foxhound (1809)
67. HMS Fury (1794)
68. HMS Hardi (1797)
69. HMS Harpy (1796)
70. HMS Hazard (1749)
71. HMS Highflyer (1813)
72. HMS Hippomenes (1803)
73. HMS Jackal (1801)
74. HMS Loyalist (1779)
75. HMS Lynx (1794)
76. HMS Magnet (1812)
77. HMS Malabar (1804)
78. HMS Matilda (1794)
79. HMS Matilda (1805)
80. HMS Morne Fortunee (1806)
81. HMS Mosquidobit (1813)
82. HMS Moucheron (1802)
83. HMS Netley (1798)
84. HMS Netley (1808)
85. HMS Orestes (1805)
86. HMS Owen Glendower (1808)
87. HMS Paz (1807)
88. HMS Persian (1809)
89. HMS Pike (1804)
90. HMS Pocahontas (1780)
91. HMS Podargus (1808)
92. HMS Redbridge (1803)
93. HMS Salsette (1805)
94. HMS Sappho (1806)
95. HMS Saracen (1812)
96. HMS Scorpion (1803)
97. HMS Spy (1804)
98. HMS Swallow (1781)
99. HMS Swallow (1795)
100. HMS Swift (1804)
101. HMS Tang (1807)
102. HMS Tapageur (1779)
103. HMS Telegraph (1813)
104. HMS Trompeuse (1800)
105. HMS Vincejo (1799)
106. Hinchinbrooke (1814 ship)
107. Hind (1800 ship)
108. Hired armed cutter Albion
109. Hired armed cutter Nimrod
110. Hired armed cutter Swan
111. Hired armed lugger Speedwell
112. Hope (1797 EIC ship)
113. Hugh Inglis (1799 EIC ship)
114. Irlam (1800 ship)
115. Jodhpur Legion
116. Kennersley Castle (1811 ship)
117. King George (1781 ship)
118. King George (1784 EIC ship)
119. Lady Kennaway (1816 ship)
120. Lady Mary Pelham (1811 ship)
121. Lewis Tower, Jersey
122. Lively (1796 ship)
123. Liverpool (1815 ship)
124. Lord Hungerford (1814 ship)
125. Lord Melville (1807 ship)
126. Lord Nelson (East Indiaman)
127. Marchioness Wellesley (1826 ship)
128. Mohawk (1781 ship)
129. Montezuma (1804 ship)
130. Mornington (1799 ship)
131. Nonsuch (1781 ship)
132. Ocean (1788 EIC ship)
133. Ocean (1800 EIC ship)
134. Ocean (1802 ship)
135. Ordóñez guns
136. Othello (1786 ship)
137. Paragon (1813 ship)
138. Plover (1788 ship)
139. Poisson Volant
140. Pondichéry (1754 ship)
141. Porcher (1799 ship)
142. Portsea (1807 ship)
143. Prince Frederick (1795 ship)
144. Princess Charlotte (1814 ship)
145. Princess Charlotte (1815 ship)
146. Quantock Savings Bank
147. Quatre frères (1796 ship)
148. Queen Charlotte (1790 ship)
149. Rambler (1812 ship)
150. Reliance (1831 ship)
151. Robert (1793 ship)
152. Royal Captain (1761 ship)
153. Royal Charlotte (1774 ship)
154. Royal George (1803 ship)
155. Salisbury (1807 ship)
156. Scaleby Castle (1798 EIC ship)
157. Sesostris Rock
158. Shah Ardaseer (1786 ship)
159. Sir Andrew Hammond (1800 ship)
160. Sir Edward Hughes (1784 EIC ship)
161. Sir John Sherbrooke (Saint John)
162. St Helena (1814 ship)
163. Susan (1813 ship)
164. Swallow (1779 EIC packet)
165. Swallow (1798 ship)
166. Swan (1808 ship)
167. Syren (1770 ship)

The category is too large to fully compare with your contributions, but it will cover all your creation from A to Su (~92.7% of your creations). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, I exhort you to install Svick's script per these instructions (if you haven't already installed it). The above represented roughly 3% of that category alone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that in most cases, the solution is to convert the references to proper {{cite book}}, rather than remove the {{sfn}} or similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Concerning [26], you've marked many as done, following edits like this. Really, that only takes care of the Clayton ref in that one, and several others had broken anchors. If you install the script I mention above, you'd see where the errors are. Or failing that, you could just convert all refs to templates, like this [27]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Updated the list to cover to A to Tr, some article will re-appear, because they weren't fully fixed. The script will make the problem citations if you install it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I see you removed Armenia (1796 ship), Dame Ernouf, HCS Hugh Lindsay (1829), and HMS Galgo (1799) from the above, but those still have issues btw. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for USS Herald (1798)

On 8 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article USS Herald (1798), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the American merchant ship Herald served in the U.S. Navy against France before becoming a French privateer, was sold to Britain as a slaver, and ended her days as a West Indiaman? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/USS Herald (1798). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, USS Herald (1798)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

WOW! More than 100,000 people clicked on your article! Congratulations! Yoninah (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

HMS Herald (1824)

The article has her launched as Termagant both in 1821 and 1822. Colledge says 1822 but I suspect Winfield says 1821. Who's correct? Lyndaship (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: Winfield in his 1817-1863 book has 1822, and th eNatl Maritime Museum database too has 1822. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hugh Lindsay

Is PS Hugh Lindsay (1829), the first steamship to be built in Bombay, the same Hugh Lindsay that was lost in the Persian Gulf on 18 August 1865? Mjroots (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Yes. go to: [28] Some sources give the date of loss as 18 August and some 18 September, with the August date being more likely. Apparently she broke her back off Bassadore, though I haven't tried to find out where that was. Acad Ronin (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, have added a wikilink to the list of shipwrecks in August 1865. Mjroots (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Hugh Lindsay deserves an article. Are you going to do it, or should I put her on my list of things to do? Acad Ronin (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Put it on your list. Mjroots (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone's actually asking but Bassadore is the north-west point of the island of Qeshm. Named after the Portuguese town that was once there.--Ykraps (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Ykraps:, it took me some time to find it when I was writing the Hugh Lindsay article, but I found it. WP has a small/stubby article on Basaidu, which is its modern name. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and it's definitely in the right area but wasn't sure if it was the original town of Bassadore which was described as a ruin, back in 1841. It could've been rebuilt of course or built on the same site but our article doesn't make any reference to that nor to a Portuguese settlement. Perhaps when I've got nothing better to do, I'll see if I can find a reference that links the two and add to the article.--Ykraps (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ykraps: That would be great. As you saw, the WP article traces the name back to classic times, and makes no mention of a Portuguese role. It is also possible that changing shorelines, abandonment and reconstruction, and whatever have resulted in some locational drift.Acad Ronin (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Baltic 1726

Hi Acad - could I perhaps interest you in the events of 1726 in the Baltic? My new article Draft:Naval Blockade of Reval (1726) is in draft because it is too Danocentric, and needs the British and Russian versions to make it a true article. The form of the final article (if any) could well be totally different from the current offering. Any suggestions/additions always welcome. Viking1808 (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Viking1808: – unfortunately almost none of my sources go back that far; most cover the 1793–1815 period only. Still, I will think about the problem and keep an eye out for anything to add. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks anyway! I too have strayed from my 1808 anchor. We will have to wait and see if any other editor picks up on the challenge. There will be someone out in the real world for whom the Russian or British point of view in meat and drink. Viking1808 (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Anglo-French War (1778–1783) issue

Hi Acad, there is an ongoing dispute relating to the merger of the Anglo-French War (1778–1783) page into the France in the American Revolutionary War page. Myself and other editors believe the Anglo-French War page is POV-content fork of France in the American Revolutionary War, while other editors oppose that view. As I know you regularly create a large volume of ship articles directly related to this matter, I thought the discussion might be of some interest to you as it potentially affects a large number of pages you have created.XavierGreen (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hinchinbroke (1812 ship)

Regarding your reversion of my edit on the article Hinchinbroke (1812 ship), I had added Postage stamps and postal history of Malta in the "See also" section because the latter article includes some information on the Falmouth–Gibraltar–Malta packet boat service, which the Hinchinbroke was apparently part of. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You'll get there

Hi, Acad Ronin. It is good to know that someone is out there working on filling in the ship articles. I appreciate that you can only do so many a year - and have huge respect for the fact that you have already created nearly 4,000 articles. You clearly have a way of deciding which ones to do, and when. Leaving these redlinks from the first decade of the millennia hasn't helped attract anyone else to help you knock off the HMS Favourites, so they are not providing a meaningful click-bait to the cause, and are simply leaving a sea of red. You clearly have a way of deciding which ones to do, and when, so random redlinks from that long ago are not making any difference – other than dancing on the fringes of serving as a development notepad. I'm confident that your, or the ship project's, method will address the other five HMS Favourites at some date, and know that showing black rather than a sea of red will still be a lure to any other potentially helpful editor who comes across this 11-year-old HMS Favourite list of ships and notices that the majority of them have yet to be blue-linked. Jmg38 (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

About your articles on General Goddard and Galgo

Hi there. I would like to congratulate you for all the articles you've made so far, regarding British shipping. You're amazing. I've seen that you created the article of this legendary East indiaman named General Goddard. After it was captured by the Spanish, it was added into the Spanish Navy as a cargo ship, but was sold shortly afterwards. Here is a link where you can gather more information about it (in Spanish...) [29] By the way. About the ship HMS_Galgo_(1799) that appears to be captured during the same action... This ship was not El Galgo built at Ferrol in 1795 but El Galgo Inglés, a British privateer jamaican brig captured on 5th May 1797 by the Spanish frigate Juno (See Vela, Presas de la Armada Española... p. 157-8). El Galgo Inglés was captured by HMS Crescent because it departed from her consorts the day before. The Galgo built at Ferrol in 1795 was actually captured by the frigate HMS Alarm in 1796. So these are two different ships. Best regards Pietje96 (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pietje96: – Thak you for the kind words. Thank you even more for the info. I am an eventualist: I believe, or at least hope, that over time we will be able to clear up at least some of the gaps in our articles. Because of the intertwined history of the UK, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Denmark-Norway, and Russia, I have long hoped that people familiar with those sources will be able to add their information. Over the next few days I will work to incorporate the info on General Goddard, and correct the info on the Galgos. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Canton

I've come across the 1816 wreck of a ship named Canton (Glasgow Herald, 18 July 1867). Said ship was 400-500 tons, teak built and coppered. There is evidence of being in service with the East India Company. She departed from Sitka, Russian America for an undisclosed destination, and was wrecked in the Marshall Islands. Any idea which vessel this is? The Canton built in 1790 was much bigger at 1,200 tons. Mjroots (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Hi Mjroots, try this: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015013729358?urlappend=%3Bseq=89 Seq.No.111. She was built in Dundee in 1860 and wrecked in 1867-68. Earlier issues of Lloyd's Register gave her trade as Liverpool-China, which would make her an East Indiaman in common parlance. Remember, all EIC ships are East Indiamen, but after 1814 most East Indiamen were not EIC ships. After 1833 no East Indiamen were EIC. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

That can't be the ship in question. This on was wrecked in 1816! Will see if I can find a link to some contemporary American papers that give the story. Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Eureka! Mjroots (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: - Great. I stupidly focused in on the 1867 in the Glasgow Herald ref and proceeded to ignore all else. Canton must have been a country ship. No trace of her in Phipps re Calcutta-built ships, or Hackman in EIC ships or ships sailing under a license from the EIC, or Wadia re Bombay-built ships. She does not appear among the various transport vessels that the Royal Navy used for campaigns in the east between 1800 and 1819. So, still a bit of a mystery. Will look further. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't get that ping because you put "User:" in it! It's OK, I mess up plenty of pings myself. If you have access to the British Library Newspapers then you can look up the Glasgow Herald ref yourself. It has details of the date of sailing plus what is in the American newspaper article. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Dutch frigate Alliantie (1788)

Hi Acad, When you created this article, you added a reference to Norie (1827) p.92 but neglected to add the name of the book to the reference section. I made a quick search of John William Norie's books (I assume that's the Norie we are talking about) but couldn't find anything. Perhaps, when you have a minute, you could add it? If you can't remember where you saw it, with some rewording, I could reference to another book. Regards.--Ykraps (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Ykraps:, I believe I have fixed it, and tidied up another citation as well. Let me know if you think something still needs fixing. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

No, I can't see anything, it was just the name of the book. As I said, I could've referenced to another but the book I have only records the year of Cuming's promotion and not the precise date so your reference is much better. Thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Just in case you weren't aware, the full book is online here [[30]].--Ykraps (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Back to the definite article

Hi Acad, Hope your well. I'm hoping to get some help from you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#perpetual issue: ncships and the definite article. 19:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

{{sfn}} errors

I keep running into your articles in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. Please be more careful with citations and install a script (explained in the category page) which highlights such errors in big bold red warning messages. Thanks, Renata (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Renata3: – 1) I have some 4000+ articles, so there is a high likelihood that you will continue to run into errors for some time. I am only surprised that there are so few. 2) I have no idea what a script is, don't know how to use one, and have no desire to learn. 3) I also don't know all the forms of citation templates, and have no desire to learn.

My comparative advantage is writing articles. I think the best thing is that henceforth I will stop using the harv-type citation template and go back to the old way of doing things. That should reduce the likelihood of my creating new problems. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Renata3: See also this section above. I do wish they would install the script (either Svick's or Trappist the monk's) since it's really easy to do using , and that would save me from having to check if a problem remains after they attempted to fix a specific page. But Acad Ronin's has been cleaning up after themselves for the last few months. There's about 200-250 such articles left, but that was well above 700 back in May. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The "script" is really simple. All you have to do is

1. Copy this:
2. :importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]]
3. Paste it in Special:MyPage/common.js
4. Save. Done! You'll never need to visit this page again.

Now the errors will be highlighted in red so they are easy to spot and fix. Renata (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

What is the correct year for Silverstone in HM galley Pigot? 2001 or 2006? Renata (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Renata3: Both are correct. 2001 is the Naval Institute edition. 2006 is the Routledge edition. Acad Ronin (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert Elliot RN

I made a few discoveries about Robert Elliot (Royal Navy officer), but I've not bottomed out the ships involved. Can you have a look. Some clues might be at the end of the commons link. Maybe more about the floating Thames chapel too, but that's secondary. Must be more here... You'll like this, variations on the surname are involved. Broichmore (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: Unfortunately I have found nothing. He seems not to have held naval command at any time. He served on a series of vessels as a midshipman and lieutenant, but effectively retired shortly after making commander. I also could not find a date for his making post-captain; he may never have achieved the rank. He may have held civilian maritime command but I have found no clues at to which vessels, if any. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

So your thinking he retired from ships in 1808 due to injury? He was well connected so spent time on land doing some kind of executive work? This phrase From 1822 to 1824 he was in command of a vessel that toured India, Canton, and the Red Sea I cant explain. Already a landlubber he made Commander in 1846 with the Greenwich appointment. Do you have vessels prior to 1808? Broichmore (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore: –no, no. He was a lieutenant on a variety of naval vessels (I can give you a list in a few days), between 1808 and 1814, including going out to India on one. He received promotion to Commander in 1814, but his obits (all the same - no plagiarism worries at the time) all state that he then never served at sea again for the RN, that is, no mention of his ever making post captain. I saw the "From 1822 to 1824..." quote and tried to track down the vessel, which was almost certainly civil. I looked at his book of drawings but saw no mention of any named vessel. He may very well have been captain on a vessel sailing to India and the region there, probably not an EIC vessel, but more likely a vessel sailing under a license from the EIC. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of such vessels and I am working my way through them, but I still have hundreds to go. I'll keep an eye out. Acad Ronin (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Danish ships in India

Hi Acad Ronin - It has been an interesting few days chasing Warren Hastings (1802 EIC ship) and her Danish connections after accidentally finding the London Gazette reference to the Danish ships captured in 1808 - this while I was looking for Robert Elliot of your previous note, and then finding another Captain Elliot in India.

• The earlier Holsten (condemned 1805) now rests in a new article at HDMS Det Store Bælt (1782), although it is not a very exciting vessel. Any additional English references would be appreciated.
• and our three ships of that name are now listed under Danish ships at Holstein (disambiguation)
  

Have fun - Viking1808 (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Viking1808:, As you saw, I could only find a couple of things on the Holsteins. One problem is that because of Schleswig-Holstein Holstein is a very common word. Also, because she was Danish, the British press was not all that interested. Now, I have a couple of things for you: I have emailed you a gif for the flag of the Danish India Company. Unfortunately, it is not open source, but if we could find a public source it would something that we could add to several articles. Also, I could do with a little help. I have just completed HMS Argus (1799). She captured an interesting Danish vessel for which there is a great picture: Kongen af Assainthe. She apparently was launched in Finland, was of 220 tons, and made three voyages as a slave ship between 1797 and 1803. I would love to do an article on her if I can just nail done more details. Is there anything in your Danish sources, especially dates for the three slave voyages? Interestingly, the premier site on trans-Atlantic slave voyages has nothing on her. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

http://www.jmarcussen.dk/maritim/skibsliste/side.php?id=9161 agrees (in Danish) that Kongen af Ashanti (obviously King of the Ashanti ) was a slaver in those years. A frigate using the middle deck for slaves, crew of 26, captains named. Built in Finland/Sweden (wasn't Finland under Swedish rule about then??) in 1797 - builder not recorded - Operated by Jeppe Prætorius (1745-1823) og partners with a home base of Copenhagen. See Jeppe Prætorius. That may keep you going for a bit! Viking1808 (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Artist was C C Parneman - https://www.alamy.com/english-the-ship-kongen-af-assianthe-at-reden-in-copenhagen-denmark-it-was-owned-by-jeppe-prtorius-and-its-captain-was-h-meinertz-1803-c-c-parnemann-59-kongen-af-assianthe-1803-image189273961.html - (reden = harbour/base) - same artist responsible for picture of Lougen & Arab Viking1808 (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Back to Danish Ships - The commercial shipping company Maersk flies the company flag alongside the standard flag of Denmark on this picture. No .gif file has arrived - did you send it to my old, expired email that finished fsnet.co.uk or to my newer gmail.com ?

Also - May I ask you to check the date on the reference you supplied to HDMS Det Store Bælt as this ship was apparently condemned already in 1805. Viking1808 (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Viking1808: - the dates are the ones I used. I figured she may have made a fourth voyage to India in 1806, and been damaged on the way, with info taking time to reach Madras and then Britain. Do you have solid info that she was condemned at Copenhagen in 1805? If so, I will remove it. The problem is, the Madras report does not refer to her as the late '"Warren Hastings", and is too early for the second Holsten. What do you think? Acad Ronin (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

the Danish website (J Marcussen) gives the record card for Holsten (I) which clearly states (in Danish) "Condemned in 1805 at Isle de France" and "Last year recorded -1805". I cannot vouch for its accuracy - perhaps we should add a caveat in note form regarding the questionable dates - another editor may be able to resolve the discrepancy. If no edit corrects us, I will add such a note in a few weeks. OK? Viking1808 (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Viking1808: Please go ahead and put in the caveat. My concern is that we have data showing her returning to Copenhagen in June-July 1805. That would mean that she would have had to be going back to Mauritius in 1805 from Copenhagen for her to be condemned there in 1805. Not impossible, but would imply a quick turn around in Copenhagen. And then, what vessel is the Holstein mentioned in the Madras newspaper? All very interesting and I think we should acknowledge the uncertainty at this stage rather than suppressing either take on the issue.

Also, thanks for the Kongen af Assianthe info. It will be a short article, but one that helps fill a hole in our knowledge of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. I will let you know once it is up. ThanksViking1808 (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Lastly, do you have a new email address? My email with the gif did not get through. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I am beginning to draft the caveat at User:Viking1808/sandbox which you are welcome to read any time. 1805? 1806? 1807? Then to transfer relevant arguments from here to there for the talk page of Holsten (I) Viking1808 (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Ugland Notes

For some modern history of the Ugland company see User:Viking1808/sandbox.
Also for some connections to the Slave Trade from Arendal.
If these can lead you into new lines of attack on the slave ship (not directly found) please follow them up. Regards Viking1808 (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing ref

HMS Ethalion (1797) cites "James (1837), Vol. 2, pp.356-8." but no such work is listed in the bibliography. Please add. Thank you, Renata (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Harriot (1787 ship) cites "Hardy (1800)". Should that be 1820 or 1811? Renata (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Renata: Hardy published four books, 1800, 1811, 1820, and 1835. The missing ref was the 1800 one. Thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Earl Talbot (1797 EIC ship) is missing "Hardy 1811". Renata (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Ships, Prince Lee Boo, etc etc

Heya, thanks for your edits to Jenny (1783 ship). I didn't proofread too well and haven't learned how to do the "sfnp" citation thing, so thanks! Also, I see from your page that your "to do" list includes ships I also have on my to do list—Prince Lee Boo & Jackall, Hope. And also Richard Cadman Etches, who I've redlinked to a few times now but haven't researched much.

I don't edit Wikipedia very much lately, but I have been slowly compiling a chronology of early ships in the North Pacific, especially those involved in the maritime fur trade—for use in making new pages or expanding existing ones. It's just a sandbox page for my own use in figuring things out and compiling info in one place. But if you haven't seen it you might find it interesting or useful, perhaps: User:Pfly/Sandbox2b. I also made User:Pfly/Pages to make, mostly ships, captains, and related stuff, where I've redlinked various not-yet-made pages with what I think might be appropriate page names.

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it in case it is useful! We seem to share some interests. Pfly (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Keel length of HMS Wellesley (1815)

A keel length of 1,145 ft 11 1⁄2 in (349.288 m) for a third rate ship of 1815 would be rather impressive. :-) I guess that must have been a typo. Maybe 145 ft 11 1/2 in? --Proofreader (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Proofreader: Typos indeed. Though would have made for an interesting design. Thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

1808 capture - possible ship article

Hi Acad Ronin - Can I interest you in a ship of French origin (Christine Henrietta) that became a Danish privateer (Admiral Juel) and was captured by the British? See Action of 2 March 1808 I will of course help with the translation of the Marcussen reference, if you are interested. Viking1808 (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Viking1808:, I would be glad to. How do you want to proceed? Acad Ronin (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I have cleared my sandbox User:Viking1808/sandbox so we could both enter notes and trial text there until the article takes shape. Once we have a reasonable stub we can decide on a title and copy everything over to the new page (rather than publish our early meandering trials). I will chase up such Danish references as I can (probably as listed at Marcusson's website). You will have seen that I have a fair amount of negative evidence). If you lift and check, if you can, the English language references from the Action of 2 March 1808 we may make progress. Everything is subject to change and discussion. Does this suit ? Viking1808 (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I have done some preliminary scanning of newspaper databases and have found nothing. I had hoped to find info on her sale after being captured but apparently she was not auctioned. I will continue to look. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Acad Ronin - I think I have gone as far as I can with Danish sources for this article, and have drafted the story at my sandbox. Everything is still subject to change and improvement before putting it out. A suitable title and text grouped into named sections at least. There is a picture on Action of 2 March 1808 which seems to come with caveats, there is a need for an infobox. Also, strangely, the London Gazette publishing the report of 2 March is dated .. 1 March !! Can I leave the rest to you until you are happy with it? Viking1808 (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC) @Acad Ronin:

Hi @Viking1808:, Thanks to you, there is enough to work with to create a decent article. I am disappointed that I could not find anything on Admiral Juel's disposition after her capture. Anyway, I will get to work on this next week after I finish a couple of other projects. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

London Gazette Issue 16246 page 506 dated 11 April 1809 - accounts of sale of Admiral Juul

Also, I see you intend an article on HDMS Glommen - I have her Danish history when you are ready. Captured twice by British navy (1801 and 1807)!! Viking1808 (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Viking1808: - Thanks. I have that. What I was hopping for was an advertisement listing her for sale. I have occasionally found those and they are great - they give the dimensions and the burthen, and sometimes a little extra history as to origins. Unfortunatlely, no luck so far even though I have looked under a variety of spellings. Sadly, Glommen ill have to wait. I have a nuber of projects ahead of her, including Admiral Juel. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk)

Hi Acad - I have now launched the article as Admiral Juel (Danish Ship)(1807). Links and categories may still be needed, and some correction to the Action of 2 March 1808 to dispel doubt as to her privateer status. Thanks for your support - and Merry Christmas. Viking1808 (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@Acad Ronin:

sandbox

I hope you don't mind that I edited User:Acad Ronin/sandbox. I came to it because it showed up at Lint errors: Self-closed tags, because of the markup <b /> where you obviously meant <br />. While I was there I noticed other things.

On WP:REFNAME, it says that for ref names, quotation marks are preferred even where optional. It's a good habit to put ref names in quotes even if they are not strictly needed.

If you go to the Preferences page, in the Appearances tab, under "Advanced options", check the box marked "Show hidden categories", then at the bottom of every Wikipedia page, after the categories, you will see the page's hidden categories if there are any. This can be useful for identifying editing errors. Your page User:Acad Ronin/sandbox shows up in the hidden category category:User pages with reference errors. I was able to remove two errors, one from a bad archivedate, and one from an extra pipe in {{refn}}. But it's still in category:User pages with reference errors. It may take some work to find the remaining issue or issues that put it in this category. Good luck! —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

---

I edited User:Acad Ronin/sandbox again because it was listed at Unclosed quote in heading, a high-priority lint error. If you go to page history and open the version just before my edit, you'll see that, starting with Lloyd's Register, the table of contents is in italics. This is why Unclosed quote in heading is considered a high-priority lint error: it messes up things far from itself. While I was editing, I discovered that it also had a Missing end tag for italics. I fixed both errors. You reverted; your next edit re-fixed the missing end tag for italics, and if you open that version, you'll see the table of contents is again in italics starting with Lloyd's Register. Your edit after that removed the unclosed quote in heading in ==''Lloyd's Register==, and there are no more lint errors in the sandbox. Please be aware that there are a number of editors who patrol and fix Outstanding linter errors on enwiki, so if more lint errors appear in your sandbox, editors are likely to edit them out. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC) —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Please leave the sandbox alone. When you made your last changes I was in the middle of working on an article that was going to replace in the sandbox the article you edited. In juggling the "edit conflict" I accidentally destroyed some of my work that I had not yet saved. I realize that you meant well, but "The road to Hell is paved...". Acad Ronin (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

William Lee

This East Indiaman, name of William Lee, may be of interest, I expect it was registered in Kingston upon Hull? All pictures, in the category are of the same ship. The painter must have some solid connection with the owner? I believe it's British, but there are American ships with the same name, one in the Stone Fleet. It's namesake, is possibly this man, who has a Yorkshire and American background. Shall try and dig out some more, but running out of ideas... The William Lee, owned by Thomas Thompson of Hull, sailed regularly to Calcutta in the 1840s, the trade being stimulated by the opening of the Hull Flax and Cotton Mills in 1836. Likely ship owner Thomas Perronet Thompson, dates fit. --Broichmore (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Might have cracked this. Launched at Hull in 1831, intended for the Davis Straits fishery.She is put up for sale in 1836, takes a cargo to St Peterburg in 1837 a regular on the East India trade. The ship is lost, stranded on 5 December 1847 at Öland Island, near Åkerby, Sweden. Do you agree or have I lost it? --Broichmore (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Broichmore:. It sounds reasonable, but I will have to dig into it a bit. I have a couple of projects ahead of this but should be able to get to it this week. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This confirms I was right, certainly on the main points. --Broichmore (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Broichmore:: excellent. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Broichmore:. I have uploaded the article William Lee (1831 ship). The pictures in Wikimedia Commons are gorgeous. I tried to add the fourth picture, one of the Arctic pictures, next to the whaling table, but was unable to get it right. Can you add the third picture to the info box, the Arctic picture to the whaling section, and the return from Calcutta picture futher down? They would really tart up the article. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the article looks great, well done. I'm working on repositioning that Arctic picture so it sits directly to the right of the table. At the moment as an interim I think it looks okay on desktop and mobile. Meanwhile there's an annoying redirect of William lee (ship pointing at Stone Fleet. --Broichmore (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Earl Talbot (1797 EIC ship)

As this was a replacement for an earlier keel, might the EIC have used the same drawings? --Broichmore (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Broichmore:, probably. The burthens are very close and HMS Agincourt was bought on the stocks. Also, Perry, Blackwall, built both so it is completely feasible that they simply unrolled the plans and started again.Acad Ronin (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

We have the plans, filed under Agincourt, any use to you? At your discretion... --Broichmore (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Broichmore:, I added the plans from Agincourt to the 1795 Earl Talbot article. Regards,Acad Ronin (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Richard Cobden

Re Richard Cobden, the Liverpool Mercury of 7 March 1870 has her being lost on the North Bull on 4 March 1870 whilst on a voyage from Montevideo to Liverpool. States that she was the first iron ship and the oldest iron ship in the world at the time of her loss. She was built in Liverpool in 1844, was 552 tons, 136'7" long with a beam of 27'6" and a depth of 19'2". Is this the same vessel? Mjroots (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Mjroots:, look to be two totally different vessels. My Richard Cobden was built at Dundee, of wood, and was 100 tons (bm) smaller. See [31] (LR 1850).Acad Ronin (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, right. Well, if the claim of the first iron ship is true, might be article worthy then? Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Mjroots:, would be, if true. Might be tricky though. I looked in LR for 1868 and 1869 and she wasn't listed. She may have been sold out of England before then. So there would be a gap of some years between sale and sinking that might be hard to fill. Acad Ronin (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Precursor to Battle of Navarino

I'm attempting a Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history § Precursor to Battle of Navarino at which is not going anywhere, would be grateful for your two cents worth... --Broichmore (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Broichmore:, I agree with Rama that an article of the form "Action of ..." is the way to go. You can then link to it in the Navarino article and in the individual ship articles. Also, I am working on the William Lee article and hope to have it up, minus illustrations, later this evening. I'll let you know when it is up. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rama: Battle of Navarino ships: Ottoman Admiral Tahir Pasha's flagship, the Ghiuh Rewan (84), Ottoman admiral Capitan Bey's flagship, Fahti Bahri (74), Egyptian Moharram Bey's frigate Guerrière (60). Any ideas on the origin and launch dates for these ships? --Broichmore (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am afraid not, unless some would have been built in French shipyards? I looked up for a 60-gun frigate Guerrière that would have been sold to Turkey, but got nothing. 60-gun frigate sounds like state of the art warship for the era, so I would not expect her to be a converted merchant or older ship. A not unlikely explanation would be that the French authors translated her Turkish name into French when referring to her, that could have been the practice at the time. Cheers! Rama (talk) 06:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rama: Yes, I think your probably right, but Surely the Guerrière would have been sold to the Egyptians rather than the Turks? Can you check the alternative names? could it have been Arab: "Muharib", Turkish: "Savaşçı", or even an English ship "Warrior"? --Broichmore (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Rama: & @Broichmore:: do either of you have access to a library with: Zorlu, Tuncay (2008). Innovation and Empire in Turkey: Sultan Selim III and Modernisation of the Ottoman Navy. London and New York: I.B. Tauris Academic Series. ISBN 9781845116941.? When I woke up this morning I remembered that I had drawn on it for my article on Ottoman corvette Ferahnüma. If memory serves, it has some info, albeit thin, on a large number of Ottoman Navy vessels. Unfortunately, I no longer can reach a library that has the book as the ones near where I live are closed because of COVID or are ones where I do not have library privileges. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Resolution

I noticed you've had a go at the HMS Resolution disambiguation page. There are mentions of Resolution (1782) and also HMS Resolution a cutter in the West Indies, date of acquisition unknown and date of loss unknown. For the latter there's some stuff about 1800.

I've stumbled on this, the whole document is interesting, in parts it's about events on the Resolution in 1802. The Captain is Alan Gardner, 2nd Baron Gardner, the Resolution is a small seventy-four. Paul Sanby Lawrence was the junior lieutenant (he later painted an eye witness account of the action at Navarino). Lawrence was a key witness on the whereabouts of Mrs Gardiner, this was pivotal in a legal case involving Alan Gardner, 3rd Baron Gardner's claims to the Captains title in the House of Lords. The ships was lying at St Helens and Spithead in January and after a voyage 7 February to Barbados - Martinique - Port Royal returned mid July to St. Helens. Arrived at Chatham 17 July. Paid off 21 July. --Broichmore (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Paul Sandby Lawrence also mentioned here as being several months on the Resolution 74. --Broichmore (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This 74 looks like HMS Resolution (1799), Gardner appointed December 1799. Any ideas on how to ascertain purchase? Broichmore (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "ascertain purchase"?Acad Ronin (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Manning it up? here on 20 September 1799. Broichmore (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably.Acad Ronin (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Broichmore: Unfortunately, Resolution was a common name at the time. I don't know if you noticed what I wrote on the talk page at the Resolution privateer, but there were clearly several privateers & hired armed vessels, some cutters and some luggers, named Resolution, and at least one hired armed cutter. I am trying to sort this out. It also too bad the Navy didn't do a better job of following its own tradition/practice of not having two vessels with the same name in service at the same time. I haven't yet been able to figure out what vessel the Apollo capture is refering to. Chhers, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Resolution (cutter)

HMS Resolution (1779) is this the same cutter, recaptured here, in 1800 at HMS Apollo (1799)? --Broichmore (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Bombay (1739 ship)

I've created the list of ship launches in 1739. Need additional references for Bombay. I've cribbed info from Bombay (ship). Needs an additional reference to cover that she was a grab and was built for the Bombay Marine. Threedecks has her as a Sixth Rate built for the Royal Navy. Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: – Done. Only thing, is, where did they get the Blake Tyson info? I can't confirm it in Wadia or Hackman, or online. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations on the No. 2 hook of 2020!

The 2020 totals are now complete, and your hook for USS Herald (1798) ranked as the No. 2 hook of the year in total DYK views (101,709) and DYK views per hour (8,475). A list of the 25 most viewed hooks of 2020 can be viewed at "Top hooks of 2020". Congratulations on your hook ranking No. 2 on the list, and keep up the good work! Cbl62 (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

HMS Calcutta

Hi AR, Have a look at this image File:"The 'Calcutta'," from the Illustrated London News, 1846.jpg. There is another vessel in thepicture, any ideas on what it is? It's the Tartarus steamer or the Confiance tug. Best regards. Broichmore (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Broichmore: A cursory search on the web gives me no confidence in my guess that it's Tartarus. Both were paddle steamers, but Tartarus appears to have been bigger than Confiance. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Impressment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whalers.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Morning star (1809 ship)

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

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

A tag has been placed on Morning star (1809 ship), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

HMS Thetis (1846)

Hi AR, is this File:Fregatten Thetis på bedding.jpg Thetus? Broichmore (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Broichmore:: Definitely Thetis. See (in Danish): https://www.navalhistory.dk/Danish/Skibene/T/Thetis(1842).htm Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

May I join this conversation? There appear to be two ships, one British built and one Danish built, operating in much the same years with the name Thetis. The Danish Thetis launched 1840 and decommissioned in 1864, built at Nyholm (Copenhagen) designed by Schifter compared with the British Thetis launched 1846. There were also previous Danish ships named Thetis (eg that captained by Lorentz Fisker in 1797) and I would hesitate to say which one is pictured (link above) as there is no date attached to the title of the picture other than "19th Century". Confused? Viking1808 (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Cite RNB1823

Thanks for the thank. You might be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 160#Royal Navy biographies. -- PBS (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

As you are aware I am adding two templates to a lot of pages you have also edited and you must have some of them on you watch list. Aside from the templates themselves {{cite NBD1849}} and {{cite RNB1823}} -- which I see you have mastered -- I have also written two utility templates to help me find the information on the pages supplied in the short citation: {{NBD1849 djvu}} and {{RNB1823 djvu}}. As the template documentation explains these templates can be useful in backtracking from the page number (with volume and part for RNB1823) to the article on Wikisource.

As an example: when I modified HMS Canso (1813), I first went to one of my sandbox pages. I put a copy of {{NBD1849 djvu}} on to that page. I then took the page number and put it into {{NBD1849 djvu|page=245}} (There is no need to save the sandbox version (if you don't want to) just preview it):

• s:Page:A Naval Biographical Dictionary.djvu/259 p. 245; s:Special:WhatLinksHere/Page:A Naval Biographical Dictionary.djvu/259

The two links provide the page and the Wikisource articles that link to the page.

1. select the word or passage that the short citation on the Wikipeida page supports and you wish to check.
2. Then click on the djvu link and use your browser to find the text on the Wikisource page.
3. Check the wikisource section name in the text (if it is near the top of the page you may need to go back one page; If there is no apparent section name then it is probably part of a larger biography that spans several pages).
4. Then use the second djvu link, "WhatLinksHere", to see what links to the page and select the appropriate article name that most closely matches the section name. This is the name that should be added to the wstitle parameter in the Wikipedia article.

So for HMS Canso (1813) I looked for "Canso" on the page 245, then I looked for which section it was in using "WhatLinksHere".

I have another 20 or so pages I am going to fix but that leaves about another 100 which will be halfway through the process--the template is in place but the wstitle parameter is set to a generic "Index".

The pages can be found using this search insource:/(RNB1823|NBD1849) *\| *wstitle=Index/.

I hope you find that these tools make you life a little easier. -- PBS (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

One other thing. Both the dictionaries now have search facilities making it easier to identify all the mentions in them of a ship or a person. You will find the search boxes on the index pages:

• "Index". A Naval Biographical Dictionary. 1849.
• "Index". Royal Naval Biography. 1823–1835.

-- PBS (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @PBS: thanks for all this. The search boxes look particularly useful as I am approaching the task of replacing the generic "Index" by going through the ship articles that use it. What is taking me time is that 1) I find a lot of other stuff to fix, some typos but mostly introducing templates for references and citations, and using the "efn" template for notes. 2) In trying to locate the Marshall source, I often have difficulty locating the bibliography entry because the entry may have come from a person other than the captain of the ship I am looking at. The new search function should speed this up. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

With the danger of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs. The problem with listing citations to "articles" in the same volume in the References section and then trying to cite those articles with an inline-citation is that they will have the same author and date (breaking the link). There are two common solutions to this one. The first is to assign {{SfnRef}} (or its link {{harvid}}) to the ref= parameter; However the alternative which I think is simpler, and therefore the one I use, is to alter the date= parameter by appending a letter to the year (an example of 1849a to 1849f is HMS Undaunted (1807)). -- PBS (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

HMS Sylph

Hi, seeing how much you frequent this part of Wikipedia, I'm hoping you might be able to help me with this query. I'm looking at the various HMS Sylphs, and Colledge has one, a tender, being built at Woolwich in 1821 but not being listed until 1832. Would this make it HMS Sylph (1821) or HMS Sylph (1832)?

Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, best place to look is in:

• Winfield, Rif (2014). British Warships in the Age of Sail 1817–1863: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates. Seaforth Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84832-169-4.

Unfortunately, I don't have the volume, and given that the vessels may not be Royal Navy, they may not be in it.

Do you have an email address? If so, I can email to you two pages that I have extracted from the National Maritime Museum's Warship Histories Vessels project (now defunct and no longer online). One page describes Sylph (1821) as having been built at Woolwich in 1821 as a cutter for the Post Office packet service. The other describes Sylph (1834) as a revenue vessel.

Colledge often also lists vessels of the British East India Company's Bombay Marine, even though technically they were not RN. There was a schooner HCS Sylph, of 6-8 guns and 78 tons (bm), that the Bombay Dockyard launched in 1806. I don't know what her final fate was, but she had some interesting incidents in her history. She is now on my ever-lengthening list of things to do. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, just found this: SYLPH was built in 1821 in Woolwich for the Holyhead-Dublin Postal Packet Service. Type: (2) Cutter. Length of Keel: 48' 8". Length of Gun: Deck: 61' 7". Beam: 21' 2". Depth of Hold: 10' 0". Tonnage: 114. Armaments: 2 brass 3lb cannon. Built as a model Port Office Packet by Woolwich dockyard for the Holyhead Station, following a recommendation of a Parliamentary Select Committee in 1819. Based on a design by Phillip Sainty of Wivenhoe. Her completion in 1821 however, coincided with the introduction of steam vessels at Holyhead so never entered service but was taken over by the Admiralty. Her service in the Royal Navy included periods as a tender at Portsmouth, Woolwich and Plymouth, until 1862 when she was loaned to Customs as a Watch vessel. She was sold in July 1882. [32] Acad Ronin (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I spent so long typing my reply that you got yours in first! Thank you for those further details on the 1821 Sylph. From that I would suppose that 1832 was when she was taken over by the Admiralty? Do those details also come from your NMM source?

Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the response! Sadly I don't have access to that volume either. Those pages from the NMM sound great, and I'd appreciate it if you could email them to calbre88@gmail.com

That schooner sounds like it might be what I currently have down as HMS Sylph (1806), captured by pirates in 1808 (it seems like I should change that now...). I clearly have a lot more to do before I can fully differentiate between the Royal Navy Sylphs and the others!

Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, Welcome to the rat hole. One thing leads to another... 1) I will email the pages. 2) The 1806 was captured, but HMS Nereide recaptured her the same day and she went on to serve the Bombay Marine/Indian Navy for some more years. I listed her in Sylph (ship). If you list her in the HMS Sylph page, I would suggest listing her separately from the RN ships, perhaps in a "See also" section. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, thank you for all the assistance. I have placed the 1806 under such a heading. Would it be pertinent to mention Sylph (ship) on the page as well?

Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, I generally don't bother mentioning the mercantile/civilian ship index on the HMS or USS Navy ship index pages, but I do mention the military ship index pages on the civilian ship index page. Not sure why I adopted the asymmetric treatment. This is wikipedia: do what you please until someone who has nothing better to do takes you to task. Submit if they have reason on their side, not just Wikipedia policy. :-) Acad Ronin (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Finally got around to publishing HMS Sylph and HMS Sylph (1795). Apologies to your HCS Sylph (1806) that it took so long! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

James Naval History: A Narrative of the Naval Battles,

You wrote above "The new search function should speed this up". I accidental deleted a volume from Bibliography of 18th–19th century Royal Naval history another book and relised when I put it back that might speed up your task:

• James, William; O'Byrne, Robert, eds. (1888). James Naval History: A Narrative of the Naval Battles, Single Ship Actions, Notable Sieges and Dashing Cutting-out Expeditions... London: W. H. Allen & Company.

Unfortunately I could not find the volume in the collection of the Internet Archive site (not to say it is not there), but Google has it in PD format). -- PBS (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox company "type" parameter

Per the documentation of {{Infobox company}}, the the |type= field is about corporate organization/ownership (public/private/government), not the nature of the business itelf (bank, etc.). In a bunch of your recent edits, you adjusted the formatting of the against-docs value that an IP had recently added. Could you check back with your edits and try to fix them? DMacks (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@DMacks: - what do you want me to do? Revert my changes or make other changes? I will happily revert my changes, but I am reluctant to make other changes for fear of falling afoul of some other WP rule/policy. Also, what is an "against-docs value"? Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the poor short-hand description in my original message. I think I got everything cleaned up. Mostly I wound up undoing a bunch of your edits along with someone else's. Theirs were the problem, and did not want you to feel I was targetting you. DMacks (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@DMacks: Thanks. I was concerned that simply reverting my changes would not solve the problem, but wasn't clear on what would. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Problem with Cite RNB1823 identified

I found the reason for the false positives with {{cite RNB1823}} (Marshall) and {{Cite NBD1849}} (O'Byrne). The new templates need to be added to a list (Wikipedia gets more and more complicated!). The details are here: User talk:Keith D#Harv error - false positive -- PBS (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@PBS: - Thanks. I am going to continue to add RNB and NBD templates then, working under the assumption that the templates will be whitelisted. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Burka Roads

Hi, I'm currently attempting to draft out the service of HMS Caroline (1795), much of which was in the East Indies. In November 1809 Caroline took part in a large attack on pirate vessels at Ras-al-Khyma which included the assistance of some HEIC vessels. After this Phillips has Caroline escorting transports to 'Burka Roads'. All my searches for this location just direct me to the item of clothing, and I was wondering if you might have any suggestions or pointers as to where 'Burka Roads' is? Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi user:Pickersgill-Cunliffe, I am on the road. I will revert in a couple of days when I am back to my home computer. In the meantime, try Google books. Drop the Roads, and just look for Burka. Also, look for Horsburgh in Google books. He wrote a lot about sailing directions in the 1840s, though he was mostly interested in Asia. Still, worth a try. Acad Ronin (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi user:Pickersgill-Cunliffe, I searched for “sailing directions Persian gulf Burka” in Google books and found it right away in Horsburgh. 23°44.5′N 57°59′E Summer residence of the Emir of Muscat. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that's great! I'll have to look harder next time, I'll admit Google Books didn't cross my mind for whatever reason. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

HMS Guller ??

Hi @Acad Ronin: Do you by any chance have any more details on the sloop HMS Guller, or need for a Danish input on its activities in 1796? See Poul de Løvenørn who reported on 17 September from Farsund that the British sloop Guller had arrived with the privateer Le Petit Diable and de Flugheit Viking1808 (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC) and my apologies for getting this question in the wrong place a few minutes ago!! Viking1808 (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Viking1808: I can find no vessel by that name, not commissioned or hired. None of my usual sources (Winfield, National Maritime Museum, London Gazette, or Lloyd's List) have any such vessel. I can't even find her in Lloyd's Register as a merchantman. Could HMS Guller actually be HMS Seagull? She was in the North Sea at about the right time. Also, I could not find any mention of Petit Diable or de Flugheit in the London Gazette or Lloyd's List. Do you have the name of the captain of Guller? That would at least give us a good clue as to whether or not she was actually Seagull. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Acad Ronin: Thanks for trying! no name for the captain, unfortunately. I will have to put a note on the article that the ship has not been traced (yet). If it had been recorded as Gullen I might have agreed on the Seagull, but Guller is a tad too far for me. Thanks anyway. Viking1808 (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Lookee Here!! French Privateer cutter 'Le Petit Diable' (1795) on threedecks.Viking1808 (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Acad Ronin: - You are right. Another look at the Danish source gives "den engelske Sloop Sea Guller", so it is definitely HMS Seagull (1795) The Dutch vessel may be named Vlugheit rather than Flugheit, but the only London Gazette entry I can find is in 1803 so still looking for that one. Thanks. Viking1808 (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Viking1808: – Great. I looked at the entry for Poul de Lovenorn and it stated that Seagull came to retrieve Petit Diable and Vlugheit, rather than bring them in. If we can clarify that question I can add the info to Seagull. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

yet again @Acad Ronin: No! I cannot see that the account on Løvenørn can be read that Seagull came to retrieve the two ships. It is certainly intended to say that Seagull (rather sulkily, I think) escorted the ships into the Norwegian harbour for the Danes i.e. Løvenørn to take over and repatriate them to their dispossessed crews. Perhaps I am too close to my own text - if you can word it better please do. For the thrill of the chase, I am now hunting the names of the prizes taken by the Petit Diable and recaptured by Seagull. I will edit the name Guller to Seagull in the next few minutes. Viking1808 (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

HMS Tweed (1807)

Hi, I fixed one reference and made a few minor spelling changes to your new article on Tweed. You had the launch date as 19=0 January 1807, and I've changed this to 19 January 1807. My apologies if this wasn't what it was meant to be! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

HMS Justitia (1807)

Hi @Acad Ronin: I have just launched a new stub HMS Justitia (1807) giving the Danish end of this ship's history. I hope you may be interested in expanding the British end. As an offshoot of this article, the disambiguation page HMS Justitia may need to be renamed to Justitia (ships) as I have an earlier Danish ship Justitia and a brig of currently unknown nationality of the same name captured by Medusa around 1810 (see https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/16397/page/1250 ) still to investigate. Viking1808 (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Viking1808: I added the limited UK info, moved the article, and did some tidying. Don't rename or move the HMS Justitia page. We will eventually create a separate Justitia (ship) shipindex page that will link/refer to the separate shipindex pages for the HMS vessels, the Danish vessels, and any others that may show up. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Scurvy and The Spy.

Hi Acad, I am once more in your debt; on this occasion for HMS Swift (1804). According to [33] (page p040130) Welham Clarke seems to have encountered Thomas Hopper in the vicinity of [34] It's nothing that need affect the text, but a reference may be in order.

Keep eating the pumpkins. RAClarke (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @RAClarke:, thanks for this. I have added the info to both the article on HMS Swift (Pacific), and Robert (Spy). Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for creating Hired armed lugger Aristocrat. I hadn't bothered to even red link it, I was so sure it would never be created and only discovered it by accident when searching for George M'Kinley --Ykraps (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Ykraps:, Thanks for the beer. As you may have noticed, I tend to write up minor vessels, while leaving the rated vessels to others. One, I find the smaller vessels are often interesting and give me a chance to add value by combining sources as the vessels move through different roles: privateer, slave ship, whaler, merchantman, etc., before or after the RN service. Second, I think I have a greater chance to stimulate delight in a WP user who, like you, never expected to find an article on the vessel. Incidentally, I am starting to write up Stormont. She is much more interesting than I had expected and I will have to go back sometime and write up her earlier career as the highly successful American privateer General Pickering. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Ykraps:, I have just uploaded HMS Stormont, so you may ink to her in your article on M'Kinley. When that is up please let me know and I will link to him in the article on her. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

That was very quick work. Thanks once again. I will add a link and will of course let you know when George M'Kinley is in mainspace. Although when that will be I don't know, real life appears to be getting in the way at the moment. Best regards --Ykraps (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

HMS Cyrus

Hi, I see that you created Cyrus (ship) and wonder if you might be able to assist with HMS Cyrus? The later two ships of that name seem easy enough to identify, but the first HMS Cyrus differs between Colledge and Winfield. Colledge has the transport purchased in 1771 while Winfield has it in 1782. Any chance you might have a source to provide clarification? Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, No joy, I am afraid. Winfield agrees with the NMM database, which is not surprising as both are based on Admiralty records. Hepper agrees with Colledge, which gives me pause, as Hepper is generally highly accurate. Still, I tend to favor Winfield. I have tried to find references to a Cyrus transport in the London Gazette, in Lloyd's List around 1789-1782, or in Lloyd's Register immediately prior to 1781 and have found nothing. Apparently Cyrus was a purchase, but it is possible that she was bought on the stocks. I don't have the relevant Winfield, but he might say something. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Frustrating, but thanks for giving it a try! I think I'll stick with Winfield; he has Cyrus under the same name as a merchant vessel and purchased in around September 1782 with fitting and coppering completed by January 1783. Unsure whether her being coppered by the RN means she was purchased on the stocks and this was the navy completing her, or whether this was an added upgrade. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

HMS Sirius

Hi AR, I woukd be grateful for your input on File:John Thomas Serres - HMS Sirius sailing off Gibraltar.jpg, by Serres (1759-1825). There are 3 candidates. The 2 favourites being the fifth-rates, the other being HMS Sirius (1786). Regrettably I think it's HMS Sirius (1797), rather than HMS Sirius (1813) for which I have nought and would prefer. Your thoughts? Broichmore (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Broichmore:, I would have to vote for the 1797 5th rate. She was at Trafalgar and spent time in the Med. According to Winfield, the 1813 Sirius was never commissioned and never got out of Portsmouth. Sure Serres could have painted a fantasy picture, but that seems highly improbable. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense, I see you updated the disambiguation page, which misled me. Cheers. Broichmore (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

A view of the Royal Navy

A little something for framing perhaps. File:A view of the Royal Navy of Great Britain, published 15 Mar 1804 RCIN 735105.jpg - Broichmore (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Leyland

Hi, Leyland had lots of boats, two called Enterprise and one called Enterprize. I haven't mentioned the latter in the article but you've changed one of the boats that I think is called Enterprise to Enterprize. I could be wrong. Do you have access to the sources? Desertarun (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Desertarun:, my primary source is the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade database, (https://www.slavevoyages.org/voyage/database), which lists all three vessels under Enterprize, which was, I believe, the predominant spelling at the time. A quick check of Lloyd's Register also shows the now obsolete spelling for the 1790 Enterprize too (https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015050578056?urlappend=%3Bseq=104 No.358). I generally try to use the spellings as they appear in the sources to make it easier for someone using the sources to use computer search to find the items in the source, and to find other contemporary sources. The reason I added the third Enterprize to the Leyland article was to make it easier for someone linking him to an Enterprize to see that there were three relevant possibilities. Lastly, I suspect that it would be worthwhile to have an article "List of vessels owned by Thomas Leyland", where we could point out that, for instance, he owned Harlequin and Madam Pookata for only one voyage each. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

My sources do use Enterprise but spelling wasn't very important back in the day so I won't change your edits. The Enterprize that I know of is here Enterprize (1803 ship). That one is later than those referred to in the article. There is a lot more I could write about him but I've just moved on now. Desertarun (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

British attack on Roseau, 6 June 1761. Seven Years War (1756-63)

Think this is a great picture File:Roseau, 1761 RCIN 733032.b.jpg. Can't get a fix on the Montague mentioned. I used to live for a while on the hill on the right side of the view. Broichmore (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Broichmore:, WP has an article on HMS Montagu (1757) where I have now inserted a mention of the 1761 attack on Dominica. That might be a suitable place to insert a copy of the image. Unfortunately, the London Gazette article on the invasion does not name the vessels involved. Do we have any idea which frigates were involved? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, butting in here. Rif Winfield notes that HMS Dublin (1757), HMS Sutherland (1741), HMS Norwich (1745), HMS Falkland (1696), and HMS Stirling Castle (1742) were present. This [35] suggests that the accompanying frigates were HMS Penzance (1747), HMS Repulse (1759), and HMS Lizard (1757). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I added into Invasion of Dominica (1761) and Montagu, the ships I know of namely: Montague, Sutherland, Belliqueux, and flag ship Dublin, and two (unknown) frigates. These are the ships mentioned on the painting and echoed by the Royal Collection. The text on the painting may take some testing, but the mentioned ships must have been present amongst others. Feel free to tinker with it... Broichmore (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: kronoskaf gives good reasons for two of the extra ships being involved, and not being in the picture. Stirling Castle (away to the windward of the island in a rear-guard defensive role) and Falkland (delayed by a storm, arriving a few days later than the attack). The picture I referred to File:Roseau, 1761 RCIN 733032.b.jpg was drawn by Sir James Douglas, 1st Baronet who must have been an eye witness. Pretty solid I think. I managed to dig up another image File:A perspective view of Roseau in the island of Dominica in the West Indies LCCN2003677131.jpg of the ships in action on the day, but unfortunately it's probably derived from Campbell and doesn't name ships. Broichmore (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Matilda (Whaler)

On a separate issue, do you know anything about an image of the whaler Matilda held by the NMM at Greenwich? Matilda is the former HMS Esk (1814) and I am about to do an article on her. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I assume you mean File:James Miller Huggins (c.1807-1870) - The Ship 'Matilda' and Cutter 'Zephyr' - BHC3481 - Royal Museums Greenwich.jpg. Broichmore (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Mixed signals here. I have restored to the jpg file the detail from the museum website (RMG) who say there that it's the Matilda, 1803. Meaning launched 1803. In the text it alludes to 1830 maybe. The museum can be queried for more info. They are helpful. The way to do it is via the Art UK site, hit on the "Send information to Art Detective". Broichmore (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry had to pop out, have you seen commons:Category:HMS Esk (ship, 1813)? Broichmore (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Broichmore:, Matilda = HMS Esk (1813), sold in 1829, which then became a whaler. So the picture is the Matilda I am looking for. Many thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

HMS St George

Hi AC, Do you agree there is a mix-up on the disambig page en:HMS St George for HMS Charles (1668) renamed HMS St George in 1687 and the HMS St George of 1701? HMS St George (1701) as an article should be in red. Broichmore (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Broichmore:, I believe you are correct. Colledge would think so too. Unfortunately, I don't have the relevant Winfield volume to add info. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Broichmore: per Winfield:

"The Saint George had been built in 1668 as the Charles; she had been renamed 21.10.1687, and reclassed as a Second Rate, but was never commissioned until after the 1701 rebuilding.", p. 108

The rebuild was ordered on 20.5.1699 and she was launched on 9.7.1701, p. 110. - Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

That's clear.

What about the reference on the disambig page for: HMS St George (1701), a discovery ship purchased in 1701 and sunk in 1716 as a foundation for Chatham Dockyard.

Do we just delete it? Broichmore (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Just found a Colledge reference dated 2020 for it. Broichmore (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Yep. Completely different ship. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

In February 1716 St George, Discovery ship, 654 bm 132ft x 34ft was sunk as a foundation at Chatham; same thing in print 1999 Broichmore (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Broichmore: & @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, unfortunately, I doubt that we can find enough even to do a stubby on St George (1701). Too early for Lloyd's Register or Lloyd's List. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Dampier's third voyage in 1703, aboard the St. George, was accompanied also by the Cinque Ports, commanded by Alexander Selkirk. Could this be it, and is it an HMS? Broichmore (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. Apparently abandoned in Peru in 1707. Broichmore (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This is getting interesting, but tricky. I'll do a little light digging mañana, but without any sense of urgency that term might evoke. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC).

Starting to think she wasn't an RN ship. Michael Phillips doesn't record her, if that helps at all. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The National Maritime Museum lists Saint George (1701) as a hulk purchased at Hull. Mentions the speculation that she might have been Dampier's ship, but notes that Dampier's ship was abandoned in Peru in 1707 or so. So beginning to look like two vessels. Perhaps books on Dampier and his voyages might have more. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Per this [36] the fate of Dampier's St George is as follows:

• "In a very short time the St. George was struck between wind and water in her powder-room, and two feet of plank were driven in under either quarter; after which nothing remained to Dampier but to make his escape whilst his crazy ship continued to swim."
• "Dampier called a council, and it was resolved that they should quit the St. George and sail away to the East Indies in their prize. It is manifest from this resolution that their easy plundering of Puna, and their equally easy capture of the bark, had failed to reconcile them to a longer cruise against the Spaniards. Having transferred everything likely to be of use to them from the St. George, they left that crazy fabric rolling at her anchor and steered westwards for the Indies"

For her identity I think this is rather helpful:

• "Speculative men of substance were found and an expedition equipped, the ships being the St. George, Captain William Dampier, and the Fame, Captain John Pulling. The vessels were liberally armed and manned, and were commissioned -spite of the venture being wholly one of privateering- by Prince George of Denmark, Lord High Admiral, to cruise against the French and the Spaniards. The terms were, 'No purchase, no pay !'"

- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Good work. That means the Saint George (1701) is as per Colledge and that there is almost nothing to add there. It also means that Dampier's Saint George is not HMS. Acad Ronin (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I am creating a stubby for St George (1701). Do you have a cite for the "Speculative... " quote? I would like to provide the verifiability that Dampier's vessel was a privateer and not St George (1701). Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The source is here [37]. If for some reason it doesn't take you to the right place the page is 110. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

In addition this [38] has St George at 26 guns. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Hi @Broichmore: & @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: OK. HMS St George (1701) is up. I am not up to doing Dampier's St George. That's a bigger project than I care to start now. But on the HMS, if you have anything else at all to add, please do so. Thanks for the help, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  I've removed the complement and armament figures from the article assuming you used the ones I linked; those were for Dampier's St George. Will keep searching for anything on the discovery ship St George. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey mate.. Thank you for undoing the change that I made on the Bank of Ceylon Sri Lanka wiki page. I am having a hard time finding how to upload copyrighted logos. could you direct me in the right direction? BOC is one of the Largest Banks in Sri Lanka, yet the wiki logo is incorrect. Yaham Perera (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Dispatch (1795 ship)

Hi, I saw that you created Dispatch (1795 ship) back in 2016 and considering it's not the most highly trafficked article I thought I'd bypass the talk page and go straight here. Is the name of the article correct? As a Russian warship should it not be "Russian sloop Dispatch"? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I am quite comfortable with your moving it, though I would suggest a name such as Dispatch (1795 Russian sloop). I generally go with the first/launching name of a vessel and use redirects, when I think of it, when the vessel is better known under a later name. I am not consistent though. Given that I specialize in unimportant vessels (merchant vessels and sub-frigate RN vessels mostly), I give little thought to what will draw casual readers. :-), Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

HMS Providence (1791) or :HMS Dasher (1797)

Do these look like the Providence or Dasher to you? Broichmore (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore:, if I had to guess, I would say Dasher, though both were ship-rigged vessels of the same burthen. That would be a slightly better fit with the artist's service and date of creation. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, here's the result. Broichmore (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore:, nice pictures. I wish he had added a little description as they could be nice to illustrate some other articles too. Thanks. regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

HMS Orestes

Just checking, that this is a view is of the Orestes, of 1824 rather than 1842? Note the palm trees (Its thought West Indies) on the shore line.

There's another picture of her off Barcelona (with a cityscape behind). I'm baffled... having difficulty pinning down both events, other than to say she operated in both regions. Any thoughts? Broichmore (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

There was no 1842 Orestes, that must be a typo. She was converted into a coal hulk in 1852 and the next Orestes was not launched until 1860. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: & @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:. Here's what I have from O'Byrne: "Charles Arthur Lodder served as Midshipman of the Powerful 84, Commodore Chas. Napier, during all the operations on the coast of Syria, including the bombardment of St. Jean d’Acre. He passed his examination 7 July, 1842; was employed in the Mediterranean, as Mate, from the close of that year until promoted to the rank of Lieutenant 26 June, 1846, of the Orestes 18, Capt. Hon. Swynfen Thos. Carnegie, and Virago steam-sloop, Capts. Geo. Graham Otway and John Lunn; and since 22 Oct. in the latter year has been serving in the Sidon steam-frigate, Capt. Wm. Honyman Henderson, now on the coast of Portugal." I would think the pictures are from the 1842-6/1846 period when Orestes was in the Med again. She had been in the Med between 1836 and 1838, and was i a bad storm in the western Med in March 1838 that cost her her rudder, but apparently no masts. I will dig a little more to see if I can pin things down a little more. Unfortunately, I don't have the later Winfield. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I did some work on Swynfen Carnegie not too long ago, but didn't get anything on his period in command of Orestes apart from that it was from 10 August 1842 to November 1843. I find the lack of accessible copies of the final Winfield very frustrating at times like these!

In a vague attempt to see where Orestes served throughout her career: Her first services were seemingly in the English Channel under Henry Litchfield where she served as an experimental ship. She soon after went to the Halifax Station and Litchfield was replaced by William Jones in 1826 while still there, where she stayed until some part of 1827. Around 1828 she was in the Med under John Reynolds, who then took her to the Irish Station in February where she stayed until at least July 1830. While on that station she fought smugglers, protected inbound convoys and blockaded Tangier. William Nugent Glascock commanded her from March 1831, and she served for around a year as senior ship of a squadron protecting trade off the Douro. Glascock was promoted in 1833 and replaced by Sir William Dickson, still off Lisbon and the Douro. She was decommissioned in spring 1834, and I think she may have actually been at Bermuda until November 1834 when she moved to the Med from 1834-38, under Henry John Codrington, Julius James Farmer Newell, and then William Holt. From August 1838 to November 1841 she was to be found on the South American Station under Peter Sampson Hambly. At the end of 1843 John James Robinson replaced Carnegie in the Med, and under him she participated in some interesting diplomatic stuff on Lemnos. Edward St. Leger Cannon had her still in the Med 1843-46, and she was paid off from that station in around November. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Glascock wrote a letter dated 17 Dec.1832 off Oporto. In it he writes HM sloop ORESTES I fear has been mortally wounded, and the ship, in her masts, yards, rigging and bulwarks, has suffered considerably. Still nothing about similar in the WI or Barcelona. Broichmore (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

She spent time off Barcelona in her period in the Mediterranean under Codrington, per this. I know the blurb for the Barcelona image talks about Glascock and Hathorn's service with him, but not sure if this necessarily means it has to be this period which is depicted? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

1 January 1837, probably off Malaga: "On January 1st, about five o'clock in the evening, the wind came on to blow fresh from the eastward; the Tyne struck top gallant masts, cleared hawse, and prepared for a gale from tho eastward. Soon after his Majesty's ship Orestes arrived, and anchored just within the bar, which runs off the mole ; at about ten, P.M, the wind and swell increasing, the Orestes struck loweryards and top masts, and let go sheet anchor; she had three anchors a-bead. On the morning of the 2d, the wind increased to a heavy gale, and the ring to which the Tyne's sheet cable was secured on the mole gave way. The sudden jerk occasioned the best bowor cable to carry away the stoppers and compresser, and she could not be secured until we found ourselves striking abaft, and t)0 fathoms of chain run out. At half-past ten o'clock, a.m., we observed the Orestes cut away her masts, and his Majesty's ship Jaseur heave all her guns overboard ; the former having parted her sheet-cable, and the Jaseur dragging her anchor. The Tyne immediately struck lower-yards and top masts. \Ye saw three merchant brigs, ono French and one Spanish felucca, wrecked on the rocks. At half-past cloven o'clock, a.m., a Spanish vessel, having parted her cable, drifted foul of the Tyne ; from her we saved five people, and she got clear of us, and was wrecked astern. Early in the after- noon, the sea running very heavy and the gale increasing to a hurricane, .we unshipped our rudder, and (as we afterwards dis- covered) knocked away forty feet of our main keel and six feet four inches deadwood from the keel. The Tyne and Orestes continued striking all night; during which the Orestes lost her rudder. Fortunately on the 3d the gale moderated. The Tyne then hove ahead and secured to the mole, and assisted the Orestes to do the same. The Orestes, jury-rigged, is to proceed on the 21th of this month to Malta, per Barcelona."

@Broichmore: & @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Well done you. I have not been able to find anything in the newspaper databases I can access. Still, not clear that this last event caused any dismasting. The search goes on. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Here behind a paywall seem to be references in May 1855 of a French brig of war Orestes dismasted ; and towed into Port Royal, Jamaica. Unfortunately doesn't fit in with Lodder's servivce in 1842...

In 1837 reports of 20 January say Four merchant vessels had already been wrecked at Malaga, in the gale of tbe 1st and 2nd, and his Britannic Majesty's corvette Orestes. 18, was dismasted. and that the British brigs war Tyne and Jaseur were in danger. The gale continued... 11 February 1837 Westmorland Gazette says: Orestes continued striking all night, during which the Orestes lost her rudder. On the 3d the gale moderated, Same storm? Malaga is some distance from Barcelona though, 570 miles by road...

In 1846 the Orestes. 18, was dismasted this morning. After she was paid off yesterday. Commander Cannon... Our disambig page says and she was converted into a coal depot in 1852. Broichmore (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Parr (slave trader)

On 4 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Parr (slave trader), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after they met, evolutionary scientist Charles Darwin described Thomas Parr as an "old, miserly squire"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Parr (slave trader). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Parr (slave trader)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Blandford

Do you think this slaver of 1760? is HMS Blandford (1741)?

Hi @Broichmore: Could be. The Blandford slaver was apparently of 270 tons, launched in 1719, and made one slave voyage between 1744-45. Unfortunately, I am in London on vacation and so remote from most of my resources, which do not include the relevant Winfield. Still, it is a definite maybe. Also, are you by any chance in London? If so, care to meet? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

(sticking my oar in once again..) the 1741 Blandford was serving off Lisbon in the 1744-45 period per Winfield; I really don't think it's her. However the previous Blandford of 1719 matches the launch date of the slaver and per Winfield she was sold in October 1742, making slavery a possible post-RN career for her? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: The 1719 Blanchford sounds very likely. Unfortunately, although I have the slave voyage info, I have nothing more. Lloyd's Register for the relevant span is not online, if it even exists. By-the-way, P-C, the invitation to meet extends to you too, if you are in London. Acad Ronin (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, a kind offer, sadly I'm nowhere near and don't expect to be for a while. RE Blandford I'm not sure where one could look for post-RN service, if there is anywhere else. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi AC, I'm scheduled to go to the monthly London meeting tomorrow. Your more than welcome. Otherwise e-mail me an alternative if you cant make that... Broichmore (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: – Too bad; perhaps some other time. @Broichmore: – not possible for next few days; relatives. Will come up with some suggestions soon. Cheers all, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Tygress

Hi Acad, I see you are still chipping away at the minor vessels. I was surprised to read that Nelson was displeased with Tygress at Copehagen. Hore's book [[39]] quotes a dispatch from Nelson to Parker,

"Captain Rose, who volunteered his services to direct the gun-brigs, did everything possible to get them forward, but the current was too strong for them to be of service during the action, but no less merit is due to Capt Rose, and I believe all the officers and crews of the gun-brigs for their exertions".

I believe Tygress was one of these gun-brigs and if so, the two dispatches seem at odds. Do you have anymore information? --Ykraps (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ykraps: Sorry, I don't have anything more. When I added the Nelson quote I searched everywhere I could for any more info. I really wanted to know what the behaviour was, but found nothing. If you can find anything to reconcile the two statements, or anything else to clarify what went on that would be great. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a shame. Is volume 6 of the Naval Chronicle online or do you know the date of that dispatch? I am wondering whether Nelson wrote it before he understood the reasons behind the gun-brigs' poor performance.--Ykraps (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ykraps: [40] Search under "Tigress". P.69. Nelson's letter was dated 18 June 1801. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Doesn't say specifically that the misconduct occured at Copenhagen, which is what I'd assumed, and written some time after. Shame we don't have any more information.--Ykraps (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Missing sources

While following links, I noticed that you added some material to HMS Tigris last year (here) that included several spfn templates, but there are no source citations in the article for them. I thought you might want to fix that, one way or another. - Donald Albury 20:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: – Sorted. Thanks for the catch.Acad Ronin (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I figured you knew where to find the sources needed. - Donald Albury 21:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Leith (1777)

Hi, I've just finished giving a little expansion to HMS Leith (1777). Leith was a 20-gun hired ship, hired in 1777 and released in 1782 per Winfield (should the article thus be HM hired armed ship Leith?). I wondered if you might be able to dig up any more details as to her purchase or civilian service? Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, I am still away from my usual resources, but COVID/tests permitting, I will be home by Sunday and will look into this then. Depending on what, if anything, I find, we can think about the article's name then. Cheers, and fingers crossed, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: as you know, I have been working on Leith. I have taken it as far as I can for now. (I am looking into what we can find about the privteer Necker, but that might take some time. We need to think about the title for the article. I don't think she should be "HMS", but that's how she is listed in HMS Leith where she is one of only two vessels by that name. On a side issue, any interest in creating an article on the action on 13 May 1779? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all that work you've put in to the article, it's way more than I ever hoped would be possible and certainly more than I could have found on my own! The article title is a difficulty, I agree. I'm leaning towards having the lede as "HMS Leith, also known as HM hired armed ship Leith..." because Lavery, who I would regard as rather an expert on naval matters of the period, describes her as "HMS Leith" in Shield of Empire. Not perfect I know, but cheekily it does avoid the issue of having a set index article page with only one ship...!

Per the action of 13 May 1779, an interesting suggestion. Considering we've the capture of a frigate and the capture/destruction of a number of smaller vessels as well as the connection to the invasion it's certainly worthwhile to write about. My only question is to whether it should be added to the existing Invasion of Jersey (1779) or given its own article as you suggest? Open to being persuaded either way! Thanks again, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

A completely different point but I suppose I'll put it here as well. When writing note no. 16 in HMS Caroline (1795) the only Bombay Marine ship I didn't figure out the red link for was HCS Fury. Any suggestions? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: 1) Have found nothing about Fury beyond that she had six guns. Not built at Bombay or Calcutta. Not in lists of HCS vessels in 1819 or 1824. Not in Hackman's listing of EIC vessels. Only mention is in Low in connection with the expedition. Best guess: short-term purchase, renaming, and subsequent sale of a local vessel. 2) Winfield treats Leith as a hired vessel, not a commissioned one. Colledge and Warlow list her as an armed ship, with no discussion beyond that. Am still of two minds, but your solution seems best for now. 3) I would say action rather than integrating into the invasion article. The action occurred after the invasion. Though it was a consequence, most of the things I have found don't draw the link. (I haven't checked James.) Acad Ronin (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Clowes provides a page on the action, which is all I've looked at so far. James doesn't cover it being as he only writes in detail from 1796. Not sure what the best sources would be for more details on the action. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I have only found one London Gazette letter so far and it only has Experiment being sent to Jersey but there is no report of the action; there may not be one. If so, writing the article will require putting bits and pieces together. It probably wouldn't be a big article, but it would tie together a number of vessels and other articles, including the 1779 invasion.Acad Ronin (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Collating some sources here:

• Clowes vol 4 p. 25
• Duncan vol 2 p. 321
• DNB second paragraph
• ODNB second paragraph
• painting of action. This is on commons as commons:File:Combat naval sur les côtes de France en 1779.jpg.
• Hargreaves p. 166
• Universal Magazine pp. 258–260 (this is a copy of the main London Gazette report but I can't see to find the original)
• The Field of Mars search "Concale Bay"
• Beatson pp. 538–541

-Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Great painting. That alone makes this a worthwhile project. One thing I noted from the written sources is the lack of congruence over the question of the vessels of the British squadron. It is by-and-large clear what vessels they captured and destroyed, or did not, but other than Experiment, there is no consensus on the squadron's members. Prize money notices may help, but only up to a point. I believe that in addition to the vessels of the squadron detached from the convoy, a second force that included Leith set sail from Portsmouth. It may or may not have participated in the action, but was included in the prize money. All-in-all, an interesting project replete with "definite maybes". Acad Ronin (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I think what we've got is two groups of ships, one led by Wallace in Experiment going around the west of Jersey and the other led by Richmond going around the east (or at least going a different way?) from Portsmouth. Between them they pincer the French ships until Wallace is able to reach and attack them. Not sure how many ships were left by Arbuthnot to join the chase. The DNB seems to be saying that only Experiment was detached and that Wallace then took charge of other ships already on station. Some of the following information I take from the morethannelson article, which while as frustratingly unsourced as ever does provide a nice overview and suggests that at least other sources are available...somewhere!

Wallace's squadron

• Experiment - Captain Sir James Wallace
• Pallas - Captain Thomas Spry
• Unicorn - Captain John Ford
• Cabot - Commander Edmund Dod
• Fortune - Commander Charles Powell Hamilton
• ?

Gidoin's squadron

• Richmond - Captain John Gidoin
• Raleigh - Captain James Gambier
• Convert - Captain Henry Harvey
• Beaver - Commander Joseph Peyton
• Cygnet - Commander Thomas Drury
• ?
• ?
• ?

Unknown position

• Leith - Commander Peter Rothe
• Wasp - Commander James Lys
• True Briton (merchant Tartar purchased 1778) - Lieutenant Charles Cobb (Winfield doesn't have her being commissioned until July)

Interestingly morethannelson records Peter Rothe as being the first lieutenant of Experiment at the action, so that raises even more questions about the career of Leith! - Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin I've created Action of 13 May 1779. I'm still a little iffy as to the French ships involved, but think I've got them pretty much sorted now. Biggest issue is the lack of any names for French commanders involved. I wonder if Demerliac or something similar could assist (I don't have access to any useful France-leaning sources)? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Great work. I have to run now, but am finding what I can. Several of the French vessels mentioned don't seem to exist so more digging is required. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin Many thanks for that start you've made, it looks like I'll have to revise the sentences stating that Guepe was the only ship rescued! Look forward to seeing what else you're able to dig up. Thanks again, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Haasje

Re Haasje (1788 ship), you state her namesake is the hare. In Dutch, the suffix "-je" is a diminutive. "Haasje" thus refers to the leveret, the young of the hare. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Winfield

Hi, thought I'd note that I now have access to the 1817—1863 Winfield; I know it's been an annoyance in the past. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Great. By the end of the month I should have the Kindle version of the 1714–1792 book. That will give us coverage from 1714 through 1863. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Albion

My feeling is that commons:File:Thomas Whitcombe - H.M.S. Albion, 74 Guns, coming to Anchor in the Downs.jpg is regretably HMS Albion (1802) as opposed to HMS Albion (1763)? Any thoughts? Broichmore (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: I would agree, though only because 1802 would better fit when the painting was probably painted. Acad Ronin (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Some typos in the description?

This image commons:File:John Wilson Carmichael - H.M.S. Charlotte, and other shipping.jpg provides some questions; for two ships at least... Broichmore (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: I fixed three typos, but two involved the same vessel, HMS Granicus. The names of the other ships of the line were OK, or am I missing something? Acad Ronin (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, makes a lot of sense but HMS? Hebrus? Broichmore (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: HMS Granicus (1813), and HMS Hebrus (1813), both Scamander-class frigates. Both at Algiers and both sold 1817. If I wasn't focusing on smaller RN vessels and merchantmen I would feel compelled to write them up. Acad Ronin (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Great thanks. Broichmore (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

On your street

There are two pictures here of the Revenge (one of them attached within this image), File:Francis Holman - 'Revenge' on the open sea off the coast of Dover.jpg. The auction house says H.M.S on one, but I'm thinking EIC? Both have red flags... Which ship? Broichmore (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Broichmore: 1) I can't identify the Revenge of the Dover picture. A date for the painting might help, but there was no suitable HMS Revenge. It was a relatively scarce name for mercantile vessels, though popular among privateers, which were generally small. 2) There was an HCS Revenge (1755–1782}}, but I am not aware of any report that she had visited England. She is almost certainly the Revenge of the second picture with Protector and Bombay. 3) The Thornton of the picture is ship-rigged (three masts), rather than cutter-rigged (one mast), and looks larger than 31 tons (bm). There was a contemporary ship Thornton of 257 tons (bm), launched at Hull in 1788, that was a West Indiaman and later a whaler in the Davis Strait fishery. By 1810 there were four vessels named Thornton, and one named Thorntons. So, some puzzles. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added "Unidentified ships in England" as a cat to it. Broichmore (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

HMS Saint Eustatius

Hi, I recently created HMS Saint Eustatius, a sixth rate captured from the Dutch in 1781. While the basic details of her dimensions, armament, and British commanders are available, I've struggled to find anything solid on her previous Dutch service, or what she actually did in British service. Her original name was de Graaf, and I suspect that she was named after the governor of Sint Eustatius, where she was captured, Johannes de Graaff, which might mean she was a locally built ship. That's all complete conjecture however, and this is a plea for any suggestions you might have... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Off to bed, but thought that I would pass on the following. 1) The van Maanen paper that I cite in the article I just finished on HMS Princess of Orange (1799) has no Dutch naval vessel named de Graaff. or Graaff, Eustatius, Sint Eustatius, St Eustatius, or Saint Eustatius. 2) There was a merchant vessel named Saint Eustatius that put into Curacoa in early 1781 unable to proceed to Holland because she had become unseaworthy. Her cargo was transshipped aboard Margareta Catherina, another vessel that the British were able to seize at Saint Eustatius. I have no info on what happened to Saint Eustatius afterwards. 3) There is nothing in the London Gazette concerning a de Graaff or Graaff, or an HMS Saint Eustatius. 4) The NMM's database lists only St Eustatius's dimensions and names only two commanders, Andrew Sutherland and Hon. W. Carnegie, all of which you have Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

References

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Comet (1791 ship)

A couple of times, Comet (1791 ship) is referred to as Commerce. Is this an error or was she renamed? Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: – Thanks for catching this. Comet, not Commerce. I work on so many vessels with similar names I sometimes get lost. Acad Ronin (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

HMS Apollo

Hi, in this edit you introduced an sfn reference to "Winfield Roberts 2015", but did not define the reference. This added it to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and means that nobody can look up the reference. Could you fix it please? DuncanHill (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: I was in the process of doing so when you intervened. No worries, I will try again. Acad Ronin (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

HMS St Lawrence (1813)

Hi, in this edit you changed the listed Winfield work. The {{sfnp}} references you placed in the text call the work you removed, not the one you added. I don't have access to either to check which you meant. Could you check these and fix them? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: Blast. I pasted the item in my list of sources below the one I mean to cut and paste. Should be fixed now.Acad Ronin (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, it is - but I now see "Hepper 1994" isn't defined. I've got User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js installed, which highlights this sort of thing, you might find it helpful. I do appreciate all the work you are doing on these ships, I always find them interesting .

Spalding (ship)

Hi AC, perhaps you will be interested by General Burnside's Ship, the Spalding. Happy Xmas. Broichmore (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: Thanks for this, but I am trying to combat entropy by staying in my lane. That aside, best wishes for the New Year. I hope we will get more of your illustrations for the vessels whose histories I write. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Acad Ronin!

Happy New Year!

Acad Ronin,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Vessel that saved crew of Warren (1852)

Hi. I looked through the log of the California, of New Bedford. It doesn't appear to mention saving the crew of the Warren in July 1852. Perhaps it was later in the season? What was your source? ST1849 (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@ST1849: Damned if I can find the source. I can't even find newspaper accounts of the loss, yet I must have found it somewhere. Although the loss was in July, if the crew took to the boats, the rescue may have taken place later, though I doubt much past August. Alternatively, California was probably not a unique name, so could it have been another California? I know Captain Heath was saved as he shows up in a later voyage, but that's the best I can do. Regrets, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I only know of one whaleship named the California. I looked through Starbuck and he didn't list any others. I read through August but the log becomes faded towards the end of the month and beginning of September. It only mentioned a ship that wrecked in Holy Cross Bay as far as I can tell. Whalemen's Shipping List (November 2, 1852, page 257) mentions the ship being lost "about July 10". I'll try to find the issue of the Friend that mentioned it. I believe it only said "early part of July" though. I don't recall either listing who rescued them though. Those two sources are good for whaleship wrecks. ST1849 (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

So the October 8, 1852 issue of the Friend states that "Capt. Heath and crew are on board the ship California" (p. 56). They might've been transferred from another ship to the California at some point (they did that a lot). I'll read through more of the log to see if it mentions them.

@ST1849: Super. I knew I couldn't have made it up. The sources on the actual dates of Warren's loss do not agree, but they are clear. It was the California bit that was missing. I know from what I have done on British whalers that often surviving crew members might be parceled out, or transferred from the rescuer to the next vessel heading home, so I agree that California may not have been the actual rescuer. Feel free to amend the article to reflect that and anything else you discover. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Kupang 1797

Hi, I'm currently writing up HMS Resistance (1782), as part of which I've found that on 10 June 1797 she captured Kupang alongside HCS Intrepid (1780). Considering that the Bombay Marine is far more your side of affairs than mine, I wondered if you might know of any other such affairs Resistance was involved in alongside it? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Main source for Bombay Marine is Rathbone Low's History of the Indian Navy. He has some paragraph's on Resistance's loss: https://archive.org/details/historyofindiann01lowc/page/206/mode/2up?q=Resistance . Am looking for any other mentions. Acad Ronin (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Nothing more in Low re Resistance. Acad Ronin (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting pickle. Macleod states that Frost came from Intrepid, but Low has him coming from HCS Bombay! What's correct?! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Find a third source and go with the weight of the evidence? Report the discreancy and don't take sides? Is it critical? One thing I have found is that even official sources can contain mistakes that then get perpetuated. Documentation of personnel gets better with James, Marshall, and O'Byrne, but that's later than your period. Acad Ronin (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Every officer on Resistance died when she exploded in 1798, so there's not a single useful Marshall or O'Byrne focusing on the ship! I'll do what you suggest per vessels present at Kupang. Thanks again for the assistance. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Glad to help, even if my help is worth slightly less than what you paid for it. :-) Acad Ronin (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Cornwall (1794 ship)

There seems to be some confusion as to whether she was launched in 1793 or 1794. I've removed the 1795 ships category and changed it to 1790s ships. Please can you check and amend as necessary. If launched before 1795 an entry needs to be made to the relevant list of ship launches. Mjroots (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mjroots: It was 1794. I have changed the shipbox and the category to that. What do you mean by the "relevant list of ship launches"? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

List of ship launches in 1794. Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Beaulieu

Hi, I've just started work on what will hopefully become HMS Beaulieu, a one-off privately constructed frigate commissioned in 1791. While Winfield provides some pretty solid construction/design details, I was pretty shocked to discover that I can't find any mention of her in any volume of Gardiner, may that be First Frigates, Heavy Frigates, or Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars. I don't know if I'm missing something very obvious, but if you have any suggestions as to where Beaulieu is hiding in academia I'd love to hear them... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Nothing I am afraid. I looked under Buckler's Hard, but nothing there either. There may be something buried in Mariner's Mirror, but if so it is buried deep. Still, you've got a great project. I found an interesting recruiting bill, a painting, and lots of stuff on actions and the like. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. I must admit to being rather in love with that broadsheet, I'll include it if it's the last thing I do on this site! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Storeship Prince Frederick

Hi, I've been writing up HMS Swallow for a short while now. In 1766 she went on an expedition to the Pacific, and for the first half of her voyage she was in company with the store ship Prince Frederick. What's the likelihood that this store ship and HMS Prince Frederick are one and the same? Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: The first HMS Prince Frederick was broken up in 1740. The second, which Colledge thought was a rebuild of the first, was a lazarette at the time of the expedition. Both were too large for storeships. Here is the URL of the relevant page from the 1764 volume of Lloyd's Register: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015004741792?urlappend=%3Bseq=150 The most likely candidate for a storeship is the former bomb vessel. Unfortunately, I haven't figured out which Navy vessel that was. The Prince Frederick, Johnston, master, is the least likely as I can find SAD data on her going to and from Jamaica. In 1765 there is mention of a Prince Frederick transport carrying troops to Jamaica. I will do a little more digging. Acad Ronin (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I suspect that the former bomb vessel was HMS Furnace (1740), but that is not consistent with the "Gra bomb" of Lloyd's Register. I was unable to find anything that would enable me to nail down Prince Frederick. Regrets add regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me butting in. Prince Frederick would be the former Grenado/Grenada/Granada Bomb (spelled out in LR1768), launched 1742, later a sloop and sold in 1763 to Nesbit and Co. They almost completely rebuilt her in the following year for West Indies trading, under master Harman/Hannan/Hamond/Hanan (LR, LL and other papers). When the Prince Frederick in question returned from her half-trip of exploration (with 7 exotic "Patagonians" on board), she arrived in The Downs on 15 May 1767 under "Captain Hanan". Davidships (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Davidships: That's super. Many thanks. Following your info, I found her in Colledge and Winfield (as Granado), and in the 1768 LR. Can't imagine why anyone would object to butting in when doing so solves puzzles. Feel free to do so any time in my case. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thank you both. I made some m/s desk-notes last night which I will not keep long. If there is anything in the above for which you might find use for more detail or refs, either for the Swallow article or a future one on Grenado, please let me know, perhaps by email. Davidships (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I have emailed Davidships and requested the info. I have the Kindle version of Winfield and so will add Granado to my list of things to do. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds great. Feel free to use any of the sources I've used for Swallow, but really all that is is her travelling to Cape Virgenes with Swallow and HMS Dolphin, providing them with supplies and then sailing off to Port Egmont. I hadn't read about her taking some of the Patagonians with her; that'll greatly enhance the article! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I went on a wild goose chase in case "storeship" was a mistranslation from the Danish for big ship (stor skib) and Prince Frederick a Danish merchantman or warship. Negative in both cases, as far as no such ship could be found in my Danish sources. However I see Granado in the London Gazette here getting prize money for Havana in 1772, the notice repeated one month later naming the ship Granado Bomb here. That is my tuppenceworth! Have fun Viking1808 (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Borodino

Hi Acad - It doesn't really bother me if you really want to keep the note about Lloyd's Register. My reasoning was that it didn't add anything to the story of Borodino since that has already been told in available detail. In itself, the endorsement is of no consequence - it was normal practice, if a little haphazard, for LR to have the register-book "posted" with a note of loss, along with other changes. Cheers. Davidships (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Davidships: LR and the Register of Shipping were pretty erratic about whether they posted losses (I wish they had done it more often), but I am always glad to see confirmation when I can get it. (I find it particularly reassuring in those cases where there were several/many contemporary vessels with the same name.) "Trust but verify", if I may quote, I believe, Premier Gorbachov. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it is more of a reference then? Davidships (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Davidships: I guess I am keeping in the back of my mind that I don't know how or why someone might come across the article, and giving them more refs is better than fewer. I know we get the occasional genealogist, and they may have quite different interests than mine. So yes, a reference. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Winchester, commanded by Sir John Bentley

Hi, Any ideas on what Winchester this is?. The artist John Hood was Sir John Bentley's clerk, in some sources. He certainly sketched multiple Bentley commands. I don't see this Winchester on the disambig page, unless its been razeed. Hood seems fairly accurate in his other offerings.Broichmore (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither Winfield nor Bentley's ODNB record Bentley as ever commanding a Winchester. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Broichmore:@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: 1) I can't find a suitable Winchester in Colledge, Winfield, or the NMM database. So, can we reverse engineer: what vessels was Bentley a captain of during the period Hood was his clerk? 2) FYI: I am working on HMS Granado, and have her RN history pretty much done, at least as far as transcribing Winfield is concerned. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

three decks gives a sense of Bentley's career. Hood makes drawings of the vessels of Bentley's career from 1743 thru to 1761. (Knighted 1759)

Looking at the RMG collection the two anomalies are Winchester (- Guns) commanded by Bentley (no date), and Marlbrough (74 Guns) commanded 1744. Perhaps they were temporary commands for sailing home. Otherwise they remain a mystery. Broichmore (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Broichmore: I just cannot find anything to resolve the mysteries. I notice that we have nothing on Bentley's early career. He must have commanded something as a Lieutenant or junior Commander. I just can't find any mention of such commands. In any case, there is no suitable Winchester. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Granado

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe:@Davidships:@Broichmore:@Viking1808: HMS Granado (1742) is up. I am pleased that I was able to build out not just her naval service, but also her subsequent career as Prince Frederick and Prudence. Her mercantile career took some digging, but at least it was interesting. Thanks all, regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thetis (1813 Chittagong ship), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Countess of Loudoun.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Amazon (1799)

Hi, I'm currently doing a little clean up on HMS Amazon in preparation for possible writing up her sister ship HMS Hussar. I understand that this is a bit of a reach, but in 2015 you added "Amazon sailed from Portsmouth for Jamaica with Severn and Scorpion on 26 April 1800 as escorts for a large convoy. Amazon would only accompany the convoy to "a certain latitude."" You've referenced this to "Naval Chronicle, Vol. 3, p. 330.", and it only came to my attention because there's no full citation in the references section to go with it. However, upon checking p. 330 of the Chronicle, I can't seem to find any details of this convoy. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: See:[41]. The p.330 refers to the pg in the volume. The search engine designates it as #360. The day was 26 April. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, not sure how I missed that..! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

HMS Vengeance (1800)

Hi Acad Ronin,

Another puzzle to ponder if you have a moment, please. If I read the construction schedule correctly then Vengeance first floated 8 November 1794 and was fitted out April 1795. Do these dates preclude active service on 15 February 1795? I ask because a La Vengeance captured The Pomona (a whaler, not an RN ship) on that day.

I have done my best with the Log from the Pomona, now in the National Archives.

Difficulty No.2 is that the French and British call Vengeance a corvette whereas the article says frigate. This doesn't seem a showstopper to me, but you know more.

Lastly, is it possible that the pursuit of Vengeance by HMS Seine (1798) was triggered by this event?

Secondary sources are thin:

Barrell, 2000 but his focus is on the judicial fall-out.

New Bedford Whaling Museum A helpful précis.

Regards RAClarke (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a different Vengeance - see French corvette Vénus (1794). Davidships (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Acad,

Thank you for your response. Yes, that convinces me. The captives from the Pomona were taken into Brest, which accords with the location of the Venus later in 1795.

Problem solved. I am grateful for this.

Regards RAClarke (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

wp:burden

Happy Friday. I would bring your attention to wp:burden. Uncited material should not be restored without RS refs directly supporting the text. Thank you. --2603:7000:2143:8500:8841:CC81:D22E:5772 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Action of 13 May 1779

Hi, a while back you kindly assisted with some information re the French side in the action of 13 May 1779. I'm thinking about taking the article to GAN, and wondered if you might be able to clear up the uncited sentence at the beginning of Aftermath? Am I correct in saying your source has Ecluse and Guepe being recovered from the fire, but Valeur not? Also interested if there might be any details on the two uncaptured frigates; assuming they were successfully burned? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, Am going to bed right now. Will revert tomorrow with whatever I can find. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, 1) I haven't been able to track down a source for the French casualties on Danae. I looked at Troude, and he doesn't say anything about casualties. He also does not explicitly condemn the French crews for cowardice. See: [42]. 2) I haven't been able to find the actual London Gazette with Wallace's report. It was an extraordinary issue, but still, it should be in the database; I was able to find reports that copied the original. See [43]. 3) Wallace mentions Recuse and is the only source that does so. He does not mention Ecluse. Not only does Troude not mention Recluse, Roche has no vessel by that name ever serving in the French navy. It appears that Recluse is a mistake for Ecluse. Wallace describes Recluse as a 24-gun vessel with a crew of 130 men. Roche as Ecluse as a gabarre of 8–20 guns. Winfield and Roberts have her as pierced for 28 guns but only carrying 6-20. They also give her a crew of 31–86 men. Although Troude has her being burnt completely ("consumée"), according to Roche she was recovered and served until condemned in 1788. 4) Roche says Diane participated in the unsuccessful expedition but makes no mention of her being involved in any engagement. She capsized in 1780 in a violent gale with the loss of all hands. That's all I have been able to find so far. I will dig a little more on French casualties. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your work so far. Seems there's certainly more confirmation needed before the article can go any further, especially re Recluse/Ecluse and Diane. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: One problem is that the British appear to have exaggerated the size of the French forces. In addition to the mis-identification of Ecluse as a frigate, I can find no French naval vessel named Dieppe. Also Troude does not mention her.Acad Ronin (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Assuming good faith at least for now, what's the possibility that Dieppe was a hired vessel or some kind of local ship, just as the British squadrons both had "borrowed" ships? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Dieppe could be anything, but probably just a brig that happened to be in the bay, as were other French civilin vessels. She could have been hired or simply have tagged along with the French squadron. The only thing that is clear is that she was almost certainly not per se a naval vessel. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Bombay Marine

Howdy, Acad Ronin. I was currently working on an article about a Welsh naval officer, Sir William James, 1st Baronet who served in the East India Company onboard several of its ships. I was having trouble finding information about the ships that James served on, and noting that you have recently created an article on the vessels of the Bombay Marine, was wondering if you would be so kind as to help do some digging in order to ascertain whether or not certain EIC ships were part of the Bombay Marine (if that is even possible). The ships in question are Hardwicke and Suffolk- both EIC ships which James served on from 1747 to 1749. Additionally, any information about the Bombay Marine ships Guardian, Protector, Revenge and Bombay (active during the 1740's and 50's) would be most welcome. Thanks, Dabberoni15 (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

White ensign

Hi - just a question. In Auspicious (1799 ship) you changed the flag from Red to White Ensign. I am wondering what the reason was for that as the article does not mention her being anything but a merchant vessel. Davidships (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Davidships: Fixed. No idea why I changed it; changed it back to civil.Acad Ronin (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. No problem Davidships (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

HB Antwerp

Hello Acad, it's very nice to meet you. I've been working on a draft for HB Antwerp, a diamond technology company based in Antwerp, and mentioned here. I noticed that you are the creator of the Antwerp Diamond Bank article and thought you might be interested in taking a look. If you think the article is ready to be included, please feel free to do so. I have a COI and therefore cannot publish it myself. If you have ideas or feedback on how to improve the draft, I would appreciate that as well. Thanks so much for your time, Margxx (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Acad, thanks for taking a look at the draft. I noticed that you made a few changes- do you think the draft is ready to be included at this point? If so, please feel free to move it to mainspace. Thanks again. Margxx (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Amazon

Hi, thanks for adding your bit to Amazon. I'm cleaning the article up a bit in preparation for writing the Amazon-class frigate article, so if there's anything else you think is missing from it, please do say..! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I have just returned from almost a month's vacation and am getting back into the swing of things. I still have to get back to that cutter you and Rif commented on. In the meantime, I was trying to find info re the Lively that Amazon sank, and could access no article that would give me a master's name. While looking, I came across a reference to Amazon having run foul of a Lovell, Bowden, master, that had been sailing from Waterford to London. Two boats from Boulogne had taken Lovell into Calais. I wonder if these are separate incidents, or confused reporting about the same incident. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Does the Lovell report provide a date for the incident? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: The story appeared in the 26 January 1802 Lloyd's List. I'll see if I can find anything more. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: The archive of British newspapers I can access has no mention of the incident with Lively, and the Lovell incident mentions trace back to the Lloyd's List report. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: The only Lovell I can find is a sloop of 68 tons (bm), launched at Portsmouth in 1800, whose only appearance is in the sup. pages of Lloyd's Register for 1801. Her owner and captain were given as J.Lomar, and her trade as Dartmouth–Waterford. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it very likely that Lovell is Lively. The cited newspaper report from the article is as follows:

In a very hard gale of wind, the sloop Lively, from Waterford to London, with butter, drove athwart the Amazon frigate, and foundered - master and crew saved.

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Although how does that tally up if Lovell was later on taken by the French? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe the two vessels are the same. Amazon rescued the master and crew, who abandoned their vessel. The Brits assumed it had foundered, but instead the storm drove it to where the French vessels were fortuitously able to retrieve it. How do you want to proceed? Acad Ronin (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

If you would be kind enough to add your reference into the text alongside the existing Lively report, changing the ship's name, I think that works. Leaning on your generosity even further, I wonder if you might delve into Lloyd's for me? I've written up a table of prizes for Amazon, but the reference for Julie and Amelia doesn't seem to line up with what the text provides, and the link and reference themselves don't seem to be that great either. Could you find the Lloyd's information on their taking and corroborate or not the facts the article provides? Thanks again. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I have done a little cleaning up. Is that OK, or were you thinking of something else? Acad Ronin (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I think the article is in much better shape now! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Trelawney is no longer a red link. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)