User talk:Acad Ronin

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

Contents

Spesutie Island[edit]

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

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

Young Teazer[edit]

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

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

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

Vandalism by 65.113.118.2[edit]

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

I assume you noticed that the vandalism you reverted by IP 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[edit]

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

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


A barnstar for you![edit]

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

Decimal inches[edit]

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

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

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

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

A beer for you![edit]

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

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

Pinnance[edit]

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

John's Rock[edit]

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

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

Survey for new page patrollers[edit]

NPPbarnstar.jpg

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


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

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

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


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

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

Lolland and Belette[edit]

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

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

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

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

Anglo-Russian War (1807–1812)[edit]

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

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

NMM[edit]

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

HMS Cambrian (1797)[edit]

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

Additions to featured articles[edit]

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

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

HMS Quebec (1781)[edit]

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

Lolland Notes[edit]

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[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Viking, I was just on Pomor trade so could have been me, or maybe not. Re Vladimir - Nayaden wasn't it. It could have been Alexandria. She was on the Lieth station from about 1810 to 1813+. In 1811 she captured several Russian vessels and in 1813 tried to engage the USS President near Archangel. I am also trying to find out more about Snake to see if she could have been in the area in 1810. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Just found the following: on 31 August 1810, HMS Gallant captured the St. Peder."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[edit]

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

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[edit]

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

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

HMS Phoebe[edit]

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

HDMS Kronprindsens Lystfregat (1785)[edit]

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

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

Norwegian Gunships - Title?[edit]

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

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

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

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

National Maritime Museum again[edit]

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

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

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

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

Your contributed article, Placentia class sloops[edit]

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

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

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

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

Norway's Seven Brigs[edit]

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

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

Some more pages for you to look at.

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

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

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

Talkback[edit]

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

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

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

Entreprenant[edit]

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[edit]

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

Talkback[edit]

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

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

Magdala Battery[edit]

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

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

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

Finish[edit]

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?[edit]

'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[edit]

Dear Acad Ronin,

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

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

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

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

Fortifications of Gibraltar[edit]

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

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

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

Signpost Barnstar Hires.png The Signpost Barnstar
This month the Signpost said that the Gibraltar project was a " ludicrously productive GLAM project". Thank you for helping us with that achievement (anyway). We have got behind with the barnstars so this is one to say thank you for helping. 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[edit]

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

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

George Heneage Dundas[edit]

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

Alexander (East Indiaman)[edit]

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

  • Hi Newm30, I will see what I can find re Alexander. Once/if we have that we can go from there. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk)
  • OK, here is something: 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)[edit]

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

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

About admiral Robert Mann[edit]

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

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

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

Danish Naval Information - missing links[edit]

Hi Acad

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


"Due to our new homepage and cutbacks, we do not facilitate “Den Sorte Registrant” anymore.Instead you can visit 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[edit]

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

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

Technical Issues with ship of the line template[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talkback[edit]

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

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

Kent[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Name by which ship known[edit]

French frigate Aigle (1782)

Hi Acad,

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

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

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

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

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

Talkback[edit]

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

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

HMS Grecian[edit]

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

HMS Peterel (1794)[edit]

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

Union Bank of India[edit]

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

Thomson and Thompson[edit]

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

re:French brig Nearque (1804)[edit]

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

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

Suggestion for you at my talk[edit]

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

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

HMS Dart[edit]

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

Port Harvey attribution[edit]

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

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

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

HMS Boxer (1812)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Born -> Borne[edit]

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

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

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

Copyediting[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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) [1]

Awaiting your reply regards.\\

  1. ^ "Greece's Eurobank, Alpha Bank Ask Central Bank for Emergency Liquidity Assistance". Wall Street Journal. 2015-01-16. Retrieved 2015-01-16. 
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)[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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)[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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![edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

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) [edit]

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)[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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[edit]

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[edit]

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)‎[edit]

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[edit]

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)

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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...[edit]

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)[edit]

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![edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

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[edit]

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![edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

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[edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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:RMRoscelese (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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)[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Fayenatic London 21:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Fredericksteen[edit]

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[edit]

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"[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

Ship model as cenotaph-IMG 7867.JPG

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

Battle of Zealand Point[edit]

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![edit]

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

Norwegian Order of Battle 1808[edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

You might find this website of use. BTW, shouldn't the ship box flag be the East India Company flag (British East India Company flag.svg, Flag of the British East India Company (1707).svg or Flag of the British East India Company (1801).svg as appropriate)? Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]

Information icon 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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Æolus' ship builder[edit]

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

Vorpostenboote[edit]

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)[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png 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[edit]

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[edit]

Patina Barnstar with Helm.png 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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?[edit]

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

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

thanks[edit]

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

Indian Chief[edit]

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[edit]

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 / 24°S 151°E / -24; 151) 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[edit]

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![edit]

Akaroa British Naval SBML 6 pounder- View left rear.jpg 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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)[edit]

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)[edit]

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)

John Craigie[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Beulah[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
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[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Hello, Acad Ronin.
AfC submissions
Random submission
Very highly backlogged
1486 pending submissions
Purge 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[edit]

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)