User talk:Acad Ronin/Archive 8

Vansittart

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

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

Moving ship dab pages

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

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

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

Iris 1866

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

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

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

Larkins

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

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

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

Diamond Rock

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

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

Kent (1799 ship)

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

Seringapatam (1799 ship)

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

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

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

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

Your edits on .300 AAC Blackout

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

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

Talk:Phoenix (1785 EIC ship)

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

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

A kitten for you!

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

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

Java (1813 ship)

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

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

My apologies

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

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

HMS Racoon (1795)

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

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

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

Al Qasimi

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

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

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

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

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

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

HMS Latona (1781)

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

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

Long, William H. (1895) Medals of the British navy and how they were won: with a list of those officers, who for their gallant conduct were granted honorary swords and plate by the Committee of the Patriotic Fund. (London: Norie & Wilson)[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Countess of Morley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

amh tagging

yeah well there are a large amount of oz bathtub items to do [2] Australian maritime History lack of importance assessment) and looking at some of the these skeletal never worked on ancient articles gives one the beegees ) - hmm, underlinked and not update/checked they really are spooky... JarrahTree 01:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Revolt of the housewives

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

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

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

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

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

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

1780 Printz Friederick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Albion (1798 whaler)

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

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

Santa Clara Battery images

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

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

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

@Acad Ronin: Happy Holidays!

Battery of Santa Clara.2 Havana, Cuba

Battery of Santa Clara.3 Havana, Cuba

Battery of Santa Clara.4 Havana, Cuba

Battery of Santa Clara.5 Havana, Cuba

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

Found one more:

ovA_165443 (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting ship

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

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

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

redirect of bombarde

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Nepal Rastra Bank

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

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

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

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

File:P1130712.jpeg

Linter errors in ship articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

your advice

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

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

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

Martin White (Royal Navy officer)

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

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

FYI

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

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

Using the Sfnp template

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

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

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

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

Also, I note this, from sfnp:

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

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

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

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

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

A Challenge - Danish ships

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

i surely hope if my english was more skillful

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

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

Action of Belle-Ile in 1799

Hello,

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

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

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

(talk page stalker) I think James has it on page 487 (although I suppose it might be a different version) [[3]]. Also mentioned in Clowes here [[4]].--Ykraps (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

HM Brig Gibraltar

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

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

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

Ardaseer

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

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

Middelgrundsfortet -> Ungdomsøen Requested move

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