Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:39, 1 May 2009

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

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

HMS Crocodile

Ben, thanks for putting in the disambiguation page for HMS Crocodile. I have added to the entry on the 1867 troopship - really there should be a separate article on the Euphrates class troopships to link together the five vessels of this class. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I might work one up myself at some point. While the technical details and specifications are easily found, information about their careers is a little harder to come by. Would you have any suggestions? Benea (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I can insert details of their commanding officers, and when each took over. Their lives were relatively unexceptional, as they were solely employed on a regular run between India and the UK, virtually as navy-operated passenger liners (although NOT, as stated when their articles were written, "commissioned by the Indian Government"). I shall try to expand with those service details I know (I've begun with the Crocodile entry), but would be obliged if you could set up the article on Euphrates class troopships. I have inserted links to this future article in place within the existing articles for the five individual vessels. Rif Winfield (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for George Murray (Royal Navy officer)

On March 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Murray (Royal Navy officer), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

HMS Liffey

I have made a stub disambiguation page for HMS Liffey. Please could you add to it. The one of interest to me is the Liffey in service in the 1890s.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added in the missing ships. The 1890s one is the screw frigate that had been launched some 40 years previously, though she had been hulked at Coquimbo since 1877. Benea (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Collier Baronets into Sir George Collier, 1st Baronet

Hello. I put a proposed merge tag onto the Collier Baronets page to propose merging it into the Sir George article. Johnhousefriday (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not something over which I'd really lose any sleep, although to be honest I think all those other ones could probably stand to be merged too. The fact is that the Baronetcy itself isn't notable for any reason other than the person to whom it was awarded, and all the information about him contained in the Barontecy article is already contained in greater detail in the person's own article. But as I say, I'm not really that fussed, feel free to remove. Johnhousefriday (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a big issue for me either to be honest, but I'll remove them. Thanks for getting back to me. Benea (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April Fool's DYK for SS Letitia

On April Fool's, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Letitia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contribution to the April Fool's Day fun! Royalbroil 00:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Smiley face! I like! Benea (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Admiral Nelson"

Sorry, that was what was in the BCGNIS ref....Skookum1 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's ok, the distinction is a fine one so I thought it was probably best to remove it, or maybe alter it to 'future vice-admiral ...' or something like that. Incidentally perhaps you could at a cite to the information you added to HMS Agamemnon (1781). It's a good article, so to retain that status it really needs citing, or the information will probably be removed. Best wishes, Benea (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Raid on Boulogne

On April 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Raid on Boulogne, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Royal Navy ships of Napoleonic Wars

I'd be very grateful if you'd take on creating these articles! I've often thought of asking you, but the effort involved can be fairly extensive and I didn't want to impose. I've always wanted to make more of the ship articles I put together, but my sources and interests tend to only cover the period 1793-1815 and thus their creation, design and service outside this timeframe take more effort for me to develop than time I have available. That is why I used Ships of the Old Navy to create them, because it is a simple and easy to access resource.

I've always been impressed with your ships articles and would be very pleased to have your help on these redlinks. Would you want me to do as I do with Rama and drop you a line when I need a hand?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome! First ports of call then might be HMS Jason (1794) and HMS Spitfire (1783) from my latest article Expédition d'Irlande. Anthing you can add to the Order of Battle on Invasion of Martinique (1809) would be appreciated as well. I also had HMS Cleopatra (1779) and HMS Amethyst (1795) planned for the near future. Thanks very much and let me know if you need any help with anything yourself.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

HMS Algerine

I have started another HMS Algerine.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)--Toddy1 (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

HMS Hyacinth (K84)

Thank you a lot. It was unjust that such ship had no page. Voldemar (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree, sadly with well in excess of 13,000 RN ships, there are still many gaps in our coverage. Benea (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

New index pages

Hey, Benea. I've come across two RN ship names that may need to have index pages: HMS King Alfred and HMS Roxburgh. Also, what is your assessment of the name of HMS Calgarian? Is HMS right, or should it be moved to SS (and leave the HMS redirect)? Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Good catch with King Alfred, the First World War-era cruiser was the only major ship of that name, though it was also used by a hired trawler also during the First World War, and for a number of naval bases since then, including the current RNR establishment at Portsmouth. I'll try to sift through the details and add the index page, though the shore establishments are the most confusing to get your head around! Roxburgh is more tricky, the cruiser of that name has been the only RN ship so named, though there was a Town class destroyer named HMS Roxborough (the former USS Foote (DD-169)). I'd be inclined to redirect both undisambiguated names straight to those articles and add a brief note explaining the link between them, what do you think? Calgarian spent most of her short life as an AMC so I don't mind leaving it at HMS, as it seems to be a common wikipedia convention, but I'll leave it to you whether you think something like 'HM Armed Merchant Cruiser Calgarian' or 'SS Calgarian' are clearer options. Otherwise redirecting SS Calgarian to it would probably cover all our bases. Hope this was of help! Benea (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say redirect HMS Roxburgh and HMS Roxborough to the right articles. I figure if you're alright with HMS Calgarian as named, then it's OK by me. (It also looks like both RMS Calgarian and SS Calgarian already redirect there so no need for anything more.) Thanks for the help. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bueno

JamieS93 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hi – I just wanted to say that your new article Sir George Collier, 1st Baronet is really fantastic. And you've made dozens of other similar articles, too! I honestly tend to marvel at those who write nearly-GA pages on the first edit. Keep up all of the amazing mainspace work, and all those DYK submissions! :D Cheers, JamieS93 00:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Sir George Collier, 1st Baronet

On April 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir George Collier, 1st Baronet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

George Collier, 1st Baronet on GA hold

Dear Benea

An editor recently nominated George Collier, 1st Baronet for GA status. I have concluded a review of said article, and determined it is almost up to that level, save for a few citation needed tags I have added for sentences I think need to be sourced. More information can be found at the talk page. If you can add citations, that would be brilliant, and I am sure then I would have no problem with passing the article. Thank you for reading. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

HMS C11

• I meant the article doesn't have any inline citations. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I wondered about that. Still, no reason to change it to a redirect. Benea (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, since it hadn't been edited in almost six months, I figured nobody cared about it enough. But we can move on. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like that. Benea (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SHIPS request

There was a request at WT:SHIPS for assistance cleaning up the index page HMS Endeavour. I thought since you always do such a fine job on the Royal Navy index pages (and have access to the info), that maybe you could take a look at it if someone else hasn't already? Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Defaultsort

Is there a reason for using U0192 rather than U-192 as a sort field for German submarine U-192? I noticed it did not sort in sequence on Category:Disappeared ships, so stopped until someone responded. I am happy to sort the remainder of the articles in there. Finavon (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

already answered. Thanks. Finavon (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I stated the reason at Talk:German submarine U-116 (1941), but I don't think it was very clear. The DEFAULTSORT key reads alphabetically down the line of whatever you enter. For example, let's take German submarine U-1, German submarine U-11, German submarine U-111 and German submarine U-1111. Adding the defaultsort key for U-1 ({{DEFAULTSORT:U-1}}) it reads the 'U' and the hyphen, and then the one, and assigns it a position in the list accordingly. Doing the same for U-2 ({{DEFAULTSORT:U-2}}), it reads the 'U' and the hyphen, and then the 2. The two is the only differentiating feature between the two, so it assigns it a position after U-1 in any categories. All well and good so far. But when you come to do the same for double digits ({{DEFAULTSORT:U-11}}), the key reads the 'U', the hyphen, and then the first 1, and duly assigns it a position after 'U-1', but before 'U-2'. Similarly U-111, U-1111, and any submarine sorted this way with the 'U-1??' format will all precede 'U-2' in category listings, despite U-2 being the lower numeric value. The way to get round this, and have them all listed numerically is to first of all decide what the maximum number of digits can be. The highest numbered U-boats had four digits. So we develop the formula 'U0000' (the hyphen is immaterial to any sorting, as it would be a common feature shared by all of the articles). Putting this in gives {{DEFAULTSORT:U0001}} for U-1, {{DEFAULTSORT:U0011}} for U-11, {{DEFAULTSORT:U0111}} for U-111 and {{DEFAULTSORT:U1111}} for U-1111. Now the key reads U and then 0001 for U-1, and assigns it a place in categories preceding any higher value. U-11 is also read as 0011, and is assigned a place based on that reading, following any values that use U000?, but before any that use U0???. This way all U-boats can be listed numerically in any categories they are placed in.

I see you've caught the explanation at Talk:German submarine U-116 (1941). Hope this gives any further clarification you need, and doesn't just muddy the waters some more :) Benea (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sir Anthony Deane

Ben, could you kindly sort out the disambiguation pages for Anthony Dean and Anthony Deane for us? Sir Anthony Deane appears under the WRONG one (he spelt his name with an "e", and this is wrongly given without an "e" in the title of the article, in which he was simply credited as Mayor of Harwich, with his knighthood omitted. I have corrected and expanded the article on him, but it needs re-titling as well as entered on the correct disambiguation page. Many thanks. Incidentally, thanks for sorting out the French frigates (Sané's 18-pounder classes); we now have articles on each of the four classes, and I have altered the article on Jacques-Noël Sané to mention them. However, can you remove the comments re Virginie class frigates which state the article has no sources or links - I have put some of each in, so the comments are no longer true? Rif Winfield (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for swift compliance! Rif Winfield (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Spitfire (1782)

On April 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Spitfire (1782), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sir Robert Kingsmill, 1st Baronet

Hello! Your submission of Sir Robert Kingsmill, 1st Baronet at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! JamieS93 16:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for List of bomb vessels of the Royal Navy

On April 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of bomb vessels of the Royal Navy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 10:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

HMS Sophie (1809)

Hi Benea: I was thinking of doing a page for this vessel. However, before I do one, would you happen to know whether her name is "Sophie" or "Sophia"? Phillips says "Sophie" and that is what I have used in the HMS Anaconda and some other pages, but several 19th century accounts refer to her as "Sophia". I don't have access to Colledge and as I have caught Phillips out on a couple of other small items, I don't want to take if for granted that he is correct. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

HMS Sophie is correct in this case. Regards, Benea (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. TTFN. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've worked up an article at HMS Sophie (1809) in a spare moment. Feel free to add to it. Benea (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Acad Ronin, if (as I believe) you're in Malta, you can access a copy of British Warships in the Age of Sail, 1793-1817 in the Maritime Museum in Vittoriosa, as I donated a copy to them. This volume covers the Sophie and 2,000+ other vessels of the era. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

HMS Minotaur (1793)

The Netherlands was annexed by Napoleon Bonaparte on 13 July 1810 and became part of his empire. The British Walcheren Campaign ended just a year before. Terms like Dutch authorities, Dutch chief officer of the marine district of the North coast, and Dutch Admiral are all very questionable, since the Dutch state existed only outside of Europe at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.32.2 (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Questionable or not the terms are those used in the sources, often in verbatim quotes, and are meant to primarily refer to officials of Dutch nationality. But the point remains, the fact the countries were at war, and that a military campaign in the country had only just been concluded, were not seen as legitimate excuses for not sending aid to a shipwreck, and the local authorities (hence the stress on 'Dutch' in the sources) were criticised by both the survivors, and by later historians. Benea (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Jason (1794)

On April 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Jason (1794), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Anonymous Dissident 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

HMS Manly (1804)

Hi Benea: Thanks for the tidying up on HMS Manly. I apologise for the cheek, but is there anything that Colledge can add? I am especially concerned about the second recapture, the one in 1813, as I can find no book source for that. If one can confirm it, I think Manly might make a good "Did you Know?" Twice captured and twice recaptured.

I also started a page on HMS Diana (1824), a little paddle steamer. I put the story together out of various sources, but as I am increasingly discovering, the sources are not always consistent. Again, any info from Colledge would be great.

Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's no problem at all. I can confirm second capture and recapture, I'll try and add a few sources to detail and support this, and expand a little on some details, in the next few days so it can go forward for DYK. I'll take a look at Diana as well. Benea (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Bulldog class survey vessel

On April 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bulldog class survey vessel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ship Index request

Dear Benea
Could I request HMS Larne? As always, thanks indeed. Shem (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all! Best, Benea (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Algerine & Tigress

Hi Benea - I could have sworn I worked on those two articles, but the revision history starts with you. Did you have to recreate them to clear up my confusion? No worries if you did. I just want to verify that my memory is working. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You edited the HMS Algerine shiplist page to add some details. I then wrote those two articles and moved the details from the list page to their respective articles, thus freeing up the list page from extraneous detail and adding some detail to the new articles themselves. I think this may be where the confusion has arisen. Hope this clears it up! Regards,

That explains it. I read quite a bit more, but clearly hadn't gotten down to putting down all but the most basic details. I will have to return to that soon. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

HMS Rising Castle

Ben, another request for a correction ot an article's title, please. The title of the article HMS Rising Castle (K494) is wrong, as HMS Rising Castle never had the pennant number K494. She was given the pennant number K398 when ordered and continued to have the same number until her transfer to the Royal Canadian Navy. At that time both her name and her pennant number were changed, as she briefly became HMCS Arnprior with the new pennant number of K494. She was of course transfered in 1946 to Uruguay as the Montevideo. Can you kindly change the title to HMS Rising Castle (K398)?

Note that this change of pennant number applied equally to all of the Castle class corvettes transfered to the Royal Canadian Navy; someone in writing the article on Castle Class corvettes wrongly included their RCN pennant number against their RN name for every one of these vessels. I have changed the numbers within the article for all the other ships, which do not yet have an individual article under their name, but cannot do so for the Rising Castle article. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Sir Robert Kingsmill, 1st Baronet

On April 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir Robert Kingsmill, 1st Baronet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Vengeance (1800)

On April 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Vengeance (1800), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Heavens...

You haven't archived this thing since I did it last fall! Will get right on that.

As usual when popping in here, though, I've a favor to ask. I'm helping User:Brianboulton who's done fabulous work on many British polar exploration articles. He is currently working on Clements Markham, and I'd like to see HMS Assistance (1850) turned blue. Can you help, kind sir? Maralia (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael Culme-Seymour

In light of Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#British_peerage POint 4 and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Articles_on_baronets please explain your move.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

'When necessary for disambiguation (as is often necessary, as these families tend to reuse names), the baronetcy can be included in the article title in the form "Sir Forename Surname, Ordinal Baronet"; for example, Sir William Mount, 1st Baronet and Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet. (The 3rd Baronet, Ferdinand Mount, would not be at "Sir Ferdinand Mount, 3rd Baronet" even if he used the title, as it is not necessary for disambiguation.) The baronetcy alone should not be used for disambiguation without the preceding "Sir": "John Smith" or "Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet" are fine, but "John Smith, 17th Baronet" should not be used.' - If you had made the effort to determine this in the first place, you would not have made an unnecessary move. Benea (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to create a disamb page for individuals that dont have an article. I would suggest that if you dont want to be distruptive then you should create articles for them if they are notable individuals. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)