User talk:Benea/archive9

RMS Titanic

Hi Benea, The article was originally written in American English and was recently changed by the user Old Moonraker, who is know to vandalize American English in favor of British English. If the general population is a proponent of the British form, that is fine. I just don't want this to turn into a culture war (might be what Moonraker is after). I'm going to change it back for now. -GTownJD —Preceding unsigned comment added by GTownJD (talk • contribs) 20:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes GTownJ, the consensus has been to use British English on the RMS Titanic article, this is not just Old Moonraker's personal opinion. Nor has this been a recent unilateral change on Old Moonraker's part, the article has been stable for a long time using British English spelling. Changing it from one form to another is discouraged, and will be reverted back. Benea (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Seringapatam class frigate

Hi Ben! I've recently created an article for Seringapatam class frigates, but I think I'm making a couple of formatting errors, as the data box has appeared at the foot on the article instead of its usual position. Also certain words seem to insist on running together without spaces to separate them (e.g. Frenchfrigate, and BritishRoyalNavy). Can you sort this out for me please? Thanks and best wishes. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem Rif, looks to have been a few template formatting errors that threw the page out, and created some odd artefacts in the text. Benea (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! I've similarly put in articles for the Apollo class frigates and (with Acad Ronin) for the Leda class frigates. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Ben, can you also kindly check the formatting for HMS Royal Charles (1655) which seems to have acquired gremlins? Thanks. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, should render fine now. Benea (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks! That's fine now. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Cape Ortegal

On October 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Cape Ortegal, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

HMS Saldhana (1809) et al.

Hi Benea, How come you pulled the "Ships lacking infoboxes" category? I stumbled across it last night and thought it was useful as a way to alert editors who have the info and knowledge to make one and fill it in. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ta re your response on my talk page. Wilco. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I've done my duty once again, archiving April-June and July-September. I don't think I've archived any discussions that were still active, but you may want to double-check. I am updating your DYK page now. You've passed 200 DYKs :) Maralia (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

My humble thanks again :) All looks fine and dandy to me! Will try to keep in touch though might be busy in this part of the world for the forseeable future. Hope the fun and games went well :) Benea (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A small request for help

My dear Benea, I have worked up HMS Wager a little (it may not be great now, but you should see what it used to look like). Apart from casting your masterly eye over it, do you think you can get rid of the "|-" characters that blight the first line? I'm normally quite good with this sort of stuff, but I have no idea how they got there - or is it just my browser? Yours, in confusion, Shem (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I seem to remember stumbling across that page ages ago, but having neither the time nor the inclination to grapple with it. It looks a lot neater and comprehensible now, good work! I'll try to pop back soon and see if there's anything I can add. In the meantime I think I've tracked down and fixed the cause of the odd formatting glitch. (Fingers crossed!) Best, Benea (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As simple as that? Thanks again. Shem (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Various vessels

Hi Benea, FYI I have written or expanded articles on HMS Brev Drageren (1807), HMS Hindostan (1795), HMS Hindostan (1804), and HMS Mosquidobit (1813). A fresh eye, corrections, and improvements would be welcome. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

SS Empire Beaumont

I note you've done quite a bit on the Convoy PQ 18 article. Do you have the Arctic Convoys book and if so can you expand the Empire Beaumont article from that source? Mjroots (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry it's taken me a while to reply. I don't have the book with me unfortunately. I'm within cycling distances of one of the legal deposit libraries which does have a copy (in confinement) so I'll see what I can do if I have a free moment. Benea (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

HMS Pegasus (1779)

Ben, the article covering this Sixth rate frigate is currently entitled HMS Pegasus (1786) because it's author seemed to think that - just because Prince William Henry took command in 1786 - there was no earlier history; in fact she was launched in 1779 (and you have the rest of her history from my emailed history [Chapter 6] of 1714-1792 ships). Please can you correct the heading of the article - I have already adjusted the reference in the disambiguation page so it will then link to that, also to the article on List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy, which you will now find much enlarged. Thanks. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Benea and Rif: I have moved Pegasus to HMS Pegasus (1779), and added some minor info from Phillips and James, but without yet giving either any or full credit, respectively. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have done most of what I can with this article, except for references, but it still needs an infobox. Any takers? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to look into it before too long, if I can get round to it. Benea (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• My thanks to both of you. The list of red entries in the List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy is unfortunately quite long, giving you plenty of opportunity for fresh articles. Incidentally, I shall be away (and uncontactable) for the next 17 days. Meanwhile, may I leave you with an area of confusion in duplicated articles. There is, I note, already a category for Frigates of the United Kingdom which contains a numbers of subcategories including Age of Sail frigates of the United Kingdom and Victorian era frigates of the United Kingdom. Each of these subcategories contains articles on two ships (one of the four vessels, the Gorgon of 1837, was not a frigate, but a paddle sloop, so that needs amending). But neither subcategory is large enough to consider retaining; might I suggest that the article on List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy requires to be linked into the category somehow (or should replace it, in part at least) while these two subcategories could well be removed. I shall happily let you decide. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

French frigate Egyptienne (1799)

Hi Benea, I take your point about not using cut-and-paste to move. However, let me suggest that the current situation, HMS Egyptienne (1799) is the worst of all solutions as it combines the date of the French launch with the English name. If we really want two articles, one should be HMS Egyptienne (1801), reflecting the convention of dating a Royal Navy vessel from when she came in service. That said, although there are numerous precedents for two articles, there is a lot to be said for keeping one, plus redirects. There also many precedents for that too. There is not enough info for the French vessel for it to be any more than a stub, and a British-service article, while longer, would be short too. Furthermore, in this case, putting the two together means a lot of good info about her design is there as background. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest using the HMS Egyptienne (1801) title, with redirects from the French frigate Egyptienne (1799) and other varients, as I quite agree there is probably not enough to justify an article on her French career being separate from an article on her British career. Would this be ok? Benea (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that. Do you know how to go about contacting an administrator to do the needful given that moving the article will require replacing various redirects? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've contacted User:Bellhalla, coincidentally now an admin, as I see he made the original move to the 1799 form, during the 'ships by year of launch' categorisation drive, and invited him to comment here. Benea (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Roger that. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting back here sooner. This was on my list of things to do and kept getting bumped down the list. As far as me moving the article, I did it when I was doing some category work, and probably just saw the article title and the year of launch and decided to make them match. I have no special insight to this ship that guided me to move it or anything like that. If y'all think it best to move it back, then, by all means, please do so (if you haven't already).

Also, I think that, perhaps, WP:NC-SHIPS might be updated to better address the disambiguation question for captured ships, given the compelling arguments. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps I could interject some info on her French career? (L')Egyptienne was ordered (to the draught of the Forte) on 15 June 1798, and she was begun at Toulon on 26 September 1798. Launched 17 July 1799 and put into service in November 1799. She was armed at Toulon on 23 September 1800 and sailed thence on 24 January 1801 (with the Justice) for Alexandria (arriving 3 February) to support Napoleon's Army of Egypt. These two frigates (with a third, the Régénérée) were surrendered to the British on 2 September 1801 at Alexandria.
• Her sister (La) Forte was begun at Lorient on 30 May 1794 and launched 26 September of the same year, being put into service in November. She sailed from Rochefort for Palma on 4 March 1796, then proceded to Île de France in the Indian Ocean, where she remained based as a unit of Sercey's squadron until captured by the Sybille (or Sibylle) on 1 March 1799. For source on these two frigates, you can cite Jean-Michel Roche's Dictionnaire des Bâtiments de la Flotte de Guerre Française de Colbert a nos Jours (Tome 1, 1671-1870). Rif Winfield (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought the convention was to disambiguate ship names by year of launch. For sailing ships with the same name, disambiguation by sail plan is also acceptable. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The year of launch only works up to a point, as taken together with our requirement for an indication of nationality or naval prefix, it can lead to anachronisms, as here. There was no HMS Egyptienne in 1799, only from 1801. The problem worsens when you have say a captured French ship given a name used previously for a British ship, whereby the French ship and the British ship clash in their respective launch dates, or the captured French ship appears to enter service with the British before the other ship, thus confusing the issue. This has been where the 'year of acquisition' part of the guideline has been applied, to match a prefix or nationality titling with the year it took the title. Redirects will handle the rest. Benea (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I've given examples before as to why 'launch' dates are impossible for a captured prize, where a ship might be captured perhaps several decades after her launch. Such ship is evidently not "HMS" prior to her capture; and indeed, if her name is changed, she is equally evidently non-existant under her new name at the time she was launched. So you are exactly correct, Ben. Personally, I'm quite happy with either "French frigate Egyptienne (1799)" or with "HMS Egyptienne (1801)" (provided that there is an automatic redirect between them), but not to confusing the two or using the latter name with the former date! Rif Winfield (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ship Index pages

Dear Benea
Thank you very much for all the Ship Index pages I propose with so little politeness - Lapwing was done before I could upload the article I was working on! Yours, as ever, Shem (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, anything to distract me from transliterating Cyrillic! I think we were tied with Lapwing in the end! Benea (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that's spooky, idly flicking through Colledge after doing Lapwing, I noticed that we didn't have a page for Laertes. I'd actually written the opening preamble when your request popped in! Benea (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Slightly more spooky; you did Laertes so quickly, I thought I must have made a mistake - I thought that I'd asked you to do a Ship Index page that already existed! If you need a hand with the Cyrillic, I've got a degree in Russian ... but I'm a bit rusty. Shem (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
For those interested on Russian sailing warships (including transliteration of names into Cyrillic), you might note that my colleagues John Tredrea and Eduard Sozaev have their comprehensive study of Russian Warships in the Age of Sail 1696-1860 being published (by Seaforth Publishing) about March 2010 - modelled very flatteringly on my series on British Warships. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, very interesting. I'm currently looking to open a research project on the late Imperial/early Soviet navy. Are there any other sources you would recommend, as currently this is a massively under-researched area? Benea (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing much has been published in English for many years, and older works (cited in the new book) have a variety of problems, which is why John Tredrea and Eduard Sozaev have produced their new book, based extensively on the newly-available Russian archives. Eduard ("Ted") is a former Russian civil servant was access to vast amount of material, and is knowledgable on sailing era of several countries, although his English is not fluent. If you wish to contact John (in Chicago) to ask questions of him, I can email you his email address rather than post it publicly here, but not until I get home at the end of November (I'm currently in Hong Kong, able to use Wiki online but not email). Rif Winfield (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Awfully good of you Rif, that would be a great help! Currently I've been looking at sources over here, hopefully prior to taking trips to the archives at Greenwich, Dartmouth and the IWM for info on the British perspective. Enjoy your trip! Benea (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Now emailed John's contact details through to you. Thanks for your kind wishes; yes, had an interesting trip to Hong Kong. Of particular maritime interest is that last Sunday (22nd) we paid a visit to Stanley, on the south coast of Hong Kong Island. This is currently home to the Hong Kong Maritime Museum; for anyone who knew historic Hong Kong, they might recall the graceful Murray House which used to stand in downtown Victoria ("Central", as its called now) where the Bank of China Tower now stands; a three-storey colonnaded building of classical appearance, Murray House was taken down carefully in 1982, and after twenty years it was moved stone-by-stone to Stanley where is now stands on a peninsula jutting into Stanley Bay. The Maritime Museum now occupies the ground floor (with restaurants on the levels above), although it is planned for it to move back to Central when the redevelopment of the waterfront around the (Star) Ferry terminals is completed, with a new home earmarked for the Museum in Pier Eight. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

HMS Windsor Castle (1678)

Hi, Ben, you will recall our discussion of the problem with HMS Yarmouth where the year of launch was wrong because of the different start-of-year day (i.e. that the year did not change until Lady Day each year); for a refreshment on our exchange see my talk page. I have found an identical problem with the Windsor Castle which is indexed as launched in 1678, but was actually launched on 4 March 1678/9, or 1679 (by the modern method of changing the year on 1st January). Again I'm afraid this is so easy to miss that several writers have got it wrong. Please can you please change the heading in the article, and amend references (such as that in List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy); I have amended the articles themselves. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Have done that now Rif. It might be a good idea to highlight how this confusion has arisen in a note in the article, in case other people wonder. Best, Benea (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ben. As suggested, I have put a note into the discussion page for HMS Windsor Castle (1679). Feel free to add to it if not clear. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

HMS Iris II?

Dear Benea
Please have a look at the article HMS Iris II. Is this really a commissioned ship? What does Colledge have to say? Sounds more like a requisitioned ferry to me! Yours, Shem (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point, she's not in Colledge, though she is in the work covering all the requisitioned vessels. The other ship in the raid is at SS Royal Daffodil interestingly enough. Benea (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I just can't imagine that the Navy ever bothered to commission her - which makes her SS Iris II. I'll see what I can do to get it moved. Shem (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the London Gazette has her as HMS Iris II, which I suspect is contemporaneous mis-reporting, but even so, if the London Gazette thought she was HMS, then I suppose it's good enough for WP. Shem (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

John Burns

Thank you for helping with this biography - presumably through your interest in shipping? Why have you removed the date links? I thought what I was doing was correct? It is easier if this is not required! I hope to be able to write about the G & J Burns shipping company - all help welcomed! Shipsview (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Article requests

Hi, sometime ago you offered to create missing articles on Napoleonic-era Royal Navy ships, and put together some excellent articles to fill redlinks for me. I was wondering if you could help me again? I've been working on the Mediterranean campaign of 1798, and need articles on the frigates HMS Emerald (1796), HMS Terpsichore (1785), HMS Seahorse (1794), HMS Alcmene (1794) and HMS Santa Dorothea (1798). Any chance of helping me out? If you need a hand with anything, please just ask.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There remain a large number of frigates articles which remain to be written (see List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy). It just takes a lot of time (for all of us) to produce them. Rif Winfield (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, its just that Benea approached me a while back to ask if I had any redlinks that needed creating in the battles articles I have been working on. (See User talk:Jackyd101/Archive 5#Ship articles).--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I did and I realise I've been a bit rubbish about doing it, sorry! I'll get on that later today, I've draft articles of HMS Terpsichore (1785) already on the go as an adjunct to rewriting Richard Bowen, so it shouldn't take too long for some results. My best to both of you,

No problem, no rush. Thanks very much.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barfleur

Ben, a small technical matter. May I solicit your help to sort out the layout of the two lists of vessels given in this article? The French list should be clearly separate from the Allied (Anglo-Dutch) list, but isn't. Can you shift the links around to make the appearance easier to read? Thanks! Rif Winfield (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a template to separate the French heading from the allied one. I'm not sure what else can be done, except perhaps reworking the article headings and bumping them up from level 4 to 3, to make more of a distinction. Benea (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, just separating the two opposing forces makes the matter much clearer, so I'm content with what you have done. Thanks! Rif Winfield (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

HMS

Hello, Benea. You have new messages at Shem1805's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Benea. You have new messages at Shem1805's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Benea. You have new messages at Shem1805's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for HMS Terpsichore (1785)

On November 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Terpsichore (1785), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Bowen

On November 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Bowen, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Pomone

What's the harm in one short list? I have no problem with a ships only dab page -- I understand the issue there. But separating the French and the English doesn't seem right in this case.

Four RN and six French Navy ships have been named Pomone, for a total of nine ships. One from each is the same ship; a second RN ship was previously French, with a different name. The two lists are therefore intimately intertwined and have plenty of room for confusion. Isn't it more helpful to send a person to Pomone or Pomone (ships), if you prefer, than say, "For other ships of the same name, see French ship Pomone and HMS Pomone", making the reader go two places to sort out two potentially confusing lists?

I don't see the problem. Both list pages for the other navies are linked from each other. Combining the two just adds to the confusion when ships share names, and especially if the same ship serves for the two navies. Linking to a general dab page is also unhelpful. For example Alligator (disambiguation) links to both pages listing US and RN ships named alligator and the reader does not therefore have to go through a list of other things named alligator when he wants to find the ships of one particular navy that have had the name. If you want a British ship you go to HMS Pomone. If you want a French ship, you go to French ship Pomone. What's the issue, and why change the standardised format? You should get consensus for this change as many ships of different navies share a common name (HMS Neptune, French ship Neptune, HMS Temeraire, French ship Temeraire for example). Benea (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(WT:SHIPS would be the place to raise this if you want to change the way shiplist pages work). Benea (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry for the intrusion. I certainly know where to suggest policy changes, but I had no idea I was proposing that. You certainly know how many times confusing dabs spring up without anybody paying attention. I have no interest in spending time changing considered, established policy, which may well be generally good.

I do wonder, though, why you forbid combining the two in a new dab page, Pomone (ships)? You say,

"If you want a British ship you go to HMS Pomone. If you want a French ship, you go to French ship Pomone,"

but two of the nine have been both French and British, so it's not that simple. Nuff said. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly forbid a Pomone (ships) style page, though I don't think I see the point in one. Most general dab pages list ships in a specific section where there are a number of different navies or operators involved (i.e. Neptune (disambiguation), which has civilian ships, as well as British, French and American naval vessels.) Where there are a number of American/British/etc ships, the link is to the shiplist page for that name and navy and the reader can go from there. There hasn't been a issue so far with combining all ships of a certain name onto a dedicated ship list page. If you're on an article about a ship that has served in both navies, and you're interested in earlier or later ships with that name that have been in one navy or another you can go to either navies' name page, and the ship will be listed on both.

hi Benea, I saw, that you deleted most of my contribution. Did you remark that it represented Original sources from the Natioanal Archives, Kew, UK ? A great marine specialist like you will know this archive, I am sure. I will add a new section, again with these sources. Before you delete next time anything from me, please contact me before, than we have the opportunity to discuss. Me I will not delete anything you have done on page SM U-51, thats for me a simple question of personal respect. best regards --Hans Joachim Koerver 20:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AchimKoerver (talk • contribs)

hi Benea, I saw, that you deleted most of my contribution. Did you remark that it represented Original sources from the Natioanal Archives, Kew, UK ? A great marine specialist like you will know this archive, I am sure. I will add a new section, again with these sources. Before you delete next time anything from me, please contact me before, than we have the opportunity to discuss. Me I will not delete anything you have done on page SM U-51, thats for me a simple question of personal respect. best regards --Hans Joachim Koerver 20:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

SM U-51 mutilation

hi Benea, I saw, that you deleted most of my contribution. Did you remark that it represented Original sources from the Natioanal Archives, Kew, UK ? A great marine specialist like you will know this archive, I am sure. I will add a new section, again with these sources. Before you delete next time anything from me, please contact me before, than we have the opportunity to discuss. Me I will not delete anything you have done on page SM U-51, thats for me a simple question of personal respect. best regards --Hans Joachim Koerver 20:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AchimKoerver (talk • contribs)

Dear Hans Joachim Koerver. I did indeed remark the source's origin. The copy-and-pasted section has already been deleted by another user. Please do not re-add it though, your contributions are already the subject of a lot of discussion and debate. Wikipedia has a highly collegiate approach to editing, and we have our own standards and guidelines, as well as our own manual of style. We also have a firm concept that no one owns any articles, or has any particular right to impose their own concepts of style and structure over an article, over the will of community consensus, even if they have written the articles themselves. Nor is it required that alterations and modifications need to be discussed with the person who originally wrote the article. I brought SM U-52 in line with many of our guidelines, you must understand that your approach of copying and pasting chunks of material and insisting that these not be edited is not a generally workable approach on wikipedia, which operates on the principle that in general everyone can edit. Please find another approach, whereby you create your own article by taking the information and using it to write the submarine's history using your own words and not the words of British Naval Intelligence nearly a century ago. Then you can bring in extra sources, etc. As someone with training in historical research I'm sure you understand that this is very basic principle of historical writing. We are not out to create an online digitised version of the National Archives, with transcripts of the documents, we are trying to create an encyclopaedia. I understand that English is not your first language, and I assume calling my work 'mutilation' may be unintentional. Benea (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Excuse me. What are you doing? Having the century split up doesn't make sense and looks stupid. B-Machine (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You are acting against consensus by arbitarily carrying out these merges. The consensus was NOT to merge. Waiting a while and then merging is not following due process. Benea (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you want to keep the century split in two is ridiculous. The 20th century was 1900-1999 A.D., not 1900-1944 or 1945-1989. Duh. But that's okay. I got the "how to merge" rules with me. B-Machine (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say the lists have to be organised by centuries, or even that this is the best way to do it. The previous lists are organised not by century, but by periods covering 1000+ years, 500 years, 300 years and 100 years. But this was discussed on the talkpage when you suggested the merge and far from supporting you, the consensus was that a merge was not a good idea here. Seek to change that consensus before acting, your argument that it 'looks stupid' and is 'ridiculous' is highly subjective. Benea (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

HMS Wolf

I'm spending far more time on this than it's worth, but it struck me that your "this was likely" is a little off-hand. The Wolf that went aground in Virginia was in Virginia, Maryland, New York, and the Caribbean from at least October 1690 until June 1692, which makes the timing a little tight for the fireship. She is described as a fourth rate, 200 men, 48 guns, which is inconsistent with a fireship of eight guns. See:"Calendar of state papers, colonial, America and West Indies". p. 395. That does not explain two contemporaneous ships with the same name, but in the last entry in the book (in the index), she is quite clearly described as being RN. Or am I missing something? I'm moderately expert on lighthouses, but my knowledge of the RN of that era comes from Forester, O'Brian, et al. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Should you choose to reply, please do so here.

As far as I can tell there weren't any ships named Wolf that size in service during that period. Neither volume of J.J.Colledge's Ships of the Royal Navy lists such a vessel, nor does Rif Winfield's comprehensive listing of Royal Navy ships of the period. Hence my suspicion that either the ship at Virginia was either not a Royal Navy ship but a mercantile one or one of a different nation, or that it was the ship already in service. I'll put the question to Rif himself, to see if there's a vessel that's been missed. Benea (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I do understand the problem, but the refs I cited are pretty clear as to size and her being RN. Of course, such things can be wrong, but given there are 14 entries in the cited book for a ship named Wolf (most, but not all, as HMS Wolf), it seems unlikely that it's a simple spelling error. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not just a simple spelling error but an apparent phantom ship missed by some of the most authoritative sources on the navy. Do you have any other sources that describe the Wolf that grounded? I believe you when you say that a Wolf, and probably one of HM ships at that, grounded there, but I'm curious now as to which ship it is, and why it's been missed. Fireships of Wolf's period would carry around 115 men, and 24/28 guns while in general service. I want to be sure that there really is another ship that is presently missing before adding it to the list. Rif will be able to provide the definitive answer. Benea (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm absolutely not expert on HM ships of the era. I was just working on Wolf Trap Light and looked for a reference on the ship that gave the shoal its name. All I that know, I found with Google searches on "HMS Wolf 1690", "HMS Wolf 1691", "HMS Wolf 1692", and the same for "Wolfe". There's one vague mention of a 350 ton armed merchant vessel in a secondary source, but the cited source is primary and much more detailed. Several of the usual lighthouse sources tell the story, but none of them are primary and they generally like a good story more than they worry about accuracy. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 20:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Santa Dorothea (1798)

On December 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Santa Dorothea (1798), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hugh Downman

On December 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hugh Downman, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Speedy (1782)

On December 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Speedy (1782), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, that was quite a ripping yarn! If Hollywood made a movie out of it, people wouldn't believe it. Very well written too! Gatoclass (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it's the sort of thing you really couldn't make up! All the elements of a great story, no wonder Patrick O'Brian borrowed elements wholesale from the most daring commanders like Cochrane for his books! Benea (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My Apology

I'm sorry for deleting the comment. It was stupid. I just want these articles to merge. And I think they will be merged. B-Machine (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar :)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for your work on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships, which I noticed after you edited HMS Psyche (1862). zazpot (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)