User talk:Acad Ronin/Archive 2

NowCommons: File:A37 Dragonfly.jpg
File:A37 Dragonfly.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:A37 Dragonfly on display at the Military Museum, Bogota.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:Various
No worries, it was a pleasure to clean it up a little bit. It is better to add as much information to stubs as possible to help other editors and readers, try and expand a bit more from the one line on the dab pages. The Gurney image looks good, all edits, particularly images are always most welcome. :)

A little suggestion: when creating new articles it is best if you can add categories. This enables other editors to track them and improve them. I generally find it best to look at other articles, particularly navy ships and officers, and look at their categories. Hope this helps, regards, Woody (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer
Please note that I have granted you the autoreviewer permission as you are a trusted and active article creator. This is done in an attempt to reduce the patrol log. Please let me know if you would like the userright removed. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 03:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Transport Board
Thank you for the extensive expansion of Transport Board. I've been trying to think of an interesting fact to nominate it for a WP:DYK; to me, the most interesting aspect is that the Transport Agents were given a lot of authority and yet they were not subject to naval discipline.

The reason I created the stub was I was wanting verification that "HMS Ganges" did deliver people to Australia on 2 June 1797, as asserted here, in order to add that fact to John Batman. I vaguely recall that there is a database of names of people who arrived in Australia on each ship. I am guessing that the records are in the archives of the Transport Board.

I assume that the Batmans came across on HMS Ganges (1782), but I also noticed this photo by Owen Stanley is ca. 1829, so HMS Ganges (1821) may have also brought people to Australia. And yet I cant find mention of either of them on pages (e.g. History of Australia (1788–1850))

btw, I have given you the Rollback permission. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi John, Glad to help. I am guessing the Ganges in question is not HMS Ganges (1782) or Ganges (1821, but rather the East Indiaman Ganges that foundered in 1807. The HEIC had at least two Ganges that were transports. The newer one was a 1200 tonner that sailed in June 1797 to St. Helena, Bencool, and China. See: A register of ships, employed in the service of the Honorable the United ... By Charles Hardy. If you Google Hardy, Ganges, and perhaps a couple of other key words, or perhaps the title, you should find it.  The entry that I am looking at is on page 185. This Ganges is kinda cool in that she participated in the Battle of Pulo Aura. Still, your passengers probably transferred en route from Ganges to something else to get to Australia, but I wouldn't know where to find that info.


 * What makes this question trickier is that Ganges appears to have been a popular name. The HEIC also had a brig by that name, and there was US merchantman by that name that was converted into one of the first US warships. Still, the Indiaman is a better bet than a warship.


 * Thanks for the rollback permission. Appreciate it. I hope it speeds up getting rid of vandalism. Why people vandalize has always baffled me. It requires no skill. Still, they do. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I had assumed HMS; I see now that there are several others listed at Ganges_(disambiguation). Ganges_I_(ship) mentions "A convict ship that arrived in Sydney, Australia on 1798-06-02 was the 700 ton Ganges, captained by Thomas Patrickson." sourced from .  Same day & month; one year apart.  Nothing is easy ;-)  (well, except for vandalism)
 * Thanks once more for pointing me in the right direction. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did some Googling and found the convict ship. The sources are contradictory, some giving the year as 1797 and others as 1798. I tend to lean towards the 1797 as most of those seem more original. I couldn't find anything about any prior or subsequent trips or what happened to the ship. I am afraid that we aren't going to find anything. Too few records survived, and we may not be looking in the right places.  There are probably insurers' records from Lloyds, if they still exist, and port records from various Indian ports, but even if they do exist, they might as well not. As the matter is tangential to both of us, I am going to let it drop. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

valletta
Hey there; I saw that you took the time to edit the Valletta article, but didn't remove user Jasalf's edit. How so? Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Two reasons. 1) I tend to give users with a username the benefit of the doubt. 2) I watched the video and liked it. I have been to Valletta and video seemed to do a good job of showing the sites. I figured that if anyone didn't want to watch it they could skip right over it. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. You may want to tailor your edits in line with Wikipedia policies in future. PS. Please don't leave alerts on my talkpage. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Which policies in particular would that be? Just asking. As for the alert, apologies. Some people prefer them. Clearly, you don't. Acad Ronin (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just find the alert intrusive, and have this page on my watchlist anyway. Re. Policies, surely it's not acceptable to link youtube videos within the body of an article? And if you saw that the mistake had been made (and went so far as to follow the link) isn't it one's implicit obligation, as a fine, upstanding wikipedian, to correct the oversight rather than leaving it for others to clean up/continue to mar the article? Maybe that's just my understanding of the project. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. On the alerts, may I recommend you do what some other people do that have strong feelings about these things - they put up a statement at the top of their talk page specifying their policies. That's where I got the idea of using trackback. I don't care, so I haven't put up anything. As for the video, you are correct. I should have moved it into "External Links". I just didn't think of it at the time. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Re.Malta, thanks for your continued work on the flow and style of the article. Much appreciated. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Writing appears to be in my skill set, and I am glad to deploy it in this way as I enjoyed the five days I spent visiting Malta. To change the subject, what would you think about drastically cutting the History section of the article on Malta? The Malta article is too long, with the result that the page loads and updates slowly. Also, my impression is that the History section is actually better than the specialized article, and that moving the material from the Malta article to the History of Malta article would solve the problem. What do you think? I wanted to get your opinion before I raised the question on the Malta article's talk page. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the section would benefit from major cuts; Malta's history is extensive by any standards. If you're willing to move some of the information to the relevant article, that works too.... but it shouldn't be at the expense of the Malta article. Streamlining it may be helpful but as you've said, you were a tourist (for five days...) on the island and while your talent for cleaning up the text is much appreciated, selecting which parts of Maltese history are valuable or not would probably receive greatest benefit from somebody better versed in the subject. I don't think the sections are particularly long, considering the length of time (5,000+ years) they cover. It is very similar in structure to that found in, for example, England. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Jingdezhen
I have carefully read your edited version on Jingdezhen entry, it is very helpfull for me.I guess you spent a lot of time and effort to modify the entry's sentences, words and paragraphs of the entry. Thank you very much!

I very much hope that you can continue to help me to improve the English description and correct my wrong English writing on "Jingdezhen" and "Yaoli" in the future if I make new contents.-- JHH755 (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Shenzhen,PRC

（1）Industry

Hello, Acad,

Very thank for your language edtion. Can we write as "Jingdezhen Ceramics Co.,Ltd is a ..." instead of your new edtion of "Jingdezhen Ceramics is a ....". I understand that "Jingdezhen ceramics" is ceramic products, not a company's name. Can you tell me your understanding about it? Thanks! JHH755 (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your explanation!   JHH755 (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

（2）Thanks

Your language editions of the entry are very good.

I sent all your revised versions of “Jingdezhen” to my Hong Kong's friend who had studied in the United Kingdom and earned a master's degree of economy. He also comments that your language editions are very well and accurate. Thank you for your editions. I am from Shenzhen,PRC. I feel my English is very non-standard and should learn correct English from you to continue the entry edition of Jingdezhen.Can you tell me if English is your mother tongue and could you frequently use Chinese Writing in wikipedia? Thank you! JHH755 (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Carefully studied your message. I feel that you are a very educated person, and your suggestion on improving English is OK. Thank you! JHH755 (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

（3）Questions

Thank you for your editions! The first question: your new editon of "In the city proper there are 47 high schools...", I can't understand the word "proper". In this sentence my meaning of the expression is "the 47 high schools are located in the city's center area", so I wrote "In the city's urban there are 47 high schools....". In your edition I explain the word "proper"  as  "some things are right". Maybe my explaination is wrong, could you explain what you done. The second: your edtion of "There are also 74...", can we add "in the city" or " in Jingdezhen" after the sentence like "There are also 74... in the city". By the way, could you leave me a message in Skype if you visit Shenzhen City again in the future, I want to present you a small Jingdezhen's porcelain, I believe you will love it. Best regards! JHH755 (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Studied, thank you!119.137.39.245 (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

( 4 )Short farewell

Hi Acad, this week I will leave Shenzhen for Jingdezhen ( my hometown ) for half a month, so I can't continue to write Jingdezhen entry. Thank you for your teaching me English and see you later in the "talk page"! JHH755 (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Malta
Ref fixed, replaced "folk culture" with "customs" but neither option is really accurate. They are all equally manifestations of local culture, inclusive of literature, sport, cuisine, weddings, festivals etc. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that so far we have not come up with a solution that dominates all other possible solutions. Folk customs works, but actually, Customs alone could work. As it is, I think the organization of the whole culture section is looking pretty good.Acad Ronin (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Post ship classes
Just to advise you that I have now created "Class" articles for the majority of the post ships of 1770-1810, i.e. for Sphinx Class post ship, Porcupine Class post ship, Banterer Class post ship, Laurel Class post ship, Cyrus Class post ship and Conway Class post ship. I have also adjusted the references in individual ship articles for each ship of these classes (where that ship article already exists) so that all links now work. Note that most of these individual ship articles still await writing. I still have to act similarly in respect of the four Hermes Class post ships of 1810, and of the pre-1770 post ships. It might also be worthwhile mentioning (apologies if you're already aware of this) that when time permits I try to amend the individual ship dimensions to give the actual (as measured upon delivery to the Navy) dimensions and tonnage of every vessel, since most writers tend to quote only the designed dimensions and tonnages. This is perfectly understandable, as (for example) my colleague David Lyon, in his Sailing Navy List, was quoting the details from the class plans. In fact, all wooden ships - unlike metal ones - tended to differ slightly from their designed dimensions. Usually this was only a matter of a few inches or even a fraction of an inch, but it did effect the figures used in the calculation of a ship's tonnage. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

re: your message
Hi Acad, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- User:Marek69    00:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Response
Please see my talk page for a response. Student7 (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

New category
Acad, I've noticed you've created a new category, Category:Royal Navy court martial. I'm a bit unsure of how useful this is. I think you mean them to be applied to articles about RN ships that were lost to whatever cause, and resulted in the customary court martial. Categories by definition collect numerous articles together, so it should be titled 'Royal Navy courts martial'. At the moment, I think the title is a bit vague, many courts martial took place unrelated to the loss of a ship. Or the category could refer to people court martialed. It is not necessary of a defining nature for the ship either. I think this system needs further consideration and maybe wider discussion before it is implemented. Benea (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Benea, I am not happy with the category name either, but so far haven't found a better one. I am more than open to suggestions. I toyed with "Royal Navy courts martial involving damage to or loss of vessel", but that struck me as cumbersome. I do want to distinguish between normal criminal acts, military crimes such as 'conduct unbecoming...", and the like on the one hand, and the after loss or damage to vessel type on the other. What has caught my eye as I have been working on ship stories is the range of court martial responses, and I wanted it to be easy for someone to check related cases.

Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

State Bank of Travancore
To Acad Ronin: Any google search of Sir. C.P.Ramaswamy Iyer will tell you of his despotic and oppressive regime in Travancore. Please see Wikipedia page on him.Goodhindu (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation
Hi Acad, the reason I took them off the ship article pages is because these are project categories, rather than article space categories (Categorization). You're right to say that they are useful, but they're used in a slightly different way than you were doing, and the place to put them is on the talkpage, where most of the articles you added them to were already categorised from. Take a look at Talk:HMS Scourge (1794) for example. There the template that indicates an infobox is needed also has the effect of placing the article into the 'Ships needing infoboxes' category. You'll also see other project categories there such as Category:Stub-Class Ships articles, Category:Stub-Class maritime warfare articles, etc. These are maintenance categories, rather than being categories related to the subject of the article itself. Have a look in Category:Ship articles without infoboxes and you'll see that all the articles in there are linked through their talkpages. A user can then browse through these to find articles that need an infobox in the same way you can browse through Category:British scientists. If you find an article that doesn't have an infobox, you can add the template to the talkpage (where you'll probably find the majority already have the template) and this will add the note to the talkpage and place that talkpage in the category for easy searching. Feel free to query me if you still don't follow. Benea (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

John Henry Cox
Hello again, this article needs a bit of rescuing, and some sourcing. If you have time, could you take a quick look and highlight any aspects which you think are incredible and need to be verified quickly. Thank you, John Vandenberg (chat) 16:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures
Acad, I see you had a go at uploading pictures, starting with. Please use only one of the templates, and if you do so, there is no need to select a license from the drop down menu (ignore the warning). Also, if you provide no information at all (ie "n.a."), it is likely to get deleted. Try to include the basics - see the changes I've made. Yours, Shem (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Napier of Magdala Battery
Hi there. Thanks, although the photos were already in the article though not in an infobox. I'm just going through all the Gibraltar-related articles at the moment carrying out a little basic maintenace but mainly adding coordinates were applicable.

I don't have any photos of the bank but I'll try to take a shot of it next time I'm in town. I'm thinking of purchasing the book "The Smallest Bank in the World" and it might have some old photos I could scan. Regards, --Gibmetal 77 talk 21:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't know you already had a copy. A photo is in the public domain if 70 years or more have passed since the author's death. I've uploaded this image which I'll add to the article now. Even though it's not particularly relevant, the guitar is mentioned in the article. If the book has any photos which are old enough, it would be great if you could upload them.


 * By the way what's your connection with Gib? --Gibmetal 77 talk 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Little more than a one-day visit and a nostalgia for the Empire. Actually, I ended up doing a couple of things about Gib as a consequence of an interest in bank history (hence Banco Galliano) and an interest in things military. I visited Fort Rinella during a couple of days' vacation following a conference in Malta, and that got me writing about the fort and the 100-ton guns, which led to Napier of Magdalla Battery. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't know you created those articles; nice to know. I'm from Gib and half Maltese : )


 * An article on the Fortifications of Gibraltar is on my to do list, though when I'll get round to it is another thing... I'll keep that photo in mind too. Regards, --Gibmetal 77 talk 01:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

44-gun ships
Having completed the details on the twenty Roebuck class ships, I have now added an article on the successsor design, the eight Adventure class ships ordered in 1782. 40-gun or 44-gun two-deckers were a type ordered continuously from 1689 up to 1782, so at some stage we will need to devise the structure of an article which acts as an overall guide to these small (non-battlefleet) two-deckers, including the demi-batterie 32s/36s and (after 1756) the 50-gun ships. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Burthen
Hello AR. I came across a couple of your well-done articles on RN vessels. This discussion may be of interest to you, as it explains the difference between tons burthen and weight. The references and external links at Builder's Old Measurement also are helpful. Burthen is really an approximation of capacity, not of displacement in long tons. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. My only suggestion is to not link long tons or use conversions, as they are inaccurate.  Every so often I go through and add bm to the figure, which renders thus:  bm.  That seems to be the practice followed by others.  Kablammo (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Displacement was almost never used for warships until the middle of the 19th century, and during the Age of Sail almost every tonnage figure quoted in contemporary sources (or copies into more modern secondary sources) is actually the tons burthen (or builder's measurement), for which "bm" is the recognised abbreviation. See the comments on my user talk page for the alterations in the means of calculating the BM tonnage. As is stated in various pages, burthen is a measurement of capacity, never of weight/displacement. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Naval General Service Medal
Just to let you know that I've reverted your edits to the above article. Your changes to the various clasp names, while objectively correcting them, actually changed what were the official clasp names. This was an early Victorian medal after all - some unconventionality in expression is to be expected!

Best wishes,   X damr  talk 21:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the work you've been putting in. I've just read the "Telegraph" article - very impressive.  Just a thought.  What would you say to listing all 231 clasps on wikipedia?  I have them here at my fingertips, but I've always held off adding much more than the 30 or so there at the moment - I didn't want to flood the article with a massive list.  What do you think about spinning the 'Clasps' section off into a separate article?


 *  X damr  talk 00:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Wikipedia should have all 231, obviously linked to the battle/action each represents, with a back link to the clasp from the battle/vessel(s) involved. You are right though that a list of all 231 might appear daunting. The key question is how to make the list useful to someone who doesn't really know much, including what boat service is? It would be relatively straightforward to have the present article with three links along the lines of: "For battles - click here"; "For boat service - click here", etc. That would still yield two long lists. Alternatively, we could think in terms of grouping clasps by wars - French Revolutionary, Napoleonic, 1812, Gunboat, etc., or by war and theater such as Napoleonic War - Indian Ocean. Again, the trick will be to make it attractive to browse, easy to find what one is looking for, even if one doesn't know much, and ideally, be of a form that we could include some paintings where we have them to tart up the list. Thoughts? Acad Ronin (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my delay in replying. Had horrendous problems with my internet connection this past few days.  I like the idea of grouping by campaign quite a lot.  Possibly the large number of clasps might well mean that a number of pages might be needed eg 'NGSM clasps of the Napoleonic War', 'NGSM clasps of the War of 1812', etc (but for the moment I think focusing on the one page might be best).  I'm not so keen on separating out boat service from battles - in this case the chief dividing line of interest is most likely to be the war/campaign itself, not the type of action fought.  Onto the question of the name.  What about the obvious - List of clasps to the Naval General Service Medal (1847)?


 * On a linked point, you'll note the addition of the 1847. This is to disambiguate from the later Naval General Service Medal (1915).  I think a rename to Naval General Service Medal (1847) is in order for clarification.  Naval General Service Medal can then be left as a disambiguation between the two, and indeed between any other nation's awards of the same or similar name (I think I recall one or two).


 *  X damr  talk 16:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome back from the land of the cyber-dead, Xdamr. Been there too. Like the idea of turning the present NGSM page into a disambig page with two sub-pages for the 1847 and the 1915 medals. Makes a lot of sense. Not sure we need a "List of clasps" page if we simply have a series of links to separate pages by war. Have to run. Will revert later. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One issue that struck me as I thought about the reorganization is that the NGSM (1847) medal's official name is NGSM, without the date, and the article would have to make that clear in the first line. A second issue is who authorized the medal in 1847? Was it Parliament, the Admiralty, or ??? The article is mute on this point.Acad Ronin (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So far as the list of clasps goes, I was thinking (at this early stage) of creating one big list of clasps to the NGSM which, in time, once more details were added, could be further split by war. Having considered things I think that, as you seemed to hint, it really is not necessary - we can proceed straight to the by-war articles.  What format of article name do you favour?  My suggestion is List of clasps to the Naval General Service Medal (1847) for the War of 1812.  A bit long, but avoids (to most people) obscure abbreviations like NGSM.


 * Re. your point, I agree that the article is a little sketchy on the history of the medal. I started things off with this article, but I'm no expert on that particular medal.  Once this clasp issue is settled I will have a dig around and see if I can find any more information, especially for the history behind its creation.  To my mind, this is one of the most interesting areas of the NGSM and the MGSM - who came up with the idea and why?  Some work needed...


 *  X damr  talk 21:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Xdamr, I see we were both editing the redirect/disambig page at the same time, or at least I assume it was you. I combined both our approaches. As for the List page, I would say we can hold off for now until the article gets unwieldy. I am still inclined to having at least three such list pages, one for each of the main wars. I am afraid that otherwise the list will get too long. However, one master list makes sense too as many/most people likely to consult it will have no idea for which war the clasp was awarded. In the meantime, I am starting to work through the articles that already mention the medal and am changing the link to the 1847 article rather than the disambig page. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of a large 'index' page, combined with smaller, more detailed by-war pages. I'm going to go ahead and start List of clasps to the Naval General Service Medal (1847).  --  X damr  talk 18:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Roger that. I will hold off adding clasps or links until I see the page so that we don't end up in an edit conflict. As a related issue, in articles about the vessels, battles or actions that resulted in a clasp, I will continue to make the embedded link be to the Naval General Service Medal (1847) article. If someone wants to go further they should then further click on the List of clasps to the Naval General Service Medal (1847) link, or the sub-List articles. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Right then - I've made a start. All the major actions are now up and listed, only the Boat Actions still to be done. Lead could do with some tweaking (a lot borrowed from the main article), but I think it will do for now. What do you think about Boat Actions? Should they be in the same table as the main actions, or do you think there is any merit to separating them out? Though I have the few I've done listed separately at the moment, given that this is something of an 'index' page I think there is much to be said for merging them.

Onto table headings - Clasp, Date of action, Number issued, Conflict. First three are fine - intent is to fill the Conflict column with the appropriate campaign for which each clasp was awarded. If we have this column not link to (eg) War of 1812, but rather List of clasps to the Naval General Service Medal (1847) for the War of 1812, this then gives us the an article with scope to give each of these clasps specific and detailed treatment and possibly a few nice pictures etc as well. One of these pages for each of the conflicts should break things down nicely. What do you think? Four so far, but are there any more columns which you could see us needing?

 X damr  talk 01:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Xdamr, haven't yet looked at the most recent version but sounds good. I would merge in the boat actions. The distinction between boat service, ship actions, battles, and campaigns is a bit obscure to all but aficionados. Also, the sequence and the mix conveys a visual impression of what was going on at the time.


 * As for columns, I would like to keep the four that I set up originally, with a fifth for number of clasps issued, and a sixth for the conflict if you feel that is worthwhile, given that most will be pretty much synonymous with the grand classification, e.g. "French Revolutionary Wars". If we want to be more precise, we can put info in the Comment column, which would loose the "Unissued" info to the "Number" column. I also wouldn't put any date info in the "Date" column if the clasp already has the info. Gives us more white space and reduces redundancy. Lastly, I think the clasp info should duplicate the claps themselves, up to and including spelling, punctuation, and all caps. That way some collector or other person researching a specific clasp can find it easily. Make sense? Acad Ronin (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

British prison hulks
Sorry to undo your reversion, but I believe if you check the page now, it retains all of your corrections, while preserving my intended wikification. A win-win situation! DiverDave (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure and it's my pleasure
Any time. Happy new year! -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed - no matter what the signatures say. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ship infoboxes
Please consider adding the ship infoboxes to your articles. There are already about 2,500 articles that need boxes and with your prolific amount of articles it only makes the list grow larger. Additionally your articles would gain a higher assessment rating if you did so. A few days ago there were two of your articles that missed B-class only because the infobox was missing. --Brad (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)== USS President ==

I appreciate your assistance with the article but I'm still trying to fill out certain areas. It's somewhat frustrating to work on a section, go back to researching and return with more information only to discover the section has been changed. In general the entire article needs its references and information worked over. I'm trying to prepare it for a run at FAC in the next few weeks. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:HMS_Brazen_monument.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:HMS_Brazen_monument.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC):\
 * The computer I am using is blocked to I cannot respond anywhere but here. I got the image from

http://www.publicsculpturesofsussex.co.uk/object?id=248#photographs where the author of the photo says the license is "Creative Commons". I have no idea how to cite that license beyond the description I gave on the image page.

File permission problem with File:HMS Brazen monument.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:HMS Brazen monument.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Over-capitalisation
Acad, I've just removed your capitals from "Sixth Rate Post-ship" in HMS Black Joke (1827). This is incorrect usage - in this example, "sixth-rate post-ship" is an adjectival modifier of "Esk". For example, it would be correct to write "he served in the frigate Somerset for 3 years." In fact, I would go so far as to say that neither "sixth-rate" nor "post-ship" could ordinarily be considered proper nouns, and so should not be capitalised anyway. I hope this makes sense, and if you've got any questions, please just ask at the talk page. Yours, trying not to sound too annoying, Shem (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Shem, I have to disagree vehemently with you on this. Sixth Rate and Post-Ship are titles, not adjectives. E.g.: "Captain Jones was captain of the good ship Lollypop." "HMS Pinafore was a second-rate Sixth Rate Post-ship, being old, broken-down and armed with 20 guns; she was under the command of Captain Jones." "Captain Nelson of the First Rate HMS Victory had a first rate mind." "The lieutenant in question was Lieutenant Smith, who was First Lieutenant of the USS Lollypop." Check with Rif Winfield on this if the above examples don't make the point. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Acad, I'm afraid you're missing the point. If it's not a proper noun, it doesn't get a capital - see Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters) and Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters).  As far as sixth rate goes, it is analogous to frigate; neither of them are proper nouns. On the subject of hyphens, "sixth rate" should only get a hyphen when it is describing another noun adjectivally, for example, "the sixth-rate Surprise".  I'll ask Rif to drop by this page anyway. Yours Shem (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, as requested I'd like to comment. It is clear that the term "First Rate", etc, was used as a common noun in all contemporary records. No, it is not a proper noun, but it is one in which the capitalisation serves a specific function; the words "First Rate" put together have an entirely different meaning from is they are used adjectivally; the examples cited by Acad are excellent in showing how the distinction could be used, and the term employed both as a noun and as an adjective within the same text. In theory, we could talk about "a first-rate First Rate", in which the first usage is adjectival and the second thus requires capitalisation to indicate that we are using the term as a specific noun.


 * On the other hand, I suggest that "post ship" (no hyphens please, they were not used in the eighteenth century, so again Acad is correct in his final example), just like "frigate" or "ship of the line", does not need any capital.


 * Incidentally, it is uncertain to what extent the adjectival and noun distrinction applied at that time. Frequently in contemporary references it is the vessel's name which is being used adjectivally, e.g. "the Boreas frigate" or "the Devastation bomb vessel". Rif Winfield (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi all, while thinking about this, I have come up with other relevant examples: "Captain the Honourable Sir John Smith" is not the same thing as the honourable Captain Sir John Smith. It would also be incorrect to refer to him as "Captain the honourable Sir John Smith". In this case, the Honourable is a title, not an adjective. Also, "her majesty's yacht, the H(er) M(ajesty's) S(hip) Britannica". None of the terms in HMS, or even USS for that matter, are proper nouns, yet we capitalize them. The problem is that the terms "first rate" and "second rate" have come to have adjectival meanings derived from their origins and to use them in the naval setting but without the capitalization can give rise to a totally erroneous reading. Again, as Rif has pointed out, a Second Rate could be first-rate or second-rate, or even third-rate. This is one place where the Wikipedia style manual is just not appropriate. To privilege current usage over the contemporary usage is anachronistic. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's be quite clear here: when quoting historical wording (inside quotation marks), then the original forms must be used. However, the forms and usage of modern English, and the way they are applied to Wikipedia, are not negotiable, nor are the historical usages relevant. If a term isn't a proper noun, then it doesn't get capitals. If you wish to distinguish between a sixth-rate article and a sixth-rate ship, the wikilink is the best way of doing it. Better still, don't confuse the issue by describing a sixth rate as first-rate! Sixth rate and post ship are no more "titles" than frigate or destroyer.

When Acad discusses HMS, he's again missing the point; HMS and Her Majesty's Ship are titles, and deserve capitals - see Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters) for a similar example.

I'm glad Rif brought up the subject of "post ship" vs "post-ship" - it should of course be "post ship" in both modern and historical usage. Sorry for injecting a little confusion.

Please bear in mind that this isn't a consensus issue - the guidelines are very clear indeed. If you think the Wikipedia MoS needs to be changed, rather than ignoring it, suggest it be changed for your specific situation - and be ready to be told this all over again at great length! Yours, Shem (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, please go to Category:Set indices on ships and click on any of the fairly well-used RN names; you'll see that usage follows the employment lower case almost exclusively (I haven't found any wrong yet). Yours, Shem (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the words "First Rate", etc, were very much honorific titles bestowed on types of vessels, whether they were ships of the line, frigates, post ships or 50-gun ships.


 * We would run into severe problems in determining titles for individual officers. For example, for the sixteenth and most of the seventeenth centuries, the description "admiral" was not a formal naval rank, but simply a post allocated to a senior Captain when he was appointed to command a fleet, squadron or division (in fact, it applied equally to the particular vessel employed as the flagship of that individual, but that's another matter!). Should we not use a capital "A" when naming the individual holding that post? Similarly the description "master and commander" (prior to 1794, when the rank of Commander was instituted) was not a rank, but a temporary description applied to a Lieutenant who was appointed to command a naval vessel. And as for the post of "commodore", that did not become a rank until much later.


 * I think that we need to use common sense in dealing with historical data. The eighteenth and much of the nineteenth century used initial capitalisation to a much greater degree than we would nowadays, so the line must be drawn somewhere. But the rating of a warship was always given with initial capitals (including a capital "R", please note) because it formed part of the designation of that particular vessel (independent of the type or class of vessel it was). Rif Winfield (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Rif, Acad, there is little point trying to agree anything here. If you think the current guidelines are wrong, please try to gain a consensus at the appropriate talk page.  I would say again, though, that historical usage is utterly irrelevant to the discussion, except where directly quoted.  By the same argument you could suggest some rather unusual spelling rules as well!  Yours, Shem (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the guidelines (and they are guidelines, not absolute rules). They state "If possible, as with spelling, use rules appropriate to the cultural and linguistic context." The cultural context of the period was to capitalise "First Rate", etc. I shall continue to do so, in book publishing and on Wikipedia. Incidentally, my next book (coincidentally entitled "First Rate" - note the capitals) is published by Seaforth in about 3 months time.Rif Winfield (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi rif, I agree with you, as you know, and will follow a similar policy. I haven't decided yet whether to take this matter up on the policy page. I suspect that Shem is correct, that if I do I will be shouted down. Wikipedia is heavily US-based, and furthermore, few people have the historical perspective. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted, Acad. Sadly it is always difficult to persuade people that they are lacking in the knowledge on which to base their opinion. Incidentally, this statement does not apply to Shem, for whom I have great respect (I understand he is a serving RN officer), but to those who "lead" majority (perhaps?) opinion but are unversed in the appropriate historical research and contextual analysis. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rif, I'm grateful for your comments (I am assuming you meant "not", rather than "to" where I've underlined above!) While we're on respect, may I say what a pleasure it is to have access to your considerable talents, and may I also note how impressed I am by Acad's sheer volume of work. Yours, as ever, Shem (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed; and you are perfectly correct that the word you underlined should be "not", and I have amended it to say that. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hyphens
Acad, I note your recent edits to first rate and fifth rate. Please note that "first rate" is correct when used as a noun ("the first rate was the largest type of warship"), and that a hyphen is only required when the phrase is used adjectivally ("a first-rate ship was typically armed with over 100 guns"). It is for this reason that we hyphenate "Acheron-class destroyer" but not "the Acheron class", and that Rif objects (correctly) to "post-ship". Please let me know if I'm not being clear enough. Yours, Shem (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "First Rate" is always a noun when refering to the formal classification of a warship. Its only use as an adjective (when the hyphen is permissable and indeed required) is when the wording is being used to describe the quality of a particular vessel (of whatever size and Rate). Rif Winfield (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Shem & Rif, that was my feeling too, so imagine my surprise when I clicked on one of the links in an article, where the term was "first rate", only to see the click being redirected to "Frst-rate" as the title of the Wikipedia article about "First Rates". I figured, all right, if we are going to be wrong, let's at least be consistently wrong. If we are going to call a First Rate a "first-rate", we should do so universally. Apparently that is not acceptable either. Acad Ronin (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have always been concerned about those item headings, as extremely misleading. The hyphens should be removed, and the "R" capitalised for each article on a Rate. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Although we disagree about the capitalisation, we're at one on the article names - when we've finished talking about capitalisation (Acad - have a look at Talk:First-rate), then we can move the article to the un-hyphenated name ("First rate"). However, the use of "first-rate" as an adjective is well established - for example, "first-rate ship-of-the-line" and "fifth-rate frigate" are clear adjectival uses of the words, and need a hyphen for clarity.  Aware this could drag on ... Shem (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)