User talk:Benea/archive1

Warship categorization
Hey Benea! Welcome to Wikipedia. You seem to be interested in naval vessels, so I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject Ships. It's a project dedicated to improving articles on all ships.

We have a categorization guideline that you might like to look at. There's a lot of categorization to be done, but some of your edits work against the guideline. For example, we don't put era categories (like Category:Victorian era battleships of the United Kingdom onto class categories (like Category:Lord Clyde class battleships), because not all ships of the class will belong in the same eras.

Also, we don't put country categories (like Category:Battleships of the United Kingdom onto ship articles (like HMS Swiftsure (1870)) when their class category already belongs to the country category. We did this at one time, so you still see it around, but we've stopped because it's redundant.

We don't really use navy categories, like Category:Royal Navy battleships, because they're redundant when a country category is in use, and they're more confusing than country categories for people unfamiliar with ships. I hope you'll consider categorizing according to the WP:SHIPS guidelines.

I also think there needs to be some separation between battleships and ships of the line, but there's been a lot of debate on that issue. Could you stop by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships and give your input? TomTheHand 13:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Phoenix
So Charles John Austen really was Jane's younger brother?Pustelnik (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently so, at least according to that source. Benea (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Nice adds to the Battle of Denniwitz! Tirronan 19:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Benea, thanks for your contribution to List of shipwrecks in 1940. Could you give me your sources so I could double-check the submarine designations? I got the numbers you edited from uboat.net so I wondered if you had found a better source site for future use?
 * Anyway, thank you for your very helpful Manxruler 01:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)edit. I appreciate it.
 * Hello again. That makes sense, sometimes the pennant numbers are those first used, sometimes the ones used later. Personal preference of the Wikipedians that created the red links, I guess. Here's a great website for British subs of WWII: British Submarines of World War Two. Keep up the good work. Manxruler 15:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Submarine badges
There are some great images here which you can copy to your machine then upload. You need to use this text:

== Licensing ==

in the licensing box of the Upload file page and you should be OK. I've added a badge to Storm's page and think it's a nice addition. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk to me)  15:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

New Seven Wonders of the World
Not sure why you think it is "disputed" and not relevant that Stonehenge failed to be voted one of the New Seven Wonders of the World ? Teapotgeorge 16:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Benea...understood Teapotgeorge 17:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Leutnant - Lieutenant
Hi,

in HMS Seal (N37) you corrected "Leutnant" to "Lieutenant", commenting "spelling". Actually, the former is the correct German title and it was a German officer. Is there any convenience in the English Wiki how to deal with such things? I thought it was to use the "native" title. Otherwise, "Fregattenkapitän" in the same article should be changed to "commander", too. Mausch 07:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Actually, I don´t care, which convention should be choosen, but it should be the same in every case. Mausch 15:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TIGRIS_badge-1-.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TIGRIS_badge-1-.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 21:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Submarine Badges
Hi, I note your recent uploads, It would be much appreciated if you could provide a detailed rationale for thier inclusion, I can appreciate your reasons are presumably to illustrate the badge of or identify a particular vessel. ShakespeareFan00 21:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging
Hello, I'm fairly new to uploading to wikipedia, I do it through the commons where I can. What sort of detailed explanation would you think appropriate? I notice other users uploading something similar have put something like "used under fair use to illustrate submarine x. Which seems pretty close to what I've been putting.  Your guidance would be much appreciated.  Thanks.  Benea 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look at some of the FULLER examples other people have been using, One line rationales aren't usally enough. In respect of Submarines, the following is a good basis on which to expand " The following image may be subject to copryight, but is belived to be usable under fair use in because: The badge is not defaced, misrepresented or used in a misleading manner; The image is of low quality compared to the original badge; A free image is not obtainable; The image is used soley for the purposes of identifying the related vessel, or illustrating that vessels badge directly; The use of the image on Wikipedia does not unduly impact upon any commercial use the Royal Navy may make of the badge." ShakespeareFan00 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That fine, although I will make one tweak to ensure it's OK :) ShakespeareFan00 22:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I may take out the comment, as I don't think it's applicable, BTW do you have a list of the crests used? Thanks for ulpading

them by the way. HMS Thetis is somewhat important is it not? ShakespeareFan00 22:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, It was actually the 'Thetis clip' (aka Thetis lock) was why I remembered it, That modification was significant in terms of

contemporary and later submarine designs. IIRC Most modern military subs still use a variation of it on torpedo tubes. ShakespeareFan00 22:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Submarine badges
Would appreciate it if you could add: to your image uploads as image categorisation helps people find related images quickly :)

In addition I have created a template to rapidly fill in the rationales, to use it you need to replace any existing text on the image description page bar the Source URL with where is the title of the related wiki article without the brackets. Hope this helps.

The template is a spell checked version of the rationale text. I'll take another look at them in the morning. ShakespeareFan00 23:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, That should be most of the uploads now with rationales and duly categorised :) ShakespeareFan00 11:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) ShakespeareFan00 11:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Angel Thomas Lopez
Hi there; we are always happy to see new users becoming active in newpage tagging, but please use a little discretion in doing so. An article about an author cannot be an advertisement, although if it is a short article, as is this one, it might well be a stub. To qualify as an advertisement an article must include a clear invitation to buy/partake/attend/use, which this clearly does not.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, you have a valid if somewhat convoluted point, and in the case of a longer and more detailed article it might be that a grey area may develop. My point was that in this article the advert tag was incorrect, although the act of speedy tagging was clearly appropriate, because we were not being incited to buy,partake/attend or use the author. Had the focus of the article been his books, then unless they were themselves notable an advert tag would have applied. It is a fine point, and other admins might apply different interpretations; this is why we have human admins, not bots. But I think we would all have deleted the article.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not think that I was criticising. I was not. Just trying to help a new user. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fehler
please read Disku "HMS Drake (1901)" --84.134.101.172 18:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks and good night. --84.134.101.172 18:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Sometimes changes need something time in Wikipedia and other languages.

Peter Larkins
Hello. My edit to "Battle of the Nile" was my second on Wikipedia, my first relating to the poem Cacabianca. I am delighted that someone else has constructively improved it. It makes the whole thing worthwhile. I was aware that a like to a disambiguation page was bad-news but did not know how to avoid it. Now I do. Thankyou.

Peter Larkins
Hello again. I am now in someting of a quandary. Nearly every edit I made to "Casabianca" has been undone. This leaves me feeling precisely opposite to the way I felt after your amendment to "battle of the Nile". Is it worth bothering? I happened to know the Felicia Herman was a Mrs. so added this in. It has been removed as being "unencyclopedic". Is this valid? I would have thought that anyting true was "encyclopeic", am I wrong? Also a parody I entered was removed, along with others, though I suspect mine is better known then those which remain. It seems to me that someone has constructed this page, is watching it and will undo nearly any amendment on the basis that it isn't their own work. Would you care to comment?

Michael Burhan Scott
Why did you delete the page when it was done regarding specification of wikipedia, i referenced it on an actor why did you do this14091? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bbay (talk • contribs).

but i took a look and he has a reference on imdb for heavens sake, to me it sounds that this whole wiki thing is biased, you can reference jade bloody goody but not this, i think you all should be ashamed--Bbay 20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)--Bbay 20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

good pov cut on Siege of Danzig (1734)
I get so tired of 'gallant' attacks and 'brilliant' generals. Keep it up. -Gomm 21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Formatting of HMS Marlborough (1767)
I have found a new article on HMS Marlborough (1767), but it has got some formatting problems. You are are good at fixing this kind of problem, could you help please?--Toddy1 16:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks for sorting out the formatting! Rif Winfield 16:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

John Williams's 64-gun ships
Benea, can I draw your attention to the note on my talk page asking you to correct the disambiguation page and links concerning the fifteen Intrepid class 64s. This is needed to dispell any misconception that the Magnanime, Sampson and Diadem were to a different design from the other twelve ships of this class (i.e. there was NEVER a separate Magnanime Class). Thanks. Rif Winfield 16:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

HMS Inconstant
There is similarly a need to remove reference to an Inconstant "class" of iron-hulled frigates from disambiguation. The Inconstant, Raleigh and Shah were all similar in concept, and by the same designer (Reed), but did not constitute a class as they differed in design. I have made appropriate changes in the three ships' individual articles, but linkages still identify a non-existent "class". Thanks again. Rif Winfield 13:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

British Somaliland
Hi Benea, I used the article (the) as that what was used in the main article (before you corrected it). Sorry for the confusion. --Camptown 22:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know...

 * Congratuations! Another item for the picture slot. --Camptown 11:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Lauren Cohen (economist)
New information making Lauren Cohen (economist) a notable athlete, I believe. Please reconsider.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy
As you can see I have made a bit more progress tonight. Thanks for doing corrections to ones I sorted out last night. However I am a bit puzzled why you deleted the following three ships:


 * Alfred class (Williams)


 * Montague 74 (1779) - BU 1818


 *  Ganges  class (Hunt), also known as Culloden class


 * Invincible 74 (1808) - BU 1861


 *  Minden  74 (1810) - Sold 1861

All three ships are listed in David Lyon's The Sailing Navy List, pub Conway, 1993, ISBN 0-85177-617-5. --Toddy1 20:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Lauren Cohen (economist)
I have renamed Lauren Cohen (economist). Can you please reconsider your AFD statement especially considering my comment 4.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Gunboats and gunvessels of the Victorian Navy
We do not appear to have a category for these among the ships and vessels of the Royal Navy. I would suggest that it shoulkd include the paddle gunboats and gunvessels, as well as those screw-driven. Unless I have overlooked it somewhere, do you think you can provide the necessary stubs and links. I shall be happy to provide a full list and names and dates once the stubs are in place. Thanks! Rif Winfield 18:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic!
Love the work you did on the Tirpitz (pig) article!! --Kralizec! (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Growth of the Ship of the line
I have put the following graph on the Ship of the line and Battleship pages. Please could have a look at this, and if you feel appropriate tidy up what I have done.--Toddy1 17:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)



Displacement Growth of RN 1st Class Battleships 1630-1950
I have extended the previous graph to the end of the 1940s. The trend for sailing ships was 3.66% compound growth per decade. The trend for steam ships was 30% compound growth per decade. Note that the first rate steam 2-deckers and 3-deckers lay on the steam trend line not the sail trend line.--Toddy1 11:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

At that rate, current battleships should be 300,000 tonnes? But they haven't! Have they? Actually, aren't battleships obsolete now that there are anti-ship missiles? Archtransit (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's right, the last battleships were built in the 1940s, HMS Vanguard (23) for the Royal Navy and the Iowa class for the United States Navy. They ended up displacing about 45,000 tons, quite a way short of 300,000!  The Iowas were heavily modernised to continue in service up into the end of the 20th century, but have all been decommissioned now.  The battleship fell out of favour in the Second World War because of the rise of the aircraft carrier.  The sinking of HMS Prince of Wales (53) and the Battle of Taranto are good examples of how air power made these ships largely obsolete.  Since air power and as you rightly point out, anti-ship missiles could sink a battleship long before their big guns could come in range of enemy ships, they became largely useless.  By the end of their careers, the Iowas were largely being used as missile platforms.  The post war trend has been for carrier based battle groups, built around one or more aircraft carriers and supported by a number of anti air cruisers, destroyers and frigates.  Sadly the era of the battleship is well and truly over, though it remains a fascinating subject to read and research about. Benea (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the planned, but never built American Montana class battleships would have displaced 65,000 tons. This is about the same as the largest battleship ever built, the Japanese battleship Yamato (in 1940).  But I think eventually they'd have reached a point beyond which it wouldn't have been practical to build on such a scale.   In comparison, the largest aircraft carriers, the Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers which will enter service soon displace around 100,000 tons.  These are the new capital ships it seems. Benea (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy
I have more or less completed List of ships-of-the-line of the Royal Navy (1785–1830). I need to recheck those ships you deleted last week (discussed in your post of 13 September 2007).


 * Please could you give some thought to the naming of articles about captured ships.

Regarding the list of ships-of-the-line of the Royal Navy (1830–1847), there are two options: (1) Show those ships completed as sailing ships (2) Show those ships started as sailing ships

The advantage of (1) is that it is brief. However it has the disadvantage of not showing the big programmes of the Symonds era.

Which approach do you think best? --Toddy1 21:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that can be a tricky one. My suggestion would be to create the links for the Royal Navy ship names, together with the date they were captured, i.e. HMS Implacable (1805) was the French ship Duguay-Trouin. The exception would be if an article on the ship under its previous name already existed, i.e. French ship Scipion, which became HMS Scipion. The basic guide is to use the name under which it had the most notable career. If this is clear cut, you can create the article under that name, with a redirect from the other name, whether its French ship such-and-such, or HMS so-and-so. If it's a bit more ambiguous, I'd suggest using the RN name, and we can later decide whether to rename it, or create a seperate article for her career with the other navy.


 * I found HMS Implacable (1805) to be very odd given that the normal convention is the date of launch.--Toddy1 20:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the list, my preference would be "(2) Show those ships started as sailing ships", as then we get a good overview of that transition period, and it illustrates the period and rate of conversions. We can then have a note alongside them, such as "converted to screw propulsion, 18??" Just my opinions these, but I hope it helps. Let me know if I can help out anymore. Kind regards, Benea 03:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I will implement (2)--Toddy1 20:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RN ships
Hey, I'm helping work on the article Jackie Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher, and I wonder if you could help me make it look prettier by starting stubs on a few RN ships linked in the article. The relevant ones are: I'm blindly asking you for help, as my knowledge of RN resources consists of, um, having read the words 'Colledge' and 'Lavery' a lot. Any chance you magically have some data on these ships?
 * HMS Highflyer (1851)
 * HMS Furious (1850)
 * HMS Vernon (shore establishment, torpedo branch split from HMS Excellent)

Also - Tirpitz is haunting me - my son started to choke (on a piece of HAM) at dinner tonight. Nothing serious, he was fine immediately, but all I could think of was THAT DAMN PIG trying to get me back for laughing at war pigs. Maralia 04:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Aren't you fabulous! It's like magic; request three articles, go to sleep, wake up, and here they are! I wonder what would happen were I to request Incendiary monkeys of you tonight! Maralia 14:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm very grateful for (and enormously impressed by) your help, fixing the red links for the Fisher article. May I trouble you to look at the stub I created today for HMS Donegal and check whether it's accurate? Coincidentally, one Donegal became part of HMS Vernon later in her career. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 13:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you're already on the case. Thank you. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 13:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 13:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Would I be pushing my luck to ask you to do something on HMS Donegal (1858)? I have books but cannot safely interpret them .... -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 15:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)



Did you know
Lovely story. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 15:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please ...
take a look at my stubs for HMS Northampton and HMS Valorous for accuracy, content etc? Ideally, some more material on Valorous (1851) would be good. Many thanks in advance, -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 10:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * More than okay, perfect. Thanks for your hard work, and for sorting out my tangles. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 15:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Eilat
I have copied all of this to the relevant talk page, which is where it should have been put in the first place. Benea 12:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Fart
An honest question here: if the word "fart" is, as you've said, "a concept" (in the sense of "not just a word"), what words would not be "concepts"? Powers T 19:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked an honest question. You left three comments on my talk page, none of which answered my honest question.  And you accuse me of being "disruptive"?  What exactly am I disrupting here?  I really don't appreciate it.  I came here, proverbial hat in proverbial hand, trying to get some perspective on this, and all you did was repeat the same things you were saying in the AfD.  Powers T 02:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What I'm actually trying to do is to understand your position more fully so that I can decide what the next step should be. I'm genuinely curious what you believe: that all words are valid topics for an encyclopedia, that "fart" is among a small number of words that are valid topics for an encyclopedia, or some other possibility I'm missing.  I'm not trying to create an argument; I'm trying understand the arguments presented.  If you feel that's disruptive, put a notice up at WP:AN/I.  Powers T 17:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here're my thoughts, as precisely as I can put them. I think that articles about words belong in a dictionary, with the very rare exception of a few very notable words that have significant cultural relevance beyond their definitions.  ("Fuck" and "nigger" are the only English words I can think of that probably deserve an encyclopedia entry, and then only because of their extraordinary cultural baggage. "Cunt" is borderline; I would only consider it because of the information about "reclaiming" the word (Cunt).)
 * Now, an encyclopedia can certainly incorporate dictionary articles. However, in the specific case of Wikipedia, it is explicitly defined as not a dictionary, and Wiktionary is designated as the proper place for articles about words.  While Wikipedia is intended to be both a general-purpose and a multi-specific-purpose encyclopedia, the specific purpose of "articles about words" is explicitly excluded.  The very few exceptions of "articles about words" are really articles about the specific cultural impact of those words.
 * One of the keep !votes in the AfD referenced the fact that detailed usage history is something that Wikipedia can cover that Wiktionary would not. I believe that's incorrect; a paperless dictionary such as Wiktionary could easily include historical usage information.  In fact, I would say a fully comprehensive dictionary ought to.  That Wiktionary does not currently is a reason to transwiki the article, not to keep it on Wikipedia.
 * Now, I think the discussion has been bogged down in talk over "concept" and what is and what isn't a concept. I think this is misguided.  If you read WP:DICDEF, the word "concept" is used there specifically in contrast to "word" -- "articles about concepts" versus "articles about words".  Obviously, words are indeed concepts; what WP:DICDEF is saying, though, is not that "words are not concepts" but rather that we have two categories of concept: words and not words.  One of those categories is the domain of an encyclopedia; the other is the domain of a dictionary.
 * A rule of thumb to illustrate this dichotomy could be this: If an article is specific to the language of its title, it belongs in a dictionary; if an article and its title can be translated into another language without losing its meaning, it belongs in an encyclopedia. For example, a Japanese article on the Japanese word that translates as "fart" would be completely different from the English article on "fart", because the two words have entirely different histories, etymologies, and even usage; that means they're dictionary articles.  On the other hand, the Japanese article on "flatulence" could be substantially the same as the English article on "flatulence", even though they have different titles; that makes them encyclopedia articles.  In short: a dictionary is language-specific; an encyclopedia is not.
 * Make sense? -- Powers T 15:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

HMS Speedy
(moved from my own talk page, because I'm a dumbass) Could I trouble you to look into a trio of ship articles that could use renaming/moving and a disambig page? There isn't enough info in the articles for me to deduce what the proper renames would be. Maralia 20:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * HMS Speedy
 * HMS Speedy (schooner)
 * HMS Speedy (J17)

CNS prefix for Chilean ships?
Does the Chilean Navy actually use the CNS prefix? It's never used in that context on their web site. TomTheHand 18:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Undo
Hi, I have made an undo on [|this edit], putting my rationale here. Please let me know your thoughts if you disagree. Regards, Emoscopes Talk 17:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Mind enabling your email long enough to drop me an email via wiki interface, so I can respond? Want to discuss something with you, but prefer to do it off-wiki. Maralia 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

HMS Ariadne
Many thanks for your comprehensive improvement of the article I started. You are obviously well ahead of me in the editing stakes! I started the article as my father served on this ship in the 1944-46 period, so thanks once again.Paste 08:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dates for cruisers and destroyers of and before WWI
(copied over from Talk page for [C class cruisers]) Ben, having completed entering the dates for all the WWI (and earlier) destroyer classes, I am now starting on the cruisers as and when time allows, beginning with the Carlisles. There is something seriously wrong with the armament you quote in this Talk page. The Ceres and Carlisle class cruisers as built each carried five 6-inch guns (45 calibre Mk XII guns), plus two 3-inch A/A, and a number of smaller weapons. It was only at the 1938-39 conversions that they received the twin 4-inch mountings. Please remember that these histories should cover the entire histories of these vessels, not simply their last few years in WW2; of course, I recognise that the original ordnance is listed in the main article. Rif Winfield 20:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rif, yes you are quite right that the articles should cover their entire histories. It wasn't me that originally quoted those figures though, I just updated the infoboxes and corrected an earlier mistake over the number of guns the ships mounted after their refits.  As to how to cover this in the infoboxes, that often comes down to a matter of personal preference on the part of the original editor.    The most complete solution is to list them all, with original configuration, then after refit, then after second refit, etc.  For example - HMS Argonaut (61).  If you want to expand those infoboxes to cover them in that detail, then by all means feel free to do so.  I suspect that the original editor used the World War Two configurations as that was when the ships of the Carlisle class were engaging in their most notable actions. Kind regards, Benea 12:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ben, many thanks. We can try and expand to include all refit histories in due course; but at least we start the articles with the original history of a vessel or class. Trying to start with later configurations and work backwards will lead to problems in altering original articles, a problem exemplified by the query raised earlier on this user page in relation to the various Speedys. This also is extra evidence why trying to refer to vessels by their pendant numbers is ridiculous; presumably those who created these articles (not you, I know) were unaware that pendant numbers were a 20th-century creation and thus could not be used for pre-1900 vessels, and was likewise unaware that RN pendant numbers were not only allocated randomly, but also changed. Regards. Rif Winfield 14:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bismarck
Hi, the pic. of Bismarck firing is one of the most famous of the war. But she was definitely firing at Prince of Wales, not Hood, which had already been sunk. See the dedicated websites, e.g. www.kbismarck.com Regards, bigpad 09:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[The Imperial War Museum disagrees, which is a bit odd. Perhaps it would be better to say something like Bismarck firing during the Battle of the Denmark Straits to remove the contention? Benea 11:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)]

Hi again, The IWM, while a wonderful treasure, is incorrect. Both the Kbismarck and the "Bismarck and Tirpitz" sites, through careful analysis of the salvo tracks and courses of the ships, agree that the pic. was taken while Bis. was firing at POW. The relative closeness of Bis. to PE is a giveaway. Over the years there was an assumption that Hood was the target, and "The World at War" magazine, in its "Battle of the Leviathans" issue, captioned the picture accordingly. This was probably due to the dynamic 'mythical' impact of the rapid sinking of the Hood. Some of the early books on the battle may also have captioned the pic. in this way but I can't say off hand. The IWM is still acting on old information. Thanks, bigpad 12:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) follow-up
Hi. You participated in Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) which has now closed as "keep". I think it's worth having a more general discussion as to the notability of small noncombatant auxiliaries such as harbour tugs and I have raised this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force. I'm inviting all the AfD participants, both pro and con, to join in with their thoughts on the topic. -- A. B. (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, HMS Alarm (1758), was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

HMS Loch Achray
Terrific work, well done. Nick mallory (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mary Rose
Hi Benea, thanks for rv my edit on Mary Rose. I was hasty and did not properly understand what the author was trying to say. However, the sentence as it stands is still incorrect. Having the gun ports cut too low does not lead to decreased stability. In fact, if cannon were to be installed lower rather than higher, it would increase the vessel's stability.

One of the main contributing factors towards the Mary Rose's instability was the installation of heavier cannon, higher up than orginally intended, during the refits of 1528 and 1536. The problem with the gun ports being too low is that it increased the probability of water influx whenever the ship listed, rather than contributing to an increase in instability per se.

The article requires a little rewording. Rather than get into a possible edit war, would you please attend to this when you next have a moment? Thanks. Secret Squïrrel, approx 05:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RN Destroyers
Hello. As you know I'm trying to at least start an article on all these early destroyers. My book doesn't really differentiate between the different classes of the 'thirty knotters' as the list here [] does. It's got the individual names and builders and specs, but quite which ship is in which class is a bit of guess work I don't want to do, as I'll probably make a mistake. I could work it out for the 27 knot jobs. If you've got a book which is better could you put the ships names into the classes? Then I could start an article on each ship and nail down which is which. Thanks a lot. Thanks for tidying up after me as well, I'm not trying to make work for you, honest! Nick mallory (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I've already sorted these into the various designs/classes - please see under [B class destroyer], [C class destroyer] and [D class destroyer], as they were finally grouped in 1913 under these generic titles, with every destroyer placed under the design group as approppriate. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

CS Faraday
Just to say thanks for matching my article CS Faraday with the house style and adding the sterograph image. This is the first ship article I have written and I only came across it whilst writing Alexander Siemens which is within my usual area of contribution, Cheers Dumelow (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

John Balchen
Hi, you have changed the number of guns on HMS Victory in the above article from 110 to 100. I am aware that a) gun ratings were very changeable during the period in question, b)ships usually carried more guns than they were listed as carrying and c)most sources give Victory as 100 guns, but the sources I used to write this article all give a figure of 100 guns (I suspect they are all loosely based on the oldest one from 1757). Given that your edit here contradicts the sources, what is the best course of action? Stay with the sources or change the number of guns it based on a rather vague rating system?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds fair.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

HMS Lotus
Thanks for tracking that one down. I knew the link pointed to the wrong page but an internet search failed to track down the right ship.

BTW, I was just reading your new article SS River Afton. While making a couple of minor tweaks, I noticed that the account doesn't quite make sense. It says the ship was torpedoed and broke in two, after which U-702 delivered the coup de grace with two more torpedoes. It would seem an odd thing to do to torpedo a ship after it's already broken in two, was the text meant to indicate it broke in two after being hit by all of the torpedoes? Gatoclass (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

ok ok ill lighten up but hes been stalking people and he won't talk to any body.
ANOMALY-117 (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC) so any ideas?--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

USS Abraham Lincoln
the ship you editied was sunk in the movie and the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOMALY-117 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've figured out what you're talking about. Please try to be a bit clearer in what you want to say in future however.  I'm afraid you're wrong however.


 * Pg 48 - "The frigate?" replied Conseil, turning on his back; "I think that master had better not count too much on her." "You think so?" "I say that, at the time that I threw myself into the sea, I heard the men at the wheel say, 'the screw and rudder are broken.'" "Broken?"  "Yes, broken by the monster's teeth.  It is the only injury the Abraham Lincoln has sustained.  But it is a bad look out for us - she no longer answers her helm."


 * And after that the Abraham Lincoln disappears from the story, and the narrators enter the Nautilus, where the rest of the story takes place. The Lincoln was attacked, but not sunk in the novel, so I will revert your change. Benea (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

HMS Bombay
Do you have access to Ships of the Royal Navy? If so, could you help with the above page? Thanks. Neddyseagoon - talk 12:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

SS Gulfamerica
Hey, this article was on my todo list, no fair beating me to it! I mean, I only added it four months ago, I would've gotten to it sometime this century! Maralia (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

HMS Torbay
Thanks for fixing these edits; I didn't get a chance to finish. Xyl 54 (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. Benea (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

SS City of Cairo
A very interesting article! I don't blame the lady survivor for refusing to cross the Atlantic until after the war. Hope it will see DYK tomorrow! Archtransit (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fingers crossed! The man who survived the sinking, was picked up, survived the sinking of that ship and then nearly had his next rescuer blown up must have been cursing and blessing his luck at the same time.  Benea (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It did see DYK! And it deserved to be chosen! Archtransit (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Delivered on behalf of Anonymous Dissident. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 08:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks! --JayHenry (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is right up your alley
Definitely the first time I have seen both primate-stub and naval-stub on the same article: Monkeys in ships. Maralia (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pirate monkeys ahoy! Benea (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ship's cat? Oh, but you do indulge me. The Churchill photo is delightful, but the hammock made for Convoy. . .priceless. Perhaps we humans aren't such a bad lot, eh? Maralia (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't miss King Neptune (pig)! I'm getting ideas for the next Wikimedia fundraising drive. . . Maralia (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)