User talk:Benea/archive2

William King (Sailor)
Thank you for cleaning up my article on Bill King.

However, I am very concerned about the designation "Sailor" in the title.

According to my dictionary, "sailor" refers to "a seaman below the rank of officer."

This hardly describes Bill King, who was not only a commissioned officer but is also a decorated WW II survivor and circumnavigator.

Could you alter this to reflect some of my concerns, please?

DocDee (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Royal Navy" is fine, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DocDee (talk • contribs) 23:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

William King (anatomist)
While you are working on the William King (Royal Navy) page, do you know how to fix the reference to Bill King's grandfather on the article William King (anatomist)?

How can we fix it so that the title reads William King (GEOLOGIST) rather than the completely inaccurate descriptor "anatomist"?

Even the William King (anatomist) article admits: "He is commonly mistaken as a professor of anatomy - King never taught anatomy."

So why not change it? Otherwise it remains another inaccuracy for which we hardworking Wikipedians get blamed!

Thanks for the help, DocDee (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent! DocDee (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: don't forget to add the change to the general "William King" page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_King —Preceding unsigned comment added by DocDee (talk • contribs) 04:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * Very interesting and great photos. I was surprised this topic didn't already have a page. Any chance of some non-British ships cats being mentioned? Or is it a particularly nuts-about-animals-British maritime thing?  86.133.240.138 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As was I. Chibbley is Canadian I believe, though the British seem to have a soft spot for animals, and have turned some of them into celebrities as a result.  Celebrity ship's cats seem to be a rarity in other nations. Benea (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

SS James Longstreet

 * I found the photo at the bottom of this website: http://www.newenglandexplorations.com/historoflongstreet.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktr101 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help.Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Various ships

 * Thanks for fixing my edits. Salmanazar (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, the renaming of ships can cause a lot of confusion! Benea (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ping!
You've got mail. Maralia (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded. Also, check out User:Maralia/Collins headquarters&mdash;I'm overly ambitious, but at least I'm organized about it, right?! I've asked User:Barek if he'd like to help with some of the other articles, since he's an ocean liners kind of a guy. (Plus, I don't want you to thoroughly hate me by the time we're done.) Maralia (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

HMS Medusa
Another dose of Colledge please? Thanks! Ying tong iddle i po. Neddyseagoon - talk 15:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk Pages
Benea - thanks for everything you've done with stuff I've added or amended. You must have the wisdom of Solomon! Could you do your magic on the talk pages of HMS Daring (1932), HMS Daring (1874), HMS Defender (H07) and HMS Defender (1804)? I'd do it myself, but I have no idea whether that's a good idea or not. Shem1805 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Cherokee Class
WOW, thanks for your help making the page. I only noticed the class page was missing due to the story on the front page about the Chanticleer and Beagle. Had no idea there were so many others of her class! :)

Thanks! --Curuxz (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * im just really impressed how fast and must you have done on these pages!!! Somewhere I have an old picture of the Medusa (the one thats now a museum piece i think) if I can dig it out would it be any use to you for making a page about her? --Curuxz (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Estonian submarines
Why do you remove the (otherships) - kalev class had 2 submarines specially ordered and build for Estonia in 1930s? Karabinier 28 January 2008 (UTC)

HMS Donegal
Benea, you've done it again! I'm very impressed by your work on Donegal - I like to think that if I'd had another year or two, I could have come close to it myself ... Outstanding. Shem1805 (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Italian cruiser Garibaldi
Hello Excuse me for my very poor english, but i'm italian. i think that Garibaldi and Garibaldi reconstructed must be separated, but after your message i merged them again. There are too many differences, but if you says don't separate i do it. Greetings--Gaetano56 (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ship infobox debate
Hi Benea! There's been a discussion going on at Wikiships for a while now on fields for the new ship class infobox. Your input would be very much appreciated if you can find the time. The relevant thread is here]. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

HMS Black Joke
Benea I'd really appreciate it if you could cast your expert eye over my latest project - HMS Black Joke (1827). Apart from correcting any mistakes, I would particularly appreciate advice on categorisation - she was a tender, so she doesn't fit into the 'brig-sloop' category. Thanks in advance, Shem1805 (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wonderful - but I can't believe how many spelling mistakes I left in. I tend not to link dates (eg 2 March) because I feel it is trivial, but if you think I ought to, I can start doing so.  Incidently, Black Joke was a Brig-rigged vessel (square rigged on both fore and main) rather than a Barque (square rig on fore only).  Her administrative status was as a tender to a larger ship (Sybille at first, then Dryad), which meant she didn't keep her own books, didn't have a purser, and had only a Lt RN in command.  She isn't a rated ship (and therefore doesn't count as a 'sloop-of-war'), and I doubt there are many Wikipedia articles on other ships of her type.  Perhaps a category of 'un-rated RN ships' would be appropriate?  I'm doing HMS Dryad next - I'll let you know when it's ready for consumption.  Thanks - Shem1805 (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The light dawns on linking dates - sold! Shem1805 (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Lake Erie - vessels involved.
Apologies if I ruffled any feathers with my comments. As you say, "Our conventions ... would indicate using the scholarly accepted works, even when this differs from what may have been used at the time - This is consistent with the ordinary Wikipedia naming practice of using modern names for articles even if different from the contemporary name. If the scholarly works describe the ships in a certain way, I encourage you to use that, no matter what you think they should be based on how contemporaries are describing them". I hope that the list of works I quoted indicates that I have researched reasonably widely, and I doubt whether any later work matches that of Roosevelt for scholarly content. I would therefore use Roosevelt as the accepted source. Most of the more recent histories concentrate on the land side of the war and rather skim the details of the naval action. They also show little consistency in describing the vessels involved. HLGallon (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sir Richard Strachan, 4th Baronet
Outstanding - and an obvious gap in Wikipedia properly filled. Thanks, Benea. Shem1805 (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have moved the article because I found that he was in fact the 6th baronet in the line not the 4th. See Google Books "A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies" Dabbler (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, I found a couple more sites (including an old Debretts) indicating that he was 6th baronet and another site that has him as 8th baronet! Dabbler (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

HMS Calliope (1884)
Thank you for your edits to this. My sources are limited and some of them conflict. In particular, it is not clear when she became a shore establishment (sometime between 1905 and 1908), and whether she resumed her name in 1931 or 1936. The article could use more information on other service (did she participate in the Boxer rebellion?), and how noteworthy and inspirational her escape was held to be at the time. But with my sources I cannot do much more. My regards, Kablammo (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind note. I have corrected two dates, but not the references, as I do not have the page number(s) for Colledge.  I am not entirely satisfied with my terminology for section headings (Active duty and Reserve service).  Are there better titles for these?  Feel free to make any other improvements.  And thank you for cleaning up the redirects.  Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

RMS Saga Rose
Indeed not. That's what happens when you steal the infobox wholesale from RMS Queen Elizabeth 2. Well spotted. Ingolfson (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, no problem. When I've done similar infobox copy and pasting, I've often absent mindedly left things in I shouldn't have, occasionally leaving the name is one of the more embarrassing things I've done, so just having the wrong prefix is fortunately small beer! Benea (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Trafalgar order of battle and casualties
Please could you review Trafalgar order of battle and casualties.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

MS Stolt Surf
Hi, was the Stolt Surf scrapped as a result of the damage sustained from the freak wave, or did she see further service? It's not entirely clear from the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure is the answer. The few sources which cover anything other than the wave are uniformly silent over her eventual fate.  I think it highly likely though that she continued in service.  The damage was considerable but mainly superficial, and does not appear to have affected her hull integrity.  She was also only 7 years old, rather than writing her off it would have made economic sense to replace the hatchways, windows and gangways, repair the damaged pipes and refurnish and refit the interiors and return her to service.  Unfortunately I cannot say this with any certainty, so I deliberately left the article vague, in the hope that later I or someone else could chase up some more information. Benea (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

HMS Ambuscade
Benea, could you please cast your eye over HMS Ambuscade, when you have a chance? It could use checking by somebody who has a copy of Colledge. Thanks - again. Shem (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A few minor tweaks, but otherwise a comprehensive list. Well done! Benea (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the revert! J.d ela noy gabs adds 17:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 

J.d ela noy gabs adds has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * God bless you sah! Benea (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * We'll get there one day I suppose! But hopefully not too soon, this is a rather enjoyable (and addictive) hobby.  Pip pip! Benea (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A non WP Ship project you may be interested in
Having bumped into you on a couple of articles recently, and seen your interests listed at WP:SHIPS, I wonder if you might also be interested in this project, http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=Your_Archives:Royal_Navy_ships_project that The National Archives is just starting? The main aim is to improve the quality of data in the online catalogue, starting with 18th century vessels. The project is specifically not going to duplicate information in Wikipedia, but it struck me that there might be some synergy between the two tasks. As the TNA data is initially going in thier own wiki, it probably won't count as a reliable source for purposes here, but it might be a valid external link on the appropriate artilces here. I shouls probably make it clear that I do have a strong connection with TNA, but I'm not directly involved in this project. David Underdown (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the main aim of the this particular project is to improve access to/cataloguing of original documents. Some catalogue descriptions currently include the name of the ship for a log for instance, but not all.  Hopefully in the future, it will be possible to simply look up the ship name here and be given a complete list of all original Government documents which refer to it.  Obviously, since these are primary sources, the info is potentially not suitable for using as a references within Wikipedia, but it seems to me that it might be a valid external link, and ultimately the two resources should complement each other.  The article on page 16 of this magazine gives a good overview of the overall aims of Your Archives (though not the Ships project in particular).  The main TNA website already has quite a big online resource about Nelson and Trafalagar (created for the bicentenary), which is probably why there isn't much in Your Archives, which is still only a year old, and has only ever been given a very "soft" launch.  David Underdown (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

HMS Westmorland / HMS Westmoreland
Were any other ships known by that name? Thanks for the help on Cameron class steamers by the way! Neddyseagoon - talk 01:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dates
Is there any particular reason you don't link the years when you give a full date, my understanding ws that they should be per WP:MOSDATE as full linking allows user preferences to work. David Underdown (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's now much disagreement over the case where you're supplying a full day month and year, all parts should be linked, so people can use their user preferences to determine how they see the date. If it's a standalone year, these often will be unlinked since linking serves no purpose in formatting, and generally does not provide much useful context.  By the way yyyy-mm-dd is a standard form, but mostly used in computing contexts, as it's much easier to sort dates formatted this way, I should however have linked it, so taht those with user preferences set would see it as they prefer.  David Underdown (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing early naval stuff
Hi Benea. Thanks for filling in the details on the disambiguation page HMS Sparrow. Would you mind giving me some pointers on how you source this stuff? --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for that --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Little help please
Hi Benea, could you open that book of Colledge again please if you still have it? HMS ''Hecla. From one of my sources, it mentions that the latest one is the eighth ship to have the name. We only have seven listed on HMS Hecla. I think there was another one active around 1880 during the Mahdist War. I am going through final checks on the List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy and it seemed out of place. Thanks. Woody (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much for confirming that! The source was more of a flippant remark in a web source, it just made me want to check it out. Thanks for that. You don't happen to have anymore info on HMS Foylebank which I just created? Thanks again. Woody (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is what I was thinking on my hunt for sources. "auxiliary anti-aircraft ship" seems to be a common term. Royal Navy day by day says AA-ship 1930, so I think it is most likely that is the case. Thanks for all your help, much appreciated. Woody (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

HMS Serpent
Appreciate your efforts, but why do none of these ships have an article yet at Wikipedia? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Royal Navy disambiguation
Hi Benea. I see you have been doing a great job adding disambiguation pages for Royal Navy ships. There doesn't seem to be any agreed style for these. Personally, I like the way you enter them, and this style might have merit as well. Do you think it might be worth trying to get some consensus on WikiProject Ships? --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Have a bell! In the guidelines you directed me to, it states (in an unnecessarily obscure way) "Don't obscure a ship article's name behind piping—if the article name is disambiguated by a year or hull/pennant number, the link to it on a shipindex page should display this.".


 * Thus we should list HMS Pinafore (1652) and not HMS Pinafore. . But you and I have been doing the latter. What says you now, forsooth? --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Geez, I see, you did address this. I jumped the gun without finishing what you actually said! --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I've added more dab pages but I'm running into trouble when I try and clean up existing dabs. Mwtoews has reverted my work here, also wiping out many links which have nothing to do with style. I think it is a waste of time continuing without wider agreement about how it should be done. This means either getting the guidelines changed or changing ourselves to work within them. Anyway I've invited Mwtoews to comment. --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your example of HMS Beagle, merely shows what a total mess it creates when you use that style, because some names have launch dates and some names don't. Given that some of the article names get changed, the normal style (hiding the full article name behind piping) has advantages, as the redirects will take care of things.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Toddy, and it does seem to me that this "normal" style is the de facto practice these days. But the problem is that the guidelines don't agree, see here and also here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah I see what you mean. The user in this case was not really justified in referring you to the general manual of style in that instance.  By using the shipindex page we (as it was intended to do so) freed ourselves from a number of the restrictions, and created a style that the community felt was more useful to users.  Also he has actually pointed out a good reason why we don't use the number system.  There are many many cases where there are two (or in at least one case as many three ships) of the same name possibly in commission at the same time.  Similarly a ship may have been renamed, then revert back to the original name, in which time another ship may have borne that name in the meantime.  So while the Beagle example is all neat and tidy, many others aren't, so it is far better to remove any ambiguity and confusion.  So the Beagle page is in fact out of line with the standard guidelines as we implement them on that front.  As to the guidelines as they exist at the ship naming conventions page, we could raise the issue over at wpships as I think for Royal Navy ships at least, the issue of pennants and launch dates is fraught with confusion and uncertainty.  Also the date can mean very different things, a date of launch, capture, purchase, other acquisition, general build date or sometimes the only date recorded for that ship.  Far better I think to have it referred to in the text and explained exactly what it means rather than rely on its inclusion in the title.  Also there is the concern that the official name of the ship was HMS Beagle (1804) if we continue to pipe them like the guidelines say. But I'd be interested to hear Mwtoews' specific reasons in this instance. Benea (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey all, I figure I'd weigh in here. The two big things from MOS:DAB that I tend to adhere to are: (1) hiding article names behind pipes should be avoided, since the user is trying to look for a specific article name, and hiding the article name through a pipe doesn't help them find that specific article; (2) if the item has a linked article, then no other links should be added in the DAB description since they (should) appear in the linked article, and these extra links don't help the user find the specific article in the DAB page. Red-link articles should ideally have only one good blue link to describe the class of ship. My first point is discussed throughout this thread. I can't say too much about ship disambiguation, since I only have HMS Beagle (disambiguation) on my watchlist, however I encourage these principles to be adopted since they are on other properly kept DAB pages. (I also probably won't be able to reply to anything for a few days due to work, so happy discussing!) + m t  05:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So I guess I'll carry on for now. And later if there is a need bring it up for more formal review. Two final nitpickers:
 * to HMS or not HMS? In articles about ships, I add HMS if no ships have been mentioned for a while, but then omit the prefix for subsequent ships if they are nearby. But on dab pages I don't know. Can we plump for one or the other? I think I prefer to leave them in.
 * this has nothing to do with dab pages, but I saw someone assert that to refer to "the Beagle" was wrong, you should never preface with "the". Is that right? I think it is inappropriate to refer to "the HMS Beagle", since you would not refer to "the Her Majesty's Ship Beagle, but "the Beagle" can be okay and on occasion can read better than just Beagle. Is there anything set in stone here? --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Point 1, I agree with your use in general articles. The general rule is to use HMS, HMCS, HMAS, USS etc on the first mention of that ship, but then it's at the author's discretion as to whether you repeat it or not.  As to disambiguation pages, I think it's fine to use HMS and I prefer that style as well.
 * Point 2, The user was wrong to say that you would never say "the Beagle". Never "the HMS Beagle" but again it's just personal preference whether you want to say the Beagle or Beagle. Benea (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much Benea for your patience and help. --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a gentle point to make about "HMS". The Beagle was not a ship when she was built, but a brig. She was not converted into a ship until late in 1825. They were a little careful about this at the time. Accordingly she was not entitled "HMS Beagle" until that 1825 conversion; before that she was "HMB (for 'His Majesty's Brig') Beagle". Rif Winfield (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ping!
You've got mail :) Maralia (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

another nice article nominated

 * ...that Thomas Phillips, military engineer is (pictured) in a 17thC painting with Brave Benbow, but an almost identical painting has him replaced by the Earl of Orford? by Benea OK? Victuallers (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Colledge and disambiguation
Hmm, issues don't go away. Take a look at the last two entries in HMS Penguin. The last Penguin listed was RAN from start to finish. Colledge seems also to include many RAN and RNZN ships. And it get murky when you go back to the nineteenth century. For example, he includes, as far as I can tell, some but not all of the boats that were purchased by the New Zealand Colonial government for use on the Waikato - though these were manned by the Royal Navy.

Also, Colledge lists ships that were cancelled before completion. If they weren't completed then they weren't yet a ship and didn't formally carry the name would be my take, and we should ignore them. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd certainly noticed that. I tend to do as you've done with Penguin and say something like "there were also two ships of the Royal Canadian Navy..." or if there were a sizeable number, to have a link to their specific disambiguation page.  As to ships that were only planned, I do something like I've done at HMS Alarm, which acknowledges the presence of the proposed ship in the name's history, but I don't bother putting a link as there probably won't ever need to be an article about it. Benea (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be useful for me to mention that until recently the official Navy List listed all ships from the time that they were ordered, not from the time of completion. Thus vessels which were later cancelled would appear on this list, sometimes for years. In the days when 'rebuilding' was practiced, ships' names were also left on the official list of Vessels throughout the period; in some cases this could be a decade or more, so that a ship would happily be listed -with its tonnage and details - while all that physically existed was a few timbers lying in a corner of the dockyard awaiting re-use. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

HMS Powerful (1895)
Hi - last year you started the article on HMS Powerful (1895). I have left a message on the article talk page concerning whether she was laid up in 1904 as apparently indicated by the article or a flagship of Australia Station in 1908 ? I would be pleased if you have any further information on her and her role in Australian waters in 1908. Regards Matilda talk 06:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

ok?

 * ...that the Eva archaeological site in Tennessee was inhabited from about 6000 to 1,000 B.C, but it is now below water? by Benea going mad Victuallers (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
for my cranky edit summaries. I was worried that you'd fogotten to create the new article, especially as the HMS Mosquito article made no mention of the base as one of the uses of the name. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Stonehenge
What I mean is that it is an NOPV violation to suggest that stonehenge is really that old. There have been various theories about stonehenge in the past, andit is a POV to suggest that it was not simply built by Roman for instance. Wikipedia should not give one theory credibility over all others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray-Ginsay (talk • contribs) 20:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary we are giving credibility to the only credible, scientifically proved, scholarly accepted theory. The Moon article does not open with "Most people believe the moon is made of rock...", and it is certainly NOT a violation of WP:NPOV that that is the case. Benea (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If we say that the Scientific theory is true, no chance for it being false, we might as well say that christian theories of creation are crap and that no religion is true. The two may seem different but really go quite hand in hand. We must treat all viewpoints equally on Wikipedia. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not true. If you actually read WP:NPOV you will find in the opening section "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources".  The emphasis is mine. Benea (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

How has the scientific theory been proven anyway? -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Early English Warships
Ben, can I direct your attention to my comments on my own userpage in reply to your question? Rif Winfield (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Stalingrad Madonna confusion
I'm sorry if I confused you. I simply added the second template to underline that more citations were in fact needed. Citations are a vital part wikifying an article, as the Wikify template states, thus I only added the "Wikify" template to begin with. Wikifying is about more than just wikilinks. I wasn't "looking for reasons to add templates" to the article, I don't do that. I simply stated that more citations were needed, nothing more, nothing less. Now that the citations are in place there's no need for more templates. I hope that cleared things up and that you're not habouring any ill will towards me. Manxruler (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate it. Swords officially put away. Keep up the good work and have nice evening. Manxruler (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Brig-sloops
Ben, I have added articles on the Fly, Crocus and Seagull classes of brig-sloop, and listed the 30 vessels concerned (as well as completing the listings of the Cherokee and Cruizer classes); can you categorise them please, as I don't know how this is done? Thanks! Rif Winfield (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming issue
After a post on my talkpage I have started looking into a naming issue. I was wondering what Rodgers Colledge says about the naming of the Flower class corvette. Someone at Talk:Flower class corvette thinks it should be at Gladioulus class corvette as HMS Gladiolus (K34) was the first in the class. Any light shone on this before I wade in would be much appreciated. Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If that was short, I would hate to see what my initial reply would have been called after reading into it. There seems to be one user just pushing what tantamounts to a point of view and a fringe theory, whose main idea is based on a major fallacy that shows a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. I will warn him about continuing to edit in a tendentious manner. Thanks for looking into it and commenting. Always appreciated. Woody (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your intervention on this page . I was losing perspective, and I’m glad to see I wasn’t completely crazy. Thanks again! Xyl 54 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all, happy to help. Feel free to ask if there's anything else I could help with. Benea (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK25
Someone has to give you this before you get past 50, eh! :-)

Goodness, I'm on 48 at the moment! I had no idea it was so many. Ta very much! Benea (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)