User talk:Benea/archive4

HMS Tigress & HMS Oak
Dear Benea You've used your copy of Colledge to do a disambiguation page on my behalf before; would you mind doing it again for HMS Tigress and HMS Oak? In advance, many, many thanks. Shem (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Benea - Thanks very much, and I'm sure I will be asking again! Just so you know, I keep an eye on your contributions - because it regularly leads me to interesting articles.  More power to your elbow. Yours Shem (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ben, While You're putting in disambiguation pages for Oak, etc, could you also do one for Violet (there's a page for the destroyer of 1897, but not for other ships bearing this name)? Thanks. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, behold HMS Violet. Benea (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK twofer

 * No respect for the muse? sniff -- Kendrick7talk 03:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, much better. -- Kendrick7talk 04:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Sawyer DYK
Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article Herbert Sawyer, and unfortunately found a problem with it. Please feel free to comment on the DYK submissions page. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 21:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply is on my talk page. Olaf Davis | Talk 18:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Little Belt
Oh, Lordy -- don't worry about it, Benea. It should be common practice of the folks at DYK to give that little box to the article creators as well as the expanders, just like the template says; this certainly has been the case in the past by default. But aside from that: I've actually worked with Gatoclass on many articles in the past, so I took the liberty of razzing him a little for having overlooked an old friend. I thought the randomness of us re-intersecting on a topic related to the War of 1812, as opposed to, more usually, the more recent history of the Israel-Palestine conflict was a little odd, and I might have thus played up my "grief" for comical effect which, as a third party, you took as my own personal offense. 'Twas nothing of the sort, I assure you! -- Kendrick7talk 04:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Splendid, I'm glad there was no offence on any side, and that I was just caught in some friendly crossfire rather than being the bad guy. ttfn! Benea (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Clan Line
Ben, can I task you with sorting out another problem, albeit one that concerns merchant ships rather than warships? The problem is set out by me on the discussion page for Clan Line, which I set out below: "The list of Clan Line ships needs expanding. I have added in the names of all 'Clan' vessels from the late 19th century. However the entry as I found it consisted of the names of six ships and references to individual articles. These articles are all badly entitled, as they fail to take accound of the fact that ships' names are re-used; the six names for which 'Clan' articles are written, for example, were each used several times and the title should include the launch year for the ships actually discussed. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)" Do you think you can amend the links and titles for the six individual articles, so that they incorporate the launch dates? Thanks! Rif Winfield (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, I've moved them all to disambiguate them by launch year. I have to take responsibility for their original titles, as I was the one that started each of their articles, and did not have the sources (at the time) to be able to tell whether the names were unique or not. Good work with the full ship list by the way. Benea (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! No problem with the lists, as I actually used to be part of the Clan Line management team when I started work, employed by Cayzer Irvine in the City during the 1960s. So I'm very familiar with the Clan Line fleet. But as my new list here includes all the Clan Line vessels, can we (or rather you, if you agree) now simply delete the six original names at the start of the list, as they are now repeated in (and wiki-linked from) the completed list? Rif Winfield (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

ship moves
If no objections have been expressed to naming using years in 9 months, then that seems unanimous support. The first example given in the discussion is HMS Arc Royal (1938). It would appear Kralizec also was not objecting to moves of older ships, though as I already posted to him, I have seen no explanation why a pennent number is more useful on a new ship than on an old one. they seem equally bad ways to try to identify a ship to a general audience. Sandpiper (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * lets keep this discussion centralised at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) rather than spreading it around lots of talkpages shall we? Benea (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * have responded. Sandpiper (talk)
 * I know. Benea (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * good. Sandpiper (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. Benea (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

HTMS Naresuan‎
Thanks for your help at HTMS Naresuan‎. I know nothing about ships, but sort of collided with this one while looking for the origin of Thai Armed Forces Day. English-language sources say it commemorates King Naresuan's victory in duel-by-elephant with the invading Burmese crown prince (they were childhood playmates). They used lunar-calendar dates and various schemes for ID-ing years back then, so now they're not sure if the duel was January 25, 1592, or a lunar-cycle later on January 18, 1593, with the result that the 25th is observed in-country, and the 18th at embassies abroad. Procurement of HTMS Naresuan and sister ship HTMS Taksin was similarly lunatic. Pawyilee (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

deleted response to comments on wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Ships
Benea, I am posting here exactly the same post I already made on MBK004 s page. He has not responded, so the matter with him has not been resolved. I would not wish to have to report either of you for vandalism of wikipedia.Sandpiper (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

copied from MBK004 page:

Please be aware that deleting comments made by other users is frowned upon on wikipedia.

In this particular case, the discussion was started by user Brad, who made a personal comment about me. Now, I dont mind this, I was more curious than offended, but the comment clearly ridicules the debate which I started on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships)‎. You claimed that my post which you deleted was a 'POV inserted into a neutral notice'. It may have been a POV, about the desireability of starting any major change sooner rather than later, but this was in response to another comment suggesting that the proposed change would produce lots of work, and thus the implicit POV that it was undesireable. It was no more than a response in kind to the previous posting. If you are going to start censoring postings, then I would suggest you do so impartially. You did not censor the response in a way which restored the original section to a short notice, but merely removed one comment. Rather than restoring impartiality, this might be seen as biasing the tone of the debate.

Far better that you do not delete anyones comments. I would suggest reading No personal attacks. I'm not sure what deleting others posts comes under, try Etiquette. Sandpiper (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now deleted all the strange subscripts from the wikiproject page so it is as before the interventions. I would suggest leaving it that way and leaving the matter there. Sandpiper (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will await further comment on this. Benea (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How nice, stating that you are going to report us (I'm an Admin if you haven't read my userpage) but not saying this on my talk page. Revert the section at WT:SHIPS back to just the original notice with a subscript that no additional posts are to be made to that section. Also, your warnings are void because of your edit warring without discussion. Benea, sorry I took over your page, but it seemed relevant. -MBK004 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know you are an admin. Admins are expected to conform to higher editorial standards than ordinary editors. I would have been less abrupt with an ordinary editor. As to edit warring, exactly who started this? Is that wiki-lawyering now to compound the matter? You should know better. Sandpiper (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Have now seen that you, Benea, have cleared the page back to the original comment. I won't change this unless anyone else does, but my originally posted comment stands. Better not to delete anyone elses comments, ever, unless they are legally actionable etc or someone personally objects to comments about themselves. Editing out the comments people have made about this matter on the wikiproject ships talk page is effectively saying that no one on that page can discuss the question of how ships should be named. That is rather odd, to say the least. Surely specifically the sort of thing they might talk about, and indeed do further up the page in relation to lightships. A policy saying someone should post a neutral notice does not mean that all discussion about a notice is then forbidden on the place it was posted.

However, I begin to think there was something of a misunderstanding here,(about exactly who is saying what to whom) and further grousing should not be directed to this page. Sandpiper (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

About the Peruvian Frigate Apurimac article
Hi Benea, I noticed than you change the name of the article of the frigate Apurimac adding the prefix BAP, that´s incorrect because the prefix was not used until the XX century (after the WWI if I remember well), we can continued this talk in the discussion page of the article. Greetings--Cloudaoc (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A-class Ark Royal
Its you who should be congratulated, not me! I'd like to take a couple of weeks to work on Nick Dowling's suggestions, but after that it should be ready to rumble. -- saberwyn 22:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As usual, look to User:Saberwyn/Ark Royal sinking for queries that require your knowledgable input. I'm also throwing around a few "citation needed" tags for facts that might be picked on at FAC.
 * Speaking of picking on facts, MBK004's comment that uboat.net may have some trouble passing the bar at FAC, has some weight, even though we both know its a reliable source. It might be an idea to see if that information can be found in other locations: i.e. books on the Uboats or the Merchant Navy during the war. -- saberwyn 05:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nick Dowling, the main "detractor" (for lack of a better word) at A-class has given my copyedit of the early sections the green light. At this point, I've done as much as I think I can for the article without having the horde at FAC nitpicking at the problems we can't see from familiarity (although I will continue to play with it if I see anything). Considering the comments at A-class review, I think you need to try and work on the following.
 * Find replacement citations for the Uboat.net and Fleet Air Arm Archive sites. This isn't a necessity, but per MBK004's comments, may make life a little easier at FAC
 * Footnotes: [a] is a necessity, but of the others, [b] and [c] could probably be eliminated entirely as they are fairly trivial. [d] is not so trivial, but to me isn't related enough to the story of the carrier's life to be worth inclusion. However, its your call on inclusion for all four footnotes
 * Might be an idea for you to go and have a copyedit of my text, in case I've stuffed the meaning of anything or distorted the facts.
 * Apart from that, I think you're all set for a run at FA. If you want to go over anything before the FA run, you know where to find me. If not, good luck, and I'll see you at FAC! -- saberwyn 08:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standbridge
The oldest and greatest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and greatest type of fear is fear of the unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romulus Flood (talk • contribs) 02:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Citation needed. Benea (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have access to Colledge?
It appears from your response to an item at WT:SHIPS that you may have access to J. J. Colledge's Ships of the Royal Navy. Is that correct? If so, could you look something up for me? I expanded the stub SS Samuel Huntington and noted facts about the sinking of HMS Spartan (95) immediately beforehand (basically paraphrased from Spartan ' s article). Could you verify the facts about Spartan that appear in SS Samuel Huntington#Sinking and provide a page number? Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a bunch. That Naval-History.Net site looks pretty authoritative, so I used it to cite the number killed. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. Benea (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Mangochi
First of all, what the heck is Janes'? Apologies for not knowing a thing about naval matters. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming that you own the book, what page is this on? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your concern. It is greatly appreciated. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Asia Cruises
An article that you have been involved in editing, Asia Cruises, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Asia Cruises. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Brilliant Pebble (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK issue
Please see T:TDYK for comments on your submission of 825 Naval Air Squadron. Renata (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC) BTW, you have exact same issues with the German ship (first loss of WWI). Renata (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Loyalty, Blackwood, Exmoor et al
Wow! I'm currently working on a table of all the wrecks designated under the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986. Yesterday I had a few red-links: today they've turned blue and the stub I created for Loyalty has turned into a proper article. I am impressed with your productivity. Thanks for this, as I hate to enter red-links. Shall I flag to you any other missing articles, or do you have a red-link spotter? Viv Hamilton (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Ships built in England
Do you think we need Category:Ships built in England? It was created recently and I've made it a sub-category of Ships built in the United Kingdom. Would this be useful as England hasn't always been part of the UK or just over-categorisation? If needed I can put all English shipyards in the England category... Kernel Saunters (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally think this is over categorisation, though I could see the utility to some degree. Individual ships would probably go into the 'xxx-built ships' category, perhaps 'Category:Ships built in England' could be used to hold the English 'xxx-built ships' categories. It's another layer of categorisation that I personally wouldn't have gone to the effort of setting up, as I think our existing system works fine. For most of the ships currently in the category, creating the category 'Sunderland-built ships' would have sufficed, as well as fitting with our existing categorisation structure. Benea (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

HMS Martin (1790)
That was quick - and very welcome. Thanks for filling out the entry. Cenedi (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, happy to help out. Benea (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Just a quick thanks for correcting my error on 820 Naval Air Squadron. You are of course right I was looking at completely the wrong information! QueenCake (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's quite all right, it was an easy mistake to make. No harm done. Benea (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK
An excellent article. Kudos to you, sir! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. An interesting read on a topic of great historical importantance. &mdash; BillC talk 21:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to both of you, it was a rather enjoyable experience to research and write it! Benea (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hatashe Channel
An article that you have been involved in editing, Hatashe Channel, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Hatashe Channel. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Toddst1 (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Looks like you've picked yourself up a shiny Featured Article star. Congrats! -- saberwyn 05:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why, thank you! Mind you, if I didn't have your content to mess with, we wouldn't be here. Well-deserved flattery on both our parts aside, if you ever want to do this again, you know where to find me. -- saberwyn 10:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have to turn your offer down. While I have enough background knowedge of WWII and aircraft carriers to make understanding Ark Royal possible, I lack this for Nelson, which is going to make it a lot harder for me to contribute without errors slipping in. -- saberwyn 04:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello you two! Ben, I must apologize for disappearing amidst Ark Royal, and for utterly slacking on Nelson thus far. I was so excited to work on both, but a week of vacation followed by a month of moving house/renovations has rendered me braindead. I'm awfully pleased to see that Ark reached FA, though, and I feel a little less guilty seeing that saberwyn was the one who picked up my slack there, as he kinda owed me one for Melbourne :) I just took a peek at Nelson, and noticed something I'm embarrassed to admit I entirely missed before: it was FA once upon a time, and has already been on the mainpage (back in 2004). While I'd love to get it to FA again, barring a change in the rules, it won't get a repeat appearance on the mainpage :/ Lastly, Scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow is something I meant to get done a year ago - thank you, and I'll commence copyediting immediately! Maralia (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Why you delect the information?
Hi Benea, I cant understand why you detect my information which I did add in Barovatra and Nanikhir as a Heritage. we some of friends want try to show the world about the place that people don't know about that. All of Information is true, soon we'll able to add some photo about it. By the way thanks for your love to Wikipedia.

Ahsan.AIUB (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)EEE.AIUB

Socks
I've blocked the other two as well. I was taken in by Ahsan too at first (note my reply on his talk page), but at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter whether these are sockpuppets or actually different people operating as meatpuppets. Thanks for your help in IDing them... --Rlandmann (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just wish he'd put some of his energy into reading policies and guidelines! Benea (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I keep edit-conflicting with you
I think you and I are having the same bad day :) -- saberwyn 22:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Arrgh, tell me about it! Is he even reading his talkpage? I'm going to hang fire and let you deal with it if you're up to it. I've lost patience and I'm into mass reversions, but your way is much better. My favourite was when he slammed everyone for simple grammatical errors and for not being able to use 'the' correctly, and in that same edit makes a simple grammatical error involving the word 'the'. Benea (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do me a favour? Check my edit history and see if I need a time out or a trouting. -- saberwyn 09:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're fine as far as my imperfect eyes can judge. It's a shame that he blunders into articles and ends up introducing more errors under the guise of fixing things (and saving the Encyclopaedia from us pesky 'British' editors who refuse to use the correct American styles/spellings.) But he doesn't seem to even be aware of his talkpage, so I'm not sure what can be done other than having to go round and clean up after him. Benea (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Med squadron 1807
I see you are active with the ships of the line, so was wondering if you can help. I am trying to find out which of Duckworths vessels were detached to Malta for repair immediately after Dardenells, and which accompanied him to support the transports during the Alexandria expedition of 1807. I know that only part of the squadron arrived in Alexandria, but have not been able to find the list as yet. Any help will be appreciated. More so if I can also find a list of the transports involved in the expedition--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 06:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for steering me in the right direction (no pun intended) --mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 02:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

HMS / HMT Elk
I thought I was going mad - I was sure I called it HMS Elk not HMT elk so I tried to correct my error, not knowing it was an intention edit by someone else. I hope this is the right place to leave feedback - I am new to this while wiki editing thing. MichaelTickle (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Rates of 1793-1815
Dear Ben, I have made some corrections to entries for large Third Rates of the Napoleonic Wars. Specifically, the Rochefort was an 80-gun Third Rate, not 74 guns. The Sandwich (ordered 1809 but cancelled 1811) was to the same design. I have moved these to include under 80-gun ships. Note they were definitely Third Rates, not "Second/Third Rates", so I have changed this too.

The Milford ordered 1796 and launched 1809 did indeed have a second vessel ordered to the same design - but this was the Princess Amelia (ordered 1796 but cancelled 1800) and NOT the Sandwich.

Incidentally the Augusta (begun in 1806 but cancelled 1809) was, like the Akbar, almost certainly to be to the Armada class design, so you should treat her similarely to Akbar.

If you wish to quote source material for these entries, use my 1793-1817 volume (from which you may quote p35 for Rochefort and Sandwich, and p40 for Milford with p41 for Princess Amelia). Rif Winfield (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Announcing...
Sir Nils Olav. Those crazy Norwegians! Maralia (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

St angelo
I do apolgise for intruding but you renamed the page on St angelo airfield. It isn't called RAF st angelo any more and hasn't been for decades. I ran the page on St angelo airfield. can you change it back please?The Thunderer (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's ok, I've done it myself.  Do please try to bear in mind I'm not being twisted here but St Angelo airfield is a civil airport - not a military field since the 50's.The Thunderer (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well what you have done is actually just copy and pasted one page into another, rather than properly moving the page. So now we have two identical pages, as well as all sorts of GDFL compliance issues. The page history in the former redirect also prevents a simple move back as well, and the St Angelo airfield page will need deleting before this can be done. I'll redirect the St Angelo airfield page for now, pending its deletion so that the RAF page can be properly moved. Please read WP:MOVE for further advice about what to do in such situations. Benea (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a search for the St Angelo airfield before starting the page. My precedent for creating a separate page for the civil airport was based on RAF Sydenham - v - George Best Belfast City Airport, which are one and the same place.   My understanding of WP naming convention is very limited but I am led to believe that the main page should be under the name which is most commonly associated with the place/person/object?   That being the case I propose you should make St Angelo airfield the main page for the article as the association with the RAF comes secondary to that.  However; the RAF ST Angelo page should be retained on a permanent link from the main page to illustrate ONE of the uses of St Angelo since 1941.   Should further informartion then come to light regarding its use as an army base (which far exceeds its use as an RAF station I think and is much more recent) another link page could be created to expand on that.   Would you agree with that?   I do apologise if I messed up any of the links.  I hadn't really come across that type of editing before and just did my best.  Perhaps you wouldn't mind tidying it up?The Thunderer (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind at all, the bit that threw me was that it was mostly about the history of the base as a RAF station, so I thought that you had been trying to name the article accordingly, and weren't aware of the conventions. I'll see if I can find an admin to delete the current redirect (St Angelo airfield), this will then clear the way for the whole article to be moved bodily over to that title, retaining the RAF link as a redirect, and most importantly, retaining the article's entire page history. And as you say, if there were other names for its time as a barracks, those can be created as redirects.  It's just that it gets a bit technical now since copy and paste moves block the proper moves and need a bit of disentangling.  Benea (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the damage I had done with regards to the technicalities of the site and can only apologise again and thank you for setting it right.  I haven't forgotten about the Bismarck info either and will try to resolve it before the weekend.  I'm also of a mind to provide more info Iif I can) to build up the RAF Sydenham page because it has a much longer history as an RAF station than St Angelo.  I am sure there were Phantoms flying out of there as late as 1975.  I have a family member who's a bigwig with the RAF and had ten years under his belt by then, see if he can point me in the right direction.The Thunderer (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, its an easy mistake to make as you're getting started, but WP:MOVE will give you a bit of advice and information to help you in future. I've dropped a line to an admin I know, so it should be sorted in due course.  I'll have a look myself into the Bismarck thing, but I'm more a Royal Navy man, so best of luck with that.  Happy editing. Benea (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

All fixed. Or as many of my (Southern) countrymen might say, Got`r`dun! --Kralizec! (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not fixed. You've deleted the main article and left the page for the RAF use as the main page which isn't correct.  Can you redress this please?The Thunderer (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A class destroyer (1913)
I am rather puzzled why this article should be categorised in both Category:A class destroyer (1913) and also in Category:Destroyer classes. I see that this is quite general for all the different types of destroyer class, but don't see the justification. Why have a sub-category dedicated to that type yet place the lead article into the super-cat as well as the specific sub-category? This seems to me to be a case of unncecessary double entries. Sandpiper (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but the two categories have a particular purpose, in that they are intended to hold both pages, and sub-categories. The Destroyer classes category contains pages of articles on destroyer classes, but also holds the categories of the specific destroyer class, which as you point out, also contains the article on the destroyer class. Consider clicking on the Destroyer classes category, you can find the specific article and go straight there.  But if you come at it through the A class destroyers category, you can again click on it there and be taken to it.  In short, it has a place in both, because they are technically not super or sub categories of each other, though they are currently ordered as such, but both are designed to hold articles, one specifically of Destroyer class articles (which the A class destroyer (1913) fits into) and the other on ships of that type, where again it is appropriately placed.  But even so WP:Categorisation says that articles can appear in both super and sub categories where appropriate - in this case since the article is about a destroyer class it belongs in Category:Destroyer classes. And because it is an article about the A class destroyers, it belongs in Category:A class destroyers (1913). Benea (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that the description "A Class" was simply a way of the Admiralty grouping together (in 1913, two decades after the first of them were built!) the surviving 26-knot and 27-knot turtle-back destroyers. The grouping covered a larger number of different designs. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

HMS Firedrake
Dear Benea Would you mind using your copy of Colledge to do a disambiguation page for HMS Firedrake? Thanks in advance Shem (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, happy to help! I'm away from my copy at the moment, but I'll fix one up as soon as I'm back early next week. Benea (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be churlish to ask for HMS Lurcher as well? I just can't seem to leave these Acheron-class destroyers alone ...
 * No problem at all, have knocked up the pages, if there's anything else I can help with, feel free to ask! Benea (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You know the problem - give a chap 91cm and he takes 1.6km! Would you mind having a look at HMS Albatross?  It's slightly complicated by a redirect to HMAS Albatross, but without Colledge, I can't start to unravel it.  Thanks - and much more power to your elbow.Shem (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I know how these projects start! ;) But I really don't mind lending a hand, so keep up the good work! Benea (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what was inhibiting your rights to move the article over the redirect, but per your request I went ahead and moved it to HMAS Albatross (1928). Please let me know if there is anything else I can help with!  --Kralizec! (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you check...
the sinking date of HMS Ark Royal (91) as per Rossiter and Jameson. We probably missed it during copyedits (oops..), and if its an error on our part, I don't think we need an extra source whose only purpose is to cite this fact. Thanks heaps. -- saberwyn 00:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Arrgh, it looks as if you're right (too many over familiar eyes, though our reviewers overlooked it as well!). I'll check as soon as I'm back with the books (hopefully in the next day or so) but I'm fairly certain the dates as corrected are right, but I also agree that using the two existing main sources is the most authoratitive way of citing it. I'll dig out the page numbers when I get back. ttfn, Benea (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the dates are already cited in the references for the sections, all the edit did was to clarify them, and add a new reference. The new references could probably just be edited out and the clarified dates left. Benea (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done and dusted. Thanks for checking. -- saberwyn 23:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

RN stations
Thank you for picking up on the title. Speaking of station articles, most seem to be capitalised as Stations although this is not evident in any of the documents by the Admiralty I have seen. Do you think it would be ok to rename them as not capitalised?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 22:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, a quick run through of the sources I have to hand suggest that the name is treated as a proper noun, like Harwich Force, Dover Patrol, Grand Fleet, etc, and the stations/squadrons are capitalised when referring to specific ones, hence Pacific Station, China Station and West Africa Squadron. Benea (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

HMS Lively
Ben, can you please change the links for at least two of the articles on "HMS Lively"? The one entitled HMS Lively (1793) is for the frigate launched in 1794, and the one entitled HMS Lively (1754) is for the Sixth Rate (NOT a "sloop-of-war"!) launched in 1756. In any case, the latter article is so full of errors it really should be deleted (see my comments in the discussion page for that ship). Thanks! Rif Winfield (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

HMS Vivid
Dear Benea May I beg a ship index page for HMS Vivid? As always, in your debt, Shem (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - please tell me the moment it all gets too much! My next request is that you look at HMS Odin (at least the 1901 screw sloop missing), HMS Cadmus, HMS Merlin and HMS Espiegle.  Yours, Shem (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And HMS Vixen & HMS Viper? You really are a gentleman. Shem (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Checking out your contributions, it seems you're doing the index pages for all the names in Colledge? And I thought doing the List of gunboat and gunvessel classes of the Royal Navy was a big job!  Great work, and I'll drink a beer on your behalf when you reach "B"! Impressed, Shem (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is definitely a project to keep me going for a good few years to come, that and cleaning up and standardising all the existing ones! Excellent work by the way on the gunboats/gunvessels, its about time the smaller vessels got some attention, and from the looks of it, you're doing a sterling job! Anything else I can help you with, just give me a bell! Benea (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mutual congratulations much appreciated. There are a multitude of index pages that my latest opus has highlighted, but just for now could you do HMS Magnet, if such a vessel(s) exist and HMS Canada?  Thanks, Shem (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm running out of indents, but not ship indices! Please would you look at HMS Snake and write HMS Wrangler?  Thanks, Shem (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And HMS Racer ... am I boring you?
 * Not at all (the previous two were a very apposite pairing ;) They're nice little mini tasks I can do in quiet moments. Benea (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's HMS Firebrand - something not right there, I imagine. Thanks Shem (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Another nice little mini-task- HMS Sepoy! There really is no rush, you know. Thanks again, Shem (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet more (all Satellite class sloops) - HMS Pylades, HMS Heroine, HMS Rapid and HMS Satellite. Once more, thanks, Shem (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To the long, long list, may I add HMS Tenedos? Thanks, Shem (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you please look at HMS Ilex? Thanks, Shem (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a nice easy one! Only ship to be so named, though an auxiliary base at Kingstown/Holyhead was named Ilex for a few months in 1915. Benea (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You were too quick for me! I was busy editing the article, found we were in edit conflict when I saved, and had to merge your text in.  Thanks once again. Shem (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Oliver
Thanks for tidying up my spelling in the Geoffrey Oliver article. Jll (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, happy to help! Benea (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Sydney Yorke DYK
Congratulations! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

U-boats
Hello Benea

You made some comments to a discussion I started here on naming U-boat pages.

I haven’t seen any more comments; can I go ahead and make some changes? Is that all the discussion it needs? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)