User talk:Benea/archive5

Lord Keith Ships
OK then.

Admiral Lord Keith Ships
The redlinked ships on the article George Elphinstone, 1st Viscount Keith were unlinked so that the page could be tiied up. This is encouraged by Wikipedia. The fact that you are reversing completely legitimate change that is encouraged by Wikipedia is actually vandalism. If you change it three times in 24 hrs it could be edit warring. This means that you could be reported for vandalism.

With compliments.

DAFMM.

Chilean Battery chip Almirante Cochrane
"The ship named Cochrane or Almirante Cochrane? Either the article title or the text should be corrected. Similarly is it a battery ship or a frigate? The description and the text suggest frigate, a battery ship is a more stationary vessel, used for bombardments/guardship duties. There are other parts that are still unclear but I can't really begin to work out how they should read. Benea (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)"

The Ship is the Almirante Cochrane but was codename (nickname in other words) "cochrane" for his Tripulants. the ship is a "Armoured Frigate" but it have a Center battery. i will to fix the problems, thanks for your discussion.

--Gabriel 03 (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

HMS Waterwitch
Would you mind checking the facts of HMS Waterwitch (1892) against Colledge? I'm not at all sure about my sources for original build date, owner, names or date of purchase into the RN. Anything extra would be apprciated. Once again, thanks Shem (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Waterwitch was the ex-Steam yacht Lancashire Witch, purchased on 17 March 1893. Rammed and sunk on 1 September 1912 by government yacht Seamew while at anchor in the Singapore Roads. Hope this helps! Benea (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...Some of my sources state she was The White Lady (others, Lancashire Witch), given by an admirer to Lillie Langtry, although they allow for a period between her ownership and the RN purchase, so both could be true. More investigation required at this end, methinks.  Yours, Shem (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Davidge Gould
Dear Benea, I've nominated Davidge Gould for the "Did you know". Please see the hook at Template_talk:Did_you_know. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Smaller Royal Navy Warships from 1660
Hi Ben,

Where are we goıng to place the smaller English/British warships of post-1660? The article on Early Englısh warships(pre 1660) ends wıth the remark "For ships-of-the-line of the Royal Navy, successor to the Protectorate Navy after 1660, see List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy", but obviously this gives no clues as to where to locate anything smaller than a Fourth Rate. The article on Frigates of the Royal Navy starts with the first "true" frigates of 1748; I can of course add the single-decked Sixth Rates from 1660 - 1748 at the start of this artıcle (in fact, I plan to do so at some tıme), but where do we insert the Fıfth Rates, and indeed the unrated vessels? Do we count all the Fıfth Rates as "frigates"? Do we have a fresh article for unrated vessels (i.e. smaller than frigates) or do we put them in with "sloops"? In any case, there needs to be some direction within the article on Early English warships to articles on anything smaller than a Fourth Rate. Comments please? Rif Winfield (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm very interesting. Now might be the time to really get to grips with the whole RN categorisation issue as it stands on wikipedia. I'd suggest working up a comprehensive system that we can see if we can apply it to the whole navy over its entire history, and make sure every ship gets a suitable pigeon hole. We're part of the way there already, so it'll be good to see if we can produce an interlocking system that covers the existing gaps. I'll see if I can draw up a basic set of proposals as a starting point, then we can really thrash it out. Shem will probably have some good input as well. I don't foresee any major issues with integrating this with the existing structure, as they should be pretty complementary, but we can widen our consultation if necessary. I might be busy depending on how real life is, but I'll be thinking on it! All the best, Benea (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ben,

Many thanks. Shem agrees (see his user page) that for all pre 1660 vessels we should put them into the article on Early English Warships, and I shall begin with this as it seems logically unassailable. Do not expect this to be done fast as my publisher would be unhappy to see all my lists of 1603 to 1714 ships on Wikipedia before my new book was published next year. We will need to give more thought to Fifth Rates; taking a wide definition of the word `frigate`, I suppose we can put the Fifth Rates there in the `List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy`, but we will need to rewrite the introductory article to explain the change over time in the meaning of the word, and therefore how two deckers find their way in. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems eminently sensible Rif. I agree that an expanded introduction would be very useful in explaining the structure of the following list, and also to give an overview of frigate development over the transitional period. The key thing is to balance accessibility with accuracy, so to structure the lists so that the majority of people will find what they're looking for without having the underlying knowledge of the subtler differences of the ship types. No rush whatsoever, with Shem's help we're already making great progress in filling in the gaps in our coverage! Benea (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ben

I can look at this further upon my return from Istanbul. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly "misinformed" on this issue. Information is correct, accurrate, and unbiased
Hey Man! First of all it's Middim13 not 18. Do some research and go to some of the links to find (the) sources and other links to the Electric Boat Company selling submarines to Britain circa 1900. See: British Naval Architect: Arthur Leopold Busch etc. No offense, but this information is indeed correct. Back in the past I was accussed of "sockpuppetry" but that issue is no longer valid. What I have contributed here is indeed honest and accurate and without bias! I am putting it back in and will continue to do so until it is "approved". I knoe what I am talking about as far as this issue is concerned! Look it Up! Good Day Sir!--Middim13 (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You've been reverted again. Please understand that it is not beholden on me to find sources for your additions, that is your responsibility. I had no idea that you were a sockpuppeter, but I don't see how that is relevant anyway. As I'm sure you're aware if you edit war, you may be blocked. And finally, it doesn't matter how strongly you are convinced of the truth of your statements, you must provide verifiable sources (and other wikipedia pages do not count for these purposes). Feel free to 'look it up', as you put it. Good day indeed, Benea (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy at USS Samar (PG-41)‎
I did see the template on that page, but nonetheless my understanding was that something's being PD doesn't mean we should automatically just copy it. Perhaps G12 was not the right criteria for me to use there, since the article is not so much a copyright violation as just very poor article writing. Is there a better criteria I could use to nominate it?

Or, barring deletion, could I remove the copied content (which, unfortunately, is the entire article), and replace it with a one-paragraph stub and an EL? &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 04:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind about deletion, I see you've been making some improvements to the article so I won't pursue deletion anymore. But I would still like to remove the plagiarized content; even if there's no Wikipedia rule against copying from PD sources, it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  My best proposal is still to remove the content and turn the article into a stub until such time as someone is willing to come along and integrate and cite the DANFS stuff without simply copying it; would that be ok with you?  &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 05:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I responded at my own talk page, since there is another editor who has also been participating in this discussion and I figured he might want to comment as well; the gist is just that I will not remove information from that article and I will let you make the decisions about how to improve that article.  Happy editing, &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 05:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, you were right to be suspicious, but in the end all this article really needs is some thorough copyedits. Best wishes,Benea (talk) 05:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Titanic Task Force
Hey. I want to make a project within WikiProject Ships called, "WikiProject: Titanic Task Force. Can you help me? I already proposed it to the Project proposal page. Toonami Reactor (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC) I created the task force. Check it out. If you want, become a member.WikiProject Ships/RMS Titanic TaskForce Toonami Reactor (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible topic or community ban of Middim13. Thank you. ---MBK004 02:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You did it!

 * I urged Maralia to offer you the original 13 Colonies as a rogue diplomat. This is paltry in comparison. But rock on for your 100 DYKs. Well done. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Gosh, thanks very much both of you! My own little fiefdom seems a very appropriate reward, I'll set about commissioning a real life navy to defend my dominions! :) And my name on the roll of honour, wow! (though I wouldn't mind if I was usurped by a lolcat ;) In the words of Nelson, Palmam qui meruit ferat. Benea (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ship Index pages - more requests
Dear Benea, Me again! Could you please do an Index Page for HMS Attack? Thanks, as always. Yours Shem (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

HMS Investigator
I can't find any sites that tell me about the Fram bit, the Xenophon, or why it was scrapped, so, sorry for the incon. Rory the vandal-fighter (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to worry, I expect paper sources will be more informative anyway. I'd recommend Winfield's 'British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793-1817', and for the details on the Australian part of her career, Flinders' papers, which are at the State Library of New South Wales (though you may be able to find digitised versions), or any of a number of books published on the history of the early exploration of South East Asia and Australasia. But until you can find these sorts of details, and provide sufficient cites for all major points, the article will not satisfy criteria 1 and 2, and will not be able to be promoted to B class. Benea (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about an HMS Orama
First off, congratulations on your 100th DYK! Quite an accomplishment for you. But my question is this: I was doing a quick workover of USS Jacob Jones (DD-61) (which is mostly a straight up copy of DANFS material). It seems that Jacob Jones had rescued quite a few persons from what was called the "cruiser HMS Orama". From uboat.net it seems that Orama was an armed merchant cruiser. Given that, should it be referred to with an HMS in front or just an SS in front? I did notice that Orama is not on the List of ship names of the Royal Navy (O-Q) page, FWIW. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, they just seemed to accumulate and bang, there were 100 of them! The answer is no, she wasn't an HMS, nor were many of the armed merchant cruisers. In common with many small trawlers, these were requisitioned ships that were not fully commissioned into the Navy. The problem of course is that in many cases people automatically slap an HMS prefix onto them without fully investigating the ship's status, and then the problem perpetuates itself. Uboat.net habitually does this, especially with the trawlers/drifters, etc. So not an HMS, but interestingly there are sources that indicate she may have been RMS Orama. Benea (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Captain class frigate
I noticed you undid the use of HMS Kempthorne (K483) on the Captain class frigate article because "use of a fair use image when free alternatives are available violates policy". Can you please point me toward a free image of a fully constructed Captains class frigate because despite years of trying I been unable to find one. As for the picture of USS Evarts (DE-5) which it replaced and to which it has been reverted if you read the talk page you will note I was unhappy with this at the time (because the Royal Navy made several alterations to the ships) as I was unaware that fair use of copyright material is permissible. I've listed my reasons for using it on the Image of HMS Kempthorne (K483) page and at the moment it is my intention to to use the image of HMS Kempthorne in the Captain class article as I believe it is fair use but before I do this I'd thought I would open up a line of discussion. I am am not an expert on copyright law and if I have misunderstood fair use please educate me. Thefrood (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Behold, HMS Balfour. A free use image. Benea (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I understood it all the Imperial War Museum images are subject to Crown copyright (with no provision for free non-profit use), so again this would be fair use as opposed to PD unless they have had a change of policy recently.
 * Nope. Crown copyright expires 50 years after the image was taken. No change of policy, that's how it's always been. The copyright on these Second World War images is clear. Benea (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understood it to be 50 years after the image was first published (and finding first publication dates is very hard (I've tried)). Thefrood (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite, the specific clause relating to CC on photographs on wikipedia is that it is 'created by the United Kingdom Government and taken prior to 1 June 1957'. Benea (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's wikipedia policy, wikipedia servers are not located in the UK and thus not directly subject to UK law I however am situated in the UK and directly subject to UK law and as I understood UK law crown copyright on published images is 50 years after the image was first published and if I were to upload an in image to wikipedia prior to that I would be breaking UK law (and if that is the case thank you for uploading the image of HMS Balfour and thus saving me from a life crime and misery). Thefrood (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, don't mention it. To be honest, the main point I wanted to get across was the difficulty in using the image of the Kempthorne on the general class page. When the subject of the article is that specific ship, and the ship no longer exists, we can make a reasonable claim of fair use. For the Captains class frigate article though, you had a lot of pictures of the ships in question, all free use, just none of them modified. You might have gotten away with it, even at an A class review, but further up the scale and it will almost certainly cause problems. A claim of fair use really only tends to succeed if there is no other picture available to illustrate the subject. The argument could be made that the alterations are not really visible in the fair use photo, and since they are described in the article, the fair use claim is not valid. But I'll keep an eye on you from now on to check you don't break the law or I'll be on the phone to the UK to have you rounded up ;) Is there any other help you'd like with the article? Benea (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair as far as I can tell from a quick glance the picture of HMS Balfour does not show the mods either (a lot of the available images of Captain Class were taken during the working up or on first arrival in UK waters, one sure sign is to look at the aerials, there should be some funny shaped ones near the top of the mast that were used for RDF location of German submarines). As for help nothing specific but all improvements and suggestions welcome. I am also slowly trying to make sure every Captain class ship has its own page so if you feel like doing another like HMS Kempthorne I will not be arguing. Thefrood (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? The photograph of Balfour was taken in mid 1944, she'd been in commission for nearly a year by then. I'll see if I can get around to writing a few more of them. Benea (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did say a quick glance (and it was gone 4:00am local time - a longer glance reveals the crows nest but in common with a lot of wartime photos the RDF aerials are not visible (i.e the photo has been "touched up" to protect what was a state secret, which makes a change from the top of the mast being out of shot). Thefrood (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Convoy article names
Are you happy with the latest proposal here? Your views would be appreciated. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

HMS Pictou
Thanks for correcting my mistakes!

APhilipp29 (talk), Okt. 24th 2008, 09:47 (CET) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC).
 * No problem, the website you used as a source made an understandable mistake, the second Pictou was in commission within a year of the loss of the first, and were similarly rated. Unfortunately they conflated the account of the birth of one, with the demise of the other! Benea (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the records are very confusing. Some researchers going through the records have even suspected that there were three Pictous rather than two. However, I think I have boiled the various references down to two - the first being the former American letter-of-marque Syren (NOT Bonne Foi!), taken by the RN in 1813, purchased (from the Prize Commissioners) on 25 October 1813, and commissioned under Lieut. Edward Stephens; she was captured by the USS Constitution on 14 February 1814, and then burnt. The second was originally the American privateer Pictou, captured by HMS Pyramus on 12 April 1813. She was damaged, and was repaired at Portsmouth in early 1815 before being commissioned as the second HMS Pictou under Lieut. Charles Hare in June 1815. In September 1815 command passed to Lieut. James Morgan, at Cork; she was sold on 13 August 1818. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

HMS White Bear
Ben, another little request for you, as I don't know how to amend footnotes. In the article on List of early warships of the English Navy, footnote 1 says "A ship called White Bear was rebuilt in 1599. Whether it was the same one is not stated. p158 The Ship of the Line Volume I, by Brian Lavery, pub Conways, 1983". Brian Lavery's book omits to say this, but every other significant source (including the official records) confirms that the 1598-99 rebuilding was of the ship built in 1564.

Incidentally, this applies also to several other rebuilt Elizabethan warships - for example the Elizabeth Jonas was built in 1559 and rebuilt in 1597-98, the Triumph was built in 1562 and rebuilt in 1595-96, the Victory (formerly the merchantman Great Christopher, purchased in 1560) was rebuilt in 1586 (and was subsequently intended for rebuilding again in 1608, but was instead replaced by a new ship when became the Prince Royal of 1610), the Ark Royal was built in 1587 and rebuilt in 1608 (being renamed Anne Royal), and the Merhonour was built in 1590 and rebuilt in 1615. This is quoting just the "Ships Royal" (which became the First Rank category) - most of the "Great Ships" (Second Rank) and smaller galleons were similar rebuildings. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know Rif, I've replaced the ref with a note from Colledge, who describes the White Bear in a single entry, including the 1599 rebuild. Anything more I can do, just drop me a line. Benea (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged. You will have noted that I have already included the Fifth and Sixth Rates built for the English Commonwealth; it will take time to insert the scores of prizes and purchased vessels, and frankly I'm going to take my time over that - I ought to get the new volume issued (and sold) first - "British Warships in the Age of Sail: 1603 - 1714" will of course detail the histories and characteristics of all of them. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Capture of the Jeune Richard
I just verified your DYK hook for that article. I wanted to point out on the side that it looks like the article rely heavily (but not entirely) on one source; if you can add a few more footnotes from the other sources you have listed at the bottom (especially from the one that is online...even adding extra refs to information already referenced would be nice, since the online one is something readers can check out easily) that would be great. It's not necessary, and the DYK hook has already been verified, but I thought I'd just mention it anyway. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 00:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at it tomorrow. Most of the sources are in fact pretty similar in what they say, all are based on Rogers' letters (and Cochrane's covering notes), and many are reprints of the same article(s). I'll scatter a few more about though to strengthen the impression though. Benea (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just wanted to say that was a really interesting little article. Great job. -- PEPSI2786 talk 05:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK
Hi Benea. For the "Who's Nailin' Paylin?" DYK nom, you wrote "Not too long ago there was a rather serious issue over the appearance of a DYK nom on the main page that was judged by some to be of questionable taste. That eventually resulted in Jimbo getting involved, a desysopping and a lot of bad feeling." In my view, what ultimately gets onto the DYK section of the Main Page is based on Administrators and not DYK rules. Based on this, I green lighted "Who's Nailin' Paylin?" since DYKs function is not to WP:NOTCENSORED Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct likely will keep the article off the Main Page, making (almost) everyone happy. It would help me out a lot to read over the discussions concerning the DYK nom mentioned in your post. Would you provide me a diff or two connected to those prior DYK discussions, including the one concerning the desysopping. Thanks. -- Suntag  ☼  02:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I actually passed the Who's Nailin' Paylin? hook with a check symbol and also used a ? symbol to indicate that there still are unresolved issues. Once it was placed in the expired noms category, I removed it. This all complied with WP:NOTCENSORED. On reviewing the linked desysopping, that DYK nom had several problems. First, an ALT1 nom was proposed without any rejection of the original nom. That is just not done, mostly because it is rude to the original nominator. Second, that ALT1 never received a check symbol, which is the first of two main approvals needed before DYK lists something on the main page. The second approval is the admin who actually places the hook on the main page, and both approvals are how DYK remains accountable for what appears on the Main Page. If something is wrong with a Main Page DYK hook, DYK, the listing admin, the person adding the check symbol, the hook nominator, and/or the article creator/expander usually are invited to participate in a discussion on the DYK talk page to see if DYK can improve in the future. In any event, I revised step 3 and step 4 of How a DYK suggestion makes its way to the Main Page to make this clearer. -- Suntag  ☼  16:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Both are done and are done routinely in my experience. A few days ago you yourself suggested an alternate nom for my Charles Cunningham article, without rejecting the original if you recall! And quite often an admin in need of a quick update will check an expiring nom and clear it to their satisfaction, posting it to the next update without adding a check symbol. That was an issue over what Bedford did (he promoted his own nom, and it wasn't checked before then by anyone else), but it was not necessarily unusual for a hook to go up on the strength of just the clearing admin checking it. But I'm confused, are you saying that the nature of the hook was secondary to these issues? I understand that the guidelines are describing an idealised situation, but of course you realise that there are times when DYK doesn't run like that, hooks go unchecked for ages then everything is done in a rush before they expire. In this case there was an external issue with the DYK article (similar to if the sourcing was suspect, BLP violations, etc) and that negated a main page showing. The relationship between NOTCENSORED and the use of the main page is undefined and could do with being defined, but the current modus operandi is that controversial material is (for now at least) not displayed there. When it snuck through that time, there was a long and drawn out conflict over it, which I don't think anyone wants to see again. Let there be a thorough, wide-ranging debate that produces a clear policy one way or the other, but until then consensus on the talkpage of DYK will have to suffice in deciding whether a hook is acceptable or not. Benea (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

HMS Abelard
Hello

Your edit. First - you have sources about that one ship that isn`t HMS ? And second - if you deleting page probably you should also change discussion? PMG (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * J.J. Colledge's Ships of the Royal Navy, that Abelard is not listed, (though the cancelled submarine is). Interestingly she's also not in Janes' Fighting Ships of World War I, which throws the net out wider to include some of the non-commissioned naval auxiliaries. The internet sources (a couple of diving ones) seem to have fallen into the usual trap of assuming any British naval ship is an 'HMS', many of the requisitioned trawlers and drifters that were pressed into service as auxiliary minesweepers/anti-submarine vessels were naval reserve craft. HMT (His Majesty's Trawler...) would presumably be the more accurate prefix to use here. I've tagged it as a redirect now. Benea (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for help. I translate that diambig to polish wikipedia and now probably must translate that article about submarine class. Well - its not a first time. PMG (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cleanup
Thanks for the date and formatting cleanup on John Adams (rear admiral) and congratulations on your 100th DYK. Thanks again for the assistance in bringing this article up to snuff. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, nice to see another article on a RN admiral! Lovely little aside about the 'Adventure of Charlie the Cone' as well! Benea (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Maritime disasters
I think there is a software issue. It looked very difficult to solve, and I thought it was better to try to move things around. As for an all out attack on my "style": could we not leave that til later? It is easier to say "don't do this and that", than to actually solve the problem. Wallie (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on user's talkpage. But Wallie, I did solve all your problems, before you mass reverted them...hence my concern that you were unaware of these basic style issues. In short I wasn't aware you were carrying out those reverts in an attempt to fix the software problem, I thought you hadn't understood the reason for my edits. I've suggested a potential fix, but it seems like the problem is in your browser. Benea (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is all very clear now. You were correct. The problem was with my browser. I could not see any changes in the history since yesterday!!. They all came back when I did the refresh as you said. I also read your comments about reverting dates, etc. on the history. Prior to the refresh, I could not see any this! I think everyone must have thought I was cracking up. It was just that I did not even know what you were doing, as my computer didn't show me. When you mentioned style, etc, I really didn't know what you were talking about. We were actually looking at two completly different worlds. What a laugh! Wallie (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the wonderful world of wikipedia for you! People usually have enough trouble getting on, without computer problems adding to the fun! Glad we got that one sorted out, and happy editing! Benea (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ship Indices Request
Dear Benea, Would you mind taking on a few more Ship Index Pages in slow time? I'm thinking particularly of HMS Lark (some ships missing), HMS Sybille, HMS Nankin (I imagine only one ship), HMS Coromandel (needs some work) and HMS Encounter. Yours, as always, Shem (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your speed amazes me every time! May I add HMS Miranda to the ever-expanding list? Yours, Shem (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha, I clearly have too much free time on my hands (or rather that I prefer to be distracted by wikipedia :) HMS Coromandel was a good illustration of the danger of trying to piece a shiplist together out of various sources! Just the one HMS Nankin as you thought, the 50-gun fourth rate. I'll pop off the others now. pip pip, Benea (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sir, it always a pleasure doing business with you! A very minor one now: how is it that on the HMS Discovery index, the 1879 ship is listed as having taken part in the 1875 expedition? Hmmm... Benyon has the same date, but Davis has 1874 as the purchase date. What I really need is a copy of Colledge!  Yours aye, Shem (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well spotted! I missed it the first time when I went through adding the templates and the missing ships, I seem to have added the correct date of purchase, but left the wrong link in when I replaced the piped link with the template. The editor that added the link originally may have been using Benyon as his guide, but Davis has it right. Purchased in 1874 (5 December to be exact), and so around for Nares' expedition, without requiring the use of time travel! Benea (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright issues on ships
I see that you have some concern over the Cap Arcona picture of it sinking, and think it may be copyright. I hope it can be "saved" (the picture I mean). Anyway, you are correct to check out the copyright. Wallie (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

British cruiser question
A question for you who are wise in the ways of Colledge. In Conway's … 1906–1921, four British cruisers—HMS Amethyst (1903), HMS Diamond (1904), HMS Topaze (1903), and HMS Sapphire (1904)—are listed as the "Gem class". I was looking at the respective dab pages for a class link and saw that three of the ships referred to the grouping as the Topaze-class cruiser class while one index page, HMS Diamond, had it listed as the Gem-class cruiser. Since both potential names are redlinks, I changed the link on the Diamond set index page to match the others. So, two questions: Is Conway's right in listing the four of them as a class? And is that class known as the Topaze class in Colledge (or other reputable sources)? Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting... They are indeed all of the same class. As to the name - Colledge doesn't list a specific class name for them, just refers to them as third class cruisers. It's one of those instances where unofficial names crop up, and the standardised names only come about by being the most prevalent version. But most ship classes that have a name after a shared characteristic rather than a lead ship tend to be considerably larger. (the Flowers, or even the Tribals perhaps...). It would be unusual for a four ship class to follow that trend (though this is only a very rough rule of thumb). Jane's uses Topaze class, as does R. A. Burt's 'British Cruisers in World War One', and this version crops up several times in contemporary publications. But it's certainly not unusual to see Gem class either. I'd suggest settling for Topaze class, setting up a redirect from Gem class, and then a note in the article when it's written, pointing out that Gem is considered an alternative class name. Hope this helps, Benea (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I just wanted to know if Topaze was a reliably sourced class name at least somewhere since I'd made the change at HMS Diamond. I'm working on expanding SM U-4 and a source reports U-4's unsuccessful attack on a "British Diamond type cruiser" (to make things even more confusing!). I probably won't be writing an article on the class, but agree with your assessment as to redirects and article titles and the like. Thanks for your help. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. Topaze was definitely the lead ship of the class, being laid down in August 1902 (the other three were not started until 1903). Diamond was actually one of the second pair, ordered under the 1903 Programme. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to ship index articles
Did you know that User:Bellhalla appears to be changing the ship index pages to show the disambiguation data - like this. I thought the format had been agreed. Maybe I've missed something. Shame to have him working at cross purposes to you, if that's what's happening. Yours Shem (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm he's not wrong to be honest, last talk we had on this was yonks ago on wp:ships. We (those few who participated) vaguely agreed that the dab information was perhaps mildly misleading, and there were potential issues over the thorny issue of pennant numbers/dates, and what the date meant (launch/capture/purchase/transferral, etc). Since they would be explained clearly in the accompanying entry, it seemed that the dab information could be concealed (as is usually indicated by our MOS), and since they were not dab pages, we could set our own guidelines independent of theirs. Trouble is, nothing was ever finalised and the conventions were never altered. I prefer the concealed version for a number of reasons, and that's how I've always done them. There are pros and cons on both sides though, perhaps this issue should be raised again then. Benea (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, if there's any troublemaking on my part ;). I've always followed the general dab page guidelines as far as linking to the disambiguated article (i.e. show all of the disambiguation) and was not aware of the consensus mentioned. I'll hold off on doing more changes. By the way, I'm not actively seeking out index pages to change; I've just been changing them as I come across them, usually when I'm trying to find which particular ship to link to when writing. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Benea & Bellhalla, I'm sure there is no "troublemaking" going on! I'd hate to see unnecessary work from anybody - there are an awful lot of ship index pages out there!  I have to say, I prefer the disambiguation data hidden, but I'm not sure it's all that important.  Yours, Shem (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:KronprinzWilhelmPostcard.jpg
I noticed that the Image:SS Barbarossa.jpg was nearly the same as the Image:KronprinzWilhelmPostcard.jpg, so I upload the Image:SS Barbarossa.jpg. The Image:KronprinzWilhelmPostcard.jpg was tagged Template:PD-USN, so I tagged Image:SS Barbarossa.jpg the same. Aquitania (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah I see... The two postcards aren't US Navy products, but seem to have come into the US Navy archives because they served for a brief part of their careers as US Navy ships. The archives therefore have probably acquired the images in order to illustrate them. The original uploader probably took as their rule of thumb the many images also from the Navy archives that were pictures taken as an official record by US sailors, and therefore are correctly pd-US, and applied the same license. Some more investigation reveals that it is reasonable to assume they are pd because of their age anyway, so they can be kept. Benea (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
I seem to be doing this a lot lately, but I have to apologise for the edits of my colleagues. As you can see on the talk page, this IP is used by many employees, many of whom vandalise to pass the time at work. We aren't all like this, however it's a hard practice to stop. Sorry again for the inconvenience. 202.12.233.23 (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, but you may find getting an account a helpful alternative to getting messages that aren't for you, and may save you from being affected by blocks, if it comes to that. Vandalism is an annoyance, but it is often quickly reverted, so you could tell your colleagues that it wastes more of their time than it does that of the project! ttfn, Benea (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting statistic
Not sure if you watch WT:DYK... if not, thought you might be interested to note that the your DYK for scuttling the German fleet got something like 22,300 hits...  Cheers. H aus Talk 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Gosh, that's rather impressive! I had no idea it would be so popular. Thanks for letting me know. Benea (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

HMS Merhonour (1590)
Ben, do you think you could do a rewrite on the entry for the Merhonour please, as it's very inaccurate? It requires changing the title date in the original article, listed as Merhonour in (1612), which I don't know how to do. You might need to do some consequential alteration to the separate article on Early English warships, as well.

It is simply untrue to say her original building date was unknown; she was built in 1590 at Woolwich Dockyard by the Master Shipwright Matthew Baker. The dimensions quoted in the existing article are also wrong. Her original dimensions were 100ft keel length x 37ft breadth x 17ft depth, and she carried 39 principal guns (4 demi-cannon, 15 culverins, 16 demi-culverins and 4 sakers) plus 2 smaller, and had (1603) 400 men. As rebuilt at Woolwich (by Phineas Pett) from 10 January 1612 (when docked to rebuild) to 6 March 1615 (when re-launched), she measured 112ft keel length x 38ft 7in breadth x 16ft 5in depth, and she carried (1624) 40 principal guns (2 cannon periers, 6 demi-cannon, 12 culverins, 12 demi-culverins and 8 sakers) plus 4 smaller, and had still 400 men. Her post-rebuilding history was quite limited. She was laid up in reserve at Chatham in April 1615 after completion, and was only commissioned briefly between 1634 and 1636, after which she was again laid up untiul sold in 1650.

My new volume in the series on British warships ("British Warships in the Age of Sail: 1603-1714") is well on track for publication in a year's time. Many thanks. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah well spotted! I wonder if you can give me the details of your book and a page reference, so I can include it in the article, to explain where the different figures come from? Benea (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

British Warships in the Age of Sail: 1603-1714 will be published by Seaforth Publishing in 2009. However, there is as yet so ISBN number and page numbers await a final layout and printing.

Another early vessel which needs a fresh page is the Elizabeth Jonas. I have amended the entry in the disambiguation for "HMS Elizabeth" which alleged that the Elizabeth Jonas was renamed Elizabeth when she was rebuilt - this is simply untrue, and the ship was always Elizabeth Jonas. Finally (for the moment) please note I have correcetd the entry under HMS Triumph where it was falsely alleged that a "twin" was built for her at the time of her rebuilding in the late 1590s; this is pure fiction. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I wondered if that might be the case. Not a problem for now, we can fill in the details when they become available. The story of the Triumph's sister ship is unsourced, and could probably be removed completely. It's not a story I've seen anywhere before and is possibly just some very old vandalism, unless you know of where this erroneous story has been reported? Talk:HMS Triumph (1562) has a few queries on it by the way, you may be able to elucidate some of them if you have the time. Colledge has Elizabeth Jonas as renamed Elizabeth in 1598, so this is presumably an error on his part? Benea (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to see the reference to an alleged "sister ship" to the Triumph removed entirely - I've never seen any reference to this anywhere else (most importantly, it is not even suggested in the State Papers - the official records during the Tudor Age of what new construction was being planned), and I agree it might simply have been added as an act of vandalism. Certainly no such vessel was built. I will go onto the talk-page you give a link to.

As regards Elizabeth Jonas, it was not unknown for some of these vessels with two-word names to have their name abbreviated in some records, simply for speed (e.g. the Red Lion will be quoted in various places as simply Lion). It didn't mean a formal renaming. And in fact, the 1618 Commission report refers to the need to take the Elizabeth Jonas to pieces, so she was definitely still called officially by the full name right up to her demise. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Empire Ability
Hi, just noticed your edit summary on HMS Ark Royal (91). I was wondering why the internet source isn't a reliable source? Seems to meet WP:RS to me!

Anyway, have a look at WT:SHIPS, looks like you will be able to assist with this! Mjroots (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Featured articles have to be very careful what sources they use, and internet sources need to be checked particularly carefully. Ideally it should be passed by the Reliable Sources noticeboard, but in this instance the information is available in the book I replaced the cite with. I'm not saying that it's not a reliable source, but in this case it's easier and safer to reference it to this book, in the off chance that the website's reliability might be challenged in the future. Not an issue really with normal articles, but FAs are held to the highest standards. Benea (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting (and large!) project! Baggsies Empire Ability! Benea (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but probably better at SS Uhenfels as served longer under that name. Mjroots (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Benea
Thanks Benea that you edited Nanikhir High School. For few days I Have tried try to make Nanikhir High School's infobox. But completed this today. Thank you. Hasanuzzaman (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, formatting issues in infoboxes are usually quite tricky to track down. It's usually a good idea to be very careful that you've correctly formatted all your fields (such as adding two square brackets when you want a link), as missing something simple can throw the whole thing out. Happy editing, Benea (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

HMS Discovery (1874) - a plea for help
Dear Benea, I'm working on Discovery (at one of my workboxes), but having tried all the usual suspects (paper and web) I cannot find anything at all about what she did between 1876 and 1902! Any ideas where else I should be looking? Yours, Shem (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm you've got a veritable black hole of information there! Searches are also hampered by the other famous Discoverys... I can't find anything immediately to hand, the Public Record Office is probably your next port of call. User:David Underdown appears to have considerable access to the archives (it'll cost you otherwise!) so you might see if he's willing and able to dig anything up... Rif might have come across something in putting his books together, so he might also be able to shed some light on those missing years... Sorry I can't be more helpful :( Benea (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you've been very helpful - I can't imagine why I didn't just ask Rif in the first place. I think I simply assumed that the contents of The Sail and Steam Navy List marked the limit of his knowledge, although I know as well as you that he's an authority in his own right!   How age catches up on one! David Underdown may be a refuge of last resort; after all, it is hardly a FA. Yours, Shem (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Rif came up with the goods - and I can cover 25 years in a single line - she was a storeship in Portsmouth from 1880 to 1902. Thanks for the pointer, Shem (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it must be something like that, laid up somewhere quietly. Wise after the event though! Benea (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Research source
Are you aware of this source? Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am. Good isn't it. Benea (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

HMS Assistance
Dear Benea, could you check that there was only one HMS Assistance for me? Thanks, Shem (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC) - oh, and HMS Plover is crying out for a ship index page, yours, as ever, Shem (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Me again. More, I'm afraid - HMS Intrepid needs some work. Yours, Shem (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have been more wrong about Assistance! Thanks, Shem (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, I was surprised myself when I turned to the entry and it went on and on! :) I'd also been meaning to look at Intrepid for a while too. Benea (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

HMS Furnace?
Dear Benea, when you get a chance could you please look in Colledge and check how many Furnaces there were? I'm looking at HMS Furnace (1719), and would be grateful for a ship index page if more than one ship existed. Thanks, Shem (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a coincidence, I'd just finished working over another bomb vessel/fireship page, HMS Vesuvius. Only four Furnaces though compared to 12, 13 or 14 (depending how you count) of Vesuvius. Benea (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Curiously though, your 1719 vessel doesn't seem to be among them..., unless it's the first one? Benea (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't now see where I got the date 1719 from. My ship is probably the second one - Christopher Middleton (navigator) took Furnace and Discovery to the Arctic in 1741 (he was commissioned into the RN to do so, having previously worked for the Hudson's Bay Company). I'll need to do some more digging, but I'm very grateful for the ship index page.  Yours, Shem (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no Furnace of 1719. The first ship of this name was launched in 1695 and lasted until 1725. The second one was the ship of 1740, and this was the one commanded by Middleton from March 1741 on his voyage in search of the North West Passage. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a star

 * Gosh thanks! I thought the whole thing needed a kick in the right direction, and since I had some material to hand, I'd thought I'd nudge it on to DYK glory. I wasn't expecting anything like this though, but it's always nice to receive a mark of appreciation! ttfn, Benea (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And a thank you from me, as well, I wrote the bulk of The Bronze Horseman (poem). I don't know how much of a Pushkin fan you are, but you might be interested in a couple of other articles I've been working on: The Gypsies (poem) and Poltava (poem). I want to make Wikipedia into a top reference source for all things Pushkin! Zorba the Geek (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. I don't tend to work much in the field of literary criticism, though I am indeed a Pushkin fan. I've some background in late tsarist and Soviet culture, so I might look more into Pushkin related articles as I go on. Good work yourself on some pretty thorough overhauls, long may it continue! I feel a bit of a fraud to be honest, my contribution to the article was very minor compared to yours! Benea (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Provence II
Thanks Benea, I found about a half-dozen sites listing casualty figures from 930 to 1,000. The original entry had me concerned and I was considering changing it. Shinerunner (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that Marshall account really seems to come out of nowhere. The original source used in the article seems to have been given a lot of leeway, Halpern was quoted, but he was being used to footnote a statement completely contradictory to what he had written! It'd be good to go through the maritime disaster article at some point and add footnotes for all the listings, but I haven't really had the time to do more than dip in. Good work though, it's developing nicely! Benea (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Royal George
Hi, you removed Royal George, Tasmania from the DAB page for HMS Royal George. However Royal George redirect there, so anyone looking for the village in Tasmania will get to that page. There is a couple of ways to go: change the redirect for Royal George, add a hat note, or restore the Royal George, Tasmania. The last seems best to me, but what do you think? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the Royal George, Tasmania link to a see also section. By putting it in the list of HMS Royal Georges, with no differentiation, it seemed to imply there was a connection between the village and the Royal Navy. Is this ok? Benea (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds OK to me! There probably is a connection to do with how it was named though unknown at this point. Thanks Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Haddock
Ben, Richard Haddock definitely commanded the Dragon from 1656 to 1660 (see list in Roger ("R.C.")Anderson's List of English Naval Captains 1642-1660 (SNR Occasional Publications No.8, 1964). Although he seems to have had no service from 1660 to 1666, during the Second Dutch War he took command of the Portland on 14 June 1666, staying with her until 9 November 1667. He commanded the Royal James from 18 January 1672 until 28 May 1672, the Lyon from 7 November 1672 until 1 February 1673, the Royal Charles from 2 February 1673 to 4 June 1673 and the Royal Sovereign from 5 June 1673 to 30 June 1673. Subsequently he was given command of the Duke (while he was appointed on 1st June 1673, records show he actually took command on 3 June, and only remained with her until 21 June - a total of 19 days. All these 1666-1782 dates are in the record of Pay Books for Naval Officers 1660-1685 (ADM 10/15). I shall leave the article's amendment to you. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Friedrich Guggenberger.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Friedrich Guggenberger.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

HMS Hind
Ben, would you be kind enough to put in a disambiguation page for HMS Hind please? I was today amending the page for Thomas Cochrane, and noticed that th cross-reference to HMS Hind would not link. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, any more feel free to ask. Benea (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! Rif Winfield (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Princess Sophia (steamer)
Benea, I thought that this article might be a good nominee for DYK. However, I must admit that I'm lost in the listing procedure instructions. Shinerunner (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They can be a bit confusing, especially as they seem to have ramped up the procedure recently! It seems perfectly eligible, I've added a nomination (I've added an inline cite and clarified the actual article a little to fit) so it should pass without trouble, though I'll keep an eye on it. A good article overall! Benea (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the assistance. After I added the infobox and found the orphaned ship image the article took off. Shinerunner (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I whacked together the most recent iteration, I've had my eye on this article for a long time and thought that a good article could be written about this ship. There is a lot of material in books and on various websites which is just wrong.  As a result there's a lot of misunderstanding, which I hope the timeline at the end of the article will help clear up.


 * Particularly telling is the fact that captain of the Estebeth, one of the first rescue vessels, thought an evacuation could have been done on the morning of the 24th, and was so desperate to save the people that he ignored Captain Locke's directions and tried to bring at least some of the people off himself in a skiff from his own vessel. Whatever legal deference might be given to Locke's decision, it was clearly a mistake and it was I think perceived as such at the scene on the 24th.   Also telling was that 45 years later, captain Ledbetter of Cedar was careful to limit his description of sea conditions to what he saw when he arrived at 2000 on October 24, when other rescue ships had arrived 10 or 11 hours earlier.Mtsmallwood (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

WWI Q-ship designation?
I have a question for you, O guru of the Royal Navy. German submarine SM U-68 was sunk by Q-5, the Q-Ship posing as Farnborough. It's identified as "HMS Farnborough" in the U-68 article, but was in actuality a tramp steamer named Lodorer. Is HMS a proper designation for a Q-ship? — Bellhalla (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Careful, my head will soon get too big to fit through the door! :) No Farnborough is listed in Colledge, while her commander, Gordon Campbell (Royal Navy officer) refers to her as SS Farnborough in his memoirs 'My Mystery Ships'. A number of Q-ships can be legitimately referred to as HMS (a number of the Flower class sloops were commissioned warships that served for a time as Q-ships) but perhaps safer to refer to Farnborough by a civilian designation. Benea (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

RMS Aurania
Hi. Ok, I'm curious - why is this not a dab page ? According to WP:DAB, Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. I can see that it's a list of ships, but considering that 'RMS Aurania' could refer to any of one of three ships, why is it not a dab page as well ? (Just curious for future use !) :-) CultureDrone (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's down to the difference between dab pages and WP:SETINDEX. The ship list does have a disambiguation feature, in that it can direct readers searching for a specific ship to that article, but the lists are primarily written for information. The key difference is that it frees these pages from the more restrictive guidelines of dab pages, and are instead managed by a project specific set of guidelines. Hope this is of help. Benea (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

List of maritime disasters
Hi Benea, I have a discussion going on with another editor and we need other opionions. If you have a chance could you take a look? Shinerunner (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Benea, I've been working on a solution on listing the entries based on your suggestions. With some help I came up with an expandable template that I borrowed from the television episode pages. It's at my sandbox page User:Shinerunner/Sandbox2 and I'd like to get your opinion on it so far. Shinerunner (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

HMT vs HMS
Would appreciate if you could join a conversation here. At issue is the distinction between commissioned vs non-commissioned ships as pertains to the RN, and consequently the use of the HMT prefix vs HMS. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I haven't got back about this, but don't worry I'm not ignoring it :). I've put out some feelers and I'm awaiting some more refs. Benea (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Take your time, of course; it is the holidays, after all :) Currently HMT is a disambig page that routes people to naval trawler with a piped link masking it as "His/Her Majesty's Trawler"; I'm sure we could do better. Maralia (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

HMS Centurion and HMS Yarmouth
Hi, Ben. I've replied on my talk page - which kindly see - to your query about the Centurion, and asked you to amend the launch years (in the articles' titles) for both her and the Yarmouth, as well as editing the disambiguation pages and the dates in List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

HMS Gladiolus (K34)
I’ve expanded your expansion of this article; perhaps you’d have a look at it to see if you are OK with it? I noticed this was a bit thin when I did SC 48, but its taken a while to get the information together...Same old story! Xyl 54 (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Burford Class 70-gun ships
Actually, these were 68-gun ships rather than 70-gun. But in any case, can you kindly alter the Burford Class entry, for which I have inserted the relevent dates? Many thanks! Rif Winfield (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)