User talk:Benea/archive6

Ship Index request
Dear Benea, could you create a Ship Index page for HMS Goshawk? Thanks in advance, Shem (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

HMS Cicero (F170)
HMS Cicero was launced as Cape St Vincent. She was built at the same yard as Cape Argos, which was a Type C1 ship. Was Cape St Vincent also a Type C1 ship? Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a C-1-S-AY1 type to be exact. The designation was applied to 13 ships built for the USMC as variants of the C-1 type by CSC of Wilmington, and transferred to Britain as infantry landing ships. These ships were the ex-Capes Argos, St Vincent, Berkeley, Marshall, Washington, Compass, Cormorin, Gregory, Lobos, Pine, St Roque, Turner and Giradeau. They became the Empires Anvil, Arquebus, Battleaxe, Broadsword, Crossbow, Cutlass, Gauntlet, Halberd, Javelin, Lance, Mace, Rapier and Spearhead when transferred to the MOWT. Broadsword and Javelin were sunk, the survivors were later commissioned into the RN, in many cases reusing names previously allocated to the First World War era 24 class sloops. Anvil became HMS Rocksand, Arquebus HMS Cicero, Battleaxe HMS Donovan, Crossbow HMS Sainfoin, Cutlass HMS Sansovino, Gauntlet HMS Sefton, Halberd HMS Silvio, Lance HMS Sir Hugo, Mace HMS Galtee More and Spearhead HMS Ormonde. Rapier was to have been given the name Sir Visto, but this was not subsequently carried out. Benea (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback?
Hi there Benea, just noticed on Nelson's page that you don't have rollback rights? Do you want them so you can revert those pesky vandals that little bit quicker? If you do, just leave a note on my talkpage. Best regards. Woody (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, make sure you have read all the rules on WP:ROLLBACK: basically use your judgement. If it isn't blatant vandalism then don't use rollback, other than that, not much to it. :) If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks awfully! Best wishes, Benea (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nelson
i've left a note on talk page. When adding refs suggest you use style already in article, well done on adding them all btw, I'll try and help you getting it to FA if I can, Tom B (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I added them both ways, previously the very few cites the article had were mostly unformatted as I recall. I changed from one style to another halfway through because another article I was working up to FA at the time, HMS Ark Royal (91), used the cite template, and I assumed that was a preferred style. I had meant to go back through and change them all to use the template, but since you've changed them all to not use it, and since there is no one preferred over the other, then I have no issue with it. Benea (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Benea, the Nelson article has about 11,000 words of readable prose, this might need to be cut. also legacy section is short: i know someone said to move it off into another section during the peer review but the reduction seems to have gone too far, i'm sure it needs a longer summary, Tom B (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather it not be. Length is not an issue as long as it remains focussed, we're still 15kb behind Donald Bradman. What specifically would you want to include from the legacy article? Benea (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't looked for anything specific yet. I'm guessing the main things would normally be impact on naval tactics though understand his weren't used much after his death. Impact it had on strategic naval situation is mentioned elsewhere. Basically a few lines to summarise legacy section seems too small, could have a little detail on Nelson's column.  Bradman is big because of its references, the main stat people look at is readable prose size which for Bradman is 9,000 words. Nelson is a relatively major ('high') biographical figure so can justify a high length. I've just read it all through and it does remain focussed. Fac is 14,000 words and someone's noted it as long but people haven't said it's too long yet. Tom B (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Benea, wondered why you deleted school material? thought it seemed quite interesting, Tom B (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The significance of his school friends was brought up in the review. While Sugden does make a glancing mention of Hansen and another of Nelson's school day friends, he doesn't really feature in Nelson's life. There are hundreds of minor personalities who feature in Nelson's story who played a more significant role in his life, and there is also the issue of just how close Hansen and Nelson were, or was Hansen trying to capitalise on an old acquaintance with England's premier naval hero. I agree it's interesting, but I think it borders on the trivial in an already long biography. Benea (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand, fair enough. btw notes, refs don't count towards readable prose size though given how long some of the articles out there are hopefully length won't be an issue here. Tom B (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Grangemouth Dockyard Company
--Dravecky (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for SS Empire Arthur
--Dravecky (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for SS Empire Clansman
--Dravecky (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting picture links in my User namespace
Hi, you deleted a gallery of a couple characters from futurama, which I created at User:Petree/Futurama Characters as a demonstration of an alternate layout for the first section of Futurama Characters. Although your reasoning seems plain "removing wp:fairuse images, that can't be used on userpages/subpages like these" it would've been nice if you included a link to where this guideline was defined in ( Non-free content criteria exemptions ) I did a lot of searching before I found that stub. Not until I read that Wikipedia only allowed fair-use claims in the article namespace did I realize this wasn't about Fair-Use, but instead making sure use was in line with wikipedia's own guidelines for use of commercial images (intentionally narrower than rights granted under Fair Use).

Do you have suggestions of where I should create alternate layout suggestions for an article? I'd like to be able to link to multiple layout consideration on an article's talk page, but don't think the talk page is particularly appropriate location to duplicate multiple layouts of main article content. I may take it up on Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content_criteria_exemptions but thought you might have a suggestion of where I might be able to actually create a layout including FU images that wasn't ready to be published as a full article. Petree (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Acasta page
Hi,

Apologies for mis-understanding the ship set index, and thanks for pointing me to the right guidelines. I've made a couple minor changes - per WikiProject Ships/Guidelines, I've made the year/hull(/pennant?) numbers visible, changed the word "scrapping" to "scrap", adjusted a couple links (i.e. A class destroyer instead of A class destroyer and some other minor ones) and added a google books link to the appropriate page in Colledge. Understanding that the set index pages aren't bound by MOS:DAB, what are the conventions on links per line? For a DAB page, I'd usually have one link per line with the understanding that the necessary level of detail is found in the main articles (MOS:DAB states that the reason is to simplify choices for the reader on what page to go to); the example at the ship index pages also has one link per line, but is not specific. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. The guidelines are probably due for a revamping and further discussion at some point anyway. As to the number of links per line, there's no limit as long as the general guidelines for links are followed, i.e. only relevant ones, and don't repeat them. So if one HMS Acasta was a fifth rate frigate, you could link both 'fifth rate' and 'frigate', but if the following Acasta was also a fifth rate frigate, the terms would stay unlinked. The way the pages are set out to include only specific types of information, there should usually only be a need to link the ship class name and type, or similar, after the specific ship link. However if more information is deemed appropriate, then they can be linked as well, as with how one of the Acasta entries links to the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Benea (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. When you do re-vamp the guidelines, a note about "no limit to links per line" might be good because of the overlap with MOS:DAB that specifies one link per line (I think anyway, but I'm a huge fan of overly-explicit guidelines).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Benea, it is your volume number again. Jappalang (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Trafalgar
it's staggeringly only at start because it only has 12 inline citations so any you can add to get it up to B would be very cool, cheers Tom B (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ship Indices request
Dear Benea Would you mind having a quick look in Colledge for HM Ships Derwent, Eden, Waveney, Doon, Kale, Stour and Test? It seems rather a long list, but then I have been rather quiet for a while! All the best, Shem (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, good to see you about again! Done most of them, the River class destroyers Doon and Stour are the only ones listed for those names, aside for some requisitioned wartime trawlers, so you can probably handle them with a redirect, at least for now ;) Feel free to ask for more anytime, and keep up the good work! ttfn, Benea (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

HMS Test

 * Your new article on the above states that the second ship was broken up in two different years? Is this an error? Paste  Let’s have a chat. 18:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, my mistake, I copied and pasted the basic structure from HMS Waveney, but accidentally left that date in after reworking it for the Tests. Thanks for pointing that out! Benea (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, keep up the great work! Regards Paste  Let’s have a chat. 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Snape Douglas
Fabulous job expanding and cleaning this up! I just cobbled together something quickly from what I could find on the web, but now it looks great - you obviously have good references on-hand and know your stuff. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, and thanks for giving me the impetus to finally tackle him (he's been on my list a while!) I'll try and work in more details and sources over the next few days. Benea (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Allin
Ben, thanks for clearing up the Royal Sovereign connection. Could you kindly put in the outline of an article on Adm. Sir Thomas Allin, which I can then expand? I'm sure you have basic details for him. Don't forget to include in the references the two volumes of The Journals of Sir Thomas Allin 1660-1678 edited by R.C. (Roger Charles) Anderson and published by the Navy Records Society in 1939 (vol.1) and 1940 (vol.2). Thanks. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've worked up an article at Sir Thomas Allin, 1st Baronet, feel free to add to it. One thing that's come across my radar is that he was apparently MP for Dunwich between 1678 and February 1679, a fact I'm currently unable to confirm through the sources I have to hand. Perhaps you can clarify this? ttfn, Benea (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, Ben! I shall see if I can add to the article, although it seems very comprehensive. Perhaps I can add to his service history; His appointment to the St Andrew was on 15 April 1664, not 1663. From the St Andrew he was transfered back to the Plymouth on 26 June 1664, then to the Old James 16 June 1665, then to the Royal James 19 July 1665 - staying with the latter until 7 December 1666. On 18 October 1667 he was appointed to the Monmouth, with which he remained until 30 April 1669. His last ship was the later Royal James, from 25 March to 28 August 1678. I cannot confirm whether he was an MP yet - the List of Commissioned Sea Officers 1660-1815, which normally mentions every officer elected to a Parliamenmtary seat, doesn't give this. I shall look in the multi-volume History of Parliament next time I'm in the National Library of Aberystwyth, but it may be some time. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Sir Charles Knowles, 2nd Baronet
Shubinator (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Churchill and Dresden
There is a body of evidence in the main article which clearly shows that Churchill organized and ordered the bombing. Harris's good name has been tarnished for long enough. It is time that the truth is told in Wikipedia. I know that you are a person who loves England and will defend it. But this shouldn't mean you suppress the truth. Wallie (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wallie, at this rate you are heading for a block, can I urge you to address the issues, cite this 'good body of evidence' and stop pressing accusations of bias and claims of POV. Benea (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Russian frigate Oryol
How can that be right? Or do you mean only in reference to navies (and not private vessels)?? Otherwise British brig Vancouver (Vancouver (brig), just trying to pick an example (that was an HBC ship, I may have dabbed it wrong). The Golden Hind was not an HMS ,but on royal commission/ not officially navy, or was it?  I gatyher you must mean only military vssels, toherwise there's hosts of articles in need of renaming....Skookum1 (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, per navies. For private vessels continue as you have been, i.e first look at its name (e.g. Vancouver). Motor vessels and steamships can be dabbed adequately with the type prefix (SS Vancouver, RMS Vancouver, MV Vancouver, MS Vancouver, etc). Sailing ships don't tend to have prefixes so in this case dab either by ship type (which is usually the rig) in brackets (Vancouver (brig), Vancouver (ship), Vancouver (yacht)) if its a private civilian vessel/merchant etc, or if it's a navy vessel either use the standard prefix adopted by that nation (HMS Vancouver, USS Vancouver) or if that nation does not use a naval prefix, use the formula set out in the guidelines and title 'nationality:type:name' (Russian brig Vancouver, French battleship Vancouver, etc). Follow? Benea (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Email
I seem to be having some trouble with my personal emai accounts at the moment, I've now temporarily changed the address to my work one, so could you try again? David Underdown (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, it automatically disables it when you change email address. Should be re-enabled now.  David Underdown (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for William Prowse
--Dravecky (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ship Index request
Dear Benea Could you please do me a Ship Index page for HMS Fortune? It currently redirects to HMS Fortune (H70), and since I'm doing HMS Fortune (1913), that can't be right! Yours, as ever, Shem (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - who would have thought there would be quite so many? Shem (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know...fills me with dread how many more ships there out there to write when a fairly innocuous name turns out to have such a history! I think the record is still HMS Swallow with 32 though! Benea (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been getting the same dread when I look at the number of red links in List of gunboat and gunvessel classes of the Royal Navy. And I haven't even put anything in the list from before 1815!  And then there's the Torpedo Boats ...  Heigh-ho, at least it means I can pick the ones that interest me for the first thirty years or so.  Yours, Shem (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please put in the basic framework, i.e. start each page with the appropriate title and put in the links, and I shall endeavour to add the individual vessel's data and relevent history, or at least join in your efforts to do so. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

HM Armed Smack Inverlyon
Hey, Benea, I saw your note on the talk page of HM ARMED SMACK Inverlyon. Do you have a page number or numbers in Colledge that I can cite? Also, is the mention of a 6-pounder the only weapon mentioned, or does Colledge also list the 3-pounder? Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, should the dates you have be in/out of service, or was Inverlyon truly commissioned? I'm guessing the former. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The details are: The details for Inverlyon are on page 176. As to dates, using 'in service/out of service' would seem to be the best way to word it. As to armament Colledge only lists the 6 pdr. This doesn't necessarily rule out a three pounder at some point, but could be significant. Benea (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks for the info. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ship Index request
Dear Benea Another Ship Index request - this time HMS Jackal, which is currently a redirect to HMS Jackal (F22). Thanks again, Shem (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since we're already imposing on you, Benea, how about one for HMS Iphigenia, too? — Bellhalla (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

SS Letitia DYK
I am pulling the article from the current set of queues because the hook is so excellent that I want to save it for our annual April Fool's Day Did You Know section. It will run some time on April 1, 2009. Thank you for such an interesting hook! The 5 day old articles limit is waved for that day, so it is eligible.  Royal broil  00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely fine by me! I was rather hoping it would be saved to be honest, I thought it made neat little hook. Benea (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Donald Macintyre (naval officer)
I noticed you’d changed the redlinks for the destroyers here from year of launch to pennant number; Just what is the guideline on this? I thought I’d seen a conversation that said ships prior to WWII would use year of launch, and post WWII  used pennant number. And the redlinks I got from the Class page.

Can you clarify this for me? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

PS I’ve got to say I can’t see the point of using the pennant number anyway, unless we are dealing with a huge class of ships built in the same year (like the Flowers or the DE’s); otherwise the year of launch is more definitive, which the guideline at Naming convention (ship) indicates. But that’s an aside. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been no definitive decision made on this. I'm afraid your comment isn't totally accurate though. One of the two links I changed was to a ship page that existed dabbed by the pennant number (Defender), and the other, Walker, I altered the red link to match up with that on the V and W class destroyer page. The others I left as they were. I'd suggest when writing articles to check if the article already exists and if so at what title, because that way you can avoid linking through redirects unnecessarily, and otherwise to use the redlink shown on the class page, though redirects will help you out here to dab from the launch year-dabbed title to the pennant number dabbed-one. In all cases though the dabbing element should be concealed in the article, making the definitiveness a moot point as far as these sorts of articles go. You could also link the U boats in the article as well, and I notice several other British ships are not linked. Is there any reason for this? Benea (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, sorry; my mistake. I was getting a little confused by the end of this; a lot of the V&W's were year of launch and I sort of went with that.


 * As for the ship and U boat links that aren't there, I just haven't got round to checking them yet. It's nothing sinister. Xyl 54 (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I thought it was something like that. I've added a few myself to other U-boats, RN ships and convoys. Happy editing! Benea (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

HMS Juno (1790)
Thanks for fixing various links. That said, I don't see what is gained by creating a stub page, which I have now done, when a short paragraph on a disambiguation page is enough to cover the topic. Had I not created the page, your edit could have caused the info to be lost. I generally prefer to preserve info rather than throw it away, especially if the reason for throwing it away is some sense of neatness. I also disagree with your wholesale reverting of my edits to the Nelson page. Most were legitimate improvements in style, doing away with passive voice constructions and unnecessary words. Your point about the action at Mortella Point is valid, but there is something to be said for making substantive links to other stories. If there is a way to create a footnote to the sentence one could legitimately put the paragraph you deleted there. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the article, so it's not a stub. I had nearly completed it as a new article prior to your drafting the stub, so there was no intention of losing the information. Also disambiguation pages are covered by stringent guidelines (WP:MOSDAB) so it's not really acceptable to use them to hold detailed or specific information about specific ships. Stub articles are better as they can be filled out later. Look at how substantial the article is now for instance. I have not done any 'whole-sale reverts' to your Nelson edits, most is still as you've written it. I have however fixed broken formatting, reverted changes of legitimate British English variations (WP:ENGVAR), and other changes that you made, which while I'm sure were in good faith, were against policy. As to the Mortella Tower portion, a footnote is a possibility. The Nelson article is very long, an issue brought up at recent reviews, so since the attack is only very tangentially related to Nelson, its relevance is questionable. Benea (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Great job on the new Juno page. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

HMS Boreas (1757)
Interesting re fir vs oak. Was the expedient inspired by cost or availability of oak? In either case, we/I should slip in a phrase that reflects that info. Would help non-specialist readers such as I understand a little more about the era of the sail.Acad Ronin (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a little of both interestingly enough. Oak was the preferred building material for warships, as it was tougher and more durable. It was however more expensive, and stocks in Britain were scarce and carefully controlled. Alternative materials, such as fir and pine were generally cheaper, more abundant, and allowed the Admiralty to save oak for the larger warships where the greater expenditure involved in building them, and the greater punishment they were designed to withstand as the stood in the line of battle, meant that oak was vastly preferred. This was not such a concern for the smaller sloops and frigates. Fir and pine ships were also quicker to build (compare Boreas's three months from laying down to launching compared to her oak-built sisters that sometimes took the better part of a year). The downside of course was that fir and pine ships were less durable, often required greater time under refit and repair, and tended to have a lifespan of half that of an oak-built equivalent. The trade off was to have ships in service faster, and often for less money, an important consideration in wartime. In writing about the Coventry class, I think I'd stress the speed of building rather than the cost, the fir and oak built ships of the class ended up carrying fairly similar price tags. The Admiralty had sought tenders from civilian contractors, but ended up rejecting a bid of £9 per ton (equivalent to the cost of an oak built ship), suggesting that price was still in their mind, but that they also wanted to get ships into service to supplement the navy during the Seven Years War. Benea (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Thanks for the info. Now to get that into a phrase, or at most a sentence. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Valeur
Great catch. That explains the inconsistencies in the description of the vessel - 20 vs. 28 guns. Acad Ronin (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, both captured on virtually the same day of the year, by the same ship! Quite a coincidence. It fooled Michael Phillips into confusing the two on his usually excellent website, though interestingly enough he has the basic details right on the entry for the Valeur. Benea (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

HMS Lowescroffe (1761)
FYI. I have created a stub for this vessel. She had a great history, particularly when she assisted Dido in the great frigate encounter with Minerve and Artemis(?), but as my interest is really only through her connection to the origins of the Martello towers, I probably won't be getting to fleshing it out further any time soon. For that matter, Dido deserves a page too. I know you have a lot on your plate but I thought that I would at least mention this. Acad Ronin (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Outstanding. Thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, Ben, this has been a reference to HMS Lowestoffe (1761) rather than Lowescroffe! I thought we already had an article on this vessel, although I can't be certain. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

John Philimore
I just wanted to drop a line to say that the article, which you linked to in the DYK suggestions page, was one of the best I've read in a long while. It doesn't hurt that Philimore seems to have been quite the rogue. Good job! Skinny87 (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It was good fun writing him, I'd been meaning to get around to him for some time, following up on Henry Paulet's 'going to London with his captain's barge on a cart' mentality. The trouble is while reading up on one officer, I stumble across another equally eccentric or deserving of an article. Britain just seemed to churn them out during this period it seems! Thanks again for your compliment! Benea (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

HMS Imogen
Thanks for your help with HMS Imogen. I needed to know what the Imogene was in March 1904, because I gave the composition of the Mediterranean Fleet in March 1904 in the article on HMS Leander (1882), which I am trying to improve.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John Phillimore
--Dravecky (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed on John Phillimore
Hi, and thanks for your great work on this article. I'm currently working on disambiguating wikilinks in it, but I need help with one. Since you created the article, I figured you might know enough to help. The link in question is Battle of Cape St Vincent - there seem to be two Britain-related potential targets. Thanks. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count)• I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 18:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I spotted that, and had fixed it before you posted here, we must have passed like ships in the night! It was the 1797 battle, linked directly in the text, but I must have missed it in the infobox. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Benea (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 06:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

[[MV Atheltemplar]]
Hi, I've just expanded this article a bit, and tagged it as needing references improving. I notice you created it, could you give it a look over and add some refs? Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ship Index request
Dear Benea Could I please impose once more for a ship index page (if required) on HMS Blossom? Thanks - Shem (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You certainly don't hang about, do you? Thanks very much indeed. Shem (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Always on the alert! Far fewer ships with that name than I would have anticipated as well. Benea (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)