User talk:Benea/archive8

French 80-gun ships of the Tonnant class
Ben, in the article on Tonnant class ship of the line and the several individual ship's articles linked to it, there are at least four ships for which the wrong launch date has been used in the titles. I have put accurate launch dates into the main article, but the titles of other articles need changing (and any links therefrom). The Indomptable was launched in 1790, not in 1789. The Franklin was launched in 1797 not in 1798. TheFoudroyant was launched in 1799, not in 1800. The Bucentaure was launched in 1803, not in 1804. The name-ship of the Class is only covered by an article referenced by the date she was captured by the British, while she was actually launched and saw several years service in the French Navy before her capture. Can you kindly adjust the titles of the various articles?

There were actually only 8 ships of the original Tonnant Class. The other three ships listed in the article as I found it were three of the numerous Bucentaure class (including the name ship of that class), which was a slightly modified version of the Tonnant Class by the same designer. At least 24 of this modified design were begun, although a few were never completed. I have started to correct this by showing the Bucentaures as a separate group within this chapter, but I have more to add later. Rif Winfield (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about taking a while to reply Rif. Looking into the matter, there seem to be some conflicting sources for Bucentaure's launch. Goodwin's 'Ships of Trafalgar' says 1803, but then ambiguously states she had been launched 'by May' in 1804. Adkin's 'Trafalgar Companion' says she was 'built in 1803 but not launched until the following year'. For Indomptable Goodwin says launched in 1788, Adkin in 1790. I appreciate that you are right, but can you provide a source(s), in case someone challenges the moves? With HMS Tonnant, the convention has usually been to title the name of the article on a ship with the date of its entry to service with the navy, if the ship was launched for a different navy. This has pros and cons, but one of the pros being that if the article was HMS Tonnant (1789), people might assume that she was serving in the Royal Navy from 1789, whereas using the date of her capture (ie. HMS Tonnant (1798)) this is obviated, while readers can learn about her career as the French ship Tonnant in the earlier part of the article. Where both incarnations of a ship's history are notable, articles can be written about both (viz French ship Franklin (1797) and HMS Canopus (1798)). It is a bit of a grey area though to be honest.


 * As to the Bucentaure class being a distinct design, the solution would probably be to reduce the Tonnant class article (and the template) to just the initial eight, note that that Bucentaure class was a development of the design, and then start a new article listing the Bucentaures. Benea (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ben, sorry to be late in getting back to you. There are various sources on French warships of the sailing era, but the most comprehensive and accurate are the series by Cmdt Alain Demerliac - I list the titles below, although obviously the publication dates vary. I suggest you quote these as your sources: Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1614 a 1661; Nomenclature des Vaisseaux du Roi-Soleil de 1661 a 1715; Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1715 a 1774; Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1774 a 1792; Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1774 a 1792; Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1792 a 1799; Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1799 a 1815; Nomenclature des Navires Français de 1814 a 1848 (the last-named in preparation). Alain Demerliac (Editions Omega, Nice - various dates).

These are all large paper-baked volumes - rather expensive individually, I'm afraid. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

picture of grand harbour malta
Hi. i noticed you are rather interested in ships, and was wondering if you might have an idea what the ships are shown in this photograph of the Grand Harbour at Malta. I was also puzzled what the stuff on the sides of the ships is. The funnels seem to have different things painted on them which might suggest they are merchantmmen. The stuff on the sides also seems to be on another picture of a warship (I think probably HMS Victoria/sans Pareill of about 1890) shown in the background of a boatrace, which I havnt posted but which comes from the same book about George Tryon. Might be a climbing net? If they are military ships then it might be something with military significance? Thanks. Sandpiper (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm that's an interesting picture! The supposition that they're merchants is a reasonable one. The centre funnel with a white H on a black background is presumably one of the Hain Line's ships. Without knowing the specific colours of the others though, it's hard to work out which companies the other ships belong to, though you could probably narrow them down a bit. The nearest one I initially thought might be the Bristol City Line, but as far as I know, they didn't sail to Malta, so that probably rules them out. As to the effect on the side of the ship, I'm rather baffled. I don't recall having seen anything like it before, though it's a bit hard to make out details in the picture. A climbing net wasn't the first thing that came to mind, but you could be right. I wondered if it might be something to do with the paintwork, distorted perhaps by the method of taking the photograph, but I'd need to see more example to get a clearer idea. Hope this was of some help! Benea (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have uploaded to commons one of the race pictures, the one which shows best the warship in the background. The original caption is 'start of launches'. The text talks about annual competitions for different classes of ship's boat. Although this one is captioned 'launches' the boats seem identical to those in another picture captioned 'start of cutters and gigs'. It also talks about different events being in different places, so I am not sure exactly where it might have taken place, but from the text not at malta. The warship seems to have exactly the same something all round it. I don't know what the other ships present in the mediterranean at that time looked like: this one looks like victoria/sans pareill, but I believe other ships present were of similar (earlier) designs, so might not be. Anyway, whatever the hull pattern is, it would seem to follow that it was used on both merchant and naval ships? I have filtered this image a little to remove some of the half-tone spots. You can still see them if you look closely, and see they form a regular pattern. The effect tends to break up things like paint lines or rigging into strings of small diamonds, but I think the spots on the side of the ship are too big and also too irregular for this to be the explanation. Something is on the ships causing the sparkles. I doubt it's paint, because it doesn't appear in other pictures of victoria?


 * Another suggestion might be some sort of fender, akin to the modern string of old tyres, to cushion collisions? The account of the sinking of Victoria refers to a 'collision mat' which they tried to place over the hole where Camperdown rammed her, might this possibly be the same stuff, because if it is stored onboard there must be a lot of it somewhere? Sandpiper (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's possible I suppose, but I can't remember ever having seen anything like that on a ship before. I agree that there is probably something on the hull creating the effect. If it's not Victoria/Sans Pareil, it could only really be either Trafalgar or Nile, both of which were in the Med from c. 1890/1 onwards. A specific date for the picture may narrow it down further. The other battleships of the fleet would be recognisably different. Benea (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Theres a nice pic here on wiki of Nile and I had a look. I think the race picture ship has white painted superstructure above forecastle deck level at the rear half of the ship, with several black guns showing along the side. This matches the pics of victoria I have seen. Nile seems to have a couple of somethings, but instead of a continuing row has another big turret at the back. If the choice is Nile or Victoria, then its Victoria. I didn't know whether others might be similar. Logically the pictures would be of that time. Of course, the author might have just used whatever pictures of races/malta harbour he could find in 1897 (publication date), but he seems to have had access to Tryon's family papers via his widow, so I would not be surprised that they are contemporary photos from when Tryon was there, either from her or friends. Thanks for your comments. My first query was whether the ships in the original picture might have anything to do with the navy, but now I'm very curious about this mystery matting. It'd be great if it turns out to be the stuff they were talking about after the sinking, which they had been trying to drag over the hole. Originally I took 'collision mat' to mean  something kept specially in case of holes in the ship, but the name also makes a lot of sense if it was something they used for fending of bumps from other ships more generally. The only other thing I have seen mention is torpedoe nets, somehow meant to keep torpedos away. But that doesn't make much sense on merchant ships. I would perhaps suggest that stock pictures of the ships might have been deliberately taken without the something in place so they showed the hull properly, so maybe would not commonly be seen? Sandpiper (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In some ways its a maddeningly frustrating picture, because some of the features that would easily allow this to be identified as either a Trafalgar or a Victoria class ship are either not visible from the angle the picture was taken, or are not distinguishable enough from the photo. The arrangement of funnels easily identifies at as being one of the two classes. Things like the height of the funnels (they appear unusually tall) is another useful indicator, but remodelling of the bridge, funnels, masts, changing pain schemes etc means that unless we have the ships' design histories and know more or less when the photo was taken, these details can be misleading. The superstructure appears to extend quite a long way aft, making me think Victoria class. The barbettes along the side (I count at least three) are another indicator, but if more were visible that would settle it as a Victoria class ship. In short I'm pretty confident its a Victoria class, but can't say definitively without more study. I fist considered torpedo nets but dismissed that almost immediately. They were swung out on poles from the side of the ship to catch the torpedo well away from the hull, and usually did not come very far above the waterline. The effect on the picture runs for the entire length and height of the hull, and seems to follow its form very closely.


 * A collision mat was (and still is on many boats) carried as part of an emergency kit, usually consisting of a strong tarpaulin or similar material attached to wires. In the case of Victoria this could be rolled out and used to cover the hole to prevent or slow the ingress of water. In the age of sail, a spare sail backed with oakum would be used to fother the hull in this manner. As far as I know this was part of emergency procedures, and not used as a protection against general bumps and scrapes. Benea (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Edward Riou
Hi, I am reviewing Edward Riou for GA and have entered a comment at Talk:Edward Riou/GA1 and will add more. I hope you don't mind if I copy edit small issues in the article, rather than listing them. Feel free to revert any errors I make. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Old Blues
Dear Benea,

You are completely mistaken. As a matter of fact I think it is ludicrous to call the category Christ's Hospital Old Blues. Can I just correct you on what your doing. It is analogous to calling Old Etonians, Eton College Old Etonians. Since Christ's Hospital is THE Bluecoat School its alumni are called Old Blues. As a matter of fact, User:81.145.168.194 tried to change Christ's Hospital Old Blues to Old Blues. As a matter of fact, User:81.145.168.194 is actually Christ's Hospital's wiki user. Look, I have had enough of this and I know that I am right. I may seem a little obstinate but am sick and tired of Wikipedia making stupid changes and to be honest no wonder thinks that this encyclopedia is unreliable.

Yours sincerely,

The 12th Doctor--92.13.128.96 (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is prominently displayed on every wikipedia page, that wikipedia is not to be considered reliable by its own standards. I haven't particularly done anything, the matter came up for discussion as per process at WP:CFD and the consensus was to use the existing title. Old Blues is an ambiguous category title. That's how wikipedia works. P.S. Christ's Hospital has a designated wiki user? What's their daily rate? Benea (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Shiplist page request
Dear Benea Please could you do a shiplist page for HMS Ringdove? I believe that HMS Melita (1888) and the Redbreast-class gunboat HMS Ringdove (1889) swapped names in December 1915, just to confuse matters! Yours, Shem (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as always. How keen are you for me to let you know about shiplist pages that need writing?  If I'm just irritating you, let me know, but if you're dead keen, perhaps I could list new ones as I come across them at somewhere like User:Benea/Shiplist_pages?  It would save the constant pleas on the talk page.  Yours, Shem (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still very happy to help with shiplist pages! I don't particularly mind how you ask, but if you want to try a subpage I have no objections, and it could prove quite beneficial. I'll keep it on my watchlist! Best, Benea (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started the page with several low priority ones - and I anticipate dropping new ones in fairly infrequently. I'm very grateful.  Yours, Shem (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

HMS Amazon (1799)
Hi, I have reviewed HMS Amazon (1799) for GA and passed it. Congratulations! (I copy edited it so please revert any errors I may have introduced.) Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for this (and for Riou!) All looks fine to me, thanks again for the reviews! Benea (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about Attacker and/or Ameer class carriers
Hey, Benea, I've got a question for you. At the same time I've been introducing categories for standard design ships of the United States Shipping Board (WWI era) and the United States Maritime Commission (WWII era), I've been simultaneously working on refining categories. I've come across the Bogue-class escort carrier article and the corresponding category (Category:Bogue class aircraft carriers) and navbox (Template:Bogue class escort carrier). According to the navbox, the RN versions of the Bogue-class carriers were called the Attacker class. According to Template:WWIIBritishShips (placed on the class article), the class is called either the Attacker class or the Ameer class (or both?). To further confuse matter, there's no Attacker- or Ameer-class category to help sort it out. With your RN resources, can you shed any light on which class name is correct, if either. Or if both are correct, any chance of providing a breakdown of which ships were Attacker and which were Ameer? Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Those particular classes of ships are a bit odd really. The situation is (as far I can make out) is that following on from the Avenger class aircraft carriers, the USN begins the conversion of under-construction mercantile hulls to produce a class of 21 escort carriers. 10 were retained for the USN, 11 were transferred to the Royal Navy under lend-lease. They were:
 * Attacker
 * Battler
 * Chaser
 * Fencer
 * Hunter
 * Pursuer
 * Ravager
 * Searcher
 * Stalker
 * Striker
 * Tracker
 * It is these ships that are known in RN service as the 'Attacker' class (though I have seen another source that offers 'Tracker' class as an alternative name, based on the assertion that Tracker was the lead ship. Since Tracker is not the first to be laid down, launched or completed, I wouldn't give this too much credence). Work then begins on an altered design and 24 ships are ordered. The USN intends to keep these for their service, while several under-construction Casablanca class aircraft carriers are earmarked for transfer to the RN. In the end all the Casablanca class ships are retained for the USN, while all the Bogue variants then being completed were transferred instead. USS Prince William (CVE-31) is an odd case, but as far as I can tell is usually grouped with the Bogues as at most a variant design, rather than being considered a class of her own. The transferred ships enter the RN as the 'Ameer' or the 'Ruler' class, as distinct from the earlier 'Attacker' class. The type of names are significant, approximately half are titled with the style used for earlier escort carriers ('Smiter', 'Trouncer', 'Trumpeter', etc) while the others are named after types of rulers ('Ameer', 'Emperor', 'Rajah' etc, and the fact that there was an HMS Ruler probably made this an attractive class name as it could also describe a defining characteristic.) These were:
 * Ameer
 * Arbiter
 * Atheling
 * Begum
 * Emperor
 * Empress
 * Khedive
 * Nabob
 * Patroller
 * Premier
 * Queen
 * Rajah
 * Ranee
 * Reaper
 * Ruler
 * Shah
 * Slinger
 * Smiter
 * Speaker
 * Thane
 * Trouncer
 * Trumpeter
 * The article on the Bogue class is a bit incomplete, at least seen from the Royal Navy perspective. To them there were two distinct classes, titled 'Attacker' (11 ships) and 'Ameer' (23 ships). To the USN there was either one 'Bogue' class with Prince William as a unique variant in the navy, or possibly Prince William as a class on her own (again at least within the US Navy. DANFS calls her a Bogue class for example). As to which class names are correct, several variants are used in different sources. Attacker is preponderant for her class, but there seems to be a fairly even split between Ruler and Ameer. That's probably way more information than you were looking for, but I hope it clarifies the situation a bit! I would think that the template should be split to list the American Bogues, and the RN Attackers, and the Ameers separately, with the categories 'Attacker class aircraft carriers' and 'Ameer class aircraft carriers' set up to distinguish them. I'm not sure if there would be a case for creating separate articles for the 'Attacker class' and the 'Ameer class', while retaining the Bogue class article just for the history in USN service, but that might be another possibility. Benea (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. What an answer. :) Definitely not too much information. Anyway, thanks to you, I've reworked the template to break out the RN carriers by class, and set up separate class categories for the two RN classes. I'll work my way through the list and reclassify the articles. One more question though: To which class does HMS Puncher (D79) belong? For the time being, I've left it as an Attacker class. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I missed out Puncher when I made the list, just a slip on my part. She was of the second group, an Ameer class carrier. I'll fix that up for you. Benea (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

SS Moldavia stub
Hi Benea, I just started working on this stub however I've run into a small problem. Many sites I've looked at identify the ship as the SS Moldavia and some as the RMS Moldavia. If I remember correctly, a ship would revert to SS if it's not engaged in mail service. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Shinerunner (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's correct, either prefix would be correct in this case, though 'RMS Moldavia' predominates in sources I've seen. I'd probably go with the 'most well known incarnation' and use RMS, unless there was any reason to favour SS (i.e. a considerably longer time in service, or an especially notable action, when not carrying the mail perhaps). I'd be happy to look more into the ship, what sort of help were you after exactly? Benea (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The correct name for the article was one issue. Finding information of the Moldavia's passenger service history is proving to be difficult. Most information I've found is about the sinking or diving the wreck site.Shinerunner (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did find this site Ship nostalgia.com but I'm not sure if it's a good source to use. Shinerunner (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's quite detailed, but unfortunately it would almost certainly fall foul of WP:RS as being a forum post, free to edit by anyone, etc. The two P&O books listed in its reference section look like they would make good sources if you could get hold of them. Otherwise you could perhaps try to find reliable sources to confirm the facts it mentions, which would be a bit tedious and time consuming. I'll try some of my sources over the next few days to see if there's anything I can add. Benea (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

New articles
Hi Benea, hope you are well. I have just finished the monster article Atlantic campaign of 1806 and its companion Order of battle in the Atlantic campaign of 1806, both of which contain a couple of redlinks for British ships. Do you think you will be able to put together articles, no matter how short on the ships named? If you can do any officers then that would also be great (except Richard Lee, who I am already working on). I've also asked User:Rama for assistance on the French ships and men involved. There is no rush on any of this, but I just wanted to draw it to your attention in case you were able to assist.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Benea. Saw this and proceeded to produce an article on HMS Lark (1794), based primarily on Phillips. Don't have any info box or any of the other good info from Collidge. Regards. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello to both of you. I've written brief articles on three of the ships, that might be all I have time for for the moment. I'll try to get back to this fairly soon (and I'll have a look at Lark while I'm at it Acad) but it might be a few days coming. I'll have a look at the officers as well, I've come across Boyles a few times, while Halsted rings a bell (was he at Cape Ortegal? Checks...yes he was.) Happy to help, great articles as always! Best, Benea (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. As I said, there is no rush so please take your time. Anything you can do is much appreciated!--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Daring's status
Dear Benea I would appreciate it if you could have a look at Talk:Type_45_destroyer. Your opinion would carry a lot of weight with me, so if I'm getting it wrong, it would be a great way to find out. I'm driven by a keenness to ensure Wikipedia doesn't tell the world Daring is ready for service when there is still (disappointingly) a long way to go, and to ensure that the truth (where verifiable) is told. Yours, as always, in debt. Shem (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Shem, sorry that it's taken so long to get back to you. I've been away for a bit, and haven't had internet access. As far as I can tell, your logic makes perfect sense to me. A RN ship will be commissioned, and then decommissioned, but during that period she will probably go through all sorts of changes in status as you rightly point out. If we have a field for 'commissioned' (i.e. the date), it seems redundant to repeat the fact that she is commissioned further on. Far better to use that for things like 'in trials', 'active', 'under refit', 'in reserve', or what have you, which owing to the nature of wikipedia, we can update when necessary, and is relevant and interesting to note in an article on the class. The matter seems to have been settled, but if you feel a comment might still be helpful, I'll be happy to drop one in, or otherwise keep an eye on the page to see if there are any further developments. Best, Benea (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree. Simply being commissioned does NOT mean that a ship is actually in service. And of course a ship is likely to be recommissioned on several occasions during its life. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My Dear Benea, thanks for the check on my sanity. As you say, the matter seems to be settled, and I'll keep an eye on it.  My thanks to Rif too, for his supportive comments.  Yours, Shem (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

French ship Impérial
Hi, Ben. Could you kindly put in a disambiguation page for French ship Impérial for me? The name only appears without any suffixed date (in a reference under French ship Vengeur, to which reference the date 1805 needs attaching (the Vengeur of 1803 being renamed Impérial in 1805. I have put in an article separately for the Impérial of 1811 (later Royal Louis). There was also a flûte of 1794 bearing this name. I am continuing (as and when time allows) to update the article on List of ships of the line of France, to which additional 17th century (and early 18th) names still need attaching. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've converted the redirect to a dab page Rif. If there were any details you could add regarding the 1794 vessel, or any other ships of the name, it would help improve the page. Best, Benea (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ben. I have added some details of the 1794 ship. Incidentally, I am adding to List of French sail frigates as well as List of ships of the line of France; I don't think we have any structure yet for small French sailing warships. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent Talk Page Edits
Benea and BarretBonden,

Sorry for the recent edits on my talk page which is on your watchlist. I have been retrieving all of my discussions since I joined Wikipedia. I am sure you will agree that some are very interesting!!!

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 10th August 2009.

P. S. I copied this here incase you haven't got it on your watchlist anymore.

HMS Calcutta (1795) & HMS Armide
Hi Benea, I have done some work on the above two, with Rif Winfield providing me some good info on Calcutta. If you get a chance and have the time, could you look the two over and see if there is anything that I have missed, other than a shipbox on Armide, which I will leave to others to provide. Thanks and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

HMS Minerva (1780)
Hi Benea: While working on something else, I came across the Minerva, and found that she was not listed in the HMS Minerva dab page. Phillips also doesn't seem to list her. Any idea why? Am I missing something? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure she isn't? I see her listed as the second entry. Minerva's entry on Phillips is here. Benea (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies. My brain fart. I was looking in connection with a 1793 action by the Warley in which she was mentioned, and didn't look earlier than the 1781 Minerva. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Cochrane Bias
Do you think that the section the the Stock Exchange Scandal on Thomas Cochrane's article reads biased? Please see the below.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

Conversation:

Why is the section biased? I read through it and thought that I told the perfect truth and read well.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 29th August 2009.

Let us start with the first paragraph:
 * Cochrane was tried and convicted as a conspirator in the Great Stock Exchange Fraud of 1814, ''
 * That is true
 * although he maintained his innocence throughout his life.
 * but putting this next to the first part casts doubt on his guilt - note the complete lack of citations
 * The summing up of the presiding judge, Lord Ellenborough, was biased against Cochrane.
 * Where is the evidence?
 * Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against Cochrane indicated that possibly he had been the pawn of his uncle Andrew Cochrane-Johnstone, a conspirator.
 * Some historians believe = weasel words
 * In 1830, Charles Grenville wrote how much he admired Cochrane, despite his guilt.
 * Citation
 * Who was Charles Grenville?
 * Why is this of any significance?
 * What kind of bias might he had have?
 * By the Victorian era, however, he was widely believed to have been innocent.
 * he was widely believed = weasel words.

See Avoid weasel words

Note that the first paragraph is entirely slanted one way - Cochrane though convicted, much admired and probably innocent. This might be the case for the defence, but other side is not mentioned. Perhaps we could do the same for other convicted criminals...
 * Rosemary West was tried and convicted for murder, although she maintained her innocence throughout her life. The summing up of the presiding judge was biased against West. Some historians believe that the weight of circumstantial evidence against West indicated that possibly she had been the pawn of her husband Fred West. In 2019, Bill Smith wrote how much he admired West, despite her guilt. Many years after the crime, she was widely believed to have been innocent.

--Toddy1 (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

The evidence that Lord Ellenborough was biased is obvious throughout the trial notes and the history of Thomas Cochrane. Please see 'The Autobigraphy of a Seaman' and 'Cochrane the Dauntless' for more details.

The fact that he maintained his innocence throughout his life can be easily found and recognised in his autobiography and the internet is also littered with information.

I also can't understand why 'some historians believe' are weasel words. You will have to do better in your explanation.

Et cetera.

Overall I can't beleive why it is biased. You yourself in your explanations have given away your biased opinion against Cochrane and so makes your decision incorrect. You have also missed the obvious and known fact that ever since 1832 he has been proven not guilty. However, you seem to think that this decision wasn't made and that everyone should go along with it. Why don't we rewrite the first paragraph about you? Maybe it would read as though you are not innocent of being nasty. However, because you have formed this opinion about the structure of the paragraph you now make everyone go along with the fact that you are! Tough luck!!!

I have now removed the banner until you can present more eveidence. I think that most people are on my side.

With compliments.

DAFMM (talk), 30th August 2009.

new DYKnom template
Hi Benea, could I just remind you to please use the template when adding your articles to DYK suggestions? Otherwise, people end up having to fix things manually, like this. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry about that. I'd created MacBride, but then discovered afterwards I could make it a triple nom as I had enough information to write the two related articles. Only problem was that by then someone had made a comment on the original nom, and I wasn't sure it would be the done thing to create a new submission using the template, so I tried to work it in as best I could. Benea (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem. It's just that we're trying to ensure everyone uses the template as it prevents mistakes creeping in. Nice triple, BTW :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The Herald
Why has this article been nominated for deletion??Tlb1000 (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Also I would like to upload an image (album artwork) but cannot do this Tlb1000 (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Post ship classes
Just to advise you that I have now created "Class" articles for the majority of the post ships of 1770-1810, i.e. for Sphinx Class post ship, Porcupine Class post ship, Banterer Class post ship, Laurel Class post ship, Cyrus Class post ship and Conway Class post ship. I have also adjusted the references in individual ship articles for each ship of these classes (where that ship article already exists) so that all links now work. Note that most of these individual ship articles still await writing. I still have to act similarly in respect of the four Hermes Class post ships of 1810, and of the pre-1770 post ships. It might also be worthwhile mentioning (apologies if you're already aware of this) that when time permits I try to amend the individual ship dimensions to give the actual (as measured upon delivery to the Navy) dimensions and tonnage of every vessel, since most writers tend to quote only the designed dimensions and tonnages. This is perfectly understandable, as (for example) my colleague David Lyon, in his Sailing Navy List, was quoting the details from the class plans. In fact, all wooden ships - unlike metal ones - tended to differ slightly from their designed dimensions. Usually this was only a matter of a few inches or even a fraction of an inch, but it did effect the figures used in the calculation of a ship's tonnage. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

HMS Curieux (1804) and HMS Pomone (1805)
Hi Benea, just mentioning that I have created (Curieux) or added to (Pomone) these two articles. Both lack infoboxes, and need a second eye. Any help would be most kind. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, I'll have a look before too long hopefully. I've a little more information in Curieux as well. Benea (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Diamond Rock
Hi Benea, Lovely work re the Rock, Maurice, and the Battle. Do you have any info re the sloop(s) HMS Fort Diamond that acted as tender to the Rock? Phillips had a little, but there was nothing in Winfield so what you see is all I found. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ta much, sorry things have been a bit hectic, I keep starting things and getting distracted. Nothing much to report on the Fort Diamond I'm afraid. No record in Colledge, the best description I have is Adkins, with the slightly convoluted legal situation they went through to have Diamond Rock commissioned. The way Adkins has it, I assume the name was a naval fiction for a vessel assigned to the rock, to have the same name and to be used as a tender to supply it. When the first ship was captured, another filled the gap, as the main 'ship' remained the rock. I'll look into it some more though. Benea (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC) There is virtually no mention of the Fort Diamond in Admiralty/Navy Board records, so no record of commission or any log for her. It may well have been more than one vessel, with the name passed on as a functional title. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Notification
Hi Benea. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of potential candidates for adminship on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. decltype (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to help if I can. Benea (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Mamiya
Thank you for your reverts to Japanese food ship Mamiya. Bladeofgrass (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, nice picture of Prebends by the way. Taken by the boathouse I assume? Benea (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes! You are right again :) Bladeofgrass (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lovely in summer, but jolly cold in winter! I'll be back up there at the coming weekend, walked across that bridge most days for three years to get from college to the department, so I'll have to do it again for old time's sake :) Benea (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hunt class destroyers
Hi,

I noticed you've been brushing up the Hunt-class destroyer articles (HMS Blackmore, Avon Vale, Bicester) - I appreciate it, thank you! ReuV talk 13:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, I enjoyed reading about them, it's about time we had some more articles on the Hunts. Keep up the good work! Best, Benea (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

thx
for finding those infobox error - and even working out where I cut and pasted from! Victuallers (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, I tend to do similar things myself, at one stage I had a chap born two hundred years after his death after I copy and pasted, but missed updating one of the fields! And I couldn't resist a bit of detective work with the description 'pioneer of the spinning industry'! Benea (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)