User talk:Kablammo/Archive 8

Re: Let the fur fly
Mc-- you may be interested in this article, more specific to the North American fur trade, coincidentally called North American fur trade.

''It's another on my list of articles where I have intended to do work, but have failed to deliver. (When winter comes we hivernauts tend to go into hibernation.)''

Regards, Kablammo (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Interesting topic which I have so far learned only a little bit about. One thing that would be interesting discuss is the influence this had on the American Revolution and U.S.-British relations afterward. I have read (admittedly little) that the fur trade was actually one of the only enterprises in America that was generating significant revenue for Britain during the 18th century. According to one article I read (may have been just one guy's opinion) a source of frustration was that the colonists kept upsetting the natives thereby disrupting the trade, in addition to costing the British more money in defending the colonists. In other words, from the British perspective the colonists were paying them practically nothing for British protection, were constantly threatening the one thing that was generating revenue for Britain, and yet they themselves were prospering quite well selling their goods overseas with little taxation (i.e. before the British started imposing taxes). I don't know if that is all exactly correct but it would be interesting to explore more ... --Mcorazao (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I had not heard of that aspect, and it would be interesting. Beavers were the first hydraulic engineers in North America; I read somewhere that the Boston Common was the location of a beaver pond.  Beaver pelts were certainly the most lucrative industry in northern North America in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and the trade was essential to the development of Canada west of the St. Lawrence, and much of the Upper Midwest in the US.  The beaver trade is a subject taught in connection with state history classes here (admittedly, not quite as interesting as your current project, which could inspire students to make their own history-- as if they needed the inspiration).  Kablammo (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Smiley.svg|left|25px]] That project's been in a half-started state for a little while. After doing Free State of Galveston and San Antonio Sporting District I started reading about how important economically vice has been overall historically (throughout the U.S. really but some of the stories from Texas are especially crazy). I still have a lot of reading to do if I want to finish that one off. --Mcorazao (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Lord have mercy on us all. Remember, original research is discouraged. Kablammo (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

and one from HMS Calliope
Hello again. On I think the machine gun mounted on the gunwale might be a Nordenfelt, as that is the type specified for the ship in the source I have. Also, can you look at the image review section of the FAC? I asked a question about this image and the reviewer suggests that the original source (the publication from which it was scanned) be set forth on the image page. Thanks for any help you can give. Kablammo (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I found where the photo came from. Per this source (which links the photo with the name of "teaching the young idea", it came from The Navy and Army Illustrated sometime between 1896–99.  I will add that to Commons.  Kablammo (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I had identified the mg as Gardner, from appearance and from fact that HMS Calliope's page stated it carried them. It has 10 barrels, and I don't thing the RN used the 10-barrel Nordenfelt gun, but they appear to have used the 10-barrel Gardner gun. regards. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The only information I have is the Mariner's Mirror article by Osbon, which states Nordenfelt.   I wouldn't know the difference.  Maybe the ship was rearmed.  Kablammo (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at the photo again... it looks like a 4-barrel 1-inch Nordenfelt... I don't see 10 barrels there.. But some features don't match the diagrams on Commons. ?? Rcbutcher (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Commons image of the 5-barrel one looks like this. Is that a magazine atop the 5-barrel one?  Kablammo (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The rifle-calibre (.45 inch) versions appear to have had much lighter mountings than the 1-inch versions. The photo of Calliope appears to show the heavy mounting typical of the 1-inch, with supports on each side connected to trunnions... the rifle-calibre versions appear to have a single support below the barrels. I'm wondering wherther this could be the 2-barrel 1-inch version even ? See . How many barrels can you see there ? regards. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The ship picture is overexposed and I can't make out the number of barrels, but the mounting in the picture you just linked looks similar to that on the ship. The Osbon article gives neither calibre nor number of barrrels.
 * Do you think it is a Nordenfelt?  The Osbon article is my only source that even mentions smaller guns on Calliope, and while it locates the Nordenfelts elsewhere, it also states that their number and location changed over time.
 * In may just stay away from the area, and leave it to you for better identification, if you wish. I will likely add the Navy and Army Illustrated image to HMS Calliope (1884) at some point, as it is informative, particularly on the layout of the main armament. Thanks for all your help on this. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Rod-- here's another good picture of a Nordenfelt, from the same source. Kablammo (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, good photo, looks like the 5-barrel rifle-calibre Nordenfelt. But I don't see any magazine loaded on top, looks like they're training. regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations: HMS Calliope (1884)
You deserve thanks for a job well done on this article! Awickert (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Henry Peach Robinson
Thanks! Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)
Hello, I am contacting you because you are a warship history contributor. I propose to add an additional note to the "manual of style", warning not to use literal conversions for gun names, where the calibre, gun weight or projectile weight used in the gun name is just a convenient approximation rather than an exact measurement. This applies to cases such British "4.7 inch" guns, British "18 inch torpedoes", "6 pounder guns" etc... in such cases, using the undefined undefined template produces incorrect results and should not be used. In such cases we need to hardcode "4.7-inch (120-mm)", "18-inch (450-mm)". Currently well-meaning folks keep going through these articles and adding undefined undefined everywhere without understanding the subject matter, producing rubbish like "18 inch (460 mm) torpedo" and 12 pounder (5.4 kg).. We also ne3ed, in my opinion, to agree to what degree we abbreviate calibres in conversion e.g. 12-inch = 305 mm, 4-inch = 102 mm, 6-inch = 152-mm, etc.. What is your opinion on this ? regards, Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up
I've been off on other things, mainly digging out of snow and a ship research project, and have not even checked watched pages in weeks. I'd have missed that "USS use issue" vote if not for you getting in touch. I hope accuracy and true encyclopedic quality win out over opinion and "popular search" arguments there. Inaccuracy of that type truly undermines reputation of any medium and that one really is not subject to opinion as the naming authority is the U.S. government, explicitly the USN. Ignoring that would be about like deciding all New York city articles are "Big Apple" because we like that and it is popular. Palmeira (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Music of Minnesota
Greetings. A reviewer has asked for improvements to the overall writing and lead in Music of Minnesota if you are able. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like things have settled down there. I will try to get to it in the next few days.  Kablammo (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Kablammo. Another reviewer said that the writing is not good enough. I know you write better than I do. Asking again if maybe you can fix it. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Susan I am sorry I have not gotten to this yet. It looked like the article was still in flux, and I then started another project. My time and practical access may be limited for next ten days or so but I will do what I can. Sorry for the delay. Kb

Hi there. Music of Minnesota appears to me to be closing today (with three new votes to "delist"), unless you ask for more time. If you can, I would also let Raul654 know, because Sandy left him a note today and YellowMonkey asked him yesterday to please close. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Susan-- I have substantially revised the lede, and have started to copyedit the remainder. I have only skimmed the FAR comments, but it appears there may be a request for more sources, which is something I cannot help with.  I will however complete copyedits.  Whether that will be enough, I don't know-- the manner in which this FAR began did not augur well for its retention.  You have done a lot of work and I hope it can be saved (and I think it compares well with other Music of . . .  FAs).  Kablammo (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Geology of Minnesota
I seem to recall that you had wanted to do some work on Geology of Minnesota. I'm swamped at the moment, but if you're interested, want to shoot for late Spring/early Summer? Awickert (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Let me know.  We will have to decide what maps and other images stay; there are too many now.  Kablammo (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. What we should probably do is decide on a finalized structure (the current one is pretty good, but it would be worthwhile thinking about it again), and then deciding on images to fit that structure. But not now (at least for me) - I just wanted to let you know that I was thinking about the article as well. Awickert (talk) 06:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Tonnage
Are you referring to this edit? The point is that the source from which the tonnage is taken specifies it in GRT (see the article MS Thomson Celebration). So just listing "33,960" without further qualification is misleading, since that would be assumed by the reader to stand for "33,960 GT". I could convert it to 28,817 GT, but feel that would be "original research". --Lambiam 20:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going off the dates of the ship and of the change in tonnage measures. It would be good to have the tonnage from the rating agency.  The website you used appears to be a personal website  and likely would not qualify as a reliable source-- I wonder if the two measures of tonnage were conflated by him.  I see however the cruise line also lists it as GRT, while other sources use GT. What we really need is the official rating from the rating agency, but not all of them have their ratings online.  Kablammo (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship
I'll wait until you add the material from Gibbs, but I'm very much inclined to delete all the material from Jane's as I don't consider it a reliable source as it's pretty much just a reprint of the contemporary issues. McLaughlin, who uses post-Cold War sources, does mention that some material was cannibalized by the Soviets, which is given under the paragraph about the ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. The Ireland book is not a Jane's annual or facsimile of one, but rather a book with content authored by Bernard Ireland, a published author on naval subjects.  I can e-mail you the pages from it, and from the Braynard book as well, if you like.  Regards,  Kablammo (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)