User talk:Rama/Archive 6

Robert Surcouf
You asked for a B-class review at WP:BIO for this. I think it is B-class, but as it is a milhist bio I'd suggest you ask for at WP:MILHIST review for a B-class review. They are very quick there - it will take only a day or two - and you may get extra feedback before a possible GAN consideration. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the tip. Cheers! Rama (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Four things
Hi Rama, Nice work on Robert Surcouf. This summer I hope to find myself in St Malo for a day or so. I will try to convince my significant other that we should visit Surcouf's grave. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the interesting tidbit on Black Joke.
 * Do you have the date the French frigate squadron was at Rio de Janeiro in the Lady Shore affair? I would like to add a sentence to the articles on each of the frigates.
 * I have just completed an article on HM Hired armed lugger Aristocrat. From the Fonds I have identified that three of the vessels in an action in 1795 were French naval vessels, but I have no more info on them, or any of the others. I would appreciate any assistance.
 * In the same article, I mention the corvette Etourdi, but have no further info on her. Same request.
 * Hello,
 * you are very welcome, and a frequent source of similar littel joys for me
 * not exactly, but Gallois states that Landolphe's squadron left Rochefort on 6 May 1799; it must be the mission you see in the Fonds, vol.1 p.244.
 * the case of Aristocrat seems non-trivial, but I'll set the irregulars of Baker Street on her, see what turns out and keep you posted.
 * That would be Étourdie (final -e for female form here), a 16-gun Sérieuse-class brig.
 * I wish you lots of fun in Saint-Malo. You'll like the model of Confiance in the museum, and the original of Garneray's painting of the capture of Kent. Cheers! Rama (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So, Rondel and Furette remain mysteries for now. Neither names appear in my lists; "Rondel" sounds really stranges, and I can't think of name that would deform into this; Furette sounds like Furet, but we already have this one and the description does not match. Troude (vol.2, p.450) reports a battle on 13 July 1795, but nothing on 15, I wonder why. Usually I can find traces of rather minors engagements, but I'm struggling with this one. In any case, the story of the British lugger and émigrés is very romantic, à la Hugo's Nitety-Three.
 * Cheers! Rama (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. One possibility for "Rondel" is "Hirondelle". When I was searching the Fonds, that's what the search engine kept stopping at. As for Furette, she is probably one of our mysteries. Concerning Landolphe's squadron, did they leave on 6 March or 6 May? The wikipedia article on the Action of 4 August 1800 says 6 March. My problem is that I cannot decipher the revolutionary calendar. Could Troude's 13 July battle be Aristocrat's 15 July battle? Does it sound similar? I have found that memories are sometimes fuzzy. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea, Hirondelle is a very common name for small ships: 19 units, 22 including Hirondelle I, Hirondelle II and Hirondelle III, and 23 with Hirondelle de Falmouth. Ours would be Hirondelle, a 12-gun corvette that matches the description quite well and is reported to have taken part in a battle just off Fréhel on 14 May 1795. Without a doubt she is the one we sought.
 * Furette I suspect could be possibly be Levrette, and it's a bit of a stretch. I know she was in the area at the time.
 * Gallois says 6 May 1799 (t.2 p.448) and Troude says 5 May (t.3, p.194); but in Histoire des marins français sous la République..., it's said to be April 1799.
 * Troude's 13 July battle opposes Furet, Levrette, Vésuve, Granville and Espiègle to three British frigates, a lugger and a cutter. The British overhaul Espiègle and capture her; Furet, Levrette and Granville manage to escape into La Conchée harbour; and Vésuve anchors at the entrance of the harbour, where a frigate seizes her. Roche identifies her captors as HMS Melampus and HMS Hebe. It doesn't seem to match the story of Aristocrat, but it does make a point that the area was animated in this period.
 * Cheers! Rama (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: as for the Revolutionary calendar, you'd need to be a pretty hardcore fan of the period to be fluent in its usage. I use this converter . Rama (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Rama, Hirondelle makes perfect sense. Furette = Leverett is more of a reach, especially in the absence of details that link the two. Troude's 13 July fight is not in Wikipedia yet. The only British vessel involved that is on Wikipedia is Melampus, and that story is not yet in there. I will have to check the London Gazette when I get back from the trip I am on. Do the Troude, Gallois, and Histoire accounts have any useful supplementary details that make the link with Aristocrat clear? I suspect Wilkins's date is correct, but should add the ambiguity as a footnote. Lastly, thanks for the Revolutionary calendar pdf. I will add it to my files. For a variety of not all rational reasons, I prefer the traditional measures to the decimal measures. For me the Revolutionary calendar is the worst idea of an already bad idea.:-) Anyway, thanks for the info. Acad Ronin (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, to me, units have to be clear, widely understood, simple to use and unambiguous. This is why I associate traditional measures with "ton/long ton/short ton/tonne/ton burthen" headaches and exploding spacecraft, and consider the metric system to be one of the single most valuable contributions of the French Revolution to humankind. And I have towards the Revolutionary Calendar the same attitude that I have to traditional measures: I find it cute, poetic in its own way, nostalgic of a past era; and unsuitable for serious usage. But then again, measures are inherently founded on an arbitrary choice of reference, and as you say, this always stems from a certain dose of irrationality. Cheers! Rama (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that measures should be clear, etc. That is why most traditional measures, despite the lack of calculators, were base 2 (i.e., using doubling and halving), rather than base 10. It is interesting that base 2 is more natural than base 10, as evidenced by its greater age. I just don't understand how this strange base 10 abomination came to dominate the world.:-) Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Base 12 is convenient because it divides easily by 2, 3 and 4 (hence its connotation as a "perfect" number and association for instance with Virgin Mary, inherited in the contemporary European symbols), and was used as far back as Babylon; but base 10 is also very natural (10 fingers) and was used in ancient Egypt and South America a very, very long time ago. The notion that base 10 is a novel thing would be rather narrowly 18th century Anglo-Saxon. Rama (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I will try and dig up an academic paper I read some time ago on denominations. It looked at the issue of the switch from base 2 systems to decimals. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I got confused by the 5 and 6 May dates. I now realize that was in response to my Rio query. Pls. ignore the above question trying to link them to Aristocrat.
 * I just got into the London Gazette. Can't find the Troude 13 July 1795 fight. I searched under Melampus, Hebe, and Vesuve. Nothing. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Roche dates the capture of Vésuve to 3 July 1795 (rather than the 13th). She was apparently taken into British service as HMS Vesuve. Rama (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I found the letter describing Melampus and Hebes action on 3 July. A prize money announcement later gave the name of the captured French armed brig as Vesuve. The data was in the Melampus article, I just missed it originally. She was armed with 4 x 24-pounder guns and had a crew of 60 men. Clearly, this was a completely different event than the Aristocrats action. The captured Vesuve, of 160 tons (bm), was put up for sale at Sheerness in 1802. If you start the French part of the article, I will fill in the British part. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, actually, Vésuve was one of these "chaloupes-cannonières", which I struggle to translated into "longboat" (their name), "gunboat" (thez function), "brig" (their sail plan, although their armament is atypical), etc. They were another effort to standardise ship classes that came on the backdrop of the Boulogne Flotilla, and carried very heavy guns for their sizes; if I recall correctly, Vésuve was even the lead ship of her type. I should start articles on these ships, but my documentation is a bit weak and I've not found proper English terms. If you have clues... Cheers! Rama (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would use the term "gunvessel". For a roughly equivalent British parallel, see such vessels as HMS Shark (1794). These were sloop-rigged hoys, armed with one gun and three carronades. Gunboats seems more appropriate for something like the Danish gunboats. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is how Colledge describes her: VESUVE Gunvessel 3, 160bm, 74 x 22-5ft, 3- 18pdr. French, captured 3.7.1795 by MELAMPUS off St. Malo. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

French corvette Perçante (1795)
Hi Rama, I have just completed French corvette Perçante (1795). I would welcome your giving it a quick look, for my French orthography and translation from the Fonds if nothing else. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your spelling is quite correct, but I've edited the article to include some bits I found in Troude. Cheers! Rama (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am always pleased when we can get accounts from both sides. They give a rounder picture, if sometimes an inconsistent one; in this case just a rounder one. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I created the article, and category Bonne Citoyenne-class corvette. Any info from Roche or other authors on the class would be great, if it exists. Right now, the info from Winfield is good, but sparse. Acad Ronin (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Exocet imapct.jpg
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:Exocet imapct.jpg

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Identifying some French vessels
Hi Rama, I have just been working on HMS Clyde (1796). In the article, I mention three French vessels - the frigate Vestale, the corvette or frigate Sagesse, and the frigate Resistance/Fisgard. Unfortunately I do not have launch years for those vessels, do you? I also worked on the French frigate Étoile (1813). Winfield states that her first name was Hymenée. Is that correct, and if so, do you happen to know when she was renamed? Thank for any help that you can give. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * They would be Vestale, the 26-gun corvette Sagesse and Résistance (ex-Fidélité) which became HMS Fisgard after her capture by HMS San Fiorenzo and Nymphe and recommission in the Royal Navy.
 * Roche does not mention any ship named Hyménée, and does not mention the story at Étoile's entry. There was one Hymen, but she was a 110-gun, started in 1810 and broken up on keel in 1814.
 * Cheers! Rama (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Changes made. Red links for now, but one day... Many thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Two more querries
Hi Rama, in the article on Hired armed lugger Valiant, there is mention of a French frigate Danaé, and an unnamed 14-gun brig. Would you happen to have any info on either? Also, the article on HMS Marie Antoinette (1793) mentions that mutineers returned her to French control in Haiti. Is there anything in French records as to her subsequent fate? Thanks for any help that you can give me. In both cases I have looked in the Fonds but couldn't find anything. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

French ship names
Hello I notice you've changes some ship names (at Argonaute-class submarine, La Melpoméne-class torpedo boat and French submarines of World War II, for example) to remove the definite article. This is not correct; a good number of French vessels names include the definite article (for whatever reason), and the ones you have removed (La Vestale, La Melpomene, L'Espoir, etc) are supported by the sources used. They also match the names used in the French WP articles. So they'd probably be best going back. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Problem is, French vessel naming conventions are not English ones, and when writing in English, the question is whether to follow the English or the French practice? For instance, it would be silly to say, "The batteries sank the L'Espoir." So, do we say, "The batteries sank the Espoir", or do we say "The batteries sank L'Espoir"? Then what about, "The British captured L'Espoir, and took her into the Royal Navy as HMS Espoir"? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Xyl 54, I have sources too, and they say that the article is not a part of the ship's name. And they are French sources, by French naval officers and from French original documents.
 * Furthermore, I speak fluent French: not only is "La Vestale" at the very least not the only correct naming, but "La Melpomene" lacks a diacritic (these are not optional; "Melpomene" is as wrong as "HMS Viktori"); furthermore, the conventions you cite were applied inconsistently in the articles you mention (why "La Poursuivante" but "Baliste" instead of "La Baliste"?) and sometimes with gender mistakes ("L`Iphigénie and Le Bombarde were captured by the Germans at Bizerte in December 1942": not only inconsistant with previous occurrences of "Bombarde" without article, but "bombarde" is a feminine word, and "Le Bombarde" simply names no sense at all. And why this backward apostrophe all of a sudden?).
 * The thing is, many English-speaking compensate for the lack of "HMS" (or "USS" for our American friends) by adding articles or diacritics in ways that are not natural. The problem is compounded by the fact that we are talking about French ships in an English-speaking text. In French, there are articles before ship's names (before, not inside), which many casual French-speaking people capitalise and italicise like a part of the name. But the only case in which you could possibly argue that the article is part of the name is before certain adjectives, because adding an article is how you substantivise an adjective ("Le Redoutable", but you could argue for "Le Redoutable"; I prefer "Le Redoutable" for consistency, and therefore "Redoutable" in English). Rama (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: and of course, there are cases like "La Galissonière": the thing that looks like an article is part of the name because it is part of the name of the chap after whom the ship is named; but I don't suppose you'd be tempted to write "Le La Galissonière". It is a rather complex matter, if anecdotical, and I fully understand why a non-native speaker would be confused. Rama (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Rama, good to know. Now I have to watch when I remove the articles for cases like "La Galissonière". Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for responding.
 * Rama: you seem to be assuming this is a matter of the intricacies of the French language, and our monoglot English failure to understand, thereof. That would be a tempting explanation if it weren’t for the fact (as I mentioned) that the French WP treated these names in exactly the same way (using, presumably, French sources by French naval officers and original French documents)
 * The Classe La Melpomène article lists 12 vessels, 9 with names that have the definite article and 3 without, the same as the article here. The Classe 1 500 tonnes article (our Redoutable-class submarine (1931) article) has 31 vessels, 6 with the article and 25 without. (again the same as here, and the same as the English language sources used here). Interestingly the name ship for that class is Redoutable, whereas the name for the 1967 nuclear submarine is Le Redoutable, and the class article is at Classe Le Redoubtable. That article lists all 6 vessels with the definite article, and has, as the opening sentence, “la classe Le Redoutable” which (my schoolboy French tells me) translates as “the Le Redoutable class”.
 * I don’t know why its done that way (I wasn’t altogether convinced by your “substantivizing the adjective” explanation; Espoir might qualify as an adjective, but Melpomene, or Ighigenie, don’t). But be that as it may, we only can only achieve verifiability here, not absolute truth; if the sources use definite articles in some names, so should we; if you have sources for these specific vessels that don’t use the article then by all means trot them out and we’ll see.
 * With regard to the missing diacritic, BTW, that’s the fault of myself and my English keyboard; sometimes I remember to cut-and-paste an accented letter, and sometimes I don’t get round to it. This time was the latter; Please note the articles in question were not deficient in that respect. Xyl 54 (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In general, the French Wikipedia is not a serious source for naval history (and more generally still, we do not self-reference); on this particular topic, their naming is self-contradicting, and I would correct it if I was interested in editing these articles. On the other hand, Roche is a serious source, for instance.
 * Espoir never qualifies as an adjective.
 * The sources for the naming conventions that I advocate are
 * You can ease your usage of diacritics by configuring a composition key on your keyboard. I often use US keyboards, with little impediment to my typing speed in French. It is actually rather more convenient for capital accented letters or for less usual diacritics, like in "Tōkyō". I am not sure I completely understand your "not deficient", but I distinctly remember a "Melpoméne", with acute accent, which is very wrong. Rama (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Rama: I think you have misunderstood me, again. My purpose in referring to the French WP was simply to counter your assumption this was a difference of language. And if the French WP itself is not relevant as a source (no particular argument there) the sources used on those pages are.
 * So, to sources: is it your contention that Roche’s book supports your position on these French warship’s names not having the definite article in their titles? Unfortunately the nearest library copies of his book are out of my reach (one being in Berlin, the other in Montreal) so can you confirm that he does so, in contradiction to the sources we already have?
 * Specifically, for La Melpoméne class; Conway gives 8 of the 12 ships in the class having the definite article; (viz La Melpoméne, La Pomone, La Flore, L`Iphigénie, La Bayonnaise, L`Incomprise, La Poursuivante and La Cordelière) as do the websites linked on that page. Also, (as the Fr WP page is a bit sparse on this) the German WP article (with the same 8 ships) lists books by Saibène and Salou. What does Roche say?
 * For the Redoutable class, 6 out of 31 vessels (viz L'Espoir, Le Glorieux, Le Centaure, Le Héros, Le Conquérant, and Le Tonnant) supported by Conway, Huan and Picard (plus websites) (Your source?)
 * For the Argonaute class, 2 out of 6 (viz La Vestale, La Sultane) supported by Conway and Bagnasco. (ditto?)
 * I also note that you have altered the articles on the L’Adroit, Le Hardi and La Fantasque destroyers in the same way, but which is not supported by the sources there (you gave Whitley’s Destroyers of World War Two as a source, which specifically does use the definite article in it’s ship names when appropriate) and that you created the Aurore class submarine page, again without the support on this matter of the sources given.
 * So can you confirm what actually Roche says? Or produce any other sources to support you? Xyl 54 (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have arleady explained, in French, names of ships are preceded by an article. This article is sometimes mistaken for a part of the name by casual writers, but it is not a big problem in French. In an English text, however, the article is very proeminent. Not only does it sound affected and artificial, but it provides a trove of occasions for English-speaking authors to make mistakes, which they rarely miss.
 * Fantasque is masculine in the instance you cite. I am not sure there has even been a "La Fantasque"; possibly the gunvessel of 1761, but I am not even sure.
 * The only names you find in Roche at "La", "Le" and "Les" are: La Bourdonnais (after man of that name); La Ciotat, after the town; La Clocheterie (after man of that name); La Fayette (idem); La Galissonière (idem); La Grandière (idem); La Hire; La Houssaye (after a cape); La Malgue; La Motte-Houdancourt; La Motte-Picquet; La Praya; and La Valette; Le Verrier and Le Vézo; Les Jeux, Les Amis, Les Dunes, Les Embiez, Les Éparges, Les Évens, Les Flamands, Les Illates, Les Madeleines, Les Pyramides and Les Vosges. This list is exhaustive.
 * In some cases, Roche includes an article under parenthesis following substantivised adjectives; for instance, the Redoutables of 1879 and 1931 are cited as "REDOUTABLE", but that of 1971 is cited as "REDOUTABLE (LE)". The type of this last submarine is still "Type Redoutable" in the index, though.
 * I did not cite Whitley’s Destroyers of World War Two. I do not have this book and never have read it. I merely corrected the article. You can add Roche as a reference if you wish.
 * Note that I have a number of French references who give very creative names for British ships; I ignore these as errors of non-native speakers. Rama (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Another interesting source is the Histoire des Marins français series, by Rear-admiral Granier; the 1940-1945 volume mentions the torpedo boat Melpomène without an article at p.183 (I have not seen any reference with the article). Generally and apart from a few inconsistencies (where the same ship is refered to with and without an article; for instance Surprise in mentionned as such at p.462, but also as La Surprise in several other instances), Granier uses the convention that articles are not a part of the name of a ship except for proper nouns (La Grandière or La Valette) or substantivised adjectives (Le Terrible, La Moqueuse). Page 463 lists the ships involved in the scuttling of Toulon, where most (all apart from Espoir, Mars and Palme) are listed without an article. Rama (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that I have a number of French references who give very creative names for British ships; I ignore these as errors of non-native speakers. Rama (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Another interesting source is the Histoire des Marins français series, by Rear-admiral Granier; the 1940-1945 volume mentions the torpedo boat Melpomène without an article at p.183 (I have not seen any reference with the article). Generally and apart from a few inconsistencies (where the same ship is refered to with and without an article; for instance Surprise in mentionned as such at p.462, but also as La Surprise in several other instances), Granier uses the convention that articles are not a part of the name of a ship except for proper nouns (La Grandière or La Valette) or substantivised adjectives (Le Terrible, La Moqueuse). Page 463 lists the ships involved in the scuttling of Toulon, where most (all apart from Espoir, Mars and Palme) are listed without an article. Rama (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * AcadRonin: In answer to your comments, I’m not altogether sure. “The battery sank L’Espoir” would be reasonable in English (like “the gentleman read The Times”) but "the battery sank the L’Espoir" would also be correct if L’Espoir was the full name. OTOH “ the battery sank The Hope” would be more correct than “.. sank the The Hope”. The only comparable British ship I can think of was HMS The Ramsey, which was referred to in the former, rather than the latter, manner.
 * As for ship’s captured and renamed, I haven’t found one; and the only candidate I could think of was HMS Belle Poule, but (surprisingly) her French name wasn’t La Belle Poule (as I had thought, or you might have expected) but simply Belle Poule. Make of that what you will...
 * In the French article on the 1931 Redoutable she is referred to as Le/le Redoutable, while the 1967 vessel is Le Redoutable. And the 1500 tonne article has this (in the "Premiers combats" section):
 * "L'Italie déclare la guerre à la France le 10 juin 1940. Le Fresnel, Le Tonnant, le Redoutable et le Vengeur patrouillent le long de la côte tunisienne pour prévenir un débarquement italien, pendant que Le Centaure et le Pascal surveillent le sud de la Sardaigne" (ref Huan). The subject abounds with illogicallities, but they come from there, not here. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Rama: To be clear: can you confirm that your source (Roche) does not use a definite article (either upfront or in parenthesis) for any of the dozen or so ships I’ve listed? Even so, this isn’t going to be resolved here, is it? So I’ve batted it over to WP:SHIPS (here) for comment. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's been no reply to this (and this response at WT:SHIPS suggests you may have misread the situation with regard to your dictionary sources) In any event, the more I thought about this the more I think this was out of order. These were controversial bold edits, so I’ve reverted it (per WP:BRD) and opened discussions on the relevant pages, if you wish to comment there. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * To let you know: I've listed the three destroyer class pages as Request moves (here) to put them back to the original names, if you widh to comment. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Rama,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Paul Simonon mg 6692 crop.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 30, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-05-30. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am glad to see that this image can be of use to somebody, and flattered by publication. Thank you and good continuation! Rama (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

POTD notification


Hi Rama,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:MOS KIM-1 IMG 4211 cropped scale.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 29, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-06-29. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Pallas-class frigate (1808)
Greetings and felicitations. Last year you added a reference to the Pallas-class frigate (1808) article. Would you please be so kind as to expend it to a full citation, deleting the "op. cit."?—DocWatson42 (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Exocet imapct.jpg
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:Exocet imapct.jpg

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

French ship Vengeur du Peuple Milhist A-class review
G'day, Rama, there appear to be some outstanding comments on the WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French ship Vengeur du Peuple page. Are you in a postion to respond to these? As it has been more than a month since you last edited the article or engaged with the ACR, it is likely to be closed soon. At the moment it doesn't have the required level of support (three explicit "support"s), but it appears as if the article is close to achieving that. If you are able to respond to the few remaining comments the reviewers have, they may be happy to add their support also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tonnant class characteristics
Template:Tonnant class characteristics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Benea (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Marie Curie
Greetings, I am leaving a message because I saw in some talk pages that you have been previously involved in discussions similar to the one I am currently involved in on the Marie Curie talk page. Basically, this is an issue with the lead sentence of the article, with a few editors that seem to be very protective of anyone somehow Polish being called by anything else than only "Polish" in the lead sentence (as opposed to "French-Polish" or "Polish-born French"). I do think my views on the issue are the one reflecting the established Wikipedia practice. But since I am currently alone supporting them, it is quite time-consuming for me. This might not be the kind of annoying discussion you want to get into, but still, if you had time to have a look at the discussion on the Marie Curie talk page, that would be nice :-). In any case, have a good day :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokidokix (talk • contribs) 04:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ignorance is Strengh listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ignorance is Strengh. Since you had some involvement with the Ignorance is Strengh redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Jason Quinn (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Exocet imapct.jpg
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:Exocet imapct.jpg

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Mirror imaged/duplicate upload
French ship Redoutable (1791) contains two images that you uploaded:



...as you can see, one is clearly the mirror-image of the other! One of them probably shouldn't be in commons...trouble is, I can't figure out which is the correct one.

If you know, perhaps you'd fix it up!

SteveBaker (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear me, well spotted!
 * The correct one would be File:Trafalgar mg 9431.jpg], then. It is a photograph of the original painting itself; the other one was scanned from a reproduction in a book. Since it is also deformed by the binding of the book, it will surely not be missed too much.
 * Congratulations for this discovery, and good continuation! Rama (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Good to see you back
Hi Rama, I was afraid that you had gotten fed up and decided to drop wikipedia. That was a terrible possibility because I rely on you for so much info on French vessels. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * thank you, you are very kind. I simply happen to have a busy schedule these days which leaves me little time for Wikipedia, and I always have had a tendency to contribute in bursts anyway. But when my mind's eyes return to the sea, it will be a pleasure to work with you, as always.
 * Cheers! Rama (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Roger that. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:French Navy infobox
Template:French Navy infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Exocet imapct.jpg
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:Exocet imapct.jpg

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Téméraire-class
As creator of the article and a regular contributor, you might want to weigh in on the discussion currently at Talk:Téméraire-class ship of the line.

Peter Isotalo 23:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing question
You uploaded File:Canon de 27 cm modèle 1870 IMG 7015.JPG a while back citing a source of Neptunia, 2011. I'm wondering if the issue gave the original provenance of the artwork? It's been raised in the GAN for the Colbert-class ironclads and I'm hoping that you might be able to satisfy the reviewer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * These engravings are illustrations from a 19th Century reference book, Aide-Mémoire d'artillerie navale. The various individual engravings reproduced in Neptunia were obtained from copies of the Aide-Mémoire in personnal collections, or from the SHD Marine (the Historical services of the National Navy), but I do not think that this is very relevant. You can find various editions of these books from Gallica or Google books. Most other images in this series are from the same source; exceptions are the 24cm guns model 1864 and 1879 (Compilation du Commandant de Balincourt), the mountings of the 80-pounder howitzer and the open turrent of Suffren (Mémorial de l'artillerie navale) and the gun turrent of Cerbère (Cours de Construction navale). Rama (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt and helpful response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Free French move request
As a contributor to that article, you are invited to participate in a discussion about its title: Free_French_Forces All input welcome. Cheers, walk victor falktalk 20:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of XiVO for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article XiVO is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/XiVO until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Operation Sangaris page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=639474683 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F639474683%7COperation Sangaris%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for December 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Sangaris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Les Échos. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of XiVO for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article XiVO is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/XiVO & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bringing Out the Dead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Graveyard shift. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Various edits
Hi Rama, glad to see that you are back. I am doing a lot of editing on French vessels currently so I suspect our paths will continue to cross. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Likewise, always delighted to see you work. I seize the opportunity to congratulate you on your mastery of French sources. Cheers! Rama (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For reasons I am reluctant to disclose, I am the beneficiary of others who have mastered the French sources. Acad Ronin (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of André Bruno de Frévol de Lacoste


The article André Bruno de Frévol de Lacoste has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * NN, cropped detail of a scene 1809-02-08 can't be about a death on 1809-02-02

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Be..anyone (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Photos
Hi Rama, I didn't realize that you were an administrator on WikiCommons. I have a question for you, if I may. I have permission from the subject of a photo to place it into commons, and I have a verbal from the photographer. How do I get it into Commons as it is not yet in the public domain, and I am not the author? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * The best thing for you to do would be to send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (see Commons:OTRS) to back the licence of the image. If you could have the photographer send an e-mail himself, or forward one he would have sent you, that would be ideal. I look forwards very much to seeing your image.
 * Cheers! Rama (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. I'll do that, but it will take time. Also, if it works, the photo will not be interesting as it will have nothing to do with age of sail ships, but instead appear under my real name in a totally different set of interests. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been some theoretical conjonctures hypothising the existance of interesting subjects beyond age of sail ships. Purely academic, of course ;) Rama (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

UNPROFOR fatalities
Hi. A very long time ago, you added a figure of 320 casualties to the UNPROFOR article. At some point, that figure also made its way into the Bosnian War article. It's been tagged as requiring a citation for a while now, and I've been trying to find one but have found contradictory sources. Is there any chance you could contribute to the discussion here with any memories you have about where the 320 figure came from? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caspar Bowden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

2 questions
Hi Rama, Thanks for the edits. 1) what would ponton arriere-garde translate to? Guard hulk? Andif so, what would that mean? 2) Do you have any idea where I might find out what happened to Princess Charlotte after Semillante captured her? Actually, there were a couple of other Indiamen where we have articles and it would be great to be able to provide some info on their disposition after the French captured them. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello!
 * 1) arrière-garde normally means "rear-guard", and I frankly don't quite understand what they mean in this case: either that the hulk is at the rear of the formation of the hulks in the harbour, or that it serves as barracks rather than as a guard post. The exact meaning might be lost in differences of dialact or idiolect betwee the writer and myself.
 * 2) Sadly no. Hennequin gives details on the engagement, but does not specify what happened to Princess Charlotte, only saying that Linois departed for Île de France "with his frigates". Whether this should be taken as a clue that he abandonned Princess Charlotte or not, I cannot say, but it might be the case: Linois seemed anxious to conserve his men and ships, and might have been unwilling to spare the prize crew. The reason he did not press his attack on Centurion is that she seemed unwilling to surrender and could easily have ran herself aground, while Linois was far from his bases, was short on spare rigging, and feared attracting the attention of a British squadron. Scuttling Princess Charlotte would seem consistent with his tactics of minimising his profile and maximising his mobility, but I am being a bit speculative here.
 * Cheers! Rama (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt response. It was the arriere-garde that threw me. No worries re Princess Charlotte or her like. Linois gets a bad press from people that weren't there at the time, knowing just what he knew, and no more. Would that our ancestors had kept better records, and as with the case of arriere garde, bothered to explain or define what was completely obvious to all at the time. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's another
On 29 September 1778, HMS Porcupine captured the French East Indiaman Modeste in the Bay of Biscay. Modeste, of 1000 tons, 26 guns and 95 men, was returning from China and richly laden. Her cargo was valued at £300,000, half of which was insured with English underwriters. Modeste became the Indiaman Locko, which later made three voyages for the British East India Company. What I am trying to find out is in what year Modeste was launched. It might be in Demerliac, but I unfortunately don't have a copy. I am interested in Locko because in 1782 she (and four other Indiamen or merchant vessels) was involved in an inconclusive engagement with Pourvoyeuse off the cost of Malacca. They basically attacked Pourvoyeuse, which broke off the engagement and escaped. Many thanks for whatever you may find, if anything. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Form a financial perspective, I find the idea of a French ship covered by British insurances against the risk of capture by the Royal Navy absolutely fascinating.
 * Demerliac is sadly neither in my possession nor in my budget (at least at the moment), but I have forwarded the question on the specialised talk page on the francophone Wikipedia, where we might find people acle to answer this question.
 * Cheers! Rama (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Rama, thanks for the quick response. We'll keep fingers crossed for a response from the French wikipedians. Demerliac is out of my budget too. In the best of all worlds I would have that and Roche, plus a couple of others, but... Re the insurance - I would have to know more, but once again I am struck by how reality is much more nuanced once one gets into detail than one might expect. The opening sentence of Hartley's "The Go-Between" seems apropos: " "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there". Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Jacques-Noël Sané page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=675736344 your edit] caused a duplicate page number error (help) and an empty citation error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F675736344%7CJacques-Noël Sané%5D%5D Ask for help])

Hello, Rama! This is concerning the wiki page of chess player Vishwanathan Anand. It all started in my bid to improve what was not a great wiki page for an all time great chess player. There is no an ongoing edit war despite the fact that I user proper citations from the highest authorities in the chess world to back up my edits. Those arguing against my opinion seem to be doing so because of a strong bias against the player, rather than any facts or citations. Thanks, I hope you get involved as I feel very strongly about the matter. Exxcalibur808 (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited French aviso Bouvet (1865), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rochefort. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Microfin request
Hi Rama, I added my (redundant) "pour" vote to the page. What a brilliant way to make Demerliac available. Now, perhaps, I will be able to find out more about "Modeste", and other vessels too. For your information, I have just added the following two books to my library: I hope to have them both in my possession by end-September/early-October. I already have: As you know, I stand ready to reciprocate in the cause of better Wikipedia articles. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Clayton, Jane M. (2014) Ships employed in the South Sea Whale Fishery from Britain: 1775-1815: An alphabetical list of ships. (Berforts Group). ISBN 978-1908616524
 * Winfield, Rif & Stephen S Roberts (2015 Forthcoming) French Warships in the Age of Sail 1786 - 1862: Design Construction, Careers and Fates. (Seaforth Publishing). ISBN 9781848322042
 * Hello,
 * I am afraid that withtou the context, it was not clear that the vote is the purview of the micro-financing team of Wikimedia France. But I am sure that they will appreciate the sentiment just as I do. The vote had seemed to go well for some time, but I wanted everything to be officially decided before announcing the good news. Now we are sorting out the practical matter of procuring the books. I'll let you know when they become available.
 * Cheers and thank you for the index of your own book collection, I'll keep this in mind! Rama (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Mohawk
Hi Rama, I have just finished an article on Mohawk (1781 ship) that began as a Massachusetts privateer and ended up a corvette in the French Navy, all the while retaining her name. If there is anything that you would add or correct, I would welcome the improvement. In particular, I have two Gauteaumes, one an admiral and then later one a lieutenant and then captain, and I wonder if they are related. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * I have added a few details, but after your work this is really icing on the cake. Joseph-Antoine Ganteaume was the elder brother of Honoré Ganteaume.
 * Cheers! Rama (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice icing. I particularly like differences between the accounts of the protagonists. Very Rashomon. Thanks. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Xebec Mistic
FYI: I inserted the image you just posted into the article on Xebecs. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks!
 * On an amusing linguistic sidenote, "mistic" or "mystique" is an European name (with a Greek root) for "xebec", not the name of this particular ship.
 * Cheers! Rama (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Then in English "Mistico" I believe. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Flynn robin hood.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Flynn robin hood.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

HMS Saint Lucia
Hi Rama, interesting. I hadn't looked at her in a while, certainly not since I got some advance chapters from Winfield and Roberts (2015 forthcoming). They carry her as a schooner, meaning that they consider her a naval vessel, not a privateer per se. The London Gazette notice refers to her as a privateer, as does Norie, but that could be a mistake, or it could mean that the French Navy had lent her and her commander out; I believe that happened on occasion. Winfield and Roberts also have some stats that I have added below: Dimensions & tons: 72ft or 71ft 1in x 20ft 6in x 7ft 8in (23.39 or 23.09 x 6.66 x 2.49m). 70/120 tons. Men: 59. Guns: 12 x 4pdrs; (1803) 16 x 4pdrs. The feet are French feet, not British, so I believe a little larger. The displacement and port tonnage is in French tons of 2000 livres, so close to the metric ton, or possibly the metric ton. Some of the info in the Winfield and Roberts, such as the date they have for Saint Lucia's recapture, is not consistent with what I have, so I will need to recheck that. Also the dimensions seem a little off, but that may be attributable to her conversion from schooner to brig, though that would not necessarily affect the dimensions, only the masts and rigging. I would welcome the picture of the model, as well as anything else you can add about her. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * my dimensions are 70 tons, for 23.4 × 6.7 × 2.5 metres, so approximately agreed with Winfield and Roberts. I am afraid the rest is conjecture; I suppose we could include the image with a caption like "a 16-gun schooner similar to Saint Lucia" (I sometimes do that for sisterships), but I would be cautious to venturing into the realm of gratuitous illustrations.
 * Cheers! Rama (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If the museum calls the vessel Enfant Prodigue, I would just go ahead and do the same. I suspect these are old models made by people that access to original documents that are probably still in some archive somewhere. I think the formulation I would use would be something like, "Enfant Prodigue, model at the Musee..." Actually, is there any way of talking with the Museum staff and asking them about the sources of the models, and the documentation? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Trick is, they do not really do: the museum label only states "16-gun schooner of the First Empire", so it would be rather a leap of faith to assume this is actually the case. I think that your suggestion is excellent: I know that the Museum staff put lots of efforts in publishing their collections online and are taking an interest in Wikipedia, so they might be happy to see what we do here. Cheers! Rama (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)