User talk:Rif Winfield/Archive 5

The HMS debate
Hi Rif, the subject of erroneously using the HMS prefix for ships pre-1660 has come up again (not part of some wider discussion this time, thankfully), and the only real stumbling block that I see there is the question of when to start applying the prefix. I seem to remember you in the past putting forward 1789 as a sensible year, although at the moment it seems people are preferring 1660 because of a sentence on the Royal Navy website. Here's the link: WT:Naming conventions (ships) in case you'd like to make a comment. Martocticvs (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenating ship class names
Re: the October discussion you participated in on hyphenating ship names, User:SW is willing to make a mass move with a bot if there is a consensus here. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

HMS Nile (1839)?
Rif

There's a question about the launch date of HMS Nile (1839). A new editor is claiming that she was launched in 1830, although every source I've consulted says 1839, including The Sail and Steam Navy List. Lodestoneman (AKA Captain David G Williams) has this on his own website, and he must have got it from somewhere. Can you re-assure me that you (and by extension I) are right, and he's wrong? A comment at User talk:Lodestoneman wouldn't do any harm, if you don't mind. Yours, Shem (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rif & Shem, The National Maritime Museum database (which has a number of flaws), lists a "Nille"" (92) with launch year 1839. It has no listing for a "Nile" or "Nille"" for 1830. Regards,Acad Ronin (talk)
 * The Nile was launched from No. 1 slipway at Devonport Dockyard at 6 pm on Friday, 28 June 1839, the anniversary of Queen Victoria's Coronation Day. The naming ceremony was performed by Miss Warren, the daughter of the Admiral Superintendent, Rear Admiral Frederic Warren, and it was estimated that upwards of 50,000 people witnessed it, according to Devonport Dockyard's own records. Wherever Capt. Williams obtained his information, he and his website are sadly incorrect. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I recognised that pdf entry. It's Lavery's The Ship of the Line. I've checked in my copy to confirm this, and sure enough the mistake shows up there. It wouldn't be the first time we've seen fairly simple typographical errors in Lavery, perhaps the finger of a sub-editor slipped, and 9 and 0 are right next to each other on the keyboard... Benea (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you, Ben - I was concerned that I hadn't seen anything from you for several months (I do know that I've not added much in recent weeks myself), and it's good to know you're still around. As I've explained on Capt. Williams's usertalk page, I've mentioned a few such misprints to Brian Lavery in the past; this one is a simple mis-hitting on one numeric key (as you say "9" and "0" are next to each other on the keyboard) and it's illuminating to see how that one-key error has since been duplicated on a number of other "sources", obviously all of which simply copied from Brian's book. A few mis-typings do not detract from the excellence of Brian's analysis, but they do have to be watched. As an author myself, I know how easy it is for a few errors to slip past the proof-reader. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Rif (and Ben & Acad), thanks very much for your prompt help here and at User talk:Lodestoneman. Shem (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome! Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Breadalbane
Rif, the article currently at HMS Breadalbane, should, IMO, be at Breadalbane (ship), or something similar. Woudl you care to comment at Talk:HMS Breadalbane? Yours, Shem (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy to have done so (see Talk:HMS Breadalbane). Would you like to archive items 1-25 for me, as you kindly did previously? Rif Winfield (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Rif, it would be a pleasure. Thanks for your comments at Breadalbane (ship). Shem (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Rif Winfield (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

HMS Mercury (1779)
Rif, As you'll see from my talk page, I am aware of the two issues you bring out about the armament and depth in hold. In fact, I just copied the infobox from HMS Mercury (1779), without checking the detail. I've gone back to the article to adjust the figures, but I'd appreciate it if you'd look at it, since I have no source and I haven't looked at it in any detail. Yours, Shem (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've checked through HMS Mercury (1779), and the detail in that article appears fine. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

HMS Medea (1778)
Greetings Rif Winfield, I just wanted to let you know that I took a look at your recently created article HMS Medea (1778)-- And have a beautiful day! Cheers, Jipinghe (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jenny. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Decimal tons burthen
Rif, do you have full details of the tonnage for HMS Circe (1785), HMS Rose (1783), HMS Enterprise (1774), HMS Thisbe (1783) and HMS Dido (1784), which either have a tonnage recorded in decimal tons burthen, or have a round number? Yours, Shem (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have inserted the precise tonnages in the relevent five articles. Ideally, I'd like to do this for every British sailing warship, but it would be a substantial chunk of work. All the figures are to be found for every vessel in my British Warships in the Age of Sail series. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Rif, thanks. Shem (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just added HMS Resource (1778) and several others, and will try to complete similar for the rest of this class. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Basic articles have now been inserted for all the rest of the class, leaving you to insert histories as you wish. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Rif, thanks once again. I've added a few pictures, tagged them for WPSHIPS and checked for typos (I didn't find any).  I've also made new set index pages where they didn't already exist.  We'll get round to the histories in slow time.  Yours, Shem (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd actually like to target the preceding Coventry and Mermaid classes of 28s, if you'd like to put in a framework for one of each class. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Rif, I've added a bare-bones stub at HMS Mermaid (1761). That will do for a start.  I'll be away for a day or two, so don't expect too much over that period.  Good luck! Shem (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'm similarly away for tomorrow, so no rush. Rif Winfield (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Rif, to what extent would you say it fair to describe the Lowestoff class, Coventry class, Mermaid class and Enterprise class as following one another? If they are really in series, as opposed to parallel development, I'll put "preceded by" and "followed by" in the navboxes.  Shem (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is certainly true where one class is the development by a designer (Surveyor of the Navy, or pre-1745 a Master Shipwright) of his own earlier design. Thus the Lowestoffe Class of 1755 (some references omit the final "e", I'd be grateful of you could always insert it) was a series development of the Lyme (and Unicorn) of 1748, and the Coventry Class of 1756 was a development of the Lowestoffe (and Tartar). Slade's Mermaid Class of 1760 was a departure from the series development (since it was developed from a different foreiogn model), but as the design was by the same person, it would be fair to use "preceded/followed by". The second (1770 orders) trio to this Mermaid design was a series development of the original trio, so no problem there. The Williams-designed Enterprise Class were designed and ordered simultaneously with the Modified Mermaid trio, but you might say that they followed the Mermaids in the sense that they were subsequent to the original Mermaid trio. I hope that's clear.
 * The problems will occur when (a) you have simultaneous designs of the same type of ship from two different Surveyors (which happened quite frequently as the Navy Board went in for competitive evaluation of designs by simultaneously ordering similar ships to be built to each Surveyor's plans) or (b) sometimes when different designs were developed for different sizes (gun-ratings) of ships, e.g. for 74-gun and 80-gun classes, which should not always be considered as a series development. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All the Mermaid Class articles are now ready for service histories to be expanded. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put the preceded/followed by stuff in the templates. I'm aware it's at best a simplification, but I think I interpret you to say it's a sustainable simplification in this case. It will take a while (several years?) to bring the full articles in these classes up to scratch, but the building blocks are there. Thanks for your help and guidance. Shem (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also put in all of the Richmond Class fifth rates, although these could do with a little further attention. Rif Winfield (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Rif, can you check the details at HMS Syren? I'm not very sure about the first one, and it doesn't appear at List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy. Some of the sources I can find describe HMS Siren (1773) as "Syren" in the normal spelling varieties of the time.  Shem (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As you say, 18th century spelling was eratic and inconsistant; both Siren and Syren appear to have been used, even within the same record. Looking at the references in the official records, the 1773 Sixth Rate was usually referred to as Siren, and the 1782 Fifth Rate was usually referred to as Syren, but this was not true in every reference. However, this is the spelling I have used for these two vessels in List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy. It may be sensible to have one disambiguation page for the two variants of the spelling, as long as the other variant is cross-linked. Rif Winfield (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Rif, while I'm at it, those sources I've looked at say the wreck of Siren was 10 November, Point Judith, not 6 November, Port Judith, as you originally put in the article. Yours, Shem (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It should indeed be Point Judith, not Port Judith - thanks for correcting this. However, while some secondary sources state 10th November, others state 6th November, and 6th November is also stated as the date in the records of the court-martial and other official records. Rif Winfield (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll change it to 6 November, citing British Warships in the Age of Sail. The sources also seem confused as to whether this was a wreck or a capture.  Are you able to shed any light? Shem (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Grounded then hit in action and abandoned. From David Hepper's British Warship Losses in the Age of Sail (1994, Jean Boudriot Publications, ISBN 0-948864-30-3): "Escorting a convoy, she was attempting to find her way to Rhode Island in thick weather, with constant drizzle reducing the visibility. At about six o'clock in the morning (of 6th) she ran hard aground on Point Judith, Connecticut, a ship and a schooner of the convoy following her. The ship was lightened and attempts commenced to heave her off. The schooner which had grounded was freed and she prepared to assist in hauling off the frigate. This was frustrated by rebel forces ashore who, seeing the ships aground, brought up several field pieces and commenced firing. The schooner had her halyards shot away and ran aground again. The fire now concentrated on the Siren and became increasingly accurate. Unable to free herserf from the rocks or to return the fire, she was abandoned. Two men were killed and five wounded in the action" (I have also seen elsewhere somewhat larger casualty totals). Rif Winfield (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Rif - outstanding. Thanks. Shem (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * David's book is uniformly taken direct from the reports of the actual court-martials which automatically took place following the loss of a British warship; it is thus the most accurate official report on every loss. I've now put in all four of the Southampton Class and the three Venus Class fifth rates, plus the Coventry Class sixth rates, although all of these could do with a little further attention. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Tons burthen
Rif, I've replied to your comment at my talk page. In the case of the 1706, 1719 & 1745 Establishment articles, the error was introduced when they were first written by User:Martocticvs in 2008. Shem (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks - I didn't think it was you who made these errors, but didn't know who did so. I have altered the 1745 Establishment article by introducing separate subsections for the differing Rates/types of ships, and moving the tables so that each type has its own table (also putting in the exact tonnages rather than Brian Lavery's approximations, and introducing keel lengths, which are of course the lengths used - alongside the breadth - in calculating tonnages). I've done this with for all the First to Sixth Rate vessels of the 1719 Establishment and 1745 Establishment, and will do the same for the earlier 1706 Establishment in due course. I think this will make it easier to follow the development of the dimensions and scantlings for each type. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

HMS Aurora (1777)
Hello Rif, I notice your book has been used to reference the above article and wondered if you can tell me whether this is the Aurora Henry Digby took command of in December 1796, or not. It seemed the most likely candidate to me. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can confirm this is the case. Under Digby's command, she sailed for the Mediterranean on 4 January 1797, and remained on the Lisbon station under his command for almost two years. Rif Winfield (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Letter of marque v Privateer
Greetings Rif, Presently I am in the process of building the List of ships captured in the 19th century page and was recently told that using both the terms Privateer and Letter of marque is redundant, (e.g. 'A Privateer acting under Letter of marque...) however in the various sources these terms are both used on the same page. For example, in John William Norie's The naval gazetteer' ..., p.259 (and the other listed pages) he refers to some vessels as Privateers and others as Letter of marque, so now I am wondering why he just doesn't use one term or the other. We know that Privateer refers to the vessel, while the Letter of marque refers to its authorization to capture given ships and that sometimes the vessel is simply referred to as a Letter of marque, but this still doesn't explain why both terms are used in the same page. Apparently some privateers acted with just the understanding that it was 'open season' on a given country's ships, while those referred to as a Letter of marque had the actual written authorization. As an author of many naval history texts I would like to know how you treat these terms in relation to one another as I am not in possession of any of your publications just yet. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Gwillhickers, a letter of marque authorized the bearer, a civilian vessel, to use their arms offensively, not just defensively, i.e., they could attack enemy ships. Many merchant vessels, such as the East Indiamen sailed to India and China under letters of marque, and on occasion captured French ships, though their task was trade. When a vessel went out without cargo and with the intention of capturing enemy vessels, preferably merchant ones but possibly men-of-war, she was referred to as a "private ship of war", or a privateer. When a vessel went out as a merchantman, carrying a cargo but with the license to engage in offensive action, she was referred to as a letter of marque. In the London Gazette letters, one can often see the difference in the size of the crews. Letters of Marque tended to have small crews relative to the number of guns they carried, smaller crews than a warship would, as their primary task was to carry cargo. Privateers had large crews in order to be able to put prize crews aboard their captures and still have enough men to capture and send in more ships. Rif will amend/correct this when he comes on line, but in the meantime you should have enough to go on. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The demarcation was not quite so absolute, as with most generalisations made about things in the Georgian Age (i.e. there were exceptions to everything). It is certainly true that a vessel putting to sea for the primary purpose of capturing enemy vessels (either enemy merchantmen or - in some cases - smaller warships) was classified as a privateer, whether or not they were issued with a letter of marque.
 * As Acad Ronin says, they did not in general carry cargo (i.e. they were not designed with that in mind, although occasionally they might turn to that trade) and carried large crews so that they would have enough men to put prize crews aboard ships they captured. The voyages of such vessels were funded specifically in order to capture their prey, and then to sell those vessels and their cargoes.
 * Vessels issued with a letter of marque might be either a privateer (which could apply for a letter of marque to carry as proof that they were not simply acting as pirates) or a general cargo vessel which was given that certificate so that, if the opportunity to capture an enemy merchantman arose, the vessel had a "letter of marque" or written state authorisation to take possession of that merchantman and to sell it and its cargo for profit.
 * We are of course talking about many hundreds of ships and other vessels (remember that at this time the term "ship" had a specific meaning of a three-masted vessel, square-rigged on both the fore and main mast, rather than the more generalised term we use nowadays). The number of British merchantmen captured by hostile warships and privateers amounted to 222 in 1803, 387 in 1804, 507 in 1805, 519 in 1806, 559 in 1807, 469 in 1808, 571 in 1809, 619 in 1810, 470 in 1811, 371 in 1813 and 145 in 1814 (I am missing a figure for 1812). Rif Winfield (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your prompt replies. Given the accounts you (both) offered here I will then use both terms together in cases where such distinctions are warranted -- and if anything, for the sake of the readers who no doubt in many cases are not knowledgeable about these things. Rif, thanks for the numbers of captured ships, I think, as I now (fully) realize that trying to bring the List of ships captured in the 19th century to (near) completion is going to be a life long work!! Are there lists for these ships anywhere? Presently I have to search through other general ship's lists and have to do quite a bit of reading to gather names and info for inclusion and citations in the list I am working on. But hey, I'm having fun so I am not complaining. As soon as my budget allows for it I would like to purchase at least one of your books, esp since it is used as a source in so many ship's articles here at WP. Again, thanks for your help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The figures are taken from The Corsairs of France, an 1883 volume by Charles Boswell Norman, page 453. It was republished in 1929 as a hardback again, and then in 2004 as a "print-on-demand" paperback (ISBN: 9781417965342). I don't have a copy, so I'm not sure whether there are lists of these captures for the 1803-1815 period, although I do have such a list for the French Revolutionary War. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

HMS Renown
Hello again Rif. Thanks for your help with Aurora, I hope you will be able to help with another query. There was apparently an HMS Renown serving in the American Revolutionary War. She was dismasted in a heavy gale while escorting a convoy from New York to Quebec. Would it be this one? The article is somewhat lacking in information. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC):
 * Yes, this must have been in 1780. The Renown had been involved in the operations off Charleston in January - May 1780, and subsequently proceeded home to the UK with a convoy (I have no record of the 'dismasting' you mention, but the incident could fit in here, although I suspect that, even if one mast was lost and perhaps others damaged, she was not totally dismasted as she was able to proceed - from Quebec? - subsequently to Plymouth (Devon) with that convoy or another one). Arriving back in Plymouth, she underwent a refit (between November 1780 and February 1781) at a cost of £7,362 (including replacement of her coppering), as by then she had been in the West Indies and North America for five years. Incidentally, she was a small two-decker of 50 guns (a group of ships intermediate between the ships of the line and the frigates), and was not a ship of the line, as I found that the article incorrectly claimed; I have amended - and expanded - the article. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks once again. The dismasting is mentioned in two books, "The Three Dorset Captains at Trafalgar" Broadley and Bartelot (1906), and "Nelson's Trafalgar Captains and Their Battles" Heathcote (2005). The latter quotes a large bibliography but does not include the former. The incident apparently happened shortly after the capture of Charleston while the Renown was escorting a merchant convoy to Quebec. Neither book goes on to tell how she continued her journey. Possibly she was either jury rigged somehow or towed by another ship. Both books refer to her as a 50 gun, 4th rate, as you say. I am afraid I can't tell you anymore.--Ykraps (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

HMS Warspite in 1863
Rif, I have an article that refers to the Russian ironclad Pervenets ramming the "hospital ship" HMS Warspite on trials in 1863. Your book says that Warspite was used as a training ship from 1862. Do you have any knowledge of its use as a hospital ship during this period?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Warspite was lent as a boys' training ship to the Marine Society on 27 March 1862 and remained on loan as a training ship to them until 3 January 1876, when she was destroyed by fire (probably arson, although it was never confirmed). Throughout this period she was permanently moored on the Thames between Woolwich and Charlton, so the reference to her as a hospital ship is inaccurate. I note from your article on the Pervenets that this ramming took place at Woolwich, presumably while the Warspite was moored there, although as she wasn't in RN hands throughout this period the incident is not mentioned in RN records. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that that might be the case. Thanks for checking for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rif, on a connected note, the articles for both HMS Colossus (1803) and HMS Warspite (1807) say that they were the only ships built to their respective drafts - that is to say, they were not of the same design. Your Sail and Steam Navy List shows them as part of a single class.  I take it I'm not missing anything, and I should go ahead and adjust the articles to show that they are from the same design? Yours, Shem (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Colossus and Warspite were definitely built to the same John Henslow draught, and actually ordered on the same date (13 January 1798) albeit that the Warspite was delayed and not commenced until 3 December 1805. So please go ahead and make those changes. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rif, thanks. That's done.  Shem (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rif, How do you know the two were ordered on the same date? Had you located either of their contracts? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There were no contracts involved, as both ships were built in the Royal Dockyards. Contracts were only issued when ships were built by commercial contractors. The requisition to build two ships to this draught was given by the Navy Board on 13 January 1798. Rif Winfield (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I c. There aren't any specifications at NMM either. I don't have your book, but a website quotes you as giving her a number of guns and carronades, which I assume were mounted after various refits and not all together because they add up to a lot more than 74/76. I'm looking for any and all information on the Warspite or Colosssus, so if there is anything you can contribute, please fee free. 220.238.36.103 (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm always happy to deal with specific queries, but "anything" on Warspite or Colossus is a little too general. If you wish to research in depth then I would recommend a visit to the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich or the Public Records at Kew; if this is not practical for you (I don't know whether or not you're in the UK) then I would recommend my 1793-1817 volume of British Warships in the Age of Sail.
 * As regards the numbers of guns and carronades, for many ships this varied from time to time. Please remember that the "established" gun rating (i.e. 74 guns) counted carriage-mounted ("long") guns only. Until 1817 (when there was a comprehensive re-casting of the gun ratings) this DID NOT INCLUDE the carronades  except where a carronade actually replaced a carriage-mounted gun. So where a ship received carronades on its quarterdeck and/or forecastle, this did not affect the 74-gun rating. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

HMS Temeraire (1798)

 * Featured article candidates/HMS Temeraire (1798)/archive1

Hello, Rif Winfield. This ship is at WP:FAC, and we've been unable to find anyone who has access to the sources and can verify that 1) the sources are accurately represented in the article, and 2) there is no close paraphrasing or other copyvio issues. We routinely do a spotcheck (random check of a few sources) on each nominator at FAC, just to be sure no plagiarism goes undetected as it did in the Halloween 2010 TFA. Would you have a moment to look in on the article, and just spotcheck a few of the sources for accuracy and no close paraphrasing issues? Should you also find the time to review the article, that would be grand. Best regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. As regards my own cited book, I should point out that the reference quotes the publisher and (wrong) date of the 2nd edition (Seaforth Publishing, 2008 not 2007) but then confusingly gives the ISBN number of the 1st edition (Chatham Publishing. 2005). The correct ISBN for the 2nd edition is ISBN 978-1-84415-717-4. The other cited titles all seem correct and relevent, although I haven't checked their ISBNs, and I cannot verify or otherwise any copyright violations except to say that the attributions seem to be appropriate. I have inserted a couple of remarks re the article elsewhere in the conversation at Featured article candidates/HMS Temeraire (1798)/archive1. Incidentally, re your remark found immediately below my response to your 'ping', I should add that simply because a book has not been cited within a particular article is no reason for excluding it from a Reference List, if it contains relevent background material which would help a reader to learn more about issues and events described by that article. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

HMS York
Hello Rif, hope you are well. I've come across perhaps a discrepancy concerning HMS York (1796). Lavery and Colledge both have her as purchased on the stocks from Barnard, while building as the Royal Admiral, and launched as York on 24 March 1796. Whereas you have her as an earlier build, the Royal Admiral of 1777 (which incidentally is presumably this ship - Royal Admiral (1777)?) being reworked and purchased to be relaunched on 24 March 1796. The 1777 Royal Admiral as described in that article would seem to be a smaller ship than the description of the warship York. Interestingly this site lists a later Royal Admiral of 1433 tons, the only detail being her service date - 1795. I wonder if you could shed any light on the matter? Are Royal Admiral (1777) and HMS York (1796) the same ship? Benea (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * An interesting problem, as the records appear ambiguous on this matter. I think your new info may be correct, but cannot give a categorical answer.
 * Can I ask you to correct an error concerning HMS Duke (1739). The current entries confuse the rebuilt Second Rate (originally the 1678-built Vanguard) which was re-launched at Woolwich on 28 April 1739 with the fireship of the same name that was a merchant vessel purchased at Woolwich on 22 June 1739, seemingly not being renamed and thus providing an extremely rare instance of two RN vessels bearing the same name at the same time. The fireship took part in the Action of 14 June 1742 and is incorrectly cross-referenced in that article to the article on the second rate. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Burthen and deadweight
Hello Rif. Could you stop by The Meermin slave mutiny and its talk page to clarify these terms? It would be appreciated. Kablammo (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have done so. Rif Winfield (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Some time ago I started a project to eliminate erroneous long ton conversions from RN sailing ships, where burthen was meant.  I worked backwards by decade from the mid-19th century to, I believe, c. 1810, but then moved on to other things.  I see there has been some movement on others.  Perhaps sometime they all will be corrected. (Maybe some clever person will invent a bot to fix the rest.)   Regards, Kablammo (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I have corrected a few myself. However, there are many others which are difficult to trace unless one checks every sailing ship (a mammoth task!). Hopefully all - or at least the majority - can be eliminated in time. Meanwhile, you and I (and some other contributors) must continue to rectify such errors as and when we come across them. Regards. Rif Winfield (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Brigs and Sloops
I was recently editing HMS Colibri (1808) because of a family interest in that otherwise not very significant subject. I changed the word in a category from Ship to Sloop. This prompted another editor to change it to Brig from sloop. There seems to be a real confusion on Wikipedia because the Royal Navy referred to its small two masted brigs as Sloops. I have the official records of the court martial into the loss of Colibri where they consistently refer to her as His Majesty's Sloop Colibri. It seems that Wikipedia has not yet fixed on a way of categorising these smaller vessels. Are they to be sloops because that is what the Navy called them, or brigs because of their two masted sail plan or even brig-sloops, which Wikipedia redirects to sloop-of-war. Is there a forum where this could be sorted out? Dabbler (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically every unrated vessel in the escort/patrol vessel category was a sloop, but of course this was usually sub-divided according to the form of sailing rig with which the vessel was fitted, e.g. as a ship-sloop, a brig-sloop, a snow-sloop, or whatever (the hyphen is not essential, but here it helps to define a craft). I would recommend always quoting the full designation, thus for Colibri you should say "brig-sloop". I've no idea which Wiki forum this should be clarified in. Regards. Rif Winfield (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11
Hi. When you recently edited West Nusa Tenggara, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mataram and Tanjung (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I've fixed them both. There remains another problem with Tanjung in that the existing link (Tanjung) in the disambiguation page links to the city of Tanjung on Kalimantan. Both Tanjung on Lombok and Tanjung on Kalimantan are Regency capital cities (i.e. second-tier administrative centres in Indonesia), a fact clearly unnoticed by whoever put in the link as (Tanjung). Logically the article titled "Tanjung (city)" should be for clarity altered to "Tanjung, Kalimantan", with the disambiguation link amended accordingly; and then a brief additional article needs to be created for "Tanjung, Lombok". Can you sort this out? Rif Winfield (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

HMS Active (1869)
I've recently started work on filling out the article on HMS Active (1869) as I've gotten a hold of GA Ballard's series on RN sloops and corvettes of 1875 from the Mariner's Mirror. In the pertinent article he states that Active was only rearmed once, with 6-inch 80-pounders, and did not receive the intermediate step of 18 × 64-pounders like her sister Volage. This contradicts the info in your book that states both ships received the same armament at roughly the same time. I'd be obliged if you could check your notes on this ship as I've found Ballard pretty reliable in his ironclad articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume you're referring to The Sail and Steam Navy List (I have written quite a number of books, although of course this particular one was co-written with the late David Lyon, or at least partly from his research as well as my own). I agree that George Ballard was pretty reliable, and I'm prepared to accept his statement as a correction; my own notes (based on research at Greenwich) are not conclusive enough on this point.
 * I note that there is currently no article on Admiral George Alexander Ballard, RN. You will have noticed from my above-mentioned book that I have quoted (on page 287) from one of his 1938 articles in Mariner's Mirror, and both his series were very much consulted by me in preparing my book. He very much deserves to have a biographical article, but before producing one there is a need for a disambiguation page; there is currently an article on a George Ballard, but it refers to the 18th century antiquary of that name, so a disambiguation page is clearly required. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ballard does have an article under his full name, but it's really just a stub. One of these days, I'll expand it using some of the info from Black Battlefleet and the Mariner's Mirror articles, which I'm going through now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've inserted a sentence describing his Mariner's Mirror articles into the article. However, I think (for the reason given above) that a brief disambiguation page under "George Ballard" would be helpful, and would be grateful if you could provide it. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Tank vessel
Rif, you described HMS Ready, a Frolic-class gunvessel, as being converted to a "tank vessel" in the Sail and Steam Navy List, p. 295. What is that, a water tanker of some sort?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly that, but I used the official term of the period. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ping

 * I mentioned you at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks (I think). Actually yes, as it's the first time that I've been aware of the existence of the list of my contributed articles and edits. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

HMS Viper
Hi Rif, I am working on an article about HMS Viper (1781). In doing so I cam across a bit of an anomaly that I can't resolve out of my resources as I only have your 1793-1817 book. Can you shed any light on this? Thanks and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Colledge has Viper (1762) foundering off Newfoundland on 15 December 1779, and Viper (1777) foundering in the Gulf of St Lawrence on 11 October 1780.
 * Marx has a Viper, Capt. John Augustua (about whom I can find nothing), foundering in the Gulf of St Lawrence on 11 October 1780, agreeing with Colledge, but with no mention of the 1780 foundering.
 * Hepper has Viper (1777), Captain Lord John Hervey, foundering on 15 December 1779, in the Gulf of St Lawrence, and no mention of any Viper foundering in 1780 on the one hand, or off Newfoundland on the other.
 * Will check up on this. There were several RN vessels named Viper during the American War of Independence, as communications took so long that an Admiral commanding one sector of action didn't know what names were allocated by another Admiral elsewhere. David Hepper is the most reliable source, as he extracted his dates direct from the court-martial records which automatically followed every loss of a ship. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Rif, thanks for getting back to me. I have been in touch with David and I believe that we have sorted out some of this. One problem I am finding is that unfortunately many/most of the London Gazette items don't name the captain, so we may have a Viper doing something somewhere, but can't figure out which of the Viper's it was. I am currently digging out what I can, using library sources to find out more about the Viper galley down in South Carolina, and other digging to find out about the Massachusetts Viper. The other sorting out David and I have been doing is with HMS Port Royal, much of which is now up on Wikipedia and where we had to disentangle conflicting records re Countess of Scarborough, Count of Maurepas, and Countess of Maurepas. Still, as I remarked to David, that is why, as the Americans say, they pay us the big bucks. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One or two small errors in the Port Royal article, which I have corrected. Everitt did not reach post rank (due to being killed) so should be shown as Commander, not Captain. Kelly was appointed 13 January 1780, not in "1779 if not earlier". I am unaware as to when in 1779 Everitt was transferred to the Ruby, and who commanded the Port Royal from that date until Kelly took over. David may be able to puzzle this out (I'll ask him). Rif Winfield (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Rif, Thanks for the corrections. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thousand Island Regency (Indonesian: Kepulauan Seribu)

 * I know, I know - frustrating that i renamed with the 's' absent SatuSuro 11:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So please rename it to "Islands" now. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If it was so easy - I am not an admin and I am somewhat concerned with a large article and double or more redirects there might be some accidents - please also understand that on wikipedia there is WP:NODEADLINE - sometimes in some projects I wait for over a month for some merge discussions to play out - If I dont fix it straight away it is not to annoy your sense of immediacy - but simply checking with a friend who is an admin (off-wiki) to help watch that it doesnt become a mess - thanks for your concern... SatuSuro 12:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Noted. Will happily leave this in your hands. I'm editing the Papua (province) article at present. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Actually no drama at all - ironically there was a redirect page which should have been the article page - so contrary to what my admin friends tell me not to do after all these years - I have done a cut and paste to the correct title (no doubt I will hear about it if it has created broken link issues) - and from what I can see it should be ok now - cheers  SatuSuro 12:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Caldwell class destroyer
G'day from Oz; the Caldwell class destroyer article you edited a few weeks back contains the phrase "knots per hour" in a quoted passage. If it is in the original, could you please insert a [sic] into the text, otherwise could you please remove it. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly wrongly phrased, but it is the original text from US Congress. Rif Winfield (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good-oh, thanks for checking. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Krasnodar Krai
Hi, Rif! I took the liberty to remove the table of top-level administrative divisions you added to the Krasnodar Krai article and corrected the summary. There really is no need to duplicate the exact same list in two places&mdash;a short summary with a link to the main article is quite sufficient. As for the 2010 Census numbers, please note that there are currently two different sets used in the articles—preliminary and final. I'm currently going through all preliminary numbers and replace them with final ones, but I haven't done it for Krasnodar Krai yet. Just don't want you to waste time doing a job that will need to be re-done anyway :) Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 10, 2012; 18:59 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly happy with the revised summary (first sentence of this secion). What concerns me is the case for tabulation of the areas and populations of the districts and cities/towns. The article on Administrative divisions of Krasnodar Krai lists the names of these 64 units and their own sub-divisions, but does not tabulate the areas and populations (in 2002 and 2010), which appear nowhere except in the 64 individual articles on these separate entities. Do you not feel that a tabulations of these, in one article, would be informative? I certainly agree with you that, where available, the final census populations should be used rather than the preliminary data. Of course, whatever the verdict on this question reached for Krasnodar krai, I recognise that it will be taken as a precedent for dealing with the other oblasts, republics and krais. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I most certainly agree that having population figures for each administrative division in one place is helpful. In fact, that's the approach taken in this featured list, which was kinda sorta designed as the model for the other articles in the series (and yes, I'm planning to add the 2010 Census figures there as well). I just wanted to point out that having a list of divisions in one article, and then mostly duplicating it (plus the population figures) in another is rather confusing and would cause a number of maintenance problems later on.
 * At any rate, if you are indeed interested in adding the 2010 Census figures to administrative divisions of Krasnodar Krai, by all means feel free to do so (and I can update the individual Krasnodar Krai articles with the final numbers for you to use). It's a bit more problematic with the areas, however&mdash;for Krasnodar Krai, for example, there just isn't one source listing the areas consistently, and the numbers in the individual city/district articles come from a variety of sources (including the unsourced numbers from the Russian Wikipedia, which are all too often simply wrong), not all of which give comparable figures. That's especially true for the cities, since their areas can be given either in terms of the area of city/town proper, or the appropriate administrative unit (one which may include other localities; the city of Sochi is especially bad in that regard), or the area of a municipal division (which may or may not match the area of the corresponding administrative division). On top of that, the figures may change quite often due to minor adjustments and tweaks from one year to another, which is why I'm usually very hesitant to do area tabulations unless there is one reliable source which covers all entities in the list.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 10, 2012; 21:25 (UTC)


 * I'm quite content with your approach as exemplified by Adygea, although I still feel that it might be clearer for all readers if you tabulated the Census populations of all the districts/cities in a table in column format (you will note that I have adopted a similar layout in dealing with the sub-divisions of each of Indonesia's provinces - which please see). I accept that it might be difficult to put in a column for areas, so let's foget that and just tabulate the (final) populations for 2002 and 2010. However, as you have this in hand, I shall be happy to leave it to you. Hopefully, you can right-align these numerical columns. Regards. Rif Winfield (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Doing exactly that is one of the items on my to-do list. Problem is, my to-do list can be published in multiple volumes; it's that long :) What it means in reality is that while I'm more than willing to take on this task, it may take a while (and a long sweet while at that) for me to start. On the other hand, I'm always happy to share the original source with folks interested in working on something (the Census data, for example, are all available online, although, of course, in Russian—don't know if that's a problem for you or not). If you are itching to work on those tables, least of all I want to be the roadblock preventing you from doing it! All I want to ensure, really, is that whatever work that is done won't have to be re-done soon after it's finished. Tables are especially hard (and mind-numbingly boring) to fix once they are in place in dozens of articles. So, if you wish to work on tabulations for Russia, I'll be happy to help! Tables such as those you did for Indonesia would be a great starting point, although I have reservations about placing them at the top level ("Krasnodar Krai") and would rather see them in a subarticle ("administrative divisions of Krasnodar Krai"), so everything is in one place. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 11, 2012; 12:07 (UTC)
 * No urgency, as far as I can see, and I have plenty of other activities pending, so am happy to leave to you (my own knowledge of Russian is low, although I do have a Muscovite colleague if you need translation help). I also agree that the suggested table of populations would fit well at the start of the existing administrative divisions of Krasnodar Krai article/subarticle, before you start going into the text details listing the composition of each district/town. You might try this out with the Adygea article to see how it goes. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not too happy with Adygea's layout anymore either. Perhaps it is indeed time to do further tests to see if the patient will look better :)
 * Anyhoo, if you ever decide that you want to work on tabulations after all, please don't hesitate to let me know if there's anything I can help with. Russian is my first language, so feel free to contact me if I can be of use with that as well. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 11, 2012; 16:28 (UTC)
 * OK, and thanks for the offer. In return, should you wish to contact me, you can email to tanparcau@btopenworld.com. Regards. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Kingfisher (1770)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Riots vs Ethnic Violence
Hi! Can you take a look at this article and say whether it should be renamed? Even though it's a very important subject currently there's little interest in it. Thank you. Nataev (talk) 08:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation. I would agree that the term "ethnic clashes" is more appropriate here, as more is involved than the actual riot incidents, or even than the violence itself. The background to the events needs to be referenced, and the word "clashes" enables this to be referenced more than just the violent actions themselves. Can I also add that the date 2010 should be removed to the end of the title, in accordance with normal Wikipedia indexing practice; if someone is looking for information, it is the fact of ethnic unrest that they will be looking for, not a specific date (the non-specialist reader might not even remember which precise year the events took place in). Finally I would add that the word "southern" is more appropriate than "South". While most readers will understand that we are referring to the southern provinces of the Kyrgyz Republic (specifically Osh City, Osh Oblast and Batken Oblast), there is no formal unit of government at any level that is called "South Kyrgyzstan", and in any case the disputes are not absolutely confined within the administrative boundaries of these two oblasts. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Two puzzles
Hi Rif, Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * French lugger Affronteur (1795): you list her twice in the 1793-1817 book, on p.348 as HMS Caroline, and on p.394 as the hired armed lugger Caroline. As you can see from the Wikipedia article, the records seem to be ambiguous.
 * HMS Atalanta (1814): You and Colledge have her being captured by the Americans later in 1814. I have found that the USS Wasp (1814) captured an Atalanta, but she was an armed merchantmen on a commercial voyage. A US Supreme Court case took extensive testimony on the topic as the issue was the prize status of a French (neutral) cargo on an enemy (British) vessel. Is it possible that shortly after the RN took the American privateer schooner Siro into service as HMS Atalanta, they sold her to some merchants out of Liverpool who rigged her as a brig and put her into trade? I am also still trying to find out how a British brig came to be taking a cargo from Bordeaux to the US at a time when Britain was at war with both.

Proposed deletion of Philip Robinson (author/journalist)


The article Philip Robinson (author/journalist) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. &#32; The nominator also raised the following concern:
 * All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Malcolma (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * References have been added, and cross-link inserted. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

 * Hey Rif Winfield! I'm so happy to see you signed up to join the project - welcome. You can dive into our to-do lists here. Be sure to watchlist your favorite to-do lists, as they will continue to grow as new content gets added to the WDL website. Also, you can always search the WDL website for something that you're interested in. And be sure to share your outcomes here. If I can help with anything just ask and welcome aboard! SarahStierch (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sarah. You'll note that my contributions are likely to be limited by time (see my talk page for some work in progress, not counting various non-online activities), and I suspect that my main function will be editorial on other articles (my apologies now for being a pedant, and thus correcting grammar, spelling and punctuation as well as factual errors and omissions), although I shall create additional articles as and when possible. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)