User talk:Shem1805/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Daring edits
Hi there, whilst your edits to Daring may be accurate, they need to be backed up by verifiable, reliable sources. Otherwise it can be seen as original research. From what I can see at the moment it falls under the Original research bracket. If you need any help putting in the citations or formatting anything, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks and welcome. Woodym555 (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks
For your kind words! I wouldn't quite say I have that level of wisdom, but I do my best. Can I also thank you for creating these articles, we could certainly use more contributors like you to fill in the gaps. If you have any thing else you want help with, feel free to ask. Kind regards, Benea (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Colledge
Sorry, I haven't got one, and neither does my library surprisingly. I am asking around, I am sure someone has one. Woody (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Benea is the person to ask in future it would seem. ;) They have fixed HMS Blanche for you. Woody (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, always happy to help. Woody (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, and well done for your work on HMS Amelia by the way! Benea (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

HMS Black Joke
Hi Shem, I've given it a quick copyedit and a few minor tweaks but there was very little I could find to improve. Another excellently written and comprehensive article! As to the categorisation, I popped it in Royal Navy ships, because at the moment we don't seem to have one for barques, which as far as I can tell is what she is? We could create that as a subcategory of the parent category though...I might do that at some point. In the meantime, keep up the very good work! Best wishes, Benea (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah I see...the plot thickens. Hmmm you're right that it may be a good idea to have a generic 'unrated' page. Or perhaps when we have a few more of the 'tender' variety we could have a category for that.  I think we might want to hang fire on that and see how things develop.  As for linking the dates, the reason is rather an odd one, but it turns out our American cousins would use, for example, February 11, whereas commonwealth English would render the same date as 11 February.  The compromise is to link the date, i.e. 11 February.  You can then set a preference (in the 'my preferences') tab how you want it to be rendered.  For me 11 February renders as 11 February, but for an American who has set his preferences accordingly, that exact same link would read February 11.  It took me a while to work out what was going on, but that's basically the reason why we do that. pip pip!  Benea (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sir Richard Strachan
Thanks! I couldn't believe we didn't already have one, he was certainly a remarkable figure, but cursed I suppose to be around in a time of many remarkable persons. Still, that's another gap filled! Only a few hundred thousand more to go! ttfn, Benea (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tory Island
Thankyou very much. It'll be a while before the article is ready however, I've only just gathered the books together to source it and RL is becoming a bit hectic at the moment. When I put it out there, any help in tidying or organising it would be greatly appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation
Hi there, just a little note about your recent addition of the category Category:Ships of the Royal Navy to a number of ship articles. This is unneccessary per Categorization and Categorization and subcategories where it states that we don't need to put the main root category on pages where the sub-category already exists. All these articles have Category:Royal Navy destroyers etc on them so really they don't need the main category. Did you have a specific reason for adding them? Thanks and regards. Woody (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it! I remember making the same mistake myself once, then I learnt about our gloriously intricate category system and as my talkpage will show you, I am still having issues with it! Hope things are good, regards. Woody (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Type 45 destroyer
Actually only 5 are building - one is undergoing sea trials, which is different. Please revert your change and add 1 to "completed". John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That will do for now, I guess. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

SS California
Dear Shem Bemused by the tonnage / displacement tons issue. Concede I was in error over passenger ships' tonnage, as my original understanding was that tonnage was a calculation of cargo volume for the purposes of port charges. However, your 'wrecksite' link does give California as displacement 16792, not tonnage. Even more perplexed by the Wikipage photo of the California steaming into NY harbour. All the other sites illustrate and / or describe a single stacker, variously described as the RMS 'C'or TSS 'C'. Later conversion, or ID crisis? Also found site relating to strike on board C. in 1936 with ramifications for seamens' union organization and later disputes. Regards, Ptelea (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Ptelea, Thanks for your message. As I understand it, RMS was a prefix given to a ship when employed carrying the mails; it came and went with the job (see Royal Mail Ship).  TSS was a fairly short-lived prefix standing for 'Twin Screw Steamer', when such a thing was new.  SS seems to be a more enduring naming culture.  As for the picture, you gave me a little concern at first!  The description in the text came from T.S.S. California, and talks about two funnels, but the picture beneath the infobox seems to show just one.  In fact, if you look closely at the latter picture, you can see the top of the forward funnel just to the right of flag sierra (the fourth flag from the bottom of the dressing line).  I think the single stacker on other sites may be the SS California (1902) or SS California (1872) (the latter being run by the Anchor Line as well).  The California of the famous strike was a quite different ship, being built in the US in 1928 at Newport News Shipbuilders - see SS California (1928).  Please have a look at the SS California disambiguation page, and see if it squares with your perception.  I would be interested to have a look at the other sites you are talking about - please add them to the References section of the appropriate page.  Yours for now Shem (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Shem Regret the Anchor Line webpage for the California (1923) shows a single- stacker. But in other details, it would appear to be the same ship, so clearly a major makeover at some stage. Looked to other Wiki pages for examples of tonnage / displacement. The compilers of the liners Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary pages enter almost identical figures for both. The more enlightened authors of the QE2 page however seem to appreciate the distinction and give a tonnage substantially greater than the displacement. I'm obviously no expert in this field, and only got involved with the California as original author of the HMS Swale page, my late grandfather having served on her throughout WW2 (see also HM sub G9). Regards, Ptelea (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Ptelea My apologies - I thought we were talking about SS California (1907) being a single stacker. The photo at the Anchor Line webpage is very interesting - certainly the same ship, but UGLY! If you look at the photo on the wiki page, smoke is only coming from the middle funnel - could the other two be purely cosmetic?  My area of expertise is really Naval units, hence my preference for the verifiable source than anything that sounds like Original Research.  I know from my own experience that tonnage figures vary wildly for ships (Net, Gross, Suez, etc, etc).  Great article on Swale, by the way. Thanks for your help, and Viva Wikipedia! Shem (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Tigress/Oak
HMS Tigress and HMS Oak done and dusted. Feel free to ask if there's anything else I can help with. Nice work on those destroyer articles as well! Benea (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Lord Amelius Beauclerk
Hi. Charles is mentioned here as a natural (i.e. illegitimate) son of Lord Amelius, so it may be true. I don't have access to Burke's at the minute, but if you ask User:Proteus nicely, he'll probably check for you, or ask on the talk page at WP:PEER. With regard to the DNB, if you have a UK library card, just enter the number below the barcode into the "Library Card Login" section of the website (it should begin with an 'L' then a ten digit number). Regards, Craigy (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can make do with a slightly different source, a Google Books snippet from "The House of Nell Gwyn: The Fortunes of the Beauclerk Family, 1670-1974" confirms that Charles was a natural son of Lord Amelius. Choess (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Black Joke
Hi, Shem. The tag incomplete was previously on the article. I only added an interwiki to Galician language, ;). I guess the tag was added because there are more "black jokes" than these three ships. For instance, this one called gl:A Burla Negra (for English people and historians, "Black Joke"). But I am not a great editor on en.wikipedia, and I am not sure about the use of this tag. :) Best wishes. --Xabier Cid (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, never mind, :) --Xabier Cid (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Dolphin and Mariner Class gunvessels
Dear Shem, all the Dolphin Class and Mariner Class vessels were actually built as composite gunvessels. The two Dolphin Class vessels were reclassified as sloops while building, and the six Mariner class vessels were reclassified as sloops on 26 November 1884. The normal practice is to list them under the type of vessels they were originally, so I suggest that you include both classes with the Lists of gunboat and gunvessel classes of the Royal Navy. I also suggest that the articles on the eight individual vessels (some of these may not yet have been written!) should be amended accordingly. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that we do not yet have a section for List of gunboat and gunvessel classes of the Royal Navy. This is an obvious oversight, and it would be very useful if you could start it (and index it into the list of ship types of the Royal Navy). It you would do that, I could start to list the numerous vessels involved. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Shem, Yes, I am happy to email you a list, if you give me an email address to send it to (mine is sailing.navy@btinternet.com). What I can email you is the appropriate sections of the text from "The Sail and Steam Navy List" (by David Lyon and Rif Winfield, 2004, Chatham Publishing. ISBN 1-186176-032-9), and I should be obliged if you can acknowledge the book in the referenced material in the Wiki-pages.

I also agree it's sensible to use the existing reference to List of gunboats of the Royal Navy, although I think it would be sensible to amend this list title to include "and gunvessels", and change the link within List of ship names of the Royal Navy to reflect the expanded title. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Shem, no sign yet of the e-mail address from you, so I can send data. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

List of gunboat and gunvessel classes of the Royal Navy
Dear Rif Please take a look at List of gunboat and gunvessel classes of the Royal Navy when you get a chance. No need to do any serious error checking just yet! Is this what you had in mind (bearing in mind I've barely started, or so it feels)? Should I be putting in all the Indian Navy and Steam Packets here? Grateful for any feedback, slowtime. Yours, Shem (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Shem, I think this is a good start, although I have a couple of suggestions to make.

(1) At some date this table will need to be expanded to include the purely sailing gunboats - I would suggest that you will need to look at the RN's gunbrigs and gunboats of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars - 150 of the former were designed and built for the RN, to a half-dozen distinct classes, apart from vessels added by purchase or capture. You may not wish to add all these in yourself - I just suggest that you should allow for these to be inserted into the list at some stage, to appear before the steam-powered vessels. (2) Looking at the way in which other RN vessels have been entered in List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy and List of corvette and sloop classes of the Royal Navy, it seems preferable to me that your new article should follow the same or a similar layout, i.e. listing under each class name the total number of vessels built to that design, and then giving for each vessel simply basic details of name, launch date, and final disposal. You can then quote other (fuller) details of each vessel's builder, full construction dates, etc, in one specific article for each class. This is the way if has been done for the other types of RN warships, and I suggest it would be sensible to follow that precedent. Otherwise you will be repeating information which it seems to me should be better placed into the articles on individual classes.

These are just suggestions, and I look forward to hearing your views of them. Best wishes. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Rif Thanks for the comments; I had already anticipated the need for pre-Nineteenth century gunboats (and, as you say, gunbrigs), and I know how I'll get them in there very easily.  Can you send me the details in the same way?  I'll take a couple of weeks at least to run through the current gunboats/gunvessels page, ensuring that the details are error-free (which I doubt, given my errors of transcription that I've already uncovered).  It also occurs to me that torpedo-boats are not listed anywhere - I imagine another (but much shorter list) is called for.  As for the format, it has the very strong advantage of making the class pages simple to write - as I'm doing with Mariner class gunvessels.  What I could do is simply delete the lists as the class pages get filled in.   One question I do have for you is: have I missed any entire classes out, and do all the vessel listed count as Royal Navy vessels?  I'm thinking particularly of Magnet, Canada and the like.  I've left out all the colonial service vessels (but not HMS Diana (1823)) for that very reason.  Thanks for all your help - without it, I wouldn't so much have started.  Yours, Shem (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Duchess Of Montrose
Thanks for the work you carried out on what was my first Wikipedia article.

I'm in the process of accumulating information that should improve the Early career section of the page.

And a big thankyou for adding the Workbox - superb!

Thanks again Burruchaga (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First up - You lost me when you suggested I should add a comment rather than change your talk page - hopefully I've got it right here?


 * Secondly - I'm delighted with the recent changes you made to Duchess of Montrose. Thankyou. I've taken on board the comment about the article ending suddenly but I believe she was never truely replaced (I'll check my sources at another date). There was a further Duchess of Montrose but she was built in 1930.


 * Thanks again - Burruchaga (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I'll try to be clearer, but you've obviously got it! It's a pleasure to tidy up such a well-researched article; normally it's the research on other peoples' articles that takes the time.  Putting the finishing touches to yours was a real relief.  I've had a look myself for a replacement, and as you say, there wasn't really one.  The railway connections must have been served after the war, but I'm not clear how that happened.  I'll make the article B-class anyway, and if you think of a better way to round it off, all the better.  I hope you hang around at Wikipedia when you've finished the work on your Great Grandfather - you're the right stuff for an ideal editor, and I'd be glad to collaborate anytime. Yours Shem (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Additions to USS West Bridge (ID-2888)
Thanks for the pronunciation addition to USS West Bridge (ID-2888). Since I see you speak Russian, could you possibly take a look at two other ship articles I have worked on? SS Iowan and SS Dakotan were both also Soviet ships under Lend-Lease. If you could add pronunciations to those two articles or possibly verify my reading of the google translations, that would be nice. Thanks in advance! — Bellhalla (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Smaller Royal Navy Warships from 1660
Hi Shem,

Where are we goıng to place the smaller English/British warships of post-1660? The article on Early Englısh warships(pre 1660) ends wıth the remark "For ships-of-the-line of the Royal Navy, successor to the Protectorate Navy after 1660, see List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy", but obviously this gives no clues as to where to locate anything smaller than a Fourth Rate. The article on Frigates of the Royal Navy starts with the first "true" frigates of 1748; I can of course add the single-decked Sixth Rates from 1660 - 1748 at the start of this artıcle (in fact, I plan to do so at some tıme), but where do we insert the Fıfth Rates, and indeed the unrated vessels? Do we count all the Fıfth Rates as "frigates"? Do we have a fresh article for unrated vessels (i.e. smaller than frigates) or do we put them in with "sloops"? In any case, there needs to be some direction within the article on Early English warships to articles on anything smaller than a Fourth Rate. Comments please? Rif Winfield (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Rif You are addressing a systematic issue that has bothered me for a while.  Firstly, I think there needs to be a List of unrated vessels of the Royal Navy, which would include all those vessels like HMS Black Joke (1827), which are currently unlisted.  As for Early English ships of all types, they should be filed under List of early warships of the English Navy.  As you quite rightly point out, that leaves a gap between 1660 and 1748 for the Fifth and Sixth Rates.  I wonder whether something akin to List of Fifth- and Sixth-Rate vessels of the early Royal Navy might not do the trick, but I can recommend asking User:Benea, since he has far more Wikipedia experience than I do; his opinions are well worth listening to. Linking the articles together will be fairly simple to do, both by adjusting the templates or by adding appropriate links, but it is important to get the basic structure right.  Sorry I'm not much help at the moment - Real Life is very much to the fore at the moment, although I should get back to the grindstone in a month or so!  Yours, Shem (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Italian_submarine_Uebi_Scebeli_sinking.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Italian_submarine_Uebi_Scebeli_sinking.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. It helps when I can spell "British" correctly instead of writing "Template:PD-BristishGov". Sorted.  Shem (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Arctic Exploration
Hi Shem. Thanks very much for the kind words about the Coppermine article - I'm quite pleased with it. An article giving a general overview of the navy's exploration is an excellent idea, in fact I was just thinking when I was writing the Coppermine page that it would be very useful. Not sure how much help I can be right at the moment as I'm really just starting to read up on Arctic history (as you can see from my userpage, my main interest up to now has been mountaineering), but I definitely plan to do more work in the area and I'll see what I can do. I'm not online much for the next few days, so apologies if it takes me bit of time. Cheers, Iain99Balderdash and piffle 00:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Compass notation "N.W. ½ W"
Hi Shem. I'm looking into a question from User:Bellhalla and thought I'd bounce it off a British mariner. He asked me to decipher the notation "N.W. ½ W." as used in "140 miles N.W. ½ W. of Tory Island." My best guess is that it is what I'd write as NWxW, "northwest by west" or 303.75°T. I wonder if this notation is familiar to you? Thanks! H aus Talk 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I took another look this morning and found the answer in a 1918 deck officer's manual, it turns out that the answer is 309.375°T. Fair winds, and sorry for the spam.   H aus Talk 18:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

HMS Dragon
Apologies for removing the battle honours. I didn't realise they carried over to new ships of the same name. Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Daring
Whilst being referred to as HMS Daring by the press, she is not technically HMS Daring until she is commissioned so I think it should remain until July. In terms of the external links, I don't like "bare" external links within article text so I have put a couple into ref templates, moved the association link to the external links section and removed two altogether as they are unneccessary. Wikipedia isn't here to provide links to every page and all of the links can be found by going to the respective Wikipedia pages. All in all, they weren't supplying any extra information to the reader that is relevant to Daring. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on my talkpage. Regards, Woody (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ship Name
FYI, I'm not conceding, I still think your wrong, I just don't care to drag it out over a small issue. The article's your baby, do as you please. Ryan 4314  (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

William Charles Fahie
Hey no problem. :) Happens to all of us. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

French frigate Pomone
Shem, please see my note on the talk page of this article. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

HMS Mahratta (G23)
Hi, I've reverted that edit which removed about half the article's content. Please see article talk page for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've responded at the article talk page. Shem (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You can watch a talk page by adding it to your watchlist. I use this subpage to watch for changes to articles I've edited as described on the HMS Mahratta talk page. Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

HMS Diana (1824)
Hi Shem: Lovely work with the infobox and the picture. Many thanks. Now, it is a bit cheeky of me, but if you get a chance and feel like it, it would be great if you could add a picture to HMS Assistance (1850). There is a great one by Thomas Sewell Robins that is in the collection of the National Maritime Museum. I'd do it, if I had any idea out how to do the relevant file, especially the copyright disclaimer. Again, thanks and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the speedy and lovely job on HMS Assistance (1850). That really tarts up the page. I have looked at what you have done with the picture and I think I can do pictures myself. Should I screw up, which is not unheard of, I will get back to you for further guidance. In the meantime, many thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Laws of the Navy Image
Shem, thanks for your note. The poem of Laws of the Navy, written by Rear Admiral Hopwood, is a creation made by the Admiral while on duty to the U.S. Government, and on the time of the U.S. Government. It was subsequently published by the U.S. Government, and is only found in U.S. Government publications. No copyright has ever been noted on the Laws of the Navy in the Navy's various books which contain it. Generally documentation, such as this, produced by the U.S. Navy is public domain. I have several books, such as my Plebe Year "Reef Points" which contain the laws ... which are required memorization for all Naval Academy Midshipmen. The U.S. Navy does not make it a practice to require private copyrighted material to be memorized as basic training knowledge for its recruits. I do not believe there is any argument, logically, that can be made against this set of Laws, published every year by the U.S. Navy in the USNA Reef Points. I am open, however, to a persuasive argument that these Laws are, somehow, not a product and publication of the U.S. Government. Last, but not least, the image in question is a creation of the U.S. Government, as photo # NH 41883 in the historical image library of the U.S. Navy. Sincerely, Grayghost01 (talk)
 * All well meaning nonsense, I'm afraid. Please see my comments at Possibly unfree files/2009 May 17.  I would suggest that by copying this plate, the US Government is committing a gross breach of copyright. Shem (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concerns; tagging
Hello, Shem1805. Thank you for pointing out your copyright concerns with File:Lawsofthenavy.jpg. I'm dropping you a line just to let you know that the copyright problems board, where you listed the image, is specifically used for text that violates copyright. For images that are clear copyright violations, you can follow the procedure for speedy deletion. For images that are suspected to be copyright violations, we have a review board for possibly unfree images. For images used under suspect non-free content criteria, we have non-free content review. Other image copyright concerns are handled in various ways (see Guide to image deletion for specifics.) I have relocated this listing to Possibly unfree files/2009 May 17, but I wanted to let you know for future use in case you should encounter another image that raises concerns. Thanks again for pointing out the potential problem. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)