User talk:ThoughtIdRetired

Welcome
 Hello ThoughtIdRetired, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

ThoughtIdRetired, good luck, and have fun. – Thomas.W   talk to me  21:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Dorothy Wordsworth‎‎
Go for it, no need to be shy. wp:Bold and all that. Ceoil (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=602012445 your edit] to Sca Fell may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Scafell  or ; {{cite book | last =

Explaining
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Shingle
Disambiguation pages are not articles, meant to cover every aspect of a word – they are navigation pages. Their only purpose is to list articles that already exist or are likely to be created, so users can find the article they were looking for. Dictionary-type definitions of the word "shingle", which I think is what you're getting at, should be covered on the wiktionary page shingle, which is linked from the dab page. —Swpbtalk 12:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I can help you with that. If you think there's a topic Wikipedia isn't covering but should, you can create an article on it, and link to that article from the dab page. (Maybe shingle (habitat) or shingle (ecosystem) – but the idea seems be covered by the existing shingle beach, so maybe you should just expand that article.) My concern is with making sure disambiguation pages adhere to their manual of style, which means they should not contain any "orphaned" encyclopedic content that belongs in articles, or dictionary definitions that belong on wiktionary. —Swpbtalk 18:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Beauman
Hope I didn't tread on your toes, most of the articles I write on are somewhat becalmed. It's a bit of a surprise when someone responds. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Keith-264/sandbox5 I'm making slow progress on Operation Cycle here. Keith-264 (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Gunters
I am just passing through-- but could I add that I have a little difficulty with the narrowness of your definition. I first came across Gunters in 1965 on the Salcombe estuary, where the gunter was the spar on a working clinker built training dinghy- sometimes the word gaff was used instead. I see on WP that the difference between gaff rig and gunter eventually was the angle of the gaff, and gunter hoops ands sliding bars that original were important had disappeared from the definition by the time of the Mirror (dinghy). Still that was a long time ago.. and the memory is distant. See my image here of the Salcombe Yawl, a ketch. ClemRutter (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting, ClemRutter. I am not sure if you have looked at the Glossary of nautical terms entry or the article Gunter Rig. I have been working on both, and certainly have a lot more to do on the article. I have looked again at both entries and probably need to ask you to explain how you think the definitions are narrow. It may be that you have looked at the article alone - so I could answer you to say that a lot needs to change - it is a work in progress.


 * I have put a substantial amount of work into trying to find definitive sources for (a) the origins of gunter rig and (b) the precise terminology of all the components - and I think, now, have some reasonable success. Like you, I learnt some elements of knowledge on boats, small and large, just about a lifetime ago - but, speaking just for myself, I feel one has to be careful about (1) whether what you learnt was actually what was taught (and I recently embarrassed myself on Wikipedia by getting the definition of Dead Reckoning wrong, despite having learnt this term in formal classes for navigating both boats and then, a few years later, aircraft) (2) whether the person teaching you actually knew what they were talking about. So, from recent (embarrassing) experience, and from Wikipedia principles, I am disciplining myself to work from sources.


 * Hence I have looked at:


 * Old newspapers through the British Newspaper Archive - not found anything worthy of being a WP:RS source here but it confirms some other sources, especially with articles about the gunter-rigged yachts raced on the Seine in the last quarter of the 19th century. There are some quite technical descriptions in these old newspapers.


 * John Leather's book Spritsails and Lugsails, which does cover the subject (the term "gunter lug" for the rig demonstrates the origins of the rig from an increasingly high peaked standing lug. So this explains both why John Leather covers the subject in a book about lug rig and also why the purists always call the spar used in gunter rig a "yard" despite so many people calling it a gaff). It is in John Leather's book that you can see diagrams of "gunter irons", the 2 metal fittings that fix the yard so that it can slide up and down the mast. He also explains the evolution to a 2 halyard system, with the peak halyard going to a traveller on a "wire span" (his terminology) on the yard. I don't know if you are familiar with John Leather as an authoritative writer on anything to do with traditional sailing craft - he is perhaps best known for his book Gaff Rig. Leather's Spritsails and Lugsails is cited by other authors in the following list and I note that he was asked to writer the introduction to the latest edition of Edgar J Marsh's 2 volume Inshore Craft of Britain (another definitive work).


 * The Working Guide to Traditional Small Boat Sails by David L Nichols. It seemed important to get an American slant on things - especially since gunter rig is less common there. There are no surprises to be found there, and he cites John Leather extensively.


 * The Dinghy Cruising Companion by Roger Barnes. I identified this source from an article written by Iain Oughtred, a respected dinghy designer. He said good things about this book, and reading it confirms that view. This is another writer who states that the spar that a gunter sail is laced to is a "yard" not a "gaff", though acknowledging that many get this wrong. All his diagrams, pictures and text concur with John Leather.


 * Also helpful is the Whaleboat by Willets D. Ansel (published by Mystic Seaport Museum). I had not been aware of gunter rig use in anything other than pleasure craft.


 * The origins of this rig, and of its name seem to be as unclear as for many sailing rigs. There are 2 main theories: that the name comes from the inventor of an early form of slide rule, with the spar and the mast behaving like the sliding elements thereof; or that it is imported from islands in Indonesia where craft called "guntons" used something of this type. This latter theory goes against the idea that it evolved from extremely high peaked standing lugs, so doesn't work for me - but John Leather mentions it as a possibility.


 * Current high volume user of the rig include the Mirror dinghy (as you mention) but also the Drascombe Lugger (which, of course, is not a lugger at all!!) and quite a number of cruising dinghies. I am trying to build a list. Is the Salcombe Yawl gunter rigged in the early versions? (I note that many philistines have converted gunter to Bermuda rig.) Incidentally, the Salcombe Yawl is an interesting illustration of "yawl" as a hull type, rather than a rig. But that is another subject.


 * The one thing I have yet to pin down is a good explanation of the difference between gaff and gunter rig. From my own experience (see caveats about that above) I would say it is down to what happens when hoisting, reefing or lowering. For gaff rig, you hoist on the throat and peak halyard simultaneously and then "peak up" once the throat halyard is tight. When you reef or lower, you slack off the peak halyard until the gaff is roughly horizontal and then lower away on both. With gunter, things depend on the precise arrangements (because there are several of these) but, in a common situation, you get the yard vertical first on the peak halyard, then hoist on the throat. To reef you slack on the throat halyard only, and to lower you slack on throat until the yard jaws reach the boom gooseneck and then lower on the peak. At what point does a high-peaked gaff become a gunter? I don't know. Nor can I find a source that uses my "hoisting/lowering method" differentiation - or any other for that matter.


 * Sorry to ramble on - I suppose it is evidence of lots of work balanced against not much Wikipedia editing output.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I am back with my books on Tuesday so I will have a poke around. My memory is shot but occasionally I get a clear flashback- Salcombe was about wet shorts, wet cold legs, a life jacket that didn't fit and larking around. You are far more competent than me and its enjoyable to read what you are doing. I hope a few anecdotes helps. Speak next week. ClemRutter (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have gone through the lot- and found nothing of use. I was checking out Thames sailing barge references and Underhill on Deep Water Sail Pamir (ship) etc. ClemRutter (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, ClemRutter - thanks for looking. It seems fruitless searches are the order of the day - for the past hour or two I've come back to an old subject: trying to find good information on the Montagu whaler - its a challenge!ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to visit the Chatham Historic Dockyard Library today- well it was closed. I have sent their assistants this email which may or may not result in something.

I did drive over today and security explained you were closed- which is not what I had understood from this website. No matter I can try again quite easily. What I wanted to ascertain was whether there was material in collection on these two topics. 1. The origins design and service history of Montagu Whalers. 2. The gaff and gunter rig: it seems if the terms have changed on the last few centuries. There is talk that a gunter, was a sliding gaff on hoops or a rail, but also that when a gaff is at an angle of 15% or less than is becomes a gunter. Is there a source available that discusses this?
 * I don't know whether I adopted the correct tone. I have never tried the direct approach before. ClemRutter (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Some of these maritime museums take a very "granny knows best" attitude - others are a complete joy to deal with. Let's see what they come up with.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

27ft whalers
Success. I drove over to Gillingham (Chatham Dockyard) and penetrated security. In the library, I met up with two ex mateys, Jim Williamson and Les Holland who work as volunteers. Les had just scanned his own personal photo of five cadets rowing one on the Medway and promised to donate it to commons Jim took me up to the mezzanine of number 2 slip where I got a mobile phone photo of a genuine Montagu whaler, and its bow markings. By googling on 27ft whalers we got a vast number of hits. I have put a lot of links on Talk:Montagu whaler. I think that to do this area justice we need to do a disamb page, Whaler (factory ship) Whaler (whale boat) Whaler (military). It would seem that the true Montagu whaler was a class of open clinker built boats commissioned by Vice Admiral Victor Alexander M, godson to Queen V., operating from warships through WW1 and WW2. A later 1 in 3 whaler was derived from it and sailed with a petrol engine, though widely used replacing the older Montagu 2 in 1 designs, it was a bit of a dog.ClemRutter (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I also saw two books Folkard and The Gaff Rig by John Leather I took some snaps but haven't looked at them yet. ClemRutter (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It has taken me a while to get back on this subject. I understand that there is a Montagu Whaler at the SS Great Britain. They tell me: "We do have an example of this vessel, however it is not part of our museum collection, and is rather a piece of interpretation on site. Therefore we don’t have a huge amount of information on it. It come into the museum under entry form 00659, as a transfer from the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich. It’s original number was BAE0077.0 – description ‘Boat, complete, Montague whaler’." They suggested the Royal Navy Museum in Portsmouth, but they are not taking curatorial enquiries at the moment, as they missed out on a bid for funding and have a big move on. Someone needs to write a book on this, but I fear any first hand knowledge is rapidly disappearing.
 * Incidentally I am guessing that you have seen things like (one of a set of 3). This has a lot of operational information - but no history.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

George V
Since you seem to have tartan books around, there's an alleged quote from George V in the second entry at List of tartans, but no citation. I'm wondering whether it's bogus, but maybe you have materials for this on-hand. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm probably not a lot of use on this question - I am more involved in economic/agricultural history than this aspect of Scottish history. It sounds like a believable, though trivial, quote. If it were important, one could trawl through previous versions of the article to find the editor who put it in - but they probably would not remember where they saw it. I am guessing you will leave tag on it for a few weeks and then delete the assertion if nothing is forthcoming. Perhaps a question on Talk:George V - because this may originate in a biography?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was likely to be my next stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Schooner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Topgallant ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Schooner check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Schooner?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Highland clearances
Re the hatnote - "clearance" doesn't redirect there, but plural "clearances" does, and has done since 2007. Someone changed that today, without any discussion that I can see, so I tried to restore things to the way they were. Sorry if I did something wrong, but could you please look at this again? Thank you. --94.197.89.137 (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Rename Broach (sailing) => Broach (nautical)?
Hi, ThoughtIdRetired, you might want to weigh in at Talk:Broach (sailing). Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Broach_(nautical): introductory paragraph
Hi,

Regarding Broach_(nautical):

I think that your recent additions to the introductory paragraph make it less helpful because they attempt to cover too many concepts. This both makes the introduction more verbose and fails to do justice to those concepts. Remember that an introductory paragraph serves to introduce a concept to people outside a domain. So the explanation must avoid specialized vocabulary.

Please consider restoring the introductory paragraph to its previous, short version.

--Black Walnut (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC).


 * I have had a go at a "hybrid" version of the lead. Do you think this does the job?


 * Generally, I feel the article could do with a bit more content, but it is difficult to find good sources. There are many yachtsman's books, many of which seem to be completely unaware of the hydrodynamics of wave induced broaching. (And few of them seem to mention the unseaworthy design element of modern yachts: broad transoms with flat floors aft lift the rudder out of the water when heeled.) In contrast, the IMO has sponsored and encouraged a lot of work on the technical aspects of wave-induced broaching - but I have only been able to find very technical research papers on the subject. If I don't understand the mathematics in those papers, I should be wary of using them as a reference. What I do know is that broaching is a very real risk for powerboats - particularly small craft entering harbour. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Your latest version is a significant improvement.

I also agree that the article would benefit from expansion. Actually, it was much longer a decade ago. It even included advice on sailing technique. I haven't looked closely into how all that material vanished. Collecting and reintroducing some of it could be worthwhile. I believe it included references.

Some remaining problems in the article's introduction:


 * Your latest version introduced some specialized terminology: "beam" and "on to the sea". We must avoid domain-specific terms if we can find words which non-sailors can understand.  Especially in an introduction.  Also, for most people, "moment" conveys a unit of time.  "momentum" may be a better choice, since it is unambiguous.


 * What about sailing down-river? Is the loss of control, caused by matching the river's motion, not a form of broaching?  That is still water action but it isn't caused by waves.  Here is a new draft sentence for the introduction.  What do you think?


 * If the rudder is surrounded by water whose motion (due to waves, tides, or currents) approximates the vessel's own, then the rudder's relative speed through that water is reduced.


 * Does broaching leave the vessel beam to the wind or does the vessel turn into the wind? The intro claims both, which is confusing.  If the end result depends on the interaction between wind, swell, and the specific vessel's hydrodynamic and aerodynamic properties, then the end result is too complex a matter to raise in the introduction.


 * Looking at my own last version, I now think that I should have removed the distinction between power and sailing vessels. Your recent edits inherited this distinction.  I think it would be better to leave this to the article's body, where we can do it justice.

--Black Walnut (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC).
 * Possible rewrite of "The loss of control from either cause usually leaves the vessel beam on to the sea, and in more severe cases the rolling moment may cause a capsize." would be "The loss of control from either cause usually leaves the vessel beam on to the sea (with the boat pointing at right angles to the direction of travel of the waves). In more severe cases the momentum of the rolling action that is involved may cause a capsize."
 * Not aware of any down-river risk of broaching - do you have a source that addresses this?
 * When thinking about the water flow over the rudder, tides and currents are irrelevant because the "closed system" is the boat in the water - if the whole system (boat plus water) is moving due to, say, a fast tide, that has no relevance to what we are considering.
 * The resultant position: beam on to wind or sea. This is one of the fossils in the article from when it just considered wind action. Some thought needs to be applied to this.
 * Distinction between sail and power vessels. I think this is where Wikipedia cannot work in isolation from the way others write about the subject. There is so much written in the yachting press about wind-derived broaching that there needs to be some separation of the subject of wave action broaches. The simplest ways to talk about this is to use the term "power boat". I feel that this will trigger the highest level of understanding by readers with any boat-handling experience. The IMO has done extensive work on the subject of wave-action broaches - it has important commercial relevance, especially in fishing vessels. Any streamlining of the article on this aspect should be done with extreme care not to blend the 2 subjects to the extent that it is not obvious to the reader that there are 2 subjects. (Taking on board the point that "Wikipedia is not an instruction book" - we still need to consider that Wikipedia is providing information on a subject where lack of knowledge can easily kill you. Whilst sailing yachtsman have probably heard of broaching and may know how to reduce the risks, power-boat owners may be completely unaware of the subject.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of copying the above discussion to Talk:Broach (nautical). I think it is better to discuss content of the article there. Please do not continue any of this discussion on this page.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Point-y
Point-y edit summary or what? You know exactly why it was removed and it is documented on the talk page. I hope you can get through to the person who wrote it that they should really not usurp an article in that way - build up changes within the article rather than dump an entire rewrite on it. And when using potential dodgy sources - ones that might fall foul of our policies etc - explain why they are not dodgy on the article talk. This is common sense, surely? There is sadly little of it around when it comes to a lot of transport stuff: lots of knowledge, no collaboration. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that I do not have any problem working with anyone else in the Wikipedia editor community that works on ships, naval history or maritime articles generally. Yes, there may be differences of opinion or different level of understanding of a particular subject - but these have always been dealt with politely and with respect for the other editors. I have done some editing on other subjects where you do find people who spend all their time Wiki-lawyering and refusing to read (or perhaps understand) cited sources, but I have not met that before in articles about ships, etc. Either way, the normal way to deal with a reference that you feel is "dodgy" is to tag it in the article and/or put something on the talk page - then leave it a week or so and see what sort of a response you get. That is always additional to any researching of the reference yourself - because it is always possible to misunderstand where a cited source sits among all the other possible sources for an article.
 * The only reason I have got involved in this is because I see a hard-working and diligent editor with a good track record being treated with limited respect. I appreciate that you see this differently. I hope, however, that you would take my opinion into consideration.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Leaders WWII
ThoughtIdRetired, question on the leaders list based on days in charge, how would we list the Axis, I'm assuming Hirohito, Hitler and Mussolini? --E-960 (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Without doing any precise arithmetic: Mussolini was in charge of a country at war from June 1940 to 8 Sept 1943 (Italian Surrender) Hitler from the invasion of Poland 1 Sept 1939 to his suicide 30 April 1945 Hirohito from 7 Dec 1941 to 15 Aug 1945 so that's Hitler, Hirohito followed by Mussolini I think. Interestingly, that's what the article currently has.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Question about yawl
I note that you've edited the Yawl article. If you have a moment, I'd appreciate it if you'd look at the question I just raised. Something is wrong in the article but I'm not sure how to fix it. Attention from a knowledgeable editor would be great. JamesMLane t c 18:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to see that you've addressed the question I raised... and also gone "slightly" beyond that point in improving the article. I commend you and the other editors who are putting so much work into it. JamesMLane t c 08:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yawl done well.
Nice work on Yawl. Thanks. Qwirkle (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The front page
Just been browsing your front page, I wonder if you have The War at Sea (3 volumes)? Useful for basics like when, where, who and how many though later authors have revised some of these aspects. can be very useful for matters mundane. I'd be happy to put my library at your disposal. Since you're interested in naval history, perhaps you can help me, I'm looking for details of Red Sea convoys 1940-41 that I can use for East African campaign (World War II) which I've been revising and expanding for ages. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Epidemic typhus
Thank for your comment on Minor edit. I'm also curios if hunger-typhus is the same thing as Epidemic typhus. Can't find good definition of hunger-typhus. Thanks ! User:Abune (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hunger-typhus: I think this is a different form of typhus, still caused by a rickettsia bacterium. I believe that hunger-typhus is synonymous with Murine typhus - but I can't say that with any certainty. Difficult to track down a reference that definitively decodes "hunger-typhus" with any modern term. You can find the term "hunger-typhus" in old newspapers - for instance accounts by British POWs in Germany at the end of WW1 when they described conditions in Germany.
 * There are quite a few of these rickettsia diseases out there (the name Rocky Mountain spotted fever always sticks in my mind from microbiology lectures). However it is clear that one disease can have several names, particularly if you look at obsolete ones. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Really appreciate your in depth answer. Will it be OK to "copy-past" it in Murine typhus article ? Term hunger-typhus is mention several times in wikipedia articles so it will be nice to have some clarification on what it is. User:Abune (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * OK to copy-paste, but please note that I have not been able to cite a good reference for hunger-typhus being a synonym of murine typhus. That is just my understanding.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Staysail schooners
Totally personal, but I think staysail schooners are the most beautiful boats of all. J S Ayer (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Falmouth work boats
Hello ThoughtIdRetired, Thanks for your recent thanks concerning the Falmouth quay punt article. Something else for you, perhaps: I am suggesting the Falmouth work boat article be moved (renamed) to Falmouth working boat. Please go to the article's Talk page if you wish to discuss this. Cheers, --Frans Fowler (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback
Thanks for the thoughtful response re: Highland Clearances edits. I appreciate the justification and reasoning behind the current wording. Regards,

Socksage (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hull.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Flotilla
I noted that the Glossary of nautical terms had no entry for "flotilla," which is a pretty major oversight. To get us all started on developing one, I summarized the discussion of the term at the Flotilla article in a way that provides what I view as pretty good definition of the term in definition (1), which captures the rather wide-ranging scope of the naval definition. That article already is linked to the definition and lists its own set of sources, which you can access there. (If there is any problem with the description at the Flotilla article, then that's an even bigger Wikipedia problem, and I would suggest opening a discussion about it there.) I thunk that native English speakers also will agree that "flotilla" has a more informal meaning as well, as captured at Wiktionary and in other sources, so I added that as definition 2. I don't assume that there is a single, definitive definition out there for us to use, as each general dictionary will define "flotilla" a bit differently and with greater or lesser detail, and specific discussions of individual navies and their flotilla organizations will have to be cited to capture assorted additional definitions. All of that being said, now that I got us started, I encourage you and others to build upon it by adding or parsing additional meanings, providing additional citations, etc. My hope is that the definition(s) — and, indeed, the articles they link to — will in that way improve over time. Mdnavman (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)mdnavman


 * Thanks for your comments - I had missed the blindingly obvious that the entry was a summary of the article on the subject. Just to be hypercritical, that article is a bit meagre on references. I think the Language of Sailing ref might be a source of improvement for Flotilla Holidays. Not going to have time to do anything today though. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gig (boat), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cutter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Scharnhorst
The IP editor who you reverted at German_battleship_Scharnhorst has gone back and done the same thing again. I agree completely with your edit summary. On the whole, I think their edits make the article worse, not better. I can't see what's wrong with shipping water rather than onboarding it, or taking on (I would reserve "taking on" for when a ship decides to take something on, for example a ship that has no drinking water would stop at a port to take on water, but maybe that's just me). And antiaircraft is plain ugly. It needs that hyphen. I didn't revert, because I tend only to revert blatantly wrong stuff, not silly edits whose outcome is readable and okay, but just a bit worse than it was. Nevertheless, I thought you might be less charitable, and I'd support any such reversion! Elemimele (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Ww2
I felt some newer readers might not yet know who the allies and axis were, but it’s ok if you want to keep it. Ffffrr (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steamship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GRT.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Glossary of nautical terms (S)
I've made a mess of this article. Problem is that in your recent edits you inadvertently removed some of the sources (eg Kammen and the second Admiralty one) and so I was using guesswork to sort out the sfns (which were referring to removed sources). I have no interest in the article other than its sfns so I have returned it to its state of 11 Jan (where the sfns all worked and were presumably correct). I now know more about Kammen (and his son) than I did. Oculi (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed it all now - I'll have a proper check later today. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Six masted schooner
Please READ my edit before you undo it. My edit was a link to a Wikipedia article about the six masted schooner Wyoming. Go read it. FatBear1 (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * FatBear1, the article on Wyoming, which I have read – now and previously – fully supports the edit which you have reverted. The point is that the article now says "these designs spread the sail area over many smaller sails, at a time when sails were hoisted by hand."(bold added) If you read the edit summary and the article on Wyoming, the issue is that these multi-masted schooners relied on donkey engines to hoist the sails. So putting something about 6 masted schooners in a paragraph that talks about hoisting sail by hand is extremely misleading. Furthermore, the "...sail area over smaller sails" is also misleading, because the size of the gaff sails on these schooners was massive, being right at the limit of what the materials available at the time could cope with.


 * I don't know if you were trying to say something else, but what is in the article right now is wrong. The solution is for you to either figure out exactly what you are trying to say, or undo your reversion. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see your objection. The section of the article is "Rig Types" and the multi-masted schooners are all basically the same rig type regardless of how the sails were raised.  So I added some wording to make the paragraph more technically accurate.  Thanks for pointing it out.  FatBear1 (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bristol Channel pilot cutter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newport.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

de/De
Hello, I notice you changed de to De. If you look at the talk page of the main de Havilland article there's a discussion of this point. I agree with the argument made there that if the word 'de' is used at the beginning of a sentence it should follow the rules of English grammar and, like all other opening words in a sentence, be capitalised. I also think it's best practice to follow the styling of the main article page (where all sentences that begin with 'De' spell it 'De' not 'de'), rather than have numerous variations in other pages. This is standard publishing procedure. Rather than my simply reverting your change, I wonder whether you could persuade me otherwise on both these points? Regards, Ericoides (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I note your point. However, I disagree. From my experience of dealing with people's names that start with "de", it is correct to keep the lower case even in instances where the word is at the beginning of a sentence. Perhaps I spend too much time reading sources published over 100 years ago, but I see no problem with following the grammatical rule as I see it. However, if you feel obliged to revert, please do, but that is not something I feel I could do. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I've never come across it in many decades as an editor working for British publishing houses, and if I ever did I'd certainly mark it up to be upper-case. As you suggest, lower-case in that position might simply be an archaic usage, like double spaces at the end of sentences. Ericoides (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Catboat article
My brother, who has owned/sailed a small catboat "Breezing Up" for 30 years, suggested the article could be improved. I agree. In looking back at its history, it had more content and perhaps read better before editor Cornellier made massive cuts in Nov 2016 and May 2019. Would you consider looking back at earlier versions to see if anything could be salvaged? Also, the addition by IP 109.77.200.201 about catboats in Europe, feels very much out of place (and poorly referenced). Please consider deleting. I have very mixed feelings about a list of manufactuer brand names in the body of the article; an earlier version had these as External links - a bit better, but perhaps deleting completely would be clearly no longer promotional. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a Yellow Pages.

With more reading on the topic, I concur with you that "catboat" has a narrow definition that excludes "cat-rigged" boats (even though a large number of images in Commons conflate the two). Racing classes Lasers, Finns and Tech dinghies all have one sail on an unstayed mast, but are clearly not catboats! David notMD (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I have to say that commons captions are generally unreliable - here everything should be referenced, but upload a picture and you can attach any nonsense that you please onto the image. I'll take a look at some of the older stuff - but probably not today. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Having added a new section below yesterday, it was only upon returning just now to read your reply that I noticed this section. The above comments have been duly noted and the "massive cuts" undone. --Cornellier (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Noted, but this discussion really needs to be moved to the article talk page. From a quick look, the article now needs a good check over for quality of references, etc. The expanded/restored article looks as if it needs some work - but what is now there is as good a starting point as any. One note of concern is that the confusion of "cat rigged" and "cat boat" seems to be back. It is a common error, but not one made by good quality refs. I am out of time to look at this more right now. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Anchor ball reference
Thanks for your input. Trying to get this right. Was there something wrong with the Merriam-Webster reference provided earlier for both definitions of this term? Relbats (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming here to discuss. Several points. (1) the place for a reference is immediately after the text supported by the ref - I simply did not spot the reference placed before the definition. (2) general dictionaries tend to have a very bad track record with quality definitions of nautical terms. One of the worst is the Oxford English Dictionary. Personally, I do not think a general dictionary is an RS for nautical terminology as so many of them are different from the definitions in specialist glossaries and dictionaries. (3) I have made a fairly determined search for any mention of a "grappling" cannonball in descriptions of life-saving apparatus and can find no such mention. Doesn't mean there isn't one, but I can't find it if it exists. (4) the Merriam-Webster entry gives the first mention of the "grappling" cannon-ball as 1858, but does not give a full citation. I very much suspect that this was an invention that did not last more that a few years. I have made a detailed search of the British Newspaper Archive for that period and can find no mention of the "grappling" cannon ball. British newspapers of that era have quite extensive coverage of maritime matters, especially shipwrecks and rescues (both dramatic reports and the drier formal enquiries after the event) and that has no mention. (5) I have found, in the newspaper research, that foundries and some chandlers kept, together with iron bars, chain, "anchor palms" etc, "anchor balls". These are in adverts for bankrupt stock sales.This usage predates the Merriam-Webster citation, but appears to be something else. I would think that an "anchor palm" is a component for making a fisherman's anchor in a forge, as is the "anchor ball". I guess that the balls go on the ends of the stock and the palms are welded onto the ends of the flukes. However, (a) this is WP:OR and (b) it is relevant to anchor manufacturing, but not relevant for a nautical term, as a seafarer goes out and buys an anchor - he does not make one.
 * I strongly feel that Merriam-Webster citation is a very minor minority opinion on the meaning of this term. As such, that meaning should not be put in Wikipedia as it is so far from the mainstream understanding of the term "anchor ball" that it does not make the grade as a "significant minority view" (as per WP:RS). I don't think you would find that definition in any other glossary of nautical terms. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your research on this and agree that the anchor ball definition in M-W is obscure/archaic at best and not suitable for the article in question.Relbats (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Catboats and dories
Hi, re. our recent discussion at Catboat, for full disclosure I built and sail (and row) an 18 foot wooden boat with the lug-rigged mast very far forward. She has a dory-style hull. So my statements are based on personal experience with various boats rather than books. In addition, a friend owns a large modern fibreglass catboat, which is how I came to the article. By the way, if you fancy tackling the dory / Banks dory / Swampscott dory / McKenzie River dory conundrum, let me know. It's something I've wanted to tidy up for a while... --Cornellier (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've never had any experience of dories, so probably should give that a miss. I wonder how similar your 18 footer is to the Ilur - a French design, but 15ft long, I believe, and certainly with a very different type of hull. You may be familiar with Roger Barnes' book The Dinghy Cruising Companion ISBN 978-1-4081-7916-1, but if not, I recommend it. To compare experience, my first job was bosun's mate on a sail training ship - some while ago. But I learnt to sail in a simple little clinker dinghy with a standing lug, I've owned a GK24 (fibreglass hull, fin keel, Bermuda rig) and a wooden 9 tonner with a long keel and lots of internal ballast. And my first time in a boat at sea (and probably my earliest memory) was in a Suffolk beach punt, launched from the beach. I am pretty much book based now (which is probably appropriate for a Wikipedia editor). Sadly there are some very poor articles on maritime subjects in Wikipedia. Some of them have been like that for a long time - so there is plenty to do. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Glossary of nautical terms (A-L)
Hello, ThoughtIdRetired,

Because you moved this page to the wrong title and then it was later moved again without a redirect, there are several dozen redirects to these pages that were deleted as being "broken redirects" (see Special:Log/Explicit and browse through the Deletion Log or User:Explicit/Working). You might want to recreate them or see about getting them restored through WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Highland Clearances
I get the sense you own this article. Fair enough. It's yours. A loose necktie (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that nobody likes being reverted, . However the correct sequence of events, after being reverted, is for you to discuss why your edit should stand – as per WP:BRD. If you want to produce arguments as to why population figures for all of Scotland are relevant to the Highlands, please do so. But that discussion should be on the talk page of the article. The objective here is to produce a better encyclopaedia. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is perhaps worth adding that the reference you used (Cullen) makes clear that it is impossible to develop an estimate of the Highland population for the period discussed in the book. In addition, the time frame of the source is different from the date in the article - it is in the previous century. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you, ThoughdIdRetired, for your well written, scholarly, and helpful additions to Sailing! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Problem edit in Sailing
Hi ThougtIdRetired, please take a look at this edit and take any action you deem appropriate. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Re watercraft
I.e., "Watercraft [mass noun] is one of my main interests. My two watercrafts [enumerable noun] are a jetski and a sailboard." It changes the meaning by saying, "Watercrafts [enumerable] are my main interests." And it doesn't make sense to say either, "My watercraft are a jetski and a sailboard" or "My watercraft is a jetski and a sailboard". Linguistically, the mass noun watercraft and enumerable noun watercrafts have separate meanings. Cheers. Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your remarks on this matter should be on the article talk page. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting your edit by mistake. I restored it immediately afterward. Mea culpa. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the excess baggage at Sail plan
Hi ThoughtIdRetired, Thank you for your patient and scholarly work in the field of sailing craft. I sense that we both agree that the Sail plan article is ungainly. You may wish to weigh in at a discussion that I've started at Talk:Sail plan. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I am a little short of editing time at the moment with lots of non-Wikipedia commitments, but I will apply some thought to the subject. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed revised text at Talk:Point of sail
Hi ThoughtIdRetired! Thank you for your valuable insights about studding sails at Talk:Point of sail. I agree with your concern about the previous wording that implied that studding sails are specialized downwind sails. Accordingly, I proposed some revised text that I thought addressed the point, but your subsequent remarks seemed to address the edit by Top5, rather than my proposed revision. Top5 explained that he wasn't defending the existing text, but wishing to engender the very discussion that you have initiated. Thank you!

Would you take a second look at what I proposed and address any defects that it may have?

BTW, I don't see studding sails set on the mainmast of the Monongahela, only on the foremast. So, it appears to be a legitimate approach to navigating downwind with all sails drawing as it ghosts along.

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. Next job is for me to look at the article talk page (but I could run out of time on that today).
 * On the USS Monongahela photograph, I am pretty sure that I can discern a studding sail set on the mainmast. So I looked for some more pictures and found these.
 * 

File:Training ship 1902 (49928533196).jpg|Training ship 1902 (49928533196) File:USS Monongahela with studding sails set.jpg|USS Monongahela with studding sails set 
 * Both clearly show a main topgallant studding sail set – as far as I can see, one on each side. (Clearly the USN was not as penny pinching as the Royal Navy, who only had one studding sail made for each yard of the mainmast – because of blanketing, it is generally only beneficial to set on just one side on the mainmast. So the mainmast topmen would have to move the sail to whichever side it was needed.) The pictures show no provision for studding sails on the other main and mizzen yards – otherwise we would see the stunsail booms stowed along the top of the yards. It is also interesting to see that the main course is brailed up, to avoid blanketing. These photos look as though there were all taken at the same time. The picture taken from fine on the starboard bow shows a little bit of way on the ship, but the one from astern has only the slightest evidence of movement.
 * I also found two other pictures of Monongahela with studding sails set, which I put on commons. There are many more pictures of this ship available on the Naval History and Heritage Command site, which looks to be a useful resource for pictures of this type – I just know them for photos of more modern warships. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur that main topgallant studding sails are set in all the images under consideration. The "Training ship 1902" photo is superior to the Monongahela image that we've been using—also, one can clearly see a wake. I would crop out the black swoop in the upper left portion of the image, however. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On the choice of photo: "great minds think alike" – see my post just made on the article talk page. Cheers, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vergulde Draeck, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cog and Carvel.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Attention to details
I think you have some good points regarding galleys and I appreciate that you scrutinize both content and sources. However, you are also very quick to declare this and that flat-out wrong, tagging them and only then engaging in discussion. The thing you've pointed out overall seem to have more to do with wording, interpretation and intent, not outright errors.

I'll reply about the content issue in article talk, but I would very much like you to tone down the harshness of your approach. Not implying that you shouldn't be critical to content overall, but a tad less confrontational.

Peter Isotalo 12:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I am sorry if you find that I am being confrontational. However, there are some issues with the article which need to be clearly and simply expressed. I already seem to have been misunderstood on one point, so have had to restate the problem in more forthright language. This, I fear, will be interpreted as being confrontational, when it is simply an attempt to be understood. I am at a loss as how to sugar the pill in this situation. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe you're at a point where you are obliged to either tone down your approach or solicit third party opinions. I'm not asking you to stop contributing to galley or to go away, but I believe you need to temper the discussion by asking others to chime in.
 * Regarding your take on the subject as a whole, my impression is that you don't appear to be read up on the topic. Your comment about not explicitly mentioning biscotti (ei a type of hardtack) as "astounding" struck me as pretty weird. I would consider it to be basic knowledge about pre-modern naval warfare that hardtack is one of the more common forms of naval rations. You also missed the fact that short logistical range actually is mentioned in the article, admittedly only once. But still.
 * To at least understand where you're coming from: what had you actually read about pre-modern naval warfare before you took an interest in galley? Not expecting you to provide a reading list or anything, but have you actually sat down and done much reading on the topic before or did you start after you started engaging on the talkpage? And by "reading", I mean full chapters or books, not just looking up individual pages online.
 * Peter Isotalo 06:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To try and answer your question about my interest pre-modern naval warfare, I have come into this subject from several different directions: (a) the evolution of early sailing rigs, particularly the transition from the Mediterranean square rig to lateen (b) the changing methods of hull construction, particularly the transition from shell first to skeleton first, and the various hybrid methods (c) replica ships (of which the trireme floating hypothesis is one) (d) the Newport medieval ship and its historical context. All of these subjects come into contact with galleys. I therefore read Rodger's Safeguard of the Sea some while ago. I have several works on maritime archaeology and a member's subscription to the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (which I find to be a useful source of book reviews, amongst other things such as excavation reports). I am also a member of the Society for Nautical Research, publisher of the Mariners Mirror (and I have been briefly published in their online newsletter, Topmasts). I also read, some while ago, Casson's Ships and Seamanship of the Ancient World. McGrail's Boats of the World from the Stone Age to Medieval Times is also in my long established library. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the sources I have available on maritime history. I should make clear that I am very aware of the hazards of quoting just a small excerpt of a source as it can even have a completely opposite meaning if out of context. (An influential historian working on Scottish history has a habit of describing in detail an interpretation which he then goes on to systematically debunk – this is an ideal trap for a Wikipedia editor working from a google books extract.) You may have noticed that I have opinions on outdated sources, citing Hourani's Arab Seafaring as a classic example of an old source that is still appropriately cited on some points by maritime historians, whilst other content of this source has been proven incorrect (so it is not for a Wikipedia editor to pick and choose what to use as that would be OR).


 * Yes, specifically researching galleys is a new project for me. But a number of key sources are works that I already had available and had read, at some point, cover to cover. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're new to this particular topic, consider at least asking more questions and making fewer claims about "astounding omissions".


 * A lot of the changes you've touched on are about summarizing, shortening, splitting, re-organizing, etc. None of that requires extensive research. There is no unreferenced content as such. So why aren't you just editing the article content?
 * Peter Isotalo 13:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We all have our own editing style. My preference is not to do any major editing on a subject until I have a full grasp of it. If I were to do any reorganising of the article, and moved text that relied on references that I had not checked, then I would be responsible for the accuracy of that moved content. I appreciate others might work differently.
 * One consequence of this is that I am possibly further into the subject than you might suppose. With multiple sources talking about the problems of provisioning galleys in completely different periods (classical and post-medieval), I think it is quite valid to highlight an omission. It is also OK for another editor to point out why that opinion may be mistaken, if that were to be the case.
 * ...consider at least asking more questions... If you look at my involvement on the article talk page, you will see that I did start by asking questions. This did not seem very productive. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you haven't read up enough to consider it appropriate to be bold in article space, I really don't think you have any business being bold on the talkpage either. Take a break and come back when you're done with your research. I'm sure we can achieve more at that point. Peter Isotalo 17:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no particular obligation on an editor to be bold at a moment other than of their own choosing. I have raised the points that I feel need attention now. These have given you the opportunity to produce reasoned argument on article content, or to make changes that deal with criticism.
 * These talk pages are not the main product of Wikipedia. The encyclopedia is, and that is where I choose to exercise caution in editing with a full set of facts. I have operated in this way on a number of articles that have required revision. Clearly there are other ways in which one could work. However, I see no reason to change my methods as I believe they produce the best results. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I recommend checking out the current version of galley regarding your comment on the lead. Peter Isotalo 21:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * End of my day here, and I have a very full day of non-Wikipedia stuff tomorrow. I hope you realise that since you were actively editing the article recently, I thought I had best leave you the space to get on with the job. I'll take a good look as soon I can do anything other than shoot from the hip with an answer. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't mind anyone poking around in articles while I'm doing it myself. I don't mind an aizuchi style interaction.
 * I just wanted to point out that changes have been made that are relevant to your argument regarding the "propelled mainly by oars"-wording. Peter Isotalo 23:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience. I've taken a good look at the lead and made a change relative to the reasoning for the low freeboard. As touched on in the edit summary, the geometry and mechanics of rowing are explained by Eric McKee in his Working Boats of Britain. McKee is widely cited by others on this subject matter. I am not aware of anyone else coming up with a detailed, competing account of how this works (though McKee does reference a symposium paper on the subject, but I cannot find that as the reference is incomplete – I wonder if it was actually published). Ideally this article could link to a section in Rowing that covers this, but what is in that article is deficient and unreferenced.
 * On the point that you specifically mention, yes, the article now reads a lot better. One option that I had mulled over was to say that a galley was "optimised for propulsion by oar" – but I think that does not sit well in the lead as it is not necessarily immediately obvious what that means. In a longer account of design considerations it would make sense, as one could explain why a long narrow hull with low freeboard was used and say that this did happen to give a hull that sailed well as long as not excessively heeled. I just thought I would mention this as an option, even though I have discounted it. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Bombing of Dresden in World War II
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bombing of Dresden in World War II, may have introduced referencing errors. They are 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:Qwerfjkl/sandbox/43&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20ThoughtIdRetired&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1165224185 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1165224185%7CBombing%20of%20Dresden%20in%20World%20War%20II%5D%5D Ask for help])

Tea race (competitions)
ThoughtIdRetired Hello, can you help improve the article. When you have time. Товболатов (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I see no need for this article as the subject would be better covered under Clipper. Similarly, I see no need for Race Cutty Sark and Thermopylae, as this is covered in Cutty Sark, together with some technical comparisons between the two ships. I do not like to be unhelpful, but in these two cases I think you have made poor choices on which articles to create. I have already raised this matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships for the opinions of other editors. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it is immediately noticeable that you have a lot of experience in this area, thanks for your great contribution. I was guided by the criterion, if the topic has an important historical event, then a separate article can be devoted to this. Article created in 2013 in another project --Товболатов (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Galley PR
Maybe you've already noted that it's on, but I still wanted to give you a heads up. You've raised some points regarding rowing and how to define galleys before. If you're interested in discussing them (or some other pointers) as part of the PR, feel free to join in. Peter Isotalo 08:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, spotted this. I have a number of distractions at the moment, both within Wikipedia and without, but I will try and take a good look at things. I am certainly aware that you've put in a huge amount of work to the article lately. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Endeavour refs
Thanks for the recent tags at HMS Endeavour, and for edits like this. Seems like several of the refs have been removed over time, so the article could do with your thorough read-through! -- Euryalus (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm probably more proud of fixing the wrong link for "futtocks" (Futtock shrouds changed to Glossary of nautical terms (A–L)), which gave me a chuckle. Seriously, though, I don't know if you have spotted my edit summary on . This is the issue of the height of the mizzen mast. Three sources used in discussing this are (I understand) contemporary treatises on the construction and/or rigging of ships. These can be a challenge to understand. The matter of the height of this mast is dealt with by several maritime historians and it would seem better to have them as the source(s), even if they are relying on the treatises mentioned here. I will do some work on tracking those down, but since you seem to have good knowledge of the subject, you might have some comment. I will hold off raising this point on the talk page until I have down a bit more homework on better sources for the discussion. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ha, the mizzen mast controversy. I have a vague feeling I might have been the person who added this text about 15 years ago. The amount of text devoted to it is a little undue, but it was interesting at the time. Alas I no longer have access to my maritime source books but will have a re-read of the section and see what springs to mind. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mary Rose, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carvel.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request
Hi, ThoughtIdRetired. Your comments at Talk:Ships of ancient Rome were really helpful, and I thought you'd be a good person to ask about the following. When developing that article, I was looking around for a Nav box about the topic that would help me find related articles so I could explore and learn more, and maybe steal their references to use elsewhere, but I couldn't find any such template. I was pretty surprised about that, and I still thought it would be a good stepping-stone, as well as helping to bootstrap my familiarity about the topic, so I decided to write one. Im probably not the best-placed one to do that, but since no one else had stepped up yet, I thought, why not. If you have a few minutes, can you have a look at Ancient seafaring and lmk what you think? My main worry is not so much the list of links, which has plenty of gaps that other editors will find and fill in over time as needed, but rather the overall structure of the Nav template, i.e, the way I've organized the major groups and subgroups, and whether I've missed anything major, or if the order should be done otherwise. Feel free to make comments at the Talk page (or here, if you prefer), or just jump in and change whatever needs changing. One of the interesting things about constructing such a template, is you have to really read widely to figure out what's needed and even harder, what might still be missing. That's where I could really use some advice, but if you want to approach it completely differently, be my guest: we can also tear it up and start over; now that we have the links, it's not so hard to rebuild a template from scratch, and place them in a different order. Look forward to your comments. (P.S. I'm subscribed; no ping needed.) Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Stop trying to change ref standards
Please stop campaigning for ref standard switches in individual articles. All of the arguments you've brought up so far as mostly subjective and the format you prefer has plenty of its own drawbacks. I know you refer to what you believe is best for readers, but all of it is just purely anecdotal. If it were up to me, I'd get rid of the efn standard completely. But I'm not going to wast my time on that because it's not something that I believe is actually ruining Wikipedia or anything like that.

Your approach to this is as far as I can tell not in line with the variation in standards that exists on English Wikipedia. Peter Isotalo 19:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * (1) This discussion would be better placed on the article talk page, where other interested editors could see it.
 * (2) I think you may be shooting at the wrong target with comment associated with your removal of efn templates, as these were added by at least two different users some years ago, long before my first edit to the article. At the very least, this tells you that I am not the only editor who sees that style as preferable. To see usage of the efn template, for example, here is the article in September 2020 with two uses of efn. Just picking a year later we find the three usages which have just been removed by this edit.
 * (3) Are you aware that you have removed a dead link template without fixing or discussing the issue? Perhaps you are not seeing the same link failure as other users, but the template has been removed without comment. As you will understand, the template does not work if it is applied to two different sources that are combined into one reference. I think fixing the dead link is the most important thing. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're not the only one who thinks efn is the bee's knees. Yes, you weren't the one who added them a while back. There are plenty of editors who prefer either standard. And that's where you need to end the discussion in my view.
 * The stuff about not being able to add maintenance templates is a non-issue in my view. It's super easy to add comments specifying exactly which part of a note that's problematic. And even if someone doesn't specify it, it's extremely simple to check all of 2-3 different links or sources to fix the complaint.
 * As I noted on the talkpage, if any particular note needs fixing, specify what needs fixing. If you keep harping about the merits of your favorite note format, it's more likely that real problems with notes are ignored or simply not noticed. Peter Isotalo 16:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (1) I do not see the logic in the assertion that you need to end the discussion. We have reached the point where the statement (on the talk page discussion) You have only your own personal opinions to support your stance here can no longer be supported. The position in resisting the efn template seems to be based simply on a personal dislike. This is set against a step-by-step demonstration of the extra functionality of the template, together with usage of this template by four other editors.
 * (2) In the meantime, the dead link remains in the article, but with the tag removed. Per WP:WNTRMT, this is inappropriate and could easily be considered disruptive editing.
 * I note, in passing, that your only other editing activity yesterday is a dispute with another editor on Talk:Swedish Empire, where you conclude by asking a question which can be answered in less than a minute. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Categories at Yawl and Ketch
Thank you for undoing the added category at Yawl. The same editor has reverted my deletion of inappropriate categories at Ketch with this edit. You might see what you think. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Vasa
Are you good with creating the RfC query for the Appendix section layout/location of informational footnotes? Need/want any help? I do suggest a focus on the layout rather than the templates used under the hood. VQuakr (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It is new territory for me, but I am prepared to give it a go. My problem is time, as I have a rather sporadic and unpredictable non-Wikipedia workload. What I have done, largely for my own purposes, is put together a study of what other Featured Articles actually do – how many of them use informational notes in separate section and how many put them in with ordinary references. The study is at User:ThoughtIdRetired/sandbox/study of notes and referencing in FAs. I don't know if you see any of it as useful. It certainly highlighted to me the wide range of article quality in FAs. Among the best are some very good examples and the majority of them use fully referenced informational notes. Anyway, I have to get to work now. Thanks for your input. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It needn't be time consuming. The RFC itself should be short (you can expand on your reasoning in the discussion, but the main thrust of the idea is to get fresh voices). I suggest something like this:
 * Should the layout of this article contain a separate section for explanatory footnotes, similar in general appearance to the version here?
 * Have a good one! VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I will be going ahead with this – with just two procedural details to check. I was concerned that Peter I seems to have blown a fuse (a little) and blanked their talk and user page and not edited anything since then. But I figure they will either calm down and come back to discuss or not come back at all. Either way, I don't see how the article can proceed without this being settled.
 * The procedural questions: (1) Have I got this right? After the text you suggest (or something largely similar) has been posted, any arguments that I want to put to support my position are put as a new post underneath. This would be exactly the same as any other editor posting their opinions. (2) The post is flagged up to a history/geography panel and is obviously advised to anyone watching the article. Is it appropriate or advisable to flag it up to anyone else – I don't want to be accused of canvassing or something similar. (I can't immediately think of who else to involve, but in seemed worth asking.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Peter is taking a short or long break, the concerns have already been voiced and the recommendation for an RfC has come from multiple editors. I think it's reasonable to proceed with it.
 * 1. Yup! The main RfC query should be neutral and short so that someone can't tell who wrote it based on its content. I usually add a Discussion third-level section below and add my point of view there.
 * 2. Guidelines for what's appropriate and inappropriate can be found at WP:CANVASS. Be cautious, since an accusation of canvassing could have the potential to tank the RfC. Specifically, what did you have in mind? VQuakr (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do you happen to know if I can add my reasoning before Legobot (I think I have the name right) puts this on the project page?
 * On the "others to advise" subject, I'll take a good look at the canvassing guidance to work out if a ping to those who have added s in the past are OK. If it's not crystal clear, I will not do that. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Legobot: yes, the bot will index because of the "RFC" template regardless of what's below. It did so in this diff.
 * Notifications: I wouldn't do that. It could be interpreted as trying to "recruit" editors that may be more prone to take your side. RfCs are already pretty widely advertised, but if there's a WikiProject for historical shipwrecks or for Swedish history those would be examples of locations where it would be fine to post a neutrally-worded link. VQuakr (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've worked out the Legobot bit – nothing like a bit of panic that the technology isn't working!
 * And I will leave notifications of individual editors alone.
 * Thanks ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on how long the RfC should remain open at the article or, even, guidance on how to get it closed? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Reverts
Can you please not make reverts like this? I made a genuine attempt to improve the facts you added and bolster them with a copyedit and focusing on what I thought was WP:SS.

If you don't agree with a specific wording of phrase, please make the effort of fixing the parts that you disagree with rather than just reverting wholesale.

I'd also appreciate if you focused on more neutral descriptions of your edits in your edit comments. I think they come off as unnecessarily snarky. Peter Isotalo 19:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I was just trying to make the point that there was something seriously wrong with what was written. I reverted because I had to get to work, and did not have the time to make a more considered fix. But an article that has over 800 page views a day should not contain something that will hit many readers in the eye. The trouble is, you have now put back the original errors.
 * a mizzen mast towards the aft. "Aft" is an adverb. Leaving out the words "towards the" would be a quick fix, as it would then be clearer that it was modifying the verb "had". On consideration, the most effective way of explaining what is meant is with a link to – but the definition there does not fit this situation, so that needs rewriting. Mast (sailing) is not a perfect solution, either. There should be (perhaps there is, but I haven't found it) a good explanation of "a square rigged mast". That is to say the lower, topmast and topgallant, which altogether has the this technical name. Mast (sailing) nearly explains this, but it really needs something base on a combination of Underhill and Anderson.
 * The foremast is not stepped on the keel. It is stepped on the lower part of the stem. This is clearly visible in plan 2 of the loose leaf plans that come with Vasa I. The only clue to this in Vasa II is "The bottom end is cut at an angle of 60 degrees to the after face, to match the rake of the bottom of the step." There might be some further comment on the mast step, but not that I can find at present. So the The fore- and mainmasts were built in three sections: a lower mast that was stepped on the keel at the bottom... is not correct.
 * What is intended by the word topmizzen? I presume this is a typo, but if it isn't, where did it come from? What were you trying to say?


 * Generally, there needs to be some regard of the enormous amount of unique archaeological findings that have now been reported. Amongst that huge amount of detail, there are a number of key technological advances that should appear in this article. For instance, at deck level Vasa has evidence of the differently placed topmast backstay fittings. This is the start of the trend in square rig design which made the topsail the sail that was furled last in rising winds, so altering greatly the way square rig (the main method of transport at sea) was used for its last 200 years or so. The sheaves in blocks on Vasa were still made of ash. Within a couple of decades, Lignum vitae had replaced it – a wood that was important for maritime technology for a number of reasons, but is also indicative of the reliance on world trade. There is a lot more to say about the rig and its fittings, again because of the unique amount of information from this one ship. This is a problem, given the potential size of the article. Maybe there needs to be a main article which summarises these features and then more detailed articles to cover each subject in more depth? Clearly with Vasa there is a lot more than just the archaeological interpretation of maritime technology, as with the majority of wrecks. But given a nearly complete ship, there is virtually a complete set of evidence for every aspect of the archaeology of ship technology. So this is the biggest instance of that presentational problem. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't edit under stress. The internet will not suffer greatly if minor faults aren't fixed within a few hours.
 * I really recommend trying to work in these points in the article yourself. If you feel you have better command of nautical engineering terminology, just switch the terms you think are wrong. Peter Isotalo 08:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of stress, rather it is time management. If something is obviously wrong and what was there before was OK though not perfect, a revert is the best solution. I think you can see the suggested solutions require a great deal of work elsewhere in Wikipedia. That is why the original text might have appeared a little clumsy – to deal with the lack of good quality links. And in case you wonder, I cannot do that time consuming work right now. I am puzzled, though, that you think it is OK to reinstate content that has had problems explained to you twice and then look to someone else to fix it. What does that do for the 800 page views per day? The quick fix is to go back to what was there beforehand. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you've got a case of someone's wrong on the Internet. My advice is to take a chill pill and try not to take it so damn seriously.
 * If you don't have time to actually check what you're reverting, you should lay off the monitoring. Peter Isotalo 15:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure that you are understanding this. The revert was a considered decision. I checked very carefully what was there and decided that the best solution was to revert. Why do you think it is OK for an article to contain incorrect and poorly phrased content? The bigger problem is that you thought the content was correct in the first place. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So you had concerns with "keel" instead of "stem" (the latter is structurally a continuation of the former) and "topmizzen" instead of "mizzen topmast". And the only possible recourse you had time for was to revert wholesale, including an unrelated image tweak? And when asked about it, you had time to write a detailed explanation with snarky criticism, but not to edit the article?
 * And because of these fairly minor objections, you're questioning my ability to understand anything relating to the rig of Vasa? Peter Isotalo 10:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What I am questioning here is your ability to understand:
 * that this was not a "knee-jerk" revert.
 * reverting was the immediately available solution.
 * that a longer term fix, as discussed above, requires a substantial amount of work elsewhere on Wikipedia. This is not a five minute job, as if other articles (as opposed to glossaries) are involved, the balance of those articles must not be destroyed. In either case, references are needed – it can be lengthy job finding references to support some fundamental facts. So your time to write a detailed explanation demonstrates that you are unaware of the time necessary to make the discussed longer term fix.
 * your rapid reinstatement of the problem content makes you appear unconcerned about errors that have been carefully explained. This view is confirmed by fairly minor objections, immediately above. Everyone makes mistakes now and again, but wilfully replacing them in the article after an explanation is perverse. These actions may be OK in a newbie, but not in an experienced editor. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Perverse", eh? Good luck with your crusade. Peter Isotalo 10:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cutty Sark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chatham.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

AN/I
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. OBSIDIAN †  SOUL  04:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Banana
Hi, thanks for your efforts to improve the article. However, we have quite a new GA reviewer at work, and your repeated and lengthy interventions have certainly disconcerted that person as they try to do their best and learn the ropes at the same time. GAN is chronically short of reviewers, so we want to be as gentle and encouraging with new reviewers as possible. In any case, a GAN is not the ideal moment for detailed technical interventions: the article has been in existence for many years, and such matters could have been addressed at any time in the past ten years. Since we all seem to agree that the details are not showstoppers for a GAN, whose brief is to ascertain that "the main points" have been covered, it is generally best to leave complex technical matters for another time. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do rather feel, in retrospect, that I blundered in on the process. You have probably gathered that GA and FA ratings are not something I have a great deal of experience with. It certainly never occurred to me that the reviewer may be new in the job. So, sorry if I have got involved at an inopportune moment. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 20:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)