User talk:Benea/archive9 - Knowledge (XXG)

1877:

originally wrote the article. I brought SM U-52 in line with many of our guidelines, you must understand that your approach of copying and pasting chunks of material and insisting that these not be edited is not a generally workable approach on wikipedia, which operates on the principle that in general everyone can edit. Please find another approach, whereby you create your own article by taking the information and using it to write the submarine's history using your own words and not the words of British Naval Intelligence nearly a century ago. Then you can bring in extra sources, etc. As someone with training in historical research I'm sure you understand that this is very basic principle of historical writing. We are not out to create an online digitised version of the National Archives, with transcripts of the documents, we are trying to create an encyclopaedia. I understand that English is not your first language, and I assume calling my work 'mutilation' may be unintentional.

1799:, which has civilian ships, as well as British, French and American naval vessels.) Where there are a number of American/British/etc ships, the link is to the shiplist page for that name and navy and the reader can go from there. There hasn't been a issue so far with combining all ships of a certain name onto a dedicated ship list page. If you're on an article about a ship that has served in both navies, and you're interested in earlier or later ships with that name that have been in one navy or another you can go to either navies' name page, and the ship will be listed on both. 1079:

colonnaded building of classical appearance, Murray House was taken down carefully in 1982, and after twenty years it was moved stone-by-stone to Stanley where is now stands on a peninsula jutting into Stanley Bay. The Maritime Museum now occupies the ground floor (with restaurants on the levels above), although it is planned for it to move back to Central when the redevelopment of the waterfront around the (Star) Ferry terminals is completed, with a new home earmarked for the Museum in Pier Eight.

1485: 1463: 1441: 2459: 31: 2283: 2209: 2135: 1583: 1515: 234: 667:

precedents for two articles, there is a lot to be said for keeping one, plus redirects. There also many precedents for that too. There is not enough info for the French vessel for it to be any more than a stub, and a British-service article, while longer, would be short too. Furthermore, in this case, putting the two together means a lot of good info about her design is there as background. Regards,

1044:

servant was access to vast amount of material, and is knowledgable on sailing era of several countries, although his English is not fluent. If you wish to contact John (in Chicago) to ask questions of him, I can email you his email address rather than post it publicly here, but not until I get home at the end of November (I'm currently in Hong Kong, able to use Wiki online but not email).

1976: 125:, but I think I'm making a couple of formatting errors, as the data box has appeared at the foot on the article instead of its usual position. Also certain words seem to insist on running together without spaces to separate them (e.g. Frenchfrigate, and BritishRoyalNavy). Can you sort this out for me please? Thanks and best wishes. 2065:

now as to which ship it is, and why it's been missed. Fireships of Wolf's period would carry around 115 men, and 24/28 guns while in general service. I want to be sure that there really is another ship that is presently missing before adding it to the list. Rif will be able to provide the definitive answer.

2064:

Not just a simple spelling error but an apparent phantom ship missed by some of the most authoritative sources on the navy. Do you have any other sources that describe the Wolf that grounded? I believe you when you say that a Wolf, and probably one of HM ships at that, grounded there, but I'm curious

2033:

Thanks. I do understand the problem, but the refs I cited are pretty clear as to size and her being RN. Of course, such things can be wrong, but given there are 14 entries in the cited book for a ship named Wolf (most, but not all, as HMS Wolf), it seems unlikely that it's a simple spelling error. .

380:

a little (it may not be great now, but you should see what it used to look like). Apart from casting your masterly eye over it, do you think you can get rid of the "|-" characters that blight the first line? I'm normally quite good with this sort of stuff, but I have no idea how they got there - or

67:

Hi Benea, The article was originally written in American English and was recently changed by the user Old Moonraker, who is know to vandalize American English in favor of British English. If the general population is a proponent of the British form, that is fine. I just don't want this to turn into a

2095:

and looked for a reference on the ship that gave the shoal its name. All I that know, I found with Google searches on "HMS Wolf 1690", "HMS Wolf 1691", "HMS Wolf 1692", and the same for "Wolfe". There's one vague mention of a 350 ton armed merchant vessel in a secondary source, but the cited source

1973:

I'm spending far more time on this than it's worth, but it struck me that your "this was likely" is a little off-hand. The Wolf that went aground in Virginia was in Virginia, Maryland, New York, and the Caribbean from at least October 1690 until June 1692, which makes the timing a little tight for

1684:

links to both pages listing US and RN ships named alligator and the reader does not therefore have to go through a list of other things named alligator when he wants to find the ships of one particular navy that have had the name. If you want a British ship you go to HMS Pomone. If you want a French

1043:

Nothing much has been published in English for many years, and older works (cited in the new book) have a variety of problems, which is why John Tredrea and Eduard Sozaev have produced their new book, based extensively on the newly-available Russian archives. Eduard ("Ted") is a former Russian civil

886:

in 1799, only from 1801. The problem worsens when you have say a captured French ship given a name used previously for a British ship, whereby the French ship and the British ship clash in their respective launch dates, or the captured French ship appears to enter service with the British before the

521:

because it's author seemed to think that - just because Prince William Henry took command in 1786 - there was no earlier history; in fact she was launched in 1779 (and you have the rest of her history from my emailed history of 1714-1792 ships). Please can you correct the heading of the article - I

1867:

Dear Hans Joachim Koerver. I did indeed remark the source's origin. The copy-and-pasted section has already been deleted by another user. Please do not re-add it though, your contributions are already the subject of a lot of discussion and debate. Knowledge (XXG) has a highly collegiate approach to

1841:

hi Benea, I saw, that you deleted most of my contribution. Did you remark that it represented Original sources from the Natioanal Archives, Kew, UK ? A great marine specialist like you will know this archive, I am sure. I will add a new section, again with these sources. Before you delete next time

1832:

1807:

1739:

No, sorry for the intrusion. I certainly know where to suggest policy changes, but I had no idea I was proposing that. You certainly know how many times confusing dabs spring up without anybody paying attention. I have no interest in spending time changing considered, established policy, which may

781:

Apologies for not getting back here sooner. This was on my list of things to do and kept getting bumped down the list. As far as me moving the article, I did it when I was doing some category work, and probably just saw the article title and the year of launch and decided to make them match. I have

2014:

As far as I can tell there weren't any ships named Wolf that size in service during that period. Neither volume of J.J.Colledge's Ships of the Royal Navy lists such a vessel, nor does Rif Winfield's comprehensive listing of Royal Navy ships of the period. Hence my suspicion that either the ship at

1948:

Nowhere does it say the lists have to be organised by centuries, or even that this is the best way to do it. The previous lists are organised not by century, but by periods covering 1000+ years, 500 years, 300 years and 100 years. But this was discussed on the talkpage when you suggested the merge

1110:

which is indexed as launched in 1678, but was actually launched on 4 March 1678/9, or 1679 (by the modern method of changing the year on 1st January). Again I'm afraid this is so easy to miss that several writers have got it wrong. Please can you please change the heading in the article, and amend

903:

I think I've given examples before as to why 'launch' dates are impossible for a captured prize, where a ship might be captured perhaps several decades after her launch. Such ship is evidently not "HMS" prior to her capture; and indeed, if her name is changed, she is equally evidently non-existant

1253:

Thank you for helping with this biography - presumably through your interest in shipping? Why have you removed the date links? I thought what I was doing was correct? It is easier if this is not required! I hope to be able to write about the G & J Burns shipping company - all help welcomed!

1078:

coast of Hong Kong Island. This is currently home to the Hong Kong Maritime Museum; for anyone who knew historic Hong Kong, they might recall the graceful Murray House which used to stand in downtown Victoria ("Central", as its called now) where the Bank of China Tower now stands; a three-storey

396:

Yes, I seem to remember stumbling across that page ages ago, but having neither the time nor the inclination to grapple with it. It looks a lot neater and comprehensible now, good work! I'll try to pop back soon and see if there's anything I can add. In the meantime I think I've tracked down and

2417: 1876:

any articles, or has any particular right to impose their own concepts of style and structure over an article, over the will of community consensus, even if they have written the articles themselves. Nor is it required that alterations and modifications need to be discussed with the person who

1273:

Hi, sometime ago you offered to create missing articles on Napoleonic-era Royal Navy ships, and put together some excellent articles to fill redlinks for me. I was wondering if you could help me again? I've been working on the Mediterranean campaign of 1798, and need articles on the frigates

666:

is the worst of all solutions as it combines the date of the French launch with the English name. If we really want two articles, one should be HMS Egyptienne (1801), reflecting the convention of dating a Royal Navy vessel from when she came in service. That said, although there are numerous

100:

article, this is not just Old Moonraker's personal opinion. Nor has this been a recent unilateral change on Old Moonraker's part, the article has been stable for a long time using British English spelling. Changing it from one form to another is discouraged, and will be reverted back.

1679:

I don't see the problem. Both list pages for the other navies are linked from each other. Combining the two just adds to the confusion when ships share names, and especially if the same ship serves for the two navies. Linking to a general dab page is also unhelpful. For example

1981:

That does not explain two contemporaneous ships with the same name, but in the last entry in the book (in the index), she is quite clearly described as being RN. Or am I missing something? I'm moderately expert on lighthouses, but my knowledge of the RN of that era comes from

609:

is unfortunately quite long, giving you plenty of opportunity for fresh articles. Incidentally, I shall be away (and uncontactable) for the next 17 days. Meanwhile, may I leave you with an area of confusion in duplicated articles. There is, I note, already a category for

1842:

anything from me, please contact me before, than we have the opportunity to discuss. Me I will not delete anything you have done on page SM U-51, thats for me a simple question of personal respect. best regards --Hans Joachim Koerver 20:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

1808:

1833:

1659:, for a total of nine ships. One from each is the same ship; a second RN ship was previously French, with a different name. The two lists are therefore intimately intertwined and have plenty of room for confusion. Isn't it more helpful to send a person to 904:

under her new name at the time she was launched. So you are exactly correct, Ben. Personally, I'm quite happy with either "French frigate Egyptienne (1799)" or with "HMS Egyptienne (1801)" (provided that there is an automatic redirect between them), but

686:

title, with redirects from the French frigate Egyptienne (1799) and other varients, as I quite agree there is probably not enough to justify an article on her French career being separate from an article on her British career. Would this be ok?

496:

Hi, sorry it's taken me a while to reply. I don't have the book with me unfortunately. I'm within cycling distances of one of the legal deposit libraries which does have a copy (in confinement) so I'll see what I can do if I have a free moment.

1058:

Awfully good of you Rif, that would be a great help! Currently I've been looking at sources over here, hopefully prior to taking trips to the archives at Greenwich, Dartmouth and the IWM for info on the British perspective. Enjoy your trip!

1103:

where the year of launch was wrong because of the different start-of-year day (i.e. that the year did not change until Lady Day each year); for a refreshment on our exchange see my talk page. I have found an identical problem with the

337:

I've done my duty once again, archiving April-June and July-September. I don't think I've archived any discussions that were still active, but you may want to double-check. I am updating your DYK page now. You've passed 200 DYKs :)

887:

other ship, thus confusing the issue. This has been where the 'year of acquisition' part of the guideline has been applied, to match a prefix or nationality titling with the year it took the title. Redirects will handle the rest.

1404:

I've added a template to separate the French heading from the allied one. I'm not sure what else can be done, except perhaps reworking the article headings and bumping them up from level 4 to 3, to make more of a distinction.

301:

Hi Benea, How come you pulled the "Ships lacking infoboxes" category? I stumbled across it last night and thought it was useful as a way to alert editors who have the info and knowledge to make one and fill it in. Regards,

2015:

Virginia was either not a Royal Navy ship but a mercantile one or one of a different nation, or that it was the ship already in service. I'll put the question to Rif himself, to see if there's a vessel that's been missed.

819:) on 15 June 1798, and she was begun at Toulon on 26 September 1798. Launched 17 July 1799 and put into service in November 1799. She was armed at Toulon on 23 September 1800 and sailed thence on 24 January 1801 (with the 1388:

of the two lists of vessels given in this article? The French list should be clearly separate from the Allied (Anglo-Dutch) list, but isn't. Can you shift the links around to make the appearance easier to read? Thanks!

994:

so quickly, I thought I must have made a mistake - I thought that I'd asked you to do a Ship Index page that already existed! If you need a hand with the Cyrillic, I've got a degree in Russian ... but I'm a bit rusty.

1028:

Hmmm, very interesting. I'm currently looking to open a research project on the late Imperial/early Soviet navy. Are there any other sources you would recommend, as currently this is a massively under-researched area?

1073:

Now emailed John's contact details through to you. Thanks for your kind wishes; yes, had an interesting trip to Hong Kong. Of particular maritime interest is that last Sunday (22nd) we paid a visit to Stanley, on the

1949:

and far from supporting you, the consensus was that a merge was not a good idea here. Seek to change that consensus before acting, your argument that it 'looks stupid' and is 'ridiculous' is highly subjective.

2096:

is primary and much more detailed. Several of the usual lighthouse sources tell the story, but none of them are primary and they generally like a good story more than they worry about accuracy. . . . .

1008:

For those interested on Russian sailing warships (including transliteration of names into Cyrillic), you might note that my colleagues John Tredrea and Eduard Sozaev have their comprehensive study of

1926:

The fact that you want to keep the century split in two is ridiculous. The 20th century was 1900-1999 A.D., not 1900-1944 or 1945-1989. Duh. But that's okay. I got the "how to merge" rules with me.

353:

My humble thanks again :) All looks fine and dandy to me! Will try to keep in touch though might be busy in this part of the world for the forseeable future. Hope the fun and games went well :)

1685:

ship, you go to French ship Pomone. What's the issue, and why change the standardised format? You should get consensus for this change as many ships of different navies share a common name (

1650:

What's the harm in one short list? I have no problem with a ships only dab page -- I understand the issue there. But separating the French and the English doesn't seem right in this case.

882:

The year of launch only works up to a point, as taken together with our requirement for an indication of nationality or naval prefix, it can lead to anachronisms, as here. There was no HMS

1795:

style page, though I don't think I see the point in one. Most general dab pages list ships in a specific section where there are a number of different navies or operators involved (i.e.

834:

was begun at Lorient on 30 May 1794 and launched 26 September of the same year, being put into service in November. She sailed from Rochefort for Palma on 4 March 1796, then proceded to

782:

no special insight to this ship that guided me to move it or anything like that. If y'all think it best to move it back, then, by all means, please do so (if you haven't already).

705:

I can live with that. Do you know how to go about contacting an administrator to do the needful given that moving the article will require replacing various redirects? Regards,

731:, coincidentally now an admin, as I see he made the original move to the 1799 form, during the 'ships by year of launch' categorisation drive, and invited him to comment here. 642:

requires to be linked into the category somehow (or should replace it, in part at least) while these two subcategories could well be removed. I shall happily let you decide.

1912:

You are acting against consensus by arbitarily carrying out these merges. The consensus was NOT to merge. Waiting a while and then merging is not following due process.

1327:

I'm aware of that, its just that Benea approached me a while back to ask if I had any redlinks that needed creating in the battles articles I have been working on. (See

867:

I thought the convention was to disambiguate ship names by year of launch. For sailing ships with the same name, disambiguation by sail plan is also acceptable.

1112: 1130:

Have done that now Rif. It might be a good idea to highlight how this confusion has arisen in a note in the article, in case other people wonder. Best,

1229:

II, which I suspect is contemporaneous mis-reporting, but even so, if the London Gazette thought she was HMS, then I suppose it's good enough for WP.

1498: 1476: 1454: 1310: 639: 606: 523: 2109: 2047: 2003: 1774: 140:

No problem Rif, looks to have been a few template formatting errors that threw the page out, and created some odd artefacts in the text.

1858: 1824: 1189:

Good point, she's not in Colledge, though she is in the work covering all the requisitioned vessels. The other ship in the raid is at

619: 1419:

Actually, just separating the two opposing forces makes the matter much clearer, so I'm content with what you have done. Thanks!

615: 2306:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 2232:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 2158:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 1606:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 1538:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 1174:. Is this really a commissioned ship? What does Colledge have to say? Sounds more like a requisitioned ferry to me! Yours, 257:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 545:, and added some minor info from Phillips and James, but without yet giving either any or full credit, respectively. Regards, 2322: