User talk:Ykraps/Archive 4

HMS Emerald

Much to my surprise I have been able to find out a little about General Camin, whom Arabs killed when Emerald drove Anemone on shore on 2 September 1798. I tend to err on the side of more info; I figure the info may someday delight a genealogist, or someone writing on the campaign in Egypt and the fortifications there that Napoleon's troops erected. Tracking down Citoyen Valette, who may have been a mere army captain, is proving much more difficult. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I confess, I didn't think to search French sources. I wonder if Fonds Marine has anything? Thanks for your edits.--Ykraps (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Belatedly, congratulations on getting Emerald to FA. Getting any article to this standard is hard; but doubly hard where the sources are as fragmented as they always are for eighteenth century ships like this one. Speedy and Temeraire now have a worthy companion. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for your input too.--Ykraps (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The West Country Challenge

Hi. I was wondering if you'd be interested in participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge in August which includes Dorset. A chance to win £250 as well! If contests aren't your thing we welcome independent contributors too. If interested sign up at participants. Cheers!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I wish you luck with your endeavour; unfortunately I don't have the time for such competitive editing but I will be watching, and contributing where and when I can.--Ykraps (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Doterel (1808)

On 29 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Doterel (1808), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that HMS Doterel created a diversion while a fireship attack was carried out during the Battle of the Basque Roads? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Doterel (1808). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Doterel (1808)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on HMS Emerald (1795). starship.paint ~ KO 01:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hep with template

I have used this template, {{convert|32|pdr}} in the article HMS Alceste (1806) but it reads, "32 pounders (15 kg)" and I want it to display "32 pounder (15kg)" (not plural). Is that possible or must I write it out fully? I expect there are some help notes to accompany it but I can't find the template in question.--Ykraps (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ykraps, {{convert|32|pdr|adj=on}} will appear as "32-pounder (15 kg)". Barret (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Barret, and it's nice to hear from you again. I hope you stick around.--Ykraps (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HMS Alceste (1806), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Paris. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Email

Not a fan of the template when plain text will do: you have email. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

A quick note

I just wanted to say how much I enjoy reading your ship articles. My only real knowledge of ships in this period comes from Hornblower, I'm afraid, so your articles are enlightening. One little question that I didn't want to clutter up the FAC with as it has no bearing on FA status. I've noticed that whenever a new captain takes a ship, we say it was "commissioned". What exactly did that mean? I know there were weird legal things when a captain took a ship, but I didn't realise that the ship itself was "commissioned". (And just to reiterate, it doesnt need explaining in the article, I'm just curious!) Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"Commissioning" means getting the vessel ready for service. There is an article on it which I think is confusing; focusing on modern warships and their initial commissioning. "A commission" was a document issued by The Admiralty, appointing a captain to a particular ship.

It was Hornblower that kindled my interest in the subject, then later the novels of Kent, Pope and Woodman. Some of the stories, I now know to have been lifted straight from the history books. I'm glad you enjoy the articles, thanks. One often wonders whether anyone actually reads them. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Battle of Fort Royal into Spanish ship Fenix (1749). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 17:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Aigle (1801)

On 7 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Aigle (1801), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that members of a press gang from HMS Aigle stood trial for murder when four people were killed during a raid on the Isle of Portland in 1803? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Aigle (1801). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Aigle (1801)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spanish ship Fenix (1749), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brest. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Mentoring?

Hi, Thanks for the message. I'm not experienced at GAN (although I've nominated lots of articles there). I also do some at PR (most recently at Wikipedia:Peer review/Portsmouth/archive1) but have avoided FAC for years, so I don't think I'm best placed to help with this. Why not ask one those who volunteer at Wikipedia:Good Article help/mentor?— Rod ^talk 16:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought there was a mentoring scheme but couldn't find it and assumed it had folded. Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Pembrokeshire GA nomination

Thanks for taking on the Pembrokeshire GA review. I know the article is not there yet, but hoped it was near enough to find out how far away it was, if you follow my convoluted reasoning. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for what you did; I appreciate it. After getting RNLI to GA and finding it straightforward I guess I grossly underestimated the task on this one. Lesson learned, I think... Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I'd be happy to take another look later on, if you like. In the meantime, the best advice I can give is to look at lots of similar articles (GA and above) for ideas. Dorset and Somerset are WP:Featured Articles so if you aim for that, you should achieve GA easily. The other thing you can get from them is ideas about where to find sources. For example, if you check out Dorset's demography section you will see that the ethnicity figures have been taken from here [[1]]. When the Excell document opens, click on the KS209EW tab, scroll to the bottom and you'll find the figures for Pembrokeshire at line number 452.--Ykraps (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks. Non-WP issues have loomed large since the nomination, curtailing my editing, but I hope to get back into it soon. Cheers, Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ykraps. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Aigle (1801)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Aigle (1801) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Aigle (1801)

The article HMS Aigle (1801) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Aigle (1801) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ykraps!

Happy New Year!

Ykraps,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Penbat (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

2016 Year in Review

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		For your contributions to the Featured Articles HMS Alceste and HMS Emerald, I hereby present you with this Ships Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		For your contributions to the Featured Articles HMS Alceste and HMS Emerald, I hereby present you with the WikiChevrons. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

A very pleasant surprise. Thank you. --Ykraps (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sail plan move Question

Hi Ykraps, I notice that you reverted my move of Sail-plan to "Sail plan". I felt that I gave sufficient reason, citing MOS:HYPHEN. The topic is not a modifying phrase and therefore should not include a hyphen, nor does the lead sentence use a hyphen—which is correct. Perhaps you can explain my error, here. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 15:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

HopsonRoadSail-plan (hyphenated) is a perfectly acceptable English variation.[[2]] Your move was contentious therefore a proper move request, followed by a meaningful discussion is the way forward. MOS:HYPHEN allows for compound nouns so I don't understand your point. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is where you need to list the article if you wish to proceed.Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves--Ykraps (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I realize that archaic texts use hyphenated terminology for this and many other nautical terms. What I was referring to is MOS:HYPHEN, which allows a hyphen in three instances:

1. In hyphenated personal names: John Lennard-Jones.
2. To link prefixes with their main terms in certain constructions (quasi-scientific, pseudo-Apollodorus, ultra-nationalistic).
3. To link related terms in compound modifiers:...

None of these examples is consistent with the term involved. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 17:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"Three main uses" does not mean three sole uses. There is nothing in MOS:HYPHEN that forbids the use of hyphens in titles. Why are you so reluctant to start a move request and gain consensus?--Ykraps (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Not reluctant, it just seemed that the MOS should be the obvious guide here. I felt that if you agreed, we could avoid the inconvenience of that process. But you seem to feel that a hyphen might be found controversial by others, so that may be the approach to take, if you don't agree with my perspective on the MOS. Thanks for the dialog here. User:HopsonRoad 17:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Worth opening up to a broader audience, I think. Who knows, there may be other "archaic" editors out there. :) --Ykraps (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Ykraps, see Talk:Sail-plan#Requested move 30 January 2017. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 15:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I have joined the discussion. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Pearl (1762)

On 3 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Pearl (1762), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that HMS Pearl escorted troops to Kip's Bay during the American Revolutionary War in September 1776? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Pearl (1762). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Pearl (1762)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:WORCS Barnstar.

Good evening Ykraps, I decided to address to you, as I have noticed that you made a contribution to the article Worcester. Thing is, that recently I found out, that on Wikipedia exists a very good Project, called WP:WORCS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Worcestershire, and I became very interested, as I’m planning to visit the Archaeological sites in Worcestershire, make good photos and then to start an article about Archaeological findings of Worcestershire. I think, that WP:WORCS deserves to have its own symbol - a Barnstar, what will also, probably, help to make this Project more active, and as a participant of the Wikipedia Awards Project I decided to create Worcestershire Barnstar: the emblem, used by Worcestershire units at the Battle of Agincour (now this emblem decorates the Flag of Worcestershire) - county's famed black pear - became the central motive of Worcestershire Barnstar. If you will have a couple of minutes, please have a look at the page WikiProject Wikipedia Awards talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards and if in your opinion this Barnstar is worth it (I tried my best) — give a support. Your participation will be highly appreciated. Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chris Oxford, thanks for noticing my edits. I don't have much experience in this field but I think a Worcestershire barnstars is a great idea. I have left some comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards, which I hope you will think are constructive. As I've already said, I don't have much experience with this sort of thing so if you think my remarks are out of line, feel free to ignore them. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ykraps, Thank you very much for your reply. No, I’m not going to ignore your advise, as it is absolutely correct. I have already explained it on WikiProject Wikipedia Awards talk page. Probably this evening job will be done. Great thanks again. Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 12:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Spanish ship Fenix (1749)

Hi Corrine, It is enormously embarrassing having your own silly typos highlighted (their and become are particularly cringeworthy) but thanks all the same. I have checked your edits and they all look fine. --Ykraps (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

That's good. I know exactly how you feel. I've made typos, too, and then seen them corrected by someone else. ;) I'd like to ask you something that I was thinking about as I was editing the article. I noticed that you refer to the English Channel as "The Channel". Is that name for the channel particular to seamen, or is that simply what it is generally called in England and/or Europe? If either one of those, I guess it's fine, but for American readers, "The Channel" is new.  – Corinne (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It's almost exclusively referred to simply as "The Channel" in the UK. The Channel Islands and the Channel Tunnel are never referred to as the English Channel Islands or the English Channel Tunnel and there are cross-Channel ferries and swimming The Channel. British seaman would certainly think of it as The Channel and, as it's the busiest shipping lane in the world, perhaps sailors from other English-speaking nations would too. Non-English speaking nations probably have their own name for it, Europeans certainly do - the French call it La Manche and the Spanish call it Canal de la Mancha, for example. All the sources (except the Spanish ones) talk about The Channel and The Channel (capitalised) redirects to English Channel. I look out on it on an almost daily basis so I don't really think about it. Perhaps it is Anglo-centric.--Ykraps (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and the information. I'm wondering whether, in English language sources, "The Channel" is used in titles and at the first mention in the article or book. I had never heard it called that; I've only ever heard "the English Channel". If it is not usually used in the majority of English language source titles and at the first mention in those works, then I recommend using "the English Channel" at first mention, with "The Channel" in either parentheses or, following "or", within a pair of commas after it. Then after that "The Channel" can be used. I also wonder why "the" is capitalized. I can understand "Channel" being capitalized, but not "the". Jonesey95 what do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Just looking at English Channel, "the Channel" is the prevalent usage. I haven't looked at sources. I imagine they vary, but it would be useful to be consistent among articles about the Channel. I don't have a problem with "the Channel" after a first mention of "the English Channel" with a link to the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

All the English-language, maritime history books I own call it the Channel. I have few books by American authors but both A. T. Mahan and Jonathan R. Dull know it as the Channel, and it is referred to as the Channel in the internationally selling, Hornblower and Jack Aubrey novels. So I don’t think it’s new to Americans. The capitalising appears to be one of my idiosyncrasies. I see “the” as an integral part of the name (it is never just “Channel”) but everyone else just capitalises the C (will the humiliation never end?) Anyway I’ve no objections if you land-lubbers want to call it the English Channel. :) --Ykraps (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think it is probably known as "the Channel" in England and nearby countries, and among seafarers and those interested in seafaring, but the average American knows it only as "the English Channel". I agree with Jonesey95. Call it "the English Channel" at first mention, followed by: ".., or the Channel,...". Link it to the WP article at "English Channel", and then link "the Channel" to the article English Channel with a piped link at the next mention of "the Channel" or perhaps at the first mention of "the Channel" after the lead. Is that about right, Jonesey95?  – Corinne (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

François Joseph Paul de Grasse

Hello, Ykraps - Since you clearly have an interest in European military history, perhaps you can help sort something out. I left at comment at User talk:Excirial#François Joseph Paul de Grasse, and s/he kindly replied and supplied some information. However, s/he was unable to assist further, and, in addition to that, I saw another "citation needed" tag. Would you mind reading my comment there and my second comment? Maybe you can figure it all out.  – Corinne (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Louis de la Roque, Catalogue des chevaliers de Malte, appelés successivement Chevaliers de l'Ordre Militaire et Hospitalier de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, de Rhodes, de Malte - 1099-1800, Alp. Desaide, Paris, 1891, colonne 109 - An online version is available here[[3]]. On page 109 it says François Joseph Paul de Grasse du Bar 1733. However it does not appear to confirm he was "...a page of the Grand Master".--Ykraps (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think that was the question you were asking. I am currently at work and read very quickly, and think I got the wrong end of the stick. I don't have access to too many sources at the moment but will look later when I get home.--Ykraps (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That's all right. Another editor seems to have added a source. See the comment on my talk page at User talk:Corinne#HMS Gibraltar & Admiral de Grasse.  – Corinne (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

HMS Levant (1758)

Thanks for your review of the above, and for the Gazette references. I get lazy using the newspaper archive, and forget that not every Gazette story gets reprinted in the regional papers. Have added the extra captures, and have left some notes on the additions in Parsecboy's section here. In passing I also removed the quotebox from the final section, which caused the copyvio false positive. Hopefully these points are resolved, but if not please let me know. Further comments or suggestions are also welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Euryalus, no, no more comments from me except well done on a nicely detailed article. You obviously did a lot of research and it looks like the British Newspaper Archives are a mine of information. I have access to The Times archives via the library service but regional newspapers are much better, printing stories about local people which the nationals aren't interested in. I didn't have a problem with the quote, just noted how it bumped up the copyvio results but on reflection, I think Parsecboy and Funk Monk were right, and I think what you have done is an improvement. Anyway, it looks like the review is drawing to close so I've added my support and expect to see HMS Levant (1758) listed as a Featured Article. Well done, once again --Ykraps (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Roebucks

In Andrew Snape Douglas, you changed the references to the 1774 Roebuck to the 1744 one, but the dates don't look like they match at all - the disambiguation page says the 1744 ship was out of commission by that date. Brianyoumans (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Brianyoumans (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Wait, the change was the other way. You're fine. Thanks for the fix. I hate this mobile interface, that's my excuse! Brianyoumans (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Brianyoumans (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Brianyoumans! Yes, as you say, the 1744 ship was not in commission, having been sold in July 1764, and hence the change. I double checked Winfield as Tracy's book doesn't distinguish, and was going to put a reference in but got side-tracked. It's still a redlink of course but I'm working on that. Thanks for taking an interest. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Spanish ship Fenix (1749)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Spanish ship Fenix (1749) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Euryalus -- Euryalus (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Spanish ship Fenix (1749)

The article Spanish ship Fenix (1749) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Spanish ship Fenix (1749) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Euryalus -- Euryalus (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Spanish ship Fenix (1749)

On 8 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Spanish ship Fenix (1749), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1759, when she was ten years old, Fenix carried the new king, Carlos III, from Naples to Barcelona? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Spanish ship Fenix (1749). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Spanish ship Fenix (1749)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hypothetical template

"Also, when converting words like license and practice to British English, how will this template know whether to convert to the noun (practise/licence) or the verb (practice/license)?" We could just tell the template that it's a verb and make it spell the word accordingly.

Example: {{Engvar-spell|license}} = license, {{Engvar-spell|license|v=past}} = licensed, and {{Engvar-spell|license|v=ger}} = licensing. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 21:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but that requires the editor to know the difference. Punctuation is also different across the English variations. How will a template decide whether to display a comma or not? Words and phrases such as 'off of' and 'gotten' which appear to be acceptable in Am Eng are not in Br Eng. It seems to me that we will need to insert so many templates, it will be quicker to write the article twice. I don't see your solution as workable, sorry. Thanks for getting back to me though.--Ykraps (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Protector/Hussar

Hi Ykraps, Good catch. Do you have any source for the 5/5 date other than Winfield? I have just done some hunting and all I can find in the London Gazette is a one-line reference to Roebuck capturing Protector on 7 September 1781. No reason to doubt Winfield. Just wish I could find confirmation. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Acad Ronin Yes, sorry, I was going to put one in and then got distracted. This issue of the London Gazette - "No. 12420". The London Gazette. 4 March 1783. gives the 14 April date. Clowes, William Laird (1997) [1900]. The Royal Navy, A History from the Earliest Times to 1900, Volume IV. London: Chatham Publishing. p. 63. ISBN 1-86176-013-2. also gives that date, and there is a further reference in the HMS Medea (1778) article. Take your pick.--Ykraps (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Would that our ancestors had kept better records. I'll get to it later today. I will put in a note to the effect that sources differ. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Acad Ronin Hold fire on that. I had several windows open while editing this morning and I inadvertently edited the wrong article. I was looking at the Protector article because the sources do indeed differ: The London Gazette says 6 May 1781 [[4]], Winfield says 5 May 1781 (which I have now reverted to) but Clowes (Vol IV) says 12 May 1780. The 14 April date refers to USS Confederacy (1778), another article I was looking at at the same time and it was the dates in HMS Orpheus (1780) I meant to change.--Ykraps (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Struggling with a Wikitable

I am trying to insert a table into the article Dorset dialect but no matter where I place it in the text, it appears at the bottom of the page. What am I missing? Thanks in advance--Ykraps (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Gotta close those tables off properly... Yunshui ^雲_水 14:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh crap! I knew it would be something simple and obvious. Thanks for your help.--Ykraps (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Roebuck (1774)

On 21 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Roebuck (1774), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Roebuck was the flagship of Admiral Mariot Arbuthnot at the Siege of Charleston in 1780? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Roebuck (1774). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Roebuck (1774)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 01:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Freddie Mills

It is illegal to register a birth outside of the birth district. Although the following reference probably shouldn't be used on Wikipedia, it also confirms his parents married in Christchurch.

http://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/forum/post26107.html

All my children were born in Bournemouth and registered in Christchurch so either you are wrong or the law has changed. Reliable sources are mainly in agreement that Freddie Mills was born in Bournemouth with many stating he was born at home in Terrace Road.[[5]] If you find yourself in a disagreement over the content of a article, the place to discuss it is the article's talk page. I am quite happy to discuss it here but the talk page will attract a wider audience of interested people. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, one was born in Poole and registered in Christchurch.--Ykraps (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Landmarks of Christchurch, Dorset (September 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Landmarks of Christchurch, Dorset and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 01:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Ykraps, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! David.moreno72 01:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

David.moreno72 I am sure I don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about! I haven't submitted any article for creation. The page you appear to be indicating is a historic draft in my user space, used whilst editing the landmarks section of the Christchurch, Dorset page, which I took to GA in February 2011. I also know of the existence of the Listed buildings in Christchurch, Dorset article, because I created it in October 2010.[[6]] Is this message meant for someone else?--Ykraps (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ykraps. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Roebuck (1743)

On 24 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Roebuck (1743), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that HMS Roebuck rescued HMS Rippon after the latter grounded during an attack on Basse-Terre in 1759? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Roebuck (1743). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Roebuck (1743)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Amazon (1795), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gybe (check to confirm | 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) 09:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

HMS Pearl (ship, 1762)

What makes you think it's a two decker, and not a paint on on the hull to look like? Actually I suspect that what we have is a dubiously described image. The uploader has resigned and I cant find the image on Bonhams. The File page details look like they have been lifted off another image. Compare the names and details of these two (in the same cat.) surely not coincidental?: [File:Dominic Serres - Captain George Montagu of the 'Pearl', 32 guns, engaging the Spanish frigate 'Santa Monica' off the Azores, 14th. September 1779 .jpg] and [File:Dominic Serres - Captain George Montagu of the 'Pearl', 32 guns, engaging the Spanish frigate 'Santa Monica' off the Azores, 14th. September 1779.jpg] I wonder if this was the Uploaders fault or a software glitch. What to do? Delete before the internet proclaims it as true all over the place? Look for an image upload bug? Broichmore (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The picture uploaded to Commons is wrong - it's a nineteenth century East Indiaman, painted by William John Huggins. The actual Serres painting of Pearl engaging Santa Monica is this one. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Now you say its so obvious. I couldn't find it on the internet. How did you know about it? Who's going to correct it, me or you? Broichmore (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Will fix it a bit later today. I think the error is a transposition one - the Huggins painting is a similar lot number at Bonhams. Whoever originally uploaded this to Commons was probably adding an entire set of images and got their uploads and descriptors out of order. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Broichmore, I know that some wily captains painted extra gunports on their ships to look more powerful but this was usually done to merchant vessels which needed the storage space but wanted to scare would be predators. I don't know of any frigates that employed this trick and would've thought that a second row of ports would be too near the water line to be convincing. Sometimes captains removed guns to make space when conveying dignitaries and had stubby fake guns for show and indeed, I believe Murray Maxwell did this to HMS Alceste when carrying Lord Amhurst on his diplomatic mission to China. However, I don't know of anyone going to the trouble of painting on a second cabin and the image clearly shows two cabins at the rear. But, in any event, I did not think the image was one that best represented Pearl. Thanks for coming to my talk page to discuss it though. Best regards --Ykraps (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Euryalus Thanks for your input too.--Ykraps (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Nice work on Sultan btw. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Pearl (1762)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Pearl (1762) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Autoblock?

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ykraps (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Top intellect99". The reason given for Top intellect99's block is: "Vandalism-only account; see also filter log".

• Blocking administrator: Jauerback (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: No overlap, autoblock lifted. Happy editing! Yamla (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Pearl (1762)

The article HMS Pearl (1762) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Pearl (1762) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Ykraps, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Sultan (1775)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Sultan (1775) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Sultan (1775)

The article HMS Sultan (1775) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Sultan (1775) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Sultan (1775)

On 5 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Sultan (1775), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at the Battle of Negapatam, when most of the fleet turned away from the action, HMS Sultan was one of four British ships that turned into it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Sultan (1775). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Sultan (1775)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Romulus (1785)

On 2 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article HMS Romulus (1785), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that HMS Romulus used false colours to capture a Spanish corvette without a shot being fired? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Romulus (1785). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, HMS Romulus (1785)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Velters Cornewall Berkeley

Hello! Your submission of Velters Cornewall Berkeley at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BrianCUA (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Velters Cornewall Berkeley

On 6 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Velters Cornewall Berkeley, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Velters Cornewall Berkeley infuriated his fellow British officers by failing to engage the 130-gun Santisima Trinidad during the Battle of Cape St Vincent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Velters Cornewall Berkeley. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Velters Cornewall Berkeley), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Latona (1781)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Latona (1781) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)