User talk:Acad Ronin/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Norway's Seven Brigs

Hi Acad - Have a look at User:Viking1808/Seven brigs postscript which could be fitted into several of your ship articles. I have been into some complicated translations recently but occassionally come across a nice snippet like this. Regards Viking1808 (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Viking1808, welcome back. I had feared that you had wandered off to other, more lucrative, pastimes. Thanks for the heads up re the brigs. I think that should be a separate article, with a table showing the brigs, and a section on the gunboats. That way, we don't try to repeat the same info several times. What do you think of an article titled something like, "Dissolution of the Dano-Norwegian Navy"? Acad Ronin (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a better title would be "The New Norwegian Navy (1814)" eventually. Meanwhile, I think I need to work a bit more on the officers involved (currently stubs or poor articles only) plus the Danish side of Allart (no article yet), and keep the strings together on HDMS Lolland whose section on the norwegian navy might eventually be moved to the new article. Viking1808 (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Acad - Thanks for the improvements to Gunboat War recently.

Some more pages for you to look at.

• User:Viking1808/HDMS Allart also
• Lorentz Fisker, and
• Jens Schou Fabricius plus one which is not "mine"
• Carl Adolph Rothe.

The Allart article is pretty well complete as far as the Scandinavian input goes, but needs the British angle and extra references. As you suggest above, there is a need to run all these brig and schooner articles into one whole, plus perhaps all the Norwegian officers. Could these fall into a new category - (say) add category: New Norwegian Navy 1814 perhaps. How does one do that? Or what do you suggest? Viking1808 (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Viking1808, You can see what I have done with Allart. I am not finished with the British stuff - I will need a couple of more days grace and I will let you know when I have added all that I can. I think a category and article for the new navy is a good idea, however, I am not the one to ask about setting up categories. I have tried to do so a couple of times and have botched it each time. If I recall correctly, Brad101 came in and cleaned up my mess. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Acad! Taking on board your latest suggestion, I have put together the skeleton of a wikipage at User:Viking1808/Norwegian Navy 1814 that can act for general connections and will be of use if we get a Category set up. Any input from you most welcome. As that page matures, we could then approach Brad101 for his advice !? ( am I overworking you?? ) Viking1808 (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Viking, Don't worry about over-working me. I can always just disappear into the ether if I so choose. On the Norwegian navy page, I would drop the stuff about the past battles of the gunboat war, and any mention of graves or careers of officers who did not actually transfer. I would keep the page to the actual separation. A final paragraph about the strategic issues facing Norway from 1814 might be a way to reintroduce mention of the Gunboat War, the Pomor Trade, Havic, and some such references. Also, I am done with Allart. I have exhausted my sources there. I believe that article is now ready to launch. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Mange tak igen! Thanks - Allart is now launched. You have been busy with 1814- I will take a while to take it all in. Regards Viking1808 (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Acad Ronin. You have new messages at ChrisGualtieri's talk page.
Message added 00:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Actually... see my talk page again please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I'll try to make sure to prevent it from being changed again in the future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Entreprenant

Hello,

it is always with great interest that I follow your contributions, and I would like to seize the occasion of your findings regarding Entreprenant to testify my great appreciation. This ship is a bit of a mystery, and I was very pleased to read your additions. Congratulations and thanks, and good continuation! Rama (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rama, Thanks for the kind words. As I specialize in minor vessels, I tend to fly a little under the radar. I am still digging on Enteprenant, and hope to be able to add a minor addition or two. This business of keeping the name while changing the vessel is a new one on me. Let me reciprocate your kind words with my own expression of appreciation for your work on the French vessels. Given the co-evolution of the French and British navies, having input from the French side makes for a more nuanced and complete picture. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Copenhagen 1807

Hi Acad - another challenge!
In Note 1 to the HDMS Allart (1807) you include the first reference in English to the names of ships taken by the British after the Battle of Copenhagen (1807) that I have ever seen. (exciting!!). Currently there is a flag on the section of that article "Ships Surrendered" quote This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability. unquote.
Last year I put two sections into the talk page of Copenhagen (1807) using Danish sources but drew no further comment. Can you have a look and see if our two heads can improve the "Ships Surrendered" section and remove the tag.?
Perhaps further discussion should be on that talk page? Viking1808 (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Acad Ronin. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 02:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Magdala Battery

Hi AR, thanks for your work on the article. I did try and fix a missing ref prob but I'm not sure I used the same ref layout as you. We are very involved with the fortifications of Gibraltar as part of the GibraltarpediA project. If you have an especial interest in this area - or know someone who might then we will be adding wikipedia based signage and would value some input. Victuallers (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC) That sounds ideal. As you know Gib is covered in fortifications. Is there a group of you? If there was free accomadtion (maybe, I'm just trying ideas out) then would the travel sound attractive? Victuallers (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Although the idea is attractive, and very kind, I live some distance away from Europe. I mostly get my fortification visiting done when I go to conferences and tack on a day or two after the conference. The Guernsey walk was a bit of an aberration. (For some unfathomable reason, my wife does not find visiting fortifications compelling. We couldn't miss the Guernsey towers because we kept passing them as we walked.) Unfortunately, I am not aware of any conferences in my field scheduled for Gibraltar, which my wife and I visited back in 1996, before I got active on wikipedia. A secondary issue is that I would be loath to compromise my anonymity, given that I suspect my colleagues would look askance at my wikipedia hobbies. On a more positive note, should I add HMS Calpe, and particularly HMS Calpe (1800), to the category History of Gibraltar? There may be other vessels RN vessels with ties to the Rock. Also, should I put some of the Gibraltar project links on the relevant pages? What do you think? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Askance? hmm do you know that there are american profs who claim tenure based on wiki articles (partly). Well I'd be very pleased to have your help - we are planning to run a wiki conference in march next year in gib - I'm guessing that isnt your field! Still I can see good reasons for keeping yourself anonymous.

We have just found a complete list of all of Gibs fortifications .... its actually an aircraft carrier that would give nimitz a run for its money. HMS Calpe? Well I think thats certtainly on the g'pedia category. (When we did monmouthpedia we included all the hms monmouths) Please add some gibraltarpedia project pages - that would be great. .... and you can add your anom. name to the list of helpers at gibraltarpedia.org. Very pleased to have met you. Victuallers (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Finish

Could you finish this ... ok bad joke!? Actually I thought you might use this as a source]? but its only an option being as you mentioned hms calpe Victuallers (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Reversions to the Xhosa Wars page

Dear Acad Ronin,

Apologies for the recent reversions to the Xhosa Wars page. Unfortunately, while you did correct many genuine grammatical errors (I've also been working on fixing that page; while I've fixed some of its problems it does indeed still have many issues that need tackling), you also inserted a great deal of sentence fragments, incorrect subclauses and misplaced prepositions (e.g. "the Xhosa people lost of most of their land") in place of genuinely correct sentences. These are common errors for second language speakers of English and totally understandable (I used to work as an English teacher when I was younger so I know how bizarre and difficult English preposition usage is!) but they are nonetheless errors.

I will go through your suggested edits properly later and incorporate the valid ones (especially those referring to links and paragraph structure where you made valid corrections).

PS. Xhosa/Zulu grammar is prefix-based but these prefixes don't need to be expressed in English. The normal practice regarding Nguni names is to omit the prefix in English text. (e.g. You wouldn't say "He was speaking isiXhosa" and more than you would say "He was speaking Français". The normal practice is to say "He was speaking Xhosa/French")

Abu Shawka (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Fortifications of Gibraltar

Hi there, thank you for your help on some of the history and fortifications of Gibraltar, it's much appreciated! Would you be willing to help populate this upcoming article? --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 12:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gibmetal77. thanks for the invite but I am going to have to pass. My obsessive project is Napoleonic Era minor RN vessels. Other projects, like Napier of Magdala Battery, usually arise out of a trip. In this case, it was a trip to Malta, where I saw Fort Rinella and the 100-ton gun, which led me to Napier. That Battery led me to Rosia Bay, where I tried to edit what I saw as a haphazard collection of incidents in random order, only to have ACP2011 revert pretty much everything I had done, and tell me to stop messing up the Gib project to maximize DYKs. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

An award from us (and the signpost :-) )

		The Signpost Barnstar
		This month the Signpost said that the Gibraltar project was a " ludicrously productive GLAM project". Thank you for helping us with that achievement (anyway). We have got behind with the barnstars so this is one to say thank you for helping. Gibraltarpedia.org is now showing the list of about 100 plaques - do take a look and see the languages we will be featuring. Victuallers (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit of Parsons Lodge. I was told that the Hodgkiss gun was a vickers - do you know? I have no idea and I based the filename ob est advice at the time. Hope that makes sense! Victuallers (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure youve done great stuff that didnt get you a barnstar! Yep I'll fix the filename. Victuallers (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Colonial Marines

Hello, I have noticed that you have contributed to the Corps of Colonial Marines article in the past. The introduction needs a re-write. Most of the details (corps were formed from former slaves aleit for different reasons, outline of each of the two Corps, legacy in Florida), but the style needs reworking. Would you be able to cast an eye over the introduction, and improve the flow, as it needs refining. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for having tidied up the introduction. I will be moving one paragraph, but that is the only change for now. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

George Heneage Dundas

Hi - I am engaged in the closing stages of a wikiproject to increase the quality assessment of all articles on First Naval Lords / First Sea Lords to B, GA or A status. I am about to start work on the article on George Heneage Dundas, an article to which you have contributed. I will need to remove all material that is unsourced or not directly relevant to the subject and expand the existing material to include more information on the subject's political and administrative career. I hope you are OK with this and in the meantime if the there are any more in-line sources you could add to the article (particularly in relation to which ships he was posted to and when) that would be great. Thanks in anticipation. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Alexander (East Indiaman)

Hi Acad, I was wondering whether you could help me with this one. I am thinking of moving the page to create a dab page, similar to what you did at Ocean (East Indiaman). I have two questions: 1. The Alexander to be moved, I do not know the year of build/launch so was wondering whether you had any details. 2. Alexander (1783) was also apparently an East Indiaman, with the EIC ships website entry indicating that she was built in 1784 and lost after First Fleet to Australia. This account defers slightly from my records. Can you confirm. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Newm30, I will see what I can find re Alexander. Once/if we have that we can go from there. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk)
• OK, here is something: http://www.weymouthlunarsociety.org.uk/alexander.htm Apparently there was a plethora of contemporary Alexanders. The Liverpool Alexander is well documented in the National Archives and is definitely not our ship. The NA also has a short item that suggests that the French captured the First Fleet Alexander of the coast of West Africa. Am still looking. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• I have added some info the wrecked Alexander, but have not done anything about the date. There is some suggestion that she was not an Indiaman but rather a country ship out of Bombay. Furthermore, there was an Alexander (1803) that was an HEIC Indiaman. This is the vessel in the National Archives. There may have been a Bombay Alexander built in 1802, of 746 tons burthen as well.Acad Ronin (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I have created the dab page at Alexander (East Indiaman) and moved the ship to Alexander (1803 Bombay). Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Asia (1814)

Another question. I am researching vessels named Asia that transported convicts to Australia. I found that Charles Bateson identifies an Asia a 492 burthen ton ship built in 1814 at Bombay as having transported to NSW in 1825, he also identifies an Asia a 523 burthen ton ship built in 1814 at Calcutta that first transported convicts in 1827. I have found that the first Asia was captained by Captain W. L Pope and the second Asia by Captain Henry Ager. From Llyods Register in 1825, the 1825 vessel is identified as being built in Calcutta, not Bombay. In 1825/1826, the first Asia appears to undergo some repairs or modifications as stated in Llyods Register in 1826 (I dont understand the jargon). In the Llyods Register in 1826 there is a note below the ship register about "Ager" and owner changes to Pope. In 1830 she changes owners to Hockett &...., and in 1832 she appears to be re-rated as 513 burthen ton. There is mention of transport to NSW and 523 burthen ton in appendix. I am tending to believe that Asia's identified are in fact the same ship. Do you have any comments? Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Newm30, once I started in on Ocean and Alexander I came to realize that the tons burthen data was really flaky. It is good for RN ships, but for these merchant ships it is all over the place. On one Ocean, the HEIC rating or classification, the National Archives figure, and the letter of marque figures are are all different, and noticeably so. What ties the vessels together is captains, and times, so I put more weight on those than on tons. But one cannot be certain when the vessels have almost generic names. I keep looking for more evidence if I can, with the result that I have had on occasion to go back and reverse a mistaken identificatrion. Good luck. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

About admiral Robert Mann

Dear Sir. I've just created an article about Robert Mann (admiral), an admiral from the age of Nelson that you may find interesting. It needs to be really started... Greetings Pietje96 (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: User talk:BDD#HMS Staunch

Hello, Acad Ronin. You have new messages at BDD's talk page.
Message added 19:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Danish Naval Information - missing links

Hi Acad

Sorry to say, none of the links to danish ships' record cards under the old "sorte registrant" will work any more. Budgetary cutbacks have forced their removal from the internet. Below is a reply from the museum following a query from me.

"Due to our new homepage and cutbacks, we do not facilitate “Den Sorte Registrant” anymore.Instead you can visit www.orlogsbasen.dk. You can also try to use this homepage: http://www.navalhistory.dk/. I hope you can manage with these homepages. I am sorry that we cannot provide the same service to you anymore. www.sfhm.dk info@sfhm.dk"

I will work slowly through the ships we have works on, removing the links - unless you know of a quicker way!! I will also ask Saddhiyama if he has any ideas. Viking1808 (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Viking1808, Good to hear from you, even if the news is bad. Do the homepages the orlogs museum sent you to have the same info? If not, that is a loss. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Click on www.orlogsbasen.dk > choose DATABASE > choose AVANCEREDE (advanced search) > Navn - type in ship's name, Datering - type in launch year, +/- allowing for uncertainty by 5 or 10 years > choose Søg (search) and with luck you will see the restricted information available. It is not as good as the original. Grinder and Seagull are missing. Others are reported in some detail, with designs or models linked in.

Another glitch, that Saddhiyama came up with recently, was that the Topsøe-Jensen book of Danish naval officers is no longer downloadable. Luckily, I have my own copy on two discs and so can still find the biographical information! Viking1808 (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You will see I have put the following on HDMS Najaden's External Links section

• Individual record cards in Danish for ships of the Danish Royal Navy can be no longer (Feb 2013) found on the internet at Orlogmuseet Skibregister. The Danish Naval Museum is building a new website at which details, drawings and models may be available. For individual ships already listed, including Najaden, see here.
  

When I get round to it, unless there is a quicker way, I propose to paste the same message for each Danish vessel we have worked on, provided the entry is indeed in the new database. The English language version of the website, and some parts of the Danish, are still incomplete. Viking1808 (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Finally got my computer build working. Your proposal sounds like a good compromise until the new website is up, which hopefully contains the old databases (seems an odd place make cut backs, since the work making the database is already invested, and the money needed to maintain it must be peanuts compared to the educational value it provides). --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Lautaro

I need some time to gather information. I will respond in few days. Thanks and --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a very interesting issue, but we can discuss it in another time. I reverted my controversial change and now the article bear the previous name. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw that. Thanks. It seems the best compromise in that it focuses on the Chilean importance without causing confusion. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Technical Issues with ship of the line template

Hello, Your edits have used a more pleasing ship of the line template, comprising the following elements:

• "HMS" prefix (when applicable)
• Ship name
• year of ship's construction
• rating of warship

I've tried to emulate this whilst editing HMS Asia (1811), but to no avail. Have you had any similar issues recently? Regards Keith H99 (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kieth, I am afraid I am not following you on the nature of the problem. A long time ago I simply copied the template from some article, while in edit mode, and stripped out the ship-specific info, before saving it in an MSWord Doc file. Now when I am starting a new article I just put that template in and fill in the info that I have. If you could give me a little more guidance on where you are running into problems perhaps I can be a bit more precise in my answer. As you can see from my edits to the Asia's armament, I had no trouble editing the template. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, now I see! This issue was affecting HMS Tonnant. With regard the fourth element, I had believed this to be the rating of the ship of the line, whereas it appears it is the iteration of the ship. (I had recorded Tonnant as having a 3, to indicate third rate, whereas I see you changed it to 6, and now it appears fine. I'll perform similar edits for Severn and Surprise. Thanks for the intervention. Regards Keith H99 (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Glad to have been of help, even if it was more by accident than design. Best, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits at Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)

Acad, thanks for taking a look at the Fort Dobbs article. I would like to point out that per WP:STRONGNAT, articles involving U.S. topics take the MDY format, not DMY. Since this is an article that is exclusively about a U.S. subject, I chose to write it with the MDY format. In fact, if you look at some of the documents at [1], you'll note that even in 1757 (around the time of the fort's construction), the MDY format was common (if not preferred) in colonial usage, whereas strictly govermental documents (like letters from the Board of Trade) were written DMY. Cdtew (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Acad Ronin. You have new messages at A930913's talk page.
Message added 18:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

930913(Congratulate) 18:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Kent

Congratulations on your work on the several East Indiamen Kent, it is most clarifying. Surcouf's story has become one of these propaganda stunts like Vengeur du Peuple' sinking, the Action of 14 December 1798 or the Action of 7 February 1813 (or, I suspect, the aftermath of the Action of 18 August 1798); in Surcouf's case, there appear to have been several layers of successive gilding of the tale, during the Napoleonic war, during the Restoration and after the war of 1870, and some modern French historians let themselves be fooled occasionally. In this castle of mirrors, it is refreshing to find oneself on firm ground for once.

One of the little mysteries of Kent that I have been trying to pry is the presence of one "general Saint-John" aboard; he is said to have "commanded the Marines of Kent" (quoted in Granier), to have been married "a German princess, daughter of the margrave of Anspach" (Les corsaires français sous la République), and to have become a friend of Surcouf's after the event (quoted in Granier). Assuming there was a general Saint-John aboard, the first is appears fancyful (he might simply have taken command of during the battle, or have had a few guards attached to his person); the second could be specific enough to be a legitimate clue; and the third, well, what can you say. I wondered whether your sources said anything at all on the matter?

I'll try to see if I can identify the ship whose crew Kent had rescued earlier. I am really delighted to see that we have sources available on these HEIC Indiamen; for years, it has been as if a small nation went undocumented.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: probably Frederick St John (general) and Queen, respectively. Cheers! Rama (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Name by which ship known

French frigate Aigle (1782)

Hi Acad,

I have some letters written by a Midshipman while he served in Aigle under Samuel Hood from which it seems clear that they referred to their ship as L'Aigle rather than Aigle. Has this come up in your researches? Scribes52 (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Scribe52, It's a tricky issue. General practice, or at least what Winfield, who has the most comprehensive book on the RN vessels of the period, does is to use the French name, with the article and any accents, for the vessel when she is in French service, and the name without the article and without the accents when she is in RN service. I tend to drop the article in both cases. The problem with including the article is that any listing of vessels will clump all the French vessels under the letter "L" (e.g., L'Aigle'', La Nourice, etc.), all Dutch vessels under "De" (e.g., De Komet, De Kamphaan, etc.), and similarly for Danish and Spanish vessels. If you include the article, some editors also end up writing "the L'Aigle", which gives you a redundant article. Does that help? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that in the new French Warships in the Age of Sail 1786-1861 (due out in early September 2015) I have avoided including the article in a French ship's name; my reason for using it in the 4-volume series on British warships is to easily distinguish French ships mentioned from the British ones. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Goetzen / Liemba

I think, we must talk about the guns of the Koenigsberg. The ship had taken for overseas use additional guns on board, but were driven as a load. i.e. they were not installed. Therefore, you can not just write, the guns were of the Konigsberg like the 105 mm guns.--Ihnen (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

OK! The formulation I agree--Ihnen (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

talk]]) 17:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Acad Ronin. You have new messages at Insulam Simia's talk page.
Message added 14:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 14:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

HMS Grecian

All sorted as you suggested, Mjroots (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

HMS Peterel (1794)

The prose is what is important and where the citation should go in a GA/A/FA article; the infobox should just be a summary of the cited facts in the article and ideally have no citations. That's why I added those facts back in. The rest of it looks pretty good! Kirk (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Union Bank of India

Edits admittedly in Good faith is NOT vandalism. Please source the text you have restored. Thanks Unfitlouie (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thomson and Thompson

Not a Tintin topic but HMS Colibri (1809)! It seems that while many sources list his name as Thomson but quite a few have Thompson. As I am actually directly descended from him and know it was Thomson, I was wondering how to reference the name change! Dabbler (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

re:French brig Nearque (1804)

Hi Acad. You should definitely make it a proper quote. Right now it isn't a quote. Are you re-using James's paraphrasing? If you are, then you must put in quotation marks. As the text is, it is like Wikipedia is saying that it's fortunate that the volley didn't cause casualties, and that's point of view. Manxruler (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well fixed. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for you at my talk

Hello, Acad Ronin. You have new messages at Manxruler's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Manxruler (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

HMS Dart

Acad, you changed HMS Dart to make the 1796 ship a frigate instead of a sloop - but the given reference (Colledge) says she was a sloop. What's the basis for your change? If you have one, please insert a suitable reference. Given that she was carronade armed, it's quite possible she was a sloop, rather than a small frigate. Thanks, Shem (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Port Harvey attribution

Re this, the BC Names Port Harvey link says "Work in Progress: Origin Notes for this name have not yet been transferred from paper records and maps to the website", as do many of their entries. This whole area is filled with Royal Navy-related names; as per Hull Island (British Columbia), which is also mentioned and cited on Havannah Channel. So I took a leap of faith; similarly Chatham Channel's citation also has no name origin, but the Chatham is connected to many other names in the vicinity. I'm in regular contact with BC Names, I'll betcha dollars to donuts the captain of the Havannah *IS* the correct attribution for the namesake of Port Harvey. Unless you know of some other guy named Harvey and know it's named for him?Skookum1 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Re the "the" re Beaver (steamship)

Hi, I saw you reverted my addition of "the" before the Beaver's name on its article. That may be a British idiom, I don't know, but the ordinary, most common usage in nearly everything I've seen on this locally-famous vessel is always "the Beaver". Note my addition of the {{Canadian English}} template to the article's talkpage. Canadian idioms and usages should be respected on Canadian articles, and our usage for most ships is with the "the", not without. I could provide endless historical citations and magazines/books and more to demonstrate this. In fact, the only place I've ever seen it without the "the" is here in Wikipedia.Skookum1 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

HMS Boxer (1812)

I'm checking unusual usage of {{convert}} and found HMS Boxer (1812) which has a broken convert. On looking, it appears it was always broken (I think back in 2009). However, I then noticed something else and I'm hoping you can clarify or fix the article if needed.

In this edit, two converts were changed. In each case, "0.25" was changed to "0+1/2". I guess you meant to put "0+1/4"? Or possibly you found a ref with a different value?

The convert which has been broken for a long time currently reads:

|Ship hold depth={{convert|11|ft|m|0+1/2|abbr=on}}

Assuming that 0+1/4 is correct, the convert should be:

|Ship hold depth={{convert|11|ft|0+1/4|in|m|abbr=on}}

It's a trivial difference, but I'm trying to clean the converts up and am hoping you will work out what is needed and fix it. Thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Born -> Borne

It may make you feel better to know that Merriam-Webster shows the past participle of "bear" as "borne also born", though other dictionaries do not allow "born" for this use. I think that for most readers, "borne" makes more sense. Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 15:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)