User talk:Rama/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Request for translation help

Hi Rama, in the expression "Icard, enseigne de vaisseau non entretenu", how would you translate the "non entretenu"? Thanks and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I don't know what the proper English term would be for this, and I would not be surprised if there was none; perhaps something like "acting ensign"?

Litterally, it means "not paid", or "without a salary". "Enseigne de vaisseau non entretenu" is a rank of ensign, but junior to "enseigne de vaisseau entretenu": in addition to not being paid, they would wear the uniform and have authority only when on service. There was a fixed number of 200 positions of enseignes entretenus, to which one could access by a competitive examination, while there was an unlimited number of enseignes non entretenus and one could obtain the status by a simple examination or by captaining a merchantman.

I don't know whether this system had parallels in the Royal Navy; if not, the best solution might be to create an article on the ranking system of the French Navy under the Revolution.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will go with "acting", and will hold off on doing an article on French naval ranks. Such an article would be well beyond my knowledge base. I am not aware of anything similar in the Royal Navy. In the context acting appears to have meant an appointment by order, pending a commission in the rank. Individuals might also serve as volunteers on a naval vessel, without pay, perhaps while awaiting an appointment. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Tagus

This was probably done erroneously but there was the GA icon on the top of this new article when it has never gone through the Good Article process. Just a friendly reminder that all articles in order to get a GA rating have to go through GA noms. Much Ado, --MOLEY (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I must have used the code of a Good Article as template for Battle of Tagus without noticing. Sorry for that snag, and thank you for your vigilance. Rama (talk) 06:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Dunkerque

Hi Rama, I saw that you added a line to French battleship Dunkerque here] - thanks for adding the info, but could I trouble to you add a citation for it? It took a while to get the article into pretty decent shape, and I'd rather not have unsourced material creep back in. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, sorry if you had to search. Cheers! Rama (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI on DYK French corvette Sphinx (1829)

FYI, a review has been done. It's ticked, so I think it passed. But there are some notes therein you might find of interest. Maile66 (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, I've given more information on the Neptunia reference. Cheers! Rama (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for French corvette Sphinx (1829)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

French frigate Didon (1828) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dido

French ship Didon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dido

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:French ship Vengeur du Peuple/GA1

Please see my initial comments. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and attention. Rama (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Obusier de vaisseau

Hi Rama, thanks for adding this. I have long wondered what the 36-pounder carronade/obusier was. Do you have any good rule-of-thumb for when a British description of a captured vessel refers to a 36-pounder carronade, whether to call it a carronade or an obusier? I would like to link to your article where appropriate, but not be inaccurate. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, glad I could be of some use.

The obusier started being replaced by carronades from 1795, and had been completely phased out by 1805. However, the process was probably gradual, and with the habit of customising armament to some degree, it might to difficult to determine very precisely what piece a particular ship bore at a particular time. Furthermore, French heavy carronades were 36-pounders, so we cannot easily distinguish from the calibre (here [1] you can the obusier on top left with the contemporary 36-pounder carronade by its side). Some privateers, like Surcouf's Revenant, would use 32-pounder carronades, possibly captured on British ship, but it was not the habit for naval ships.

I'll keep you informed if I find more information on this. Thank you for your interest and good continuation! Rama (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. The phase-in is a problem for correct identification. I'll have to think about this. Would it be reasonable to assume that mention of brass 36-pounder carronades probably refers to obusiers and no mention of the metal signals true carronades? Also, let me recommend that you add the picture in your comment above to the article on obusiers de vaisseau. The diagram makes clear just how small the obusiers were relative to carronades. (Even the 12-pounder carronade is larger.) Also, it may be worth pointing out that the obusiers' mounts/carriages apparently did not permit plunging fire, further limiting their utility.Acad Ronin (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard of an actual carronade made of brass, so you might have found a clever way of telling the obusiers from the carronades.

The image above is a drawing from a recent book, and thus still under copyright, but I'll try and draw a SVG from photographs that we have and various documentation.

Any improvement to the article on the obusier would be very welcome. From what I have read, it would seem that the main drawback of the obusier was the low reliability of the shell. In fact, the idea of using exploding shells in naval warfare had been coming and going. Napoleon is well-known to have told his admirals to use shells because that was how gunners in the Army would attack wooden targets (along with bitter remarks on winds, this is often quoted as a proof that he was not much of a sailor). The obusier was one such attempt, as was the mortar of the Romaine class. They finally succeeded in 1824 in sinking the Pacificateur, but it took some work on the fuses.

Congratulation on the metal idea, and cheers! Rama (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance with Anti-nuclear movement

Hello Rama, I am currently having difficulty with the user User talk:Johnfos and noticed on the talk page of the anti-nuclear movement you also had trouble with them.

I would appreciate if you came over to my talk page, and to the talk page of the anti-nuclear movement and helped moderate the article. I have made some edits to the Anti-nuclear Movement page with references but Johnfos continues to just revert the edits without stating why.

I also recently posted to Johnfos' talk page politely asking for them to revert their 'not in citation given' tags regarding a Yale Paper, but he simply deleted my request from his talk page.

The misleading picture is below, following the recent Yale University paper, Benjamin K. Sovacool's estimates have undue weight on wikipedia, Nuclear powers total life cycle CO2/kWh emissions are, according to the Yale paper, much less than what Savacool states. The picture supporting Sovacool is here, and my update edits can be found by going to each page where the picture is used - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sovacool_2008_life-cycle_study.png

It is posted,o n the Benjamin K. Sovacool page, Where Johnfos has added the tag 'not in citation given' to both statements, and on the Nuclear Power amongst others.

I explained to Johnfos why both statements I made are in the Yale University paper, but like I said he just deleted the post I made to his talk page and is now accusing me of being a sock.

I wrote to his talk page yesterday with the following -

Johnfos you seemingly didn't read the Yale paper- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x/full

Sovacool's high estimate was 288 g CO2/kWh. Whereas the more rigorous Yale study had a high estimate of 110g CO2/kWh, with a harmonized mean value of 11 g/kWh for BWR and 22g/kWh PWR.

The 'nearly a factor of three' edit I made comes from dividing 288/110 = 2.62

Therefore the statement I made ' by nearly a factor of three' is correct.

Having presented this to you, could you please remove your unwarranted 'not in citation' tag?

Appreciate your time Rama,

Sincerely Boundarylayer (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I am afraid that my involvement in this article is too old for me to claim any familiarity with its current state. Furthermore, though I do not remember my interaction with Johnfos, it does not make me a very suitable admin to police this particular case.

I do sympathise with those who contribute to such articles, as these subjects notoriously tend to trigger visceral reactions and make it difficult for the scientifically minded to be heard over political and corporate slogans. You might possibly find clues to help at Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rama. I've recently been doing some work on modern French battleships (along with User:Sturmvogel 66), and we've made some good progress so far. My most recent project has been on French aircraft carrier Béarn, though I've had trouble finding many details on her inter-war service. I know you tend to do earlier French naval history, but I thought you might be able to lend a hand here. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your interest, but I think that on this subject, you'll have better documentation than me. Do let me know if another opportunity to lend a hand arises, though. Cheers! Rama (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Featured picture

Hello dear user I have nominated one of your pictures to be featured.--Scholarphil (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your interest. Cheers! Rama (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dalil Boubakeur

The article Dalil Boubakeur has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. -- Patchy1 11:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata and Interwiki links

You are receiving this as you have recently added an interwiki link to a page!

Wikidata has been deployed to the English Wikipedia. Wikidata manages interwiki links on a separate project on pages such as this. This means that on Wikipedia articles there is now a language bar on the left hand side of your screen where you can edit and add links rather than adding them into the articles themselves.

If you have any questions regarding Wikidata please use the talk page Wikipedia talk:Wikidata.

·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Voltaire Network

Thank you for your noting VN was "fringe". If you want a fringe explanation of where Voltaire Network gets their facts, you should investigate the department of disinformation at the Ministry of Intelligence and National Security (Iran) and disinformation. You were indeed on the right track. Also look into Veterans Today which republishes articles from Iran's Press TV and Mehr News Agency which is operated by Iran's MOIS intelligence agency. There are in fact a lot of links between VN and Iranian media which have not been documented in the article. Redhanker (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

French Etna-class sailing corvettes

Hi Rama, I would like to do a short article on the class, but only have info on the three vessels that the British captured (Etna (1795), French corvette Mignonne (1797), and Torche (1795)). I have no sources on the other three, and so don't even know their names, let alone launch and end-years. Do you have access to sources for the info? I would be glad to start the article if you could fill in the missing info, or let me know it and I would fill it in. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I have started a quick draft with what I have readily on hand: Etna-class corvette. My source states that the class was a flat-bottomed type of corvette designed by Joseph Augustin Normand, I suppose it is going to be interesting to compare this with your sources, that credit Forfait. I'll dig a bit more on individual ships when I have a bit of time.

Cheers ! Rama (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rama, That's quick and good work. All I have is: "was a French naval Etna-class ship-sloop launched in 1795 to a design by Pierre-Alexandre-Laurent Forfait and his pupil Charles-Henri Tellier." That is from Winfield (2008, p.232). There Winfield further mentions that the class was flush-decked. Then on p.272, in a separate description of the class, Winfield states that they were designed to carry a 12" mortar as well as the 18-pounder guns. In both places he gives the same two designers. Given that Etna was captured within months of launching, at which time there was no mention of the mortar, if the initial design indeed called for that, either the design was modified or the mortar was not fitted. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I probably can't get to it today, but I will add some details to the class article shortly. Thanks for the responsiveness. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

the mortar does not surprise me that much, the French tried repeatedly to modernise the artillery of their warships at that time: one venue was 24-pounder frigates and upper decks for 74s and 80s, and the other was fitting frigates and corvettes with heavy mortars; the Romaine class is an archetypal example. These mortars proved less useful for naval warfare than for shore bombardment, and were abandoned after a time. It's a bit of a personal conjecture, but I suspect that Forfait was essentially trying to invent the torpedo boat: an inexpensive, swift and manoeuverable ship with a disproportionately powerful main weapon capable of disabling a battleship. Too early for his age, he was.

The question of the designers is interesting, I'll try to research this a little bit. I would not be surprised if Normand had himself been a pupil of Forfait's, and a colleague of Tellier's, and they had been more or less involved in the different units of the class.

Thank you for the stimulating question, and good continuation! Rama (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice work on filling out info on the Etna-class corvettes, both British and French. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that we can produce articles that are more complete than either the French (e.g., Roche) or British (e.g., Winfield) sources. As for the mortars, I suspect the intent was to enable the vessels to take on shore batteries and conduct other bombardments in the absence of specialized mortar vessels. However, the idea seems to have been a dead end. It would have made the corvettes slower all the time, due to the weight of the mortar, for the dubious gain of greater effectiveness in extremely rare circumstances. Mortars would have been relatively useless at sea because they only cause damage at the end-point of their trajectory, therefore requiring great accuracy to hit a ship; by contrast, a gun can cause damage anywhere along its trajectory. The Russians, perhaps under the influence of French thought, do seem to have developed something like the obusier, the edinorogs, though these seem to have had a greater range of elevation. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I share your feeling on the convergence of British and French sources; it is one of the reasons why working with you and User:Jackyd101 ranks amongst the best experiences I have had on Wikipedia. Incidentally, thank you for your corrections of my abysmal spelling.

I hear you on the mortars. The Romaine type frigates had also a shot furnace, which proved equally impractible and a burden, and possibly even more dangerous for the ship herself. Napoleon is also famous for trying to bully his Navy officiers into using exploding shells, which they sensibly refused to do before Paixhans perfected them, but surely you knew this.

I will try to research the engineers of the Etna type a bit further; all else failing, I can always contact the author and ask if he has more details.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Mazarin

I really couldn't care less either way but the generally accepted approach has been to describe cardinals born in what is now Italy as an Italian Catholic Cardinal. The article Italian people has all of the proper acknowledgements about the history of "Italians" in general which is where I always like Italian to. My only concern would be that having created about 50 articles (possibly more) for cardinals of the 17th century, I've used the above description for most of them (as most were born in cities and regions now considered part of modern-day Italy). I don't mind if we need to go and change them all, really, (though I don't see the point) but Mazarin's article is now really the only odd one out because of this ongoing Italian/not-Italian business. Would appreciate your thoughts. I'm going to post the above on the article talk page so feel free to respond there if you like. Stalwart111 07:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I would find it historically consistant to give the nationality that a person had when living (with precautions on the very notion of nationality), rather than that they would have if living nowaday; Caesar as an "Italian general and politician" would sound strange to me; of course this may entail links to relevant articles, for instance to "Kingdom of Napoli" rather than to "city of Napoli". Cheers! Rama (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree entirely, which is why I link to Italian people which explains that history in full. I, too, would have a problem going back and describing Caesar of 2000 years ago as "Italian" (though that linked article covers the Romans too). But Cardinals from 200-300 years ago is different I think, especially when contemporaries (like John Bargrave) had already started referring to "Italians" in the context of those who lived on the Italian peninsula ("the boot", as you pointed out). We have the same problem with most of Czechoslovakia (then Bohemia). Anyway, we'll see what others have to say on the talk page, but I would encourage you to comment there. Cheers, Stalwart111 23:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I would agree for 200 years ago, but I would be more cautious for 300: the notion of Nation-State as we know it today emerged with the American and French revolutions. It shapes our understanding of "nationality" and "people". In this instance, while I entirely agree with your point on Italy as "the Boot", the term did not refer at the time to any one political entity; I'd fear that a casual reader might be more misled by the term "Italian", discreetly understood as "from the boot", than he would be by one that referes explicitely to the political entity relevant to his era.

Then again, the History of Italy is not my main focus of interest, at least at the moment, which gives you inherently more legitimacy to shape these articles.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No more than you my friend! Which is exactly why I would like some general consensus or at least not an outright disagreement between editors that might prompt an edit-war. I might raise it on one of the history-related wikiprojects to see if people there have any thoughts. But thanks for having a chat - always worth while.

And I understand exactly what you mean when you make the distinction between 200 and 300 years. It's an important one, I acknowledge that. Thanks for taking the time to respond (several times!). Cheers, Stalwart111 09:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Louis L'Hériter

Hi Rama, thanks for the shout out above, that was nice! I'm in the midst of one of my periodic spasms of Wikipedia editing and could use some French assistance with Battle of the Raz de Sein. Some British sources claim the French captain Louis L'Hériter died of his wounds in the aftermath of the battle, but others that he returned to France and continued in service. I suspect the latter, but have no direct textual evidence. Can you help? Best regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

delighted to hear of your period of activity, especially since we appear to be correlated in this respect.

Troude says that Lhéritier underwent a court-martial for the loss of Hercule after the Battle of the Raz de Sein (and was unanimously acquited); usually, the French legal system is such that criminal prosecution is automatically abandonned after the death of the incriminated party, which would suggest that Lhéritier survived his injuries. Also, the second volume of the "Fonds Marine" mentions a Lhéritier commanding the Invicible in 1805, but I would need to confirm he is the same man. I'll let you know if I find anything of significance, and maybe pepper Battle of the Raz de Sein with details from Troude if he has any of interest.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: case solved: Louis Lhéritier. Cheers! Rama (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Splendid! Sterling work as always!--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Louis Lhéritier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commodore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 16:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for French frigate Créole (1799)

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 07:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jean Joseph Hubert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flushing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Pierre François Étienne Bouvet de Maisonneuve (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Captain and Batavia

Antoine René Thévenard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Commodore

Christophe-Paulin de La Poix de Fréminville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ivry

Flottille de Boulogne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pram

HMS Brilliant (1779) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Teneriffe

Hubert Le Loup de Beaulieu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Quoin

Joseph Potier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Batavia

Louis-Jean-Nicolas Lejoille (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Commodore

Pierre Dumanoir le Pelley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Granville

Pierre Julien Tréhouart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Commodore

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Kent

Hi Rama,

Thanks for the kind words. The HEIC vessel that burned at Salvador was definitely the Queen. I didn't pay any great attention to the various descriptions of the action available via Google books, as I was looking for any corroboration of the story of the Queen's crew joining the Kent, and any name of a regiment the troops were from. I had no luck on either. The lack of mention of any regiment is particularly curious as that would be standard. I.e., someone would have said, "100 men of the XXth Foot were captured." So, my sense is that it was a pretty fair fight, with Surcouf handling his vessel well, and Rivington making a sailing mistake that ultimately cost him his life. Is there anything in the French sources about what happened to Kent in the prize court? I like doing the occasional story on the HEIC ships as there are some good sources on their description and voyages in the National Archives on line, info from the letters of marque database, Hardy & Hardy, and other bits and pieces, plus some paintings. So one can put together some decent articles. Anyway, thanks again and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

The Gazette de France described Kent as "mounting 20 18-pounders, 6 9-pounders and 6 6-pounders, had a 437-man crew, including 150 of line troops and a general" (quoted in Gallois' Corsaires français sous la République, vol.2 p.374). Granier (p.220) says that Saint-John "commanded the Marines of Kent" (but he is not always very careful about the details he repeats), and also says 437 men. Guérin also says 437, even though he depicts Kent as displacing 1200 tons and mounting 35 guns.

Gallois says that Kent had "a double crew" and Cunat says "...he met the beautiful HEIC ship Kent, which had, in addition to her own crew, that of Queen; so that the number of fighters was 437." (he goes on to say that Kent had 26 18-pounders and 12 9-pounders, which I don't find verly likely.

I'd suspect that the figure of 437 men conflates the sailors and "the soldiers", who might very well be General Saint-John and a few aids; I vaguely recall reading that an Army officer travelling with Saint-John was wounded in the fight; and as for "commanding the Marines", Saint-John could quite naturally have tried to organise the defence of Kent after Rivington was killed. On the other hand, the figure of 150 men is somwhat specific, and probably means something, but what exactly...

I'll let you know if I find anything on this or on Kent at the prize court. Cheers! Rama (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The East India files in the National Archives and the letter of marque all give Kent's armament as twenty-six guns. One source I found who was discussing, in 1810, the EIC's operations, opined that she might have had a few more, but stated that he didn't know. The figures for the number of people on board her do seem to be roughly accurate. A letter from one of Kent's officers from Salvador reported that she had taken on some 300 people from Queen after the fire, apparently all troops and passengers in that he does not mention her crew, most of whom died in the fire (70 out of some 100), probably due to drowning. Some 30 troops died in the fire, being unable to escape from below decks. However, that would suggest that she had a large number of troops aboard, several hundred, and that seems high. Post-capture accounts suggest there were only about 100-150. And the discussion of passengers does not suggest that there were 100-150 of them. I ams till digging out what I can.

On a seperate matter. Are you sure that the Kent that Pomone recaptured was an East Indiaman? I have found no source that suggests that that Kent was captured and recaptured, and the London Gazette prize money notice refers to the Kent in question as a West Indiaman. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

On my side, I've though about Garneray's account of the battle, who is with Cunat the other biographer who had known him. It is available at Wikisource [2]; the passage that interests us now is "En juillet 1800, les deux vaisseaux...":

“ In July 1800, the two HEIC ships Kent and Queen, both of 1500 tons and mounting 38 guns, were ferrying several infantry companies and a number of officers and passagers to Calcutta, when, as they sailed in the Bay of San-Salvador, in Brazil, a fire broke out on Queen, which it consumed entirelf. Her consort, Kent, picked up two hundred and fifty sailors and soldiers from the burnt ship, which raised her complement to 437 combattants, not counting General Saint-John and his staff. ”

Note that Garneray uses the term "tonneau", which is a volume unit used in the merchant navy, rather than the short, metric or long tons used in the Navy. Roche (vol.1 p.526) devotes an entire page on the subject of volume versus mass, the bottom line being that (I quote) "this confusion, and the variety of measure units and computation methods used over the centuries make data quite imprecise for older ships. One can find in original sources themselves differences from simple to double". For this reason I think that the original French and British accounts might not be as irreconciliable as they might seem at a first glance. Of course later accounts can be the product of several layers or misunderstanding, exageration and self-serving information selection, and I don't hesitate to disregard them entirely when they seem less than credible and informed.

I'd wager that the number of guns suffers from a similar problem, where fanfaronade is compounded with good-faith differences is count. I have seen it with Conceçáo-de-Santo-Antonio, a prize taken by Revenant, which was said to be a 64-gun ship: she was indeed pierced for 64, and even built as a ship of the line, but mounted nothing like 64 guns. For Kent, the numbers of guns is actually consistant if we consider the ship's battery: French accounts give 38 guns, oh which 12 lighter guns (either 6 6-pounders or 6-9-pounders, depending on the author); the British give a figure of precisely 26 guns, which matches the count of the remaining heavy guns. Why the French all say they were 18-pounder while the British say 12-pounders, I cannot fathom; I would find 12-pounders more likely, but htne, I was not there.

On the Kent of French frigate Pomone (1787), I'm afraid that I cannot say much. Around that time, Néréide sailed in consort with Décade, under Thévenard, in the margin of Richery's division thatfought the Action of 7 October 1795. Why she was near Rochefort with Tartu and Éveillée, I couldn't say at the moment, much less do I have details on their prizes. Sorry.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jean-Baptiste Philibert Willaumez

Hello! Your submission of Jean-Baptiste Philibert Willaumez 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! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Exocet imapct.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Exocet imapct.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Louis-Jean-Nicolas Lejoille

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Christophe-Paulin de La Poix de Fréminville

Hello! Your submission of Christophe-Paulin de La Poix de Fréminville 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! Yunshui 雲‍水 11:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hocutt v. Wilson

I willingly admit I am not the strongest writer so if you have an idea for a more interesting or appealing DYK for the article I would be open to taking a look at it. Mkdw^talk 06:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I have taken the liberty of answering your question on Template:Did you know nominations/Hocutt v. Wilson.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Action of 7 February 1813 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Batavia

Amand Leduc (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Groenland

Charles-Auguste Levassor de La Touche-Tréville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rochefort

Louis-René Levassor de Latouche Tréville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to La Fayette

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jean-Baptiste Perrée, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dominican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Salamine

Hi Rama, If you can start the article on the brig Salamine (the one captured with Junon Courageuse, Alerte, etc.), and let me know where and when you have done so, I will fill in the English info, including her measurements. She was active, capturing a couple of privateers and several merchant vessels before being sold. Unfortunately, I no longer have access to Roche or Demerliac. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, Salamine was sort of itching me anyway. I'll let you know when I have put everything I have on her. Cheers! Rama (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

And here we go: French brig Salamine (1793). Cheers! Rama (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. It's too bad there is no Spanish editor that we can draw on to fill out her early years. Incidentally, I can find no trace of Fortunatus. She doesn't show up in any of the usual HMS sources such as pbenyon or Winfield, and nor can I find her in the list of letters of marque against France in the 1793-1815 period. There are some Fortunes, but none that fits the time. There was a privateer captain Fortunatus Wright, who predates our period by decades, so Fortunatus is a logical name for a privateer. I just can't find any mention. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you and congratulations, it is really delightful to see these ship articles brought together like puzzles; not only that we have different pieces, but there are actually often little mysteries to solve (like this Foudre gunboat). And incidentally, thank you for improving the English on the articles that I pollute with my passive forms and my non-idiomatic constructions.

I hate the passive voice, and we all need editing. Not only am I prone to typos, I much appreciate help with French accent marks.Acad Ronin (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed a Spanish editor is sorely lacking, I would have many questions for them on the Trafalgar campaign, for a start, not to mention the earlier activities off Catalonia. For Salamine, for instance, I know neither exact the date of capture by the French, nor the ships involved (or whether she was captured in harbour), so with such fragmentary information, we certainly need all the held that we can get. And the more, the merrier.

Thank you again, looking forwards to our next shared prize, and cheers! Rama (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Christophe-Paulin de La Poix de Fréminville

Hello! Your submission of Christophe-Paulin de La Poix de Fréminville 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! —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 07:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jean-Baptiste Philibert Willaumez

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Poulette

Salut Rama, I have just finished two articles: French corvette Poulette (1781) and HMS Poulette (1799). The first was a naval vessel and the second was originally a privateer by the name of Foudroyant. For the first I have some info from Demerliac and the Fonds, but for both or either any further info you might have from other French sources would as usual be welcome.

Unfortunately, not only do we lack Spanish-speaking editors, we also lack Dutch speakers, among other. Even if they would only contribute articles to their native-language Wikipedias, that would be enough. There was a chap with whom I have cooperated on articles concerning Danish vessels of this era, but he appears to have withdrawn. Too bad. Anyway, Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You ability to decypher the Fonds Marine is really very commandable (as for Demerliac, I would love to find a copy).

On Poulette, I have little information in addition to what you had, but I've managed to confirm a few dates and added early missions. I am pretty certain that Lieutenant Brueys d'Aigalliers is the François-Paul Brueys d'Aigalliers who died on Orient at the Battle of the Nile, but I've not found anything to explicitly corroborate it; but the dates and ranks match, so I wonder whether this would warrant explicitly linking to François-Paul Brueys d'Aigalliers or if we should be prudent.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

PS: on HMS Poulette, I'll have a look in Les Corsaires français sous la République et l'Empire, but it doesn't give very extensive details, so at don't expect to provide more than a few details at best. Cheers! Rama (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rama. I have made the cross-linked changes to François-Paul Brueys d'Aigalliers and Poulette. As you say, dates and ranks match, so "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead." I realize there is a little risk, but if we are wrong, perhaps some descendant will catch it and correct us. (I realize that we may be wrong. I am extremely distantly related to one of those highly distinctive French aristo names. I ran into someone else who had that name. After we exchanged some "cher cousin"s, he checked with his mother. Turns out there were two artiso families with the same name, totally unlinked to each other, and I could no longer claim the Vicomte as a cousin.) As for Demerliac, I can with some difficulty get the occasional access. I will have to start maintaining a list of vessel names to look up when I get the chance. Best, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia is an iterative endeavour, and we can always correct if needed.

The family thing in very interesting, I often wonder how much aterial is sitting in attics, that would be invaluable for our iconography.

Oh, I had forgetten to set the link right, but the Durance from French corvette Poulette (1781) is a ship we know. Always funny to come across things like this. Cheers! Rama (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, do you think I have the right Prévalaye (Pierre-Dimas Thierry, Marquis de la Prévalaye) in the article on the corvette Poulette? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a source that explicitely states so, but the father was a Rear-admiral (well, "chef d'escadre") at the time, the brother was a lubber, and he seems to be the right age; and according to the Inventaire du fonds de l'académie royale de marine de Brest : manuscrits 64 à 110 [3], he held the rank of Lieutenant in 1778, which would put him in the right demography. I'm pretty confident that this is our man, good catch! Rama (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.Acad Ronin (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

French frigate Brune

Salut Rama, do you know anything about the French frigate Brune, captured by the Ottomans in 1799 at Siege of Corfu (1798–99)? She is not listed in List of French sail frigates. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, that one has been on my todo-list for quite some time. I'll put her on top, she's had it coming for a long time. Cheers! Rama (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Saw that. Nice. Too bad we know so little about her, and especially about her fate under the Ottomans. Brune was present at the action of 8 March 1795 and Battle of Hyères Islands, but are you sure she was at the battle of Cape Noli? She is not listed in the order of battle at the end of the article. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, when a ship is captured from or into the French navy, she sort of drops out of my radar for everything that happens to her in the foreign navy, too bad.

Regarding Noli, Roche definitly says she was there at the right date; I'm trying to corroborate from Troude, Guérin and the Fonds Marine, and see if I come up with something. It is indeed suspect. Cheers! Rama (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah ah, excellent, another of our little mysteries solved, and this one is funny. The clue was in Guérin, vol.6, as a footnote to the Battle of Cape Noli: Brune was in the vicinity at the same time and had an encounter in a separate fight. I assume that Roche assimilated the two actions. I'll integrate this into the article. Cheers! Rama (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I love it when we solve mysteries with the result that Wikipedia is more correct and complete than some of the well-established sources. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Good Article reviews

Rama, I enjoyed working with you on your GAN nomination for French ship Vengeur du Peuple. I was wondering if you would be able to (or mind) lending a helping hand for the MILHIST Good Article effort by reviewing one or two good article nominations at WP:GAN#WAR. I've found that oftentimes reviewing articles gets yours reviewed quicker! If you have any questions about the process of reviewing, look at WP:GAN/I and WP:GA?. Happy editing! Cdtew (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I also enjoyed the GA process very much, I think that the article came out improvements that I had been looking for for a while. I've been a bit shy at the idea of reviewing other's work, but I'll try to overcome this; there is work to be done and it can't be completely different from editing.

Thank you again and good continuation! Rama (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Christophe-Paulin de La Poix de Fréminville

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Louis-René Levassor de Latouche Tréville

Well done! Please continue to monitor my copyediting: I'm trying to help out a bit before assessing your DYK nomination. I think it's quite an excellent article, and I'm enjoying my involvment very much. :) SteveStrummer (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Then I'll seize the oportunity to thank you for your corrections; you have much improved the natural flow of the text and the language is much more pleasant after your editions.

The "forgoten battle on the Chesapeake" has been on my mind for some time, so I have little merit, all the most since I though it was the Battle of the Chesapeake at first as well. I should actually thank you for reminding this lose end to me, you are after all the reason why I eventually checked into Taillemite.

Good continuation and cheers! Rama (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In the article you mention a unit: Régiment de La Rochefoucauld-Dragons. Should that last word be Dragoons, not dragons? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, obviously. In French it is the same word ("dragon"), so I got it mixed up. Thank you very much! Rama (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hum, that is, no: the French word is the same for the mythical beast and the heavy cavalry ("dragon"), and the dragoon regiments of the Ancien Régime era appended the word "dragon" to their name: hence, the Volontaires de Saxe were at some point the "Régiment de Schomberg-Dragons", and would be the "17e régiment de dragons" today; the present-day 13th RPD elvolved from the "Régiment de Condé-Dragons"; the 3rd RD was the "Régiment de Bourbon-Dragons"; and so on. The same thing would happen to some other cavalry units, which would append "cavalerie" to their name ("Régiment de Champagne-Cavalerie" for instance), and to some artillery units ("Régiment Royal-Artillerie"). Cheers! Rama (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Good to know. I will try the word on some of my francophone colleagues, most of whom haven't the faintest idea of what a dragoon is. Another issue: the French casualty figures in this article are inconsistent with those in the article Action of 7 June 1780. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, nicely spotted! I have put a note to account for the discrepancy. Since Troude quotes a letter from Latouche and in addition Hennequin's figure looks like a misquote from these figures, I'll take Troude's figures as more credible. Too bad Guérin doesn't give a figure.

You can annoy your friends by mentionning the "mounted infantry" nature of dragoons, as well. And of course, mention the related words and concepts of "dragonne" (lanyard) and "dragonnades".

thank you again for the casulaty discrepancy, and cheers! Rama (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Salut Rama, I see that we are dodging around identifying Latouche's illness. My guess would be tertiary syphilis, but I am not a doctor. Do any sources actually identify the illness? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking very much on this line as well, considering the discretion on this matter and the story of the girlfriend captured and sent back by the British. But I haven't found anything that gives more details. There are the stories that he died from exhaustion, either from refurbishing the Toulon squadron or from walks to a signpost, but these are obviously not the bottom of it.

If I ever get the authoritative biography on Latouche, I might try to improve the article to the level of what I've done for the Vengeur du Peuple, but it's going to be a while, I'm afraid.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

HMS Marie Antoinette (1793)

Hi Rama, you wouldn't happen to have anything on this vessel, would you? I looked in the Fonds and found nothing. She is a pretty minor vessel, but it would be nice to have at least a launch date. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I have some small things, but little on her construction, because she was a requisitioinned merchantman; by her name Marie Antoinette, I feared she could be a privateer and have left no traces in the Navy, as a naval ship she is listed in Roche as Convention nationale. No luck in history books and annals, on the other hand.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I was afraid of that. I had hoped that Roche would have her launch year, and that there might be some record of her after the mutineers brought her back to French control in Saint-Domingue. Apparently not. This will have to remain one of those mysteries we were talking about. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

From her name, I was afraid that she might be a privateer, in which case I might have had even less. I am trying to improve my coverage of privateers, but it is still practically a stroke of luck if I have anything at all. Anyway, no sweat, no fun.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Louis-René Levassor de Latouche Tréville

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on your DYK, and thank you for providing a fine testament to a much overlooked French hero. I'll look for more of your articles in the future! :) SteveStrummer (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This was in no small thanks to your assistance. I hope to imrpove some other biographies, time permitting, and I'll look forwards to tips and suggestions to polish them then. Thank you again and good continuatoin! Rama (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

French corvette Moineau

Hi Rama, do you have anything on the above? She shows up in the Fonds, mostly because of a notably unsuccessful trip to Mauritius with two deputies from the Directoir, who met a strongly hostile local population that ran them out of the island. On her return trip to France she captured the Lady Shore (1793 ship), an Indiaman, near the Cape. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Moineau, another requisitionned merchantman, I'm afraid, but Burnel's and La Chappelle's abolitionist tribulations made her slightly better-known. Cheers! Rama (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

PS: Do you have a reference for the armament of Moineau? The French Navy did not use nine-pounders, that is a British calibre; the closest in the French Navy is the 8-pounder. It is not impossible that Moineau could have carried 9-pounders, since privateers and merchantmen sometimes used cannons captured from the British, but since she was in naval service at the time, it would berelatively interesting to know.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added the source for Moineau's armament. Have to run now, but will add to the article later. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions to Lady Shore. Do you know the date when the three French frigates reached Rio? I would like to add a sentence and links to the articles for each of the three. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)