User talk:Shem1805/Archive 4

Sea viper

I saw your edit to the Type 45 page. It was my understanding that they did not yet have their weapons systems, particularly after the last test failure of the missile. The latest article I can find, (April 10) suggests that the ships do not yet have Sea Viper fitted and this was to be delivered in 2011. As such, the text was correct as far as I can tell. Do you have any links to suggest they have been fitted with Sea Viper? Woody (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Woody, I'm not quite sure where this has come from. Sea Viper consists of the entire system, from LRR & Sampson, through the Combat System and the SYLVER launcher, to the missiles. It's a bit odd to say that Sea Viper isn't fitted to Daring and Dauntless - even if the missiles aren't on board, it's a bit like saying that HMS Manchester isn't fitted with Sea Dart, just because she's de-ammunitioned her missiles. Perhaps I'm missing something? Shem (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, more accurately my point should be that she is not currently stocked with Aster 15 and 30 missiles. I have been reading too many articles that use Sea Viper in place of Aster I suppose. The page should be edited to reflect the point that the ships do not yet have missiles in my opinion. Woody (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably better just to state that Sea Viper is not yet fully operational - who knows whether the ships have got Aster missiles on board yet, and how would we know when that changes? Shem (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit of WP:OR on my part... ;) but I don't think that would wash! More to the point this article makes it clear that they have not yet been delivered. Other articles in Janes state it will be 2011 when they are delivered. As for when they are delivered there will undoubtedly be a press release, particularly when Dauntless does the first test firings. Woody (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Further to that, and back to the original point, it is again my understanding that parts of the system itself are not yet delivered, or operational. The Sea Viper system as a fully operational unit has not been delivered to the Royal Navy and this isn't expected until 2011. Woody (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So what do you think the article should say? I'm keen that the facts should be correct, but also that the tone should not deceive the uninitiated - hence my edit. It already says "The Sea Viper missile system has not been delivered due to repeated unsuccessful trial firings". Does that not do it? Shem (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to leave the talkbacks now, I am watching your page. ;) The trouble with the article at the moment is that it states this stuff in the lead without elaborating on it in the text, the opposite of what a Lead should do. It probably needs a capabilities section or the like: the whole of the third para of the lead isn't covered in the rest of the article. In the new section, then we could talk about the system not being operational, test failures of the missiles etc.

As an aside, would you disagree with moving this debate to the T45 talkpage? Regards, Woody (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll move the bulk of the text now, and reply on that page. I find the Type 45 Destroyer page rather frustrating; all sorts of editors want to add their own stuff, but no one wants to look after the page as a whole. Any re-write is bound to attract controversy, so I tend to stick to simply removing the obviously incorrect and unreferenced. That's all from me for tonight ... Shem (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RE:T45

Woody, if it helps I'll get round to correcting the propulsion section this week. Shem (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be good. I have started to give the article a bit of a shake-up. I have tried to follow the standard set by the various battlecruiser/ship class articles that are at FA. Any help you can provide on cleaning up the propulsion section would be great, citations would be particularly welcome. ;) Woody (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Woody - no snags. The citations shouldn't be a major problem, but I would like to do something for the red link Integrated Electric Propulsion. Might require some careful thought. Shem (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

HMS Edinburgh (D97)

In the description of the ships badge, 'On a Field White, upon a moint of rock...', Is this correct? Driftwood87 (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Good question. After a little investigation, I'm pretty sure it was an error introduced from here. I've corrected it. Thanks for pointing it out so politely! Yours, Shem (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sixth Rate

Hi Shem, I have to disagree vehemently with you on this. Sixth Rate and Post-Ship are titles, not adjectives. E.g.: "Captain Jones was captain of the good ship Lollypop." "HMS Pinafore was a second-rate Sixth Rate Post-ship, being old, broken-down and armed with 20 guns; she was under the command of Captain Jones." "Captain Nelson of the First Rate HMS Victory had a first rate mind." "The lieutenant in question was Lieutenant Smith, who was First Lieutenant of the USS Lollypop." Check with Rif Winfield on this if the above examples don't make the point. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The above examples are entirely wrong; see User talk:Acad Ronin. Shem 07:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

S Afr Navy decommissioned ships

I started to complete the list of de-commissioned ships of the South African Navy, but got bored simply working on lists. As there were so many ships without pages, I started with the "A's" simply as stubs for other editors to continue with and to expand. I will continue adding pages for those ships on the list for which nothing exists at present. Your support and assistance is most welcome. Farawayman (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

HMS Ethalion (1797)

Hi Shem, Could you take a look at the Ethalion. I have gotten into a shipbox formatting problem that I can't resolve. There must be a hidden parameter that I am just not seeing. Thanks, regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I find in these cases it's usually because a "]" symbol has been left off the end of a wikilink, making everything after it part of the wikilink - here it was after "Artois-class frigate". In this case there was also an errant "|}" in the middle of the box, which may well have been introduced by you in an attempt to fix it. I resisted the temptation to put "fifth rate" in lower case, but it was a struggle! Yours, Shem (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shem, Many thanks, and good to know. As for the caps issue, trust me, my forbearance too has been good for character building. On the plus side, once we get a consensus, achieving uniformity will be more straightforward. Also, I am finding that going through articles I have worked on a while ago, mostly to remove redundancy, is enabling me to spot typos I had missed, and to do other tidying. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

HMSAS Parktown

Hi Shem. As a "ship Guru" please take a look at HMSAS Parktown (T39) which I have just created. Edit freely!!! Rgds. Farawayman (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Farawayman, at a first glance it looks absolutely fascinating. I'll get into it more deeply in the next couple of days. And thanks for the "ship guru", but perhaps I'm more of a "ship obsessive"! Yours, Shem (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

 

Well, I've had a good look at the article, and broadly speaking made the following changes:

• Filled out the intro to describe the whole life of the ship, rather than just her time as a warship.
• Cut out a lot of the unused fields in the info box - it makes it easier to edit later.
• Adjusted the links to show a red link rather than let it link to a largely unrelated article. This will encourage future articles to be written, and avoids leading readers down a false trail when they try to use the link.
• Made some general copyedit
• I've also written HMSAS Parktown, and I would be grateful if you could check it over.

It's a very interesting and readable article - thanks for bringing this to Wikipedia. Shem (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ant class gunboat

Are you sure these were built for coastal bombardment? All the refs I've seen to flatiron gunboats talk about them in terms of costal defence.©Geni 17:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Good question! Winfield, R.; Lyon, D. (2004). The Sail and Steam Navy List: All the Ships of the Royal Navy 1815–1889. London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-032-6. OCLC 52620555. states on p.24 "After the Crimean gunboats were worn out the Admiralty built two types: the colonial police gunboat, a seaworthy craft armed with small guns, and the coast assault gunboat, based on Rendel's 'flat-iron' for the coastal offensive. The latter was a mobilisation prototype, which would have been turned out in large numbers, had a major war broken out. They would have been used, like the Crimean War gun and mortar boats, to damage coastal forts and suppress their fire while the heavy ironclads closed in." I hope that does the trick. Ask him yourself if you like - he's a Wikipedian - User:Rif Winfield. Yours, Shem (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that is refuring to to the ant class? I know there were some near flat irons that carried masts. George Paloczi-Horvath says costal defence in From Monitor to Missile Boat Coast Defence Ships and Coastal Defence since 1860. I don't have it in front of me but I'm pretty sure Antony Preston and John Major said the same in Send a Gunboat The Victorian Navy and Supremacy at Sea, 1854-1904. A complication is that the only one ever to see action was used in the shore bombardment role but that doesn't appear to have been the initial aim as they were at least partialy built in responce to the invasion scare. I'll point Rif Winfield inn the dirrection of this debate.©Geni 00:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The extract in question is certainly referring to the Ant-class, since the Royal Navy only built one class of flat-iron gunboats, plus some one-offs (Staunch, Plucky, Bouncer, Insolent & Handy). Are you sure there were flat-irons with masts? Winfield states clearly (p.279) that there aren't any in the RN, and since they were designed specifically without a rig, such a change would be a major design alteration (and besides, doesn't it stop looking like an iron if you put masts on it?).

Surely the whole point about the Victorian offensive-seapower based deterrent was that the Royal Navy was designed to take the fight to the enemy rather than defend the coastal waters of the UK? Rif Winfield's The Sail and Steam Navy List discusses this at some length on p.19. Arthur Herman's To Rule the Waves talks about the offensive use of the gunboat in general. It will be useful to hear from Rif. Yours, Shem (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

General gunboats were offensive yes. However the royal navy did build costal defence ships (HMS Glatton (1871) would have had little utility in any other role for example and there was HMS Prince Albert (1864)). The 1870s are when Invasion literature surfaced which reflected the worry that being able to take the war to the enermy wouldn't be enough and an invader could slip across the channel before the navy had time to react. As I understand it flatirons were built as an attempt to provide a cheap costal defence for the UK. In practice their rapaid conversion to other uses makes it pretty clear that even at the time it was realised that they were not up to it.©Geni 17:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a contemporary thought that flat-irons were for coastal defence (Kipling certainly thought so), but when you think about it, with their slow speed and single gun, they're not much use at stopping anything bigger, faster and better armed, as invading ships are likely to be. Have a read of the foreword (page 10) to the revised edition of Send a gunboat!: the Victorian navy and supremacy at sea, 1854-1904, in which it is closely argued that the flat-irons were for coastal attack, not defence, and that for this reason the original conclusion of Send a Gunboat was flawed. Interesting reading. I wish I had the full text in front of me, though. Shem (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm interesting and the error in the original is likely to have spread which complicates matters.©Geni 18:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm keen to get hold of a copy of the revised edition now, and when I get round to it, I'll make some changes to the key articles, as well as writing a few more. So little time, so much knowledge ... Shem (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• The reference you quote from The Sail and Steam Navy List 1815-1889 quotes from Professor Andrew Lambert's Introduction/Overview to the Administrative, Political and International Background to naval development in the post-Napoleonic and Victorian era. These Rendel gunboats were certainly designed with a view to being mass-produced for offensive operations (within a Home Waters context), but it is clear that the main reason for building them was for coastal defence operations; in this I would entirely endorse what Anthony Preston and John Major (not the former PM, by the way!) said in their book - and incidentally I would encourage you to read the revised second edition of "Send a Gunboat". The two usages were clearly not incompatable. I think the quotation from Andrew's article also took into account the somewhat larger masted gunboats of the River or Medina class, and these were certainly more capable of more extended operations. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rif - that ties in neatly with the foreword to the revised edition of Send a gunboat!: the Victorian navy and supremacy at sea, 1854-1904 which states they were recorded in the Pink List as "Gunboats for the attack and defence of coasts". I think Geni and I are now at one on this, and I've already gone ahead and ordered the second edition of Send a Gunboat. Thanks, as ever, for you very erudite help. Yours, Shem (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So how do we phrase this in the articles?©Geni 22:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Geni, if you're happy to go ahead and put something in about "designed for both defence and bombardment of coasts", that would be fine. As a short hand, "coastal gunboat" would seem to do the trick. Please let me know if you'd rather I did it. Yours, Shem (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to ref that. "designed both to perform the coastal defence role and carry out coastal bombardment duties" but agin not sure who we can ref that to.©Geni 23:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not ref it to the foreword of new edition of Send a Gunboat which states they were recorded in the Pink List as "Gunboats for the attack and defence of coasts"? My copy should arrive tomorrow, and I'll do it over the weekend if you like. Shem (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• You're most welcome. The foreword to the revised edition of Send a gunboat!: the Victorian navy and supremacy at sea, 1854-1904 was of course also written by Andrew, and sets out more clearly what he meant in his earlier article in Sail and Steam Navy List. Incidentally, can you also include in your re-write a correction to the article on Flat-iron gunboats, which could similarly benefit from an explanation of the dual role? Please include a reference to Rendel, as in general these were usually referred to as "Rendel gunboats" rather than the rather perjorative "Flat-iron". And I think that we could well use an article on the Medina Class (masted) gunboats, an interesting type which actually lasted (in general) a long time - some were still around during and after WW1. Can you put one in (after receiving your copy of the revised edition of Send a Gunboat, but also using the data in The Sail and Steam Navy List)? Rif Winfield (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Shem (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm run across another pic of one. See the boat on the left in File:HMS Enterprise (1864) and HMCB Comet.jpg (I've got a better copy of the image that I will upload tomorrow).©Geni 04:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Image at File:HMS comet.jpg.©Geni 18:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Flat-iron or Rendel

A wikipedia's naming policy is to use common names. Google books stongly suggests "Flat-iron gunboat" is the common name (79 against 9). May be Rudyard Kipling's fault but Flat-iron is pretty clearly the common name.©Geni 20:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not hugely fussed what we call them, but here are the reasons why I moved the page:

• The name "flat-iron gunboat" may be common, but it is a nickname - and as Rif says above, it has a whiff of the pejorative.
• Rif noted (again above) that "in general these were usually referred to as 'Rendel gunboats'", and I rather took this at face value.
• I needed to create the redirect Rendel gunboat, and rather than create the redirect first and then ask an Admin to move the two articles, I simply moved the page.

I agree that modern usage seems to favour "flat-iron", and if you want to move the pages back again, please do so (you are, I believe, an Admin?). I don't suppose anybody else will care, and you can take this as consensus! Yours, Shem (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to move it back. While Rendel gunboat name does surface the flat-iron gunboat name also appears in the 19th century. Rudyard Kipling using it may or may not have had an impact.©Geni 00:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

On another note, I've just finished on George Wightwick Rendel (if you'd like to cast an eye over it, please do) and I'll bash out an expanded article on the Rendel/flat-iron gunboats over the next few days. Please be critical, either as I go, or when I've finished - I'm not overly sensitive! Shem (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

About the only potential issue I can see is while it's clear where he got is knowledge of gun design from is clear iron ship design is less clear.©Geni 00:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Geni, please come again? Shem (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

He goes from working on guns to designing warships. Marine design requires a fair bit of background knowledge and the article doesn't really cover where he picked it up.©Geni 08:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that's a question I can't easily answer at the moment. In fact he trained as a civil engineer, and his work for Armstrong involved a wide range of engineering projects. I think it's probably the case that he was essentially an engineering manager, responsible for leading a team of engineers to design the projects he headed. Proving it is another matter, though. I'll keep an eye out for suitable sources. Shem (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• If it helps, I can comment that much of the reference in Admiralty records and correspondence is specifically to "Rendel gunboats"; the term 'flat-iron' certainly did not have official recognition. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Rif, I think it confirms the point that the name "flat iron" was a somewhat pejorative term that has come to be used commonly, and has lost its negative connotation. I think leaving the article at Flat-iron gunboat with a redirect from Rendel gunboat makes good sense, especially as the first sentence makes clear the two names. Let me know if you're not 100% happy with this. Yours, Shem (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor issue your 3rd ref is currently "Preston" without a page number. I'm afraid there is not much I can do at this point. You are way beyond anything I was able to dig up.©Geni 18:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer - I've sorted it. I'm currently looking at the Chinese boats in more detail, but my three sources don't agree, and the names are in three different transliterations of Chinese! Getting there, though! I still want to put in a discussion of what they were actually for; now that I've gone into some detail, it's clear that many (but not all) foreign customers saw them as, and used them as, coastal defence gunboats - and not very successfully, judging by the Chinese experience. As ever, finding the specific references to support without drifting into OR will be a challenge. Shem (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Email me please - on a couple of ship pages I wish to contribute

Hello - I have a considerable amount of information on a few UK ships from the Napoleonic War period, wanted to contribute pages, and wanted a bit of advice:

1. HMS Nyaden 36 - Danish, captured Copenhagen 1807, integrated in Royal Navy 1808. - Do I format this as HMS Nyaden (1807)? Or go by its date of construction in Denmark?

2. I have all the Captain's logs for Nyaden and HMS Saracen 12 (1812) - Okay to list the dates, and UK Archives files as a table, or better as a set of bullets?

3. I have some considerable discussion to add on the UK plans/lines for Nyaden at Greenwich. Haven't noticed any others with a section on Lines & Design - but wanted to add.

I would appreciate getting an email I could send a very occasional query to on these two ships.

Thanks - Tom Moffatt tmoffatt@xplornet.com (Thomasfmoffatt (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

Tom, thanks for your message. Unfortunately I'm not able to e-mail you, but it makes perfect sense for me to reply here.

Firstly, since you're a new editor, please let me pass on a few hard-won lessons. First, Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, which means it relies mostly on secondary sources. Have a read of WP:PRIMARY to see what I mean. Second, you have clearly already edited as User:Tfmoffatt, and now you're editing as User:Thomasfmoffatt; while there are occasionally good reasons that this is done, it is generally frowned upon as "sock puppetry" - please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Thirdly, there is already an article entitled HDMS Najaden (1796), which is probably the ship you're referring to, and an article which you've already edited (as User:Tfmoffatt). The article HDMS Najaden (1796) can be used for both HMS Nyaden and HDMS Najaden (1796) - see French frigate Minerve (1794) for an example. I've already set up a redirect from HMS Nyaden to HDMS Najaden (1796) (there is no need for a disambiguation date - as far as I can tell this was the only ship of the Royal Navy ever to use the name).

Good luck with your editing, and please enjoy your time at Wikipedia. I may be rather hard to contact, but this is the best place to do it. Shem (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Cruizer-class brig-sloops

Hi Shem, First, I replied to your query on my page, but the brief answer is, I have not found original material in Phillips. Second, I notice that for a number of the Cruizer-class brig-sloops you have the same dimensions, burthen, etc. Are you using the design data? I have generally, mistakes aside, used the "as built" data for each vessel, using Winfield as my source. When I get the time, I will go back and check specific instances, such as the 382 41/94 tons burthen. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Acad, what I've done is use the data given in Winfield, R.; Lyon, D. (2004). The Sail and Steam Navy List: All the Ships of the Royal Navy 1815–1889. London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-032-6. OCLC 52620555. when running up a new infobox, but this is generic for the whole class. I don't think I've changed any of your "as built" data, although if I have, I'm sorry for that - in fact, I'll go back and check, because it's been a bit disjointed today. Where I've added an infobox, it would be useful if you could change the data to "as built" when you find the time - I don't have a copy of Winfield's British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793–1817. Yours, Shem (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've checked, and it looks like I changed Musquito, which was out by 50%, and Racehorse (tonnage only), which I've changed back. Where the figures are 382 41/94 bm, 100 ft (gundeck), 77 ft 3.5 in (keel), 30 ft 6 in (beam) & 12 ft 9 in (depth in hold), that should be because I've started the infobox from scratch. If you find others, please let me know. Shem (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shem, Roger that. Not a problem. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

HMS Diamond

HMS Diamond was formally commissioned on the 22nd September 2010 at approximately 14:00 hrs. I was present at the ceremony. 86.180.87.215 (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You clearly believe you were at a commissioning ceremony, but I'm afraid you got the wrong end of the stick. What you actually witnessed was the acceptance off contract. More importantly, Wikipedia works off valid references, so even if you were right, we would still have to go with the reported facts ([1] & [2]), not the truth as you understand it - see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Regards, Shem (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

C class corvette

Hello Shem. Can you stop by the talk page of this article, at Talk:C class corvette? The term C-class corvette is used to refer to both the Comuses and Calysos. While the latter were slightly larger and had more powerful engines than the first nine, the last of the first nine had armament identical to Calyposo and Calliope, and other features common to the last two which were not present in the first of the nine. Hence my decision to treat them together, with a separate article on the last two as well. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I will respond tomorrow. Should you have an interest in these ships, the Osbon article from Mariner's Mirror (which also has the classification you suggest), is invaluable. Kablammo (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Shem-- I have tweaked Rif's work, and converted the redirect. I can add some cites to the latter if you think that important. The template for the C class needs work, and redirects from the old C class corvette will have to be checked; any assistance there would be appreciated. (I may not have much time for that today, as I have some other committments.) Regards, Kablammo (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I can have a good look over them, but it may not be today. We'll get there in the end, though. Shem (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help-- you work fast. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Defender class torpedo boat

Template:Defender class torpedo boat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Cats for redirects

Hello, Shem1805. You have new messages at Dormskirk's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Acheron class torpedo boat

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

There was some confusion overnight on the referencing here; it should all be sorted now. I'm not sure you were aware of the DYK nomination-- I think it unfortunate that nominations can be made without notice to the principal author, who is best suited to comment on "hooks". Kablammo (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware - I was away this week. I think the referencing was a bit of a storm in a tea cup, but the hook seems a bit odd to me, confusing the class with the ship as far as I can see. Never mind, it was a nice surprise to see it on the main page! Shem (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

HMS Porcupine 1844

Where did you get the information for this edit, specifically HMS Porcupine Deptford Dockyard 17 June 1844 Became a survey ship in 1862. Sold in 1883 (and its reclassification after it was launched). I'm trying to write a stub, see User:Dougweller/HMS Porcupine (1844). Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's more than 2 years ago! I should imagine the source would be Winfield, R.; Lyon, D. (2004). The Sail and Steam Navy List: All the Ships of the Royal Navy 1815–1889. London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-032-6. OCLC 52620555.. The text reads:

PORCUPINE Class – Steam Vessel (SV5), re-classed 1844 as First Class Steam Gunvessels (SGVs). ‘Admiralty’ design, approved 11.11.1843. Dimensions & tons: 141ft 0in, 124ft 7½in x 24ft 1½in (24ft 0in for tonnage) x 13ft 0in. 381 68/94 bm. Men: 80. Guns: 1 x 32pdr (26cwt) on pivot, 2 x 32pdr (17cwt) carronades. Machinery: 2-cyl. side lever. 132 nhp. 285 ihp. First cost: Hull £7,997, fitting £7,050 (including machinery £4,557 ?). Porcupine Deptford Dyd./ Maudslay, Sons & Field. Ord: 11.11.1843. K: 1.1844. L: 17.6.1844. C: 19.8.1844. Survey ship 1862. Sold 1883. NOTES: The engine was ex-Black Eagle, fitted with new tubular boilers.

I've been into your stub and added an infobox - hope you don't mind. You might also want to look here and here. Shem (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind at all, I'll try to work on it later this week. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)