Jump to content

Talk:Cadmus-class sloop

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sails

[edit]

I would suggest that any details of sails in one particular ship of this class would fail notability, which is why I keep removing the edit. If it were to be notable in the larger context of the use of sails in the Royal Navy, that context would have to be carefully explained, and would require a reference. If this really was the last class of ships with sails, that would need a line in the intro. Shem (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have no way at present to identify which ship or class of ships was the last to have or use sails. However, clearly Cadmus class sloops were among the last and it is only by putting records of their last recorded use as they come to light that later uses will be spotted as changes to that latest entry and so knowledge develops. That was what I was attempting to do by recording the last uses that I have found in over 2000 pages of Cadmus class sloops logs.
I am perfectly happy that my first entry describing setting and furling of sails on Odin was not correctly placed. However it is also clear from the log of HMS Odin that she kept sails and exercised setting them after mid 1914. When I first looked at the entry regarding sail plan it said that the whole class had sails removed by 1914. This was incorrect as shown by the Odin log, so I put in wording to demonstrate that. This has been repeatedly removed and the wording changed to mid 1914. This is complete speculation and further transcriptions of the log of Odin shows that she did have sails after Mid 1914. Therefore I suggest that the wording regarding removal of the sails from the class is removed (which I have done and again it has been reverted). I also suggest that wording is added to Odins entry recording the latest uses of sails as I and others work through her logs and those of other Cadmus class sloops. I will do this if there is some commitment to this process and it is not simply reverted again. Therefore I request that further corrections on this section are not just reverted without consideration has has happened so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.47.202 (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC) (46.208.47.202 (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Firstly, Wikipedia is not for original research, so putting the details of sail usage in just so that it can later be concluded which ships used sails last would not be the right thing to do. Secondly, come to an agreement here about what the article should say, then we'll change it - wp:consensus. Thirdly, please, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comment. Thanks Shem (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a chance to check my references, and 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 clearly on p.279 that "yards and canvas were removed before 1914". While the work is an authoritative tome, you can check with Rif yourself if you like - he's a Wikipedian, and his user name is User:Rif Winfield. Shem (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he says they were removed before 1914 why does the entry now say mid 1914? Surely you did not just put that in without checking. (46.208.47.202 (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I put it in because I was away from my references, and because I was reducing a couple of sentences of text of yours to a short encyclopaedic-like summary. More importantly, what does the log of Odin say (is it available online?), and what should this article say in light of that? Shem (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but if it is not OK for me to enter factual information taken direct from the log of one of these ships but it is OK for you to change a referenced entry, so that it is neither factually correct nor what the original author said and still retain it within the reference as if that is what the referenced article says, then I am not interested in contributing to the process. You have for me bought disrepute on what I thought was a democratic and valuable process. I shall avoid using wikipedia where possible and report this within the Old Weather community. (46.208.47.202 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think you'll be missed. Good luck with the rest of your life. Shem (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per emails with Andre Savik, it seems the fact that the log pages for the Odin, which have entries regarding the use of sails in March 1920 - "11-35 Set Jib and Staysails" and also on April 6, 1920 - "Employed spreading sails (spanker & main trisail) & as req.", are posted on the Old Weather website, satisfies both the "no original research" and "verifiability" requirements for Wiki articles. Please feel free to visit the website, Old Weather.org, where the Forum thread, Odin has sails, contains both images of the log pages in question and also discussion of other ships using sails. You do not need to join the Forum to read the thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.44.249 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not whether it's verifiable that the ship set sails on such-and-such a date or not. This is an article about the class of ships, and using it as a vehicle to establish when sails were last used in the RN is quite wrong. Shem (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true, however, the article does in fact contain information on each individual ship in the class, and also, the article makes a sweeping statement about the class as a whole that has proven to be inaccurate. For that reason, the section on sail usage for the class as a whole should be amended to include the exception for the Odin and also, the section in the article on the Odin herself should be amended to include this information on her specific sail usage. Kathy W. 216.15.44.249 (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.44.249 (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So find a suitable reference that discusses the use of sails in the round rather than using WP:Primary sources to disprove the references that are already cited. And sign your posts using ~~~~, please. Shem (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about the signing issue. I will include both my name and the 4 tildes to make sure I am complying with Wiki's procedures. As to a suitable reference, it is my understanding, that given the fact that the log pages are posted on a trusted web site and thus can be considered both published and also verifiable by any who wish to see them, then the log pages are in fact a suitable reference. I guess that a final decision about that has not yet been made. My colleagues and I will wait to post any updates/corrections/addenda until that point has been definitively decided. Yours - Kathy W. 216.15.44.249 (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy, thanks for signing your post. I'm in less of a rush now, and it strikes me on mature reflection that the article should certainly reflect the fact that sails were used well into the 1920s, although citing the exact date of any such hoisting would be wrong. Can you paste a link here to a suitable log page that indicates sails were used (eg Odin, 6 April 1920)? I'll make the change when I've got the link. Incidentally, the Winfield reference that states yards were removed in 1914 doesn't necessarily contradict the logs, since the quotes you've shown above indicate the use of fore-and-aft sails (jib, staysails, spanker & main trysail) which require no yards. Thanks for your patience. Shem (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about the link - I found it at [1]. Shem (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shem - Thank you so much for updating the article. Those of us working on Old Weather find that we become very attached to our ships - becoming quite possessive in fact, which makes us want every detail of every thing written about our ships correct. We have the logs for every member of this class except the Fantome, so there may be other references to sails in those logs. Again, I invite you to join the Old Weather project. It is really the most fascinating thing I have ever done. Thanks again. Yours - Kathy W. 216.15.44.249 (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am really happy this was resolved well. It's really interesting work they are doing over at Old Weather, and it brings up a very curious borderline case about original research.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is not the best place for this idea, but perhaps, Wiki should consider some sort of partnership arrangement with Old Weather, to allow log information to be posted in Wiki. Old Weather is an odd sort of thing - we are not really doing research, so much as stumbling onto things. By that, I mean, I am not in the process of using the logs to write a book or article, but I am making information available to those who go to the Old Weather site. Anyway, I think both Wiki and Old Weather would profit from such a partnership. And it could serve as a model for future projects like Old Weather. Yours - Kathy W. 216.15.44.249 (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cadmus-class sloop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cadmus-class sloop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cadmus-class_sloop&oldid=1200516386"