User talk:Shem1805/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Gun-brigs

Development is progressing in the User sub-page you suggested. You will see that it will be a fairly lengthy article. I've so far named all the purpose-built gun-brigs and (most of) the purchased vessels, but the 1803-1815 prizes are still to be added. Kindly look at it and let me have your advice. When you feel it is adequate to be set up as an article, kindly transfer it for me, and I will complete it in situ. Have a good Christmas! Rif Winfield (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

You're most certainly welcome, thanks for your note. Those lower-page tags are often easy things to forget or overlook while focusing on other content. The good thing is that they're usually easy to fix, and give people like me something to do ;). Have yourself a great day Shem, happy editing!  -- WikHead (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Falcon

Hi Shem1805 Many thanks for your work on the infobox on HMS Falcon 1802, which I could not achieve when the page first went live and which I am still not a master of!! I wonder if the background story in the linked falcon's website interested you.?
A side issue: If you are working on prizes taken at Copenhagen 1807 (if I understood your note in your talk above)you may wish to read my note in the discussion page "Ships Surrendered - and References". If I have misunderstood, no problems, just ignore! Viking1808 (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Viking, I was just clearing up multiple ship articles when I came across Falcon. When I don't have time to embark on new articles, I tend to be a bit of a wikignome. I'm not sure I can find your note, since you don't make it clear which page I should be looking at.

If you need a hand with formatting, linking, infoboxes, images or the like, just drop me a line at this page, and if I'm around, I'll help you willingly. Good luck. Shem (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

OK! Thanks! The note I was talking about is on Battle of Copenhagen (1807) but I copy it below for your easier reference

Help? - I have just put the following entry under References in the main article
Individual record cards in Danish for ships of the Danish Royal Navy can be found on the internet at Orlogmuseet Skibregister, arranged alphabetically. These records contain codes to secondary sources - usually books in Danish - which can be identified at another page on that site.
The entry contains links to Danish sources. I tried to place it as a note under Ships Surrendered but failed - my abilities in Wiki-editing are not yet mature. Is this sufficient to remove the flagged-up lack of references on this Ships Surrendered section? I could trawl through all the ships listed and put in references similar to that for Gluckstadt but I will leave that pending for now. Comments? Advice? Viking1808 (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Of interest?? Viking1808 (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the source is certainly interesting, but I don't think you can use it as a reference for the whole section, since it would be effectively uncheckable. What you would have to do is put a reference for each ship, linked to the particular section of the www.orlogsmuseet.dk website (as has been done with Gluckstadt), and not only would that be a massive piece of work, it would be over-the-top, and worse, it would not have any claim to be a complete list. What that section really needs is a good secondary source (like a book on the battle which lists the captured ships). Shem (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Shem1805 - This is just a short linguistic comment (to one with many languges, I see) that in Danish nouns the ending "EN" is actually the word "THE", so the Danish ship Havfruen would translate its name as "The Mermaid", Najaden would be "The Naiad" if ships names were to be translated. As HMS Seagull's name was carried over as an English name to the ship captured by the Danes in 1808, the Danes called her "The Seagull" as you have correctly italicised. Is this of interest, or am I being dogmatic!!!?? Viking1808 (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a good point. It's the sort of additional note that gives a little life to an article, and potentially worth adding without being obsessive about it. Do you want me to do an example so that you can see the wiki coding required? Shem (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional note - Yes please Viking1808 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at this edit of mine which shows one way of adding notes. My preferred way, though, is to add the text:

<ref group=Note>Text you wish to put in the note here.</ref>

ensuring that you also put the following text at the bottom of the article (but usually above the references):

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=Note}}

That should generate the sort of note you're looking for. For an example, see Hydrographer of the Navy. Shem (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

HDMS Lougen (1791)

This note is to Acad Ronin, Corneredmouse and Shem(1805) I have started a page on the first HDMS Lougen on my Userpage. There are huge gaps still to be filled, but you may like to help fill them in! the Danes claim this was the first copper-clad ship - is this true, or just the first danish copper-clad ship? Just for Shem - what is the formula you use for converting Danish feet into Imperial?? Viking1808 (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There's an article on copper sheathing which suggests this would be the first Danish copper-clad ship. Foot (unit) gives the length of a Danish foot at 313.85 (vice 304.8mm for the British foot), but I didn't do it that way - I took the British lengths from [1], which was already a reference to the article. Shem (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, I have tried Google books and found nothing additional in English. There seem to be a number of Danish books that show up when one googles "Lougen Jessen" but I am going to leave them to Viking1808. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Shem, You may have seen that HDMS Lougen (1791) has now gone public. Thanks for your input, and the notes about how to do notes.Viking1808 (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

HMS Dryad

Hi Shem, You just reverted three edits to this article. One was a reference that I would think might be of interest and unarguable, one was the choice between two and one column formats for the footnotes, and the third was the issue of "HSwMS". This last is the internationally accepted way of referring to Swedish military vessels and parallels the usage "HDMS". It also would seem to be of use in cases such as this article where to have to HMSs fighting each other introduces confusion. I have to say that none of these three reversions makes sense to me. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Acad, I'm in a rush right now, but you won't need to search long and hard before you find that Swedish ships are called HMS (try Category:Ships of the Royal Swedish Navy for a start, and particularly HMS Carlskrona (M04)). Moreover, what you did is called a cut-and-paste move, and is prohibited becasue it does not preserve the page history. See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. By the way, HDMS is against our guidelines too, and I wouldn't expect to see it last the year - Lougen was never called HDMS Lougen, for example. Lastly, I missed your other edits to Dryad, as we all do from time to time, and have sorted that out. Shem (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Hi! I saw you blanked HMS Weazel (1805) yesterday as a copyright problem and that you previously brought up some copyright problems with the same editor at User talk:Acad Ronin/Copyright. Do you feel that this is a situation where we need to do a systematic review of their contributions to ensure that there are no remaining copyright violations? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you feel if I say I'll look through a few more examples and let you know when I've gathered some more evidence? Shem (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be greatly appreciated since you are clearly familiar with the articles and sources. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

VernoWhitney, here's the bottom line: I warned Acad back in September 2010 about this issue (see here & here), and I think he got the message. I also thought he had cleared up the mess he'd made. I meant to go back and do a proper check, but in the event, and with pressure of time from real life, I made that a cursory glance. Last week I noticed that there was still stuff outstanding at HMS Weazel (1805), and I tagged it, which is what I should probably have done in the first place. On looking again, I can see that there are also problems with HMS Scout (1804) (see [2]), and therefore almost certainly with other articles. With over 14,000 edits to over 2200 pages, that's a lot of pages to check. Shem (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Shem & VernoWhitney, Since the warning I have not used Phillips at all. In fact, in cleaning up the stuff from Phillips I have come to realize more and more that he is not a legitimate source. Because he does not cite his sources, he does not provide verifiability. Furthermore, in trying to find where he got his material I have found errors when I have compared his material to the original letters in the London Gazette, or to the the Naval Chronicle, Marshall, or James. I have even found one or two errors in Winfield. Lastly, I have found that Phillips leaves out a lot. In going back over articles I try not only to go back to original sources to remediate items in the articles, I try to add in omitted material. This is time consuming. It is also not error-free. When I go through the London Gazette I may miss items that are in Phillips that didn't come from the Gazette. That is what happened with Weasel. If you see such a case, let me know and I will fix it, either by finding the original source and using it, or by pulling the particular items until I can find the source. As far as Weasel is concerned, there are three paragraphs or so that I have not been able to source at all. Those are the ones you found, and that I overlooked precisely because none of the sources I used had them either. I haven't looked at Scout yet to see what the situation is there. In all cases, a rewording will remove any copyright issue, but that doesn't address the issues of lack of verifiability, error, and incompleteness. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, even with your talkback I kept forgetting to stop back here. I think that given the history of copyright violations which haven't been cleaned up and the fact that I just looked and found some similar language in HMS Scout which hasn't been cleaned up even though it was brought to Acad Ronin's attention just now, a CCI will probably be necessary. I'll try to get around to that later today. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Shem and VernoWhitney... on a similar note, please see here regarding the risk of re-worded Phillips text being a "derivative work" which itself needs clearing up. The Land (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your point completely, but sometimes I have trouble getting through to Acad. Perhaps you'll have more luck. Shem (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have replied to TheLand on my talk page. The key point is that Phillips is himself a derivative work of material in the public domain. When I go to the original letter in the London Gazette and work from that I will necessarily use many of the same phrases because both Phillips and I are copying the same source, which is in the public domain, to describe the same set of facts. It is not clear how Phillips can establish a copyright over a work that he has produced that is derivative of public domain material. You can object to copying exact sentences, but how can you object to a rearrangement of the words and phrases that make up the sentence when those words and phrases are verbatim copies of the original public source material? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Cadmus class sloops.

Once again you have removed my entry regarding the use of sails on these ships. The log of HMS Odin, which I am currently transcribing for Old Weather clearly indicates that she kept her sails and was at least exercising setting them until after "mid 1914." The entry is therefore wrong and I believe it is important to correct this as this class may have been one of the last operational warships (as opposed to survey ships etc) to use sails. Clearly that speculation cannot be put onto Wikipedia, but it is important to correct wrong entries and to develop the information there. I fully accept that my early entries may not have been "encylopedic" but they were factually correct which the text you keep reverting to is not. (46.208.47.202 (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Dear Anonymous editor, I've already explained at your talk page why I'm removing this stuff. It's not that it's not factually correct or not referenced, but that it's not notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it's not the purpose of an encyclopedia article on a whole class of sloops to tell the story that sails were furled or unfurled on certain dates in certain ships. Just because you can know something doesn't make it suitable for inclusion in any old article. If this information has a place at all, it might go in HMS Odin (1901), if carefully put into context. By the way, just re-editing won't get you anywhere, it will just irritate. Best way ahead for an issue like this that is clearly controversial is to discuss it at Talk:Cadmus class sloop, gain consensus, then make the change. I can really recommend creating an account, as explained at your talk page. In the meantime, please feel free to ask advice here or at your own talk page, which I'm watching. Yours, Shem (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Comus class corvettes

Well, I don't profess to be an expert in these matters, so I will bow to your judgement on this. Mjroots (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenating ship class names

Re: the October discussion you participated in on hyphenating ship names, User:SW is willing to make a mass move with a bot if there is a consensus here. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

See my note on the October discussion. I don't think that a consensus has been reached. Regards Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick editing question

Hi Shem, I wonder if you could answer a question I have about one of your latest edits so I can learn. On the Trafalgar class submarine page you added a '2' after the name of HMS Trafalgar's wikilink in the combat history section, i.e. {{HMS|Trafalgar|S107|2}}. What purpose does this serve? I am unfamiliar with this wiki-markup. Yours sincerely, Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Antarctic Adventurer, have a read of template:HMS, which explains what the parameters are for. The reason I changed it to "2" was because the guidelines say "You may give the ship's prefix the first time you introduce the ship, but you should not repeat it on future mentions. You need not give the prefix at all if it is obvious from the context (for example, in a list of ships of the Royal Navy there is no need to repeat "HMS" each time)." Yours, Shem (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Shem, thank you for your reply and for the guidelines link. The information it provides will be very useful! Best Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Algerine class

Apologies. I was trying to get back to your formulation and got confused as to which was the original and which was the correction.Acad Ronin (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem - it will make much more sense when I finish the article in question. Shem (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Nukapu Expedition

Just wanted to say the article looks great, thanks for helping out. What an interesting place the world was back then.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thanks for starting the article in the first place. Shem (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Armada and HMS Diamond (H22)

Hello, Just wondering what the Armada et al were doing in the changes to the infobox you introduced per this edit and which were still there nearly 3 years later. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

At the time there was a debate as to whether the battle honours of a ship should be listed at each article for ships thus named (technically HMS Diamond (H22) owned all the battle honours of her predecessors), or whether the battle honours for each ship should only be those the individual ship earned. The consensus was firmly that the latter should prevail, and this is a hangover. I see you have attended to it. Shem (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I missed that debate, although I suspected something re. previous ships with that name. The correct decision, in any case. Ericoides (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

HMS Westminister the Type 23 Frigate

Was involved in Ex. Saxon Warrior too but I can't find a link. Can you help? I'm a bit busy with other articles. Thanks.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes - NavyNews. Shem (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but would you take the time to update?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but I've already done it. Anything else? Shem (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

HMS Richmond

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Richmond_%28F239%29 What do you think of the page and my recent comments? Some parts could be improved.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the article could do with plenty of improvement to reference the statements, cut out the irrelevant details and fill in the gaps. I think you've gone some way to start the process, but all the current RN ship articles are in the same boat, and the submarine ones are even worse (to read them, you'd think all they'd ever done was have nuclear incidents!) I've taken out the bit about being the only T23 to have a captain in command (lower case, by the way), since Captain Hine joins Westminster in June. Shem (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I was following the same as HMS Cumberland (F85) who was also captained by a captain. Check that article.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm interesting news. Thanks.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep - I removed the offending line yesterday while doing a basic clean up. It was ballocks. Ages ago the RN sprinkled their ships with captains and commanders, although the squadron ship was always commanded by a captain. Later, all the T22 batch IIIs had captains until about 2005, and gradually the RN has gone to having a "Captain ASW" (embarked in a T23), a "Captain AAW" embarked in a T45 (and no T22s at all!) I can't find a decent reference for it though, so better just to delete the obviously wrong stuff and go from there. Shem (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. You can get more from the Bridge Card--HMS Defender will be captained by a commander. Funny. Good work anyway.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Your view on HMS Triumph (T-class Sub)

Hi Shem, I would liek to know your view on HMS Triumph. It is of course widely reported that it is deployed in support of operations off Libya. Yet is is considered part of the Response Force Task Group- [3]. Should that be included in its page?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see a problem. The RFTG was deployed as the Libyan thing kicked off, and several of the assets were then used in support of UK activity in and around Libya. Triumph was one of these. but so were Sutherland, Liverpoool and others. Ships and submarines are of course flexible by nature, and are often assigned concurrently to more than one task. Does that help? Shem (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that was what I was getting at onthe RFTG page. Triumph is not under the operational command of the RFTG commander but somehow stated as part of it.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you think that ships like Triumph as still part of the Response Force Task Group despite operating in different operations?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

From a Wikipedia point of view, I would say use the sources; if the sources say she's conducting one operation while being part of another formation, then go with that. Shem (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but not from a military POV. Thanks for you input.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ships class

Should it be just "Trafalgar class submarine" or "Trafalgar-class submarine" and thus should there be a hyphen for all ships classes?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

For the guidelines, see WP:HYPHEN ("Trafalgar class" is a compound modifier of "submarine") & more specificially Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Ship_class_articles. If you use {{sclass}} (and sclass2, if the class is not named after a ship), you won't go far wrong. Shem (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Still a bit confused. Can you check and modify my edits on the [4] part--do i write Invincible-clas or Invincible class?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you're talking about the Invincible class, you do not use a hyphen. If you're talking about the Invincible-class carrier, you do, because "Invincible class" is now a compound modifier of "carrier", and therefore needs a hyphen. Shem (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

At a glance, your edits look fine. Shem (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

ThanksOther dictionaries are better (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Trafalgar class SSNs

Just to let you know i've updated the external links (Royal Navy) on the each of the Trafalgar Class subs--especially since the RN web site was recently updated. You may wish to check a change them according to norns.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to update

HMS Trenchant http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/1229-trenchant-ready-to-be-a-potent-presence-again.aspx 147.188.254.210 (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Updates for RFA ships

Well Fort Victoria and others operational history. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/07/yemen-marines-standby-evacuate-britons Cheers.78.109.182.43 (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I'm more interested in the 19th century Royal Navy, rather than current events. Why not do it yourself? Shem (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hansard

Hello, Shem1805. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Toddy1 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens

I saw your exchange with Tody1. Guidelines or no guidelines, the MOD and RN websites don't hyphenate their ship classes.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well indeed - but they should because their own guide to writing, JSP101, says they should. It just goes to should that very few people understand how to use the hyphen correctly, and that following sources for style is a guaranteed way to get it wrong. Would you suggest following sources for apostrophe use? Shem (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What's JSP101? To me it makes no difference.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, as you can tell from above, it's "their own guide to writing". A Google search would have confirmed this for you. If it makes no difference, why ask? In any case, WP:HYPHEN, not my talk page, is the Wikipedia consensus, and if you wish to change it, good luck ... Shem (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Not wishing to. Not all in wiki is correct.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Jane's Fighting Ships does not use hyphen in ship class names in titles and headings.

US Naval Institute publications do not use hyphens in ship class names in titles and headings. USNI does use hyphens in ship class names in text in its publications.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Toddy, I'd be interested to know whether Janes uses hyphens at all, including in the text. Shem (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

update on HMS Albion et al

http://www.navynews.co.uk/news/1247-albion-leads-cougar-task-force-east-of-suez.aspx if you are interested.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really - see User talk:Shem1805#Updates for RFA ships

Oh well. just trying.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Danish Miscellany

Hi Shem1805 - Thanks for looking at the article on Skibsted and removing the "unreviewed" banner.

Some time ago I asked about Danish feet in measuring boats - see this reference for a full list of old Danish measures, now also in the stub for Alen.

Also, have you seen my entries on the talk page of Battle of Copenhagen (1807) , concerning the lists of ships taken by the British ? I think I have mined most of what can be found on Danish sources. It now needs someone with access to (the unquoted) English sources to round off the list and perhaps rewrite that section of “Ships Surrendered”. Can you help? Viking1808 (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I am sorry that I was ratty yesterday. I have posted the information you requested at User talk:Shem1805#Hyphens.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Toddy, there is absolutely no need for an apology, but nevertheless, I appreciate the gesture hugely. I like to think that we're on the same side! Shem (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)