User talk:Emoscopes/Archive02

; Archives
	everything up to October 2006; October 2006 - February 2007; March 2007 - October 2007;

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Emoscopes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for verifying..

The spelling of Yangtse for me. I was making several spelling corrections at once and Yangtze happened to be one that came up as a correct spelling. Bobo . 22:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

no problemo, I had a sneaky suspicion it was spelled this way when I originally edited the article and had checked it out. Emoscopes ^Talk

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Largs Bay, Mounts Bay & Cardigan Bay

Hey, will sort these out for you tomorrow. Will add them to their relevant individual pages, was there anywhere else you wanted them? PS, cheers for your help with deciding on licensing. JonEastham 22:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ship class - italicise or not?

I italicised the class name for the Hunts, following guidance at (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)). It doesn't exclude class names that aren't also ship names. Checked one of the M J Whitley volumes: Capitani Romani class is italicised; whereas a Janes handbook is inconsistent. Where did you obtain the rule you quoted? Folks at 137 14:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The rule doesn't seem right to me, especially given the authors that we've both quoted. On the other hand, it's not something to waste time on. Infuriating! Folks at 137 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Canna - I think it's fine now. I understand what 'waisted by a tarbert' means, but I fear many people wouldn't! (Are you a poet in your spare time, I wonder?). Dhmellor 16:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Flower class sloop

Thanks for tidying up and adding to Flower class sloop and associated pages. Welsh 12:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hunt Class photos

Have upload photos of Atherstone, Quorn and Brecon. Brecon and Quorn have been added to their respective pages along with a blank info box as is standard on most other ship pages ready to be filled in. Atherstone has then been placed on the main Hunt class page in the box. Hope this is ok JonEastham 14:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: HMS Endurance; RFA Sir Lancelot (L3029); HMS Turbulent (S87); CVA-01; HMS Torbay (S90); HMS Daring (D32); HMS Vanguard (1909); HMS Trenchant (S91); HMS Andromeda; HMS Warrior (R31); Lead ship; Royal Navy Cricket Club; RFA Largs Bay (L3006); HMS Vengeance (R71); M22 Locust; O'Brien class destroyer; Paulding class destroyer; HMS Westminster (F237); Sampson class destroyer

Cleanup: Royal Marines Reserve; Landing Platform, Helicopter; HMS Archer (P264)
Merge: Pocket battleship; Long Beach class cruiser; ISU-152
Add Sources: HMS Bulwark (R08); HMS A7; Battle of the Denmark Strait
Wikify: Nationalization; MP40; The Metafluid Dynamics
Expand: USS Long Beach (CGN-9); USS Comstock (LSD-45); Mary Rose

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

White Ensign

The use of galleries doesn't work for me. For some reason, they don't work in my browser (Opera 9.1) - advice welcome, and I'm iffy about the concept. I like illustrations to be close to the relevant text and it also breaks up the grey text wodges. Anyway at present, the pictures are blanks (hope others can see them), but I don't want to offend with a bald revert. I should be more ruthless!! Folks at 137 20:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You're a gent!! Sorry to be a nuisance. BTW, there's trouble brewing on Battle of the River Plate, if you have an opinion. Peruse the talk page and history for the background. Folks at 137 22:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes to the pre-1801 white ensign

Hey. I've just seen you've made a change to the shade of blue on the pre-1801 White Ensign. The shade of blue was actually made darker for the 1801 revision of the flag at the request of the Admiralty. I wasn't able to find any definitive value for the shade of blue used prior to then, but it was certainly lighter than the shade used on the present day flag. Martocticvs 00:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Destroyer funnel bands

I just wanted to say thank you for your work on the pennant numbers article. I've been trying to find a complete list of the RN's funnel bands for several years. What was your original source? JimmyTheOne 21:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

FPV Jura image

Thanks for the heads up, although it looks like I missed it. Not sure what I did wrong with the licensing though? It was taken by one of the crew who gave me permission to upload it to Wikipedia --Liam Mason 08:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Greetings

Thanks for the comment. I happen to be attending a dinner on Monday which will be attended by MT herself. Should be a worth-while experience.

I have a list of many, many British warship builders from WWI, and in compiling a list of Canadian warships I came across quite a few WWII Canadian yards as well. That was my original reason for trying to apply a time period to each name, which if (and when) I follow your suggestion to create a WP:SHIP subpage, I would continue. I still get driven up the wall by the anomalies which are always popping up.

Noting your knowledge on funnel bands, perhaps you can enlighten me on dreadnought funnel bands. Squadron and Division markers perhaps? --Harlsbottom 02:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

your view on a template

Are you acquainted with this (as yet still orphan) template {{WWIIBritishShips}}? What do you make of it. GraemeLeggett 11:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, needs quite a bit of tweaking, and it's that big I recommend it becomes a collapsing template such as Template:Royal Navy ships. I'll look over it this evening after work and make any suggestions etc. on the template page. Emoscopes ^Talk 12:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled onto it yesterday, I've added some bits but then I found it was linkless and I thought it might be worth brining to the atetntion of someone else with an interest. GraemeLeggett 12:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's good being an orphan just now until it is in better shape Emoscopes ^Talk 23:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Type 45 talk page and talk page procedure in general.

Hi. I saw your edit summary. The policy is "Do not edit other user's comments" but you made no comment whatsoever - you added a template. If you added a POV tag to an article and I reviewed and disagreed I would be justified in removing it. This situation is totally analogous. However to get to the Type 45 issue in particular - the comment (while having an extranoeus comment about "why does everything take so long in the damn RN" is valid. I have made my thoughts clear at the talk page, perhaps you could add a sentence or two describing what exactly is off-topic about it. As it is the tag on its own makes no sense at all. Thanks Mark83 22:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The template is a quick and easy way to avoid typing out what I have now had to type out. It summarises itself as Do not use them as a discussion forum, which is exactly what I want to say. I personally feel it is bad etiquette to remove templates that convey some sort of guidance or warning message, especially on a talk page, put in by other users to maintain the talk page. Regardless, a talk page is not a discussion page, and the comment in question was an all to general query about the subject matter, and not about the article itself, or else we end up with Talk:HMS Vanguard (23) Emoscopes ^Talk 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Help with WP:NC-SHIP and Stone frigates

Since you are a recent contributor to NC-SHIP, please woudl you run an expert eye over a dispute I am trying to resolve at Talk:Royal Canadian Sea Cadets Fiddle Faddle 23:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

HMS Royal Oak (1914)

Hi, I note that you're on wikibreak for a while, but on your return, thought that you might like to know I've started the process of a major expansion of the article on the Royal Oak. It's early days yet—I've barely started—but thought that with your declared interest in the Royal Navy you might like to know. Your ship diagrams are truly remarkable – would it be to much to request a Royal Oak one (preferably in her 1939 configuration)? Either way, congratulations on the images you have already produced. Best regards, — BillC^talk 00:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 23:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 13:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dreadnought Edits

Hello, Emoscopes.

First, can I take this opportunity to thank you for the magnificent graphic work that you have contributed to HMS Dreadnought (1906) and other articles, and for your generosity in surrendering your rights in them.

I have a small question regarding your latest Dreadnought edit. My recollection is that "Transmitting Station" was US usage, and "Transmitting Room" was the corresponding RN term. If my memory is working properly (which is far from certain), then "Transmitting Room" - the term you changed - would be correct for an article on a British warship. Did you have a positive reason for making the change? Also, according to DK Brown (Warrior to Dreadnought), there were two TS, both above the armoured deck, when the ship was completed, and she was later reworked to accomodate the main TS below armour (the secondary TS apparently being removed). The explanation of a range clock is also useful, although perhaps it should be made a little clearer that the term "clock" was metaphorical. Incidentally, the term was also applied to a device introduced during the First World War: a display, in the form of a clock-face, of the estimated range, which was mounted high in the ship's masts or superstrucure, to assist other ships in the line that were having difficulty ranging. Bearing scales were painted on gunhouses and barbetttes to provide similar assistance with respect to target bearing. There are photos of both devices in Norman Friedman's Battleship Design and Development, 1905-1945.

As you have probably noticed, I am working on the article myself, following a request from User:Harlsbottom. Any ideas about dividing up the work?

I've added this page to my watchlist, so you may reply here if you wish. Regards, John Moore 309 17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for your compliments, I drew those pictures for my own amusement years ago, so thougt I might as well share them with the world!

As for Transmitting Room / Station, I had only ever heard of this as the Transmitting Station in RN usage (hence T/S of course). I have a handful of old pre-war "How we'll beat the Hun" type books about the Royal NAvy, and it's always referred to as the Transmitting Station in those. I know it's not conclusive, but the Google test would support station also;

* room

* station

I have DK Brown too, and I agree with you on that.

As for Range Clock, I was struggling to find a suitable explanatory term for "variable-speed drive predictor", if you are able to think of one, edit away! :). I may be wrong, but I believe that the range "clocks" used for communicating gunnery instructions between ships in a line are more properly referred to as "range indicators", they just happen to use a clock face.

Regards, Emoscopes ^Talk 17:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S, I amn't intending to do too much editing on the Dreadnought article, my intention was merely to clarify a few points. Emoscopes ^Talk 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right about the TS, of course. I should have saved my comment until I got home and could look it up; I'm at the age when it's unwise to rely on memory! As for "range clocks", Friedman does use this term for the ship-to-ship indicators, although he may not be reflecting official usage. However, this is a fairly trivial detail. I seem to have taken up your time to little purpose; my apologies, and thanks for your courtesy. Continuing regards, John Moore 309 21:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all, no apologies required, and thanks for the courtesy of discussing it with me before we started edit-warring eachother :) Just to confuse the matter, I checked in VE Tarrant's 22King George V Class Battleships" and he uses the "Transmitting Office". T/S is used in extracts from official messages, logs, damage reports and interviews with crew however.

I think "range indicating clock" would be the best name for the mast-head indicators. Emoscopes ^Talk 22:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hawker Siddeley Harrier

I have moved Hawker Siddeley Harrier back to the original article name, Hawker Siddeley Harrier. THere appears to be a TONNE of articles linking to Hawker Siddeley Harrier, so it will be quite a bear to change them all, unless you know of a bot that can be assigned to do this. I do not have any experience at all with bots, and usually do this type of work one-by-one. - BillCJ 00:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)