Jump to content

User talk:Martocticvs/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, Martocticvs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Y0u | Y0ur talk page 22:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!Martocticvs 10:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

old white ensign

Oh dear! my bad! I did search long and hard about this on fotw and couldn't find anything to suggest that there should be a colour difference so I just presumed that it was an artefact of the colour encoding. Any idea what the correct pantone should be? I presume it's the same as what the pre 1801 union flag should be, but again, I couldn't find any specs for that. Apologies. Emoscopes Talk 00:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I also searched for a long time, but I couldn't find anything definite. I do know for a fact that the Admiralty wanted the blue made darker for when they introduced the new design though, as they were having trouble with it fading too quickly on the old, lighter design. In the end, I just had to take an average of all the paintings and other sources available. It's probably not exactly right, but it's hopefully not too far off. The pre-1801 red and blue ensigns on wiki at the moment need reworking completely though - they're not even in the correct proportions at the moment! Martocticvs 00:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's such an old flag that you couldn't conclusively pick the colour from sources such as old paintings alone, and I'm pretty sure they didn't specify pantones in those days! I guess revert to your last version though, it just struck me that the blue was a bit on the bright side, perhaps raise the blue but with a slightly higher black level also? Emoscopes Talk 00:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Aye. I've reverted it for now, and I'll look into the colour again to see if I can't get it more accurate. Martocticvs 17:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

HMS Foudroyant (1798)

My mistake! Well caught though, thanks for sorting that out.129.234.4.76 00:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I got the year wrong anyway when I first wrote the article. Martocticvs 18:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Reordering of Infobox Ship Career?

Hi Martocticvs! Where was the bug on Infobox Ship Career discussed? I checked WP:SHIPS talk but I didn't see anything. TomTheHand 18:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It was the one (archived now) where using bulleted lists was destroying the next part of the table. We worked out that it wouldn't happen if there was some more normal text after the list, so my thinking was that if we placed the fields related to the end of the ship's career after the honours field, it would solve the problem, whilst still retaining a logical order to the table. For that to work every time, the captured, status and fate fields (one of which I assume will always be filled) have to be placed after the honours fields... Martocticvs 18:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see! Good fix. I think that perhaps the reordering should be reflected in {{Infobox Ship Example}} as well so that people aren't surprised by the difference in field order. TomTheHand 18:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point - that's sorted now! Martocticvs 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ships

Do you think it's a good idea to create individual articles for all the naval ships about which little is known? I'm just wondering if there might be a way to combine the less-notable ships into a larger article. BenB4 16:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that would be something best raised at WP:SHIPS, as the position we have there is that all ships are notable, due to the efforts and great cost involved in their construction. That aside, a large number of ships of the line built in the 18th century participated in at least one major battle, which automatically makes them notable. Martocticvs 16:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough: it's not paper! BenB4 21:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Martocticvs, it's not a problem (given sufficient time) to write factual articles on every warship from 1660 to the present day. However, it is time-consuming. I think the priority should be to refine the webpages giving lists of vessels (at least, with names and dates), by class where applicable, and then add in articles of every ship. This will take time (there have been over 10,000 warships in the (British) Royal Navy alone. I'm happy to provide detail (I have very full records to hand), but would need you or someone to input stubs and page-links. If you want to discuss the process, you can e-mail me on sailing.navy@btinternet.com

Regards Rif (Rif Winfield 15:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC))

Well I'm currently working from the list of ships given by Lavery in The Ship of the Line - that covers all ships of the line built for the Royal Navy, though it is not comprehensive when it comes to captures. The list is important, I agree, but I think the individual articles - even if they are just basic stubs - are important as well, as they are included in the navigable categories which in turn makes it easy for people to find other ships of a similar type, just by going through the category linked at the bottom of the article. Martocticvs 19:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

re: HMS Director

just wanted to say that i enjoyed the nicely formated page! Viperphantom 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it's formatted the same way as all the other ship articles, as per WP:SHIPS, but thanks anyway! Martocticvs 15:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Surveyor of the Navy

You added Sir John Williams to the list. Do you have any idea of what dates he was Surveyor? If you do, please could you add them. Even '18th century' would be better than nothing.--Toddy1 10:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just looked up the dates and added them in - I also corrected a typo for Slade's dates, as he was listed as starting four years after he died... Martocticvs 11:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks--Toddy1 06:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you inputting pages for all Surveyors of the Navy from 1660? Do you need details and precise dates - if so, ask. Rif Winfield 15:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Magnanime class ship of the line

Hi Martocticvs, I've recently had a request from User:Rif Winfield, that I've discussed with Tom which goes as follows:

Benea, I do have another item where your help would be appreciated, in connection with the Williams design 64s of the Intrepid Class. There were fifteen ships to this design, but three of them were incorrectly separated out on WP pages as a spurious Magnanime class. There was no separate Magnanime design - the Magnanime, Diadem and Sampson were all units of the Intrepid Class. I have added them to [Intrepid class ship of the line] but the existing references to [Magnanime class ship of the line] needs deletion. The original error appears to have come about through copying from Brian Lavery's The Ship of the Line; but careful studying of the original draughts for these vessels reveals no distinctive feature, and I have discussed this with Brian who can not recall any reason why he separated the three ships out in his book when written in the 1980s - he indicated it was probably a mistake that needs correction (his superb and oft-quoted book has been reprinted but never corrected). Can you kindly correct the disambiguation and links accordingly? Thanks. Rif Winfield 13:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rif_Winfield"

With this in mind, would you mind Magnanime class ship of the line becoming a redirect to Intrepid class ship of the line? Furthermore, would you mind [[Category:Magnanime class ships of the line]] being deleted? Let me know your opinions on this. Kind regards, Benea 14:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, go right ahead. Working from one source is always likely to bring up issue like this, and I certainly am quite fine about it. I do think new references should be added though when a change like that is made, as it no longer reflects the reference I have cited in the article (I think there are a few others that Rif Winfield has changed that have become like that now); but yeah, go for it - that's what WP is all about! Martocticvs 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that in some of the articles you create, you link to dismabiguation pages instead of an article more relevant to the subject. For example, I changed one such instance here (from Chatham to Chatham Dockyard. Another example is using Blackwall instead of Blackwall, London. Could you link to the specific articles instead of the disambig pages? Thanks. Mindmatrix 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies - I'll try to remember to do it right in future. Martocticvs 17:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

HMS Java

This is mostly my work, what exactly are you wanting cleaned up? Tirronan 20:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

French ensign during the Revolution

Hello,

Thank you for uploading a new version of Image:Flag of French-Navy-Revolution.svg! I don't mean to sound critical, but isn't the border of the canton a little bit thick compared with [1] ?

Thank you very much in any case ! Rama (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Chandler's Ford

Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep an eye on the article and the user, and act accordingly. Cheers, Waggers 13:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

HMS Swan (1641)

Hi, I see you undid my correction on HMS Sovereign of the Seas. If I was wrong to change the data then I apologise. I've created a page for the above ship and wondered if you might like to cast your eyes over it and edit as necessary. Mjroots (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It was the Cyber Divers News Network website where I got the info that HMS Swan was a sister to HMS Sovereign of the Seas. Both vessels carried cannon from the same gunfounder, so there is a connection. Mjroots (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten the cannon section to link to Sovereign of the Seas, as that is the link between the two vessels.Mjroots (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

dyk nomination

  • ...that HMS Bonadventure, the ship launched in 1650, was rebuilt five times (each time a different length) until being scuttled nearly 100 years later ? by Martocticvs

Well done...ok? Victuallers (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

HMS Newark

A lot of the links of the introduction don't go where they say the go. The 1709 (or whatever year) Proclamation links to the 1709 Enactment. The words are wrong, I'm sure (mine, that I just wrote). Basketballoneten 17:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

HMS Hazardous

File:Wreck diving hms hazardous.jpg

I came across this picture (up for deletion) and on searching found there is no article for this ship. More your area of expertise than mine! Mjroots (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything on her, unfortunately. Some of the people who reference Colledge may do though (User:Benea possibly) Martocticvs (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

HMS Foudroyant (1798)

Hi, as you created the article I was wondering whether you knew of this reference source? Some fine photos there, pity they are not right-clickable. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen one or two of those in various books, but most of those I have never seen before - very nice find! Thanks for sharing. And yes, it is indeed a pity we can't use any of them! Martocticvs (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Move "Sail plan" field to directly below "Propulsion"?

Hey Martocticvs! Hope you're doing well. Gatoclass suggested moving the "Sail plan" field to directly below "Propulsion" on the ship infobox. Right now it's right below "Ice class" and above "Power". It makes sense to me, but I wanted to get your opinion before making the change because you're more involved in the Age of Sail. TomTheHand (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think that would probably make sense as well - saying what the rig is before saying that a vessel used sails does seem a bit back-to-front. Martocticvs (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A non WP ship project you may be interested in

Having seen your interests listed at WP:SHIPS I wonder if you might also be interested in this project http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=Your_Archives:Royal_Navy_ships_project that The National Archives is just starting? The main aim is to improve the quality of data in the online catalogue, starting with 18th century vessels. The project is specifically not going to duplicate information in Wikipedia, but it struck me that there might be some synergy between the two tasks. As the TNA data is initially going in thier own wiki, it probably won't count as a reliable source for purposes here, but it might be a valid external link on the appropriate artilces here. I shouls probably make it clear that I do have a strong connection with TNA, but I'm not directly invovled in this project. David Underdown (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

1719 Establishment

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 1719 Establishment, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: 1706 Establishment. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

HMS Harwich (1743)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of HMS Harwich (1743), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: HMS Harwich (1695). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

HMS Advice (1745)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of HMS Advice (1745), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: HMS Strafford (1714). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

HMS Royal Geroge

I noted you in the edit summary that Hunt class was an invented name. That is the name used in the Lavery references.

I was wondering if you could help. Would you happen to know more about the ships in the Duckworth squadron that he commanded immediately after the Dardanelles while sailing to and supporting of the troops landed in Alexandria in the same year?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 15:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, although I thought that the "class" in this period referred to the designer, and not the ship. My experience in Wikipedia however suggests that inventing things is ok as long as there are enough people who like how it sounds. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Er... sorry? Care to provide me with a link? Martocticvs (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Warning retracted. I had this problem with another editor. Sorry for the problem.--LAAFan 00:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

HMS Union (1756)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of HMS Union (1756), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: HMS Union (1811). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As with all the previous ones, this is certainly a legitimate article. A message about the issues I'm having with this bot has been left on the bot's talk page. Martocticvs (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

HMS Rippon (1758)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of HMS Rippon (1758), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: HMS Rippon (1812). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

HMS Colchester

Updated DYK query On 15 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Colchester, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Mifter (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

HMS Lively (1756)

I have re-written the article using info from Ships of the Old Navy, but it lacks any specific technical details to quote, or indeed the exact dates you give so a source is needed for those as well. Martocticvs (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Phillips's website is very good, but does contain a few errors. Moody Janverin built the Lively at Bursledon on the River Hamble, not on the Beaulieu River. I have added a number of the missing technical details you mentioned; as source material you can quote (as modesty prevents me from so doing) for these, and for the dates and other information added, is British Warships in the Age of Sail: 1714 to 1792 (Rif Winfield, Seaforth Publishing, 2007, ISBN 978-1-84415-700-6). Rif Winfield (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah thanks for that. That book is one of the ones on my now stupidly long list of books on the subject to buy... I'm sadly lacking in information on anything much below 50-guns, with the exception of what is in Gardener's book on Napoleonic frigates. I find that website to be a good source of information to help get articles started, but yes you do come across errors occasionally (but of course that applies to everything else!) One thing about that article still seems slightly odd, where it says the French 20-gun corvette was commissioned as a 28-gun 6th rate - I know we tended to over-gun our ships compared to the French but that sounds like a rather large increase... Martocticvs (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

When captured, she was carrying 20 (French) 8-pounder guns, all on the upper deck. As the French 8-pounders didn't take British shot, she was re-armed with 18 9-pounders and 6 6-pounders on the upper deck (a rare example of a mixed battery on one deck, but she was refitted/re-armed at Gibraltar after capture, and given what ordnance was available), plus 4 3-pounders on the quarter deck.

I might mention that my above-mentioned book is currently on sale through eBay today for a comparatively low price.

Incidentally, can you kindly look at my revisions to the Lively of 1804? The information is now correct, but I think I've not correctly formatted the data box.

Rif Winfield (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

George Churchill

I don't know if you wrote the article on George Churchill, or know who did, but the biography is a little prejudiced as regards his service pre 1690, implying he only saw limited sea service (which was not true in fact). If it was your article, do you think you might kindly revise the questionable remarks I indicated on the article's discussion page? Thanks. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the extremnely fast response on 1706 and 1745 Establishments! Rif Winfield (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Asgard

The Asgard is still owned by the state and is still managed by Coiste an Asgard, who are responsible for the salvage. If you a reference which proves otherwise, then please provide it. Thanks. Crispness (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martocticvs/Archive_1&oldid=1141474437"