![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
User:Billy/Archivenav
Keep up the great work! --Royalbroil 14:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning up my article on Bill King.
However, I am very concerned about the designation "Sailor" in the title.
According to my dictionary, "sailor" refers to "a seaman below the rank of officer."
This hardly describes Bill King, who was not only a commissioned officer but is also a decorated WW II survivor and circumnavigator.
Could you alter this to reflect some of my concerns, please?
DocDee (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
While you are working on the William King (Royal Navy) page, do you know how to fix the reference to Bill King's grandfather on the article William King (anatomist)?
How can we fix it so that the title reads William King (GEOLOGIST) rather than the completely inaccurate descriptor "anatomist"?
Even the William King (anatomist) article admits: "He is commonly mistaken as a professor of anatomy - King never taught anatomy."
So why not change it? Otherwise it remains another inaccuracy for which we hardworking Wikipedians get blamed!
Thanks for the help, DocDee (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting topic! Thanks for sharing it. --Royalbroil 14:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() ![]() |
WikiProject Ships Barnstar | |
Ship's cat was one of the coolest articles that I've read in quite some time. Nice work. You also get a ship's cat to go with with the Ship's Barnstar. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) |
You've got mail. Maralia (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Another dose of Colledge please? Thanks! Ying tong iddle i po. Neddyseagoon - talk 15:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
--BorgQueen (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Benea - thanks for everything you've done with stuff I've added or amended. You must have the wisdom of Solomon! Could you do your magic on the talk pages of HMS Daring (1932), HMS Daring (1874), HMS Defender (H07) and HMS Defender (1804)? I'd do it myself, but I have no idea whether that's a good idea or not. Shem1805 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
WOW, thanks for your help making the page. I only noticed the class page was missing due to the story on the front page about the Chanticleer and Beagle. Had no idea there were so many others of her class! :)
Thanks! --Curuxz (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Why do you remove the (otherships) - kalev class had 2 submarines specially ordered and build for Estonia in 1930s? Karabinier 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Benea, you've done it again! I'm very impressed by your work on Donegal - I like to think that if I'd had another year or two, I could have come close to it myself ... Outstanding. Shem1805 (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
--Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Excuse me for my very poor english, but i'm italian. i think that Garibaldi and Garibaldi reconstructed must be separated, but after your message i merged them again. There are too many differences, but if you says don't separate i do it. Greetings--Gaetano56 (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Benea! There's been a discussion going on at Wikiships for a while now on fields for the new ship class infobox. Your input would be very much appreciated if you can find the time. The relevant thread is here]. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Benea
I'd really appreciate it if you could cast your expert eye over my latest project - HMS Black Joke (1827). Apart from correcting any mistakes, I would particularly appreciate advice on categorisation - she was a tender, so she doesn't fit into the 'brig-sloop' category. Thanks in advance, Shem1805 (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if I ruffled any feathers with my comments. As you say, "Our conventions ... would indicate using the scholarly accepted works, even when this differs from what may have been used at the time - This is consistent with the ordinary Wikipedia naming practice of using modern names for articles even if different from the contemporary name. If the scholarly works describe the ships in a certain way, I encourage you to use that, no matter what you think they should be based on how contemporaries are describing them". I hope that the list of works I quoted indicates that I have researched reasonably widely, and I doubt whether any later work matches that of Roosevelt for scholarly content. I would therefore use Roosevelt as the accepted source. Most of the more recent histories concentrate on the land side of the war and rather skim the details of the naval action. They also show little consistency in describing the vessels involved. HLGallon (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Outstanding - and an obvious gap in Wikipedia properly filled. Thanks, Benea.
Shem1805 (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits to this. My sources are limited and some of them conflict. In particular, it is not clear when she became a shore establishment (sometime between 1905 and 1908), and whether she resumed her name in 1931 or 1936. The article could use more information on other service (did she participate in the Boxer rebellion?), and how noteworthy and inspirational her escape was held to be at the time. But with my sources I cannot do much more. My regards, Kablammo (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed not. That's what happens when you steal the infobox wholesale from RMS Queen Elizabeth 2. Well spotted. Ingolfson (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
--BorgQueen (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
--Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Please could you review Trafalgar order of battle and casualties.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, was the Stolt Surf scrapped as a result of the damage sustained from the freak wave, or did she see further service? It's not entirely clear from the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Benea, could you please cast your eye over HMS Ambuscade, when you have a chance? It could use checking by somebody who has a copy of Colledge. Thanks - again. Shem (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert! J.delanoygabsadds 17:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
J.delanoygabsadds has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding ((subst:Smile)) to their talk page with a friendly message.
Well donea again Benea. Great to see you cruising along! Blnguyen (photo straw poll) 02:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Having bumped into you on a couple of articles recently, and 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 involved in this project. David Underdown (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep up the good work Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well done again! You have the pictured slotBlnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 00:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Were any other ships known by that name? Thanks for the help on Cameron class steamers by the way! Neddyseagoon - talk 01:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason you don't link the years when you give a full date, my understanding ws that they should be per WP:MOSDATE as full linking allows user preferences to work. David Underdown (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Benea. Thanks for filling in the details on the disambiguation page HMS Sparrow. Would you mind giving me some pointers on how you source this stuff? --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
--Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
--Daniel Case (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
--Maxim(talk) 21:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
--BorgQueen (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
--—Dark (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Benea, could you open that book of Colledge again please if you still have it? HMS Hecla. From one of my sources, it mentions that the latest one is the eighth ship to have the name. We only have seven listed on HMS Hecla. I think there was another one active around 1880 during the Mahdist War. I am going through final checks on the List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy and it seemed out of place. Thanks. Woody (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
--Gatoclass (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate your efforts, but why do none of these ships have an article yet at Wikipedia? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Benea. I see you have been doing a great job adding disambiguation pages for Royal Navy ships. There doesn't seem to be any agreed style for these. Personally, I like the way you enter them, and this style might have merit as well. Do you think it might be worth trying to get some consensus on WikiProject Ships? --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a gentle point to make about "HMS". The Beagle was not a ship when she was built, but a brig. She was not converted into a ship until late in 1825. They were a little careful about this at the time. Accordingly she was not entitled "HMS Beagle" until that 1825 conversion; before that she was "HMB (for 'His Majesty's Brig') Beagle". Rif Winfield (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You've got mail :) Maralia (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The image was used too. Great job! --Royalbroil 01:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, issues don't go away. Take a look at the last two entries in HMS Penguin. The last Penguin listed was RAN from start to finish. Colledge seems also to include many RAN and RNZN ships. And it get murky when you go back to the nineteenth century. For example, he includes, as far as I can tell, some but not all of the boats that were purchased by the New Zealand Colonial government for use on the Waikato - though these were manned by the Royal Navy.
Also, Colledge lists ships that were cancelled before completion. If they weren't completed then they weren't yet a ship and didn't formally carry the name would be my take, and we should ignore them. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It may be useful for me to mention that until recently the official Navy List listed all ships from the time that they were ordered, not from the time of completion. Thus vessels which were later cancelled would appear on this list, sometimes for years. In the days when 'rebuilding' was practiced, ships' names were also left on the official list of Vessels throughout the period; in some cases this could be a decade or more, so that a ship would happily be listed -with its tonnage and details - while all that physically existed was a few timbers lying in a corner of the dockyard awaiting re-use. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi - last year you started the article on HMS Powerful (1895). I have left a message on the article talk page concerning whether she was laid up in 1904 as apparently indicated by the article or a flagship of Australia Station in 1908 ? I would be pleased if you have any further information on her and her role in Australian waters in 1908. Regards Matilda talk 06:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
for my cranky edit summaries. I was worried that you'd fogotten to create the new article, especially as the HMS Mosquito article made no mention of the base as one of the uses of the name. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
What I mean is that it is an NOPV violation to suggest that stonehenge is really that old. There have been various theories about stonehenge in the past, andit is a POV to suggest that it was not simply built by Roman for instance. Wikipedia should not give one theory credibility over all others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray-Ginsay (talk • contribs) 20:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If we say that the Scientific theory is true, no chance for it being false, we might as well say that christian theories of creation are crap and that no religion is true. The two may seem different but really go quite hand in hand. We must treat all viewpoints equally on Wikipedia. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
How has the scientific theory been proven anyway? -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
--Maxim(talk) 19:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Ben, can I direct your attention to my comments on my own userpage in reply to your question? Rif Winfield (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
--Bobet 18:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I confused you. I simply added the second template to underline that more citations were in fact needed. Citations are a vital part wikifying an article, as the Wikify template states, thus I only added the "Wikify" template to begin with. Wikifying is about more than just wikilinks. I wasn't "looking for reasons to add templates" to the article, I don't do that. I simply stated that more citations were needed, nothing more, nothing less. Now that the citations are in place there's no need for more templates. I hope that cleared things up and that you're not habouring any ill will towards me. Manxruler (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ben, I have added articles on the Fly, Crocus and Seagull classes of brig-sloop, and listed the 30 vessels concerned (as well as completing the listings of the Cherokee and Cruizer classes); can you categorise them please, as I don't know how this is done? Thanks! Rif Winfield (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
After a post on my talkpage I have started looking into a naming issue. I was wondering what Rodgers Colledge says about the naming of the Flower class corvette. Someone at Talk:Flower class corvette thinks it should be at Gladioulus class corvette as HMS Gladiolus (K34) was the first in the class. Any light shone on this before I wade in would be much appreciated. Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
--Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
--Wizardman 02:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
--Wizardman 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone has to give you this before you get past 50, eh! :-)
![]() |
The 25 DYK Medal | |
Congratulations! Here's a medal for you in appreciation of your hardwork in creating, expanding and nominating 25+ articles for DYK. Keep up the good work, Benea! Happy editing. PFHLai (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC) |
Goodness, I'm on 48 at the moment! I had no idea it was so many. Ta very much! Benea (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |