Jump to content

User talk:Rif Winfield/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Rif Winfield: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! Inner Earth 19:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Eugène Gabriel de la Croix, Marquis de Castries

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. JHMM13 08:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

French ships

Hey, thanks for the changes. Can you tell me what the source of the information was? Thanks SpookyMulder 08:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear SpookyMulder, I'm not certain about using the usertalk facility on Wikipedia, so would appreciate - and indeed welcome - any exchange to be via email (you can reach me through sailing.navy@btinternet.com). I'm a naval historian, specialist in naval vessels of the Age of Sail and the author of several books on British (and other) warships on the pre-1900 era - perhaps you're familiar with my books on "The 50-gun ship" or "British Warships in the Age of Sail" (the latter is being published as a series in several volumes). I've undertaken a large amount of research over the years, both in Britain (I'm a reader at the NMM,PRO, etc), France and elsewhere, from which most of my information is taken (I have also benefitted from the original research of others who have generously passed their findings on to me). I have what I believe is a complete record of French Naval vessels from 1700 onwards (I will tackle the 17th century later). I have made a start on the articles on French ships of the Line and French sail frigates, but have an awful lot more work to do (frankly, the MAJORITY of ships are missing from the Wikipedia lists) which will doubtless occur piecemeal over coming months. I'd certainly welcome any help you care to give. Regards, Rif Winfield

Action of August 1702

Greetings! I noticed the changes you recently made to this article. It's really nice for amateurs like me to see professionals making this sort of detailed contributions to Wikipedia. I have a few links you may find helpful, but please don't feel like you have to digest them all minutely before doing anything — I don't want you to feel like I'm putting roadblocks in the way of what is a very generous activity on your part. I noticed you put <br>s in your lists; you don't actually need to do this, that formatting is taken care of automatically on lists. There's a little cheatsheet you can consult with regards to formatting, that has links to more detailed discussions. You may also want to look at the Wikipedia guide to references. As Wikipedia has matured in recent years, there's been more of an effort to make sure that our articles are based on reliable literature, and adding published sources that support the content of an article is encouraged. (To be honest, sometimes people take it over the top, and obsess about footnoting to the exclusion of common sense and legibility, but don't worry about taking it to that level.) Wikipedia has several citation templates that allow you to automatically format your references, which you may find helpful (although they may be confusing right now.) Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page, or, if you prefer to use email, you can find my email address relatively easily by Googling my username. I'd be happy to help you with any questions you have about Wikipedia, but please don't feel that you need to hold off contributing because you haven't digested any of these things — your work so far looks excellent, and we're very grateful to have expert contributors. Yours, Choess 00:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Captain Richard Bickerton

Is he Sir Richard Bickerton, 1st Baronet or Richard Hussey Bickerton or neither? Might be good to get a link in if we can. Benea 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC). My, that was fast!! The Marlborough's first commander was Captain Richard Bickerton from 1771 to 1773 (he wasn't knighted until June 1773, and became a Baronet in May 1778, but yes, it was the later 1st Baronet). His son, Richard Hussey Bickerton, wasn't commissioned as a Lieutenant until December 1777, and made post in February 1781; he inherited the title to become the 2nd Baronet upon his father's death on 25 February 1792. Please do put in a link. Rif Winfield 18:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Have done with all due speediness. Kind regards, Benea 18:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You will note that I have considerably expanded the biography of the 1st Baronet, so you may wish to add further links. There are errors in the link page for [Richard Bickerton], which implies that the 1st Baronet ended as Vice-Admiral and the 2nd Baronet ended at Rear-Admiral. In fact the first Richard Bickerton only reached the rank of Rear-Admiral, while his son ended his career as a full Admiral (of the Red). Can you correct this on the [Richard Bickerton] joint page, and alter the links acordingly? Incidentally, whoever wrote the original entry should note the difference between a barony and a baronetcy (I have corrected the error). Should you have any queries, you would be most welcome to email me direct on sailing.navy@btinternet.com. Rif Winfield 21:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected the disambiguation page for the names, and have added links where appropriate for the first baronet. You're right, he should. I still remember my table of ranks, knowing how high a duke was above a marquess and so on! Any more suggestions, always happy to help. Kind regards, Benea 22:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! Rif Winfield 23:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC).

Magnanime Class 64s

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)

Hi Rif, yep I've taken a look and had some discussions with User:TomTheHand and User:Martocticvs, the original author. Subsequently I've fixed the links, changed Magnanime class ship of the line to a redirect for the Intrepid class ship of the line and nominated the category for deletion. I've made a post on WP:Ships about that, so if you want to go along, you can support or oppose that (though I'm guessing support!). Otherwise I think we've cleared that matter up. Can you provide any references for this though? It might be helpful since the Intrepid class page now contradicts the original reference (Lavery) somewhat. Kind regards, Benea 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC).

As mentioned, I discussed this with Brian Lavery a few years ago, and he cannot now identify any reason to show a separate Magnanime class, so I guess that takes care of the "original reference". I've put in a reference to David Lyon's Sailing Navy List as a source which quotes the 15-member class as built to one design (I haven't put in a reference to my own books, for fear of being accused on breaking WP rules, but if you DO happen to take a look at my books, you'll see that it confirms the same material, taken of course from official Navy Board docs in NMM and Kew records). It does of course demonstrate the problem of relying on secondary sources - however well-written (we can all make a few errors in reference tables of this complexity) - and ignoring research based directly on official documents! Thanks for the work. Rif Winfield 20:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Spot on! My own background is in history, so I know the value of Primary over Secondary. Still it's often going to be the way. Whilst using Colledge a while back I came across a ship from the 1730s or so, listed until the 1950s! I assumed he meant the 1750s and altered the WP entry accordingly, but still, howlers can be made! Not a problem, again happy to help with anything else you come across. Benea 00:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, my thanks. Incidentally, I'm just re-ordered the list of V-class submarines into chronological (i.e. programme) order, and indicated which of them were never completed. Rif Winfield 15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've taken out the links to an 'Inconstant class' category, and I think that clears up any suggestion of a seperate class, unless you can see something I've missed? Kind regards, Benea 17:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And again, thanks! I think we're making progress. Rif Winfield 22:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, slowly but steadily! Incidentally, I've posted something I had a few questions on the WP:Ships talkpage. Perhaps you'd like to give your opinion on it? It's to do with the terms line-of-battle ship and ship-of-the-line. Kind regards, Benea 22:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I've just e-mailed "toddy" (off-WP) about this particular point as follows: "Maralia should remember that we are dealing with an era of transition, and that transition affected the terminology as much as the design and construction itself. I think it is a mistake to try and use the term 'battleship' for any of the wooden-hulled warships; the term was simply not used officially (yes, there are references to the term in some contemporary literature, but these were essentially shorthand ways of writing "line-of-battle ship" and had no official status). Just to add confusion, remember that the official classification of the 'Warrior' and her immediate descendents was "frigate", and this remained the case for a number of years after 1860; in fact, the screw-driven line-of-battle ship (or ship-of-the-line, which I think should remain the term for the wooden-hulled two-deckers and three-deckers) did not evolve into the iron or steel battleship; the battleship evolved instead out of the frigate, because it carried its main battery on one deck." I'll add this into the discussion on the WP:Ships talkpage. Rif Winfield 23:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rif, good work on the list of battleships. I've thought for a while that those sections needed a little explanation so it's good to see that coming together. Just a quick question, would you mind copying over this from the talkpage

Note that the term line-of-battle ship never had any formal significance. This is why it is correct to refer to all capital ships as ship-of-the-line up until the end of the wooden-hulled battle fleet in about 1860 (including the brief period of steam-assisted ships-of-the-line!). It is also misleading to refer - as is done at the start of the article - to the modern battleship as being derived from the ship-of-the-line.

to the ongoing debate over ships of the line and line of battle ships? It might help to encourage some consensus on that. Up to you of course. Kind regards, Benea 16:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Curiously enough, I was just about to do so. Please see the list of battleships page. Rif Winfield 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

List of early warships of the English Navy

Hi Rif, it's been a while in coming, but we've finally hived off some of the earlier sections to List of early warships of the English Navy. Want to give it a look and see what you think? Benea 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben, it's an excellent start. My only suggestion would be to delete references that cast doubt on the existence of most of the smaller vessels, as these certainly existed, albeit that they were not mentioned in works which concentrated on the larger warships; if provenance in published works in required, pending my next book, I suggest you could cite Michael Oppenheim's 1896 classic "History of the Administration of the Royal Navy ..." (the full title actually continues "... and of Merchant Shipping in Relation to the Navy from 1509 to 1660 with an introduction treating of the Preceding Period", but that's a bit long to put into Sources lists; it was republished in 1988 by Temple Smith, ISBN 0 566 05572 4). At the moment I'm writing the next volume to be published in my series on British sailing warships; this volume will range from 1603 to 1714, so when issued at the end of 2009 should provide considerable extra source material for this article. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah thank you for this. I think the original editors had a copy of Lavery to one side, and looked a bit askance at the ships they couldn't find listed there. I've added the Oppenheim reference, as well as Colledge, so I'd agree the article is certainly well sourced enough to remove the 'provenance uncertain' caveat. I look forward to the new book, it will be a great addition to bolster this rather sketchy outline of the early navy. Kind regards, Benea (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ben, Many thanks. Incidentally I've just completed the lists of Cruizer and Cherokee brig-sloops; if you'd like to add links at some stage to pages for the individual vessels, I'm quite happy to expand the individual articles as and when time allows. I'll put launch dates into the Cherokee list in due course, or do you think this list should be tabulated first, in which case shoulkd there be any additional column(s) added (e.g. for builder, fate, etc)? Rif Winfield (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Gunboats and gunvessels of the Victorian Navy

Hi Rif, sounds like a good idea, it'd be good to work in an article/list somewhere as that's been an area largely overlooked in the past, the smaller naval vessels. As to the order, it'd probably be a good idea to do it the other way around, to set up a list and fix the links and then work up the articles from there. Since I don't have handy access to this sort of information, would you be happy to email me the list and I'll work up a wikipedia list/article from that? Something similar to List of cruiser classes of the Royal Navy, where with the red links in place it's easy to catagorise the vessels and then go through writing articles. Let me know what you think, kind regards, Benea 20:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, happy to email you data for this purpose. Please supply an email address. Rif Winfield 06:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Dates in V and W destroyers

Just a friendly note on formatting. There is no need to reverse the day and month when they are already wikilinked, user preferences (see "my preferences") take care of the display of these dates. Conversely single months and single years or month year combinations should not be wikilinked. Hope this saves you some extra typing. GraemeLeggett 09:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Graeme. I have not been wikilinking single months or month-year combinations, but I have been linking single years and day-month combinations as this linking now appears to be common practice in Wiki. The format for any dates for British (or other non-American) vessels should always by the British / European format of day-month-year, as I agree that when American readers want dates displayed in the strange (and illogical) non-standard format of month-day-year they can alter their user preference accordingly.

Can I make an extra point as regards the format of ship names? The standard way of titling articles on individual RN warships is [HMS name (date)], where the date is the year of launch (or the year of that vessel's acquisition if the vessel was not built for the RN but acquired later). This enables us to separate out the many cases where the same name can over the centuries by used a dozen times or more. A few articles on individual ships have inserted the pendant number into the title instead of the date. Since the pendant numbers are subject to change, and are allocated in a non-sequential way (unlike the USN hull numbers, for example), and particularly since their use in the article title prevents dating the vessel in the article on that particular vessel, please discourage contributors from using the pendant numbers within the title of an article (clearly, if wanted, it can be included in the text of that article). Rif Winfield 06:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rif, hope you are well? As to the use of pennant numbers, the reason they tend to be used is because they are part of our manual of style for naming ships, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). The specific bit is Use ships' hull numbers (hull classification symbols) for the United States Navy. For the modern Royal Navy and many European and Commonwealth navies use pennant numbers if available, sufficiently unique, and well known. To be honest, I agree with you that it's quite useful with US ships which use pennant numbers sequentially, but it can be a headache when different ones are used. And also what really counts as 'well known'? I certainly never knew HMS Belfast's pennant number was C35. For example, I'm working through WWII British cruisers at the moment, most of them didn't use flag superiors (i.e. the 'C' in 'C35'), but we have redirects sometimes from the year, from the name with flag superior, sometimes the name without. It can be quite confusing. For all this, it's a established convention and would need consensus from the general population to change it. You could raise it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships and see what people thought. As I recall a debate has been going on both there and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force, so you might want to see what people think and add your tuppenny bit (that's usually my tactic!). Kind regards, Benea 14:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ordnance in infoboxes

Rif, yes you are quite right that the articles should cover their entire histories. It wasn't me that originally quoted those figures though, I just updated the infoboxes and corrected an earlier mistake over the number of guns the ships mounted after their refits. As to how to cover this in the infoboxes, that often comes down to a matter of personal preference on the part of the original editor. The most complete solution is to list them all, with original configuration, then after refit, then after second refit, etc. For example - HMS Argonaut (61). If you want to expand those infoboxes to cover them in that detail, then by all means feel free to do so. I suspect that the original editor used the World War Two configurations as that was when the ships of the Carlisle class were engaging in their most notable actions. Kind regards, Benea 12:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Adoption of Wikipedia style

I hope you have noticed this edit and this one. They are very basic, simple matters of Wikipedia style which you should be doing yourself almost automatically. -- RHaworth (Talk contribs) 03:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As you say, a matter of style. I have accepted your amendments, but have since made some further additions to these articles. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That was a bit short tempered of him, but keep up the good work anyway! Benea (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks! I shall do so (note improvements to 20th century RN warship lists, as well as sailing ones). Meantime, Ben, have a Happy Christmas and Prosperous New Year. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
And the same to you and yours! Benea (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Paddle Sloops

I see that you have listed screw-sloops in List of corvette and sloop classes of the Royal Navy. Are paddle-sloops listed anywhere on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddy1 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Toddy. My intention (when I have time) is to insert the paddle-sloops into List of corvette and sloop classes of the Royal Navy, probably between the last sailing sloops and the early screw sloops. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[[

Cruizer class brig-sloop

Thanks Rif for completing the list of Cruizer class brig-sloops. Much appreciated having people round that really know this stuff. Do you have a reference that can be cited (and that I can refer to) for the section you added on Design? --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Geronimo, while I appreciate that it is not strictly appropriate for me to list my own published works among the Sources myself, I can advise you that in the paragraph I inserted on design I was quoting my own words from p.282 of "British Warships in the Age of Sail, 1793-1817" (2nd edition 2008, Seaforth Publishing, ISBN 978-1-84415-717-4). Should you wish to cite this reference, then I should be happy for you to do so. If you need any help or advice off-Wiki, then feel free to email me on sailing.navy@btinternet.com. Incidentally, I have also completed (albeit without launch dates) the list of Cherokee class brig-sloops. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work indeed Rif. I've popped a couple of generic categories on them. As time goes on they'll probably end up with their own specific ship categories where all the ships that made up that class can appear together. I've also tagged them for the project. It was only this morning that HMS Oberon appeared by the way, which I thought was quite a coincidence. Benea (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well caught Rif, I've tweaked the formatting and it should display correctly now. Any other problems, give me a bell. pip pip. Benea (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

HMS Prince George

Hi Rif, hope all is well with you and yours? I wonder if you can help me with a little discrepancy I've noticed. Lavery lists HMS Duke as being accidentally burnt at sea in 1768 under the name HMS Prince George. Colledge describes a similar series of events, but has her date of loss as 13 April 1758. Obviously a sub-editor on one of the two has slipped, but which one? Can your sources throw any light on the matter? Kind regards, Benea (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Colledge has the date correct (Brian's book has mis-printed 1768 instead of 1758). The vessel launched in 1682 as the Duke was indeed renamed Prince George in 1701, shortly after being rebuilt at Chatham. This vessel was again rebuilt at Deptford between 1719 and 1723, and was accidentally burnt at sea on 13 April 1758 (about 485 men drowned in the Bay of Biscay). The Ship of the Line is a superb summary of the development of the capital ship, but inevitably there are a few factual inaccuracies in the Ship List at the back (for example, on page 177 he omits entirely the 74-gun Marlborough of 1767, and unfortunately ascribes her details to the similar Magnificent). Remember this book is now 25 years old, and has not been re-edited for later reprintings, while there has been later reseach as well as a few printing errors spotted. I shall email you later today a copy of the text (without the illustrations and their captions) of Chapter 2 of my 1714-1792 volume, which covers all the Second Rates of that period, including survivors from earlier years. I hope you will find this helpful, and that it will explain several issues which otherwise might be unclear. Regards Rif Winfield (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dolphin & Mariner-class sloops

Rif
I wonder if you could help; I'm currently working on class pages for 19th century sloops (Nymphe class sloop, Beagle class sloop , etc), and I've come across this:[1]. I can't find the Dolphin Class and Mariner Class in the List of corvette and sloop classes of the Royal Navy, although some of them (eg HMS Acorn) have index pages showing them as sloops. Should they be listed under sloops, in your learned opinion?
Thanks
Shem (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Shem, all the Dolphin Class and Mariner Class vessels were actually built as composite gunvessels. The two Dolphin Class vessels were reclassified as sloops while building, and the six Mariner class vessels were reclassified as sloops on 26 November 1884. The normal practice is to list them under the type of vessels they were originally, so I suggest that you include both classes with the List of gunboat and gunvessel classes of the Royal Navy. I also suggest that the articles on the eight individual vessels (some of these may not yet have been written!) should be amended accordingly. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It occurs to me that we do not yet have a section for List of gunboat and gunvessel classes of the Royal Navy. This is an obvious oversight, and it would be very useful if you could start it (and index it into the list of ship types of the Royal Navy). It you would do that, I could start to list the numerous vessels involved. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Rif
I understand now - and what you're suggesting makes perfect sense. It's a fair sized project, and one that I will progress in slow time, keeping you informed. I would, however, suggest that we use List of gunboats of the Royal Navy, as this is already red wikilinked from List of ship names of the Royal Navy (and therefore possibly elsewhere). Until later, Shem (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
PS. Reading up your talk page, I see that you've offered to e-mail details to Benea in the past. Is it possible for you to send me an appropriate list of Gunboats? It will make a daunting project a whole lot easier to start!Shem (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Shem, Yes, I am happy to email you a list, if you give me an email address to send it to (mine is sailing.navy@btinternet.com). What I can email you is the appropriate sections of the text from "The Sail and Steam Navy List" (by David Lyon and Rif Winfield, 2004, Chatham Publishing. ISBN 1-186176-032-9), and I should be obliged if you can acknowledge the book in the referenced material in the Wiki-pages.

I also agree it's sensible to use the existing reference to List of gunboats of the Royal Navy, although I think it would be sensible to amend this list title to include "and gunvessels", and change the link within List of ship names of the Royal Navy to reflect the expanded title. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Rif,
Very happy - I'll amend the link, and use a redirect to make sure we wrap up any other wikilinks. No snags there. I'll e-mail my address to you so that you can send on the list - for which I am very grateful. Shem (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK - thanks. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Rif
I imagine my Hotmail address has gone straight in your Junk Mail, but I'll e-mail again (doing it now), yours Shem (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Rif
All received and understood. I've made some changes to Alert class sloop as an experiment based on your data - could you have a look at the page and confirm that the attribution suits? I'll then use the "cite book" as a template for other pages. Thanks for all your help - I'm sure I'll be asking for more as the project progresses, but until then, best wishes. Yours Shem (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Shem, it looks OK to me, so please proceed. I'm happy to deal with any queries (but suggest you ask me by email, rather than through user-page). Rif Winfield (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

re: HMS Lively (1756)

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)

Dealt with that one as well - there was a }} missing from one part of the infobox template which left it hanging. I've added in citations and done a quick wikify in places. Martocticvs (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! Rif Winfield (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

re: George Churchill

No, nothing to do with me, that one. Don't think I've even edited it actually. (Incidentally, you can see who has edited/created an article by clicking on the history link at the top of each page). Martocticvs (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The reason I thought it might be you is that I accessed it via the 1706 Establishment page, which I gather you did write/contribute to. I note with thanks your tip about clicking on the history link - I was unaware of this.

I've made some changes to the 1706 Establishment and the 1745 Establishment pages - putting in references to the Establishment details for 40-gun and (1745) 24-gun ships. I've had to put in references to one of my own published volume as the appropriate source. The actual references need to be corrected to operate properly (can you ensure these are linked properly for me, please?), but you'll notice the details including page number sources. I shall at some time similarly expand the 1719 Establishment page. You might make clear that the 1706 Establishment was only partial in that it included only details of the principal dimensions (length, breadth and depth), unlike the later ones which included much more detailed specifications for the scantlings.

In spite of the Admiralty request in 1706, the Navy Board did not come up with dimensions for 30-gun ships in the 1706 Establishment; like the First and Sixth Rates, these were not covered until 1719 (and no further 30/32/36-gun ships were built until the 1750s, anyway). I've put in a sentence to the 1706 Establishment page to make clear that the smaller Fifth rates were not covered. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

List of gunboat and gunvessel classes of the Royal Navy

Dear Rif
Please take a look at List of gunboat and gunvessel classes of the Royal Navy when you get a chance. No need to do any serious error checking just yet! Is this what you had in mind (bearing in mind I've barely started, or so it feels)? Should I be putting in all the Indian Navy and Steam Packets here? Grateful for any feedback, slowtime. Yours, Shem (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Shem, I think this is a good start, although I have a couple of suggestions to make.

(1) At some date this table will need to be expanded to include the purely sailing gunboats - I would suggest that you will need to look at the RN's gunbrigs and gunboats of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars - 150 of the former were designed and built for the RN, to a half-dozen distinct classes, apart from vessels added by purchase or capture. You may not wish to add all these in yourself - I just suggest that you should allow for these to be inserted into the list at some stage, to appear before the steam-powered vessels.

(2) Looking at the way in which other RN vessels have been entered in List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy and List of corvette and sloop classes of the Royal Navy, it seems preferable to me that your new article should follow the same or a similar layout, i.e. listing under each class name the total number of vessels built to that design, and then giving for each vessel simply basic details of name, launch date, and final disposal. You can then quote other (fuller) details of each vessel's builder, full construction dates, etc, in one specific article for each class. This is the way if has been done for the other types of RN warships, and I suggest it would be sensible to follow that precedent. Otherwise you will be repeating information which it seems to me should be better placed into the articles on individual classes.

These are just suggestions, and I look forward to hearing your views of them. Best wishes. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rif

Thanks for the comments; I had already anticipated the need for pre-Nineteenth century gunboats (and, as you say, gunbrigs), and I know how I'll get them in there very easily. Can you send me the details in the same way? I'll take a couple of weeks at least to run through the current gunboats/gunvessels page, ensuring that the details are error-free (which I doubt, given my errors of transcription that I've already uncovered). It also occurs to me that torpedo-boats are not listed anywhere - I imagine another (but much shorter list) is called for. As for the format, it has the very strong advantage of making the class pages simple to write - as I'm doing with Mariner class gunvessels. What I could do is simply delete the lists as the class pages get filled in. One question I do have for you is: have I missed any entire classes out, and do all the vessel listed count as Royal Navy vessels? I'm thinking particularly of Magnet, Canada and the like. I've left out all the colonial service vessels (but not HMS Diana (1823)) for that very reason.

Thanks for all your help - without it, I wouldn't so much have started.

Yours, Shem (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


Shem, I have just emailed you the complete chapter on gunboats and gunbrigs of the Napoleonic Wars. I would add a further comment on the 1846 gunvessels. While the format of my book meant that I had to separate iron-hulled and wooden hulled vessels, I suggest that it would be more useful NOT to do so in respect of the Sharpshooter, Rifleman, Minx and Teazer. Their design features relate to each other, and it would be clearer to list and then discuss them them in one wikipage, as a Group rather than as a Class, instead of separating them out because iron-hulled and wooden-hulled variants of these designs were built for comparative evaluation. I will send you later details of the torpedo boats and other torpedo craft of the pre-1905 Navy should you wish (although the TBDs are of course already listed in Wiki articles). I'll answer your other question when I've had a chance to check through the new article. Regards. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have looked through it, and no entire class seems to have been left out. I agree that the class tables in the main article can be reduced as articles on the individual classes are completed; this is the sensible way to show them. I have acted over the Sharpshooter, Rifleman, Minx and Teazer as suggested above, and I have also separated out the composite gunboats from the purely wooden screw gunboats by inserting the appropriate heading. As regards colonial vessels, I leave at present to you to decide - but my feeling that they are technically needed to be included while the 'colonial' status of the various dependencies lasted. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rif

Thank you for all the assistance; your expert eye is invaluable, and much, much appreciated. I think your advice to list Sharpshooter, Rifleman, etc as a group is an excellent idea, and one I shall pursue. I um'd and ah'd over their place in the list for quite a while, wanting to place them together, but trying to keep the article coherent at the same time. As for the class tables, one of my constraints is that the page List of gunboats and gunvessels of the Royal Navy redirects to List of gunboat and gunvessel classes of the Royal Navy; anyone clicking the link might reasonably expect to find the name of every vessel in the article - but the details of launch, builder and fate can certainly be deleted as the class pages get written.

As for torpedo boats, I'm rather at a loss. I can't find anything about torpedo boats apart from HMS Antelope (1892), HMS Defender (1883) & HMS Lightning (1877), and a couple of other, very short articles. The "Ships of the Royal Navy" template seen at the right hand side of the list of classes doesn't have any link for torpedo gunboat - "destroyer" only covers the TBDs, starting with A class destroyer (1913). There are a couple of torpedo gunboats listed under the category "Royal Navy gunboats", and yet others under "Royal Navy torpedo boats". What I'm trying to say is there is no list, that I can find, no route to get to the list from the other lists, and no sensible category. These I can all sort out, fairly easily, but I will need the details from you, and perhaps a bit of guidance. However, all in good time - sailing gunvessels and gunbrigs first!

Yours, Shem (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Shem, I think the re will be a need for a separate category on 'torpedo boats', and the torpedo gunboats can be included in these as well as all the steam-driven torpedo boats. Whether or not the later motor craft should be in the same article in another matter. I am happy to email you that appropriate Chapter as promised (Chapter 10) but if you are obtaining a copy of the book, if would be easier if you had this first to give yourself an overview of the data. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I imagine a List of torpedo gunboats and torpedo boats of the Royal Navy, or something like it, will be in order. A link from the template will then be easy to do. This would include the steam-driven boats; the MGBs and MTBs really need their own section. This is becoming a lifetime's work! Yours, Shem (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it becomes a mammoth task. Take your time. There's no rush. I also have many non-naval commitments (besides the naval writing for my publisher - I aim on a book every two years) so can only fit in the occasional burst of activity. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Smaller Royal Navy Warships from 1660

Dear Rif

You are addressing a systematic issue that has bothered me for a while. Firstly, I think there needs to be a List of unrated vessels of the Royal Navy, which would include all those vessels like HMS Black Joke (1827), which are currently unlisted. As for Early English ships of all types, they should be filed under List of early warships of the English Navy. As you quite rightly point out, that leaves a gap between 1660 and 1748 for the Fifth and Sixth Rates. I wonder whether something akin to List of Fifth- and Sixth-Rate vessels of the early Royal Navy might not do the trick, but I can recommend asking User:Benea, since he has far more Wikipedia experience than I do; his opinions are well worth listening to. Linking the articles together will be fairly simple to do, both by adjusting the templates or by adding appropriate links, but it is important to get the basic structure right. Sorry I'm not much help at the moment - Real Life is very much to the fore at the moment, although I should get back to the grindstone in a month or so!

Yours, Shem (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you have already asked Benea! I'm sure some good advice will be forthcoming. Yours, Shem (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Shem; I will await his reply: but will do so from home as I am today using a strange keyboard (currently in Istanbul!) with untraceable punctuation and certain;y cannot find any commas. At the moment I can only say that I totally agree with you for pre 1660 ships and will proceed with putting everything into that article. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

HMS Pictou

Dear Sir!

I really appreciate your changes! You are truly a specialist in this area and I'd like to ask you an other question. Do you know where I could find Syrens blueprints? If there is anything else you find out about this ship please feel free to enhance the article!

All the best from Vienna/Austria! APhilipp29 (talk), 10:55, Nov. 7th 2008 (CET) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

Regretfully there does not appear to be any draughts/plans of the Pictou (ex Syren) in Admiralty records; only a proportion of draughts were taken off from captured vessels, and certainly not many of the small captured vessels like brigs or schooners, unless the Admiralty or the Navy Board decided that it had special qualities which might be worth copying in new vessels to be built in Britain. Plans of the Syren may exist from when she was built in America, but there is no knowledge of them in British records. Like many captured vessels which were taken and served in the British Navy for a short while, little details are recorded at all.

One potential confusion you should avoid is that there was also a US naval brig of 16 guns called the Syren, built in 1803 and captured off the coast of Africa in 1814 by HMS Medway. Plans of this brig (which was built by Benjamin Hutton of Philadelphia) certainly exist, but you should note that this was definitely not the privateer which became your Pictou. Rif Winfield (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ensigns for ship articles pre-1620

Dear Rif
I'm slightly confused about the use in articles about early English ships of the red ensign () that was only introduced in 1620 - for example HMS Dreadnought (1573). I would have thought that the appropriate national flag () might be better, although I understand that the flag flown by a sixteenth-century ship would be very much up to the commander. Interested in your thoughts. Yours, Shem (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't want to but in as this isn't my talk page after all, but I just thought I'd point out that the WP:SHIPS policy on ensigns is to use the ensign the ship would have worn at the end of her career, so for the example you give the red ensign is fine. Martocticvs (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the policy (which says "Choose a flag accurate for the period the ship served in, or for their final period of active service, if they served in many eras"), and I'm grateful for the pointer. Perhaps my choice of example was wrong in that case. What about Mary Rose, Henri Grâce à Dieu (when they finally get infoboxes), or better still, HMS Triumph (1562), which was lost in 1618? What I'm asking is, would it be wrong to use , as I did at HMS Revenge (1577) without thinking? In the past I've used several ensigns (see HMS Amelia) which I think is more comprehensive. Interested to hear your thoughts! Rif, if you'd rather we took this somewhere else, please say, yours Shem (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to use the talk page, but I shall not intervene in this one except to say that it was laid down in 1530 that the Lord Admiral (as the King's commander at sea) should fly the Standard at the (top of the) main and the flag of St George at the fore, and that all his squadron should wear the flag of St George at the main; the Admiral of the van squadron (i.e. Vice-Admiral) should fly a flag of St eorge at the main 'and at the fore, and all his squadron should wear similar flags at the fore; the Admiral of the rear squadron (i.e. Rear-Admiral) should fly a flag of St George at his main and mizen (and also the bonaventure-mizen if a four-masted ship); his squadron should wear the flag of St George at their mizens and bonaventure-mizens. For reference, you can quote Ted Archibald's book The Fighting Ship of the Royal Navy (Appendix 7). Rif Winfield (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Rif, I understand it then, that if any flag were suitable for a ship prior to 1620, the the Flag of St George would be a good candidate. I'll bring the subject up with WP:Ships in due course. Thank you for your help in this matter - and thank you for sharing your expertise with us. Yours, Shem (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

HMS Discovery (1874)

Dear Rif, Having asked Benea, he reminded me that you're an authority on fairly obscure ships - can you help with this one? I'm working on Discovery (at one of my workboxes), but having tried all my usual suspects (paper and web) I cannot find anything at all about what she did between 1876 and 1902! Any ideas where else I should be looking? Yours, Shem (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I thought I'd answered this one earlier, but my response seems to have been deleted. Anyway, I have put a note inside your workbox6. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Rif, I found your answer (which was in the talk page of the workbox, as opposed to my user talk), as well as the addition to the workbox, for which I'm very grateful. It explains why I can't find anything about her service for 25 years. It also explains why she's listed as a storeship at the Naval Database website, which I think I can use as a reference. Yours, with many thanks, Shem (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions & Battle Honours

Rif
I'm grateful for your additons to my Diamond workbox. If truth be told, I haven't done anything to it for ages, concentrating my limited time on the 19th century vessels and Acheron-class destroyers instead. As for naming, I agree that it should be "HMS Diamond (1932)" by year of launch (rather than 1931), and in fact this article already exists as a redirect to HMS Diamond (H22). If and when I finish the article (and your input may be the prod I need!), I'll change round the redirects properly. On the subject of Battle Honours, I'm not sure how the extract (gratefully received) helps - as I understand it, Battle Honours are issued to a ship (and are inherited by later ships of the same name) rather than being a list of battles in which she has taken part. What we really need is a list of Diamond's Battle Honours (like [2]), or to remove the list completely. It's not common to see a list of Battle Honours in WP, so I may just do the latter. Health, happiness and prosperity to you! Yours, Shem (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you to use the information as you see fit. It would probably be more helpful to omit the battle honours from the article on the 1932 vessel and just ensure they were included in the history of the Diamond which actually won them, as you suggest. After all, it would be equally legitimate to list all the battle honours in the article for the 1950 Diamond, or indeed even that for the new one launched in 2007 and currently completing. Incidentally, the articles for both the latter ships need re-titling to quote the launch years rather than the pennant numbers in the headings.Rif Winfield (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the bit about battle honours, but as for the naming of ship articles, I don't believe the latest consensus on ship article names was to change the Pennant Number for RN ships after 1948 to dates. I don't agree with it, for what you and I both see as obvious reasons, I imagine, but I'm not about to die in a ditch about it. If you're more up-to-date than me, please let me know! Yours, Shem (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I accept the point. As you say, the illogical concensus (based upon our American colleagues' inability to distinguish between their own fixed hull serial number and the rest of the world's alterable system of pennant numbers) is wrong, and the article names for US ships could be and should be headed in the way their proponants wish, leaving us to head articles on British and other European ships in the morer appropriate way. However, as you imply, it's not worth starting an editing war over this at present. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Emmeline Pankhurst

Thanks for your recent edit to the article on Mrs. Pankhurst. I don't remember seeing anything in the books about her being refused membership into the ILP, but I can't remember distinctly seeing the words "she joined" verbatim. Do you have a source about her being refused? If so, please add a citation. Thanks. Scartol • Tok 19:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The quote is from "Pankhurst" by Jad Adams, in which it is stated that she "was incensed by the refusal of the Independent Labour Party to admit women and, in reaction, founded the all-female Women's Social and Political Union". As I gather she did join the ILP later on, I have added the word "initially" to my edit. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have contacted tha author (and Pankhurst biographer) to check on the exact situation. He clarified that it was the local branch of the ILP which refused Emmeline membership, and she did join the ILP eventually. I have re-amended the article to put the situation clearly. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Cheers for that! Scartol • Tok 14:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Dilemma: USS Constitution attacking Cyane and Levant

Dear Sir! We are having a discussion in the german-speaking wiki about USS Constituions last battle against HMS Cyane and HMS Levant. According to the American frigates log, Captain Charles Stewart learned about the Treaty of Ghent before the attack. But he didn’t achieve official information. What’s your opinion in this matter? Was Stewart acting correctly? APhilipp29 (talk), 12h32, 11. Dec. 2008 (CET)

Given that the Treaty of Ghent had been concluded on Christmas Eve 1814, some eight weeks before the action, and that Stewart's log clearly showed that he was aware of this, he must have known that he was attacking the two smaller ships during peacetime. Whether or not he had received official advice from the US Navy Office does not affect this, so it is not a valid excuse and Stewart was thus not "acting correcting" (as you put it) by carrying out an attack in peacetime. This was particularly reprehensible in that the two RN vessels were only armed with carronades, so that the Constitution was able to stand off outside the effective range of his opponents' guns (so that in any practical sense they were virtually defenceless) and batter them into surrender with his long-ranging guns. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir!

I understand your point. But from my time in the military, I know that news from civil persons or newspapers are irrelevant for a soldier during wartimes. APhilipp29 (talk) 09:15, 5. Feb 2009 (CEST)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rif_Winfield/Archive_1&oldid=1144148378"