User talk:Shem1805/Archive 2

File:HMS Torch (1895) as a brigantine.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:HMS Torch (1894) AWM A02550.jpeg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:HMS Torch (1894) AWM A02550.jpeg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

File:HMS Valorous (1851).jpg is now available as Commons:File:HMS Valorous (1851).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

File:HMS Derwent (1903) at torpedo practice.jpg is now available as Commons:File:HMS Derwent (1903) at torpedo practice.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Dawn after a storm.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Dawn after a storm.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

File:William Lionel Wyllie.jpg is now available as Commons:File:William Lionel Wyllie.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

On first impression, I like what you've done with the infobox. It helps to make the service history of this vessel very clear, and the distinctions between its ship names are presented plainly. However, I wonder if the same pattern would appear too busy if applied to RMS Empress of Australia or other Canadian Pacific ships with multiple names? This isn't a rhetorical question. I just don't know? Would someone plausibly complain that the infobox was somehow too "busy"? Have their been discussions somewhere else about what seems to be a useful innovation? --Tenmei (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Having crossed over from the military side, I just used standard naval ship practice for Empress of Canada, but on searching WP:Ships, I find I've made a bit of a faux pas. I've changed the infobox to the correct style; thanks for raising it. Template talk:Infobox Ship Begin/doc makes an interesting read, if you like that sort of thing.

What I think is wrong is the naming convention for liners. The WP:Ships guidelines specifically state that ships should be disambiguated by year of launch - see: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Disambiguating_ships_with_the_same_name. I've also added a redirect for SS Duchess of Richmond (1928), which makes good sense, to avoid all the "previously named" stuff and hiding links.

Yours, Shem (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The disambiguation dates for the Canadian Pacific Steamships fleet were changed from launch dates to the dates of maiden voyages in Spring 2008 after after what seemed at the time to have been an extended discussion period.

Initially, I believed that the launch date was the intuitive choice; but I was persuaded that a consensus favoured a focus on the beginnings of service record. I do appreciate that the taxonomy of warships focuses on the vessel as an physical object which also has a specific use. I inferred from this discussion that the taxonomy of non-warships focused instead on function and the service history of the hull. See Taxonomy and Military taxonomy#Descriptive paradigm. Consensus does change; but having moved moved articles from launch date to another in 2008, I'm understandably reluctant to invest the time involved in restoring launch date disambiguation in 2009. I've contacted Kjet whose lead I followed in 2008. --Tenmei (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I see all that. I had a nasty feeling towards the end of changing all the links for Empress of Canada that I might be somewhat mistaken. I certainly won't be moving any more, and I've no interest in changing the consensus. Sorry to have butted in! As an uninterested observer, I have so say that I find the idea of an in-service date vice a good firm launch date for disambiguation rather odd, but that's consensus for you (I have the same problem with pennant numbers for warships - madness!). Viva Wikipedia! Shem (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, no. You may be right. In my view, launch date has always seemed obvious, better -- but I don't know how to assess the value of the consensus which informed my edits in 2008. It could well be that WP:Naming conventions (ships) represents the considered opinion of a broader array of contributors, and I suspect that this is likely to represent a better way forward. I ask myself, What otherwise is the point of the ship launching ceremonies?

As it happens, I initially concerned myself with the CP fleet because of an interest in RMS Empress of Australia and her captain, Sir Samuel Robinson KBE, whose actions after the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923 earned international acclaim. I developed the articles about the fleet in order to examine the ship and her captain in a non-Japanese context. As a consequence, I am not in a position to appreciate the extent to which this may or may not be an issue with other shipping fleets; but I am prepared to invest the time necessary to conform the CP fleet with the naming convention. We'll see.

What I've learned from working with these Canadian ships will help me make better choices when, in due course, I turn my attention to the pre-war NYK ocean liners. I have a number of other projects in hand now, but the notion has been in the back of my mind since last summer. --Tenmei (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I salute your efforts! The overwhelming reason for using the launch date to disambiguate, as I see it, is that each ship is only launched once (like a birthday). In-service dates could be open to interpretation, or could be delayed for years (in event, for example, of war). The proper place to spark the discussion would be Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships. If you find the energy and would like some reasoned support, please let me know at my talk page. Yours, Shem (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

See explanatory comment at Talk:RMS Empress of Canada (1928) --Tenmei (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC) ‎

Hi Shem, noticed your good work on the Euphrates class. Rif asked me to write the class article a while back, I think he edited subsequently edited it and the ship articles with details that may have contradicted his book somewhat, based on later research he's done, I'm not sure. One thing I meant to ask him, but I don't think I did in the end, was to check the launch date of Malabar. Rif as you know has 8 December 1865, Colledge in fact has 8 December 1866. One must be a typo, and I examined the evidence, and decided that 1866 was probably right, partly based on the launch dates for all the other ships are late 1866/early 1867. It was a while back though, so I'm not sure what else settled me in the decision. Might be an idea to ask Rif directly though and hopefully he can clear up which book has the mistake. Benea (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Benea
It did occur to me as I changed the launch date that there might be another source, and that I might not be the first to spot the difference; then I dismissed any idea of Rif being incorrect as mere folly. Now that you mention it, it is just possible, especially since Davis has 1866 as well. Your assessment of the time to build the other four ships is pretty convincing. As you suggest, I will ask Rif. Thanks for the heads up. Yours, Shem (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I see from your talk page that Rif cleared it up for you at the time; 1866 it is then. I'll make the changes. Shem (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh you're right he did! I had a flick through the page to see if I'd mentioned it and I must have missed where he'd pointed it out. Sorry, must be getting late! Benea (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment above, but I do make errors like anyone else. The 1865 date for the Malabar was not a disputed date, just a simple typo which I overlooked in my book. Sorry! The other error for this class was in my final sentence that the Crocodile escaped re-engining. She didn't, but in fact she was re-engined much later on than her four sisters. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Whoever had uploaded that photo to Wikicommons captioned it 'HMS Daring' despite the filename being 'HMS Dauntless Scotstoun.JPG'. Thanks for fixing this. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It is a better photo, and it suits the article well. Shem (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Err, what's the problem. I didn't say she was in service, I said she was commissioned. See the talk page. John Smith's (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Shem1805, just a note to say that I have given your account WP:AUTOREVIEWER rights on the English Wikipedia as you are a trusted user. Ostensibly it will help lighten the load on new page patrollers when you make all those great ship articles. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask. Regards, Woody (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Woody
Thanks for your vote of confidence! One feature I am interested in is Wikipedia:Rollback feature, since I occasionally find myself sorting out several layers of vandalism. Is there any chance of getting this permission as well? Yours, Shem (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have given you access to the rollback feature; I had a quick look through your contribs and don't think it will be a problem. Remember that it should only be used to revert blatant vandalism, and not for good-faith edits. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Regards, Woody (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Woody. I'm aware of the limitations on it's use; I had thought of asking earlier, and looked into the benefits at the time. I've had another read of the guidance, and I'll be using it wisely and rarely. Yours, Shem (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right of course. KrzysM99 (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. After a while one no longer sees the errors. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Really, there's no problem - I wish I could devote a little more time to filling in the gaps myself. Keep up the good work! Shem (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shem, I have just completed two articles, HMS Camilla (1776) and HMS Cynthia (1796). If you have chance to look at them and do any tidying, that would be great. (I have a request in to Rif Winfield for ship info boxes.) Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - I have just built up HMS Ajax (1798) and that could do with a fresh eye too. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Acad, what source are you using for Cynthia? Phillips states she only ever had one captain, Commander Malbon. He also gives Deptford as the place of build. Yours, Shem (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shem, 2 sources - I have borrowed a copy of Winfield, unfortunately only on short term loan, also, pbenyon :http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/18-1900/C/01247.html He doesn't list commanders though. Winfield has three. When there is a conflict between Nelson and Winfield, I go with Winfield, though I have caught him in mistakes too. If you have Lavery or Colidge, do they provide any light? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I Googled some more, but without any luck on the 1 vs. 3 commanders issue. Thanks for all the clean-up on the two. I apologise for leaving so much for you to do. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would go with Winfield every time, especially since you can check the details with him. User:Benea has a copy of Colledge, and you might find that someone like User:Bellhalla would be good at pointing you in the direction of those who have the right books. If I may suggest a couple of improvements to your articles, I would ask that you look more carefully at the categories, and at the quality of your links - Wikipedia:Linking is a good read. For example, linking dates just doesn't make much sense unless there is something significant about the date in its own right (eg "Yankee Doodle Dandy was born on the Fourth of July") - see WP:Linking of Dates. Finally, in-text referencing makes it much, much easier to check work and is an essential element of Wikipedia. If you're unsure about any of this, please give me a shout here and I'll do my best to explain. If I take a long time to reply, please know that I'm rather busy at the moment, and that my job often takes me well away from the Internet. Yours, Shem (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your kind words! I Have looked at HMS Cynthia (1796) and made some changes; in particular, I have removed the paragraph heading which implied that she served during the American Revolution, which was patently an error! I have made a few small corrections to HMS Ajax (1798), as well. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to advise you that I have now created "Class" articles for the majority of the post ships of 1770-1810, i.e. for Sphinx Class post ship, Porcupine Class post ship, Banterer Class post ship, Laurel Class post ship, Cyrus Class post ship and Conway Class post ship. I have also adjusted the references in individual ship articles for each ship of these classes (where that ship article already exists) so that all links now work. Note that most of these individual ship articles still await writing. I still have to act similarly in respect of the four Hermes Class post ships of 1810, and of the pre-1770 post ships.
It might also be worthwhile mentioning (apologies if you're already aware of this) that when time permits I try to amend the individual ship dimensions to give the actual (as measured upon delivery to the Navy) dimensions and tonnage of every vessel, since most writers tend to quote only the designed dimensions and tonnages. This is perfectly understandable, as (for example) my colleague David Lyon, in his Sailing Navy List, was quoting the details from the class plans. In fact, all wooden ships - unlike metal ones - tended to differ slightly from their designed dimensions. Usually this was only a matter of a few inches or even a fraction of an inch, but it did effect the figures used in the calculation of a ship's tonnage. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Shem. I understand what you say about the coordinates, but Calypso's hull has been mistaken for the fishing trawler awash next to it.[1] (The bow is the smaller boat's, not that of Calypso.) So some higher degree of refinement may be appropriate. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm applying policy in avoiding over precision (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Precision), but you're right, it is important that we point to the right vessel. If you confirm to me which one is actually Calypso, I'll change the co-ords to point to her without over-precision. Shem (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that. Calypso is the northerly of the two. I'm hoping to obtain permission to use this image (Calypso is on the left), but so far have received no response. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an outstanding photo - good luck with getting permission. Having had a good look at the satellite imagery, I'm generally of the opinion that the current low-precision co-ords clearly point to the northerly of the two vessels. In many ways, leaving it as it currently stands has a lot to be said for it. Shem (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I converted the coordinates to decimal.[2] Is that OK? The policy appears to allow precision equal to one-thenth the size of the object, which, if I'm reading the table correctly, we're now within. Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't use decimals for co-ordinates on the grounds that anybody who actually uses them would use minutes (and either decimals of minutes or seconds). The only people who (to my knowledge) use decimals of degrees are computer programmers and Wikipedians! I (and other mariners or aviators) have an instinctive understanding of 12 45N 75 30E, but not 12.75N 75.5E. Maybe that's a bit of a personal view. I grant you that it does at least point directly at the right wreck. I seem to have generated rather a lot of talk for a very small issue - thanks for your patience. Shem (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shem, I see you added the breechloader details to this article.. it states it was armed with a 7-inch breechloader, and was commissioned in 1856.. as far as I know the Armstrong breechloaders were introduced in 1859, and the 7-inch even as late as 1861. ?? Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rod, I know you're very well informed on this stuff, so I suspect something is wrong. I'm going off Winfield (Winfield, R.; Lyon, D. (2004). The Sail and Steam Navy List: All the Ships of the Royal Navy 1815–1889. London: Chatham Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86176-032-6. OCLC 52620555.), which says the class was armed: "As designed 2 x 68pdr(95cwt) Lancaster MLR on pivots, 2 x 12pdr howitzers. As completed 1 x 7in/110pdr BL, 1 x 68 pdr MLR, 2 x 20 pdr BL". What I suggest you do is check with Rif himself at User talk:Rif Winfield. Yours, Shem (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shem, I just added the Wager data to the article.

Thanks for the illustration for HMS Glatton (1795). What did you use for the license? The same Age of Sail webpage has a nice portrait of Trollope that I would like to use for the article. I normally use the line about the painting being in the public domain because of its age, but yours seems a more general license. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My dear Acad, you'll find when you look at the article that I've replaced the whole text with another version; I was editing the article when you made your second set of changes. You might wish to check through to ensure that none of the stuff you put in has been lost. It's usually best to give a chap a day or two to get obvious changes made; it's rather more efficient! As for licenses, if the picture is clearly 18th/early 19th century, nobody will argue against {{PD-art-life-70}}. May I suggest you cut and paste the text from User:Shem1805/Workbox4 to generate an appropriate summary and license (just delete the ones you don't want and insert the links & text as appropriate). For an example, click on this picture   and hit the edit button to see how the summary is used. When I upload a file, I simply cut and paste the text into the box, edit as required and upload - you don't need to select a licence, since it's in the text and will appear when the file has been uploaded. I hope this all makes sense; feel free to ask again if I'm not being clear. Yours, Shem (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shem, You may have noticed that in checking what you had done I did a little style editing further down the page. There was one thing I noticed that raised quizzical eyebrow. You put the cost of the HEIC Wager as the cost the Admiralty paid. I would suggest moving that line from the HEIC part of the ship box to the Royal Navy part. Unfortunately, there is much we don't know about the origins of the HEIC Wager, including the cost. I suspect that if one were to go to the early journals in the UK National Archives one could track down some of the info, but I live in the wrong part of the world for that. Also, with the name, the problem with Wager is that it is ambiguous. A bet is an appropriate name for an Indiaman.

Anyway, thanks for the info re images. I will have to play with that to see if I can get everything to work. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up the wrongly-placed cost; I've corrected the error. Shem (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shem, Thanks for the higher resolution and the info about licenses. I was afraid not to ignore the license drop-down. Henceforth I will. Also, I guess that in the future I will put in circa dates in the hope of eviting removal. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shem, FYI I have written or expanded articles on HMS Brev Drageren (1807), HMS Hindostan (1795), HMS Hindostan (1804), and HMS Mosquidobit (1813). A fresh eye, corrections, and improvements would be welcome. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shem, Thanks for the fixes on Hindostan (1795). I see from your personal page that you are not overly enamored of the EU. I must admit that I go beyond that. I am also a Monarchist, and feel that giving up pounds, shillings and pence was a mistake. It is probably just as well that I am not eligible to vote in the UK. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I struggle to find the time these days, but I'm more than happy to look over stuff if you don't mind waiting! Yours, Shem (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite understand. I also importune Benea and Rif Winfield. As for minding waiting - well, we are all volunteers and cannot demand anything of each other. As it is, I generally work on Wikipedia when I am between major projects, so my involvement can get sporadic too. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for the links. I apologize if I may have upset you because I have no intention to upset anyone. Nonetheless, I believe that people should respect Persian heritage instead of attacking it! Nowadays, many people use different excuses, such as "neutrality", to distort the name Persian Gulf. This cultural assault not only undermines the legality of the name of the waterway (check the United Nations documents which I posted on your talk page) but it also undermines the history behind the name. Truly, I'm sick and tired of having to explain to people over and over again about this issue. As much as I respect geographical names, I want others to respect them as well. I hope you understand that it's more than "just" a name but rather a millennia of history. Good day. --84.23.140.26 (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't upset me, but you did get yourself blocked for a month for "tendentious editing", didn't you? It's no more than just a name. Shem (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shem, Many thanks. I hate doing ship boxes - I much prefer digging up text - and so appreciate those who do the hard work. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks of the tip about citing categories, I saw my entry was messed up and went to fix it, only to find that you had corrected my mistake, thanks for that! Bonewah (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Bettia (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You tagged Ensley Elementary School as {{csd-g1}}, which is only for "patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, vandalism, material not in English, badly translated material, hoaxes, etc. See CSD G1." A better solution would have been to redirect the article to the appropriate school district or to the locality where the school is located, the usual procedure for non-notable elementary schools. Secondary schools, on the other hand, are generally considered to be automatically notable, and should not be tagged for notability. I have redirected the article to Escambia County School District. -- Eastmain (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shem, I noticed your edits to the early English warships. The reason HMS isn't used for these ships is that the abbreviated prefix doesn't appear as a standardised form until the late eighteenth century (HMS Phoenix (1783) is I think the first it is applied to off the top of my head). Commonwealth Navy warships, from 1649-1659 and those of the parliamentary forces during the war didn't use any form of His Majesty's xxx of course, and so the use of HMS would be particularly anachronistic, hence we have English ship Pelican (1650), etc. But the earlier warships, like HMS Aid (1562) don't really have any connection with the commonwealth period, or the restoration of the monarchy, and ships built after 1660 still don't use the prefix of course. Benea (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Benea, if I understand you rightly, you're agreeing that ships built (and indeed, disposed of) before 1660 (at the very earliest) should not be named "HMS" in the text. For that reason I've removed the "HMS" from infoboxes and text. As I understand it, you're saying that many other, later, ships should also be freed from their HMS shackles. I've done all the articles I could find in which the ships were both built and disposed of before 1660, and I'm keen to remain controversy-free, so I was planning on leaving it at that. Question: what (if anything) needs to be done about the article names? Yours, Shem (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The practice has been to backdate the prefixes, so the article names are, at least under our current standards, fine as they are. I don't particularly mind about whether the text refers to the ships as HMS, in my experience most of the in-text references even to modern day ships just use the unprefixed name. The notes you were adding I think are a good idea, to indicate that though we title the articles as HMS xxx, this was not how their contemporaries would have referred to them. But perhaps they should indicate that this is because the prefix had not yet been developed, rather than that they were connected to the commonwealth period, when of course there was no monarchical system for them to belong to between the 1640s-late 1650s. I don't think its necessary to remove the prefix from the text of the all the articles about ships in service before the prefix actually appears, perhaps the thing to do would be to standardise its usage on all ship articles in the introduction, and use that opportunity to introduce the note that this is a backdated prefix used by later scholars, and not used by the men who sailed these ships. Benea (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The wording "prior to the English Restoration of 1660" isn't meant to indicate that the ships lost their HMS under the Commonwealth; rather that they first acquired it in 1660. As you point out above, in fact they didn't acquire the prefix until the middle of the Eighteenth Century. Perhaps a better wording would be "prior to the middle of the Eighteenth Century"? By the way, have you looked at HMS Sword? Shem (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I thought people might get confused, and think that the prefix might have been lost, or otherwise came in with the restoration, whereas the restoration brought back the element of Royal ownership that had been lost during the commonwealth, but had no connection with the specific prefix 'HMS'. Yes I had come across HMS Sword. Nice little article and I'll have to find and read the Verne book. The name Sword was twice assigned to RN ships, the Casa Grande class dock landing ship USS Rushmore (LSD-14) was initially assigned the name, it was changed to Swashway, but the ship ended up being retained by the US. An HMS Celt was planned, later becoming a Weapon class destroyer, and was named HMS Sword, but was cancelled. There have been ships named Swordfish, Sword Dance and Swordsman. Benea (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-wording done; let me know if you can think of any way to improve it further. Shem (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shem (and Benea and Rif), here's another HMS question. What's the correct designation for the Telegraph (1798)? She was a hired brig, lost at sea in 1801. As a hired brig is she entitled to sport the HMS prefix for the period of her naval service? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Acad, I would go with Colledge - if she's listed, then she's HMS, if not, she was just hired. Benea will be able to shed more light, I imagine, but you'll have to address him directly at his talk page; I doubt he watches this discussion. Shem (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shem, Rif lists her as hired and Colledge doesn't have her. I guess my question is, if I am doing an article on her (her crew was awarded a Naval General Service Medal), what title do I give her, HMS or HM Hired Brig, or...? Anyway, I will try Benea too. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would go with "HM Hired Brig ...", but then again I would go with whatever Benea & Rif say! Sorry not to be very much help! Shem (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shem, I never got around to asking Benea, but Rif recommended HM Hired Brig Telegraph (1798) and that's what I went with. It made the most sense. It also establishes a precedent for other such cases. If you get a chance, you might look at the article; not only does it never hurt to have another eye look it over, but I think the story is a classic, low-key example of the sailing RN at work. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked by the Speedy deletion tag placement on Shiron.net article. "It does nothing but promote some entity"?! Come on! It is a well known, important Israeli website and it has an article on Hebrew Wikipedia, that was written almost two years agoEddau (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Shiron.net, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiron.net. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TParis00ap (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)