• /DYK
• /Dano-Norwegian Navy
• /HMS

I appreciate the edits to Hollandsche Bank-Unie Sargdub (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Now a quick coffee. Viking1808 (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Citation Barnstar
	Dear Acad Ronin, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of a well-referenced article about Christopher (1785 ship). Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 02:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		I had meant to give you this prior to you giving me the invisible award. If you don't already have this one it's long overdue! Brad (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Porcher, or Cambridge, cannon.
	Thanks for redirecting Cambridge (Armed Merchant Ship) to Porcher (1799 ship). I wondered about the origins of the ship, and you clarified. Nice catch! SamHolt6 (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6: Thanks. I was working on something else that led me to the Armed Ship article. Cambridge was an odd name for an American vessel, so I looked her up among the EIC ships, and found Porcher, which I had prepared some time ago. The dates matched, so I was unjustifiably pretty sure of the link. And then I found the smoking gun in the book by Fay. It is a testament to how nerdy we WP editors are that took great pleasure in solving that puzzle. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad, just found this and wasn't sure if you were aware of such. Australian Register of Shipping (1876-1877) Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Newm30: Thanks for this. I didn't know about it. It is mostly outside of the period of most of my ships, but every now and then I stray, or the vessel just keeps on sailing. I will add the link to my list of resources. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad Ronin, take it they are articles about ships and they link to this list? This was part of a practical exercise to show new initiates to Wikidata that there are many pages on Wikipedia that have many facts backed up with references but that does not always translate to their Wikidata entry. RMS Titanic by way of example has LOTS of statements about it (vessel class, named after, significant event, height, cost and so on and so on etc.) but the entries on this list all have fewer than 3 statements about them. Many only have one statement (normally instance of a ship). Can be very handy to have this information represented in a structured, machine-readable and linked format. Do you edit Wikidata? If so, very easy to add some statements to existing Wikidata items... and to create a new Wikidata item upon creation of a new Wikipedia page. Trying to get myself more in the habit of doing this when I create a new Wikipedia page myself. Great if you can help improve Wikidata but no worries if not. Cheers, Stinglehammer (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stinglehammer:, thanks for getting back to me. I have created hundreds of ship articles and probably would be delighted to add statements, if I knew how to do it. I had never even heard of the concept until know. Can you point me to the relevant info page? Thanks, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Acad Ronin:, that's great. Each Wikipedia page you have created should have an associated Wikidata item (accessible via a link on the left hand menus... beneath the 'what links here' and 'permanent link' options). Worth having a look at the Wikidata Introduction page in the first instance. We have created a video tutorial to demonstrate how the process of adding a statement to Wikidata works, and backing it up with a reference URL. If no Wikidata item exists yet for a page you have created then you can click on the 'Create new item' option in Wikidata's lefthand menu sidebar. This is also demo-ed in the video tutorial. There is a Wikidata Help section and a Wikidata WikiProject for Ships that may be worth posting messages when getting started as we obviously want the data on ships to be described accurately and consistently so it maybe worth flagging issues on those Talk pages if you come across any issues with how ships are being described on Wikidata. Hope that helps anyway, Stinglehammer (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ps. The Wikidata entry for RMS Titanic is very well described on Wikidata so gives you an idea of which properties could be added to the entries for other ships. And consequently what values for those properties could be added too.Stinglehammer (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viking1808 has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. It is nice to know you are watching these entries!†

All these thanks! Thanks! You may have worked out that I am going through all the entries in the Category:Ships of the Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy checking the Danish Naval Museum and the Skibregister - Sorte Registrant links, plus anything else that comes up as I do it. So far, I have reached the letter L. Interesting that there are models in LEGO of HDMS Lougen! There will be some entries, such as Katten (Danish Ship) that I have nothing to go on. If you have any specific questions for me, I am sure you will ask them. Have fun. Viking1808 (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help? see HDMS Trost which I can separate into two different ships with their Danish Record Cards!! it may be the first HDMS Trost is the one of greater interest. Viking1808 (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad R.
You may be interested in a new page Danish Shipbuilders - same name as the category it fits in. I am sure it can be improved with more eyes on it. A better title?? Three red links for certain shipbuilders will, I hope, soon be turned blue. What do you think? Viking1808 (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article had so many innacuracies it had me totally beat, I do hope my edit summaries are not too rude... I inherited a copy of volume 2 of Jones, A. G. E; Roebuck Society (1986), Ships employed in the South Seas trade 1775-1861 (Parts I and II), and, Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen, Transcripts of registers of shipping 1787-1862 (Part III), Roebuck Book, ISBN 978-0-909434-30-4 just yesterday, and hope that I dont try to confound australian maritime history or shipwreck projects with too many gems from that one - hopefully it will remain on the shelf for a while yet, untouched JarrahTree 12:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: No worries Mate (;-). I envy you the Jones, and I would encourage you to make extensive use of it. I draw on Lloyd's List's SAD data often to try to resolve ambiguities on fill gaps. Unfortunately, the online issues only go to 1826. TROVE can be a big help too. There are so many open questions for the late-18th, early 19th century history that any additional info is welcome. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I closed some brackets here because the footnote was appearing in the article body but I reckon you're wanting a footnote with a reference in it, rather than an addition to the citations.

Am editing via mobile so can't easily play around with the formatting, so just letting you know in case you're passing by the article again. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have happened upon a finely crafted model of an 18-gun British cutter named Earl Howe, dated 1775 to 1800: File:Earl Howe-32.144-IMG 5015.JPG. Would you have anything about this ship? She might have been a naval cutter.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rama: - This is a tough one. There seems to be no record of an HMS Earl Howe, with any dates. There is one mention of an Earl Howe, of 204 tons, in an old American journal. I will have to go to the Library of Congress to see if I can see more than Google's snippet view, but I have little hope of more info.

There is one HMS Lord Howe, a cutter between 1763 and 1771. Also, there were a number of vessels named Lord Howe in the American theater during the Revolutionary War. (see:[1]), but none of the dates match. :All-in-all, I don't hold put much hope. Did the BMA have any more info that might give us a clue?

Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am afraid that the page of the MFAB does not give much more clue [2]. Might be worth a try to write and ask the Museum directly? I already would be curious as to whether their model of Héros displays Suffren's flagship, or if this is some imaginary 74-gun of the same name.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rama: OK. As I read the page, the years are an estimate. I found the following snippet via Google: "It is possible the Earl Howe cutter in the Boston Museum is representative of the Lord Howe cutter of 1763, though the model appears to be much larger than the dimensions for the cutter Lord Howe would indicate." Colledge gives Lord Howe a burthen of 82 tons, and the one reference to Earl Howe gives a burthen of 204 tons, which is consistent with the snippet quote. I suspect that the Boston Museum model was imaginary. As for Heros, the mentions I found are that the model was made of ivory by a French prisoner of war, and was the specific vessel, not a generic one. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, these are splendid news! We hardly have any iconography for Héros, I look forwards very much to giving this article an overhaul. Many thanks! Rama (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will find the refs and pass them on to you later today. These are only Google snippet refs, but still. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rama: The following if from p.35 of the book: Ship Models (1957) by Richard B. K. McLanathan, and published by the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

"HEROS. France, ca. 1781. Stern. 74 gun ship-of-the-line. Model planked in whalebone, black wales of baleen. Carved details are ivory. Model probably by the French ivory workers of Dieppe, who had been impressed into British service..."

I may be able to borrow a copy of the book and copy/scan the relevant time. It will probably take about 10 days if you want me to do this. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your find confirms what the site of the museum provides [3]. I just found a second-hand copy of Ship Models; I would be quite keen and excited to see a photograph of p.35, but I expect to have the whole book handy relatively soon, so please do not inconvenience yourself if this is difficult. Cheers! Rama (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and ask for the book via inter-library loan. even if you don't need it, I want to see what they say about Earl Howe. As for Heros, that is a beautiful model. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I hope we find clues there!

The model of Heros has its proportions slightly off, but the craft is masterpiece. I had to take the photographs hand-held and through a display window, I hope they do the model justice. Here is a preview of the current state of advancement of the detouring -- as you can imagine, the shrouds are going to be meticulous work.

Thank you again and cheers! Rama (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got the book, it does not seem to have more written information than the museum tags have, but the photographs are magnificient, I wish they would let me do the same. Cheers! Rama (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rama: I got the book today too. As you say, no new info,but great close-ups, that would be even better in colour. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what is wrong with using the definite article in front of a ships name? Broichmore (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Broichmore:. There is nothing wrong with using the definite article with ships' names. However, WP at some point decided that it would be house style not to use it. I therefore gave it up so as to avoid people with nothing better to do going through my articles "correcting" them and leaving snarky messages. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but you are changing it yourself as well. I intend taking these people on at some point. There are too many of them trolling the project using thing as a way to vent their petty maliciousness at worst or indulging their OCD proclivities at best. Certain individuals are cynically levering PC editors this way and that. To my mind it's common courtesy if an article started off with the definite article or not then it should continue in that way. I was taught that the article is the standard in the language, and helped to vary the cadence and tone of the prose etc. The language flows better to my eye with it. I just don't agree with the attitude on the wiki, that original research is forbidden on one hand and yet on another you can codify / alter fundamental rules of the English language. Currently we're going through exactly this on titling. Apologies for the rant , but I think you substantially agree with what I'm saying. Regards. Broichmore (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Broichmore: I do substantially agree with you, both on the no original research, strictly defined, which when one is dealing with 18th and 19th century minor ships, is unavoidable, and on trolling. When somebody edits an article I have worked on in the past and am monitoring, I generally open the article, partly to check the changes if I don't know the editor, but mostly to go over the article looking for typos, styles, newer forms of citations, wrong flags (Great Britain vs. United Kingdom), etc. While I am doing that I remove the definite article for the reasons I mentioned earlier. You make a good point, though. I will stop removing the definite article when it is already there. Some 50+/- years ago I read Michel's book in which he introduced his Iron Law of Oligarchy where he showed that no organization, no matter how democratic in its founding and founding ethos, can avoid succumbing to rule by an oligarchy. We are seeing that now with WP where the WP:Policy trolls are becoming ever more active. I think the time has come for more passive-aggressive resistance; I will begin by ignoring the definite article. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have put it better myself, and you've given me some ideas at the same time. Thanks. Broichmore (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the French frigate Maréchal de Belle-Isle (1757) and HMS Belleisle (1761) the same ship?, little bit suspicious here but I don't have the sources to nail it. Can't see what happened to the Marechal, destroyed or taken into the RN. She lost her bow sprit, so must have been badly damaged. Broichmore (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: No connection. I have added to the HMS Belleisle article. Winfield is clear that she was the former French East Indiaman Bertin. Will scout around a little for the Marechal. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Been doing a bit of research as to what flag was used to represent India under the British Raj after the fall of the East India Company. The Daily News of 21 November 1863 indicates that the new flag () was introduced on or about 1 November 1863. Suggest the HEIC flag is appropriate up to then. Mjroots (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

one of my finds in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston was a model of a clipper namer Marie Rose

I was wondering whether she has any notability in your sources? She would have been a 1000-ton clipper bark, around 1870.

Many thanks in any case! Rama (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rama: Sorry, nothing. She appears to be American so I could find nothing in Lloyd's Register, and quick googling didn't throw up anything either. Either, so far she just seems to be a beautiful ship with no story. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Acad,

I am looking for more information on a ship, and so thought I should leave you a note given your interests.

Several months ago I created an article on Bermuda No. 2, The Schooner, a pwork in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The painting depicts Elsa, a Danish-flagged ship that was undergoing repairs in St. George's, Bermuda during the Winter of 1916-1917. She is an interesting footnote in history, as she was depicted in the works of several artists who were wintering in St. George's at the time. If you could find any information about Elsa, I would be grateful. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6: Look at this: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015086589630?urlappend=%3Bseq=1531. Number 180 is a wooden barque built in 1876. She is the only Danish sailing vessel listed in Lloyd's Register. However, as you can see,she is fairly large. Do we have any other info that would help us rule her in or out? Are any of the other pictures a little more conventional? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some searching, but have only turned up one quality source that gives a description of the ship. The source describes Elsa as a large two-masted bark, 190ft long, with two decks. Most interestingly, the author describes the ship as weighing 1236 tons, which corroborates the Lloyd resister and implies this is the same ship. As for visual identification, I have not been able to find any non-cubist works depicting Elsa, but will note that (if this work by Marsden Hartley is anything to go on) her home port was Copenhagen. Thanks for the help. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SamHolt6:, Damn Cubists. They miss the important stuff. :-) Glad to have been of help. Cheers,Acad Ronin (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad Ronin, I think it would be a courtesy to the reader to actually include the name of the country in which Rotherhithe is located. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowdy001: You make an arguable point. First, obvious disambiguation is often not much help. In the case of Rotherhithe, one would have to specify that it was part of London. Rotherhithe England doesn't tell anyone much, and Rotherhithe on the Thames requires further disambiguation as to whether the Thames in question is the one in England or the one in Connecticut, or perhaps even another one. The second counter argument is that Wikipedia is not print. By creating a link anyone curious about the location can click on it, something one cannot do on dead tree media. Furthermore, we may want to encourage the reader to click: doing so may better help set the result in memory, and lead the reader into the garden of many paths. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote about 4 Perseverance ships and 3 HMS Perseverance but none of them are the 99 ton schooner under British flags out of Antwerp in 1877. Jengel199 (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jengel199: No idea. It was a popular name and there are many vessels named Perseverance that I have not written about. I tend to specialize in the 1793–1815 period and favor naval vessels, convict transports, whalers, Indiamen, and slave ships. Your Perserverance sounds like one I would not likely have encountered. Acad Ronin (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m trying to upload a photo of a ships painting by H. Loos in 1877 but I can’t figure out how? Jengel199 (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2019

Henry Loos of Belgium (sometime USA)? What ship? Broichmore (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	100,000th edit award
	Hello AR. Let me be the first to congratulate you on your 100,000th edit! You are now entitled to place the 100,000 Edit Star on your bling page! or you could choose to display the {{User 100,000 edits}} user box. Or both! Thanks for all your work at the 'pedia! Cheers, — MarnetteD|Talk 21:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

An editor with over 100,000 edits should know better than to cut-paste move Nile (1798 ship) to Nile (1799 ship). I've history-merged the article, and moved the talk page to resync it with the article. Next time please take advantage of WP:Requested moves. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I just got a new book, Échec à Nelson - les corsaires boulonnais de la Révolution à l'Empire, with a number of biographies of more or less notable privateers from Boulogne. In some cases, these mention the names of at least some of their prizes, an information that to my chagrin is not present in Demerliac. We might find interesting material there if you remember open cases. Ideally I would created articles for a number of these ships and privateers, but with the Deletionists lurking around that would be a waste of time unless we have at least one or two other sources. Our recent investigations starting from HMS Royalist could be good starting points.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rama: Excellent. We can create some ship articles when we have both Demerliac and the Echec book. If we have the name of the privateer I can always see if she or her captures made it into Lloyd's List too. If we have the name of a Royal Navy ship as captor or prey, we also have the Winfield reference.

We have many open cases, I just don't remember them. Once I post an article I just forget about it. Still, I will start looking. Lastly, remember, the WP:Ships has taken the view that all ships of over 100 tons (whatever that means) are noteable. I have been challenged on that but generally have prevailed. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

being bugged by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albeura and "VESSELS IN PORT". Southern Times. Western Australia. 3 October 1903. p. 3. Retrieved 23 January 2020 – via Trove. - I somehow find it hard to understand the ship could be the same - 40 years + in service? I thought the average lifespans of most timber ships from the 1850s would have not be surviving into the 1900s/? or might it be the same, I know there were at least 3 19th c ships with the same name, but... JarrahTree 14:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JarrahTree: the only vessel in Lloyd's Register that has a name even remotely close is Albuera, of 729 tons (bm; old) or 852 tons (bm; new), launched at Moulmain (Burma) in 1854. Albuera is better Spanish than Albeura. This would be the vessel that brought the convicts. The Albuera of 1903 was an iron, screw steamer of 3,460 GRT, launched in 1902, by which time the first 1854 Albuera was no longer listed. Do you want me to move the first Albeura/Albuera, and add a shipbox and a little detail? By the way, the vessels are named for the Battle of Albuera. Cheers. Acad Ronin (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - it would be very useful to add anything that makes sense ships wise to the convict ship entry; (i see the diff in spellig is fun too) the vessels in port ref from trove above about a fully rigged ship in 1903 leaves me short of anything to compare a record with... at this stage... JarrahTree 15:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JarrahTree: Will do re 1858 Albuera. Hmmmm re 1902/1903 Albuera. That is a little too far out of my lane for me to pursue at this time. Good hunting though. Acad Ronin (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You recently edited the Christopher_Middleton_(navigator) article.

I left a suggestion its citation style be switched to the overwhelmingly most common citation style, on Talk:Christopher_Middleton_(navigator).

I'd welcome your input.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad, I just uploaded a colour picture of the Katherine and Fubbs to HMY Fubbs, do you agree with my identification of the ships L-R? Broichmore (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: The Fubbs/Katherine looks good to me, but I really have no special expertise or sources to bring to it. Same-same Perseverance, where I have even less info. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue in question was the statement "the plan has had somewhat limited success, with some critics referring to the multi-million dollar projects as 'white elephants'." Without any supporting citations to back it up it is just an unsubstantiated opinion, which has no place in an encyclopedic article. This is why I deleted the entire sentence, including your edit. Dan arndt (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have noticed some of my short reference fixes. In case you are curious, I am working to clean up a new error-tracking category, Category:Harv and Sfn template errors, which tracks instances of short-reference templates (like {{sfn}}) that do not link to full citations. There are about 3,000 1,700 ship-related articles in the category right now. Almost all of them are there because they contain an {{sfn}} template that refers to, but does not link to, a full citation. The best solution is to convert the plain-text full citation into a {{cite book}} or related template, like this. In a few cases, the full citation is missing entirely because the short citation was copied from another article, but the full citation was not copied.

There is a detailed explanation of the different types of errors and how to fix them at the category page linked above. I have posted links to a few batches of ship-related articles that need cleanup at Module talk:Footnotes, where we have been discussing this new error-tracking category. Please let me know if you have any questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the diligent reference-fixing work! I appreciate it. It looks like we are down to about 1,500 articles. If you come across any ship-related reference problems that you are unable to puzzle out, feel free to get in touch. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, feel free to put your articles up, keep up the good work!† Encyclopædius 07:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well done with your work on the Herald, I see you didnt like the notion of renaming it the Africaine? How do you feel about putting it up for a DYK? I'm looking for a QPG to get my article George Pechell Mends off the ground, only problem is getting a hook for it; no problem there with the Herald, I think. Grateful for your thoughts? Broichmore (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: Couldn't have done it without your finding Herald. I went with Herald for two reasons. First, that was the earliest name. Second, I think a US-centric name will give it slightly more visibility. I like the DYK idea. I haven't done one in years though. When they toughened the rules on DYKs I lost interest. I like doing articles; I don't like doing procedures. I will look at the Mends to see if any hook suggests itself to me. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good, then with your permission I'll nominate it. Leave the procedures to me, I agree with you on the rules etc, it seems a lot more complex than even when I did it last, a year ago. Meanwhile I have another source for the Herald, which I'll include and then some prep on it prior to the approval process. So I'll aim at making the nomination by the 16th. Regards. Broichmore (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: Excellent. Thanks. Am currently tidying your Mends article. I must admit I too don't see any easy hook, yet.Acad Ronin (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I might have to dig up something new about him or just withdraw it. Broichmore (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: DYK that George Pechel Mends witnessed United States steam frigate USS Missouri burning at Gibraltar 26 August 1843 and that his sketch was the basis for a painting by Edward Duncan.Acad Ronin (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nice; I'll try it out. Thanks... Broichmore (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this https://www.newspapers.com/clip/48693969/herald-of-boston-june-1799/ and then saw this https://www.newspapers.com/clip/48694437/herald-letter-of-marque-pickstock-in/ Have my doubts about it? Broichmore (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: Have to run, but have been able to confirm that the letter of marque Herald was a British privateer of 110 tons (bm). Will later check further into the first story. Unfortunately, Herald is not a unique name. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry. Hope to get this DYK off the ground today Broichmore (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated it for the DYK so will do all to make it ready. You may want to revise or put in a different hook though? The article talk page links to the DYK. Broichmore (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: Thanks for doing the nomination and the shepherding. I already notified Gatoclass that the ALT2 hook is fine by me. We'll see what transpires. Amazing what one little clue has given rise to. Also, I did a short article (Herald (1798 ship)) about the Herald being attacked at Naples. I can't find any earlier history, possibly because of a name change, but she did have an interesting year. Cheers,Acad Ronin (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, I'm working on the QPG. The backlog on DYK's stands at around 400 I understand. The competition for QPG's is intense, and of course the whole process has been ring fenced with complications to frustrate casual entrants (outsiders) never mind newbie's. Broichmore (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: No worries. The hassles was why I gave up nominating for DYKs anything I wrote. the problem for WP is it has more to loose reputationally from a spoof DYK than it has to gain from faster clearance. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Can you point me to the instructions on ship linking, example HMS|Diligence|1814|6 what is the last number supposed to be? and is there more to it than that? Broichmore (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: I am sure that instructions exist, but I never looked for them. I only resort to instructions when brute force fails. 2 gives you the name without anything else: Diligence. 6 gives you the HMS as well: HMS Diligence. If I want the HMS and the year, I leave out the number: HMS Diligence (1814). Does that help? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, I'm trying to work out why we're doing it, what advantage is it? Broichmore (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: Do you mean linking in general, or the formats? Linking in general is one of the wonderful things about WP – it connects articles and may facilitate readers going down rabbit holes. The format enables economy for the reader. If it is obvious that the vessel is RN, no need to repeat. When it is less obvious, then throw in the HMS. (This may be useful when the HMS in question was captured from the French and is in an engagement with a French vessel captured from the English: e.g., if HMS Moulin Rouge is firing on Bulldog.) When I am doing shipindex pages I use the date to distinguish the HMS Pinafores from each other. Also, the date situates the vessel in time. So if the reader is looking for the HMS Pinafore that their great great uncle served on in WWI, they can more quickly zero-in on the relevant vessel without reading the capsule description. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, I do the same, but not with that style of formatting. Broichmore (talk)

Hello,

I have just drafted a little article about Expédition. She appears to have been a British Expedition before, either a privateer or a merchantman. Also, there is mention of a British privateer that she captured on 27 October 1778. I realise that these are flimsy clues, but I was wondering whether your sources might cast some light on the matter. Expédition was present when HMS Quebec exploded, so she might have attracted some attention. Many thanks in any case! Rama (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rama:, I have almost nothing.

• Expédition. French cutter, 14 guns, at Dunkirk in 1777, then from Brest in 1778.
• Expedition. French navy, 80 men, at Madras, Jan 1781.
• Here is the URL for the letter from Rambler's captain describing the action: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/12021/page/3

Unfortunately, that is all that I have been able to find. Acad Ronin (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Onwards to our next mystery! Rama (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I just received to complements to the Demerliac collection: one is a small volume specifically devoted to privateers under Louis XV, and the other is a thick one on the merchant navy of the 2nd Republic and 2nd Empire.

Incidentally, if you have anything about a Yarmouth (East Indiaman-sized) that Fine captured in June 1782, or about a privateer Tanna or Danner that became Diligent, I would be very grateful and interested.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rama: The new Demerliacs may prove useful, though they are a little out of my time period. No info re Yarmouth, yet. As you can see, have info re Tannah. I have to run right now, but I will return later to day and work on her pre-French history, and on the info box. Am feeling chuffed that I was able to find something about her.Acad Ronin (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on Tannah, that was a long shot! I am puzzled that Yarmouth appears nowhere, she sounds at least as large as Fortitude, but since I had found nothing on Threedecks I suspected she would prove an elusive quarry.

I must admit I had purchased the Demerliac a bit out of a compulsion of compleness, but I think they might still be useful to document portraits of ships drawn by the Roux family, for instance.

Many thanks again and good continuation! Rama (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rama:, you can see what I was able to do with Tannah. We are fortunate that she appeared in various sources. I have had no luck with Yarmouth. All I can find is that she was a storeship that the French captured. She was not a warship, or an Indiaman, or built in the Bombay Dockyard, or in the London Gazette, or in the National Maritime Museum's database, or in Lloyd's Register. We will just have to hope that someday something will show up. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid, so gratifying to see the puzzle get solved little by little!

Yarmouth has an entry in Demerliac, I think there is enough to warrant an article under the tentative name Yarmouth (1782 ship), be it only to encourage further details to accumulate there.

Thank you again! Rama (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have you any ideas for this picture. On the basis that it's a primitive work it could be used? Perhaps the flags or even stern could narrow it down. 1817 or 1849? I'm leaning towards 1817? Broichmore (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Broichmore:, naive or not, it's a great picture. I too lean to the 1817, though the dates are a bit of an issue. By 1844, the 1817 Arethuse had been renamed Bacchus. Earlier, she had been a quarantine ship, which is consistent with the blue jack denoting government service, but not HMS, but I don't think of quarantine ships as sailing anywhere. She could be a fantasy, i.e., this is what she would have looked like had she been sailing. I can't read the signal flags, and if they are in code, even if I were to transliterate them I would be no better off. Unfortunately, other than identifying the jack as not Navy but government, I am stuck.Acad Ronin (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look here at Frederick Chamier, tell me what you think? Broichmore (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: It is certainly possible. I am a little disturbed that the 1817 Arethusa doesn't seem to have served in the West Africa Squadron. If she did, the WP article on her is missing info. I will need t look into this. Is there any way that you can access Chamier's book and see what he says? Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: I just checked a source on the RN's anti-slave operations. The Arethusa (1781) was operating on the coast of Africa in 1811 for a couple of months. There was no later Arethusa so engaged. Means Chamier's Arethusa is not the one in the picture. Sorry. Acad Ronin (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I just inserted some detail into Frederick Chamier and HMS Arethusa (1781), could you finesse the 1811 date please? You'll find the cutting from the Caledonian Mercury particulary interesting, though I've left it as a belated easter egg, you may wish to embellish upon it. Broichmore (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad, I hope you are well. I noticed you've made some edits to Error: {{HMS}} invalid control parameter: 4 (help) including this one, [[4]] where you give Arrow's captain at Copenhagen as Thomas Brodie. I am currently working on User:Ykraps/Thomas Brodie (Royal Navy officer) and I am looking for sources that support that position. Do you have any? You added a cite to The Gentleman's Magazine (May 1811), Vol. 81, Part 1, p.492 and I wondered if this names the commander of Arrow when she was on her way home with dispatches. Any help appreciated. Thanks --Ykraps (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AR/Ykraps Try London Gazette https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/16419/page/1719 for award of prize money for capture of a prize in 1808 when Thomas Charles Brodie was captain of Hyperion. This is the only reference I can find in London Gazette from 1790 to 1830 for this man. Does this help at all?Viking1808 (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That'll be useful for later on in the article but I was really looking for something that puts Brodie in Arrow at Battle of Copenhagen (1801). --Ykraps (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ykraps and Acad Ronin: This book gives an account of his life. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Newm30. I have that book which suggests that Brodie was in command of Arrow on 2 April 1801. I was hoping to find another reliable source that supports it. If it's only Hore that has that view, it is probably WP:FRINGE. Thanks anyway. --Ykraps (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ykraps:@Newm30:@Viking1808: Hi; The evidence is ambiguous. 1) The NMM pdf - just scroll down till you hit Arrow. It puts Brodie on Arrow, though it does not explicitly put him on her at Copenhagen. 2) The Gentleman's Magazine is his obituary that appears verbatim in other newspapers of the time and it does list him as having both commanded her at Copenhagen, and as having brought back the dispatches. 3) The British Flag Triumphant! ... being copies of the London Gazettes, containing the accounts of the ... victories ... of the British Fleets, during the last and present war ... to which is prefixed, an address by Sir J. A. Park to the officers, seamen ... of His Majesty's Fleets. Edited by Admiral Lord Radstock has a list of vessels and commanders at Copenhagen in its Addendum and that lists Brodie as commander of Arrow at Copenhagen. Just Google "Thomas Charles Brodie Arrow Copenhagen". On the other hand, the list of vessels and their commanders that received the NGSM for Copenhagen puts Bolton in command of Arrow at the battle. I can also find some other rosters in books that do likewise. Hore is really the key. In Brodie's favour, it is worth mentioning that Arrow was rated a sloop, not a sixth-rate, and as such her commander would have been a commander, not a post-captain. It is therefore unlikely that Bolton was promoted to post-captain into Arrow. If he was promoted to post-captain in 1800 it would have been out of Arrow, not into her. The WP article on William Bolton relies heavily on Phillips, who is not a reliable source as he does not give his sources, which were mostly the Naval Chronicle and Marshall, the latter of which is not relevant in this case. Brodie was not promoted to post-captain until 1803. Does any of this help?Acad Ronin (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, that helps a great deal. My search engine (not Google) wasn't picking any of that up! --Ykraps (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Acad, I hope I'm not being a bother, but I was a little confused by your edits to the Méduse You wrote that the Méduse captured several merchant ships in December 1814, but wasn't the United Kingdom at peace with France at the time? Maybe you could clarify the information using your sources? Regards, Snagemit (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Snagemit: Never a bother to get things right, especially when I have been wrong. (Something my wife and children assure me does happen on rare occasions. :-)) I will have to look into this shortly. I may not have written the bit you mention, but in any case, will follow up. Acad Ronin (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I meant [[5]] this edit. I could be wrong, but I was just curious, that's all. I mean, it is a pretty famous ship.Snagemit (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Snagemit: You were right to be curious. Pure ID10T move on my part. I had shifted the event forward in time by a year. Shift it back to be congruent with the Lloyd's List item and there is no problem. Thanks for catching this.Acad Ronin (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added a short reference to Nicholson (1996), without making the associated long reference a WP:CS1 or WP:CS2 template citation. That meant that the link from {{sfnp}} didn't work. I converted the citation to a {{cite book}} so the short footnote links to it correctly. You can install User:Svick/HarvErrors.js to get noticed of such issues in articles when making use of short footnotes. If you don't know how to install that, let me know, I'll walk you through it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Thanks. I think I have many other failed citations because some time ago I changed to short citations without always converting the reference to a {{cite book}} format. Don't yet want to install the app you mention, but I will get back to you when I have the time for that particular project. (I recently did several hundred such that someone drew to my attention.) Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really up to you if you want to install it or not, but it'll flag every such problem, so it's really useful to have. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Union (1799 ship) has Williams 2011 missing, HMS Terror (1759) had Winfield 2007 broken (which I've fixed), HMS Foxhound (1909) had issues with Dorling 1931/1932 which I've fixed, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some other ones

• Britannia (1798 Kircaldy ship)‎ Kert 1997 vs Kert 2015
• Sir Edward Hamilton (1800 ship)‎ Neumann & Kington 1992

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Thanks for finding and fixing some of these problems. In the case of Sir Edward Hamilton (1800 ship) I have found and added the ref, but I don't know the citation templates and so don't know how to apply them in this case. In the case of HMS Albacore (1804) there is a different problem. The reason I cite Marshall as (1823-1835) is that over that period he published several volumes seriatim, together with supplements, some in parts. So p.374 in 1833 refers to the specific volume published in that year, so changing the year to 1823-1835 is meaningless. What we need is the specific volume, or part of the supplement, that 1833 refers to. That further requires that the citation format can deal with volumes, supplements, and parts. I don't have a list that maps years into volumes, etc. What should we do? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of the first. For the second, changing the year to "1823-1835" makes the link work, so that's why I did that. I don't really know how to deal with missing information though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you are well and in good spirits!

I have found ourselves a little mystery. Armand Le Gardeur de Tilly was captain of the frigate Concorde. On 18 February 1779, Concorde encountered a 32-gun British frigate. There was a 2-hour engagement before the ships broke contact. My sources identify her as "HMS Congres", which I cannot reconciliate with any frigate in the Royal Navy lists. Would you happen to know whether somebody in the British side was in action on that day?

Cheers! Rama (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will look. I have a couple of ideas where I can look, but absent a decisive outcome, the action may not have resulted in a letter for the London Gazette. Still, "essayons". Acad Ronin (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rama: sorry, but I have been unable to find anything. I have one wild suspicion, but it is so wild and unsupported by any evidence that it is not useful. In 1778 the British captured the Congressional frigate USS Raleigh (1776) and took her into service as HMS Raleigh. She remained in service in the American theatre until 1781. Someone hearing about the action with Concorde could have referred to her as HMS Congressional frigate. Outlandish but the best I can do for now. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for trying! Another shadow in the fog of war. Cheers! Rama (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have found myself a new reason for perplexity: on 5 July 1778, Engageante had an engagement with a 26-gun British frigate, which two of my sources consistently name as Rose, under a Captain Duncan. But the story is not consistent with that of HMS Rose (1757). Could she have been a privateer, or a naval ship of a different name?

Cheers! Rama (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rama: Rose was a privateer. See: https://books.google.com/books?id=8r4MD8I34OEC&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=%22Engageante%22+Rose+Duncan&source=bl&ots=ZKjxLbAWLO&sig=ACfU3U37VVEKyQwmPQW5b1VvXL_nBwztRA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwixt4XviL7pAhXUl3IEHX2GA3cQ6AEwC3oECGEQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Engageante%22%20Rose%20Duncan&f=false

If you google: ""Engageante" Rose Duncan" you will find the relevant volume of the NDAR - Naval Documents of the American Revolution. There are several mentions in the volume. The index to that volume also has more info re Rose. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I had not tried that particular keyword combination. Impressive performance for a privateer, by the way. Thank you! Rama (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article USS Herald (1798), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the American merchant ship Herald served in the U.S. Navy against France before becoming a French privateer, was sold to Britain as a slaver, and ended her days as a West Indiaman? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/USS Herald (1798). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, USS Herald (1798)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! More than 100,000 people clicked on your article! Congratulations! Yoninah (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has her launched as Termagant both in 1821 and 1822. Colledge says 1822 but I suspect Winfield says 1821. Who's correct? Lyndaship (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lyndaship: Winfield in his 1817-1863 book has 1822, and th eNatl Maritime Museum database too has 1822. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is PS Hugh Lindsay (1829), the first steamship to be built in Bombay, the same Hugh Lindsay that was lost in the Persian Gulf on 18 August 1865? Mjroots (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Yes. go to: [6] Some sources give the date of loss as 18 August and some 18 September, with the August date being more likely. Apparently she broke her back off Bassadore, though I haven't tried to find out where that was. Acad Ronin (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have added a wikilink to the list of shipwrecks in August 1865. Mjroots (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Hugh Lindsay deserves an article. Are you going to do it, or should I put her on my list of things to do? Acad Ronin (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Put it on your list. Mjroots (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if anyone's actually asking but Bassadore is the north-west point of the island of Qeshm. Named after the Portuguese town that was once there.--Ykraps (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ykraps:, it took me some time to find it when I was writing the Hugh Lindsay article, but I found it. WP has a small/stubby article on Basaidu, which is its modern name. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that and it's definitely in the right area but wasn't sure if it was the original town of Bassadore which was described as a ruin, back in 1841. It could've been rebuilt of course or built on the same site but our article doesn't make any reference to that nor to a Portuguese settlement. Perhaps when I've got nothing better to do, I'll see if I can find a reference that links the two and add to the article.--Ykraps (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ykraps: That would be great. As you saw, the WP article traces the name back to classic times, and makes no mention of a Portuguese role. It is also possible that changing shorelines, abandonment and reconstruction, and whatever have resulted in some locational drift.Acad Ronin (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad - could I perhaps interest you in the events of 1726 in the Baltic? My new article Draft:Naval Blockade of Reval (1726) is in draft because it is too Danocentric, and needs the British and Russian versions to make it a true article. The form of the final article (if any) could well be totally different from the current offering. Any suggestions/additions always welcome. Viking1808 (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Viking1808: – unfortunately almost none of my sources go back that far; most cover the 1793–1815 period only. Still, I will think about the problem and keep an eye out for anything to add. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway! I too have strayed from my 1808 anchor. We will have to wait and see if any other editor picks up on the challenge. There will be someone out in the real world for whom the Russian or British point of view in meat and drink. Viking1808 (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad, there is an ongoing dispute relating to the merger of the Anglo-French War (1778–1783) page into the France in the American Revolutionary War page. Myself and other editors believe the Anglo-French War page is POV-content fork of France in the American Revolutionary War, while other editors oppose that view. As I know you regularly create a large volume of ship articles directly related to this matter, I thought the discussion might be of some interest to you as it potentially affects a large number of pages you have created.XavierGreen (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reversion of my edit on the article Hinchinbroke (1812 ship), I had added Postage stamps and postal history of Malta in the "See also" section because the latter article includes some information on the Falmouth–Gibraltar–Malta packet boat service, which the Hinchinbroke was apparently part of. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Acad Ronin. It is good to know that someone is out there working on filling in the ship articles. I appreciate that you can only do so many a year - and have huge respect for the fact that you have already created nearly 4,000 articles. You clearly have a way of deciding which ones to do, and when. Leaving these redlinks from the first decade of the millennia hasn't helped attract anyone else to help you knock off the HMS Favourites, so they are not providing a meaningful click-bait to the cause, and are simply leaving a sea of red. You clearly have a way of deciding which ones to do, and when, so random redlinks from that long ago are not making any difference – other than dancing on the fringes of serving as a development notepad. I'm confident that your, or the ship project's, method will address the other five HMS Favourites at some date, and know that showing black rather than a sea of red will still be a lure to any other potentially helpful editor who comes across this 11-year-old HMS Favourite list of ships and notices that the majority of them have yet to be blue-linked. Jmg38 (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I would like to congratulate you for all the articles you've made so far, regarding British shipping. You're amazing. I've seen that you created the article of this legendary East indiaman named General Goddard. After it was captured by the Spanish, it was added into the Spanish Navy as a cargo ship, but was sold shortly afterwards. Here is a link where you can gather more information about it (in Spanish...) [7] By the way. About the ship HMS_Galgo_(1799) that appears to be captured during the same action... This ship was not El Galgo built at Ferrol in 1795 but El Galgo Inglés, a British privateer jamaican brig captured on 5th May 1797 by the Spanish frigate Juno (See Vela, Presas de la Armada Española... p. 157-8). El Galgo Inglés was captured by HMS Crescent because it departed from her consorts the day before. The Galgo built at Ferrol in 1795 was actually captured by the frigate HMS Alarm in 1796. So these are two different ships. Best regards Pietje96 (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pietje96: – Thak you for the kind words. Thank you even more for the info. I am an eventualist: I believe, or at least hope, that over time we will be able to clear up at least some of the gaps in our articles. Because of the intertwined history of the UK, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Denmark-Norway, and Russia, I have long hoped that people familiar with those sources will be able to add their information. Over the next few days I will work to incorporate the info on General Goddard, and correct the info on the Galgos. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across the 1816 wreck of a ship named Canton (Glasgow Herald, 18 July 1867). Said ship was 400-500 tons, teak built and coppered. There is evidence of being in service with the East India Company. She departed from Sitka, Russian America for an undisclosed destination, and was wrecked in the Marshall Islands. Any idea which vessel this is? The Canton built in 1790 was much bigger at 1,200 tons. Mjroots (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Hi Mjroots, try this: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015013729358?urlappend=%3Bseq=89 Seq.No.111. She was built in Dundee in 1860 and wrecked in 1867-68. Earlier issues of Lloyd's Register gave her trade as Liverpool-China, which would make her an East Indiaman in common parlance. Remember, all EIC ships are East Indiamen, but after 1814 most East Indiamen were not EIC ships. After 1833 no East Indiamen were EIC. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That can't be the ship in question. This on was wrecked in 1816! Will see if I can find a link to some contemporary American papers that give the story. Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka! Mjroots (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: - Great. I stupidly focused in on the 1867 in the Glasgow Herald ref and proceeded to ignore all else. Canton must have been a country ship. No trace of her in Phipps re Calcutta-built ships, or Hackman in EIC ships or ships sailing under a license from the EIC, or Wadia re Bombay-built ships. She does not appear among the various transport vessels that the Royal Navy used for campaigns in the east between 1800 and 1819. So, still a bit of a mystery. Will look further. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get that ping because you put "User:" in it! It's OK, I mess up plenty of pings myself. If you have access to the British Library Newspapers then you can look up the Glasgow Herald ref yourself. It has details of the date of sailing plus what is in the American newspaper article. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad, When you created this article, you added a reference to Norie (1827) p.92 but neglected to add the name of the book to the reference section. I made a quick search of John William Norie's books (I assume that's the Norie we are talking about) but couldn't find anything. Perhaps, when you have a minute, you could add it? If you can't remember where you saw it, with some rewording, I could reference to another book. Regards.--Ykraps (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ykraps:, I believe I have fixed it, and tidied up another citation as well. Let me know if you think something still needs fixing. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't see anything, it was just the name of the book. As I said, I could've referenced to another but the book I have only records the year of Cuming's promotion and not the precise date so your reference is much better. Thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you weren't aware, the full book is online here [[8]].--Ykraps (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad, Hope your well. I'm hoping to get some help from you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#perpetual issue: ncships and the definite article. 19:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I keep running into your articles in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. Please be more careful with citations and install a script (explained in the category page) which highlights such errors in big bold red warning messages. Thanks, Renata (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Renata3: – 1) I have some 4000+ articles, so there is a high likelihood that you will continue to run into errors for some time. I am only surprised that there are so few. 2) I have no idea what a script is, don't know how to use one, and have no desire to learn. 3) I also don't know all the forms of citation templates, and have no desire to learn.

My comparative advantage is writing articles. I think the best thing is that henceforth I will stop using the harv-type citation template and go back to the old way of doing things. That should reduce the likelihood of my creating new problems. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Renata3: See also this section above. I do wish they would install the script (either Svick's or Trappist the monk's) since it's really easy to do using , and that would save me from having to check if a problem remains after they attempted to fix a specific page. But Acad Ronin's has been cleaning up after themselves for the last few months. There's about 200-250 such articles left, but that was well above 700 back in May. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "script" is really simple. All you have to do is

1. Copy this:
2. :importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]]
3. Paste it in Special:MyPage/common.js
4. Save. Done! You'll never need to visit this page again.

Now the errors will be highlighted in red so they are easy to spot and fix. Renata (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct year for Silverstone in HM galley Pigot? 2001 or 2006? Renata (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Renata3: Both are correct. 2001 is the Naval Institute edition. 2006 is the Routledge edition. Acad Ronin (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few discoveries about Robert Elliot (Royal Navy officer), but I've not bottomed out the ships involved. Can you have a look. Some clues might be at the end of the commons link. Maybe more about the floating Thames chapel too, but that's secondary. Must be more here... You'll like this, variations on the surname are involved. Broichmore (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: Unfortunately I have found nothing. He seems not to have held naval command at any time. He served on a series of vessels as a midshipman and lieutenant, but effectively retired shortly after making commander. I also could not find a date for his making post-captain; he may never have achieved the rank. He may have held civilian maritime command but I have found no clues at to which vessels, if any. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So your thinking he retired from ships in 1808 due to injury? He was well connected so spent time on land doing some kind of executive work? This phrase From 1822 to 1824 he was in command of a vessel that toured India, Canton, and the Red Sea I cant explain. Already a landlubber he made Commander in 1846 with the Greenwich appointment. Do you have vessels prior to 1808? Broichmore (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: –no, no. He was a lieutenant on a variety of naval vessels (I can give you a list in a few days), between 1808 and 1814, including going out to India on one. He received promotion to Commander in 1814, but his obits (all the same - no plagiarism worries at the time) all state that he then never served at sea again for the RN, that is, no mention of his ever making post captain. I saw the "From 1822 to 1824..." quote and tried to track down the vessel, which was almost certainly civil. I looked at his book of drawings but saw no mention of any named vessel. He may very well have been captain on a vessel sailing to India and the region there, probably not an EIC vessel, but more likely a vessel sailing under a license from the EIC. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of such vessels and I am working my way through them, but I still have hundreds to go. I'll keep an eye out. Acad Ronin (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad Ronin - It has been an interesting few days chasing Warren Hastings (1802 EIC ship) and her Danish connections after accidentally finding the London Gazette reference to the Danish ships captured in 1808 - this while I was looking for Robert Elliot of your previous note, and then finding another Captain Elliot in India.

• The earlier Holsten (condemned 1805) now rests in a new article at HDMS Det Store Bælt (1782), although it is not a very exciting vessel. Any additional English references would be appreciated.
• and our three ships of that name are now listed under Danish ships at Holstein (disambiguation)
  

Have fun - Viking1808 (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Viking1808:, As you saw, I could only find a couple of things on the Holsteins. One problem is that because of Schleswig-Holstein Holstein is a very common word. Also, because she was Danish, the British press was not all that interested. Now, I have a couple of things for you: I have emailed you a gif for the flag of the Danish India Company. Unfortunately, it is not open source, but if we could find a public source it would something that we could add to several articles. Also, I could do with a little help. I have just completed HMS Argus (1799). She captured an interesting Danish vessel for which there is a great picture: Kongen af Assainthe. She apparently was launched in Finland, was of 220 tons, and made three voyages as a slave ship between 1797 and 1803. I would love to do an article on her if I can just nail done more details. Is there anything in your Danish sources, especially dates for the three slave voyages? Interestingly, the premier site on trans-Atlantic slave voyages has nothing on her. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.jmarcussen.dk/maritim/skibsliste/side.php?id=9161 agrees (in Danish) that Kongen af Ashanti (obviously King of the Ashanti ) was a slaver in those years. A frigate using the middle deck for slaves, crew of 26, captains named. Built in Finland/Sweden (wasn't Finland under Swedish rule about then??) in 1797 - builder not recorded - Operated by Jeppe Prætorius (1745-1823) og partners with a home base of Copenhagen. See Jeppe Prætorius. That may keep you going for a bit! Viking1808 (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artist was C C Parneman - https://www.alamy.com/english-the-ship-kongen-af-assianthe-at-reden-in-copenhagen-denmark-it-was-owned-by-jeppe-prtorius-and-its-captain-was-h-meinertz-1803-c-c-parnemann-59-kongen-af-assianthe-1803-image189273961.html - (reden = harbour/base) - same artist responsible for picture of Lougen & Arab Viking1808 (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Danish Ships - The commercial shipping company Maersk flies the company flag alongside the standard flag of Denmark on this picture. No .gif file has arrived - did you send it to my old, expired email that finished fsnet.co.uk or to my newer gmail.com ?

Also - May I ask you to check the date on the reference you supplied to HDMS Det Store Bælt as this ship was apparently condemned already in 1805. Viking1808 (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Viking1808: - the dates are the ones I used. I figured she may have made a fourth voyage to India in 1806, and been damaged on the way, with info taking time to reach Madras and then Britain. Do you have solid info that she was condemned at Copenhagen in 1805? If so, I will remove it. The problem is, the Madras report does not refer to her as the late '"Warren Hastings", and is too early for the second Holsten. What do you think? Acad Ronin (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the Danish website (J Marcussen) gives the record card for Holsten (I) which clearly states (in Danish) "Condemned in 1805 at Isle de France" and "Last year recorded -1805". I cannot vouch for its accuracy - perhaps we should add a caveat in note form regarding the questionable dates - another editor may be able to resolve the discrepancy. If no edit corrects us, I will add such a note in a few weeks. OK? Viking1808 (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Viking1808: Please go ahead and put in the caveat. My concern is that we have data showing her returning to Copenhagen in June-July 1805. That would mean that she would have had to be going back to Mauritius in 1805 from Copenhagen for her to be condemned there in 1805. Not impossible, but would imply a quick turn around in Copenhagen. And then, what vessel is the Holstein mentioned in the Madras newspaper? All very interesting and I think we should acknowledge the uncertainty at this stage rather than suppressing either take on the issue.

Also, thanks for the Kongen af Assianthe info. It will be a short article, but one that helps fill a hole in our knowledge of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. I will let you know once it is up. ThanksViking1808 (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, do you have a new email address? My email with the gif did not get through. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to draft the caveat at User:Viking1808/sandbox which you are welcome to read any time. 1805? 1806? 1807? Then to transfer relevant arguments from here to there for the talk page of Holsten (I) Viking1808 (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For some modern history of the Ugland company see User:Viking1808/sandbox.
Also for some connections to the Slave Trade from Arendal.
If these can lead you into new lines of attack on the slave ship (not directly found) please follow them up. Regards Viking1808 (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Ethalion (1797) cites "James (1837), Vol. 2, pp.356-8." but no such work is listed in the bibliography. Please add. Thank you, Renata (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harriot (1787 ship) cites "Hardy (1800)". Should that be 1820 or 1811? Renata (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Renata: Hardy published four books, 1800, 1811, 1820, and 1835. The missing ref was the 1800 one. Thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Talbot (1797 EIC ship) is missing "Hardy 1811". Renata (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, thanks for your edits to Jenny (1783 ship). I didn't proofread too well and haven't learned how to do the "sfnp" citation thing, so thanks! Also, I see from your page that your "to do" list includes ships I also have on my to do list—Prince Lee Boo & Jackall, Hope. And also Richard Cadman Etches, who I've redlinked to a few times now but haven't researched much.

I don't edit Wikipedia very much lately, but I have been slowly compiling a chronology of early ships in the North Pacific, especially those involved in the maritime fur trade—for use in making new pages or expanding existing ones. It's just a sandbox page for my own use in figuring things out and compiling info in one place. But if you haven't seen it you might find it interesting or useful, perhaps: User:Pfly/Sandbox2b. I also made User:Pfly/Pages to make, mostly ships, captains, and related stuff, where I've redlinked various not-yet-made pages with what I think might be appropriate page names.

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it in case it is useful! We seem to share some interests. Pfly (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A keel length of 1,145 ft 11 1⁄2 in (349.288 m) for a third rate ship of 1815 would be rather impressive. :-) I guess that must have been a typo. Maybe 145 ft 11 1/2 in? --Proofreader (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Proofreader: Typos indeed. Though would have made for an interesting design. Thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad Ronin - Can I interest you in a ship of French origin (Christine Henrietta) that became a Danish privateer (Admiral Juel) and was captured by the British? See Action of 2 March 1808 I will of course help with the translation of the Marcussen reference, if you are interested. Viking1808 (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Viking1808:, I would be glad to. How do you want to proceed? Acad Ronin (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleared my sandbox User:Viking1808/sandbox so we could both enter notes and trial text there until the article takes shape. Once we have a reasonable stub we can decide on a title and copy everything over to the new page (rather than publish our early meandering trials). I will chase up such Danish references as I can (probably as listed at Marcusson's website). You will have seen that I have a fair amount of negative evidence). If you lift and check, if you can, the English language references from the Action of 2 March 1808 we may make progress. Everything is subject to change and discussion. Does this suit ? Viking1808 (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I have done some preliminary scanning of newspaper databases and have found nothing. I had hoped to find info on her sale after being captured but apparently she was not auctioned. I will continue to look. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad Ronin - I think I have gone as far as I can with Danish sources for this article, and have drafted the story at my sandbox. Everything is still subject to change and improvement before putting it out. A suitable title and text grouped into named sections at least. There is a picture on Action of 2 March 1808 which seems to come with caveats, there is a need for an infobox. Also, strangely, the London Gazette publishing the report of 2 March is dated .. 1 March !! Can I leave the rest to you until you are happy with it? Viking1808 (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC) @Acad Ronin:[reply]

Hi @Viking1808:, Thanks to you, there is enough to work with to create a decent article. I am disappointed that I could not find anything on Admiral Juel's disposition after her capture. Anyway, I will get to work on this next week after I finish a couple of other projects. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London Gazette Issue 16246 page 506 dated 11 April 1809 - accounts of sale of Admiral Juul

Also, I see you intend an article on HDMS Glommen - I have her Danish history when you are ready. Captured twice by British navy (1801 and 1807)!! Viking1808 (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Viking1808: - Thanks. I have that. What I was hopping for was an advertisement listing her for sale. I have occasionally found those and they are great - they give the dimensions and the burthen, and sometimes a little extra history as to origins. Unfortunatlely, no luck so far even though I have looked under a variety of spellings. Sadly, Glommen ill have to wait. I have a nuber of projects ahead of her, including Admiral Juel. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk)

Hi Acad - I have now launched the article as Admiral Juel (Danish Ship)(1807). Links and categories may still be needed, and some correction to the Action of 2 March 1808 to dispel doubt as to her privateer status. Thanks for your support - and Merry Christmas. Viking1808 (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Acad Ronin:

I hope you don't mind that I edited User:Acad Ronin/sandbox. I came to it because it showed up at Lint errors: Self-closed tags, because of the markup <b /> where you obviously meant <br />. While I was there I noticed other things.

On WP:REFNAME, it says that for ref names, quotation marks are preferred even where optional. It's a good habit to put ref names in quotes even if they are not strictly needed.

If you go to the Preferences page, in the Appearances tab, under "Advanced options", check the box marked "Show hidden categories", then at the bottom of every Wikipedia page, after the categories, you will see the page's hidden categories if there are any. This can be useful for identifying editing errors. Your page User:Acad Ronin/sandbox shows up in the hidden category category:User pages with reference errors. I was able to remove two errors, one from a bad archivedate, and one from an extra pipe in {{refn}}. But it's still in category:User pages with reference errors. It may take some work to find the remaining issue or issues that put it in this category. Good luck! —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I edited User:Acad Ronin/sandbox again because it was listed at Unclosed quote in heading, a high-priority lint error. If you go to page history and open the version just before my edit, you'll see that, starting with Lloyd's Register, the table of contents is in italics. This is why Unclosed quote in heading is considered a high-priority lint error: it messes up things far from itself. While I was editing, I discovered that it also had a Missing end tag for italics. I fixed both errors. You reverted; your next edit re-fixed the missing end tag for italics, and if you open that version, you'll see the table of contents is again in italics starting with Lloyd's Register. Your edit after that removed the unclosed quote in heading in ==''Lloyd's Register==, and there are no more lint errors in the sandbox. Please be aware that there are a number of editors who patrol and fix Outstanding linter errors on enwiki, so if more lint errors appear in your sandbox, editors are likely to edit them out. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC) —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalocaris: Please leave the sandbox alone. When you made your last changes I was in the middle of working on an article that was going to replace in the sandbox the article you edited. In juggling the "edit conflict" I accidentally destroyed some of my work that I had not yet saved. I realize that you meant well, but "The road to Hell is paved...". Acad Ronin (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This East Indiaman, name of William Lee, may be of interest, I expect it was registered in Kingston upon Hull? All pictures, in the category are of the same ship. The painter must have some solid connection with the owner? I believe it's British, but there are American ships with the same name, one in the Stone Fleet. It's namesake, is possibly this man, who has a Yorkshire and American background. Shall try and dig out some more, but running out of ideas... The William Lee, owned by Thomas Thompson of Hull, sailed regularly to Calcutta in the 1840s, the trade being stimulated by the opening of the Hull Flax and Cotton Mills in 1836. Likely ship owner Thomas Perronet Thompson, dates fit. --Broichmore (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might have cracked this. Launched at Hull in 1831, intended for the Davis Straits fishery.She is put up for sale in 1836, takes a cargo to St Peterburg in 1837 a regular on the East India trade. The ship is lost, stranded on 5 December 1847 at Öland Island, near Åkerby, Sweden. Do you agree or have I lost it? --Broichmore (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Broichmore:. It sounds reasonable, but I will have to dig into it a bit. I have a couple of projects ahead of this but should be able to get to it this week. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This confirms I was right, certainly on the main points. --Broichmore (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Broichmore:: excellent. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Broichmore:. I have uploaded the article William Lee (1831 ship). The pictures in Wikimedia Commons are gorgeous. I tried to add the fourth picture, one of the Arctic pictures, next to the whaling table, but was unable to get it right. Can you add the third picture to the info box, the Arctic picture to the whaling section, and the return from Calcutta picture futher down? They would really tart up the article. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article looks great, well done. I'm working on repositioning that Arctic picture so it sits directly to the right of the table. At the moment as an interim I think it looks okay on desktop and mobile. Meanwhile there's an annoying redirect of William lee (ship pointing at Stone Fleet. --Broichmore (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As this was a replacement for an earlier keel, might the EIC have used the same drawings? --Broichmore (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore:, probably. The burthens are very close and HMS Agincourt was bought on the stocks. Also, Perry, Blackwall, built both so it is completely feasible that they simply unrolled the plans and started again.Acad Ronin (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have the plans, filed under Agincourt, any use to you? At your discretion... --Broichmore (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Broichmore:, I added the plans from Agincourt to the 1795 Earl Talbot article. Regards,Acad Ronin (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re Richard Cobden, the Liverpool Mercury of 7 March 1870 has her being lost on the North Bull on 4 March 1870 whilst on a voyage from Montevideo to Liverpool. States that she was the first iron ship and the oldest iron ship in the world at the time of her loss. She was built in Liverpool in 1844, was 552 tons, 136'7" long with a beam of 27'6" and a depth of 19'2". Is this the same vessel? Mjroots (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mjroots:, look to be two totally different vessels. My Richard Cobden was built at Dundee, of wood, and was 100 tons (bm) smaller. See [9] (LR 1850).Acad Ronin (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. Well, if the claim of the first iron ship is true, might be article worthy then? Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mjroots:, would be, if true. Might be tricky though. I looked in LR for 1868 and 1869 and she wasn't listed. She may have been sold out of England before then. So there would be a gap of some years between sale and sinking that might be hard to fill. Acad Ronin (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting a Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history § Precursor to Battle of Navarino at which is not going anywhere, would be grateful for your two cents worth... --Broichmore (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Broichmore:, I agree with Rama that an article of the form "Action of ..." is the way to go. You can then link to it in the Navarino article and in the individual ship articles. Also, I am working on the William Lee article and hope to have it up, minus illustrations, later this evening. I'll let you know when it is up. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rama: Battle of Navarino ships: Ottoman Admiral Tahir Pasha's flagship, the Ghiuh Rewan (84), Ottoman admiral Capitan Bey's flagship, Fahti Bahri (74), Egyptian Moharram Bey's frigate Guerrière (60). Any ideas on the origin and launch dates for these ships? --Broichmore (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am afraid not, unless some would have been built in French shipyards? I looked up for a 60-gun frigate Guerrière that would have been sold to Turkey, but got nothing. 60-gun frigate sounds like state of the art warship for the era, so I would not expect her to be a converted merchant or older ship. A not unlikely explanation would be that the French authors translated her Turkish name into French when referring to her, that could have been the practice at the time. Cheers! Rama (talk) 06:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rama: Yes, I think your probably right, but Surely the Guerrière would have been sold to the Egyptians rather than the Turks? Can you check the alternative names? could it have been Arab: "Muharib", Turkish: "Savaşçı", or even an English ship "Warrior"? --Broichmore (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rama: & @Broichmore:: do either of you have access to a library with: Zorlu, Tuncay (2008). Innovation and Empire in Turkey: Sultan Selim III and Modernisation of the Ottoman Navy. London and New York: I.B. Tauris Academic Series. ISBN 9781845116941.? When I woke up this morning I remembered that I had drawn on it for my article on Ottoman corvette Ferahnüma. If memory serves, it has some info, albeit thin, on a large number of Ottoman Navy vessels. Unfortunately, I no longer can reach a library that has the book as the ones near where I live are closed because of COVID or are ones where I do not have library privileges. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you've had a go at the HMS Resolution disambiguation page. There are mentions of Resolution (1782) and also HMS Resolution a cutter in the West Indies, date of acquisition unknown and date of loss unknown. For the latter there's some stuff about 1800.

I've stumbled on this, the whole document is interesting, in parts it's about events on the Resolution in 1802. The Captain is Alan Gardner, 2nd Baron Gardner, the Resolution is a small seventy-four. Paul Sanby Lawrence was the junior lieutenant (he later painted an eye witness account of the action at Navarino). Lawrence was a key witness on the whereabouts of Mrs Gardiner, this was pivotal in a legal case involving Alan Gardner, 3rd Baron Gardner's claims to the Captains title in the House of Lords. The ships was lying at St Helens and Spithead in January and after a voyage 7 February to Barbados - Martinique - Port Royal returned mid July to St. Helens. Arrived at Chatham 17 July. Paid off 21 July. --Broichmore (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sandby Lawrence also mentioned here as being several months on the Resolution 74. --Broichmore (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This 74 looks like HMS Resolution (1799), Gardner appointed December 1799. Any ideas on how to ascertain purchase? Broichmore (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "ascertain purchase"?Acad Ronin (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manning it up? here on 20 September 1799. Broichmore (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably.Acad Ronin (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Broichmore: Unfortunately, Resolution was a common name at the time. I don't know if you noticed what I wrote on the talk page at the Resolution privateer, but there were clearly several privateers & hired armed vessels, some cutters and some luggers, named Resolution, and at least one hired armed cutter. I am trying to sort this out. It also too bad the Navy didn't do a better job of following its own tradition/practice of not having two vessels with the same name in service at the same time. I haven't yet been able to figure out what vessel the Apollo capture is refering to. Chhers, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Resolution (1779) is this the same cutter, recaptured here, in 1800 at HMS Apollo (1799)? --Broichmore (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the list of ship launches in 1739. Need additional references for Bombay. I've cribbed info from Bombay (ship). Needs an additional reference to cover that she was a grab and was built for the Bombay Marine. Threedecks has her as a Sixth Rate built for the Royal Navy. Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: – Done. Only thing, is, where did they get the Blake Tyson info? I can't confirm it in Wadia or Hackman, or online. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 totals are now complete, and your hook for USS Herald (1798) ranked as the No. 2 hook of the year in total DYK views (101,709) and DYK views per hour (8,475). A list of the 25 most viewed hooks of 2020 can be viewed at "Top hooks of 2020". Congratulations on your hook ranking No. 2 on the list, and keep up the good work! Cbl62 (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AR, Have a look at this image File:"The 'Calcutta'," from the Illustrated London News, 1846.jpg. There is another vessel in thepicture, any ideas on what it is? It's the Tartarus steamer or the Confiance tug. Best regards. Broichmore (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Broichmore: A cursory search on the web gives me no confidence in my guess that it's Tartarus. Both were paddle steamers, but Tartarus appears to have been bigger than Confiance. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Impressment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whalers.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Morning star (1809 ship), requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AR, is this File:Fregatten Thetis på bedding.jpg Thetus? Broichmore (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Broichmore:: Definitely Thetis. See (in Danish): https://www.navalhistory.dk/Danish/Skibene/T/Thetis(1842).htm Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I join this conversation? There appear to be two ships, one British built and one Danish built, operating in much the same years with the name Thetis. The Danish Thetis launched 1840 and decommissioned in 1864, built at Nyholm (Copenhagen) designed by Schifter compared with the British Thetis launched 1846. There were also previous Danish ships named Thetis (eg that captained by Lorentz Fisker in 1797) and I would hesitate to say which one is pictured (link above) as there is no date attached to the title of the picture other than "19th Century". Confused? Viking1808 (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thank. You might be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 160#Royal Navy biographies. -- PBS (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you are aware I am adding two templates to a lot of pages you have also edited and you must have some of them on you watch list. Aside from the templates themselves {{cite NBD1849}} and {{cite RNB1823}} -- which I see you have mastered -- I have also written two utility templates to help me find the information on the pages supplied in the short citation: {{NBD1849 djvu}} and {{RNB1823 djvu}}. As the template documentation explains these templates can be useful in backtracking from the page number (with volume and part for RNB1823) to the article on Wikisource.

As an example: when I modified HMS Canso (1813), I first went to one of my sandbox pages. I put a copy of {{NBD1849 djvu}} on to that page. I then took the page number and put it into {{NBD1849 djvu|page=245}} (There is no need to save the sandbox version (if you don't want to) just preview it):

• s:Page:A Naval Biographical Dictionary.djvu/259 p. 245; s:Special:WhatLinksHere/Page:A Naval Biographical Dictionary.djvu/259

The two links provide the page and the Wikisource articles that link to the page.

1. select the word or passage that the short citation on the Wikipeida page supports and you wish to check.
2. Then click on the djvu link and use your browser to find the text on the Wikisource page.
3. Check the wikisource section name in the text (if it is near the top of the page you may need to go back one page; If there is no apparent section name then it is probably part of a larger biography that spans several pages).
4. Then use the second djvu link, "WhatLinksHere", to see what links to the page and select the appropriate article name that most closely matches the section name. This is the name that should be added to the wstitle parameter in the Wikipedia article.

So for HMS Canso (1813) I looked for "Canso" on the page 245, then I looked for which section it was in using "WhatLinksHere".

I have another 20 or so pages I am going to fix but that leaves about another 100 which will be halfway through the process--the template is in place but the wstitle parameter is set to a generic "Index".

The pages can be found using this search insource:/(RNB1823|NBD1849) *\| *wstitle=Index/.

I hope you find that these tools make you life a little easier. -- PBS (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing. Both the dictionaries now have search facilities making it easier to identify all the mentions in them of a ship or a person. You will find the search boxes on the index pages:

• "Index". A Naval Biographical Dictionary. 1849.
• "Index". Royal Naval Biography. 1823–1835.

-- PBS (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PBS: thanks for all this. The search boxes look particularly useful as I am approaching the task of replacing the generic "Index" by going through the ship articles that use it. What is taking me time is that 1) I find a lot of other stuff to fix, some typos but mostly introducing templates for references and citations, and using the "efn" template for notes. 2) In trying to locate the Marshall source, I often have difficulty locating the bibliography entry because the entry may have come from a person other than the captain of the ship I am looking at. The new search function should speed this up. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the danger of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs. The problem with listing citations to "articles" in the same volume in the References section and then trying to cite those articles with an inline-citation is that they will have the same author and date (breaking the link). There are two common solutions to this one. The first is to assign {{SfnRef}} (or its link {{harvid}}) to the ref= parameter; However the alternative which I think is simpler, and therefore the one I use, is to alter the date= parameter by appending a letter to the year (an example of 1849a to 1849f is HMS Undaunted (1807)). -- PBS (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, seeing how much you frequent this part of Wikipedia, I'm hoping you might be able to help me with this query. I'm looking at the various HMS Sylphs, and Colledge has one, a tender, being built at Woolwich in 1821 but not being listed until 1832. Would this make it HMS Sylph (1821) or HMS Sylph (1832)?

Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, best place to look is in:

• Winfield, Rif (2014). British Warships in the Age of Sail 1817–1863: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates. Seaforth Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84832-169-4.

Unfortunately, I don't have the volume, and given that the vessels may not be Royal Navy, they may not be in it.

Do you have an email address? If so, I can email to you two pages that I have extracted from the National Maritime Museum's Warship Histories Vessels project (now defunct and no longer online). One page describes Sylph (1821) as having been built at Woolwich in 1821 as a cutter for the Post Office packet service. The other describes Sylph (1834) as a revenue vessel.

Colledge often also lists vessels of the British East India Company's Bombay Marine, even though technically they were not RN. There was a schooner HCS Sylph, of 6-8 guns and 78 tons (bm), that the Bombay Dockyard launched in 1806. I don't know what her final fate was, but she had some interesting incidents in her history. She is now on my ever-lengthening list of things to do. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, just found this: SYLPH was built in 1821 in Woolwich for the Holyhead-Dublin Postal Packet Service. Type: (2) Cutter. Length of Keel: 48' 8". Length of Gun: Deck: 61' 7". Beam: 21' 2". Depth of Hold: 10' 0". Tonnage: 114. Armaments: 2 brass 3lb cannon. Built as a model Port Office Packet by Woolwich dockyard for the Holyhead Station, following a recommendation of a Parliamentary Select Committee in 1819. Based on a design by Phillip Sainty of Wivenhoe. Her completion in 1821 however, coincided with the introduction of steam vessels at Holyhead so never entered service but was taken over by the Admiralty. Her service in the Royal Navy included periods as a tender at Portsmouth, Woolwich and Plymouth, until 1862 when she was loaned to Customs as a Watch vessel. She was sold in July 1882. [10] Acad Ronin (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I spent so long typing my reply that you got yours in first! Thank you for those further details on the 1821 Sylph. From that I would suppose that 1832 was when she was taken over by the Admiralty? Do those details also come from your NMM source?

Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response! Sadly I don't have access to that volume either. Those pages from the NMM sound great, and I'd appreciate it if you could email them to calbre88@gmail.com

That schooner sounds like it might be what I currently have down as HMS Sylph (1806), captured by pirates in 1808 (it seems like I should change that now...). I clearly have a lot more to do before I can fully differentiate between the Royal Navy Sylphs and the others!

Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, Welcome to the rat hole. One thing leads to another... 1) I will email the pages. 2) The 1806 was captured, but HMS Nereide recaptured her the same day and she went on to serve the Bombay Marine/Indian Navy for some more years. I listed her in Sylph (ship). If you list her in the HMS Sylph page, I would suggest listing her separately from the RN ships, perhaps in a "See also" section. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you for all the assistance. I have placed the 1806 under such a heading. Would it be pertinent to mention Sylph (ship) on the page as well?

Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, I generally don't bother mentioning the mercantile/civilian ship index on the HMS or USS Navy ship index pages, but I do mention the military ship index pages on the civilian ship index page. Not sure why I adopted the asymmetric treatment. This is wikipedia: do what you please until someone who has nothing better to do takes you to task. Submit if they have reason on their side, not just Wikipedia policy. :-) Acad Ronin (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got around to publishing HMS Sylph and HMS Sylph (1795). Apologies to your HCS Sylph (1806) that it took so long! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote above "The new search function should speed this up". I accidental deleted a volume from Bibliography of 18th–19th century Royal Naval history another book and relised when I put it back that might speed up your task:

• James, William; O'Byrne, Robert, eds. (1888). James Naval History: A Narrative of the Naval Battles, Single Ship Actions, Notable Sieges and Dashing Cutting-out Expeditions... London: W. H. Allen & Company.

Unfortunately I could not find the volume in the collection of the Internet Archive site (not to say it is not there), but Google has it in PD format). -- PBS (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the documentation of {{Infobox company}}, the the |type= field is about corporate organization/ownership (public/private/government), not the nature of the business itelf (bank, etc.). In a bunch of your recent edits, you adjusted the formatting of the against-docs value that an IP had recently added. Could you check back with your edits and try to fix them? DMacks (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: - what do you want me to do? Revert my changes or make other changes? I will happily revert my changes, but I am reluctant to make other changes for fear of falling afoul of some other WP rule/policy. Also, what is an "against-docs value"? Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the poor short-hand description in my original message. I think I got everything cleaned up. Mostly I wound up undoing a bunch of your edits along with someone else's. Theirs were the problem, and did not want you to feel I was targetting you. DMacks (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: Thanks. I was concerned that simply reverting my changes would not solve the problem, but wasn't clear on what would. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found the reason for the false positives with {{cite RNB1823}} (Marshall) and {{Cite NBD1849}} (O'Byrne). The new templates need to be added to a list (Wikipedia gets more and more complicated!). The details are here: User talk:Keith D#Harv error - false positive -- PBS (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS: - Thanks. I am going to continue to add RNB and NBD templates then, working under the assumption that the templates will be whitelisted. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm currently attempting to draft out the service of HMS Caroline (1795), much of which was in the East Indies. In November 1809 Caroline took part in a large attack on pirate vessels at Ras-al-Khyma which included the assistance of some HEIC vessels. After this Phillips has Caroline escorting transports to 'Burka Roads'. All my searches for this location just direct me to the item of clothing, and I was wondering if you might have any suggestions or pointers as to where 'Burka Roads' is? Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi user:Pickersgill-Cunliffe, I am on the road. I will revert in a couple of days when I am back to my home computer. In the meantime, try Google books. Drop the Roads, and just look for Burka. Also, look for Horsburgh in Google books. He wrote a lot about sailing directions in the 1840s, though he was mostly interested in Asia. Still, worth a try. Acad Ronin (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi user:Pickersgill-Cunliffe, I searched for “sailing directions Persian gulf Burka” in Google books and found it right away in Horsburgh. 23°44.5′N 57°59′E / 23.7417°N 57.983°E / 23.7417; 57.983 Summer residence of the Emir of Muscat. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, that's great! I'll have to look harder next time, I'll admit Google Books didn't cross my mind for whatever reason. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Acad Ronin: Do you by any chance have any more details on the sloop HMS Guller, or need for a Danish input on its activities in 1796? See Poul de Løvenørn who reported on 17 September from Farsund that the British sloop Guller had arrived with the privateer Le Petit Diable and de Flugheit Viking1808 (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC) and my apologies for getting this question in the wrong place a few minutes ago!! Viking1808 (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Viking1808: I can find no vessel by that name, not commissioned or hired. None of my usual sources (Winfield, National Maritime Museum, London Gazette, or Lloyd's List) have any such vessel. I can't even find her in Lloyd's Register as a merchantman. Could HMS Guller actually be HMS Seagull? She was in the North Sea at about the right time. Also, I could not find any mention of Petit Diable or de Flugheit in the London Gazette or Lloyd's List. Do you have the name of the captain of Guller? That would at least give us a good clue as to whether or not she was actually Seagull. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Acad Ronin: Thanks for trying! no name for the captain, unfortunately. I will have to put a note on the article that the ship has not been traced (yet). If it had been recorded as Gullen I might have agreed on the Seagull, but Guller is a tad too far for me. Thanks anyway. Viking1808 (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lookee Here!! French Privateer cutter 'Le Petit Diable' (1795) on threedecks.Viking1808 (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Acad Ronin: - You are right. Another look at the Danish source gives "den engelske Sloop Sea Guller", so it is definitely HMS Seagull (1795) The Dutch vessel may be named Vlugheit rather than Flugheit, but the only London Gazette entry I can find is in 1803 so still looking for that one. Thanks. Viking1808 (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Viking1808: – Great. I looked at the entry for Poul de Lovenorn and it stated that Seagull came to retrieve Petit Diable and Vlugheit, rather than bring them in. If we can clarify that question I can add the info to Seagull. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yet again @Acad Ronin: No! I cannot see that the account on Løvenørn can be read that Seagull came to retrieve the two ships. It is certainly intended to say that Seagull (rather sulkily, I think) escorted the ships into the Norwegian harbour for the Danes i.e. Løvenørn to take over and repatriate them to their dispossessed crews. Perhaps I am too close to my own text - if you can word it better please do. For the thrill of the chase, I am now hunting the names of the prizes taken by the Petit Diable and recaptured by Seagull. I will edit the name Guller to Seagull in the next few minutes. Viking1808 (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I fixed one reference and made a few minor spelling changes to your new article on Tweed. You had the launch date as 19=0 January 1807, and I've changed this to 19 January 1807. My apologies if this wasn't what it was meant to be! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Acad Ronin: I have just launched a new stub HMS Justitia (1807) giving the Danish end of this ship's history. I hope you may be interested in expanding the British end. As an offshoot of this article, the disambiguation page HMS Justitia may need to be renamed to Justitia (ships) as I have an earlier Danish ship Justitia and a brig of currently unknown nationality of the same name captured by Medusa around 1810 (see https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/16397/page/1250 ) still to investigate. Viking1808 (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Viking1808: I added the limited UK info, moved the article, and did some tidying. Don't rename or move the HMS Justitia page. We will eventually create a separate Justitia (ship) shipindex page that will link/refer to the separate shipindex pages for the HMS vessels, the Danish vessels, and any others that may show up. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad, I am once more in your debt; on this occasion for HMS Swift (1804). According to [11] (page p040130) Welham Clarke seems to have encountered Thomas Hopper in the vicinity of [12] It's nothing that need affect the text, but a reference may be in order.

Keep eating the pumpkins. RAClarke (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RAClarke:, thanks for this. I have added the info to both the article on HMS Swift (Pacific), and Robert (Spy). Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Hired armed lugger Aristocrat. I hadn't bothered to even red link it, I was so sure it would never be created and only discovered it by accident when searching for George M'Kinley --Ykraps (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ykraps:, Thanks for the beer. As you may have noticed, I tend to write up minor vessels, while leaving the rated vessels to others. One, I find the smaller vessels are often interesting and give me a chance to add value by combining sources as the vessels move through different roles: privateer, slave ship, whaler, merchantman, etc., before or after the RN service. Second, I think I have a greater chance to stimulate delight in a WP user who, like you, never expected to find an article on the vessel. Incidentally, I am starting to write up Stormont. She is much more interesting than I had expected and I will have to go back sometime and write up her earlier career as the highly successful American privateer General Pickering. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ykraps:, I have just uploaded HMS Stormont, so you may ink to her in your article on M'Kinley. When that is up please let me know and I will link to him in the article on her. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was very quick work. Thanks once again. I will add a link and will of course let you know when George M'Kinley is in mainspace. Although when that will be I don't know, real life appears to be getting in the way at the moment. Best regards --Ykraps (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you created Cyrus (ship) and wonder if you might be able to assist with HMS Cyrus? The later two ships of that name seem easy enough to identify, but the first HMS Cyrus differs between Colledge and Winfield. Colledge has the transport purchased in 1771 while Winfield has it in 1782. Any chance you might have a source to provide clarification? Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, No joy, I am afraid. Winfield agrees with the NMM database, which is not surprising as both are based on Admiralty records. Hepper agrees with Colledge, which gives me pause, as Hepper is generally highly accurate. Still, I tend to favor Winfield. I have tried to find references to a Cyrus transport in the London Gazette, in Lloyd's List around 1789-1782, or in Lloyd's Register immediately prior to 1781 and have found nothing. Apparently Cyrus was a purchase, but it is possible that she was bought on the stocks. I don't have the relevant Winfield, but he might say something. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrating, but thanks for giving it a try! I think I'll stick with Winfield; he has Cyrus under the same name as a merchant vessel and purchased in around September 1782 with fitting and coppering completed by January 1783. Unsure whether her being coppered by the RN means she was purchased on the stocks and this was the navy completing her, or whether this was an added upgrade. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AR, I woukd be grateful for your input on File:John Thomas Serres - HMS Sirius sailing off Gibraltar.jpg, by Serres (1759-1825). There are 3 candidates. The 2 favourites being the fifth-rates, the other being HMS Sirius (1786). Regrettably I think it's HMS Sirius (1797), rather than HMS Sirius (1813) for which I have nought and would prefer. Your thoughts? Broichmore (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Broichmore:, I would have to vote for the 1797 5th rate. She was at Trafalgar and spent time in the Med. According to Winfield, the 1813 Sirius was never commissioned and never got out of Portsmouth. Sure Serres could have painted a fantasy picture, but that seems highly improbable. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, I see you updated the disambiguation page, which misled me. Cheers. Broichmore (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A little something for framing perhaps. File:A view of the Royal Navy of Great Britain, published 15 Mar 1804 RCIN 735105.jpg - Broichmore (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Leyland had lots of boats, two called Enterprise and one called Enterprize. I haven't mentioned the latter in the article but you've changed one of the boats that I think is called Enterprise to Enterprize. I could be wrong. Do you have access to the sources? Desertarun (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Desertarun:, my primary source is the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade database, (https://www.slavevoyages.org/voyage/database), which lists all three vessels under Enterprize, which was, I believe, the predominant spelling at the time. A quick check of Lloyd's Register also shows the now obsolete spelling for the 1790 Enterprize too (https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015050578056?urlappend=%3Bseq=104 No.358). I generally try to use the spellings as they appear in the sources to make it easier for someone using the sources to use computer search to find the items in the source, and to find other contemporary sources. The reason I added the third Enterprize to the Leyland article was to make it easier for someone linking him to an Enterprize to see that there were three relevant possibilities. Lastly, I suspect that it would be worthwhile to have an article "List of vessels owned by Thomas Leyland", where we could point out that, for instance, he owned Harlequin and Madam Pookata for only one voyage each. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My sources do use Enterprise but spelling wasn't very important back in the day so I won't change your edits. The Enterprize that I know of is here Enterprize (1803 ship). That one is later than those referred to in the article. There is a lot more I could write about him but I've just moved on now. Desertarun (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Think this is a great picture File:Roseau, 1761 RCIN 733032.b.jpg. Can't get a fix on the Montague mentioned. I used to live for a while on the hill on the right side of the view. Broichmore (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Broichmore:, WP has an article on HMS Montagu (1757) where I have now inserted a mention of the 1761 attack on Dominica. That might be a suitable place to insert a copy of the image. Unfortunately, the London Gazette article on the invasion does not name the vessels involved. Do we have any idea which frigates were involved? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, butting in here. Rif Winfield notes that HMS Dublin (1757), HMS Sutherland (1741), HMS Norwich (1745), HMS Falkland (1696), and HMS Stirling Castle (1742) were present. This [13] suggests that the accompanying frigates were HMS Penzance (1747), HMS Repulse (1759), and HMS Lizard (1757). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added into Invasion of Dominica (1761) and Montagu, the ships I know of namely: Montague, Sutherland, Belliqueux, and flag ship Dublin, and two (unknown) frigates. These are the ships mentioned on the painting and echoed by the Royal Collection. The text on the painting may take some testing, but the mentioned ships must have been present amongst others. Feel free to tinker with it... Broichmore (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: kronoskaf gives good reasons for two of the extra ships being involved, and not being in the picture. Stirling Castle (away to the windward of the island in a rear-guard defensive role) and Falkland (delayed by a storm, arriving a few days later than the attack). The picture I referred to File:Roseau, 1761 RCIN 733032.b.jpg was drawn by Sir James Douglas, 1st Baronet who must have been an eye witness. Pretty solid I think. I managed to dig up another image File:A perspective view of Roseau in the island of Dominica in the West Indies LCCN2003677131.jpg of the ships in action on the day, but unfortunately it's probably derived from Campbell and doesn't name ships. Broichmore (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate issue, do you know anything about an image of the whaler Matilda held by the NMM at Greenwich? Matilda is the former HMS Esk (1814) and I am about to do an article on her. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean File:James Miller Huggins (c.1807-1870) - The Ship 'Matilda' and Cutter 'Zephyr' - BHC3481 - Royal Museums Greenwich.jpg. Broichmore (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed signals here. I have restored to the jpg file the detail from the museum website (RMG) who say there that it's the Matilda, 1803. Meaning launched 1803. In the text it alludes to 1830 maybe. The museum can be queried for more info. They are helpful. The way to do it is via the Art UK site, hit on the "Send information to Art Detective". Broichmore (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry had to pop out, have you seen commons:Category:HMS Esk (ship, 1813)? Broichmore (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Broichmore:, Matilda = HMS Esk (1813), sold in 1829, which then became a whaler. So the picture is the Matilda I am looking for. Many thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AC, Do you agree there is a mix-up on the disambig page en:HMS St George for HMS Charles (1668) renamed HMS St George in 1687 and the HMS St George of 1701? HMS St George (1701) as an article should be in red. Broichmore (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Broichmore:, I believe you are correct. Colledge would think so too. Unfortunately, I don't have the relevant Winfield volume to add info. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Broichmore: per Winfield:

"The Saint George had been built in 1668 as the Charles; she had been renamed 21.10.1687, and reclassed as a Second Rate, but was never commissioned until after the 1701 rebuilding.", p. 108

The rebuild was ordered on 20.5.1699 and she was launched on 9.7.1701, p. 110. - Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's clear.

What about the reference on the disambig page for: HMS St George (1701), a discovery ship purchased in 1701 and sunk in 1716 as a foundation for Chatham Dockyard.

Do we just delete it? Broichmore (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just found a Colledge reference dated 2020 for it. Broichmore (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Completely different ship. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In February 1716 St George, Discovery ship, 654 bm 132ft x 34ft was sunk as a foundation at Chatham; same thing in print 1999 Broichmore (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Broichmore: & @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, unfortunately, I doubt that we can find enough even to do a stubby on St George (1701). Too early for Lloyd's Register or Lloyd's List. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dampier's third voyage in 1703, aboard the St. George, was accompanied also by the Cinque Ports, commanded by Alexander Selkirk. Could this be it, and is it an HMS? Broichmore (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Apparently abandoned in Peru in 1707. Broichmore (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting interesting, but tricky. I'll do a little light digging mañana, but without any sense of urgency that term might evoke. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Starting to think she wasn't an RN ship. Michael Phillips doesn't record her, if that helps at all. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The National Maritime Museum lists Saint George (1701) as a hulk purchased at Hull. Mentions the speculation that she might have been Dampier's ship, but notes that Dampier's ship was abandoned in Peru in 1707 or so. So beginning to look like two vessels. Perhaps books on Dampier and his voyages might have more. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per this [14] the fate of Dampier's St George is as follows:

• "In a very short time the St. George was struck between wind and water in her powder-room, and two feet of plank were driven in under either quarter; after which nothing remained to Dampier but to make his escape whilst his crazy ship continued to swim."
• "Dampier called a council, and it was resolved that they should quit the St. George and sail away to the East Indies in their prize. It is manifest from this resolution that their easy plundering of Puna, and their equally easy capture of the bark, had failed to reconcile them to a longer cruise against the Spaniards. Having transferred everything likely to be of use to them from the St. George, they left that crazy fabric rolling at her anchor and steered westwards for the Indies"

For her identity I think this is rather helpful:

• "Speculative men of substance were found and an expedition equipped, the ships being the St. George, Captain William Dampier, and the Fame, Captain John Pulling. The vessels were liberally armed and manned, and were commissioned -spite of the venture being wholly one of privateering- by Prince George of Denmark, Lord High Admiral, to cruise against the French and the Spaniards. The terms were, 'No purchase, no pay !'"

- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. That means the Saint George (1701) is as per Colledge and that there is almost nothing to add there. It also means that Dampier's Saint George is not HMS. Acad Ronin (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I am creating a stubby for St George (1701). Do you have a cite for the "Speculative... " quote? I would like to provide the verifiability that Dampier's vessel was a privateer and not St George (1701). Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source is here [15]. If for some reason it doesn't take you to the right place the page is 110. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition this [16] has St George at 26 guns. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @Broichmore: & @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: OK. HMS St George (1701) is up. I am not up to doing Dampier's St George. That's a bigger project than I care to start now. But on the HMS, if you have anything else at all to add, please do so. Thanks for the help, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've removed the complement and armament figures from the article assuming you used the ones I linked; those were for Dampier's St George. Will keep searching for anything on the discovery ship St George. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey mate.. Thank you for undoing the change that I made on the Bank of Ceylon Sri Lanka wiki page. I am having a hard time finding how to upload copyrighted logos. could you direct me in the right direction? BOC is one of the Largest Banks in Sri Lanka, yet the wiki logo is incorrect. Yaham Perera (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you created Dispatch (1795 ship) back in 2016 and considering it's not the most highly trafficked article I thought I'd bypass the talk page and go straight here. Is the name of the article correct? As a Russian warship should it not be "Russian sloop Dispatch"? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I am quite comfortable with your moving it, though I would suggest a name such as Dispatch (1795 Russian sloop). I generally go with the first/launching name of a vessel and use redirects, when I think of it, when the vessel is better known under a later name. I am not consistent though. Given that I specialize in unimportant vessels (merchant vessels and sub-frigate RN vessels mostly), I give little thought to what will draw casual readers. :-), Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do these look like the Providence or Dasher to you? Broichmore (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore:, if I had to guess, I would say Dasher, though both were ship-rigged vessels of the same burthen. That would be a slightly better fit with the artist's service and date of creation. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, here's the result. Broichmore (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore:, nice pictures. I wish he had added a little description as they could be nice to illustrate some other articles too. Thanks. regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking, that this is a view is of the Orestes, of 1824 rather than 1842? Note the palm trees (Its thought West Indies) on the shore line.

There's another picture of her off Barcelona (with a cityscape behind). I'm baffled... having difficulty pinning down both events, other than to say she operated in both regions. Any thoughts? Broichmore (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no 1842 Orestes, that must be a typo. She was converted into a coal hulk in 1852 and the next Orestes was not launched until 1860. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: & @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:. Here's what I have from O'Byrne: "Charles Arthur Lodder served as Midshipman of the Powerful 84, Commodore Chas. Napier, during all the operations on the coast of Syria, including the bombardment of St. Jean d’Acre. He passed his examination 7 July, 1842; was employed in the Mediterranean, as Mate, from the close of that year until promoted to the rank of Lieutenant 26 June, 1846, of the Orestes 18, Capt. Hon. Swynfen Thos. Carnegie, and Virago steam-sloop, Capts. Geo. Graham Otway and John Lunn; and since 22 Oct. in the latter year has been serving in the Sidon steam-frigate, Capt. Wm. Honyman Henderson, now on the coast of Portugal." I would think the pictures are from the 1842-6/1846 period when Orestes was in the Med again. She had been in the Med between 1836 and 1838, and was i a bad storm in the western Med in March 1838 that cost her her rudder, but apparently no masts. I will dig a little more to see if I can pin things down a little more. Unfortunately, I don't have the later Winfield. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work on Swynfen Carnegie not too long ago, but didn't get anything on his period in command of Orestes apart from that it was from 10 August 1842 to November 1843. I find the lack of accessible copies of the final Winfield very frustrating at times like these!

In a vague attempt to see where Orestes served throughout her career: Her first services were seemingly in the English Channel under Henry Litchfield where she served as an experimental ship. She soon after went to the Halifax Station and Litchfield was replaced by William Jones in 1826 while still there, where she stayed until some part of 1827. Around 1828 she was in the Med under John Reynolds, who then took her to the Irish Station in February where she stayed until at least July 1830. While on that station she fought smugglers, protected inbound convoys and blockaded Tangier. William Nugent Glascock commanded her from March 1831, and she served for around a year as senior ship of a squadron protecting trade off the Douro. Glascock was promoted in 1833 and replaced by Sir William Dickson, still off Lisbon and the Douro. She was decommissioned in spring 1834, and I think she may have actually been at Bermuda until November 1834 when she moved to the Med from 1834-38, under Henry John Codrington, Julius James Farmer Newell, and then William Holt. From August 1838 to November 1841 she was to be found on the South American Station under Peter Sampson Hambly. At the end of 1843 John James Robinson replaced Carnegie in the Med, and under him she participated in some interesting diplomatic stuff on Lemnos. Edward St. Leger Cannon had her still in the Med 1843-46, and she was paid off from that station in around November. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glascock wrote a letter dated 17 Dec.1832 off Oporto. In it he writes HM sloop ORESTES I fear has been mortally wounded, and the ship, in her masts, yards, rigging and bulwarks, has suffered considerably. Still nothing about similar in the WI or Barcelona. Broichmore (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She spent time off Barcelona in her period in the Mediterranean under Codrington, per this. I know the blurb for the Barcelona image talks about Glascock and Hathorn's service with him, but not sure if this necessarily means it has to be this period which is depicted? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1 January 1837, probably off Malaga: "On January 1st, about five o'clock in the evening, the wind came on to blow fresh from the eastward; the Tyne struck top gallant masts, cleared hawse, and prepared for a gale from tho eastward. Soon after his Majesty's ship Orestes arrived, and anchored just within the bar, which runs off the mole ; at about ten, P.M, the wind and swell increasing, the Orestes struck loweryards and top masts, and let go sheet anchor; she had three anchors a-bead. On the morning of the 2d, the wind increased to a heavy gale, and the ring to which the Tyne's sheet cable was secured on the mole gave way. The sudden jerk occasioned the best bowor cable to carry away the stoppers and compresser, and she could not be secured until we found ourselves striking abaft, and t)0 fathoms of chain run out. At half-past ten o'clock, a.m., we observed the Orestes cut away her masts, and his Majesty's ship Jaseur heave all her guns overboard ; the former having parted her sheet-cable, and the Jaseur dragging her anchor. The Tyne immediately struck lower-yards and top masts. \Ye saw three merchant brigs, ono French and one Spanish felucca, wrecked on the rocks. At half-past cloven o'clock, a.m., a Spanish vessel, having parted her cable, drifted foul of the Tyne ; from her we saved five people, and she got clear of us, and was wrecked astern. Early in the after- noon, the sea running very heavy and the gale increasing to a hurricane, .we unshipped our rudder, and (as we afterwards dis- covered) knocked away forty feet of our main keel and six feet four inches deadwood from the keel. The Tyne and Orestes continued striking all night; during which the Orestes lost her rudder. Fortunately on the 3d the gale moderated. The Tyne then hove ahead and secured to the mole, and assisted the Orestes to do the same. The Orestes, jury-rigged, is to proceed on the 21th of this month to Malta, per Barcelona." ^[1]

@Broichmore: & @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Well done you. I have not been able to find anything in the newspaper databases I can access. Still, not clear that this last event caused any dismasting. The search goes on. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here behind a paywall seem to be references in May 1855 of a French brig of war Orestes dismasted ; and towed into Port Royal, Jamaica. Unfortunately doesn't fit in with Lodder's servivce in 1842...

In 1837 reports of 20 January say Four merchant vessels had already been wrecked at Malaga, in the gale of tbe 1st and 2nd, and his Britannic Majesty's corvette Orestes. 18, was dismasted. and that the British brigs war Tyne and Jaseur were in danger. The gale continued... 11 February 1837 Westmorland Gazette says: Orestes continued striking all night, during which the Orestes lost her rudder. On the 3d the gale moderated, Same storm? Malaga is some distance from Barcelona though, 570 miles by road...

In 1846 the Orestes. 18, was dismasted this morning. After she was paid off yesterday. Commander Cannon... Our disambig page says and she was converted into a coal depot in 1852. Broichmore (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Parr (slave trader), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after they met, evolutionary scientist Charles Darwin described Thomas Parr as an "old, miserly squire"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Parr (slave trader). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Parr (slave trader)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this slaver of 1760? is HMS Blandford (1741)?

Hi @Broichmore: Could be. The Blandford slaver was apparently of 270 tons, launched in 1719, and made one slave voyage between 1744-45. Unfortunately, I am in London on vacation and so remote from most of my resources, which do not include the relevant Winfield. Still, it is a definite maybe. Also, are you by any chance in London? If so, care to meet? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(sticking my oar in once again..) the 1741 Blandford was serving off Lisbon in the 1744-45 period per Winfield; I really don't think it's her. However the previous Blandford of 1719 matches the launch date of the slaver and per Winfield she was sold in October 1742, making slavery a possible post-RN career for her? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: The 1719 Blanchford sounds very likely. Unfortunately, although I have the slave voyage info, I have nothing more. Lloyd's Register for the relevant span is not online, if it even exists. By-the-way, P-C, the invitation to meet extends to you too, if you are in London. Acad Ronin (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, a kind offer, sadly I'm nowhere near and don't expect to be for a while. RE Blandford I'm not sure where one could look for post-RN service, if there is anywhere else. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AC, I'm scheduled to go to the monthly London meeting tomorrow. Your more than welcome. Otherwise e-mail me an alternative if you cant make that... Broichmore (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: – Too bad; perhaps some other time. @Broichmore: – not possible for next few days; relatives. Will come up with some suggestions soon. Cheers all, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad, I see you are still chipping away at the minor vessels. I was surprised to read that Nelson was displeased with Tygress at Copehagen. Hore's book [[17]] quotes a dispatch from Nelson to Parker,

"Captain Rose, who volunteered his services to direct the gun-brigs, did everything possible to get them forward, but the current was too strong for them to be of service during the action, but no less merit is due to Capt Rose, and I believe all the officers and crews of the gun-brigs for their exertions".

I believe Tygress was one of these gun-brigs and if so, the two dispatches seem at odds. Do you have anymore information? --Ykraps (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ykraps: Sorry, I don't have anything more. When I added the Nelson quote I searched everywhere I could for any more info. I really wanted to know what the behaviour was, but found nothing. If you can find anything to reconcile the two statements, or anything else to clarify what went on that would be great. Acad Ronin (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame. Is volume 6 of the Naval Chronicle online or do you know the date of that dispatch? I am wondering whether Nelson wrote it before he understood the reasons behind the gun-brigs' poor performance.--Ykraps (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ykraps: [18] Search under "Tigress". P.69. Nelson's letter was dated 18 June 1801. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doesn't say specifically that the misconduct occured at Copenhagen, which is what I'd assumed, and written some time after. Shame we don't have any more information.--Ykraps (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While following links, I noticed that you added some material to HMS Tigris last year (here) that included several spfn templates, but there are no source citations in the article for them. I thought you might want to fix that, one way or another. - Donald Albury 20:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Albury: – Sorted. Thanks for the catch.Acad Ronin (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you knew where to find the sources needed. - Donald Albury 21:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just finished giving a little expansion to HMS Leith (1777). Leith was a 20-gun hired ship, hired in 1777 and released in 1782 per Winfield (should the article thus be HM hired armed ship Leith?). I wondered if you might be able to dig up any more details as to her purchase or civilian service? Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, I am still away from my usual resources, but COVID/tests permitting, I will be home by Sunday and will look into this then. Depending on what, if anything, I find, we can think about the article's name then. Cheers, and fingers crossed, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: as you know, I have been working on Leith. I have taken it as far as I can for now. (I am looking into what we can find about the privteer Necker, but that might take some time. We need to think about the title for the article. I don't think she should be "HMS", but that's how she is listed in HMS Leith where she is one of only two vessels by that name. On a side issue, any interest in creating an article on the action on 13 May 1779? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that work you've put in to the article, it's way more than I ever hoped would be possible and certainly more than I could have found on my own! The article title is a difficulty, I agree. I'm leaning towards having the lede as "HMS Leith, also known as HM hired armed ship Leith..." because Lavery, who I would regard as rather an expert on naval matters of the period, describes her as "HMS Leith" in Shield of Empire. Not perfect I know, but cheekily it does avoid the issue of having a set index article page with only one ship...!

Per the action of 13 May 1779, an interesting suggestion. Considering we've the capture of a frigate and the capture/destruction of a number of smaller vessels as well as the connection to the invasion it's certainly worthwhile to write about. My only question is to whether it should be added to the existing Invasion of Jersey (1779) or given its own article as you suggest? Open to being persuaded either way! Thanks again, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A completely different point but I suppose I'll put it here as well. When writing note no. 16 in HMS Caroline (1795) the only Bombay Marine ship I didn't figure out the red link for was HCS Fury. Any suggestions? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: 1) Have found nothing about Fury beyond that she had six guns. Not built at Bombay or Calcutta. Not in lists of HCS vessels in 1819 or 1824. Not in Hackman's listing of EIC vessels. Only mention is in Low in connection with the expedition. Best guess: short-term purchase, renaming, and subsequent sale of a local vessel. 2) Winfield treats Leith as a hired vessel, not a commissioned one. Colledge and Warlow list her as an armed ship, with no discussion beyond that. Am still of two minds, but your solution seems best for now. 3) I would say action rather than integrating into the invasion article. The action occurred after the invasion. Though it was a consequence, most of the things I have found don't draw the link. (I haven't checked James.) Acad Ronin (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clowes provides a page on the action, which is all I've looked at so far. James doesn't cover it being as he only writes in detail from 1796. Not sure what the best sources would be for more details on the action. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I have only found one London Gazette letter so far and it only has Experiment being sent to Jersey but there is no report of the action; there may not be one. If so, writing the article will require putting bits and pieces together. It probably wouldn't be a big article, but it would tie together a number of vessels and other articles, including the 1779 invasion.Acad Ronin (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collating some sources here:

• Clowes vol 4 p. 25
• Duncan vol 2 p. 321
• DNB second paragraph
• ODNB second paragraph
• painting of action. This is on commons as commons:File:Combat naval sur les côtes de France en 1779.jpg.
• Hargreaves p. 166
• Universal Magazine pp. 258–260 (this is a copy of the main London Gazette report but I can't see to find the original)
• The Field of Mars search "Concale Bay"
• Beatson pp. 538–541

-Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Great painting. That alone makes this a worthwhile project. One thing I noted from the written sources is the lack of congruence over the question of the vessels of the British squadron. It is by-and-large clear what vessels they captured and destroyed, or did not, but other than Experiment, there is no consensus on the squadron's members. Prize money notices may help, but only up to a point. I believe that in addition to the vessels of the squadron detached from the convoy, a second force that included Leith set sail from Portsmouth. It may or may not have participated in the action, but was included in the prize money. All-in-all, an interesting project replete with "definite maybes". Acad Ronin (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we've got is two groups of ships, one led by Wallace in Experiment going around the west of Jersey and the other led by Richmond going around the east (or at least going a different way?) from Portsmouth. Between them they pincer the French ships until Wallace is able to reach and attack them. Not sure how many ships were left by Arbuthnot to join the chase. The DNB seems to be saying that only Experiment was detached and that Wallace then took charge of other ships already on station. Some of the following information I take from the morethannelson article, which while as frustratingly unsourced as ever does provide a nice overview and suggests that at least other sources are available...somewhere!

Wallace's squadron

• Experiment - Captain Sir James Wallace
• Pallas - Captain Thomas Spry
• Unicorn - Captain John Ford
• Cabot - Commander Edmund Dod
• Fortune - Commander Charles Powell Hamilton
• ?

Gidoin's squadron

• Richmond - Captain John Gidoin
• Raleigh - Captain James Gambier
• Convert - Captain Henry Harvey
• Beaver - Commander Joseph Peyton
• Cygnet - Commander Thomas Drury
• ?
• ?
• ?

Unknown position

• Leith - Commander Peter Rothe
• Wasp - Commander James Lys
• True Briton (merchant Tartar purchased 1778) - Lieutenant Charles Cobb (Winfield doesn't have her being commissioned until July)

Interestingly morethannelson records Peter Rothe as being the first lieutenant of Experiment at the action, so that raises even more questions about the career of Leith! - Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acad Ronin I've created Action of 13 May 1779. I'm still a little iffy as to the French ships involved, but think I've got them pretty much sorted now. Biggest issue is the lack of any names for French commanders involved. I wonder if Demerliac or something similar could assist (I don't have access to any useful France-leaning sources)? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Great work. I have to run now, but am finding what I can. Several of the French vessels mentioned don't seem to exist so more digging is required. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acad Ronin Many thanks for that start you've made, it looks like I'll have to revise the sentences stating that Guepe was the only ship rescued! Look forward to seeing what else you're able to dig up. Thanks again, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re Haasje (1788 ship), you state her namesake is the hare. In Dutch, the suffix "-je" is a diminutive. "Haasje" thus refers to the leveret, the young of the hare. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thought I'd note that I now have access to the 1817—1863 Winfield; I know it's been an annoyance in the past. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Great. By the end of the month I should have the Kindle version of the 1714–1792 book. That will give us coverage from 1714 through 1863. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that commons:File:Thomas Whitcombe - H.M.S. Albion, 74 Guns, coming to Anchor in the Downs.jpg is regretably HMS Albion (1802) as opposed to HMS Albion (1763)? Any thoughts? Broichmore (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: I would agree, though only because 1802 would better fit when the painting was probably painted. Acad Ronin (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image commons:File:John Wilson Carmichael - H.M.S. Charlotte, and other shipping.jpg provides some questions; for two ships at least... Broichmore (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: I fixed three typos, but two involved the same vessel, HMS Granicus. The names of the other ships of the line were OK, or am I missing something? Acad Ronin (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, makes a lot of sense but HMS? Hebrus? Broichmore (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: HMS Granicus (1813), and HMS Hebrus (1813), both Scamander-class frigates. Both at Algiers and both sold 1817. If I wasn't focusing on smaller RN vessels and merchantmen I would feel compelled to write them up. Acad Ronin (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks. Broichmore (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are two pictures here of the Revenge (one of them attached within this image), File:Francis Holman - 'Revenge' on the open sea off the coast of Dover.jpg. The auction house says H.M.S on one, but I'm thinking EIC? Both have red flags... Which ship? Broichmore (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Broichmore: 1) I can't identify the Revenge of the Dover picture. A date for the painting might help, but there was no suitable HMS Revenge. It was a relatively scarce name for mercantile vessels, though popular among privateers, which were generally small. 2) There was an HCS Revenge (1755–1782}}, but I am not aware of any report that she had visited England. She is almost certainly the Revenge of the second picture with Protector and Bombay. 3) The Thornton of the picture is ship-rigged (three masts), rather than cutter-rigged (one mast), and looks larger than 31 tons (bm). There was a contemporary ship Thornton of 257 tons (bm), launched at Hull in 1788, that was a West Indiaman and later a whaler in the Davis Strait fishery. By 1810 there were four vessels named Thornton, and one named Thorntons. So, some puzzles. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added "Unidentified ships in England" as a cat to it. Broichmore (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently created HMS Saint Eustatius, a sixth rate captured from the Dutch in 1781. While the basic details of her dimensions, armament, and British commanders are available, I've struggled to find anything solid on her previous Dutch service, or what she actually did in British service. Her original name was de Graaf, and I suspect that she was named after the governor of Sint Eustatius, where she was captured, Johannes de Graaff, which might mean she was a locally built ship. That's all complete conjecture however, and this is a plea for any suggestions you might have... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Off to bed, but thought that I would pass on the following. 1) The van Maanen paper that I cite in the article I just finished on HMS Princess of Orange (1799) has no Dutch naval vessel named de Graaff. or Graaff, Eustatius, Sint Eustatius, St Eustatius, or Saint Eustatius. 2) There was a merchant vessel named Saint Eustatius that put into Curacoa in early 1781 unable to proceed to Holland because she had become unseaworthy. Her cargo was transshipped aboard Margareta Catherina, another vessel that the British were able to seize at Saint Eustatius.^[1] I have no info on what happened to Saint Eustatius afterwards. 3) There is nothing in the London Gazette concerning a de Graaff or Graaff, or an HMS Saint Eustatius. 4) The NMM's database lists only St Eustatius's dimensions and names only two commanders, Andrew Sutherland and Hon. W. Carnegie, all of which you have Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of times, Comet (1791 ship) is referred to as Commerce. Is this an error or was she renamed? Mjroots (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: – Thanks for catching this. Comet, not Commerce. I work on so many vessels with similar names I sometimes get lost. Acad Ronin (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in this edit you introduced an sfn reference to "Winfield Roberts 2015", but did not define the reference. This added it to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and means that nobody can look up the reference. Could you fix it please? DuncanHill (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: I was in the process of doing so when you intervened. No worries, I will try again. Acad Ronin (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in this edit you changed the listed Winfield work. The {{sfnp}} references you placed in the text call the work you removed, not the one you added. I don't have access to either to check which you meant. Could you check these and fix them? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: Blast. I pasted the item in my list of sources below the one I mean to cut and paste. Should be fixed now.Acad Ronin (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is - but I now see "Hepper 1994" isn't defined. I've got User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js installed, which highlights this sort of thing, you might find it helpful. I do appreciate all the work you are doing on these ships, I always find them interesting .

Hi AC, perhaps you will be interested by General Burnside's Ship, the Spalding. Happy Xmas. Broichmore (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: Thanks for this, but I am trying to combat entropy by staying in my lane. That aside, best wishes for the New Year. I hope we will get more of your illustrations for the vessels whose histories I write. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi. I looked through the log of the California, of New Bedford. It doesn't appear to mention saving the crew of the Warren in July 1852. Perhaps it was later in the season? What was your source? ST1849 (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ST1849: Damned if I can find the source. I can't even find newspaper accounts of the loss, yet I must have found it somewhere. Although the loss was in July, if the crew took to the boats, the rescue may have taken place later, though I doubt much past August. Alternatively, California was probably not a unique name, so could it have been another California? I know Captain Heath was saved as he shows up in a later voyage, but that's the best I can do. Regrets, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only know of one whaleship named the California. I looked through Starbuck and he didn't list any others. I read through August but the log becomes faded towards the end of the month and beginning of September. It only mentioned a ship that wrecked in Holy Cross Bay as far as I can tell. Whalemen's Shipping List (November 2, 1852, page 257) mentions the ship being lost "about July 10". I'll try to find the issue of the Friend that mentioned it. I believe it only said "early part of July" though. I don't recall either listing who rescued them though. Those two sources are good for whaleship wrecks. ST1849 (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So the October 8, 1852 issue of the Friend states that "Capt. Heath and crew are on board the ship California" (p. 56). They might've been transferred from another ship to the California at some point (they did that a lot). I'll read through more of the log to see if it mentions them.

@ST1849: Super. I knew I couldn't have made it up. The sources on the actual dates of Warren's loss do not agree, but they are clear. It was the California bit that was missing. I know from what I have done on British whalers that often surviving crew members might be parceled out, or transferred from the rescuer to the next vessel heading home, so I agree that California may not have been the actual rescuer. Feel free to amend the article to reflect that and anything else you discover. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm currently writing up HMS Resistance (1782), as part of which I've found that on 10 June 1797 she captured Kupang alongside HCS Intrepid (1780). Considering that the Bombay Marine is far more your side of affairs than mine, I wondered if you might know of any other such affairs Resistance was involved in alongside it? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Main source for Bombay Marine is Rathbone Low's History of the Indian Navy. He has some paragraph's on Resistance's loss: https://archive.org/details/historyofindiann01lowc/page/206/mode/2up?q=Resistance . Am looking for any other mentions. Acad Ronin (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Nothing more in Low re Resistance. Acad Ronin (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an interesting pickle. Macleod states that Frost came from Intrepid, but Low has him coming from HCS Bombay! What's correct?! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Find a third source and go with the weight of the evidence? Report the discreancy and don't take sides? Is it critical? One thing I have found is that even official sources can contain mistakes that then get perpetuated. Documentation of personnel gets better with James, Marshall, and O'Byrne, but that's later than your period. Acad Ronin (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every officer on Resistance died when she exploded in 1798, so there's not a single useful Marshall or O'Byrne focusing on the ship! I'll do what you suggest per vessels present at Kupang. Thanks again for the assistance. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Glad to help, even if my help is worth slightly less than what you paid for it. :-) Acad Ronin (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion as to whether she was launched in 1793 or 1794. I've removed the 1795 ships category and changed it to 1790s ships. Please can you check and amend as necessary. If launched before 1795 an entry needs to be made to the relevant list of ship launches. Mjroots (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: It was 1794. I have changed the shipbox and the category to that. What do you mean by the "relevant list of ship launches"? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of ship launches in 1794. Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just started work on what will hopefully become HMS Beaulieu, a one-off privately constructed frigate commissioned in 1791. While Winfield provides some pretty solid construction/design details, I was pretty shocked to discover that I can't find any mention of her in any volume of Gardiner, may that be First Frigates, Heavy Frigates, or Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars. I don't know if I'm missing something very obvious, but if you have any suggestions as to where Beaulieu is hiding in academia I'd love to hear them... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Nothing I am afraid. I looked under Buckler's Hard, but nothing there either. There may be something buried in Mariner's Mirror, but if so it is buried deep. Still, you've got a great project. I found an interesting recruiting bill, a painting, and lots of stuff on actions and the like. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look. I must admit to being rather in love with that broadsheet, I'll include it if it's the last thing I do on this site! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been writing up HMS Swallow for a short while now. In 1766 she went on an expedition to the Pacific, and for the first half of her voyage she was in company with the store ship Prince Frederick. What's the likelihood that this store ship and HMS Prince Frederick are one and the same? Many thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: The first HMS Prince Frederick was broken up in 1740. The second, which Colledge thought was a rebuild of the first, was a lazarette at the time of the expedition. Both were too large for storeships. Here is the URL of the relevant page from the 1764 volume of Lloyd's Register: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015004741792?urlappend=%3Bseq=150 The most likely candidate for a storeship is the former bomb vessel. Unfortunately, I haven't figured out which Navy vessel that was. The Prince Frederick, Johnston, master, is the least likely as I can find SAD data on her going to and from Jamaica. In 1765 there is mention of a Prince Frederick transport carrying troops to Jamaica. I will do a little more digging. Acad Ronin (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I suspect that the former bomb vessel was HMS Furnace (1740), but that is not consistent with the "Gra bomb" of Lloyd's Register. I was unable to find anything that would enable me to nail down Prince Frederick. Regrets add regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me butting in. Prince Frederick would be the former Grenado/Grenada/Granada Bomb (spelled out in LR1768), launched 1742, later a sloop and sold in 1763 to Nesbit and Co. They almost completely rebuilt her in the following year for West Indies trading, under master Harman/Hannan/Hamond/Hanan (LR, LL and other papers). When the Prince Frederick in question returned from her half-trip of exploration (with 7 exotic "Patagonians" on board), she arrived in The Downs on 15 May 1767 under "Captain Hanan". Davidships (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidships: That's super. Many thanks. Following your info, I found her in Colledge and Winfield (as Granado), and in the 1768 LR. Can't imagine why anyone would object to butting in when doing so solves puzzles. Feel free to do so any time in my case. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thank you both. I made some m/s desk-notes last night which I will not keep long. If there is anything in the above for which you might find use for more detail or refs, either for the Swallow article or a future one on Grenado, please let me know, perhaps by email. Davidships (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I have emailed Davidships and requested the info. I have the Kindle version of Winfield and so will add Granado to my list of things to do. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. Feel free to use any of the sources I've used for Swallow, but really all that is is her travelling to Cape Virgenes with Swallow and HMS Dolphin, providing them with supplies and then sailing off to Port Egmont. I hadn't read about her taking some of the Patagonians with her; that'll greatly enhance the article! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went on a wild goose chase in case "storeship" was a mistranslation from the Danish for big ship (stor skib) and Prince Frederick a Danish merchantman or warship. Negative in both cases, as far as no such ship could be found in my Danish sources. However I see Granado in the London Gazette here getting prize money for Havana in 1772, the notice repeated one month later naming the ship Granado Bomb here. That is my tuppenceworth! Have fun Viking1808 (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad - It doesn't really bother me if you really want to keep the note about Lloyd's Register. My reasoning was that it didn't add anything to the story of Borodino since that has already been told in available detail. In itself, the endorsement is of no consequence - it was normal practice, if a little haphazard, for LR to have the register-book "posted" with a note of loss, along with other changes. Cheers. Davidships (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidships: LR and the Register of Shipping were pretty erratic about whether they posted losses (I wish they had done it more often), but I am always glad to see confirmation when I can get it. (I find it particularly reassuring in those cases where there were several/many contemporary vessels with the same name.) "Trust but verify", if I may quote, I believe, Premier Gorbachov. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is more of a reference then? Davidships (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidships: I guess I am keeping in the back of my mind that I don't know how or why someone might come across the article, and giving them more refs is better than fewer. I know we get the occasional genealogist, and they may have quite different interests than mine. So yes, a reference. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Any ideas on what Winchester this is?. The artist John Hood was Sir John Bentley's clerk, in some sources. He certainly sketched multiple Bentley commands. I don't see this Winchester on the disambig page, unless its been razeed. Hood seems fairly accurate in his other offerings.Broichmore (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Winfield nor Bentley's ODNB record Bentley as ever commanding a Winchester. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore:@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: 1) I can't find a suitable Winchester in Colledge, Winfield, or the NMM database. So, can we reverse engineer: what vessels was Bentley a captain of during the period Hood was his clerk? 2) FYI: I am working on HMS Granado, and have her RN history pretty much done, at least as far as transcribing Winfield is concerned. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

three decks gives a sense of Bentley's career. Hood makes drawings of the vessels of Bentley's career from 1743 thru to 1761. (Knighted 1759)

Looking at the RMG collection the two anomalies are Winchester (- Guns) commanded by Bentley (no date), and Marlbrough (74 Guns) commanded 1744. Perhaps they were temporary commands for sailing home. Otherwise they remain a mystery. Broichmore (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: I just cannot find anything to resolve the mysteries. I notice that we have nothing on Bentley's early career. He must have commanded something as a Lieutenant or junior Commander. I just can't find any mention of such commands. In any case, there is no suitable Winchester. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe:@Davidships:@Broichmore:@Viking1808: HMS Granado (1742) is up. I am pleased that I was able to build out not just her naval service, but also her subsequent career as Prince Frederick and Prudence. Her mercantile career took some digging, but at least it was interesting. Thanks all, regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thetis (1813 Chittagong ship), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Countess of Loudoun.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm currently doing a little clean up on HMS Amazon in preparation for possible writing up her sister ship HMS Hussar. I understand that this is a bit of a reach, but in 2015 you added "Amazon sailed from Portsmouth for Jamaica with Severn and Scorpion on 26 April 1800 as escorts for a large convoy. Amazon would only accompany the convoy to "a certain latitude."" You've referenced this to "Naval Chronicle, Vol. 3, p. 330.", and it only came to my attention because there's no full citation in the references section to go with it. However, upon checking p. 330 of the Chronicle, I can't seem to find any details of this convoy. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: See:[19]. The p.330 refers to the pg in the volume. The search engine designates it as #360. The day was 26 April. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, not sure how I missed that..! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad Ronin,

Another puzzle to ponder if you have a moment, please. If I read the construction schedule correctly then Vengeance first floated 8 November 1794 and was fitted out April 1795. Do these dates preclude active service on 15 February 1795? I ask because a La Vengeance captured The Pomona (a whaler, not an RN ship) on that day.

I have done my best with the Log from the Pomona, now in the National Archives.

Difficulty No.2 is that the French and British call Vengeance a corvette whereas the article says frigate. This doesn't seem a showstopper to me, but you know more.

Lastly, is it possible that the pursuit of Vengeance by HMS Seine (1798) was triggered by this event?

Secondary sources are thin:

Barrell, 2000 but his focus is on the judicial fall-out.

New Bedford Whaling Museum A helpful précis.

Regards RAClarke (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a different Vengeance - see French corvette Vénus (1794). Davidships (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acad,

Thank you for your response. Yes, that convinces me. The captives from the Pomona were taken into Brest, which accords with the location of the Venus later in 1795.

Problem solved. I am grateful for this.

Regards RAClarke (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Friday. I would bring your attention to wp:burden. Uncited material should not be restored without RS refs directly supporting the text. Thank you. --2603:7000:2143:8500:8841:CC81:D22E:5772 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a while back you kindly assisted with some information re the French side in the action of 13 May 1779. I'm thinking about taking the article to GAN, and wondered if you might be able to clear up the uncited sentence at the beginning of Aftermath? Am I correct in saying your source has Ecluse and Guepe being recovered from the fire, but Valeur not? Also interested if there might be any details on the two uncaptured frigates; assuming they were successfully burned? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, Am going to bed right now. Will revert tomorrow with whatever I can find. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, 1) I haven't been able to track down a source for the French casualties on Danae. I looked at Troude, and he doesn't say anything about casualties. He also does not explicitly condemn the French crews for cowardice. See: [20]. 2) I haven't been able to find the actual London Gazette with Wallace's report. It was an extraordinary issue, but still, it should be in the database; I was able to find reports that copied the original. See [21]. 3) Wallace mentions Recuse and is the only source that does so. He does not mention Ecluse. Not only does Troude not mention Recluse, Roche has no vessel by that name ever serving in the French navy. It appears that Recluse is a mistake for Ecluse. Wallace describes Recluse as a 24-gun vessel with a crew of 130 men. Roche as Ecluse as a gabarre of 8–20 guns. Winfield and Roberts have her as pierced for 28 guns but only carrying 6-20. They also give her a crew of 31–86 men. Although Troude has her being burnt completely ("consumée"), according to Roche she was recovered and served until condemned in 1788. 4) Roche says Diane participated in the unsuccessful expedition but makes no mention of her being involved in any engagement. She capsized in 1780 in a violent gale with the loss of all hands. That's all I have been able to find so far. I will dig a little more on French casualties. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your work so far. Seems there's certainly more confirmation needed before the article can go any further, especially re Recluse/Ecluse and Diane. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: One problem is that the British appear to have exaggerated the size of the French forces. In addition to the mis-identification of Ecluse as a frigate, I can find no French naval vessel named Dieppe. Also Troude does not mention her.Acad Ronin (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith at least for now, what's the possibility that Dieppe was a hired vessel or some kind of local ship, just as the British squadrons both had "borrowed" ships? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Dieppe could be anything, but probably just a brig that happened to be in the bay, as were other French civilin vessels. She could have been hired or simply have tagged along with the French squadron. The only thing that is clear is that she was almost certainly not per se a naval vessel. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, Acad Ronin. I was currently working on an article about a Welsh naval officer, Sir William James, 1st Baronet who served in the East India Company onboard several of its ships. I was having trouble finding information about the ships that James served on, and noting that you have recently created an article on the vessels of the Bombay Marine, was wondering if you would be so kind as to help do some digging in order to ascertain whether or not certain EIC ships were part of the Bombay Marine (if that is even possible). The ships in question are Hardwicke and Suffolk- both EIC ships which James served on from 1747 to 1749. Additionally, any information about the Bombay Marine ships Guardian, Protector, Revenge and Bombay (active during the 1740's and 50's) would be most welcome. Thanks, Dabberoni15 (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just a question. In Auspicious (1799 ship) you changed the flag from Red to White Ensign. I am wondering what the reason was for that as the article does not mention her being anything but a merchant vessel. Davidships (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Davidships: Fixed. No idea why I changed it; changed it back to civil.Acad Ronin (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No problem Davidships (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Acad, it's very nice to meet you. I've been working on a draft for HB Antwerp, a diamond technology company based in Antwerp, and mentioned here. I noticed that you are the creator of the Antwerp Diamond Bank article and thought you might be interested in taking a look. If you think the article is ready to be included, please feel free to do so. I have a COI and therefore cannot publish it myself. If you have ideas or feedback on how to improve the draft, I would appreciate that as well. Thanks so much for your time, Margxx (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acad, thanks for taking a look at the draft. I noticed that you made a few changes- do you think the draft is ready to be included at this point? If so, please feel free to move it to mainspace. Thanks again. Margxx (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for adding your bit to Amazon. I'm cleaning the article up a bit in preparation for writing the Amazon-class frigate article, so if there's anything else you think is missing from it, please do say..! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I have just returned from almost a month's vacation and am getting back into the swing of things. I still have to get back to that cutter you and Rif commented on. In the meantime, I was trying to find info re the Lively that Amazon sank, and could access no article that would give me a master's name. While looking, I came across a reference to Amazon having run foul of a Lovell, Bowden, master, that had been sailing from Waterford to London. Two boats from Boulogne had taken Lovell into Calais. I wonder if these are separate incidents, or confused reporting about the same incident. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Lovell report provide a date for the incident? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: The story appeared in the 26 January 1802 Lloyd's List. I'll see if I can find anything more. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: The archive of British newspapers I can access has no mention of the incident with Lively, and the Lovell incident mentions trace back to the Lloyd's List report. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: The only Lovell I can find is a sloop of 68 tons (bm), launched at Portsmouth in 1800, whose only appearance is in the sup. pages of Lloyd's Register for 1801. Her owner and captain were given as J.Lomar, and her trade as Dartmouth–Waterford. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it very likely that Lovell is Lively. The cited newspaper report from the article is as follows:

In a very hard gale of wind, the sloop Lively, from Waterford to London, with butter, drove athwart the Amazon frigate, and foundered - master and crew saved.

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although how does that tally up if Lovell was later on taken by the French? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the two vessels are the same. Amazon rescued the master and crew, who abandoned their vessel. The Brits assumed it had foundered, but instead the storm drove it to where the French vessels were fortuitously able to retrieve it. How do you want to proceed? Acad Ronin (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you would be kind enough to add your reference into the text alongside the existing Lively report, changing the ship's name, I think that works. Leaning on your generosity even further, I wonder if you might delve into Lloyd's for me? I've written up a table of prizes for Amazon, but the reference for Julie and Amelia doesn't seem to line up with what the text provides, and the link and reference themselves don't seem to be that great either. Could you find the Lloyd's information on their taking and corroborate or not the facts the article provides? Thanks again. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I have done a little cleaning up. Is that OK, or were you thinking of something else? Acad Ronin (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I think the article is in much better shape now! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Trelawney is no longer a red link. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a quick nudge to say that you've added some text and half a reference to HMS Resistance (1782) but there's no inline citation connecting the two up! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Skylark (1826), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Falmouth.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm going to be making an attempt to jazz up Indefatigable soon. Seeing that you added the majority (all?) of the London Gazette content, would you say that that's an exhaustive list of the LG mentions of Indefatigable, or do I have more to find? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, I can't claim infallibility, but those are probably the bulk. For the rated naval vessels I generally copy over citations that I have come across while working on smaller vessels, so I might well have missed some. Still, I would make tracking down more a low priority task. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in the article Molly (1778 ship) you call an sfn reference "Powell 1930", but this is not defined, so nobody can look it up and the article appears in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could fix this that would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lucy (1787 ship) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy (1787 ship) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Greyhound (1791 ship) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greyhound (1791 ship) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Georgiana (1802 ship) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]