User:Billy/Archivenav

I need to talk to you about any number of things: Ark Royal, Nelson, my Arctic, a couple of great dog stories, and probably more that I've already forgotten. Do hop on AIM sometime soonish, or I may be forced to send you the world's longest email. Maralia (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

		The 50 DYK Medal
		Awarded to Benea for meritorious service.Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On April 2, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles SS Fort La Monte, and HMS Arrow (H42), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A double hook and pictured slot to celebrate! Heh, I wish you would write some Vietnam related boats....Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

can you ref between me parsecboy so we don't cause an edit war?--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC) or someother trouble we could get into.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOMALY-117 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what Anomaly's talking about; I haven't had any interation with him in quite some time. Parsecboy (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

no the problem is me because i tend to keep arguments going and going and sometimes i might go a little to far or overboard and im afraid that i might do something.. and if i do i would rather not drag you into it its really just a safty incase i go off..plus i don't know all the rules on wiki and i'm still learning acutually i see that i could be losing this argument but hey i will learn something and i don't know a whole lot on some of the subjects most i don't know any thing but im 14 and im still learning.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

really im pretty sure i will get beat but i don't give up usually at all and im hopeing that benea will let me no when i have totally lost the argument and its time to give in which i will but sometimes i get carried away and i cold really drag things out and make a mess, plus i don't want to go to far and make you mad parsecboy because you are fun to debate with like most of the people on this site and i like to debate.. so um... yea.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

On 12 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Order of battle for Convoy SC-7, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Just curious as to why you placed the ship badge outside of the infobox afer my edit. I was under the impression that the badge should belong in the infobox, as there is a specific section for it (see for example HMAS Melbourne (R21). If there was a section of text describing the badge itself that the image was being used to illustrate, it would be a different story. Also, placing it at the top left of the article means that the starting text is wedged between a 300 pixel image on the right, and a 100 pixel image and the Wikipedia sidebar on the left. On my reasonably sided monitor, the text is starting to be a bit 'pinched in', and smaller monitors would make it very difficult to read.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to understand your approach, and maybe learn from it. Hit me on my talk page. -- saberwyn 11:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not gonna change my ways, but I'm not going to change any articles set out your way either.

On a completely unrelated note, you appear to have a fair handle on British naval history. I'm in the process of userspace-rewriting HMAS Queenborough (G70), and am wondering if you would point me in the direction of some quality British sources for her time in the Royal Navy during World War II? -- saberwyn 08:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

On 13 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Quail (G45), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 05:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

With all the debate about the hook for Four Freedoms (painting series) it seems there was no agreement on a hook and the thing is getting passed over for the main page. I would have moved it to T:DYK/N myself, but you are not suppose to move your own hook.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

On 13 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Assyrian, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats Benea --Gatoclass (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

On 14 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Blairspey, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--nice Victuallers (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On April 21, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article USS Scout (MCM-8), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Good to see you again! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ben, someone has bodged the wikitable format for the list of Cruizer class brig-sloops which I completed. The data is still there, so could you kindly put the formatting right please? I will be completing the wikitable for the Cherokee class shortly. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! Rif Winfield (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Benea. Can I query you about the total number of vessels named Liverpool? There's a discrepancy between the official Royal Navy 'site and the disambig' here. Colledge indicates that the fourth Liverpool served as an East Indiamen and was commissioned into the RN as Imaum when presented to Britain by Muscat in 1836. The Royal Navy doesn't appear to recognise this vessel as being part of their "lineage" but I've not found anything definitive as to whether the frigate was commissioned as Liverpool and then renamed. I'm inclined to err on the side of caution; mention the fourth Liverpool but defer to the verifiable position of the Royal Navy and identify only seven commissioned vessels being named Liverpool. What do you think? SoLando (Talk) 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The contradictory sources are quite intriguing; while Colledge identifies an 1826-built East Indiamen that entered RN service in 1836 as Imaum (ex Liverpool), other sources suggest that ship was commissioned as Liverpool. But that ship's omission from the RN website does make that possibility unlikely. Gah. Again, thanks. SoLando (Talk) 17:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify. The ship concerned was NOT an East Indiaman, but was built in 1826 at Bombay for His Highness the Imaum of Muscat, and was in his service named the Liverpool. In 1836 she was given as a present by the Imaum of Muscat to HM King William IV, who handed her over to the Royal Navy when she arrived at Portsmouth on 23 February 1836. As there was a Liverpool already in the RN, she was renamed HMS Imaum on entry into the RN. Thus the RN website is correct in saying that she was never called HMS Liverpool, but Jim Colledge is also correct in identifying her as "ex-Liverpool", since that was her name in the service (1826-1836) of Muscat. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, in my haste I stupidly didn't notice the reference at the bottom of the page. :) Abtract (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

On 4 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Heinrich Bleichrodt, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

How many ships were there with this name please? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

On 13 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Friedrich Guggenberger, and Unterseeboot 81 (1941), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Nice little twofer there. --Gatoclass (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please could you review List of Peruvian Navy ships and put suggestions for improvement & style changes in the talk page. The reason for requesting this is that I want to improve the page, for one thing taking the list back to the mid-19th century (the Peruvian navy was an important regional navy from the 1850s to 1881).

I have two reasons for wanting to attempt this. (a) it is a comparatively small task, so I have got time for it. (b) The recent mention of Loa and the Victoria on the Ironclad_warship, which are not mentioned in Conways, and which King's 1880 book said were armoured gun vessels.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your review is very helpful, thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've noticed your request for copyediting help at the Logistics section of WP:MILHIST, and decided to see what I can do.

Not much. Your article has blown me away... its much better than my carrier article. There are things that need polishing, so what I've done is:

• Cut down on the spacing in the citations. Although not horribly important to the article, it brings the filesize down and makes the editing window a bit easier to read
• Removed italics from the citation templates. There was a bit of a hodgepodge of use/non-use, and it peears to my untrained eye that the template does it automatically, so, I've removed it.
• Image hardcoding. Per Wikipedia:MOS#Image_size, this is A Bad Thing^TM, so I've removed it for all but the lead image.
• Some spelling, grammar, punctuation, and phrasing tweaks... the ones all articles need, no matter the standard

Things you may want to look at:

• Removing the un-needed fields in the ship infobox to reduce the article size and pretty up the editing window
• I've put a few hidden notes in where the context is a bit fuzzy and could either use a few more words to explain it, or an appropriate wikilink. Stuff like clarifying or changing a piece of nauticalese I don't understand or suggesting that "the operation" be changed to [[Operation FooBar]]
• I've noticed an inconsistency in the use of "the" to refer to various ships (Ark Royal vs. the Ark Royal, Bismarck vs. the Bismarck, etc). You should go through and make a decision on which way to swing... I personally prefer not using due to the whole "The His Majesty's Ship Ark Royal" grammar problem/convention, but its your baby, so you make the call.
• You need to go through and provide conversions for everything. If you do this manually with nbsp's or via template is up to you, but it will save you pain at FAC (I assume that's where you want to end up, and I'd really like to see you get there). Again, consistency is vital.
• The paragraphs relating to the immediate aftermath of the attack may need some reorganising and rephrasing to achieve a smooth flow-of-events (i.e. explosion -> immediate damage -> effects). It also gets very confusing as to what order events happen in, and how the intended damage control and rescue effort occurred.
• All number ranges (i.e. dates, citation page numbers), need to be given with an 'en' dash

Let me know if I can help out any further, or have done anything horribly horribly wrong and deserve punishment. -- saberwyn 00:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of stabilising without damage control, I concede the point. I may be able to find some spare time to mess heavily with the sinking section, because at the moment that's the only part of the article that really jars from my view. Time pending, and with your permission of course. -- saberwyn 21:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I request your attention at User:Saberwyn/Ark Royal sinking, where I've taken a hacksaw to the final section. There are a couple of hidden messages that require your attention, a few dot points of text that I wasn't cetain how to completely work in to the body of the text, and the images have been taken out of the body completely. Make suggestions and take what you like for the article. -- saberwyn 03:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

All the hidden notes have been answered and integrated. From now on, I'm going to list any hidden notes I add to the article at User talk:Saberwyn/Ark Royal sinking...feel free to comment on them there. -- saberwyn 09:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got to take a wikibreak for a week or so because of uni assignments. As soon as they finish I will resume copyediting the article. Sorry. -- saberwyn 08:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi, I'm back. I've incoproated all the fixes you've mentioned so far... but I'm having a lot of trouble getting my head around the sinking and the related inquiries and rediscovery. You've also mentioned your own concerns with this section. Would you be so kind as to look at what I've got so far, take the sources and overhaul the lot so it is correct? -- saberwyn 04:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Frak me! That's an article in itself (or at least the core of one)! I'm going to get some generalisations from what you've written and hammer it out as a paragraph so you can see if its worth adding. You'll find it in the usual place. -- saberwyn 08:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright... it currently stands in userspace as a paragraph briefly describing the approximate numbers of aircraft and squadrons, the types of aircraft, and the roles performed, as well as a collapsible list of the squardons, aircraft, times aboard, and anything else kinda cool. It may be a little small, but you might be able to flesh it out, or we can write a paragraph on the weapons (type, quantity, locations) and have a combined "Armament and Aircraft" section. Thoughts?

Excellent. I'll move it into the article, and move the armament information down into the section. If you could come through and add appropriate citations, that would be good. -- saberwyn 23:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done pretty much as much as I can at the moment. Reckon its ready for another run at A-class? -- saberwyn 00:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Whenever you're ready to submit the review, I'll back you. I'll fiddle with it over the next week, but I can't see much more to do. -- saberwyn 23:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Benea. I replied to you on the WP:Ships talk page. You folks have and continue to do an excellent job on naval vessels. (I dabble once in a while as well, as mentioned above.) My concern is that preference for military usage can lead other editors, particularly new ones, to errors. I first began editing ship articles when I found a claim that a 100,000 GT cruise ship "weighed" as much as an aircraft carrier. The ship template being used in many articles only specified displacement. I went through the entire list of ocean liners and cruise ships to fix those errors where I could. There are still many articles with the same error.

I did the same with launch dates, as many cruise ships fans were relying on cruisecritic.com's incorrect use of the term. I have several hundred edits correcting these fundamental errors.

This led to creation of a new commercial ship template, discussed by several folks and mentioned on the WPShips page (without much response). As I recall, we decided not to use displacement or launch date, but rather tonnage and service entry date, in order to reduce errors.

We may be back where we started from, with a unitary template with many fields that have little general application. We see now insertion of DWT and Net into the displacement field; they are not the same. "Launch" dates are a problem for the reasons I mention. And while naval ship articles seem to be well-policed, merchant ship ones are not. (I have taken them off my watchlist as I got tired of the effort.)

Please keep in mind the dismal state of many articles on ships other than naval vessels, and how specifying certain information can lead to errors. Thanks for considering these thoughts. Kablammo (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replied as well, but to address some points you've raised. I'm a bit worried that this is starting to develop a naval vs commercial aspect, whereas in reality the issues affect both areas of work as the same problems are routinely encountered from both. You're right to say I'm a one of the 'naval folk', but I also work in commercial areas as well. This morning I was playing around with the new articles MV Lady Rose and MV Maj Bernard F Fisher (T-AK-4396), and I've also authored at last count 44 articles about individual merchant ships, and the Clan Line and Ellerman Lines articles are largely my work. So I work in both areas and I am sympathetic to the issues you raise. But one thing about working across both areas is that you see that these problems are not solely encountered in commercial articles, but naval ones as well.

There are huge numbers of naval articles in pretty appalling states, and because they are more of them, they can be even harder to police than the merchant articles. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, or that frustration with people continually making mistakes should make us get tired of sorting it out. I agree, it can be very frustrating, I've been there as well.

I'm not entirely sure what your point about Infobox Ship Begin is, it was developed with community consensus and the old templates were then duly phased out. It still has some specific commercial code though. But if people make a mistake we can correct it, we can add the information to the right field. If a source is in error, then we can amend the article. Believe me it happens just as often in non commercial ship articles. I really can't see any justification for treating these ships differently based on the argument that people may get things wrong when they add information. Even the smartest of us can do that from time to time. That's the nature of wikipedia, but that same nature means that we can put it right. I've replied to the thread though, so we may be thinking along the same lines. Benea (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The real solution might be to use the Infobox Ship as a base template, with specific iterations for vessel types. That way we will not have folks filling in inapplicable fields. Only the ferry template would have lanemetres; only the one for container ships, TEUs; etc.

I had thought of starting the a stub for Clan Line at one point, but did not have enough information. I was glad to see that you added it, as it fit in well with Turret deck ship, perhaps the vessel typed most closely associated with that line, as the line was the largest user of that design. This may be another source for your article. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a interesting thought. I tend not to get involved in the template discussions, it's a little beyond my capabilities, so I'm not sure to what degree that option was considered. An alternative is to remove the fields from the infobox that you won't use as you're filling it in, or editing it. That often removes the temptation, as it can happen that when someone sees a field, they have to fill it with something. Hence long infoboxes with 'none' next to nearly every entry, or having entered 'in service' into the 'status' field, they then add 'still in service' to the following 'fate' field.

I think I expanded the Clan Line article when I was writing up some Second World War merchants. I was a little confused to have my links vanish off to a preserved steam train. I didn't know that about the turret ships (a fascinating article by the way! Them and whalebacks are delightfully outlandish designs compared to nowadays). One thing I found about the sources is that there's not much about the prewar activities (beyond merges, takeovers and the like) so it would be good to get a bit more on that side of things. Thanks for the suggestion. Benea (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just substantially revised the list of vessels in the Clan Line article, which I think is now complete, and allows for a large number of new articles to be contributed on individual vessels. As mentioned elsewhere, I was formerly (1960s) part of the Clan Line (Cayzer Irvine and Company) management team, which means I have personal knowledge of most of their later vessels. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not understand the last sentence of this article. "In May 1921, she was sold for breaking" what does this mean? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC) It means that she was sold to a shipbreaking firm, for taking to pieces or scrapping. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for help in formatting and with conventions. All the best. Tom Stewart 1984 (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for posting impressive research on HMS Mercury - great to see it getting the recognition it deserve(ed?)s. Thanks also for useful pointers - I am most certainly interested in taking part. All the best again. Tom Tom Stewart 1984 (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input with HMS Westminster, especially the photos.

Why are you sceptical about HMS Kent being a prison ship? I doubt this site would be wrong about that. Prison ships weren't that rare were they? Anyway, I shall not change it as I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else.

Also, your Kentish disambiguation page lists this ship to be HMS Kentish. Was it ever called that? I thought the HMS prefix was only given to it when it was changed to Kent.

Great work though! Thanks!

Mjb1981 (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fairly obviously, NONE of the Commonwealth warships bore the prefix HMS at any time, since they had just (1649) executed His Majesty and abolished the monarchy, it would have been ridiculous to use the "His Majesty's Ship" description. In fact, the description "His Majesty's Ship" was not in use until after the Restoration in 1660, and the acronym "HMS" is much more modern - a 19th century introduction. The name Kentish was changed to Kent at the same time (i.e in June 1660), as were the names of many of the Commonwealth era warships which had been built with names that were unwelcome to the new monarchist regime. Remember also that "His Majesty's Ship" only referred to proper ships (i.e. vessels with a three-masted ship rig) and not to brigs, ketches, schooners or any other type of rig. We have a problem in our formatting in that Wikipedia habitually (but wrongly) uses "HMS" for all early British warships, and of course they didn't use that descriptor. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

On 19 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Ganges (shore establishment), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

On 19 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Hector (F45), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for moving these articles, but I hope that you can provide an explanation of what I'm missing. The sources that I have for officers commanding the several ships that I created articles for all give the prefix as "CSS". I included a link to the Google Books pages from a book published in 1898 which included the CSS prefix. Is it that the CSS prefix was unofficial? Was it only used for a short period of time? (Such as at the time the book was published, prior to name standardization?) Or is there something else going on that I don't see? Thanks for your help. I want to make sure I name these articles correctly in the future. JRP (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

After posting, I see that there is now a discussion on this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. JRP (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for creating links for the dates on the Operation Caesar article, I meant to go back and do them, but forget. Once again, thanks. Fredrik Wilhelm (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick work on the Silliman and the Gedney, twice I had edit conflicts and twice you beat me to expanding them! Your quick fingers are to be commended. If I can ever be of assistance to you, please let me know. JRP (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping a line and letting me know to add it. I've already done so.

Cheers, SpellingGuru (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

On 25 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir John Moore, 1st Baronet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding to the page I started on HMS Woolston. I hoped somebody would have a bit more info than I did !

Do you think the ship shown on the crest for HMS Woolston is actually a Viking longboat rather than a Roman galley. Do you have any information on that ?

I query this because Woolston apparently derives from "Olafs Tun", a name given to the area in Viking times. A Viking longboat is also shown on the local comprehensive schools coat of arms. It thus makes more sense if the boat on the HMS crest is Viking rather than Roman.

Do you have a picture of the crest for HMS Woolston, which we might be able to compare against the coat of arms for Woolston school ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hethurs (talk • contribs) 07:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

On 29 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Kempthorne (Royal Navy officer), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

On 2 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Ferret (shore establishment 1940), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

On 5 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harry Price (Royal Navy), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, The prefix "RMS" is not part of the ships name otherwise you would have "RMS Titanic" on the bow and stern of the ship for example.

The term "Royal Mail Steamer" only applied to ships that carried Royal mail and to keep adding the "RMS" title to every ship in any article is not needed and is irrelivent to most article apart from at the start.

I would welcome your input on this subject.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

On 15 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles SS Carsbreck, and Unterseeboot 564, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim_(talk) 14:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ben, can you please change the links to the page for this ship? The original article has been put in as "HMS Lichfield (1694)" so references which quote the correct date (she was launched on 4 February 1695) are not connecting to the article. Better still, can you retitle the article to include the correct year? Thanks! Rif Winfield (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC) PS I have now added a page for HMS Yarmouth (1695), which was missing from the records. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Many thanks for correcting the Lichfield linkages.Rif Winfield (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

On 27 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 820 Naval Air Squadron, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Oceanh (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC).

Normally when I stub something out around here, I come back a few hours later to find it speedy-deletion tagged, or on its way to AfD, where I have to suffer through the next week arguing about it. So to see HMS Little Belt (1807) so rapidly fleshed out was a pleasant surprise. Nice work! -- Kendrick7^talk 17:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, an interesting subject with an interesting story! Benea (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)