User talk:Acad Ronin/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Norwegian Order of Battle 1808

Hi AR

You may find something of interest in my new notes at User:Viking1808/Norwegian Navy 1808 - not so much a nascent article as information that may fit elsewhere. The translation is a little rough but understandable, I think. The information in the reference has been summarised by me. Any comments? Viking1808 (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This page, after much tinkering, is now launched as Norwegian Navy 1808. (You may have noticed it already?) Blue linked at Gunboat War, Lorentz Fisker, and Jochum Nicolay Müller. If you have more links in mind - there it is. Viking1808 (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Butterworth Squadron

Thank you Acad_Ronin. I like the idea of separate articles for each of the three vessels, especially with the new content you've added from LLoyd's. I had considered doing that originally, but with neither beginnings nor endings for any of the vessels I didn't feel I had enough data to justify separating them. I'll be monitoring your progress with interest, and if you have suggestions for improvements I could make to the Squadron article I would welcome them. Cranberrydavid (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Very nice! I like how you addressed the frigate question. The connection to the Américaine is new as far as I know, and very plausible (and exciting!) The period from 1781-4 still needs to be filled though, if at all possible. Have you explored the Admiralty court records at the National Archives? As for interactions with Vancouver, I've been looking through my notes. They missed each other by 3 days at Nootka in Oct 1792. Vancouver seems to have first become aware of Brown when he visited Hawaii in 1793. He, Menzies and Bell were quite critical of Brown's arms trading among the Islands. Vancouver and Brown first met near Prince Rupert BC from July 20-22 1793 where they seem to have spent most of their time copying each other's logs and charts. Brown spoke of cannonading a village to the north which V later visited. They next met under sail near Cross Sound on July 3-4 1794. There's a short account of Brown sending Butterworth home and continuing on in Jackal and Prince Lee Boo. There are also references to both Puget and Whidbey each meeting Jackal on their respective survey expeditions. Their paths last crossed in Nootka Sound from Oct 5-16 1794, 3 months before Brown's death. If it would be helpful for me to flesh any of this out, I'd be happy to see what I can do. (BTW my favorite authorites, F.W Howay and W.K. Lamb, prefer the spelling Jackal, but I notice you seem to prefer Jackall. Reason?)Cranberrydavid (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Acad Ronin. Based on your comments on the significance of Vancouver to the Butterworth narrative, I've written a draft chronology of the Butterworth squadron, focusing on the vessel Butterworth through the lens of Vancouver's journals. You can find it in my sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cranberrydavid/sandbox I believe I could do the same for both Jackal and Prince Lee Boo, creating three parallel and distinct narratives for the three vessel pages. Would this be helpful? Cranberrydavid (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Of the Armed Cutter Hero, and prisoners of war.

hi AR

A strange tale! A retired Danish clergyman has contacted me for help (I think in tracing a family tree). A relation of his back in 1809, ANDERS JENSEN, was on board the Fortuna when she was captured by Hero. He wrote home (letter arrived 24 August 1811) that he was a prisoner of war in England, and "next in 1843 he visited his father in Denmark, now as a very rich farmer in Jamaica married to an English lady from bromton: Ann Riley"(misspelling of Brompton is likely, as perhaps is the lady's name)
Are you aware of any route to find where ANDERS JENSEN might have been incarcerated, or if any POWs were ever shipped out to Jamaica.?
However it turns out, it proves Wikipedia is useful!! Viking1808 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Stranger still! National Archives ADM 103/271, as reported elsewhere, have this man captured in 1807 (so not Hero), imprisoned at Plymouth, released 3 January 1812 and then taken by HMS Diadem to Chatham. History on Diadem is meagre, unless you know better. I am still trying to trace a route for this young man ANDERS JENSEN (perhaps with the additional surname SCHOUBORG), ships carpenter, to Jamaica where he was a slave owner by 1822. Any ideas? Viking1808 (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

More on Protector/Husaren

Hi AR
Have a look at De Coninck House.
I am sending you a private email, rather complicated with several links, as this trader owned Husaren and sent her to the East Indies in 1787.

Thanks also for your POW reply. Viking1808 (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

EIC ships

You might find this website of use. BTW, shouldn't the ship box flag be the East India Company flag (, or as appropriate)? Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from John Lennon (Royal Navy officer) into Hibernia (1810 ship). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh! Fortuna - 41 ships of same name

Hi AR Can you have a look at User:Viking1808/Fortuna (Captured Ships) which I have generated because I realised there were far too many ships called Fortuna to sort out otherwise. Lots of blue links still needed, but it might fit in to Fortuna (disambiguation). Or is it too un-noteworthy, do you think? Happy New Year Viking1808 (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Now launched as Fortuna (Captured Ships)(1805 - 1812) - A list of the many merchant vessels, all named Fortuna, captured by the British Royal Navy between 1805 and 1812
Many thanks Viking1808 (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

More on this Æolus

See Viking1808 talkpage Viking1808 (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Æolus' ship builder

Hi AR Try this: Google Henrik Gerner and use the translation service for the Skibkonstuktør. He seems to have been very successful, and a friend of Stibolt in Copenhagen.
Butz is a more shadowy character. There are hints there may have been a well known ship owner and trader, Hans Butz, overshadowed by someone else in Aabenraa - but nothing to hang your hat on. Viking1808 (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

and more Here is a new, useful resource

• http://www.jmarcussen.dk/maritim/skibsliste/liste.php?ini=%C6 for a private website listing all danish merchant ships from the year dot. Listed alphabetically (nb Æ, Ø, and Å come at the end of the Danish alphabet) which includes several Æolus ships including yours. Come back if translation required. Viking1808 (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Vorpostenboote

Re this edit, you could have left the link untouched. A redirect can always be created once an article is written. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

French frigate Sirène (1823)

Is there anything you can do for French frigate Sirène (1823) ? All it contains is an infobox and it's up for deletion. Brad (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

HMS Herald (1822)

In the article you write: Herald was recommissioned on 1 April 1857 in the surveying role, and was paid off in 1849.<ref name=RW/> There is something wrong with the years, I think. --Abc10 (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

shipwrecks

warning: this editor is a blithering old idiot with very opinionated ideas which hasnt brought the falling grand piano out of the sky, to land yet, however, will let you know when the piano has landed

The shipwrecks project has almost been shamelessly swallowed up by ships and related military history freaks over the last decade or so - it doesnt have a portal as such at this stage. I created Australian Maritime History project and dont have a portal for that either... I am trying to get my head around some possible issues relating to general maritime history overall - if I had enough interest, I would like to start a maritime history project.. but I have a terrible bad habit of having nice ideas but not enough time or energy for the range of interests here on wp en. JarrahTree 13:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

oops sorry, you asked a question - anything about anything would be interesting JarrahTree 13:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Roger all that. I already categorize articles with shipwrecks, founderings, etc. under "Maritime incidents in ...", and link from the "Shipwrecks in xxxx" article when I can. I will also think about how to notify the Shipwreck Project. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to think that some clever seasoned portal creator might be very magnaminious (sic) and do one for shipwrecks - I get tired of seeing the ships one where the scope/overlap doesnt get countered by a smiling wreck :) JarrahTree 13:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Dorothea in London Gazette

Hi AR
The London Gazette: no. 15582. p. 544. 7 May 1803. repeated 14 may 1803 issue 15584 page 571 gives HMS Cambrian (Hon. Arthur Kaye Legge, Commander) capturing the brig Dorothea and her cargo on 12 December 1798. If she was Danish (are you sure? why the capture a Danish ship in 1798) she would most likely have been the Dorthea (1790) - see my talk page
There was a Danish ship Dorothea Maria captured 21 October 1808 - but that is obviously too late. (LG 16309 p1693)
Ellen Dorothea reported (LG 18 Nov 1808 issue 15976 p1511) captured without a capture date
Santa Dorotea captured 15 July 1798 (near Gibraltar) by HMS Lion LG issue 15402 p1062 and on the same page Vrow Dorothea on 16 June 1798

• The search key I used on the LG was "dorothea and dates 1800 to 1809 inclusive
  

Several more entries to be considered or discarded. The thrill of the chase! RegardsViking1808 (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Talking to webmasters

Hi AR

I have always found webmasters & researchers happy to share their thoughts and accept corrections (with sources). For example, I have already exchanged emails with Jørgen Marcussen of the website where we raised Æolus to supply him with the shipbuilder in Åbenrå.
The Sea War Museum website has translations into English and German, and I imagine they will be happy to respond to any reasonable comment or request in English (especially if they think the website will get wider use!) (Kind Regards translates as med venlig Hilsen ). If you need something in more formal Danish, as opposed to mine, it is possible User:Necessary Evil would oblige, although I have not asked him anything recently.
Meanwhile, I will keep Dorothea on a backburner. let me know if you resolve that issue.
Viking1808 (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Viking1808: Roger, wilco. Thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Henrik Gerner

Hi AR
I am in process of trying to write a new page for our shipbuilding friend Henrik Gerner. See here for my first draft. It is still full of holes which will be plugged before it goes public. You mentioned you still have Volume One of the Topsøe-Jensen book digitally - is it possible for you to look up Gerner's entry and send me a screen print to my private email address? (The key Print Screen copies to clipboard which can then be pasted as a picture on the email - just in case you need that instruction!!). Any other holes you wish to fill, be my guest - there will be a few links in and out to add later.
Thanks in advance Viking1808 (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Roger that. When I get home tonight. Acad Ronin (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC) @Viking1808:

Speedwell

Hello - thanks for your great edits, esp to HMS Speedwell. I've tried to tidy it up a bit, and make links more visible. There's a question at Talk:Speedwell (ship) you might be interested in Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Neva

You're welcome. Have you seen this story, from the Alaska Dispatch News yesterday?

Archaeologists say they've found the campsite used by survivors of legendary 'doomed' ship Campfire remains, metal relics and a grave show that a remote site on Kruzof Island was the place were survivors took shelter after the Neva grounded and broke apart. Yereth Rosen

Activist (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Activist: Thanks for the heads up. I have added some info from the Alaska Dispatch News to the Neva article. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you're interested in shipwrecks. I saw a reference to this article, and expected it was about the crushing of the whaling fleet off Wainwright, AK, in 1872, I think. But it wasn't that, though something I'd never heard of:

http://alaskafx.com/2016/04/11/ghost-ship-artifacts-emerge-university-alaska-museum-north-museum/ Activist (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Activist: Thanks for the lead, but I'll give it a pass. I am pretty much specializing in the period 1793-1815, though that does take me a few years out at either end on occasion. Mostly, I am documenting warships, East Indiamen, whalers, slave ships, and convict transports from that period. (Often the same vessel moves through several of those roles in its career.) The period has its share of shipwrecks, and often they give me a relatively precise endpoint for the vessel's career. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Britannia

Re this edit, was she wrecked? If not, list of ships captured in the 18th century might be a better home for the entry. Mjroots (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Good point. Am working with several Britannias and will move her today. What do you think about cases where the French captured the vessel, and then burnt her? Both lists?

Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, appropriate as a capture and an actual loss. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

HMS Gibraltar

Hi Acad, thanks for helping out at Spanish ship Fenix (1749) but can you tell me where you found the information about the 1810 armament upgrade? I can't see any mention of it either in Winfield 1714-1792 (p.37) nor in Winfield 1793-1817 (pp.29-30) (both these sections on Gibraltar are identical by the way). It says that in November 1781 the 18-pounders on her upper deck were upgraded to 24 pounders and in December 1781, two 68 pounders carronades were added but no mention of 1810. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ykraps: I found the info on p.29 of Winfield 1793-1817 in the article on Gibraltar. That's where I got all the dimensions, complement, and armament numbers. I have the 2008 edition of the Winfield book. Could that be the difference? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Acad, at first glance, the sections in both books looked identical but I now see that in the 1793-1817 book, after, "QD 12 X 9 pdrs + 2 X 68 pdr carronades", it says, "(by 1810, 4 X 12 pdr + 8 X 32 pdr carronades)" and after "FC 6 X 9 pdrs", it says, "(by 1810, 4 X 12 pdr + 2 X 32 pdr carronades)". These bracketed additions are not in the 1714-1792 book. Thanks for checking and my apologies for making you do so.--Ykraps (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ykraps: - No worries. Trust me, I am in no position to throw stones. Cheers. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

François Joseph Paul de Grasse

Hello, Acad Ronin - Thank you for your comment on my talk page in response to my question about François Joseph Paul de Grasse, and, in this edit, for correcting the date for when he joined the French navy and for supplying a source. Your revision of the the "Naval career" section reads well, but I don't think your revision of the paragraph about the Battle of the Saintes (in that same edit) is an improvement. I prefer the wording as it was. The article is about Admiral de Grasse, and this is the lead, so it is better for a sentence about him to start with his name. There is nothing wrong with using passive voice. (Also, in French names that begin with "de", the "de" is left in lower-case when it is in the middle of a sentence, but it is capitalized when it appears at the beginning of a sentence. However, if the original wording is used, this is a moot point.)

Is there anything in particular about the original wording that you felt was incorrect? If so, please let me know what you think it is and I will try to incorporate the correction. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: Nothing incorrect. It is just that it has been found by me that excessive use of the passive voice is commonly found in Wikipedia, and other writing, where it is suspected by me that it was intended by the writer to be read by the reader as sounding scholarly. It is agreed by me that the injunction by George Orwell that the violation of rules is to be preferred over the writing of something that when read sounds barbarous. Frequently the passive voice cannot be avoided when who something was done by is not clear, but when it is, why not use the active voice, even if the article is about the object? I just think that short, active sentences make for readability, especially by non-native speakers. (That said, I violate that often, especially when I am in a hurry.) Net-net, please feel free to make your changes; I take no offense. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your clever and cordial reply. I know what you mean, and I agree that sometimes it is better to use active voice. I just think introducing a new name (Rodney) so early in the lead, with no lead-up or background information, was jarring. I also think that, within a paragraph (or even a short section), it is not good to switch back and forth between active and passive voice. I'll take another look at it tomorrow.  – Corinne (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: In a case such as this, there are no solutions, only trade-offs between desiderata; clearly, and reasonably, your list and item weights are different from mine. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

USS Mosquito

Here's the DANFS entry for the ship. I moved the article to USS Mosquito (1775) Brad (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Brad101: - Thanks, but I knew about that entry. The problem is that there appear to have been several Mosquitos, two in the Delaware Bay alone. One was the schooner Mosquito, for which I created the article, and then there was the sloop Mosquito, that DANFS lists. That one appears to have been of 4 guns. Her crew scuttled her in 1778 to prevent the British from capturing her. We know very little about her beyond that. If you look carefully at the DANFS item, you will see that DANFS has her being destroyed after October 1777, i.e., after the Brits had burned the schooner Mosquito in July. There also seems to be an HMS Musquito out of Detroit that Virginia captured and used on some inland rivers, and a second Virginia Musquito that operated at sea and the Brits too captured. Unfortunately, the NDAR volumes, which are the best source we have, are just not that complete. The random spellings of mosquito also don't help in trying to find info. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bank of Central and South America

The article Bank of Central and South America has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Having trouble finding any type of reliable source, even a website for the bank. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG but prodding in the event the creator or anyone else can find and add one.

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. CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

quotation marks?

What quotation marks? CalzGuy (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Pot. kettle. Black. CalzGuy (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

thanks

for your help with the gilmore 1824. JarrahTree 23:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Indian Chief

The Indian Chief wrecked on the coast of County Wexford in November 1837 was reported as an "East Indian ship". Did she belong to the East India Company? Mjroots (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Indeed she was CalzGuy (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Although this suggests perhaps not? American maybe. CalzGuy (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@CalzGuy: possibly not the same vessel, given the 36 year gap. The report in the Caledonian Mercury of 23 November 1837 states that she was on a voyage from Liverpool to Mauritius, but no captain's name is given. Lloyd's Register for 1837 has an Indian Chief, full-rigged ship of 416 tons b.o.m., registered at Liverpool, captain Robertson. Hopefully other newspaper sources will be able to tie up the captain and ship. I've not got time to investigate at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: @CalzGuy: I have found three Indian Chiefs with only a cursory search. Apparently it was not a unique name. One, probably the vessel that wrecked, was of 416 tons (bm), and launched in 1826 at Liverpool for Gladstone & Co. She appears in Hackman as a licensed ship, i.e., trading with the East Indies under a license issued by the EIC. A second vessel, according to British Library records, of 402 tons (bm), was launched at Bengal in 1798. The French captured her and sold her to the Americans. Here is the permalink to the BL records:[http://searcharchives.bl.uk/IAMS_VU2:IAMS045-001115191}. Phipps confirms that info and that she was launched under that name. The third, according to the Register of Shipping for 1800, was of 400 tons (bm) and built in Philadelphia in 1792. I don't know what happened to the second and third vessels, but they don't appear to be the vessel that started this. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Standard civil flag then? Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Yes. That's how I would read it. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Duke of York

The Morning Post of 2 February 1838 reports that the Duke of York, Capt. Morgan, was wrecked on 14 August (1837) on a reef 5 nautical miles (9.3 km) south of "Facing Island" (24°S 151°E) without loss of life. Would you agree that the ship is this Duke of York? Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: The preponderance of the evidence suggests that the two Duke of Yorks are the same. The slight discrepancies in date and casualty count are too minor to raise much if any doubt.Acad Ronin (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

June

Hello,

I hope the sad news of the day do not affect you directly. On a lighter note, I should indeed be in Paris on 24-25 June, I hope we managed to catch each other; let me know your plans, if convenient.

Cheers! Rama (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rama: Thank you. By chance my wife has relatives in Manchester but they are the wrong demographic and we believe all are well. On the more positive note, I am delighted to hear that you will be in Paris on the 24 and 25th. I would be delighted to meet up. Lunch on 24 June might be best; that way my wife can happily spend the time exploring shops while we talk Wiki. I am in Mongolia right now but will revert in a couple of days with my hotel info so we can establish a meeting point. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow, you lead quite the adventurer's life! Lunch on 24 June is perfect, do you have a spot in mind or would you like me to think of a quiet place with the cuisine of your choice? See you soon then! Rama (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

HMS Ruby Prize (1694)

The dates are confusing me. Which of them are correct? 1790s or 1690s? The page has a mixture of both. Brad (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Brad101: My screw-up. I do so many articles from the 1793-1815 period that I automatically type 17 rather than 16. I'll go back and clean up all the 17.s Thanks for the heads-up. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I think I have them all. That will teach me to go out of my normal time period. Also, I must be tired, I appear to have made even more typos than usual, not including the misplaced century.Acad Ronin (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem. All fixed up Brad (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

HMS Madagascar (1841)

I came across an account of the loss of the wooden paddle steamer HMS Madagascar (1841) while reading a book on the First Opium War. I know she was involved in some way or another with the British expedition sent to China, but have been unable to find any significant sources about the ship save an account of her loss. If you ever find the time, could you take a look at her earlier history? SamHolt6 (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: The starting point would be Winfield's volume for the period, which I don't own. Still, I will see what I can dig up. So far, I have two candidate vessels, one built in 1837 and one in 1838. See: [1]. I think it is the 1838 one we want as she is no longer listed in Lloyd;s Register in 1840. If you look at: Phipps, John, (of the Master Attendant's Office, Calcutta), (1840) A Collection of Papers Relative to Ship Building in India ...: Also a Register Comprehending All the Ships ... Built in India to the Present Time .... (Scott); available on line, he suggests that Madagascar came out to Mauritius but then was sold. There also seems to be some info in Fay's Opium War book. See: http://www.panyj.net/UploadFiles/dzsj/2012/10/201210251624273640.pdf. Happy hunting. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@SamHolt6:There's a bit about her operations in China on p.524 here [[2]] which might interest you.--Ykraps (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Which Madagascar though? Could be the heavy frigate and not the troopship. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That I don't know for certain but it sounds like a troopship, "...the Madagascar and Nemesis conveying troops, keeping at present a little aloof.."(p.524). On p.118 here [[3]] it says "..infantry aboard Nemesis, Enterprise and Madagascar was landed without a fight.." and on p.88 it refers to "the steamboat Madagascar". Were there two Madagascars there?--Ykraps (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ykraps: I haven't yet looked into this part of the history. (I am hoping that SamHolt6 does all the heavy lifting on the vessel.). What I have seen so far is that the paddle steamer Madagascar was not a navy ship, either RN or Indian, but a purchased transport. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I will look over some of the battlefield diagrams of the Opium War to see if there is any mention of a 47 gun frigate in the theater. I am fairly confidant that the 1822 Madagascar was not in China, as McPherson meticulously listed the names and armaments of most of the British warships involved in battles in China. Regardless, thanks to both of you for the sources provided, they will be very helpful in my search.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: No worries. I figure those of us crazy enough to do this should help each other. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

P.207 here [[4]] confirms it was a purchased vessel. HMS Madagascar appears to have been part of the Niger expedition of 1841, see p.86 here [[5]].--Ykraps (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Do you mind if I intervene here, having just noted your exchange? The 1841 paddle steamer Madagascar was not a British naval vessel. While in Government ownership, and operated on government services, she was part of the Indian naval service and she was never added to the British Navy (and in any case, there being an existing British warship of that name - the frigate of 1822 lasted to 1863 - she would have had to be renamed if so added), and thus the prefix "HMS" was never applicable or used in any way, and so should be deleted from the title of and elsewhere in the text of the article about the 1841 vessel. Please remove it! Rif Winfield (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• @Rif Winfield: Hi Rif, thanks for the info. I have made the changes. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

John Craigie

Is Captain John Craigie who commanded Lord William Bentinck the same as the Captain John Craigie who commanded Hadlow? Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Never gave the matter any thought, and all of my sources are based on ship names, not those of masters. I did just check the 1829 Register of Shipping. I found two Cragies, one on Helen and one on Lord Wm Bentinck, and I also found lots of Craigs, some who clearly weren't a "J. Craig", and some who could have been. Net-net, I can't definitively say that in 1829 there was only one J. Craig(ie). I also looked in the book of Bristol ships; John Craigie only appears once, and that is as master of Lord Wm Bentinck. But he doesn't appear as master in any earlier or later vessel. So, not much help, I am afraid. Acad Ronin (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Engraving of the Battle of Cape St Vincent

Hello, I hope that this message finds you well.

I chanced upon an engraving of the Battle of Cape St Vincent in 1797, File:Saint Vincent-P7120050.JPG. The title of the original painting states that this depicts HMS Victory raking Salvador del Mundo, but I find it difficult to dismiss the impression that this looks like the early stage of the battle, when Principe de Asturias interfered with the British progression and sustained raking fire from Victory after manoeuvering to avoid colliding with her. Do you have any thoughts?

Best wishes and good continuation! Rama (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rama: Hi Rama, my apologies. I was preparing to teach a new course and this completely slipped my mind. Looking over the description of the battle, I think you are correct. However, it is hard to argue with the picture's title, especially when the National Maritime Museum accepts the title. I also don't know anything about Principe or Salvador so I can't distinguish them, even assuming that the artist didn't take artistic liberties to make the picture fit the caption. The reason I discovered this outstanding matter is that I have a new Demerliac inquiry for you. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Robert (1793 ship)

Hi Acad, I note your edits to this page of some interest to me. I write to ask if you feel there to be any doubt that Spy was previously Espion, given that this sale catalogue suggests otherwise. This makes little sense because 'espiegle' is French for 'playful' (or something like it), whereas 'espion' does mean 'spy'. A painting (captioned 'SPY Capt Welham Clarke C.Slade 1803') suggests 28 guns (with possible artistic license), whereas there were only six abord when the ship was bought.

I have a log covering 29th Sep 1803 to 16th Oct 1804. This was the last of Welham's sea voyages and he then retired to Ipswich on its considerable proceeds. Much of it is legible. AFAIK, it doesn't say anything about the purchase or sale of the Spy itself, except that the owner appears to be one Mr Hurry of Gosport.

Have you any theory, please, about this confusion?

RAClarke (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@RAClarke: Hi RAClarke, the auction notice is definitely cool, at least to people like me. First, I am highly (but never perfectly) confident in Robert's history. The Navy did sell an Espiegle in 1802, but she was slightly smaller than Robert (about 271 tons (bm)). I haven't gotten around to writing her up, so can't say much. I think what happened is that the printer, or possibly the seller, got confused, and back translated Spy into Espiegle. I would not make much of the number of guns. At the time of your sale, as the ad points out, Spy had just got back from a slaving voyage. She may have carried only six guns on that voyage; unfortunately, neither Lloyd's Register nor the Register of shipping mention guns. Note, it was not unusual for vessels to be pierced for more guns than they carried. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any letter in the London Gazette mentioning the actual capture; that might have included a line about piercing vs. carrying. Welham Clarke's letter of marque specifically mentions 24 guns, so that is consistent with the painting. Hope this helps. May I ask the reason for your interest? Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: I counted nine cannon ports. Did you mean 18 guns rather than 28? If so, it is the letter of marque that seems a little exaggerated. Acad Ronin (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

PPS: I did a little more digging and found out that in 1805 Spy became a privateer that the French captured in the West Indies. I also added to the article the painting you mentioned. Many thanks. I may also add the sale notice. Cheers Acad Ronin (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Acad, yes I would agree that best explains the discrepancy. It still seems a little odd. I raise the question as part of long term plans for a biography of Welham, based mainly on the extensive notes he made of his earlier, but calamitous, voyage in The Commerce, but Wikipedia is most welcome, however, to the painting and the sale catalogue, and anything else I have on the Spy (I have not yet found the letter of marque issued to Welham, but I do have that for his equally disaster prone brother Charles, my gt3). At least neither shipmaster deliberately invited trouble, unlike their brother William.

On the painting, I count five guns visible to starboard on the top deck, and nine on the lower deck. Assuming that the port side mirrors that arrangement then my maths says 28 in all. The picture indeed exaggerates the actual deployment. Thank you anyway for your research effort on Spy. I had nothing on its fate after 1804.

Regards RAClarke (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

NSW Vets

Saw your post at User:Euryalus#Query and wondered if these were of any use to you. [[6]] [[7]] --Ykraps (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ykraps: Many thanks for this. The first article in particular provides enough info to add to some ship articles, and to provide the basis for an article about the unit itself. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Waterloo

The "Wrecking" section has three unreferenced paragraphs. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Beulah

Was Beulah a chartered ship of the EIC? The Morning Post of 21 April 1842 states "Within the last three or four days considerable anxiety has existed amongst the authorities of India House respecting the fate of the ship Beulah, Captain Grieves, belonging to Liverpool, recently chartered by them as a transport for troops to India..." So, EIC flag or not? Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Mjroots: In 1833 the EIC abandoned its mercantile activities and sold its vessels. It had long given up flying its flag on vessels. So Beulah would have been a normal British merchant vessel (Red Ensign) that they voyage chartered. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

HMS Imperieuse (1793)

Hello,

I have noticed that you have undertaken a lot of work on the article for HMS Imperieuse (1793). I believe this article should have its name changed as there were two Imperieuses in service with the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic period. The first was the French 44 gun frigate Imperieuse, which after it's captured briefly bore that name in Royal Navy service before being renamed HMS Unite. The second was more famous as under the command of Lord Thomas Cochrane in 1808 it harassed the French along the Spanish and French coasts. A Wikipedia search for HMS Iphigenia returns the following statement: "HMS Iphigenia (1804) was a 38-gun fifth rate, formerly the Spanish ship Medea. She was captured in 1804 and renamed HMS Imperieuse in 1805. She was placed on harbour service in 1818 and was sold in 1838."

I believe there are two options:

Option A. Retain the existing HMS Imperieuse article and its association with HMS Unite and as none exists, create an article for HMS Iphigenia (1804).

This is not a good idea as both ships were only called this for a brief time. The only reason for selecting this option is if there is a Wikipedia convention for using the name under they first entered Royal navy service.

Option B Rename the existing HMS Imperieuse (1793) article as HMS Unite (1803). It needs to be 1803 as there is already an entry for Gracieuse which was a 32-gun French which was renamed to Unité in 1793. The Royal Navy captured her in 1796 and brought her into British service as HMS Unite. She was sold in 1802. in addition create a new HMS Imperieuse (1805) article.

I believe this is best option as each article should bear the name under which the respective ships spent most of their service and are best known. I'm happy to create a new HMS Imperieuse (1805) article and also put references in both it and the HMS Unite article to the naming confusion. I however I'm so sure about how you rename an article and also retain the links to it.

Regards John John Prattley (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:John Prattley - I can't respond immediately as I will need to look at the situation and the two vessels. Off hand, options include moving the articles to the vessels' original (French) names, backed by redirects. I will revert within 48 hours with my recommendation. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:John Prattley I have looked up all three Imperieuse (there was a second one between the 1793 and the 1805). Winfield lists the first and third as Imperieuse, and the second as Amphitrite (her Dutch name and the name she was commissioned in to the RN under that name before being renamed to Imperieuse in 1803, and being broken up in 1805. I would follow Winfield and name both the 1793 and the 1805 Imperieuses as Imperieuse (and the 1803-1805 Imperieuse as Amphitrite). I just don't see a problem. Between shipindex pages, in text mentions of predecessors, and the "other ships" template, it is easy to direct readers who have strayed. There are numerous cases of RN vessels being renamed while the older and the newer coexisted. There are even cases where two contemporary vessels bore the same name, though the Admiralty almost always iimposed a name change on one of them whenever it became aware of the duplication. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Waakzaamheid

Hi Acad Ronin, do you know any details on the Waakzaamheid that transported Captain John Hunter to England to face a court-martial after the loss of HMS Sirius in 1791/2? She arrived in Portsmouth in April 1792 after a voyage of over 12 months. Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Newm30: Nothing about her in a database of VOC ships. There are two vessels by that name in the 1790 Lloyd's Register [8], but nothing to indicate which one, if either, might be the Waakzaamheid in question. There is a tiny item about her arrival in the UK with Hunter in Lloyd's List no.2395 of 24 April 1792 [9]. That's all I have. Unfortunately, it wasn't a rare name. let alone a unique one. Sorry. Good hunting. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Fanny (1811 ship)

Thank you for your contributions to the Fanny page Jgb2 (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Irlam (1813 ship) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Irlam (1813 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/Irlam (1813 ship) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Fram (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AfD troubles. Fram (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You have said at different locations now that we have encountered each other in the past, but I can't remember where or when, and I don't see my name in your talk page archives. Can you please link to that previous encounter? Fram (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Fram: I don't remember when as it was several years ago. I believe we disagreed in a similar situation about a short article on a ship where you made the same point. The disagreement would have taken place not in my talk pages but on the Afd. Probably. Your user name was seared into my memory because we disagreed so fundamentally. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Acad Ronin (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• • I'm not going to slap a {{uw-canvass}} on your talk page, but please do not canvass again. I know it hurts when an article you've written gets nominated for deletion (have lost six that I wrote that way), but canvassing can be counter-productive. A neutral notice at relevant Wikiprojects is all that is needed. I regularly check CAT:AFD/P in any case and had already noticed the nom. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Higginson

You may be interested in Irlam's sister ship Higginson. The painting is in the public domain so a copy can be uploaded to Commons and used in an article on the ship. Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Mjroots: Thanks for this. Turns out George Irlam was a partner in the noted Liverpool firm of Barton, Irlam, and Higginson, together with Sir William Barton and John Higginson. The firm made a practice of naming its vessels after the partners. Hence there were also vessels named Barton, and Higginson. The firm went bankrupt in 1847. I think I will do a small article on the firm, which will have some highly respectable sources, to provide a little context for articles about their vessels. I will be reverting on your talk page later when I have more time with some remarks/questions about improving the WP ship resources page. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

File:The sailing vessel 'Higginson', 1814 in Liverpool.jpg Broichmore (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Barton (1810 ship)

Thanks for your thanks. I'm working heavily on {{Ship}} (talk) these days (and so the sub {{HMS}}). (Please bring in your comments). BTW, I see you are a Vietnam vet, and very UK oriented. Anything interesting I could read? - DePiep (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: First, thanks for the link to the info on the ships template, and for your work on it. I have been working on ships for years and never thought to look. Second, re reading, is your interest the Vietnam War, or the UK, and within either area, any more specialized interest? I am not sure that there is anything I can recommend on either topic, at least not off the cuff, but I can add it to my mental "Things to mull over" list. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

re Vietnam & UK: since you put it on your homepage here, the diff caught my eye (a viet vet who is enthousiastic about UK stuff). That's all. See you at SHIPS. - DePiep (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: Perhaps the most useful readings that combine the UK & Vietnam are two books by Sir Robert Thompson, in order – Defeating Communist Insurgency: The Lessons of Malaya and Vietnam, and Peace Is Not At Hand. He provided very good advice that we did not really understand. We (the US) quite sensibly fight war capital intensively as the US has an abundance of capital relative to labor. But we often substitute capital not for lives, but for thought. As for my interest in things English, I grew up in Australia, which normally would not make one Anglophilic, even for someone of my generation, but I read a lot of British books for boys (such as the Hornblower series), that clearly twisted me. :-) Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)