Jump to content

User talk:Rif Winfield/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 8

HMS Owen Glendower, HMS Proselyte (1796), HMS Proselyte (1804), HMS Turbulent (1805), and the disambig page for HMS Proselyte.

Hi Rif, I have prepared articles for a variety of vessels: HMS Owen Glendower (I inadvertently left out the launch year in her name but as she is the only vessel with that name it won't cause any problems until I get to fixing it), HMS Proselyte (1796), HMS Proselyte (1804), HMS Turbulent (1805), and the disambig page for HMS Proselyte. Any improvements, esp. ship boxes, would be most welcome. I had, unfortunately, to return the copy of your 1793-18117 book to Inter Library Loan. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I have added a few details to the HMS Turbulent (1805) entry, added a couple of Proselytes to the disambiguation page, and made a few small changes to the others. Please note all tonnages for sailing warships are burthen unless otherwise specified (displacement was not used until later on).

As regards the Owen Glendower, it would be extremely helpful if a page for Apollo class frigates was created, into which cross-references could be inserted by me for the 27 frigates built to this design. Could you do this while amending the heading of the HMS Owen Glendower article to HMS Owen Glendower (1808). I would also like to see a similar article inserted for Leda class frigates, which currently defaults to an article on the name ship of the class, HMS Leda. If you can start this, the details in the "sister-ships" sections currently within the HMS Leda article can be moved to the new Leda class frigate article; I have added a complete list of this class into these "sister-ships" sections. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rif, I have separated HMS Leda (1800) from Leda class frigate. These are now separate pages. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. I have now added the article on Apollo class frigates. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

References...

Please provide reliable sources for all your additions, otherwise they could be removed. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I endeavour to provide references for all new articles and major additions, but sometimes omit the smaller ones. If you can identify particular items where references are missed, I shall insert them. On naval items, my primary sources are almost always Admiralty and Navy Board official records. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Vigilant class gunvessel armament

Hi Rif, Shem has referred me to you - trying to work out what armament these vessels were initially equipped with. His copy of your book states : "As completed 1 x 7in/110pdr BL, 1 x 68 pdr MLR, 2 x 20 pdr BL". My info on the Armstrong guns seems to indicate the Armstrong breechloaders were in service from 1859, and the 7-inch possibly not before 1861. But these vessels appear to have been commissioned from 1856. Any suggestions ? thanks. Rod Rcbutcher (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Dear Rod, I shall endeavour to help, but I must first stress that I am not an ordnance specialist. I assume it is my "Sail and Steam Navy List 1815-1889" to which you refer (as you presumably know, I have written several, particularly on the sailing Navy from 1603 to 1817). It was certainly the original intention, when the Vigilant class were ordered, that they were to be armed, like their predecessors (the Arrow Class) with two 68-pounder Lancaster MLR guns on pivots. However, as you know, the Lancaster guns were much distrusted in view of their unreliable performance in the Black Sea/Crimea, and the 110-pounder BL was substituted. I cannot find the date for this, and it is possible that this was not done until after the Vigilants had been in service for some time. Certainly they carried the armament I specified by the start of the 1870s. The 7in/110pdr BL gun of 82 cwt was, I believe, in use quite early on, but I agree with you that this was not likely to have been done before 1858, when testing of the new Armstrong guns was taking place, and I suspect that the Vigilants may have initially shipped a MLSB in place on one of the 68-pounder Lancaster; however, I have no evidence for this.
    I note that Anthony Preston and John Major's "Send a Gunboat" agrees with me as to the armament that the Vigilants carried, although there seems less data on this class's armament than on other gunvessels/gunboats of the 1850s. You might see if you can check George Osbon's excellent pair of articles on "The Crimean Gunboats" in Mariner's Mirror of May and August 1965, to see if those articles throw any further light on the subject (unfortunately I cannot now access these). If you discover any more, please let me know. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

HMS Wager (1739)

Dear Rif, I wonder if you would be so kind as to send me details of HMS Wager (1739)? I'm just working on the article, and I find rather a lack of information on the ship itself (in particular her career as an East Indiaman - even her name). If you still have my e-mail address, that would be great; if not, drop me a line at my talk page, and I'll send you it again. Yours, as ever, Shem (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Shem! Her name was not changed on purchase by the Navy (on 21 November 1739, for £3,912.2.1½d, from Mr. J. Raymond), but I have no information on her mercantile career. She was fitted for naval service at Deptford Dockyard between 23 November 1739 and 23 May 1740 (at a cost of £7,096.2.4d), and was registered as a Sixth Rate on 22 April 1740, and established with 120 men and 28 guns (I don't know what guns she actually carried).
Her dimensions were 123ft 0in on the gundeck, 101ft 4.125in on the keel, 32ft 2.375in breadth and 14ft 4in depth in hold, giving a burthen tonnage of 558 82/94.
While fitting out, she was commissioned in December 1739 under Captain Dandy Kidd, for Anson's squadron, with which she sailed from Portsmouth in August 1740. Kidd died in January 1741, but from the previous November the Wager was commanded by Captain George Murray. Captain David Cheap commanded from February 1741. You will of course be aware of her wrecking on 14 May 1741 and subsequent events. Best wishes. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Shem and Rif, I found this re Wager:
WAGER (1) [no ref.] No date
Contents:
Rated at 490 tons, 98 crew, 30 guns. Voyages: (1) 1734/5 Madras and Bengal. Capt Charles Raymond. :Downs 13 Feb 1735 - 18 Jul Madras - 27 Aug Bengal 25 Jan 1736 - 24 Apr St Helena - 14 Jul Downs. (2) :1737/8 Madras and Bengal. Capt Charles Raymond. Downs 11 Feb 1738 - 11 May Cape - 12 Jul Madras - 22 :Sep Bengal 2 Feb 1739 - 21 May St Helena - 27 Aug Downs. [1]
After her sale, the HEIC sailed a second Wager.
Although everyone describes her as an "old East Indiaman", she was only 4 years old at the time of her sale, and had made only two trips. Acad Ronin (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


Many thanks, Acad. Assuming that 1734/35 date reflects her original completion as an East Indiaman, she was 5 years old. Jean Sutton's "Lords of the East" confirms the two voyages in 1734-37, and the second Wager (498 tons bm) making another four voyages between 1740 and 1750. Do you know where/who by she was built in 1734? Rif Winfield (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rif, Unfortunately, the National Archives online link just has what I put down above, and no more. Googling hasn't turned up anything more. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Noted. Thanks. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Acad, Rif, thank you both very much for the information, which I have incorporated into the article. Just one more thing - Rif do you have a reference I can use for the cost, dimensions and commissioning date, or is it all primary sources? Thanks, Shem (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
All obtained from primary sources, but you could quote my British Warships in the Age of Sail 1714-1792: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates (Seaforth Publishing, 2007, ISBN 978-1-84415-700-6) as naturally I included all the above information and data therein. Rif Winfield (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Rif, thanks - reference incorporated. The article now looks more like an encyclopaedia entry! Shem (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


Noted. Best regards. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Edmund Dummer (naval engineer)

Hi - thanks for adding the extra information. Could you add some citations for the "Ships for the Navy" section. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The citation should be from British Warships in the Age of Sail 1603-1714: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates (Seaforth Publishing, 2009, ISBN 978-1-84832-040-6). The data on HMS Swan and HMS Hind of 1709 is to be found on page 211; that on HMS Ferret and HMS Weazle of 1704 is to be found on page 228. As I am this publication's author, I should prefer if someone else would add the citations - could you oblige? Rif Winfield (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - citations now added. Good luck with the sales of the book. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks! Just one small typo in the citation - you omitted the "s" in "Design". Rif Winfield (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Now corrected - that was because I cut & pasted the title from www.amazon.co.uk (see here [2]) --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Furzer

Following on from the article about Dummer, I am trying to put together an article about Daniel Furzer who succeeded him as Surveyor of the Navy. At present I am somewhat confused by the chronology and whether or not there were 2 or even 3 shipbuilders by this name.

In 1685, Furzer was promoted from First Assistant Master Shipwright at Chatham to Master Shipwright at Sheerness, with Dummer succeeding him at Chatham. Furzer in turn succeeded Dummer as Surveyor of the Navy in 1699, remaining in that post until he died in 1715. This Furzer was married in 1674 to Ann Pett of the Pett dynasty. This would indicate that he was born in the 1640s or 1650s, assuming he was 20-30 when he married.

There was a Daniel Furzer active at Lydney in the 1650s and 1660s (building HMS Princess (1661) and HMS St David (1667) amongst others); a Daniel Furzer built at least 4 ships at Portsmouth in the 1670s and 1680s (including HMS Eagle (1679) and HMS Ossory (1682)). Finally, Furzer built two ships at Sheerness (including HMS Medway (1693)) and HMS Tilbury (1699) at Chatham. Were all these the same man?

Any help you could give would be gratefully appreciated. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Certainly shipwrights (and clearly most shipbuilders started out as shipwrights) followed family traditions, and so there were many family users of the same surname, the Petts and Shishes being the best known, but there were many others, and there were certainly several Furzers. Also, as they tended to be fairly conservative by nature, first names were often passed on from father to son, leaving major problems for the historian to sort out.
The shipwright who built at Lydney was almost certainly not the person subsequently employed at HM dockyards. Another Daniel Furzer certainly was employed as Assistant Master Shipwright at Woolwich from 1671 to 1672, and then as Master Shipwright from (28 September) 1672 to 1780 at Portsmouth, where he built HMS Vanguard (1678), HMS Eagle (1679) and HMS Expedition (1679) and several more, including the 100-gun HMS Royal Charles (1673) (designed and laid down by his predecessor there, Deane) and HMS Royal James (1675) (the latter entirely built by Furzer, although designed by Deane), and he designed and probably commenced work on the HMS Ossory (1682) and HMS Coronation (1685) although these were both completed by his successor at Portsmouth, Isaac Betts (who took over on 4 October 1680).
I suspect this was a separate Daniel from the Assistant Master Shipwright at Chatham from 1680 until late 1686 or early 1687, when he became Master Shipwright at Sheerness (where he built the 32-gun HMS Sheerness (1690) and started the 60-gun HMS Medway (1693) which was completed by Zachariah Modbury there), a post he held until moving to the post of Assistant Surveyor of the Navy on 2 August 1692. He held that post when he became Master Shipwright on 4 May 1698 at Chatham where he completed the 54-gun HMS Tilbury (1699) (the latter designed and begun by Robert Lee, who had died in office at Chatham), but after a year was appointed as Surveyor of the Navy.
For further dates of Master Shipwrights and of vessels' construction might I respectfully refer you to the 1603-1714 volume (just published by Seaforth Publishing) of my series on British Warships in the Age of Sail, which includes most of the the above data and much more besides on every English/British warship of the period. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it certainly puts things into some sort of order. I think I'll create the main article to cover the last of these 3, with a section mentioning the others, until someone wants to create separate articles on them. I may well buy a copy of your book. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Noted with thanks. The documentary evidence is unclear, but on further investigation (mainly research contributed by my colleague Frank Fox) it would now appear that there were only two of them, as the builder at Lydney was also the AMS at Woolwich and MS at Portsmouth. As stated before, the AMS at Chatham (and later Surveyor) was a different Daniel, in fact the son of the first-mentioned. Certainly some of the ship articles need amending.
A little more info is added by courtesy of Frank Fox. Daniel Snr was originally a private shipwright of Portsmouth (where he was living in 1653) who built the Fifth Rate Grantham at Southampton by contract in 1654 (this ship was renamed as HMS Garland in 1660); local records indicate he was considered an 'outsider' who used Southampton only for the completion of naval contracts. He afterwards became a ship's carpenter (aboard the Grantham) until 1659, when he was selected by the Navy Board (presumably on his own suggestion) to explore the possibility of shipbuilding at Lydney to take advantage of the timber resources of the Forest of Dean. There he completed the Princess in 1660 (not 1661! She was launched on 27 August 1660 and commissioned the same day under Captain Walter Wood). When the 1664 Programme was proposed, it was expected that Lydney would become a royal shipbuilding yard with Furzer as master shipwright. The initial plans called for him to build two ships there together, one of the Third rate and one of the Fourth rate. Sadly, it was then discovered that the Severn opposite the launch had silted over, rendering the yard useless for major shipbuilding. He found an isolated but marginally acceptable site at Conpill (also in the Forest of Dean), where with great difficulty he built one Fourth rate, the Saint David (not as a contractor but as a salaried royal shipwright). He then went to Bristol to serve as the Navy Board's surveyor for the contract building of the Edgar of 1668 by Francis Bayley. For the next two years Furzer operated the Lydney yard as a royal repair facility for the small ships serving on the Irish station.
In late 1670 the Duke of York ordered the Lydney yard closed, and in February 1671 Furzer was appointed master shipwright at Woolwich (Admiralty records say 'assistant master shipwright', as Jonas Shish was the master shipwright there at this time) and then on 28 September 1672 was appointed as the Master Shipwright at Portsmouth. There he undoubtedly did much of the work on Deane's Royal Charles of 1673 and Royal James of 1675, although Deane as Dockyard Commissioner was frequently on hand to supervise. In the 1677 programme Furzer built the Vanguard, Eagle, Expedition, and probably designed the Ossory but did little if any work on her before he died on 3 October 1680. He had nothing to do with the Coronation, which became something of an orphan. At one point (Frank thinks in 1682 or 1683) Deane offered to build her himself by contract, but she was finally assigned to Isaac Betts at Portsmouth as had been originally planned.
Turning now to the second Daniel, Furzer's son Daniel Jnr served in the positions earlier noted, i.e. assistant master shipwright at Chatham from 1680, later master shipwright at Sheerness, assistant Surveyor of the Navy then master shipwright at Chatham and eventually rising to become Surveyor of the Navy (dates as stated earlier).
In terms of the contribution they made to naval shipbuilding it is probably hard to give one more credit than the other, so I would suggest that your article on Daniel Furzer should cover both father and son, making clear the distinction. Incidentally, you are correct about the family connections to the Pett family; Furzer was Christopher Pett's son-in-law, and Christopher was Master Shipwright at both Deptford and Woolwich concurrently from August 1652 until his death in March 1668. Intermarriages among the shipwright families was not unusual! Rif Winfield (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Good morning Rif - thanks for that info; also thanks to your colleague, Frank Fox, for his input. I have ordered a copy of your book from Amazon, but it won't reach me for several weeks, so rather than go off half-cock, I will wait until I get the book, so that I can reference the article(s) correctly. I will probably create two articles, Daniel Furzer, Sr. and Daniel Furzer, Jr. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Noted, but my recommendation would be for a single article on Daniel Furzer. The suffixes Snr/Sr and Jnr/Jr are not usually used to distinguish the different individuals, and the various references to Daniel Furzer scattered around the ship articles do not have these suffixes. It would, I suggest, be easier to have one article, with a common brief intro paragraph and then two separate sections on the Elder and Younger Daniel Furzers. The intro paragraph could simply state, as a suggested example, somthing like "Daniel Furzer was the name of two successive (father and son) generations of master shipwright during the 17th century, involved in designing and building warships for the Royal Navy. The earlier Furzer was initially a private contractor, but was subsequently employed directly as a shipbuilder, eventually responsible for all shipbuilding at Portmouth. His son was also trained as a shipwright, and served in turn as the Master Shipwright at Sheerness and later Chatham Dockyards, before ending his career as Surveyor of the Navy."
This format could also serve for other 'father-and-son' couples with identical names involved in similar jobs in naval construction, such as the Barralliers during the French Revolutionary War. However, if you choose to have separate articles for the two Daniel Furzers, please use the format Daniel Furzer, the Elder and Daniel Furzer, the Younger rather than "Sr." and "Jr." as this is more in keeping with 17th century practice. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

HMS Astraea (1781)

Hi Rif: Colledge, and Wikipedia have a HMS Astraea (1791). Everything I have been able to find suggests the Colledge is incorrect and that she launched in 1781. In 1782 she was one of three frigates that captured South Carolina. Before I move the Wikipedia article I just wanted to confirm the launch date with you. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I confirm that Astraea was launched on 24 July 1781 and she was indeed one of the three frigates (the others being Diomede and Quebec - the latter being a sistership to the Astraea) which captured the South Carolina. I should be most grateful if you would correct/move the HMS Astraea (1791) article. You might care to note that I have expanded the List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy article to quote all frigate names from 1690 to 1887 except for captured ships; you might care to look at this, as it might help you in checking certain dates and class memberships, and certainly adds to the linkable articles. It also reveals how many further articles are required! Regards. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rif: Thanks for the info. I have corrected/moved the Astraea article and fixed all the links to it. I guess the good thing about the long list of frigates is that I will have something to do in my retirement (the good Lord willing and the river don't rise). Any info re Howe/Dromedary, Dolphin, or Boxer per my earlier email? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


Thanks. I will reply to your email by email as soon as time allows, to avoid confusion here. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply now sent by email. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

HMS Rosario

Dear Rif
Your mighty Sail and Steam Navy List has Rosario (1860) as a prison hulk in Australia in 1874. P Davis (who is normally pretty reliable) has her down as paying off in Sheerness in 1875. Can you shed any light - is this a case of both being correct? Yours, as always, Shem (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not known, as I'm away from home (and my data records) at present. Will get back to you after 28th November. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Rif; sorry to bother you. Shem (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
That's quite OK - no problem. Regards. Rif Winfield (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello again, Rif. If you have a look at Rosario (1860), you'll see my dilemma at Note 1. Any light you can shed would be gratefully received. Yours, Shem (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Looking at my records, there is some uncertainty. Let me give you what information I have. The first commission of the Rosario (1860) was from 1862, initially under Commander James Stanley Graham on 20 June 1862, then under Cmdr. Louis Venturne (note the spelling in my records) from September 1864; this was almost entirely spent on the North America and West Indies station. She was paid off in 1867, but recommissioned in October of that year under Cmdr. George Palmer, for service in Australia. In April 1870 command was given to Cmdr. Henry Joseph Challis, either still in Australia or for fresh deployment to Australia. Lieut. Albert Hastings Markham was her acting commander from October 1871 until February 1872, stationed in the New Hebrides, but Challis relieved him again on 10 February 1872 (see Laird Clowes, Vol. 7, pp.230-231). Commander Arthur Edward Dupuis was or became her C.O. in January 1874, when she was still in (or again in) the New Hebrides. As mentioned in my book, I next have her serving as a prison ship in Australia in 1874, but she subsequently returned to the UK, as I have her in 1880 at Chatham, where she was sold in 1882. It is certainly possible (even likely) that she paid off at Sheerness in 1875, on her return from Australia, although I have no record as to where she paid off. I think this could very well be a case of both Davis and myself being correct. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Rif, thank you for your very prompt and very comprehensive reply. I shall incorporate what you have here (thank you for the Laird Clowes reference). I think it most likely that you are right; that she was briefly employed as a prison ship in Australia before returning home. Yours, gratefully, Shem (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

HMS Aid (1562) and HMS Terpsichore (1785)

Hello Rif, I wonder if you could clarify the date HMS Aid (1562) was broken up when you have access to your files again? Colledge uses 1599, Paine's Ships of discovery and exploration uses 1590. Oh, and did Fleetwood Pellew ever captain HMS Terpsichore (1785)? Your book doesn't seem to list him. Best, Benea (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ben! Jim Colledge is correct. The Aid was still listed in 1599, but was condemned during that year to be taken to pieces, and is presumed to have been broken up during that year. And I have no record whatsoever of Fleetwood Pellew ever commanding the Terpsichore; I have checked her full career from August 1793 (when she first commissioned at Woolwich) until December 1810 when she paid off from active service at Chatham; Pellew appears nowhere in this period as her commander. She did serve as a receiving ship at Chatham from 1814 until 1829, before being broken up in 1830, and she was commissioned briefly in that role from 1814 to 1815 when she was paid off; I have no record as to her commanders at that date, but it would certainly not have been Pellew. Was there a particular year or years you were concerned about? Rif Winfield (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting, various contemporary reports seem to place him in command of Terpsichore at some point during her time in the East Indies, possibly during 1806/1807. This was of course during his father's time in command of the station. Could some irregularities be to blame? He seems to have been in command during the Raid on Batavia (1806) for example. Also was there a 44-gun fourth rate named HMS Wolf that ran onto what was later called Wolf Trap Light of Virginia in 1691? I can't find any ship of the name matching that description in service at that time, the nearest being the fireship HMS Wolf, or Woolf, of 1690. Benea (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Things become clear! In your reference to the Batavia Raid, you are not talking about Fleetwood Pellew, but about his father, Rear-Admiral Sir Edward Pellew! The latter was certainly in command of the squadron in the attack on Batavia in November 1806, which squadron certainly included the Terpsichore (although not as his flagship; he flew his flag aboard the Culloden, commanded by Captain Christopher Cole). However, I should point out that in the 18th century and subsequently, no Rear-Admiral (and indeed no flag officer) commands a ship, he commands a squadron or fleet. Each ship in that fleet or squadron has its own captain, even the flagship. In the same way, Nelson was never in command of HMS Victory - that job (during the Trafalgar campaign) was Thomas Masterman Hardy's!
Certainly, young Fleetwood Pellew was with the squadron, but at that time he was only a 16-year old Lieutenant; he was not confirmed as a Commander until 12 October 1807, and was made post (i.e. became a Captain) on 14 October 1808, still not quite nineteen.
There was certainly never a 44-gun ship called HMS Wolf. If you can explain the reference, I will try to help, but there was no 44-gun ship of any description around in the RN in 1691 (except a single prize, the Ruby's Prize, and she was not lost then or at any time). Rif Winfield (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Rif, I was certainly confused by this apparent phantom ship that all the sources had missed. There's a reference here to an HMS Wolf grounding on the shoal, but apparently the source which more fully describes Wolf is this one, which google books won't give me more than a snippet view. According to Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs) this describes her as a 'fourth rate, 200 men, 48 guns'. Could this be the fireship HMS Wolf launched in 1690, in her configuration as a fifth rate, which a source has exaggerated somewhat?

When describing the raid on Batavia Brenton's Naval History lists the ships and commanders involved, and places 'Captain Fleetwood Pellew' as commander of Terpsichore, where he led the boats that boarded and destroyed the Dutch ships. An engraving of the event has the description 'Captain Fleetwood Pellew commanding H.M. Ship Terpsichore against Dutch vessels in Batavia Roads 24 Nov. 1806.' An entry here says that Fleetwood Pellew was promoted to the command of Terpsichore in September 1806 on the death of Captain Boag (presumably Joseph Bogue, who your book says died in July). Edward Pellew's despatches about the raid refer to Fleetwood consistently as 'Captain', but do not explicitly say that he commanded Terpsichore, just that he led the boats on that occasion. Benea (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, Ben. On this evidence, I can certainly accept that Fleetwood Pellew commanded Terpsichore, although not, I think, until October 1807. According to the List of Commissioned Sea Officers both William Warden (who replaced Fleetwood Pellew aboard the Rattlesnake sloop) and Pellew himself have their promotions to Commander dated as 12 October 1807. Commander Joseph Bradley Bogue had died on 19 July 1806 (PRO records). I note that Commander John Bastard, who certainly commanded the Rattlesnake earlier in 1807, was promoted to Captain on the same date of 12 October 1807 (he had been made Commander on 22 May 1806).
We are often confused by the generalised use of the term Captain as a conventional reference to anyone commanding a warship; in fact, it does not mean that they held that rank. I think we may also also suspect a little paternal exaggeration on the part of Sir Edward Pellew, anxious to embellish his son's career. Of course, a Lieutenant may often, particularly on a distant station like the East Indies, have been given charge of a ship on a temporary basis, described as "Acting Commander"; again, that was sometimes officially confirmed later by the Admiralty and sometimes it was not. Sir Edward certainly seemed to have a habit of switching his ships' commanders around. Look also at French frigate Psyché (1804), which I have recently corrected and added to. The Psyché in British service was initially commanded by Commander William Woolridge until 10 June 1807, when he was promoted to Captain. It seems possible that Fleetwood Pellew commanded her (in an Acting role) from that date. I suspect that the various ships' logs may throw a little light on the somewhat confused situation, but I am unable to get to Kew to inspect them.
Turning to the Wolf issue, I am not certain whether or not this is so. There seem to be three possibilities, one being that suggested by you. Another is that the 'fourth rate, 200 men, 48 guns' mentioned in Woolward is correct, but the ship's name is entirely wrong. I cannot identify any Fourth Rate (the establishment of guns and men seems appropriate for such a ship) lost in 1691 which could fit the bill, so if this possibility is accepted, then the ship's grounding on this shoal did not cause her loss, and she continued in service. The Third possibility would be that this Wolf was not a naval vessel at all, but a large privateer. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting. The book 'Norfolk: The First Four Centuries' seems to say that the Wolf was sent out to replace a ship named HMS Dumbarton, which had been used as a guardship against pirates in the waters off Virginia and Maryland, the Dumbarton having been worn out and reduced to a hulk. The Wolf arrived in March 1691 and was apparently scheduled to depart in June that year with a tobacco convoy, having grounded on the shoal in the meantime. Whichever ship it was did apparently get off in the end. Other guardships mentioned in the book are the Henry Prize, arriving in autumn 1691 and laid up by 1693, and the Essex Prize, mentioned between 1698-1699.
As to Pellew, his entry in the odnb notes 'Pellew's career was made by his father, who exploited death vacancies and the impracticability of communicating with the Admiralty to promote him captain when he was only nineteen.', and adds that he was '...successively appointed by his father to the command of the sloop Rattlesnake, and the frigates Terpsichore and Psyche, in which he was repeatedly engaged with Dutch vessels and Malay pirates. On 12 October 1807 he was confirmed in the rank of commander...' So it appears Sir Edward operated a fairly loose interpretation of the regulations, placing his son in command of ships he didn't have the rank for. He is certainly coy in his despatch, saying that Fleetwood led the boats, rather than that he explicitly commanded Terpsichore. Interesting though that Pellew leads the boats, though common enough for a lieutenant it seems an odd occupation for the commander of a frigate? Best wishes, and Merry Christmas, Benea (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
You will have noted David Hepper's comments in his e-mail reply to us both. The 24-gun Henry Prize (a former privateer captured in January 1691) and the 16-gun Essex Prize (another former privateer, captured in April 1694) were both Sixth Rates. The Dumbarton (also a Sixth Rate) was a former Scottish prize, captured during the 1685 rebellion; she was condemned in Virginia in June 1691. Best wishes for 2010! Rif Winfield (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

HMS

Hi Rif, I would like to do a (very short) article on Telegraph (1798). You list her as hired and Colledge doesn't have her. I guess my question is, if I am doing an article on her (her crew was awarded a Naval General Service Medal), what title do I give her, HMS or HM Hired Brig, or...? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  • An interesting question to which the answer in uncertain. I'm sure that "HMS" would be wrong as she wasn't a ship (using the sailing era definition of the word "ship"), but the same could technically be said for all the brigs, ketches, cutters and schooners constructed for the Navy during the sailing era. In this case, I would go for "HM Hired Brig" and adopt the same principle for any other hired vessel for which an article is written. Regards. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Rif. Works for me. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rif, I have written the article - HM Hired Brig Telegraph (1798) - and it's now up. There is an interesting mystery as to who her last captain was. If you have any info from your files that would be great. (Loose ends are inevitable, but I hate them.) Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

Admiralty records indicate that Lieut Nicholas Caesar Corsellis (commissioned 15 May 1780, died 1833) was a different person from Lieut Caesar Corsellis (commissioned 21 November 1790), the latter being recorded in Laird Clowes as drowning (presumably in Telegraph) on 14 February 1801. Lieut John Mundall or Mundell was certainly not aboard Telegraph when she was lost; he was promoted to Commander on 1 November 1825 and died on 19 July 1833 (according to PRO). So if he commanded Telegraph (I have no record of this), then it must have been a temporary (acting) role before Corsellis returned to command her. Incidentally, you mis-spell "Caesar" at least twice in the article. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rif. I have corrected the spelling, and the references to Corsellis. I got the Nicholas Caesar from Michael Phillips; he may have assumed because Caesar is already commanding from early 1800. As for Mundall, that comes from a couple of reports of prize money being paid. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have a suspicion that I have seen somewhere that Lieut Caesar Corsellis was the son of Lieut Nicholas Caesar Corsellis, but cannot trace evidence to back this up, so it's only a guess. There were no other Corsellis names anywhere on the list of commissioned sea officers. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rif, I checked the genealogy that I could find on line. Nicholas Caesar's children were too young, the first was born in 1798, and none bore the name Caesar as his first name. However, He did have a younger brother named Caesar, born in 1767, who would therefore have been 23 in 1790, a reasonable age at which to become a lieutenant. The genealogy did not have a date of death, so no contradiction to the hypothesis that he could have been the Caesar in question. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Vampire Fleet

Rif, can you recommend any good references for an article on Sherard Osborn's Vampire Fleet, sent to China in 1862 under Royal Navy officers to serve the Emperor of China in putting down the Taiping rebellion? The three RN ships were HMS Mohawk (1856), HMS Jasper (1857) and HMS Africa (1862). What I really need is a good book that covers the subject! Yours in hope, Shem (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As you may know, as well as the three ex-RN wooden-hulled gunboats (which became the Peking, Amoy and China respectively), several others were purchased in the UK for Osborn's flotilla. There is brief but helpful coverage in Chapter 2 of Richard N. J. Wright's The Chinese Steam Navy 1862-1945 (Chatham Publishing 2000: ISBN 1-86176-144-9). This also contains a useful Bibliography, although I cannot see anything exclusively dealing with the Vampire Fleet although I think perhaps J.L.Ralinson's China's Struggle for Naval Development 1839-1895 (Cambridge, Mass., 1967) gives good coverage (although I've not read this one). Rif Winfield (talk) 09:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Rif, thanks for the recommendations. I'll try to get hold of a copy of China's Struggle for Naval Development 1839-1895. Yours, Shem (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cuckoo class schooner

Hi Rif, I have done an article on the Cuckoo class schooners preparatory to doing one on HMS Landrail (1806). It would be kind if you could look over the class article to see what I missed. All the info comes from your book and the main thing still missing is the vessels' dimensions as I am not sure which numbers mean what dimension. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have looked over the article and made a few minor changes. One notable point for your article on Landrail is that you showed her as completed at Chatham on 8 July 1806, whereas this should have been Plymouth on 16 July 1806 (as per my book). I'm not sure of your query about dimensions - all figures in my book quote gundeck length,keel length x breadth (outside the planking but inside the wales) x depth in hold - these are the principal dimensions, with the keel length and breadth used to calculate the burthen tonnage. The designed dimensions for the class are those which immediately follow the introductory paragraph describing the class. The as built (or as measured) dimensions for each individual vessel are those measured by the Navy Board's representative following launch to determine the actual dimensions and burthen tonnage of that vessel; wooden vessels always differed slightly from the design, even if only by an inch or so (if is in the nature of wooden construction, particularly since the material of the vessel "settles" during her building on stocks). The draught figures following show the light (unladen) draught forward/aft of that vessel as calculated using these as-built measurements. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rif. With Landrail my eye probably just slipped to the wrong line as I went back and forth between book and computer. What I was uncertain about with the measurements was what the two lengths represented. That is, where on the vessel they were taken. I had suspected gundeck and waterline. Keel never occurred to me. Now I know, and thanks. Regards Acad Ronin (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The keel length was the fundamental measurement of length for a wooden-hulled ship. All computations of (burthen) tonnage were based on the keel length (and the breadth). Where not otherwise defined, all lengths for pre-1677 vessels are actually keel lengths, and other lengths were rarely recorded. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rif. One of the things I am enjoying about doing this research is what I am learning. It is not clear what I can do with that knowledge, but as a prof I cannot object to learning for its own sake. Anyway, you might care to look at the article HMS Rook (1806) that I have just posted. It has a couple of small items that might be of value to the next addition of your "British Warships...". The Naval List has Rook at the Battle of Copenhagen in 1807, and apparently her captors burnt her. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I have added a data table. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Very kind of you. Acad Ronin (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rif, I have added articles for HMS Landrail (1806) and HMS Magpie (1806), including an infobox for Landrail. The Magpie article in particular contains some info about her career in French hands that you might find of relevance to the next edition. It may be quite a while, if ever, before I do anything about other vessels in the class as none seem to have been at all notable, or at least I haven't been able to find any more info on their wreckings that might provide a worthwhile paragraph. On another note, I have noticed that the vessels' burthen is often given as e.g., 75 tons 35/94. What is the metric for the denominator? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the fractions (94th) usually forming part of a vessel's burthen tonnage is that 94 was the number used as a divisor in calculating tonnages. There is clearly no metric equivalent of this tonnage. The burthen tonnage was calculated using the formula:

keel length x breadth x ½ breadth (all the dimensions in feet)
the result of this calculation should then be rounded to the nearest whole number, which is then divided by 94.
In fact, since this calculation results in a remainder 93 times out of 94 (on average), almost every burthen tonnage should actually have a remainder in 94ths. So you will appreciate that where no remainder is quoted in any source, it is usually because the author has decided not to be precise, and has rounded off the actual figure to the nearest whole ton. It is thus worthwhile checking the mathematics whenever you have a keel length and a breadth quoted for any vessel.
This calculation holds true for all burthen tonnages calculated from 1650; before 1650 the calculation was: keel length x breadth x depth in hold (all the dimensions in feet), and the divisor was 100 rather than 94. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rif, Thanks again. I guess what puzzles me is the choice of 94 as the divisor. There must have been a reason for that because I don't think it's a number that traces back to other traditional units. I tried fiddling with stones and old hundredweights (108lbs rather than 112lbs) but nothing jumped out at me. Very curious. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In Elizabethan times, when Matthew Baker devised this Formula in 1582, they experimented with a divisor of 97 for the early warships, 100 for the later galleons built after 1570 (the "race-built" galleons, with a sleeker underwater hull form), and 94 for merchant ships, before standardising on 100 for all ships. The formula was designed to replace the old wine measure of capacity. The divisors were chosen to give a figure close to the number of tuns (as opposed to "tons") of Bordeaux wine that a ship had been able to carry. There is a more extensive explanation in Arthur Nelson's The Tudor Navy (Conway, 2001). The divisor of 94 was revived in around 1650, and lasted for three centuries (until the close of the Age of Sail). Rif Winfield (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ballahoo class schooner

Just to mention that I've put in an article on the eighteen Ballahoo class schooners which preceded the Cuckoo class. You will spot that the majority of this is clearly much copied from your article on the Cuckoo class, including the illustrations. Individual vessels' construction histories (all were built in Bermuda by subcontractors to Goodrich & Co, which acted as the main contractor to the Navy Board) are in most cases not recorded, and as yet I've only put in the vessels' names (except for the nameship). Rif Winfield (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have expanded the Ballahoo class schooner article. I left only Flying Fish unexpanded as it looks like it is more complex and worthy of a little research. At a quick glance, less than a handful of the vessels look worthy of even a short article. All the rest seem to have uneventful lives, if not ends.
As you may have noticed, I am working on the Cruizer class brig-sloops. Here I am writing an article per vessel as I am finding that even with the short-lived ones there is something to say. I like how you broke up the Ballahoo class article by order dates. Should we do this for the Cruizer class too? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be helpful to group them. You clearly now have a copy of my 1793-1817 book, from which you can obtain all the order dates. But you will note that in that book I grouped them according to the Admiralty Board under which they were ordered, rather than each individual date on which orders were placed, which would require too many separate groups. This grouping I recommend to you to follow. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ship ratings and nomenclature

Hello Rif. Could you stop by Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Re-categorisation? Some confusion has arisen about the RN ship rating and classification system(s), and your knowledge would help. Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added some explanation. Sorry it is lengthy, but then it is a very complex situation, and trying to simplify it always seems to leave some people misinformed. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. That is very helpful. Kablammo (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Carysfort (1836)

Updated DYK query On March 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Carysfort (1836), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for filling out this into its own article. W Nowicki (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Naming system of British warships

I have noticed that a number of the disambiguation articles for British warship names included the assertion that a ship is "named after the town (or city or county) of so-and-so". In fact, for 17th and many 18th century ships (the ones which were the first to bear that particular name), this assertion is untrue; the ship was not named after that place itself, but after the peer whose title incorporated that placename, e.g. HMS Warwick was not named after the town of Warwick, but after Robert Rich, the 3rd Earl of Warwick. The same holds true for almost every 17th and 18th century ship which shared its name with a geographical location. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hired armed vessels

Hi Rif, I seem to have gotten off on a tangent. Still, you might find the articles on the Hired armed cutter Nimrod, the Hired armed cutter Black Joke and the Hired armed lugger Black Joke of passing interest. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Roll conclusions

I reverted your additions to Anthony Roll since I believe it constituted WP:OR. It's not that your additions were particularly far-fetched, but they were to a large extent unsupported conclusions based on observations on the illustrations as a primary source.

As far as I recall, John Bennel discusses the lack of oars in the illustrations, but explains that they're still to be considered (semi-)oared vessels. I don't have the source at hand nor can I acquire it easily right now, so I can't argue at any length about it. Perhaps more references could be added?

Peter Isotalo 06:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Dear Peter. Thanks for your observations. I accept your comment that I did not add much in the way of supportive quotation, but perhaps I can draw your attention to Arthur Nelson's Tudor Navy as regards the galleasses. It is certainly undeniable that in 1549 (just three years after Anthony drew these vessels) all of them were reclassed as "ships" rather than as "galleasses", and the majority were rebuilt as galleons (pure sailing vessels) during the 1550s, while their poor performance under oars in the action off Spithead undoubtedly led to a rethink. The 1546 quartet in particular would physically have been difficult to operate under oars, given the number of guns shown on the upper deck; and as Anthony was a senior official in the Ordnance Office, and would have undoubtedly been extremely accurate as regards the number and type of gun carried by each vessel (the fine detail of the sailing qualities is probably less important to him) it seems likely that their design reflected that dissatisfaction with the 1545 performance. This is not to say that they did not retain the facility. The Bull is shown with 22 oarports on the broadside, all at one level and evenly spaced (see Anderson, p.64), but the other three 1546 vessels (Tiger, Hart and Antelope) are shown with some guns at a higher level. In the earlier galleasses the oars would have had to protrude from the same deck as the several guns, and the three galleasses of 1545 carried guns of such weight that they would have been top-heavy if the principal ordnance had been carried other than on the lower deck, making proper use of a bank of oars untenable.
  • As you might have noted from my user page, I am currently preparing for publication a volume on the evolution of the English galleon (among other work commitments), and this will of course look at the Henrician use of the galleasse as a predecessor of the galleon. Inevitably this has entailed some fresh research, although there has already been an amount of research into the mid-16th century developments in naval science with which I hope you are familiar. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Rif, that certainly is interesting information, but is it quite relevant to this particular article? I might have been a bit rash in reverting you outright, but I suppose I was a bit wary of a subject I had spent so much time on. The way you explain it makes the information seem like a valuable addition, but if it's placed under "Use as an historical source" it should probably be explained in more detail exactly how the Roll has been used to reach certain conclusions. Maybe it would be best to start a separate sub-section for various types of vessels.
Overall, though, I think that much of what you've told about here would be highly valuable in the galley-article, as well as a more independent galleass (which really should be a separate entity, not an awkward redirect to a separate section of the former). I'm currently in the research phase of a major improvement of galley, so what you're telling about here is very useful. You wouldn't by any chance be interested in something of a collaboration?
Peter Isotalo 04:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. I'd be delighted to assist, but pressure of time would make this difficult. If you'd like to take the lead on this, I'm certainly happy to contribute, but you will note from my user page that I have a fair amount of work in hand (and not all is listed on the user page). I entirely agree that the galleasse (with or without the final "e") should be the subject of a separate article rather than being submerged in the galley article. If you wish to discuss this off-list, you can e-mail me at sailing.navy@btinternet.com.
  • You will note that I have added some published sources to the list of referenced works in the article; there are also a number of Mariners Mirror articles which could usefully be referenced. Incidentally, in the article's numbered notes, I note that various references to Knighton & Loades have been erroneously entered as "Knight & Loades": can you correct them please? Rif Winfield (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I won't burden you with reading assignments, then. Just a general review and suggestions for additional authors and references would be very helpful. I suspect that there might be others that will be interested in doing writing. But it'll probably take some time before I get started. I'll let you know as soon as I start editing in article space.
    • You're always welcome to add additional references that you think are relevant as "Further reading". Personally, I wouldn't mind having them under "References", but in promoted article, it would clash with official requirements. Peter Isotalo 18:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Just though I'd drop you a note that I've started a galley update sandbox at user:Peter Isotalo/galley. Nothing too articulate right now, only bare notes and a rough sketch of what the new article structure might look like. You're quite welcome to edit if it directly if you have any suggestions. I'm going to treat it as normal article space if anyone shows interest in editing.
Peter Isotalo 09:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, noted. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Verification...

Thanks for your additions to wikipedia. Please make sure you provide verification - preferably as inline citations - to your work. Otherwise, your changes, such as your recent additions to Solor Archipelago, could be removed. regards --Merbabu (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC).

Aetna-class ironclad floating battery

Rif, you may want to have a look at the first footnote to the article on the Aetna class ironclad floating battery, which discusses a possible error in The Sail and Steam Navy List. Yours, as ever, Shem (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi, Shem, I am happy to accept that there is an obvious typo (there are a few, inevitable in a volume of this size and complexity) in the date so that the "54" should be "55". I stand by the statement that the armour thickness varied between 3½ and 4½ inches, rather than every plate being of an identical 4 inches; if you think about this, the statement within the article that "Their armour plates, nominally 4in [100mm] but in many cases rolled 0.25-0.5in under thickness" actually confirms exactly the statement in The Sail and Steam Navy List. Please can you amend the footnote in the article appropriately? Rif Winfield (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Rif, thanks for the reply. Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you. I've made what I think are appropriate changes to the article footnotes. Yours, Shem (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Sixth rate" and over-capitalisation

Rif, I'm having a discussion about over-capitalisation (especially of "sixth rate") with Acad Ronin. He's suggested you may have interest - may I propose you drop by his talkpage? Yours, Shem (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

First rate - capitalisation

Rif, I can see where you're coming from with the capitalisation of first rate (et al) but we need to work within the MoS unless you find a consensus in favour of a change. For that reason I'll put a note at WikiShips asking people to come and have a look at the discussion at Talk:First-rate. There you will find the reasons I believe capitals should not be used laid out clearly. In the meantime, I feel strongly that the article should continue to reflect the approved usage, and I would ask you to keep the (wiki-correct) lower case variant until the discussion is complete.

On another note, the article currently sits at First-rate (with a hyphen) with a redirect from First rate (without a hyphen). I think we're both in agreement that this should be the other way round, and I suggest we move it as soon as the discussion on capitalisation is complete. Another thing we agree strongly on is the insane use of pennant number as a disambiguation for modern ships - fine for US Navy, but madness for the RN. Who searches for HMS Ark Royal (R07)? I imagine there are only a tiny handful of readers who have any idea what a pennant number is, let alone what the pennant number for a particular ship might be. Shall we make a concerted and long-term effort to change the consensus on this particular issue? Yours, Shem (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Shem, dealing with the last point first, I read through the extensive exchanges about this and thought the concensus was reached that post-1948 British warships should be distinguished by pennant number, and earlier vessels by launch year (or acquisition year in the case of vessels acquired by the RN after building). I still think this is ridiculous for the RN (as Acad has pointed out, Wikipedia is dominated by US-based writers who have little or no grasp of non-US processes) for exactly the reasons you state. I keep pointing out that pennant numbers are not equivalent to the US system of hull numbers; indeed, prior to 1948 pennant numbers were liable to change - often more than once - during a ship's service, a fact ignored by all those who have used a pennant number disambiguation for RN vessels of WW2; and of course for the thousands of pre-1914 ships there were no pennant numbers at all (going back to medieval times). I still believe it would be simpler to use the year only as the disambiguation for all British (and most other European) warships, rather than complicate matters be having different systems for pre-1948 and post-1948, but I suspect we will not get anywhere on this, and as long as we can correct the entries for pre-1948 vessels, I'm not too concerned. The problem is that most of the US-centric contributors don't appear to have grasped what the concensus was, and are still trying to use pennant numbers for early ships.
Turning now to the matter of contention between us, I fully agree with you that the hyphens need to be removed from references to "First-rate" (etc) where that is used as a reference to a ship classification. You will, I think, agree that where the term "first-rate" (etc, again) is being used as a qualitative adjective, the hyphen is best retained so that we can - in Acad's example - distinguish what we mean in referring to a "third-rate First Rate".
Can I interject here another point where I think you will agree with me, and that is in not using the RN classification terms when refering to non-RN vessels. France and other countries did not use the RN classification, but often had their own rating system which differed from the British one. I am concerned about the term "Second Rate" (let's ignore the capitalisation issue for this point!) being translated as "Deuxieme Rang", etc. The French system of five "rangs" - roughly speaking - included all their three-deckers as "Premiere Rang" - sometimes distinguishing the largest three-deckers (equal to RN First Rates) by the term "Premiere Rang Extraordinaire" as a sub-group within the Premiere Rang. Their "Deuxieme Rang" covered the large two-deckers, the 80-gun ships and (I believe, but need to check) the 74s as well. I think it is best not to try and simply transpose one system into another here, by a bland translation of the wording which ignores the differences in the application of the words (another example of using the cultural or linguistic context).
Now the crux of our disagreement is over your belief that we should not use initial capitals for "First Rate", etc. As mentioned earlier, I believe we are arguing over an interpretation of the guidelines, rather than the guidelines themselves which clearly say that the capitalisation criteria should be used within the appropriate cultural context. In terms of the historical data, the cultural context lies in appreciating what the usage of that time was, and why the usage was that way. The classification by rate was not an equivalent to the ship type (and we are agreed that terms like "ship of the line", "post ship", "ship sloop", etc should not be capitalised - except where grammatically reqired). Indeed for our US colleagues we can say that the classification was equivalent to their system of hull identifiers, or to the letters in RN pennant numbers - where no one would dream of writing "bb15" for a US battleship or "f127" for a British frigate.
I'm quite happy to place some or all of this exchange into Talk:First-rate when time allows, but at the moment I have to leave matters alone to deal with other, more immediate commitments. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Rif, dealing with your points in turn:

I think much of the problem with pennant numbers for pre-48 ships lies with:

I cannot imagine that it would be sensible ever to refer to a third-rate first rate, whatever the capitalisation! It could never be clear, and there are myriad ways of saying the same thing differently. Frankly, this is a non-issue.

I agree entirely that we should not be using the British rate system to describe foreign warships. I haven't seen much evidence of this, and on the one or two occasions I have seen it, I've removed it.

Now for the crux, as put it. I think you may have mis-interpreted me slightly, in that I do actually think the Wikipedia guidelines are right; that is to say, although I can see your point of view, I (if I may be blunt) think you're wrong. I don't think your pennant number analogy is apposite, and would suggest that the rate system is just like a rank system. Let us talk for a moment of the "rank system of the British Army". A major, lieutenant or captain does not get capitals unless it forms part of a title (eg Major Smith), when it becomes part of a name, and therefore a proper noun. I remain to be convinced that "the first rate HMS Victory" deserves capitals as an inherent part of its name, and, especially, that "first rate" in general is anything but a common noun (with possible adjectival use - "a first-rate ship-of-the-line"). This takes us back to the start - if you can show that it's a proper noun, then it deserves to capitalised.

I note, incidently, that William James used "fifth rate", etc, when discussing rates within the text, so far as I can tell. It doesn't affect the price of eggs, of course, because we write in 21st-century English, but I thought it might be interesting.

Must dash - the lawn doesn't mow itself! Frankly I'm keen to move on and get back to writing articles. Yours, Shem (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ant class gunboat/the role of flat-iron gunboats

One of your books has come in a debate of the purpose of these boats at User_talk:Shem1805#Ant_class_gunboat. I was wondering if you could shed any further light on the matter?©Geni 00:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rif - my "talkback" was just to point you to my "thanks" for your help. Yours, as ever, Shem (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

British or English?

I have left a message at Benea's talk page on this subject. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have replied in the same place. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Love your books. Use them regularly. Just wanted to say thank you. Corneredmouse (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC).

Many thanks for your kind words. You will, I hope, be interested to know that my colleagues John Tredrea (Chicago) and Ted Sozaev (Moscow) have just co-produced an equivalent volume on the Russian navy from Peter the Great to the early steam age - Russian Warships in the Age of Sail 1696-1860 - which endeavour (it's modelled on my series in format as well as in title) I have strongly encouraged and I feel they have produced a stunning result. Details are on the Seaforth Publishing website - which incidentally now also mentions my own new book - First Rate - which will be available around September; the latter covers the development of the First Rate through 250 years from the Prince Royal of 1610 to the Howe and Victoria of 1860, but with a lot more detail and illustration that I could fit into my earlier series. Regards. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Rif, Is there any way to get just the info on the 74-gun Vsevolod (also Sewolod), the one that HMS Centaur (1797) fought? I would like to create the Wikipedia entry for that one in particular so that I could link it to the Centaur article. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course, but I think that the best method is to put you in direct contact with John Tredrea, so I am emailing you with his email address (and have copied my email to him also so he can see what you want), so you can ask for any specific details. Rif Winfield (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rif_Winfield/Archive_3&oldid=791815276"