1877:
originally wrote the article. I brought SM U-52 in line with many of our guidelines, you must understand that your approach of copying and pasting chunks of material and insisting that these not be edited is not a generally workable approach on wikipedia, which operates on the principle that in general everyone can edit. Please find another approach, whereby you create your own article by taking the information and using it to write the submarine's history using your own words and not the words of
British Naval Intelligence nearly a century ago. Then you can bring in extra sources, etc. As someone with training in historical research I'm sure you understand that this is very basic principle of historical writing. We are not out to create an online digitised version of the National Archives, with transcripts of the documents, we are trying to create an encyclopaedia. I understand that English is not your first language, and I assume calling my work 'mutilation' may be unintentional.
1799:, which has civilian ships, as well as British, French and American naval vessels.) Where there are a number of American/British/etc ships, the link is to the shiplist page for that name and navy and the reader can go from there. There hasn't been a issue so far with combining all ships of a certain name onto a dedicated ship list page. If you're on an article about a ship that has served in both navies, and you're interested in earlier or later ships with that name that have been in one navy or another you can go to either navies' name page, and the ship will be listed on both.
1079:
colonnaded building of classical appearance, Murray House was taken down carefully in 1982, and after twenty years it was moved stone-by-stone to
Stanley where is now stands on a peninsula jutting into Stanley Bay. The Maritime Museum now occupies the ground floor (with restaurants on the levels above), although it is planned for it to move back to Central when the redevelopment of the waterfront around the (Star) Ferry terminals is completed, with a new home earmarked for the Museum in Pier Eight.
1485:
1463:
1441:
2459:
31:
2283:
2209:
2135:
1583:
1515:
234:
667:
precedents for two articles, there is a lot to be said for keeping one, plus redirects. There also many precedents for that too. There is not enough info for the French vessel for it to be any more than a stub, and a
British-service article, while longer, would be short too. Furthermore, in this case, putting the two together means a lot of good info about her design is there as background. Regards,
1044:
servant was access to vast amount of material, and is knowledgable on sailing era of several countries, although his
English is not fluent. If you wish to contact John (in Chicago) to ask questions of him, I can email you his email address rather than post it publicly here, but not until I get home at the end of November (I'm currently in Hong Kong, able to use Wiki online but not email).
1976:
2417:
125:, but I think I'm making a couple of formatting errors, as the data box has appeared at the foot on the article instead of its usual position. Also certain words seem to insist on running together without spaces to separate them (e.g. Frenchfrigate, and BritishRoyalNavy). Can you sort this out for me please? Thanks and best wishes.
2065:
now as to which ship it is, and why it's been missed. Fireships of Wolf's period would carry around 115 men, and 24/28 guns while in general service. I want to be sure that there really is another ship that is presently missing before adding it to the list. Rif will be able to provide the definitive answer.
2064:
Not just a simple spelling error but an apparent phantom ship missed by some of the most authoritative sources on the navy. Do you have any other sources that describe the Wolf that grounded? I believe you when you say that a Wolf, and probably one of HM ships at that, grounded there, but I'm curious
2033:
Thanks. I do understand the problem, but the refs I cited are pretty clear as to size and her being RN. Of course, such things can be wrong, but given there are 14 entries in the cited book for a ship named Wolf (most, but not all, as HMS Wolf), it seems unlikely that it's a simple spelling error. .
380:
a little (it may not be great now, but you should see what it used to look like). Apart from casting your masterly eye over it, do you think you can get rid of the "|-" characters that blight the first line? I'm normally quite good with this sort of stuff, but I have no idea how they got there - or
67:
Hi Benea, The article was originally written in
American English and was recently changed by the user Old Moonraker, who is know to vandalize American English in favor of British English. If the general population is a proponent of the British form, that is fine. I just don't want this to turn into a
2095:
and looked for a reference on the ship that gave the shoal its name. All I that know, I found with Google searches on "HMS Wolf 1690", "HMS Wolf 1691", "HMS Wolf 1692", and the same for "Wolfe". There's one vague mention of a 350 ton armed merchant vessel in a secondary source, but the cited source
1973:
I'm spending far more time on this than it's worth, but it struck me that your "this was likely" is a little off-hand. The Wolf that went aground in
Virginia was in Virginia, Maryland, New York, and the Caribbean from at least October 1690 until June 1692, which makes the timing a little tight for
1684:
links to both pages listing US and RN ships named alligator and the reader does not therefore have to go through a list of other things named alligator when he wants to find the ships of one particular navy that have had the name. If you want a
British ship you go to HMS Pomone. If you want a French
1043:
Nothing much has been published in
English for many years, and older works (cited in the new book) have a variety of problems, which is why John Tredrea and Eduard Sozaev have produced their new book, based extensively on the newly-available Russian archives. Eduard ("Ted") is a former Russian civil
886:
in 1799, only from 1801. The problem worsens when you have say a captured French ship given a name used previously for a
British ship, whereby the French ship and the British ship clash in their respective launch dates, or the captured French ship appears to enter service with the British before the
521:
because it's author seemed to think that - just because Prince
William Henry took command in 1786 - there was no earlier history; in fact she was launched in 1779 (and you have the rest of her history from my emailed history of 1714-1792 ships). Please can you correct the heading of the article - I
1841:
hi Benea, I saw, that you deleted most of my contribution. Did you remark that it represented Original sources from the Natioanal Archives, Kew, UKÂ ? A great marine specialist like you will know this archive, I am sure. I will add a new section, again with these sources. Before you delete next time
1832:
hi Benea, I saw, that you deleted most of my contribution. Did you remark that it represented Original sources from the Natioanal Archives, Kew, UKÂ ? A great marine specialist like you will know this archive, I am sure. I will add a new section, again with these sources. Before you delete next time
1807:
hi Benea, I saw, that you deleted most of my contribution. Did you remark that it represented Original sources from the Natioanal Archives, Kew, UKÂ ? A great marine specialist like you will know this archive, I am sure. I will add a new section, again with these sources. Before you delete next time
1739:
No, sorry for the intrusion. I certainly know where to suggest policy changes, but I had no idea I was proposing that. You certainly know how many times confusing dabs spring up without anybody paying attention. I have no interest in spending time changing considered, established policy, which may
781:
Apologies for not getting back here sooner. This was on my list of things to do and kept getting bumped down the list. As far as me moving the article, I did it when I was doing some category work, and probably just saw the article title and the year of launch and decided to make them match. I have
2014:
As far as I can tell there weren't any ships named Wolf that size in service during that period. Neither volume of J.J.Colledge's Ships of the Royal Navy lists such a vessel, nor does Rif Winfield's comprehensive listing of Royal Navy ships of the period. Hence my suspicion that either the ship at
1948:
Nowhere does it say the lists have to be organised by centuries, or even that this is the best way to do it. The previous lists are organised not by century, but by periods covering 1000+ years, 500 years, 300 years and 100 years. But this was discussed on the talkpage when you suggested the merge
1110:
which is indexed as launched in 1678, but was actually launched on 4 March 1678/9, or 1679 (by the modern method of changing the year on 1st January). Again I'm afraid this is so easy to miss that several writers have got it wrong. Please can you please change the heading in the article, and amend
903:
I think I've given examples before as to why 'launch' dates are impossible for a captured prize, where a ship might be captured perhaps several decades after her launch. Such ship is evidently not "HMS" prior to her capture; and indeed, if her name is changed, she is equally evidently non-existant
1253:
Thank you for helping with this biography - presumably through your interest in shipping? Why have you removed the date links? I thought what I was doing was correct? It is easier if this is not required! I hope to be able to write about the G & J Burns shipping company - all help welcomed!
1078:
coast of Hong Kong Island. This is currently home to the Hong Kong Maritime Museum; for anyone who knew historic Hong Kong, they might recall the graceful Murray House which used to stand in downtown Victoria ("Central", as its called now) where the Bank of China Tower now stands; a three-storey
396:
Yes, I seem to remember stumbling across that page ages ago, but having neither the time nor the inclination to grapple with it. It looks a lot neater and comprehensible now, good work! I'll try to pop back soon and see if there's anything I can add. In the meantime I think I've tracked down and
1876:
any articles, or has any particular right to impose their own concepts of style and structure over an article, over the will of community consensus, even if they have written the articles themselves. Nor is it required that alterations and modifications need to be discussed with the person who
1867:
Dear Hans Joachim Koerver. I did indeed remark the source's origin. The copy-and-pasted section has already been deleted by another user. Please do not re-add it though, your contributions are already the subject of a lot of discussion and debate. Knowledge has a highly collegiate approach to
1273:
Hi, sometime ago you offered to create missing articles on Napoleonic-era Royal Navy ships, and put together some excellent articles to fill redlinks for me. I was wondering if you could help me again? I've been working on the Mediterranean campaign of 1798, and need articles on the frigates
666:
is the worst of all solutions as it combines the date of the French launch with the English name. If we really want two articles, one should be HMS Egyptienne (1801), reflecting the convention of dating a Royal Navy vessel from when she came in service. That said, although there are numerous
100:
article, this is not just Old Moonraker's personal opinion. Nor has this been a recent unilateral change on Old Moonraker's part, the article has been stable for a long time using British English spelling. Changing it from one form to another is discouraged, and will be reverted back.
1679:
I don't see the problem. Both list pages for the other navies are linked from each other. Combining the two just adds to the confusion when ships share names, and especially if the same ship serves for the two navies. Linking to a general dab page is also unhelpful. For example
1981:
That does not explain two contemporaneous ships with the same name, but in the last entry in the book (in the index), she is quite clearly described as being RN. Or am I missing something? I'm moderately expert on lighthouses, but my knowledge of the RN of that era comes from
609:
is unfortunately quite long, giving you plenty of opportunity for fresh articles. Incidentally, I shall be away (and uncontactable) for the next 17 days. Meanwhile, may I leave you with an area of confusion in duplicated articles. There is, I note, already a category for
1842:
anything from me, please contact me before, than we have the opportunity to discuss. Me I will not delete anything you have done on page SM U-51, thats for me a simple question of personal respect. best regards --Hans Joachim Koerver 20:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
1808:
anything from me, please contact me before, than we have the opportunity to discuss. Me I will not delete anything you have done on page SM U-51, thats for me a simple question of personal respect. best regards --Hans Joachim Koerver 20:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
1833:
anything from me, please contact me before, than we have the opportunity to discuss. Me I will not delete anything you have done on page SM U-51, thats for me a simple question of personal respect. best regards --Hans Joachim Koerver 20:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
1659:, for a total of nine ships. One from each is the same ship; a second RN ship was previously French, with a different name. The two lists are therefore intimately intertwined and have plenty of room for confusion. Isn't it more helpful to send a person to
904:
under her new name at the time she was launched. So you are exactly correct, Ben. Personally, I'm quite happy with either "French frigate Egyptienne (1799)" or with "HMS Egyptienne (1801)" (provided that there is an automatic redirect between them), but
686:
title, with redirects from the French frigate Egyptienne (1799) and other varients, as I quite agree there is probably not enough to justify an article on her French career being separate from an article on her British career. Would this be ok?
496:
Hi, sorry it's taken me a while to reply. I don't have the book with me unfortunately. I'm within cycling distances of one of the legal deposit libraries which does have a copy (in confinement) so I'll see what I can do if I have a free moment.
1058:
Awfully good of you Rif, that would be a great help! Currently I've been looking at sources over here, hopefully prior to taking trips to the archives at Greenwich, Dartmouth and the IWM for info on the British perspective. Enjoy your trip!
1103:
where the year of launch was wrong because of the different start-of-year day (i.e. that the year did not change until Lady Day each year); for a refreshment on our exchange see my talk page. I have found an identical problem with the
337:
I've done my duty once again, archiving April-June and July-September. I don't think I've archived any discussions that were still active, but you may want to double-check. I am updating your DYK page now. You've passed 200 DYKs :)
887:
other ship, thus confusing the issue. This has been where the 'year of acquisition' part of the guideline has been applied, to match a prefix or nationality titling with the year it took the title. Redirects will handle the rest.
1404:
I've added a template to separate the French heading from the allied one. I'm not sure what else can be done, except perhaps reworking the article headings and bumping them up from level 4 to 3, to make more of a distinction.
301:
Hi Benea, How come you pulled the "Ships lacking infoboxes" category? I stumbled across it last night and thought it was useful as a way to alert editors who have the info and knowledge to make one and fill it in. Regards,
2015:
Virginia was either not a Royal Navy ship but a mercantile one or one of a different nation, or that it was the ship already in service. I'll put the question to Rif himself, to see if there's a vessel that's been missed.
819:) on 15 June 1798, and she was begun at Toulon on 26 September 1798. Launched 17 July 1799 and put into service in November 1799. She was armed at Toulon on 23 September 1800 and sailed thence on 24 January 1801 (with the
1388:
of the two lists of vessels given in this article? The French list should be clearly separate from the Allied (Anglo-Dutch) list, but isn't. Can you shift the links around to make the appearance easier to read? Thanks!
994:
so quickly, I thought I must have made a mistake - I thought that I'd asked you to do a Ship Index page that already existed! If you need a hand with the Cyrillic, I've got a degree in Russian ... but I'm a bit rusty.
1028:
Hmmm, very interesting. I'm currently looking to open a research project on the late Imperial/early Soviet navy. Are there any other sources you would recommend, as currently this is a massively under-researched area?
1073:
Now emailed John's contact details through to you. Thanks for your kind wishes; yes, had an interesting trip to Hong Kong. Of particular maritime interest is that last Sunday (22nd) we paid a visit to Stanley, on the
1949:
and far from supporting you, the consensus was that a merge was not a good idea here. Seek to change that consensus before acting, your argument that it 'looks stupid' and is 'ridiculous' is highly subjective.
619:
615:
2096:
is primary and much more detailed. Several of the usual lighthouse sources tell the story, but none of them are primary and they generally like a good story more than they worry about accuracy. . . . .
1008:
For those interested on Russian sailing warships (including transliteration of names into Cyrillic), you might note that my colleagues John Tredrea and Eduard Sozaev have their comprehensive study of
1926:
The fact that you want to keep the century split in two is ridiculous. The 20th century was 1900-1999 A.D., not 1900-1944 or 1945-1989. Duh. But that's okay. I got the "how to merge" rules with me.
353:
My humble thanks again :) All looks fine and dandy to me! Will try to keep in touch though might be busy in this part of the world for the forseeable future. Hope the fun and games went well :)
1685:
ship, you go to French ship Pomone. What's the issue, and why change the standardised format? You should get consensus for this change as many ships of different navies share a common name (
1650:
What's the harm in one short list? I have no problem with a ships only dab page -- I understand the issue there. But separating the French and the English doesn't seem right in this case.
882:
The year of launch only works up to a point, as taken together with our requirement for an indication of nationality or naval prefix, it can lead to anachronisms, as here. There was no HMS
1795:
style page, though I don't think I see the point in one. Most general dab pages list ships in a specific section where there are a number of different navies or operators involved (i.e.
834:
was begun at Lorient on 30 May 1794 and launched 26 September of the same year, being put into service in November. She sailed from Rochefort for Palma on 4 March 1796, then proceded to
782:
no special insight to this ship that guided me to move it or anything like that. If y'all think it best to move it back, then, by all means, please do so (if you haven't already).
611:
705:
I can live with that. Do you know how to go about contacting an administrator to do the needful given that moving the article will require replacing various redirects? Regards,
731:, coincidentally now an admin, as I see he made the original move to the 1799 form, during the 'ships by year of launch' categorisation drive, and invited him to comment here.
642:
requires to be linked into the category somehow (or should replace it, in part at least) while these two subcategories could well be removed. I shall happily let you decide.
1912:
You are acting against consensus by arbitarily carrying out these merges. The consensus was NOT to merge. Waiting a while and then merging is not following due process.
1327:
I'm aware of that, its just that Benea approached me a while back to ask if I had any redlinks that needed creating in the battles articles I have been working on. (See
867:
I thought the convention was to disambiguate ship names by year of launch. For sailing ships with the same name, disambiguation by sail plan is also acceptable.
57:
1275:
1130:
Have done that now Rif. It might be a good idea to highlight how this confusion has arisen in a note in the article, in case other people wonder. Best,
1229:
II, which I suspect is contemporaneous mis-reporting, but even so, if the London Gazette thought she was HMS, then I suppose it's good enough for WP.
1792:
1750:
1664:
2358:
1428:
1157:
651:
218:
76:
1568:
861:
554:
1340:
1322:
1088:
1053:
764:
572:
326:
2113:
2074:
2051:
2024:
1778:
917:
798:
1365:
1414:
1139:
1112:
1021:
676:
205:
149:
140:
No problem Rif, looks to have been a few template formatting errors that threw the page out, and created some odd artefacts in the text.
1238:
2343:
740:
714:
696:
594:
2380:
1958:
1935:
1921:
1189:
Good point, she's not in Colledge, though she is in the work covering all the requisitioned vessels. The other ship in the raid is at
876:
287:
2125:
1636:
1498:
1476:
1454:
1310:
1220:
1202:
1068:
1038:
1004:
985:
961:
639:
606:
523:
420:
406:
190:
173:
134:
2194:
1124:
896:
506:
362:
110:
657:
311:
1730:
1419:
Actually, just separating the two opposing forces makes the matter much clearer, so I'm content with what you have done. Thanks!
2306:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page
2232:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page
2158:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page
1606:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page
1538:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page
1505:
1174:. Is this really a commissioned ship? What does Colledge have to say? Sounds more like a requisitioned ferry to me! Yours,
390:
257:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page
224:
545:, and added some minor info from Phillips and James, but without yet giving either any or full credit, respectively. Regards,
2322:
if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the
2248:
if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the
2174:
if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the
1618:
if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the
1550:
if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the
1398:
563:
I have done most of what I can with this article, except for references, but it still needs an infobox. Any takers? Regards,
535:
269:
if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the
2349:
BTW, that was quite a ripping yarn! If Hollywood made a movie out of it, people wouldn't believe it. Very well written too!
1974:
the fireship. She is described as a fourth rate, 200 men, 48 guns, which is inconsistent with a fireship of eight guns. See:
2109:
2047:
2003:
1774:
1328:
2393:
I'm sorry for deleting the comment. It was stupid. I just want these articles to merge. And I think they will be merged.
1012:
being published (by Seaforth Publishing) about March 2010 - modelled very flatteringly on my series on British Warships.
2289:
2215:
2141:
1589:
1521:
1345:
I did and I realise I've been a bit rubbish about doing it, sorry! I'll get on that later today, I've draft articles of
1303:
490:
458:
2268:
1858:
1824:
942:
662:
Hi Benea, I take your point about not using cut-and-paste to move. However, let me suggest that the current situation,
292:
116:
1886:
240:
2273:
2007:
1094:
789:
might be updated to better address the disambiguation question for captured ships, given the compelling arguments. —
638:
needs amending). But neither subcategory is large enough to consider retaining; might I suggest that the article on
522:
have already adjusted the reference in the disambiguation page so it will then link to that, also to the article on
1183:
368:
2402:
1263:
823:) for Alexandria (arriving 3 February) to support Napoleon's Army of Egypt. These two frigates (with a third, the
88:
2446:
347:
2367:
Thanks, yes it's the sort of thing you really couldn't make up! All the elements of a great story, no wonder
1573:
84:
2199:
1906:
1756:"If you want a British ship you go to HMS Pomone. If you want a French ship, you go to French ship Pomone,"
1710:
2430:
1632:
1564:
2466:
2323:
2309:
2249:
2235:
2175:
2161:
1836:
1681:
1619:
1609:
1551:
1541:
1377:
512:
463:
270:
260:
122:
38:
2338:
2153:
1291:
1145:
2105:
2043:
1999:
1796:
1770:
1761:
but two of the nine have been both French and British, so it's not that simple. Nuff said. . . . .
1268:
922:
838:
in the Indian Ocean, where she remained based as a unit of Sercey's squadron until captured by the
434:
178:
428:
1897:
Excuse me. What are you doing? Having the century split up doesn't make sense and looks stupid.
948:
Not a problem, anything to distract me from transliterating Cyrillic! I think we were tied with
1854:
1820:
1628:
1560:
1533:
1424:
1394:
1346:
1318:
1279:
1153:
1120:
1084:
1049:
1017:
913:
857:
647:
531:
446:
252:
214:
186:
169:
130:
68:
culture war (might be what Moonraker is after). I'm going to change it back for now. -GTownJD
2282:
2208:
2134:
1582:
1514:
233:
2294:
2220:
2146:
1698:
1594:
1526:
683:
663:
245:
2333:
2165:
1846:
1812:
1718:
1491:
1484:
1469:
1462:
1447:
1440:
1163:
760:
710:
672:
622:. Each of these subcategories contains articles on two ships (one of the four vessels, the
568:
550:
454:
442:
438:
322:
307:
157:
72:
2091:
As I said above, I'm absolutely not expert on HM ships of the era. I was just working on
8:
2407:
2398:
2371:
borrowed elements wholesale from the most daring commanders like Cochrane for his books!
2354:
2101:
2039:
1995:
1931:
1902:
1766:
1690:
1361:
1336:
1299:
1283:
1259:
794:
283:
62:
1207:
I just can't imagine that the Navy ever bothered to commission her - which makes her SS
2388:
2319:
2245:
2171:
1668:
1615:
1547:
1378:
1287:
1248:
1234:
1216:
1179:
1000:
938:
929:
Thank you very much for all the Ship Index pages I propose with so little politeness -
839:
786:
542:
518:
464:
416:
386:
266:
161:
848:) on 1 March 1799. For source on these two frigates, you can cite Jean-Michel Roche's
2434:
2376:
2301:
2070:
2020:
1954:
1917:
1882:
1850:
1816:
1726:
1721:
would be the place to raise this if you want to change the way shiplist pages work).
1706:
1420:
1410:
1390:
1314:
1198:
1190:
1149:
1135:
1116:
1080:
1064:
1045:
1034:
1013:
981:
957:
909:
892:
872:
853:
736:
692:
643:
590:
527:
502:
486:
402:
358:
343:
332:
210:
201:
182:
165:
145:
126:
106:
80:
1294:. Any chance of helping me out? If you need a hand with anything, please just ask.--
2442:
2368:
2313:
1987:
1968:
374:
2416:
850:
Dictionnaire des Bâtiments de la Flotte de Guerre Française de Colbert a nos Jours
835:
2475:
2092:
1309:
There remain a large number of frigates articles which remain to be written (see
756:
706:
668:
564:
546:
450:
318:
303:
47:
17:
2474:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1675:", making the reader go two places to sort out two potentially confusing lists?
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2394:
2350:
2264:
2190:
1983:
1927:
1898:
1641:
1357:
1332:
1295:
1255:
790:
728:
279:
2239:
933:
was done before I could upload the article I was working on! Yours, as ever,
1873:
1869:
1694:
1601:
1350:
1230:
1212:
1175:
996:
934:
412:
382:
2227:
868:
482:
474:
339:
1868:
editing, and we have our own standards and guidelines, as well as our own
1353:, so it shouldn't take too long for some results. My best to both of you,
1144:
Thanks, Ben. As suggested, I have put a note into the discussion page for
477:
article. Do you have the Arctic Convoys book and if so can you expand the
2438:
1892:
1749:
I do wonder, though, why you forbid combining the two in a new dab page,
1686:
1171:
976:. I'd actually written the opening preamble when your request popped in!
97:
517:
Ben, the article covering this Sixth rate frigate is currently entitled
449:. A fresh eye, corrections, and improvements would be welcome. Regards,
2372:
2066:
2016:
1950:
1913:
1878:
1722:
1702:
1672:
1406:
1384:
Ben, a small technical matter. May I solicit your help to sort out the
1194:
1131:
1060:
1030:
977:
953:
888:
732:
688:
586:
498:
398:
397:
fixed the cause of the odd formatting glitch. (Fingers crossed!) Best,
354:
197:
141:
102:
2259:
2185:
908:
to confusing the two or using the latter name with the former date!
827:) were surrendered to the British on 2 September 1801 at Alexandria.
585:
I'll try to look into it before too long, if I can get round to it.
1667:, if you prefer, than say, "For other ships of the same name, see
96:
Yes GTownJ, the consensus has been to use British English on the
1313:). It just takes a lot of time (for all of us) to produce them.
1099:
Hi, Ben, you will recall our discussion of the problem with HMS
1660:
968:
Now that's spooky, idly flicking through Colledge after doing
1977:"Calendar of state papers, colonial, America and West Indies"
1501:
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
1479:
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
1457:
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
811:
Perhaps I could interject some info on her French career?
605:
My thanks to both of you. The list of red entries in the
433:
Hi Benea, FYI I have written or expanded articles on
317:
Ta re your response on my talk page. Wilco. Regards,
614:
which contains a numbers of subcategories including
156:
Many thanks! I've similarly put in articles for the
1653:Four RN and six French Navy ships have been named
177:Ben, can you also kindly check the formatting for
526:, which you will now find much enlarged. Thanks.
1434:
2010:Should you choose to reply, please do so here.
181:which seems to have acquired gremlins? Thanks.
1349:already on the go as an adjunct to rewriting
1010:Russian Warships in the Age of Sail 1696-1860
381:is it just my browser? Yours, in confusion,
121:Hi Ben! I've recently created an article for
1211:. I'll see what I can do to get it moved.
620:Victorian era frigates of the United Kingdom
1329:User talk:Jackyd101/Archive 5#Ship articles
1115:); I have amended the articles themselves.
1113:List of ships of the line of the Royal Navy
972:, I noticed that we didn't have a page for
1872:. We also have a firm concept that no one
616:Age of Sail frigates of the United Kingdom
541:Hi Benea and Rif: I have moved Pegasus to
2298:was updated with a fact from the article
2224:was updated with a fact from the article
2150:was updated with a fact from the article
1598:was updated with a fact from the article
1530:was updated with a fact from the article
1311:List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy
640:List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy
607:List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy
524:List of frigate classes of the Royal Navy
249:was updated with a fact from the article
1490:Hello, Benea. You have new messages at
1468:Hello, Benea. You have new messages at
1446:Hello, Benea. You have new messages at
1356:No problem, no rush. Thanks very much.--
1225:Well, the London Gazette has her as HMS
1148:. Feel free to add to it if not clear.
14:
2472:Do not edit the contents of this page.
473:I note you've done quite a bit on the
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
2453:
196:No problem, should render fine now.
25:
2433:, which I noticed after you edited
815:was ordered (to the draught of the
23:
1483:
1461:
1439:
1170:Please have a look at the article
411:As simple as that? Thanks again.
24:
2490:
2423:The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
2126:DYK for HMS Santa Dorothea (1798)
2457:
2415:
2281:
2207:
2133:
1581:
1513:
658:French frigate Egyptienne (1799)
373:My dear Benea, I have worked up
232:
29:
1791:I don't particularly forbid a
1506:DYK for HMS Terpsichore (1785)
990:Slightly more spooky; you did
612:Frigates of the United Kingdom
225:DYK for Battle of Cape Ortegal
209:Many thanks! That's fine now.
160:and (with Acad Ronin) for the
13:
1:
2447:19:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
2403:15:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
2344:19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2269:03:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
2195:19:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
2114:20:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
2075:18:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
2052:18:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
2025:17:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
2008:17:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
1959:23:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
1936:20:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
1922:20:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
1907:20:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
1779:17:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
1731:17:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
1711:17:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
1637:20:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
1569:20:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
1429:18:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
1415:17:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
1399:05:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
1366:21:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
1341:10:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
1323:03:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
1304:01:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
1264:21:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
1239:19:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
1221:11:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
1203:00:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
1184:23:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
1158:12:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
1140:06:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
1125:07:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
1089:18:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
1069:06:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
1054:08:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
1039:12:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
1022:07:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
1005:21:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
986:18:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
962:17:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
943:17:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
918:09:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
897:10:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
877:07:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
862:09:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
799:13:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
785:Also, I think that, perhaps,
765:17:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
741:16:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
715:03:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
697:01:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
677:01:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
652:09:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
595:01:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
573:01:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
111:22:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
89:20:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
1887:11:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
1111:references (such as that in
555:17:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
536:17:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
507:10:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
491:20:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
459:19:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
421:19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
407:21:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
391:20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
363:21:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
348:19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
219:14:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
206:21:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
191:15:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
7:
2431:Knowledge:WikiProject_Ships
2429:Thank you for your work on
2381:01:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
2359:18:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
327:13:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
312:11:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
288:00:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
174:16:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
150:11:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
135:09:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
123:Seringapatam class frigates
10:
2495:
1682:Alligator (disambiguation)
481:article from that source?
117:Seringapatam class frigate
2414:
2274:DYK for HMS Speedy (1782)
2154:HMS Santa Dorothea (1798)
1292:HMS Santa Dorothea (1798)
1146:HMS Windsor Castle (1679)
1095:HMS Windsor Castle (1678)
1797:Neptune (disambiguation)
630:a frigate, but a paddle
435:HMS Brev Drageren (1807)
369:A small request for help
179:HMS Royal Charles (1655)
2324:Did you know? talk page
2250:Did you know? talk page
2176:Did you know? talk page
1740:well be generally good.
1620:Did you know? talk page
1552:Did you know? talk page
271:Did you know? talk page
1534:HMS Terpsichore (1785)
1488:
1466:
1444:
1347:HMS Terpsichore (1785)
1280:HMS Terpsichore (1785)
1193:interestingly enough.
447:HMS Mosquidobit (1813)
253:Battle of Cape Ortegal
2470:of past discussions.
1699:French ship Temeraire
1574:DYK for Richard Bowen
1487:
1465:
1443:
852:(Tome 1, 1671-1870).
684:HMS Egyptienne (1801)
664:HMS Egyptienne (1799)
158:Apollo class frigates
58:User:Billy/Archivenav
42:of past discussions.
2200:DYK for Hugh Downman
1492:Shem1805's talk page
1470:Shem1805's talk page
1448:Shem1805's talk page
682:I suggest using the
443:HMS Hindostan (1804)
439:HMS Hindostan (1795)
293:HMS Saldhana (1809)
1691:French ship Neptune
1284:HMS Seahorse (1794)
162:Leda class frigates
2099:
2037:
1993:
1837:SM U-51 mutilation
1764:
1669:French ship Pomone
1499:remove this notice
1489:
1477:remove this notice
1467:
1455:remove this notice
1445:
1379:Battle of Barfleur
1288:HMS Alcmene (1794)
1276:HMS Emerald (1796)
543:HMS Pegasus (1779)
519:HMS Pegasus (1786)
513:HMS Pegasus (1779)
2482:
2481:
2476:current talk page
2452:
2451:
2435:HMS Psyche (1862)
2330:
2329:
2317:
2302:HMS Speedy (1782)
2290:December 23, 2009
2256:
2255:
2243:
2216:December 23, 2009
2182:
2181:
2169:
2142:December 22, 2009
2097:
2035:
1991:
1990:, et al. . . . .
1863:
1849:comment added by
1829:
1815:comment added by
1762:
1629:Materialscientist
1626:
1625:
1590:November 27, 2009
1561:Materialscientist
1558:
1557:
1522:November 27, 2009
1191:SS Royal Daffodil
277:
276:
92:
75:comment added by
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2486:
2461:
2460:
2454:
2419:
2412:
2411:
2341:
2336:
2307:
2285:
2278:
2277:
2233:
2211:
2204:
2203:
2159:
2137:
2130:
2129:
1980:
1862:
1843:
1828:
1809:
1585:
1578:
1577:
1517:
1510:
1509:
1502:
1480:
1458:
1269:Article requests
923:Ship Index pages
236:
229:
228:
91:
69:
33:
32:
26:
2494:
2493:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2458:
2410:
2391:
2369:Patrick O'Brian
2339:
2334:
2276:
2202:
2128:
2093:Wolf Trap Light
1975:
1971:
1895:
1870:manual of style
1844:
1839:
1810:
1648:
1613:
1576:
1545:
1508:
1503:
1496:
1481:
1474:
1459:
1452:
1437:
1382:
1271:
1251:
1166:
1097:
925:
727:I've contacted
660:
515:
479:Empire Beaumont
471:
467:Empire Beaumont
431:
429:Various vessels
371:
335:
299:
264:
241:October 5, 2009
227:
119:
70:
65:
30:
22:
21:
20:
18:User talk:Benea
12:
11:
5:
2492:
2480:
2479:
2462:
2450:
2449:
2426:
2425:
2420:
2409:
2406:
2390:
2387:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2383:
2362:
2361:
2328:
2327:
2318:and add it to
2286:
2275:
2272:
2254:
2253:
2244:and add it to
2212:
2201:
2198:
2180:
2179:
2170:and add it to
2138:
2127:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2102:Jameslwoodward
2082:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2040:Jameslwoodward
2028:
2027:
1996:Jameslwoodward
1970:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1894:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1838:
1835:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1793:Pomone (ships)
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1767:Jameslwoodward
1759:
1758:
1757:
1751:Pomone (ships)
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1734:
1733:
1714:
1713:
1701:for example).
1665:Pomone (ships)
1647:
1640:
1624:
1623:
1614:and add it to
1607:
1586:
1575:
1572:
1556:
1555:
1546:and add it to
1539:
1518:
1507:
1504:
1495:
1482:
1473:
1460:
1451:
1438:
1436:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1417:
1381:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1270:
1267:
1250:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1169:
1165:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1142:
1107:Windsor Castle
1096:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1071:
1056:
1041:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1007:
965:
964:
928:
924:
921:
902:
900:
899:
865:
864:
828:
813:(L')Egyptienne
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
783:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
729:User:Bellhalla
720:
719:
718:
717:
700:
699:
659:
656:
655:
654:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
578:
577:
576:
575:
558:
557:
514:
511:
510:
509:
470:
462:
430:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
370:
367:
366:
365:
334:
331:
330:
329:
298:
291:
275:
274:
265:and add it to
258:
237:
226:
223:
222:
221:
208:
176:
155:
153:
152:
118:
115:
114:
113:
64:
61:
56:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2491:
2477:
2473:
2469:
2468:
2463:
2456:
2455:
2448:
2444:
2440:
2436:
2432:
2428:
2427:
2424:
2421:
2418:
2413:
2405:
2404:
2400:
2396:
2382:
2378:
2374:
2370:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2360:
2356:
2352:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2342:
2337:
2325:
2321:
2315:
2311:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2297:
2296:
2295:Did you know?
2291:
2287:
2284:
2280:
2279:
2271:
2270:
2266:
2262:
2261:
2251:
2247:
2241:
2237:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2223:
2222:
2221:Did you know?
2217:
2213:
2210:
2206:
2205:
2197:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2187:
2177:
2173:
2167:
2163:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2149:
2148:
2147:Did you know?
2143:
2139:
2136:
2132:
2131:
2115:
2111:
2107:
2103:
2094:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2053:
2049:
2045:
2041:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2009:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1989:
1985:
1978:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1888:
1884:
1880:
1875:
1871:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1760:
1755:
1754:
1752:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1715:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1695:HMS Temeraire
1692:
1688:
1683:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1657:
1651:
1646:
1645:
1639:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1621:
1617:
1611:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:Richard Bowen
1597:
1596:
1595:Did you know?
1591:
1587:
1584:
1580:
1579:
1571:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1553:
1549:
1543:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1529:
1528:
1527:Did you know?
1523:
1519:
1516:
1512:
1511:
1500:
1493:
1486:
1478:
1471:
1464:
1456:
1449:
1442:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1387:
1380:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1354:
1352:
1351:Richard Bowen
1348:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1266:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1109:
1108:
1102:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1077:
1072:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1057:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1042:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1006:
1002:
998:
993:
989:
988:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
966:
963:
959:
955:
951:
947:
946:
945:
944:
940:
936:
932:
920:
919:
915:
911:
907:
898:
894:
890:
885:
881:
880:
879:
878:
874:
870:
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
842:
837:
836:ĂŽle de France
833:
829:
826:
822:
818:
814:
810:
809:
800:
796:
792:
788:
784:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
766:
762:
758:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
716:
712:
708:
704:
703:
702:
701:
698:
694:
690:
685:
681:
680:
679:
678:
674:
670:
665:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
626:of 1837, was
625:
621:
617:
613:
608:
604:
603:
596:
592:
588:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
574:
570:
566:
562:
561:
560:
559:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
539:
538:
537:
533:
529:
525:
520:
508:
504:
500:
495:
494:
493:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
469:
468:
461:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
422:
418:
414:
410:
409:
408:
404:
400:
395:
394:
393:
392:
388:
384:
379:
378:
364:
360:
356:
352:
351:
350:
349:
345:
341:
328:
324:
320:
316:
315:
314:
313:
309:
305:
296:
290:
289:
285:
281:
272:
268:
262:
256:
255:
254:
248:
247:
246:Did you know?
242:
238:
235:
231:
230:
220:
216:
212:
207:
203:
199:
195:
194:
193:
192:
188:
184:
180:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
151:
147:
143:
139:
138:
137:
136:
132:
128:
124:
112:
108:
104:
99:
95:
94:
93:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
60:
59:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2471:
2465:
2422:
2392:
2331:
2300:
2299:
2293:
2258:
2257:
2228:Hugh Downman
2226:
2225:
2219:
2184:
2183:
2152:
2151:
2145:
1972:
1896:
1851:AchimKoerver
1840:
1831:
1817:AchimKoerver
1806:
1655:
1654:
1652:
1649:
1643:
1642:
1627:
1600:
1599:
1593:
1559:
1532:
1531:
1525:
1421:Rif Winfield
1391:Rif Winfield
1385:
1383:
1315:Rif Winfield
1272:
1252:
1226:
1208:
1167:
1164:HMS Iris II?
1150:Rif Winfield
1117:Rif Winfield
1106:
1105:
1100:
1098:
1081:Rif Winfield
1075:
1046:Rif Winfield
1014:Rif Winfield
1009:
991:
973:
969:
952:in the end!
949:
930:
926:
910:Rif Winfield
905:
901:
883:
866:
854:Rif Winfield
849:
845:
840:
831:
824:
820:
816:
812:
755:Roger that.
661:
644:Rif Winfield
635:
631:
627:
623:
528:Rif Winfield
516:
478:
475:Convoy PQ 18
472:
466:
432:
376:
372:
336:
300:
294:
278:
251:
250:
244:
211:Rif Winfield
183:Rif Winfield
166:Rif Winfield
154:
127:Rif Winfield
120:
66:
55:
43:
37:
2464:This is an
2408:Barnstar :)
2314:quick check
2240:quick check
2166:quick check
1845:—Preceding
1811:—Preceding
1753:? You say,
1687:HMS Neptune
1172:HMS Iris II
830:Her sister
787:WP:NC-SHIPS
98:RMS Titanic
71:—Preceding
63:RMS Titanic
36:This is an
2389:My Apology
2340:Wartenberg
2310:here's how
2236:here's how
2162:here's how
1673:HMS Pomone
1610:here's how
1542:here's how
1249:John Burns
1168:Dear Benea
927:Dear Benea
884:Egyptienne
832:(La) Forte
757:Acad Ronin
707:Acad Ronin
669:Acad Ronin
565:Acad Ronin
547:Acad Ronin
451:Acad Ronin
319:Acad Ronin
304:Acad Ronin
261:here's how
2395:B-Machine
2351:Gatoclass
1979:. p. 395.
1928:B-Machine
1899:B-Machine
1358:Jackyd101
1333:Jackyd101
1296:Jackyd101
1256:Shipsview
825:Régénérée
791:Bellhalla
333:Archiving
280:BorgQueen
2320:DYKSTATS
2246:DYKSTATS
2172:DYKSTATS
2110:contribs
2100:. . . .
2048:contribs
2038:. . . .
2004:contribs
1994:. . . .
1984:Forester
1969:HMS Wolf
1859:contribs
1847:unsigned
1825:contribs
1813:unsigned
1775:contribs
1765:. . . .
1719:WT:SHIPS
1616:DYKSTATS
1548:DYKSTATS
1497:You can
1475:You can
1453:You can
1101:Yarmouth
267:DYKSTATS
85:contribs
73:unsigned
2467:archive
1988:O'Brian
1209:Iris II
992:Laertes
974:Laertes
970:Lapwing
950:Lapwing
931:Lapwing
869:Mjroots
846:Sibylle
841:Sybille
821:Justice
483:Mjroots
340:Maralia
77:GTownJD
39:archive
2439:zazpot
2034:. . .
1661:Pomone
1656:Pomone
1644:Pomone
1386:layout
624:Gorgon
445:, and
2373:Benea
2067:Benea
2017:Benea
1951:Benea
1914:Benea
1879:Benea
1723:Benea
1703:Benea
1407:Benea
1195:Benea
1132:Benea
1076:south
1061:Benea
1031:Benea
978:Benea
954:Benea
889:Benea
817:Forte
733:Benea
689:Benea
634:, so
632:sloop
587:Benea
499:Benea
399:Benea
377:Wager
355:Benea
295:et al
198:Benea
142:Benea
103:Benea
16:<
2443:talk
2399:talk
2377:talk
2355:talk
2335:Jake
2265:talk
2260:Cirt
2191:talk
2186:Cirt
2106:talk
2071:talk
2044:talk
2021:talk
2000:talk
1955:talk
1932:talk
1918:talk
1903:talk
1883:talk
1874:owns
1855:talk
1821:talk
1771:talk
1727:talk
1707:talk
1671:and
1633:talk
1565:talk
1425:talk
1411:talk
1395:talk
1362:talk
1337:talk
1331:).--
1319:talk
1300:talk
1290:and
1260:talk
1235:talk
1231:Shem
1227:Iris
1217:talk
1213:Shem
1199:talk
1180:talk
1176:Shem
1154:talk
1136:talk
1121:talk
1085:talk
1065:talk
1050:talk
1035:talk
1018:talk
1001:talk
997:Shem
982:talk
958:talk
939:talk
935:Shem
914:talk
893:talk
873:talk
858:talk
844:(or
795:talk
761:talk
737:talk
711:talk
693:talk
673:talk
648:talk
636:that
618:and
591:talk
569:talk
551:talk
532:talk
503:talk
487:talk
455:talk
417:talk
413:Shem
403:talk
387:talk
383:Shem
375:HMS
359:talk
344:talk
323:talk
308:talk
284:talk
215:talk
202:talk
187:talk
170:talk
146:talk
131:talk
107:talk
81:talk
2288:On
2214:On
2140:On
2112:)
2098:Jim
2050:)
2036:Jim
2006:)
1992:Jim
1893:Hey
1777:)
1763:Jim
1663:or
1588:On
1520:On
1435:HMS
906:not
628:not
465:SS
239:On
2445:)
2437:.
2401:)
2379:)
2357:)
2332:⇌
2326:.
2312:,
2292:,
2267:)
2252:.
2238:,
2218:,
2193:)
2178:.
2164:,
2144:,
2108:•
2073:)
2046:•
2023:)
2002:•
1986:,
1957:)
1934:)
1920:)
1905:)
1885:)
1861:)
1857:•
1827:)
1823:•
1773:•
1729:)
1709:)
1697:,
1693:,
1689:,
1635:)
1622:.
1592:,
1567:)
1554:.
1524:,
1427:)
1413:)
1397:)
1364:)
1339:)
1321:)
1302:)
1286:,
1282:,
1278:,
1262:)
1237:)
1219:)
1201:)
1182:)
1156:)
1138:)
1123:)
1087:)
1067:)
1052:)
1037:)
1020:)
1003:)
984:)
960:)
941:)
916:)
895:)
875:)
860:)
797:)
763:)
739:)
713:)
695:)
675:)
650:)
593:)
571:)
553:)
534:)
505:)
489:)
457:)
441:,
437:,
419:)
405:)
389:)
361:)
346:)
325:)
310:)
286:)
273:.
243:,
217:)
204:)
189:)
172:)
164:.
148:)
133:)
109:)
87:)
83:•
2478:.
2441:(
2397:(
2375:(
2353:(
2316:)
2308:(
2263:(
2242:)
2234:(
2189:(
2168:)
2160:(
2104:(
2069:(
2042:(
2019:(
1998:(
1953:(
1930:(
1916:(
1901:(
1881:(
1853:(
1819:(
1769:(
1725:(
1717:(
1705:(
1631:(
1612:)
1608:(
1563:(
1544:)
1540:(
1494:.
1472:.
1450:.
1423:(
1409:(
1393:(
1360:(
1335:(
1317:(
1298:(
1258:(
1233:(
1215:(
1197:(
1178:(
1152:(
1134:(
1119:(
1083:(
1063:(
1048:(
1033:(
1016:(
999:(
980:(
956:(
937:(
912:(
891:(
871:(
856:(
793:(
759:(
735:(
709:(
691:(
671:(
646:(
589:(
567:(
549:(
530:(
501:(
485:(
453:(
415:(
401:(
385:(
357:(
342:(
321:(
306:(
297:.
282:(
263:)
259:(
213:(
200:(
185:(
168:(
144:(
129:(
105:(
79:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.