This is an archive of past discussions about User:Rif Winfield. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Rif, there's been some drastic boiler plate editing going on with early RN destroyers. This may have changed the details of some of the vessels - for example, HMS Stag in its current form doesn't agree with earlier versions of the same article. For example, the article used to say she had Normond boilers and was 215 feet long; now it says she had Thorneycroft water-tube boilers and was 210 feet long. The question is, what would you recommend as the best source for this sort of information on Stag and other C, D & E class destroyers? Yours, Shem (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-06-24T18:34:00.000Z","author":"Shem1805","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Shem1805-2013-06-24T18:34:00.000Z-Early_destroyer_details","replies":["c-Rif_Winfield-2013-06-24T20:01:00.000Z-Shem1805-2013-06-24T18:34:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Shem"}}-->

• The best record is undoubtedly in David Lyon's "The First Destroyers", published by Chatham Publishing about 1996. This covered all the turtle-back destroyers of the "A", "B", "C" and "D" classes (not the "River"/"E" group). The Stag, like all the Thornycroft destroyers, had Thornycroft water-tube boilers (I don't know where the Normand reference comes from, but it's wrong; Normand was of course a French boilermaker). The boilers weighed 50.168 tons, the engines 69.51 tons, the bare hull 89.694 tons; with fittings, woodwork and spare gear she weighed 279.276 tons). There is some doubt about her length; the Thornycroft papers (which are in my own possession) indicate 210 ft overall, 208 feet between perpendiculars and also 208 feet waterline. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-06-24T20:01:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2013-06-24T20:01:00.000Z-Shem1805-2013-06-24T18:34:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Rif, as ever, thank you so much. I've bought a copy online, and I hope it will drop on the doorstep soonish. If it doesn't cover the Rivers, are you in a position to help me identify the weapon described in the River-class articles (but not the class page) as a " QF 12-pounder 8 cwt" (for example - at HMS Derwent (1903))? I'm pretty sure the 6-pounder identified on the same article is the QF 6 pounder Hotchkiss. Yours, Shem (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-06-24T21:38:00.000Z","author":"Shem1805","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Shem1805-2013-06-24T21:38:00.000Z-Early_destroyer_details","replies":["c-Sturmvogel_66-2013-06-24T22:24:00.000Z-Shem1805-2013-06-24T21:38:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Shem"}}-->

• (talk page stalker) There was no article for the gun, but I've started one at QF 12-pounder 8-cwt Mk I naval gun.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-06-24T22:24:00.000Z","author":"Sturmvogel 66","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Sturmvogel_66-2013-06-24T22:24:00.000Z-Shem1805-2013-06-24T21:38:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hi Rif Winfield! Thanks for participating in the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. Your contributions are important to improving Wikipedia! I wanted to share a few updates with you:

• We have an easy way to now cite WDL resources. You can learn more about it on our news page, here.
• Our to-do list is being expanded and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination here.
• WDL project has new userbox for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement. Soffredo created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page here.
• Our first batch of WDL barnstars have been awarded! Congratulations to our first recipients: ProtoplasmaKid, ChrisGualtieri, TenthEagle, Rhyswynne, Luwii, Sosthenes12, Djembayz, Parkwells, Carl Francis, Yunshui, MrX, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and the prolific Yster76!! Thank you for your contributions and keep up the great work. Be sure to share your article expansions and successes here.

Keep up the great work, and please contact me if you need anything! Thank you for all you do for free knowledge! EdwardsBot (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-06-30T16:42:00.000Z","author":"EdwardsBot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-EdwardsBot-2013-06-30T16:42:00.000Z-World_Digital_Library-Wikimedia_Partnership_Newsletter","replies":[]}}-->

Rif, would you mind dropping by at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#HMS_Richard_ca.1765 to answer a query about an 18th century Richard, possibly an imprest service cutter? Many thanks. Shem (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-07-23T20:31:00.000Z","author":"Shem1805","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Shem1805-2013-07-23T20:31:00.000Z-HMS_Richard?","replies":["c-Rif_Winfield-2013-07-24T10:24:00.000Z-Shem1805-2013-07-23T20:31:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Shem"}}-->

Done! Regards, Rif.
Rif Winfield (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-07-24T10:24:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2013-07-24T10:24:00.000Z-Shem1805-2013-07-23T20:31:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Rif, thanks for the quick work. Shem (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-07-24T17:32:00.000Z","author":"Shem1805","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Shem1805-2013-07-24T17:32:00.000Z-HMS_Richard?","replies":[],"displayName":"Shem"}}-->

I was looking at shipwrecks in the English Channel today and ran across the HMS Sapphire which you did the initial page for. There's an odd sentence which has been added about the ship, claiming that it was actually lost off SICILY, not the Scilly Islands. This blog post includes more details. The assertion of malice aside, has there been a mixup? While it's not impossible that 4 Barbary corsairs frightened the captain just miles from Land's End, isn't it infinitely more likely that the ships were sighted south of Italy? — ʞɔıu 20:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC).__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-08-11T20:07:00.000Z","author":"Nkocharh","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Nkocharh-2013-08-11T20:07:00.000Z-HMS_Sapphire_misplaced?","replies":["c-Rif_Winfield-2013-08-11T21:08:00.000Z-Nkocharh-2013-08-11T20:07:00.000Z"],"displayName":"\u029e\u0254\u0131u"}}-->

Clearly the Scilly Divers website was hacked, or the page was previously written by someone who misread something written somewhere else (sadly, that happens quite a lot)! It is definite that the Sapphire was wrecked on SICILY, as in the article, and also as in Admiralty records (and in my own book on 1603-1714 British Warships). Yes, Barbary Coast corsairs did get into the Western Approaches sometimes (although it was more common in earlier centuries), but that did not happen on this occasion. Rif Winfield (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-08-11T21:08:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2013-08-11T21:08:00.000Z-Nkocharh-2013-08-11T20:07:00.000Z","replies":["c-Nkocharh-2013-08-12T19:39:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2013-08-11T21:08:00.000Z"]}}-->

So you know, the article was corrected to say only "Sicily" about half an hour before you saw it. Until that point, it actually did say Scilly! No hacking, and it turns out the Scilly divers site was correct about the ship's fate. Anyway, thanks for the clarification, and the citation. Glad it's all good now! — ʞɔıu 19:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-08-12T19:39:00.000Z","author":"Nkocharh","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Nkocharh-2013-08-12T19:39:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2013-08-11T21:08:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"\u029e\u0254\u0131u"}}-->

Rif, HMCS Edmundston (K106), soon to appear as a DYK, contains the following statement:

The "corvette" designation was created by the French in the 19th century as a class of small warships; the Royal Navy borrowed the term for a period but discontinued its use in 1877.

As you know, the Comus and Calypso classes were corvettes, and I believe they were not reclassified as cruisers until 1888. Is that correct? Best regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-08-19T16:04:00.000Z","author":"Kablammo","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kablammo-2013-08-19T16:04:00.000Z-Corvettes","replies":["c-Rif_Winfield-2013-08-19T16:08:00.000Z-Kablammo-2013-08-19T16:04:00.000Z","c-Rif_Winfield-2013-08-19T16:40:00.000Z-Kablammo-2013-08-19T16:04:00.000Z"]}}-->

Not so! The 1877 date is correct, and all frigates and corvettes were reclassed as cruisers in that year. Of course, the old terms still appeared in correspondance for several years after their official reclassification, but the use of the old terms was unofficial. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-08-19T16:08:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2013-08-19T16:08:00.000Z-Kablammo-2013-08-19T16:04:00.000Z","replies":["c-Kablammo-2013-08-19T16:11:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2013-08-19T16:08:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thanks for your prompt response! How is it that the Comus and Calypso classes were called corvettes? Kablammo (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-08-19T16:11:00.000Z","author":"Kablammo","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Kablammo-2013-08-19T16:11:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2013-08-19T16:08:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

The first six ships of the Comus class were ordered (from John Elder & Co) and laid down in 1876, before the redesignation. They were reclassed as cruisers in 1877; the final three ships of the Comus class, and both Calypso class vessels, were all ordered (from the Royal Dockyards) after 1877, and were never officially classed as corvettes. However, as mentioned above, the term lingered unofficially (as always happens) for a few years until the official term "cruiser" caught on. Hope that's clear!

Incidentally, the French term corvette was in use in that country's navy from the mid 18th century, not the 19th century; it roughly equated to the British Navy's term "post ship". The term "corvette" was not adopted by the British Navy until the 1840s. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-08-19T16:40:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2013-08-19T16:40:00.000Z-Kablammo-2013-08-19T16:04:00.000Z","replies":["c-Kablammo-2013-08-19T18:14:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2013-08-19T16:40:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thank you Rif, that is clear. There is information in a couple of the wiki articles on the C vessels that they were redesignated in 1888, hence my question. I do not know where that information came from. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-08-19T18:14:00.000Z","author":"Kablammo","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Kablammo-2013-08-19T18:14:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2013-08-19T16:40:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Buol Regency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-10-09T11:04:00.000Z","author":"DPL bot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DPL_bot-2013-10-09T11:04:00.000Z-Disambiguation_link_notification_for_October_9","replies":["c-Rif_Winfield-2013-10-09T19:02:00.000Z-DPL_bot-2013-10-09T11:04:00.000Z"],"displayName":"opt-out instructions"}}-->

The reason why the link is to a disambiguation page is because there are already errors in the articles to which links need to be made. There are articles entitled Buol (city) and Buol (village), not to mention one for Buol, Indonesia. These actually refer to the same place! Buol is certainly NOT a city, and it's actually too big to be called a village. These erroneous articles need to be deleted and replaced by one entitled Buol (town) which is the most accurate designation. Once this is done, I can certainly and will insert the correct link into the Buol Regency article. Rif Winfield (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-10-09T19:02:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2013-10-09T19:02:00.000Z-DPL_bot-2013-10-09T11:04:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Few editors have had the stamina to keep at fixing up the Indonesian project articles at the rate you have - thank you - very much !!!! satusuro 09:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-10-17T09:42:00.000Z","author":"SatuSuro","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-SatuSuro-2013-10-17T09:42:00.000Z-Incredible","replies":["c-SatuSuro-2013-10-20T08:48:00.000Z-SatuSuro-2013-10-17T09:42:00.000Z"]}}-->

apologies for delay in responding, will deal with now, sorry about that. satusuro 08:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-10-20T08:48:00.000Z","author":"SatuSuro","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-SatuSuro-2013-10-20T08:48:00.000Z-SatuSuro-2013-10-17T09:42:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hello again. I see that a curator of the NMM is repeating the claim that the good admiral was executed on the deck "of his former flagship". The brutal world of the Nelson-era Navy, starting at 3:10. Ah well. Kablammo (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-10-23T17:35:00.000Z","author":"Kablammo","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kablammo-2013-10-23T17:35:00.000Z-Adm._Byng","replies":["c-Kablammo-2013-10-23T17:56:00.000Z-Kablammo-2013-10-23T17:35:00.000Z"]}}-->

(For talk page watchers: The context can be found here. Kablammo (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC))__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-10-23T17:56:00.000Z","author":"Kablammo","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Kablammo-2013-10-23T17:56:00.000Z-Kablammo-2013-10-23T17:35:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hi Rif, I couldn't find anything on her in your 1793-1817 book. Where should I be looking? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-11-25T23:34:00.000Z","author":"Acad Ronin","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Acad_Ronin-2013-11-25T23:34:00.000Z-HMS_Port_d'Espagne","replies":["c-Rif_Winfield-2013-11-27T10:17:00.000Z-Acad_Ronin-2013-11-25T23:34:00.000Z"]}}-->

• OK. I confess this is one which slipped past me (and apparently the record keepers at the Navy Board) while compiling the 1793-1817 volume. The Port d'Espagne was a 16-gun vessel (it's unclear as to whether this was a brig or schooner) purchased by "the inhabitants of Trinidad" and presented as a gift to the Navy. She was commissioned under Lieut. James Stewart at Jamaica. She captured three small Spanish privateers during the summer of 1807 - the 2-gun Mercedes in the Gulf of Paria on 6 June, the 1-gun Maria on 18 August and the 1-gun Rosario on 12 September (I can't trace other captures, but there might have been such). I have several other names (up to 8, although some might be doutful) for subsequent commanding officers during her several years of service (all in the Caribbean; she never left the West Indies, as far as I can tell) but their dates are unclear. She was present at the capture of Martinique in February 1809, and was finally sold off in 1811. If you have any further information on her, I'd be pleased to hear it. Regards, Rif.
  Incidentally, the text for my 1817-1863 volume (which covers all sail and also all early steam - paddle or screw - vessels in the Navy during those years) is now with Seaforth Publishing, for release during the first half of 2014. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-11-27T10:17:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2013-11-27T10:17:00.000Z-Acad_Ronin-2013-11-25T23:34:00.000Z","replies":["c-Acad_Ronin-2013-11-27T12:31:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2013-11-27T10:17:00.000Z"]}}-->

Hi Rif, thanks for getting back to me. That's pretty much most of what I found too. Colledge gives her size as 190 tons (bm). The NMMuseum has info on her commanders that is consistent with what I found in O'Byrne, though there are a couple of anomalies. I couldn't find anything in Lloyd's List or Register.
Although I am glad to hear that your sequel volume is coming out, I have to admit that for now I continue to work my way through the 1793-1817 one, where there were so many minor vessels, where, because of the wars, many of which even so had some notable event or story associated with them. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-11-27T12:31:00.000Z","author":"Acad Ronin","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Acad_Ronin-2013-11-27T12:31:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2013-11-27T10:17:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hi Rif, I am putting together a stub article about HMS Undaunted (1794), although I suspect it ought to be called "French ship La Bienvenue" or similar. Can you tell me whether she was constructed as a fluyt or whether she was a warship first and later (1792) converted? It's not clear to me from the sources I have available. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 09:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-12-31T09:20:00.000Z","author":"Ykraps","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ykraps-2013-12-31T09:20:00.000Z-HMS_Undaunted_(1794)","replies":["c-Rif_Winfield-2013-12-31T18:08:00.000Z-Ykraps-2013-12-31T09:20:00.000Z","c-Rif_Winfield-2014-01-01T13:23:00.000Z-Ykraps-2013-12-31T09:20:00.000Z","c-Rif_Winfield-2014-01-13T09:15:00.000Z-Ykraps-2013-12-31T09:20:00.000Z"]}}-->

• I suspect you mean flûte rather than fluyt (the Dutch mercantile type). The French flûtes were always naval craft, designed and built for the French Navy, but with a unarmed lower deck (although almost always with sealed-up gunports on this deck so that their substantial storage capacity (usually for accommodating troops) could be used for guns when needed. The Bienvenue was of this type, designed by Pierre-Alexandre Forfait *(the plan is dated 18 October 1787) and begun by the shipbuilders Gouet and Deros at Le Havre in November; she was launched on 5 May 1788, and completed in June 1788, armed with 20 x 8pdrs (French 8pdrs, of course). She measured 130 (French) feet x 31 ft x 15 ft 7in [= 42.2 x 10.1 x 4.9 metres]. She sailed from Ile de France (Mauritius) for France in December 1791. She was seized by her rebel crew and handed over to the British, then seized by French Royalist forces on 4 October 1792 at St Christopher (St Kitts), being renamed Royaliste in October 1792; her Republican crew were taken back to France aboard two British ships but the ship's name reverted to Bienvenue the following January.
• In July 1793 she was fitted out as a floating prison at Fort-Royal, Martinique. When the British Navy captured Martinique in March 1794 she fell into their hands on 17 March and was commissioned as HMS Bienvenue (a Sixth Rate frigate with 195 men and 28 guns, including her original 20 French 8-pounders on the upper deck) under Captain Robert Faulkner, subsequently under Captain James Carpenter and then Captain Henry Bayntum. She only served 16 months under her new flag; she was brought to Britain, arriving at Sheerness on 24 September. On 30 March 1795 she was registered as a British warship, and at that date was renamed Undaunted, but it was decided not to make her a permanent acquisition, and she was sold at Deptford Dockyard on 24 July 1795. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-12-31T18:08:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2013-12-31T18:08:00.000Z-Ykraps-2013-12-31T09:20:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ykraps-2014-01-01T12:48:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2013-12-31T18:08:00.000Z"]}}-->

That's great Rif, thanks for all the info. I had assumed that flûte was the French spelling of fluyt so thanks for straightening that out.--Ykraps (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-01-01T12:48:00.000Z","author":"Ykraps","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ykraps-2014-01-01T12:48:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2013-12-31T18:08:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

You're welcome. The words fluyt and flûte have the same origin, but by the mid 18th century the meaning had evolved. I'm currently involved in writing a French Warships in the Age of Sail, along the lines of my British Warships in the Age of Sail series, but the 1786-1861 volume is for publication in 2015. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-01-01T13:23:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2014-01-01T13:23:00.000Z-Ykraps-2013-12-31T09:20:00.000Z","replies":["c-Ykraps-2014-01-01T15:49:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2014-01-01T13:23:00.000Z"]}}-->

That sounds like an interesting and worthwhile project. I hope your French translation is better than mine. Might I enquire as to how you intend to deal with French measurements, taking into account that prior to the revolution, not all were standardised? I understand why you might not want to say by the way, so no offence will be taken. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-01-01T15:49:00.000Z","author":"Ykraps","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ykraps-2014-01-01T15:49:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2014-01-01T13:23:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

The pre-1799 French units of measurement were the pied and pouce, which translate as foot and inch. However these standard units of measurement were about 6.575% longer than British/US feet and inches; the French pied was 32.48394 cms compared with the British/US 30.48 cms (I know that there was, until 1962, a microscopic difference between British Imperial and US units, but not enough to be significant). So all quoted French dimensions stated as "feet" and "inches" (e.g. in Alain Demerliac's lists) should be recalculated by this amount if you wish to arrive at lengths in British/US units of measurement. Although officially brought in during 1799, use of the pre-metric units persisted for a number of years, so be prepared to check any quoted dimensions before 1815 with this in mind. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-01-13T09:15:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2014-01-13T09:15:00.000Z-Ykraps-2013-12-31T09:20:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hi Rif, FYI, here's another minor vessel that slipped by the Navy Board. Lord Keith bought an American brig, which he named HMS Euphrosyne (1796), at Simon's Bay in the run-up to the Battle of Saldanha Bay (1796). She then stayed on the station until she was sold in 1802. Somehow, the word never got back to the Admiralty in London. Colledge had her burthen, or at least an estimate. Other than that, no measurements survive. The National Maritime Museum also had incomplete info on her commanders, though it misspells her name. Still, I was able to dig up enough info to make a short article. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-01-12T18:06:00.000Z","author":"Acad Ronin","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Acad_Ronin-2014-01-12T18:06:00.000Z-HMS_Euphrosyne","replies":["c-Rif_Winfield-2014-01-13T08:50:00.000Z-Acad_Ronin-2014-01-12T18:06:00.000Z"]}}-->

Many thanks. All I can add is the name of another C.O., between Whittle and Walker; she was under Lieutenant W. Shirley (probably William Warden Shirley) at some time in 1800. However, I am suspicious of that "14 - 16" guns as I do think it unlikely that a vessel of 125 tons would have easily mounted that number of carriage guns. I think the total probably included some ½pdr swivels.

At some stage I hope to produce a revised edition of my 1793-1817 volume. Can you therefore please email me (at [email protected]) a list of the "additional vessels" you have tracked down, so I can include them? Rif Winfield (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-01-13T08:50:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2014-01-13T08:50:00.000Z-Acad_Ronin-2014-01-12T18:06:00.000Z","replies":["c-Acad_Ronin-2014-01-13T20:30:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2014-01-13T08:50:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thanks for the info. So far Port d'Espagne and Euphrosyne are the only two additional vessels I have found, but I will let you know if any more turn up. I will also do a better job of keeping notes on other queries, corrections, and the like that I might come across. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-01-13T20:30:00.000Z","author":"Acad Ronin","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Acad_Ronin-2014-01-13T20:30:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2014-01-13T08:50:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hello Rif. I have asked a question on the identity of vessels shown in an old photograph, which the source says dates from c. 1880. It seems to me that not all of the vessels which the source states are shown in that photograph, were ever together. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#RN_vessels_on_Australia_Station_in_1880s. Your thoughts would be welcome. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-01-28T15:34:00.000Z","author":"Kablammo","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kablammo-2014-01-28T15:34:00.000Z-Ships_of_the_Australian_Station","replies":[]}}-->

Rif

Could you please have a look at Talk:Calypso-class corvette and see if you can clarify the thickness of the deck armour on a Calypso-class corvette? Thank you. Shem (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-02-12T21:04:00.000Z","author":"Shem1805","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Shem1805-2014-02-12T21:04:00.000Z-Calypso-class_corvette_deck_armour","replies":[],"displayName":"Shem"}}-->

Hello again Rif, sorry to keep pestering you. Your book says that William Hotham took command of HMS Reunion in July 1796. Would that be William Hotham (1772–1848)? His article doesn't mention Reunion but he was in the right place at the right time. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-01-25T12:05:00.000Z","author":"Ykraps","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ykraps-2014-01-25T12:05:00.000Z-HMS_Reunion","replies":["c-Acad_Ronin-2014-01-29T00:37:00.000Z-Ykraps-2014-01-25T12:05:00.000Z"]}}-->

Marshall doesn't say anything, but O'Byrne does state that William Hotham was very briefly captain of Reunion. Putting the two together, it would appear that this occurred in 1796. I just checked the National Maritime Museum database and they have W. Hotham as acting captain in July 1796. Acad Ronin (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-01-29T00:37:00.000Z","author":"Acad Ronin","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Acad_Ronin-2014-01-29T00:37:00.000Z-Ykraps-2014-01-25T12:05:00.000Z","replies":["c-Rif_Winfield-2014-02-13T09:00:00.000Z-Acad_Ronin-2014-01-29T00:37:00.000Z"]}}-->

Exactly. O'Byrne's three volumes are extremely comprehensive and their accuracy is impressive. Incidentally, my new volume on 1817-1863 is now printing and aims to be available in early May. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-02-13T09:00:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2014-02-13T09:00:00.000Z-Acad_Ronin-2014-01-29T00:37:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hi Rif, I have created stubby articles for HMS Musquito (1794) (the schooner, not the floating battery), and HMS Musquito (1799). In both cases it bothers me that I can find nothing on the vessels that you and Colledge report as being the captured privateers. This is not totally surprising as both captures took place on the West Indies/Jamaica Station, but still it is troubling that I can find nothing about the Venus or the Hunter/Chasseur in the London Gazette, Steel, Schomberg, and Norie. Any info you can add beyond what's in your book? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-01-14T16:23:00.000Z","author":"Acad Ronin","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Acad_Ronin-2014-01-14T16:23:00.000Z-HMS_Musquito","replies":["c-Rif_Winfield-2014-02-13T09:04:00.000Z-Acad_Ronin-2014-01-14T16:23:00.000Z"]}}-->

As you say, it's not surprising. Always remember the limitations of non-electronic communications. It's actually surprising how much data there is, but it's now easily located and often not in official records. No, there is nothing more I can add to what's in my 1793-1817 volume. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-02-13T09:04:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2014-02-13T09:04:00.000Z-Acad_Ronin-2014-01-14T16:23:00.000Z","replies":["c-Acad_Ronin-2014-02-13T11:19:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2014-02-13T09:04:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thanks.Acad Ronin (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-02-13T11:19:00.000Z","author":"Acad Ronin","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Acad_Ronin-2014-02-13T11:19:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2014-02-13T09:04:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Rif

Can you confirm the Hepper reference at HMS Shark that states there was a 28-gun sixth rate Shark, bought in 1780 and foundered in the same year? Colledge doesn't have it. Many thanks. Shem (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-02-16T19:13:00.000Z","author":"Shem1805","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Shem1805-2014-02-16T19:13:00.000Z-HMS_Shark_(1780)?","replies":[],"displayName":"Shem"}}-->

Wikipedia has policies about potential conflicts of interest, so adding your own books to the Further reading section may be perceived as such by some editors. I reverted your edit and then added them back in under my name. I hope this will prevent some officious busybody from deleting them. Dabbler (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-02-22T23:15:00.000Z","author":"Dabbler","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dabbler-2014-02-22T23:15:00.000Z-Conflict_of_Interest","replies":["c-Rif_Winfield-2014-02-23T09:02:00.000Z-Dabbler-2014-02-22T23:15:00.000Z"]}}-->

• Many thanks for doing so. As you say, it saves potential embarrasment. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-02-23T09:02:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2014-02-23T09:02:00.000Z-Dabbler-2014-02-22T23:15:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Hi,

Amazed to find you on here and wanted to say I have found your books amazing in the sheer breadth and depth of coverage. I referred to:

Rif Winfield (January 2008). British Warships In The Age Of Sail 1793-1817: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates. Seaforth Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84415-717-4.

Some time ago I did some research regarding the Clio in 1807. In my notes, I have the armament of the Cruizer class sloop as 16 x 32 pdr Carronades and 2 x 6 pdr Bow Guns with the complement including 20 Royal Marines. I didn't however note the page reference. Would you be able to help?

It is for an article in my userspace User:Wee Curry Monster/José María Pinedo. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 19:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-01T19:49:00.000Z","author":"Wee Curry Monster","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Wee_Curry_Monster-2014-03-01T19:49:00.000Z-HMS_Clio_(1807)","replies":["c-Acad_Ronin-2014-03-02T04:03:00.000Z-Wee_Curry_Monster-2014-03-01T19:49:00.000Z"]}}-->

Hi Wee Curry Monster, p.282 has the generic info for the guns in the introduction for Cruizer; the 16 x 32 + 2 x 6 is correct. p.291 introduces the class. However, in neither place did I see any statement about 20 Marines. That sounds correct, but I am not sure where you found it. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-02T04:03:00.000Z","author":"Acad Ronin","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Acad_Ronin-2014-03-02T04:03:00.000Z-Wee_Curry_Monster-2014-03-01T19:49:00.000Z","replies":["c-Rif_Winfield-2014-03-02T09:01:00.000Z-Acad_Ronin-2014-03-02T04:03:00.000Z","c-Rif_Winfield-2014-03-02T11:30:00.000Z-Acad_Ronin-2014-03-02T04:03:00.000Z"]}}-->

Many thanks for your generous compliment; the fourth volume of my series (which will cover 1817 to 1863) is now printing and will be available around April. You are correct that the complement (121 in all) of the Cruizer class brig-sloops included 20 marines (as from 1808; previous to this it was 15) comprising 1 sergeant, 1 corporal and 18 privates (there was no marine officer on unrated ships). Regards. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-02T09:01:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2014-03-02T09:01:00.000Z-Acad_Ronin-2014-03-02T04:03:00.000Z","replies":["c-Wee_Curry_Monster-2014-03-02T10:32:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2014-03-02T09:01:00.000Z"]}}-->

Thank you both, I'm a bit more thorough with my notes these days but I was sure I got the figure of 20 from that book. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-02T10:32:00.000Z","author":"Wee Curry Monster","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Wee_Curry_Monster-2014-03-02T10:32:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2014-03-02T09:01:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Actually I don't give a breakdown of the established complements of every vessel in the book (there simply isn't room for these as well as all the other data). A good reference source for the breakdown of complements is the Appendices on pp 328-330 of Brian Lavery's Nelson's Navy. Rif Winfield (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-02T11:30:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2014-03-02T11:30:00.000Z-Acad_Ronin-2014-03-02T04:03:00.000Z","replies":["c-Wee_Curry_Monster-2014-03-02T11:50:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2014-03-02T11:30:00.000Z"]}}-->

That would explain the confusion in my notes, I also refered to the 1989 issue of Lavery's book. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-02T11:50:00.000Z","author":"Wee Curry Monster","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Wee_Curry_Monster-2014-03-02T11:50:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2014-03-02T11:30:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I am preparing an article on a naval officer Captain Henry Smith, in 1853 the source I have states he was appointed in command of HMS Simoon. I can't find a record of that vessel but I have found a vessel HMS Simoom, which was a iron screw frigate built in 1849, and converted to a troop ship in 1852 for the Crimean War. So making the jump that the reference is mistaken, would I be correct that Captain Smith was in command of a troop ship rather than a frigate? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-22T13:36:00.000Z","author":"Wee Curry Monster","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Wee_Curry_Monster-2014-03-22T13:36:00.000Z-HMS_Simoom_(1849)","replies":["c-Rif_Winfield-2014-03-22T15:39:00.000Z-Wee_Curry_Monster-2014-03-22T13:36:00.000Z","c-Rif_Winfield-2014-03-22T16:53:00.000Z-Wee_Curry_Monster-2014-03-22T13:36:00.000Z"]}}-->

You are correct that the Simoom was converted into a troopship in 1852, just before the Crimean War. However, I have no record of Capt. Henry Smith being in command of her at any time. My records show that she was commissioned 9 February 1852 under Capt. John Kingcome; she sailed 20 March 1852 after fitting for troops at Portsmouth; by May 1853 Kingcome was in command of the St George at Portsmouth, but I have found no record of who took over command of the Simoom from him, if anyone did (she may have been out of commission). She was recommissioned 2 December 1854 under Capt. Thomas Ross Sulivan, for the Mediterranean; to Black Sea and Sea of Azov during 1855.

You are probably aware that there were two Captains with the name of Henry Smith in the RN in 1853 (and two Lieutenants of the same name), so I'm not certain which of them your article is about, but I cannot trace either of them ever commanding the Simoom. It is possible that one or other of the Henry Smiths was in command of Simoom between Kingcome and Sulivan, but I have no record of it. If you can find out the true situation, please let me know. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-22T15:39:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2014-03-22T15:39:00.000Z-Wee_Curry_Monster-2014-03-22T13:36:00.000Z","replies":["c-Wee_Curry_Monster-2014-03-22T15:47:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2014-03-22T15:39:00.000Z"]}}-->

The officer I'm researching was the first British Resident in the Falkland Islands from 1834 until 1838, when he held the rank of Lieutenant. In Andrew David and David Tatham's entry for him in the Dictionary of National Biography they have him in command of HMS Simoon from 1853 until he died on board of Cholera in 1854. I may have to contact the original authors to find out their source, David Tatham is a friend of an acquaintance of mine. I can also try the archives in Kew. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-22T15:47:00.000Z","author":"Wee Curry Monster","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Wee_Curry_Monster-2014-03-22T15:47:00.000Z-Rif_Winfield-2014-03-22T15:39:00.000Z","replies":["c-Wee_Curry_Monster-2014-03-22T15:57:00.000Z-Wee_Curry_Monster-2014-03-22T15:47:00.000Z"]}}-->

[1] Found a death notice, in the Annual Register. It was HMS Simoom and not the SS Simoon which transported the Grenadier Guards, so I think my hunch was correct. Corroborated by the Navy List [2], his obituary [3]. Google books can be useful sometimes. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-22T15:57:00.000Z","author":"Wee Curry Monster","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Wee_Curry_Monster-2014-03-22T15:57:00.000Z-Wee_Curry_Monster-2014-03-22T15:47:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Indeed they can. From the evidence, it's clear that this Captain Henry Smith took over command of the Simoom (there was no ship called Simoon; that version of the name would be a typo) on 30 May 1853 from Capt. John Kingcome, and died aboard her in August 1854. Thanks for the info, which allows me to correct my records. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-03-22T16:53:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2014-03-22T16:53:00.000Z-Wee_Curry_Monster-2014-03-22T13:36:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

Many errors found in the English text...

The government speaks only of the "region" (since 2007, previously Division), LGA are not common.

The Gambia is divided into 5 regions + Greater Banjul Area. The Greater Banjul Area ("City of Banjul" and "Kanifing Municipal") is missing in the English Wikipedia (Greater Banjul Area ≈ 2 district). see also de:Verwaltungsgliederung Gambias (under reference #1) and http://www.statoids.com/ugm.html

--Atamari (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-04T14:45:00.000Z","author":"Atamari","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Atamari-2014-04-04T14:45:00.000Z-Administrative_divisions_regions_of_The_Gambia","replies":["c-Rif_Winfield-2014-04-04T17:55:00.000Z-Atamari-2014-04-04T14:45:00.000Z"]}}-->

Unfortunately I think your information and the sources you quote are not up to date, as there have been further changes since 2007 and even since 2010. I was quoting the provisional April 2013 Census official details from the Gambia Bureau of Statistics; see http://www.gbos.gov.gm/census (for the official Gambian data) and http://www.geohive.com/cntry/gambia.aspx. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-04T17:55:00.000Z","author":"Rif Winfield","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Rif_Winfield-2014-04-04T17:55:00.000Z-Atamari-2014-04-04T14:45:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

I'm rather suspicious to the scope about the Téméraire-class ship of the line, and, indeed, whole idea of pre-industrial ship classes. I'd appreciate your input over at Talk:Téméraire-class ship of the line#Class according to whom?. Peter ^Isotalo 17:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2014-04-24T17:53:00.000Z","author":"Peter Isotalo","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Peter_Isotalo-2014-04-24T17:53:00.000Z-Pre-industrial_ship_classes","replies":[],"displayName":"Peter"}}-->

Discussion continued at Talk:Téméraire-class ship of the line#Class according to whom?.