Davidships

Getting Started First steps • FAQ Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Adoption How to: edit a page • upload an image   Getting help Community Portal • Help desk • Village Pump Where to ask questions or make comments • Request administrator attention Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a small message explaining the problem   The Commmunity Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists		Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability   Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Maedin\^talk 21:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your helpful addition to Fox family of Falmouth. I wonder if G.C.Fox is sufficiently notable to deserve a Wikipedia article in its own right! The article does not currently mention the Fox family's involvement in the development of the docks and the Falmouth Hotel. Is it possible to identify the founders of the Fishing company with Howard and George Henry Fox, sons of Alfred & Sarah Fox and Robert, son of Barclay Fox? Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 08:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Vernon. Yes, I suspect that there is a good G C Fox story to be told (not that I know very much about it)!

The subscribers to the Falmouth Fishery Company Ltd in 4/1882 were (as I transcribed from TNA file BT 31/14703/16640):

James Whitelock Treviol (accountant) Henry Herbert Cox (merchant) William Henry Lean (shipbuilder) William Henry Williams (accountant) Robert Gloyne (accountant) William Rowe (steam tug owner) Howard, George & Robert Fox (merchants) Richard Sherris (harbourmaster) and other minor players that I did not note.

It was only 18 months later that the company resolved to acquire G C Fox's towing business, and doubled their authorised capital form the original £5000 to be able to do so. Interestingly, by 1888 the only significant shareholders were the Fox family and Henry Cox.

I suppose that the fishery part of the business declined and in 1893 the company's name was changed to The Falmouth Towage Company Ltd.

In 1901 the Directors were: William Henry Williams (now described as shipchandler) Robert Fox (merchant) George Henry Fox (merchant) Edward "Iperise" (accountant)[that looks like a mis-transcription]

In 1921 the company was voluntarily wound up. The towage business seems to have seems then to have been carried on in a small way by Robert Barclay Fox in his own name, until the formation of a new Falmouth Towage Company Ltd in 1931.

David Davidships (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have copied our conversation into a file called User:Vernon39/G C Fox (Shipping Brokers) and hope at some time to organise it, with additional material , into an article. Please feel free to edit this new page. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 08:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Given that I'm British and actually have a good friend in Gibraltar, I should've spotted that! The original author's name is Júlio Reis, which sounds Iberian and might therefore explain the omission. I think the best bet would be to ask for assistance at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. Regards, —WFC— 17:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I sgree. Do you mind doing that - I think that you are more experienced in knowing how and who to approach. Davidships (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about changing your edit. You were right, of course!  :-) Amandajm (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

No probs Davidships (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

The source was Lloyd's Register. Now clarified in the article and ref'd. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

ONs were a sort of forerunner to IMO numbers. It wasn't just the UK and USA that used them though, other countries also had ONs, such as Italy, Denmark and Sweden to name a few. Do you have access to Gale News Vault (via library website)? You might be able to research the history a bit via that. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that ONs are still in use. Nowadays, a ship is identified by its IMO Number, as has been the case since the late 1960s. A ship may change name many times, but the IMO Number will always remain the same. The only other constant which could stand comparison is the builder's yard number. Mjroots (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

OK, I stand corrected re ONs. IMO Numbers only apply to vessels over a certain size, don't they? Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your guidance on information regarding ships IMO numbers, Way Numbers and Yard Numbers. I shall attend to my articles in order to correct them as and when time permits. Harvey Milligan 17:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Davidships. You have new messages at Talk:Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela.
Message added 17:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N2e (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nice work, any reason you're still using AfC? You should be able to create articles directly now, FYI. Have a great week!

Also, you'll probably want to go add categories to that article now.... again, thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 15:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Consuelo may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[HMS Sealark (1903)|Consuelo (steam yacht), later HMS ''Sealark''

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Generally, where ships need dabbing, the year of launch is used. Other methods are available, such as Pennant Number, ship type, rig, etc. Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Davidships. I am in the middle of creating 2 articles about Thames Barges 'The Cambria' and 'Edith May' ! Do you have any advise for me ? DavidAnstiss (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for your improvements to SS Telefon et al. It looks a lot better now. -Arb. (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

If I understand your edit summary correctly, you aren't able to find all of the colours you need for all of the houses. If that's the case, you can enter the hexidecimal codes for colours rather than the names; here is an HTML colour chart which gives you hundreds of possible colour options.

For medium violet red  , for example, you would format the template this way: {{colorbox|#C71585}} - be sure to add the hash (#) before the six-character hex code. Radiopathy •talk• 02:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I emailed the school, and they sent me the house colours, if you'd care to do the honours:

Davies / Red Edlmann / Dark Green Lester / Purple Staff / Yellow Townsend / Dark Blue William / Light Blue
Radiopathy •talk•

Whoops, I have reverted myself. Regards, GiantSnowman 08:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi David - judging from your interests and edits, you may find the latest Costa Concordia media kit helpful. You get it here from the popup. Its not the kind of stuff I write well, but I'd think you would. Thanks for your help with the parbuckling article. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 19:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Re this edit, and the one made to the Zeebrugge Raid article. I've no problem with the edits, but do you have a reference for the claim made in the edit summary? Please add the appropriate entry to the List of shipwrecks in October 1918. I've requested that the image be renamed at Commons. Mjroots (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Davidships, I am the author of the German article series about 'Kettenschifffahrt'. I have seen your talk at the discussion of the article. If you are interested in primary literature you can look at [1]. Here many free texts are listed and linked. At the bottom also English and French texts are listed.

Kind regards --Salino01 (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've started a discussion at WT:SHIPS, but messed the ping up so you won't have got a notification (unless you have the WP watchlisted). Your comments are solicited. Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Princess Royal (ship index), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.hawaiilibrary.net/article/whebn0000977801/hms%20princess%20royal.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Fleet of the Royal Canadian Navy page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Davidships, I have created the article Hooghly (1819 ship). Can you please aadd any information you may add to the article. Thank you Newm30 (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please see my message at Talk:Titanic_II. There is an ongoing edit war from new users and ISPs who make changes that the ship is under construction but don't provide any citations. My previous request for page protection was denied. You might be able to help. Blue Riband► 18:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Victoria (ship) page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

An article that you have been involved in editing—List of motor yachts by length —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 78.148.69.211 (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Davidships: This edit of yours shows a poor grasp of English grammar. In your edit summary you should have used "who" not "whom". Jodosma (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ahh.. a (somewhat) gracious grammarian! We could totally use your keen eye over here: Genie (feral child) - Wikipedia .. its a super depressing article, to be fair, but I'm noticing all sort of plurality noun/pronoun agreement issues and the like.

For @Davidships, I wanted to ask why there that mention of uhm .. Nancy Greenspan's access to some sort of classified files about Fuchs in the Fuchs bio. How does that add anything? If she has a bio, maybe it should be mentioned there. Maybe I'm not getting something though. Know Einstein (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

You named a reference in this edit, but did not supply it! Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ref name=JT1706 is the one. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Seems a clear copyvio to me. Tagged at Commons and removed from article. Mjroots (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi David, I think there's a problem with that template/include, because on Chrome mobile it isn't appearing. It just looks like an empty section. Dan100 (Talk) 19:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello David
I saw your note at WP:SHIPs about this (and I've replied over there); do you still have the problem of your template edit (regarding H&W) not showing on the page? It seems to be all right for me. I've found sometimes template edits take a while to come through, I don't know why. It may just be that. Anyway, my regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

A peculiar term from your edit on Fulgerul caught my eye. I did manage to find the page and term on Google Books, but it shows only the part of the page with the term, the name of the list but no elements. So please, do tell me, are there any more Romanian coastguard cruisers on that page? Can you give me their names please? And mention their armaments if you please? Torpilorul (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Jarvis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Jarvis (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that! Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

No probs - it may have been 1928 for Haida but I haven't yet found a confirmed launch date. Davidships (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is no exact launch date available, anywhere. In an article from 2010, the German "Private Wealth" magazine (http://www.privitera-brueggen.com/pdfs/PW_Maerz_2010.pdf , a magazine made for the richest 1% in German-speaking countries, which is/was distributed via banks, tax/management consulting firms and law firms, exclusively), detailed how luxury yacht charter was booming and that around 1,000 luxury yachts were up for charter worldwide (at the time). Haida was up for charter until around 2015, at least. Just like in other sources, the year 1929 is specified as year of construction. Looking at its size, I think it is safe to say that the ship was laid up in early 1929. With the German hyperinflation climaxing in 1923 and with the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty, German shipyards had very few orders from the German Navy and a pretty overseeable amount of international orders to process, and with so many shipyard workers being unemployed, many shipyards could pull plenty of resources to fulfil orders in double-quick time. Max C. Fleischmann's order was received and planned in (late?) 1928 and processed within the year 1929, most likely.

The "Private Wealth" magazine also stresses that the "giant fuel tank" enabled the ship to make a nonstop trip from San Francisco to Singapore. I've seen this detail in another German source before, but I can't find the link, atm. Maybe this detail should be mentioned in the article. The magazine also mentions the various name changes, from "Haida", "Sarina", "Rosenkavalier" (translates to "Knight of the Rose" or "Rose-Bearer") and "Dona Amelia" (owner no. 11, I guess).

An article in "Boat International" specifies 1929 as launch date: "Launched in 1929, this classic motor yacht has had 11 owners, saw service in the Second World War and had long been admired by owner No 12." (https://www.boatinternational.com/yachts/editorial-features/haida-1929-how-pendennis-restored-a-classic--38999).

The ship was overhauled from 2004 to 2005 and went through a major 16-month overhaul somewhere between 2015 and 2019, ordered by owner No. 12, where photos of the interior from 2018/2019 seem to suggest that - next to adding luxury furniture/upgrading the interior - the ship also received additional portholes (not in the BI article, there are articles around showing before/after pics of dining rooms and other spaces) and more windows. The ship/owner won an award for this last overhaul: Reporting about the "World Superyacht Awards" (London), the German news magazine "Der Spiegel" (comparable to the TIME magazine, I guess) listed the "best overhauled yachts" of 2019, with Haida ranked no. 1 in its photo gallery:

"Die Motorjacht wurde 1929 vom Stapel gelassen und war unter vielen Namen und Flaggen unterwegs ..." (translation: "The motoryacht was laid down in 1929 and was underway under many names and flags ... ", https://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/world-superyacht-awards-luxurioese-geschosse-fotostrecke-168793.html). GeeGee (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @GeeGee:, that is both interesting and helpful.

@Mjroots:, see above. I think that Boat International and Der Spiegel add up to sufficient RS to add 1929 as the launch year. Davidships (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

So I went to the article about the Suez Canal and noticed how it lacks info about its depth in the infobox. So I went to the infobox template's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_canal) to see which parameters corresponds to depth/"air draft" of the canal and accordingly there were only two parameters that are supposed to that data, and so I added them. Yes, their names as they appear on the infobox of the finalized article are highly confusing, I agree. But there are no other parameters that can represent that data, the infobox itself is the only infobox there is on Wikipedia to represent canals, so I've decided to leave them be, since otherwise we have no way to mention the depth and the "air draft" on the infobox at all.
I doubt too many people would be confused by this, because what can the current infobox be misread as? Would some people think only ships with the draft of over 20 meters are allowed to pass the Suez? I doubt it.
P.S. I think the confusing name owes it to the fact that the infobox tempalte was adapted from the inbfobox template for British Canals, created by Brits that uses British naval phrasemes Openlydialectic (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for diving in over the Lackawanna Railroad Fulton. I noticed in passing that this [2]Catherine Carroll, built 1921] was built for Carroll towing, makes me think that the Fulton was sold by Lackawanna Railroad to Tug Fulton Corp who then sold it to Carroll, or not? Hope you approved of my work on Dick Fulton Broichmore (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating George Fulton (disambiguation), Davidships! Wikipedia editor Bennv3771 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Do take note of MOS:DABPEOPLE.

To reply, leave a comment on Bennv3771's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Bennv3771 (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I just reviewed your article, Sister Anne (yacht), and noticed that you seem to be a prolific creator of good articles. As such, you may wish to apply for autopatrolled rights, to help cut down on the New Page Patrol backlog. You can check it out here. Xevus11 (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating Water Witch (1835 steamer). I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process. An interesting article To reply, leave a comment here and ping me. Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Cwmhiraeth:, and apologies for slow reply. This was written following a question raised here. In the light of that discussion, I wonder whether you think that the Captain Hayward article still stands up. I have added mention of the event to the South Eastern Railway, UK and Folkestone Harbour articles. Davidships (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I really have no opinion on that matter, you will have to go with the sources available and discuss anomalies with others who know about the subject. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Davidships (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sailing ship#Scope?, regarding what should be included in the article. You'll find a proposed outline, there. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Matthew hk. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Hongkong and Yaumati Ferry have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Please see WP:extlink and WP:reliable source. We don't use self-published source as citation nor it did not qualify as a legit entry for external link section. Matthew hk (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Moved from User talk:Matthew hk

Assumption of good faith doesn't sit well with your accusation of WP:LINKSPAM, which is entirely inappropriate. Nevertheless, I agree that the self-published Chinese-language ferryhistory website is not acceptable. So far as the The History of Hongkong and Yaumati Ferry Company Limited publication is concerned, although borderline under WP:RS, it is a valuable link, especially with the paucity of other available 3rd party on-subject sources, and of sufficient standing to be cited by the HK Government's Marine Department[3]. Note that almost the whole article lacks references (and the fleet table mostly copied from the unreferenced zh:油蔴地小輪), so I am trying to improve it a little. Davidships (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

level 1 warning is an AGF level warning. If neutral faith or deemed as vandalism, you should at WP:AIV instead. There is way many unsourced Hong Kong article, but adding those wordpress did not help either. Matthew hk (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Matthew hk: This is incomprehensible to me. Now I discover that I have a "Level 1 Warning", whatever that is. And apparently I am now a vandal as well as a spammer. It cannot be about the mere adding of an unacceptable self-published link, since I have already said that I agree with you (now highlighted above). You say "adding those wordpress" - there was only one. And I still have no idea which aspect of "Spam is the inappropriate addition of content to Wikipedia with the intention of promoting or publicizing an outside organization, individual or idea", I have committed. Oh well. Davidships (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Whatever, it would no longer AGF if you knew wikipedia is not accepting wordpress if you have read WP:extlink. So, please don't do that again. Matthew hk (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations for your work creating maritime-related articles, such as Vava II and Water Witch (1835 steamer). Being involved professionally with yachts large and small, I find them especially interesting. Well done. Carlstak (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, List of ships named Himalaya, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Discussion transferred to User talk:Mjroots#Red ensigns on British ships registered in India.

In the last days in possession of this supermajority, however, MAS parliamentarians used it  to make 20 changes to the constitution that formerly required a two-thirds majority to now require a simple majority, so that they could now be passed unopposed. Some opposition parliamentarians left the session in protest.[1][2][3][4] Opposition leader Carlos Mesa condemned the changes, saying "Authoritarianism, abuse and the submission of the Legislative Assembly continue".[5]

Should I put this in results, reactions or perhaps a new section for aftermath? I thought it was OK in the lead, because it effects what counts as a majority from a constitutional PoV so the usual lead material on majorities has changed definition. Perhaps an abbreviated version without the comments in the lead?Crmoorhead (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

In my view it belongs where I just put it - in "background" - as it was an action of the outgoing congress and not diretly part of the election process. It should be probably be explained in most detail in the article on the outgoing congress or the political crisis (but I am not touching those articles). The consequences of this change in the light of the election majority seem to be important, hence the brief mention under Results, and the consequent reference in the Lead, but any real effects are for the future and will no doubt come to be written about in relation to political/constitutional developments in the future. Davidships (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ah, thanks! I actually didn't notice you moved it to elsewhere on the page. I thought it was just gone. Yeah, I agree that it should't figure too much as the repercussions are outside of the election, but since it was part of the power transition it felt like something that was in limbo between the Anez and Arce governments. Thanks for the prompt reply. Crmoorhead (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

hi, could you make me a favour and kind gentle review all those ships ? Thanks... the guy removed the pic of ocean countess... so... Cruise & Maritime Voyages Regards and thanks... --90.186.219.85 (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can you not really give a touch in those =? MARCO POLO Manager "International Maritime Service Ltd, Fremantle, Australia" MAGELLAN changed owner 10.2020 to Wanda Services Ltd - manager Eaglepower Shipping Co, Limassol is a Seajets company. COLUMBUS for new owner Okoye Trading Ltd - manager Eaglepower Shipping Co, Limassol is a Seajets company.

welll Chistmas man thought being nicier to each other but up to u --90.186.219.85 (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I see you have reverted my revert. Although either the other ships hatnote or a redirect are acceptable by SHIPS MOS if you do not use the other ships hatnote this will result in the set index page becoming an orphan, also should a later ship (or an earlier unrecorded ship) be added to the SI page results in the linked pages presenting an incomplete record and requiring amendment. Even if you don't agree with the foregoing in this case the removal of the other ships hatnote was an unnecessary change and therefore should be reverted Lyndaship (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The prime (only?) purpose of such hatnotes is to help readers reach an article they seek as efficiently as possible; when the index has only two entries, both with articles, it is an unhelpful step (I accept that the list was properly created as, at the time, one was red-linked). In any case, following at least the logic of WP:ORP incoming hatnotes do not count - shipindexes should be orphans in the true sense. Whether there will ever be another Soryu is anyone's guess - there are no others in Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869-1945 (Jentschura, Jung & Miclel 1970/1977), Janes 1980, Miramar or Equasis. If, however, it does emerge, it can be dealt with as routine housekeeping at the time. All the merchant ships I can see are Soryu Maru

My apologies, Lyndaship, for late reply (had a Firefox crash yesterday); and for apparently misinterpreting WP:BRD from a "who does what" point of view. Davidships (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

No need to apologise, I know you are not one to ignore any message and that as soon as you saw it you would respond. You do have a point in that by linking to the set index rather than to the other ship of the same name any reader who wants to read about that ship is inconvenienced by having to click through two pages rather than going direct. However an orphan page would come up on the weekly list of errors if tagged as such (not that I have ever seen one so tagged). My preference is to use the other ships hatnote, as you probably noticed I set up and linked most of the Japanese SI pages that way and I do like consistency but in the light of your response I'll leave Soryu be Lyndaship (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Although individual redirects can work for two ther ships, they start to be confusing and intrusive, so I would normally limit the "specific" approach to where there are only two ships. As it is difficult to when a link to a SI would be needed from the body of a substantive article, I think that orphan tag should not be attached SIs (and that seems consistent with the thinking in WP:ORP. (I hunted high and low to find a third Soryu to neutralise the issue, but to no avail!) Davidships (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Re your change of ensign in the list of shipwrecks in November 1873, the Canadian red ensign page itself says in the "History" section, that the 1868 flag was used on land and at sea. It would therefore seem that the article contradicts the rationale you gave for the change. Please revert. Am happy to discuss this at WP level, would suggest the WP covering flags would be the best venue. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Mjroots That is a bit selective. Firstly it was "on an informal or extra-legal basis", and secondly there is no indication how widely it was used (but it is clear from the subsequent text that its use on land increased gradually); the reference given (in the Lead) says "...since the 1870s", so perhaps not widely used by 1873 anyway.

The ships in question were registered under MSA1854, and Section 105 is clear that a warrant was required for the Canadian variant, and that was not forthcoming until 1892. Until then it was illegal and subject to a very severe penalty - £500 fine, about £50,000 today - though clearly that was not widely enforced in Canada. We have no idea what actual ensign these ships flew in 1873, and I do not think we should insinuating that they did anything other than display the correct one.

If you think a wider discussion is warranted, WT:CANADA might well be a better forum as it is much more active; and also because the issue is about historic status/usage in Canada. Davidships (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, let's take this to WT:CANADA, we can notify other relevant WPs (flags, ships). I'm keen that the flags are correct, but am not sure that the Red Ensign is correct once the Dominion had been created from British North America. There's also the question of the Newfoundland Colony and its flag. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Mjroots Should I assume that you are not taking this question WT:CANADA for the time being? For my part I am in no doubt that the unadorned Red Ensign is correct as it was the only legally correct merchant ensign for ships registered in Canada under MSA1854 until 1892 (I also have no reason to doubt that some ships registered under MSA1854 did fly the Canadian variant before then, but that was unofficial and, strictly-speaking, illegal). You may recall this research paper by the Flag Institute from our previous discussion on the Indian Red Ensign. You will also see that Newfoundland received its Admiralty warrant for its own Red Ensign on 25 Oct 1918. Davidships (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've been giving this some thought. As the issue seems to affect more than one country, WT:HV would seem to be a better place to discuss. Other WPs can be alerted to the discussion. I'm nearly finished with the 1873 newspapers, which I hope to finish by tomorrow at the latest. Once that is done, I'll start a discussion. Mjroots (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's fine. I hope that we will be able to keep the discussion focused on the status of this flag as a maritime ensign. Davidships (talk) 08:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

As you are probably aware, I've started the discussion at WT:HV#Merchant ship flags of the British Empire. WPs SHIPS, Canada, India British Empire have been informed. Feel free to alert whatever other WPs you feel it relevant to notify. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I hope you are fine. I have provided 3 official reference. I hope this will help the article. Mr. SRS 00 always keeps reverting my edit. Neither he updates any information nor let me to add anything with references. I have been following his contributions for couple of days. He just edits 1/2 times a day just to revert my edits. I simply don't know what to do. Shariar 375 (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I hope you are fine. Thank you so much for your kind consideration on BNS Sangram. I need another help on BNS Abu Bakar (2014) to fix a spelling mistake. It will be Abu Bakr not Bakar. I'm providing official reference so that you can consider the situation. ^[1] Shariar 375 (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Shariar 375 As official source confirms that Bakr spelling is correct, I've changed the relevant articles. Davidships (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your kind consideration Shariar 375 (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The clarification request you filed has been closed and archived - you can view the permalink to see the outcome. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Firefly - thank you. The clarification was helpful. Davidships (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why keep? If it is thought necessary to keep, should be in the history section along with any earlier versions which are not used. Certainly shouldn't just be randomly plonked in the lead section. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Moved to history, with refs (thanks for your thanks). There was at least one earlier version (see the earliest of the added refs), but I have not found a usable version. Davidships (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Cheers Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The next time you do this, it's a trout! Mjroots (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello Davidships! Forgive me if you already know this, but the numeric reference names such as those you mentioned and changed in this edit to Bob Enyart are frequently automatically generated (i think it's the visual editor which does it, though i may be wrong), and the person doing it may not even have realised what happened. I come across them reasonably often when i'm semi-automatically editing and for a long time didn't know what caused them ~ that's the only reason i popped over to let you know, in case you didn't either. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks LindsayH - That's interesting, and news to me. Seems strange that the editing software should do something which which is contrary to WP's own guidelines. I'll ask about this. Personally I find these ":0"-type names really annoying when editing using an existing ref. Davidships (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Do we really need to say Courland Governorate, Russian Empire? We don't say, e.g. Nigeria Colony, British Empire do we? If people want to know more, it is only a click away. Another point is that I always pipe links to the Russian Empire as Russia, per COMMONNAME. Mjroots (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Mjroots - I would be more than happy with Courland Governorate, Russia. My only concern is not to leave readers with only an obscure indication of locale with no indication of what country it is in (between Riga and Hull there are many possibilities).Davidships (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm, tricky on this. We don't say "Egypt Eyalet, Ottoman Empire", do we? - I just use Egypt. I think this probably needs a discussion at Wikiproject level. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Discussion opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Handling linking to historic countries, where I have copied the above discussion over. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit confused about why this edit of mine was reverted as I was only clarifying the casualty of the crew and made no amendment to the cause of the sinking. You left an edit summary about the cause of the sinking but the EER citation was for the casualty. "All six crew members have since been safely accounted for, the Estonian foreign ministry says. None of the six were Estonian citizens, the ministry added." This is confirmed by other sources. 1 2 Just wanted to let you know my intentions before editing it in again. Rinbro (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Rinbro - Apologies, that was unintentional - it was the previous edit to yours which concerned me. Your text now restored.

No worries, we're both just trying to keep stuff up to date and accurate! Appreciate your help. Rinbro (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for your input on IMO number. I was tempted to re-edit or revert, on the following grounds, but as I see the reasons for your changes, and you seem to be better versed in maritime stuff than me, it makes sense to discuss here first.

- Re the 'Unnecessary verbage in caption' - granted, it may not be necessary, but it did provide in one place a simple demonstration of how this number remains the same despite other things changing. I'd argue there is some value in having such an example shown, particularly as this photograph and description does show the name changes quite clearly.

- Re 'owner/management IMO numbers are not "hull numbers"' - true, but the article's title is 'IMO number' and hence actually should include IMO Ship Numbers, Company Numbers and Registered Owner Numbers (see also e.g. https://ihsmarkit.com/products/imo-ship-company.html). Indeed, further down in the article ('Company and Registered Owner Regulation 2005') it discusses the latter two. So either the article's title should be changed to 'IMO ship number', or the introductory text should clarify that there are three types (with 'a type of hull number' only referring to one of them)... even though in common usage 'IMO number' might most often be understood to refer to the ship number.

Shall I leave it to you to edit further, with these points in mind? I don't want to do so only to have the changes reverted by you. Incidentally, the 'identifier for ships' could/should be linked to the article ship identifier too. Ozaru (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

{u|Ozaru}. Re Evangelia, it doesn't show what you say it does. The photo is a single snapshot and doesn't show whether that number had been changed or not (indeed, as the number is painted on a separate welded plate it raises questions). It would need a sequence of photos, with different names, to illustrate that point.

See the second sentence of the Lead re company numbers.

By all means link to ship identifier. Davidships (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

{u|Ozaru} - Examples can be useful to assist the reader to understand something. Which part of "The number identifies a ship and does not change when the ship's owner, country of registry (flag state) or name changes" is made clearer by the new following sentence?

As I will step back from editing this article for the time being, may I draw your attention to:

* WP:SHIPNAME#Using ship names in articles - ship names should be italicised

* MOS:LEAD - all that detail should be in the body of the article, and then summarised in the Lead section. Davidships (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I saw in your recent edits to the much-discussed trawler V206 that you changed the data for Roche to a second edition with a different ISBN. Can you confirm that a second edition has been published as there's no entry for the ISBN on Worldcat. And if so, where did you get it from?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sturmvogel 66 - Yes, I have a copy in front of me. It has "Edition 2013" on the title page and "©2013 JMR" with the revised ISBN, but no publisher stated (same for Vol I). I did see it the other day in a bibliographical list but I have not been able to find it again. I believe it to be published by the author, but I bought it several years ago, probably through NetMarine. Whether it really is a new edition, or just a reprint, I cannot tell (if it is confirmed as just a reprint, it would be probably be better to use the original ref details, I think). Davidships (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I believe that you're correct about it being self published. Perhaps he took the opportunity to correct mistakes before going back to the printer. I'm going to send you a couple of pages that I copied so you can check them against your copy if you'd be so kind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

A French reviewer on Amazon praised the book, but he also pointed out that it "would deserve some errata" index, means a list of printing/typing/factual errors and subsequent corrections, in 2016, referring to the original edition. The same year, another French reviewer remarked that the author provided his email address in the first edition, but complains that messages are not answered by the author, so publishing a revision would make sense. Amazon and Abebook do not mention a publisher for Volume II, iirc. The German search engine for new/second-hand books, eurobuch.com, has Volume I listed under ISBN-10 2952591709 and ISBN-13 9782952591706 and as self-published in 2005, Abebooks lists Volume I as "Auto-edition, 2005" (self-published) and under the same ISBNs. Abebook indicates "Jean-Michel Roche, 2019" as publisher for his book "Commandants, états-majors et activité des bâtiments de la Marine française - Tome 1 - 1661-1689", so it doesn't look like he ever got a publisher for his works, which is quite sad, as even public/university libraries in several countries hold copies of this brilliant piece. GeeGee (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks GeeGee, that's helpful. I couldn't see any changes between the couple of pages that Sturmvogel 66 emailed me adn my copy. But it would be "looking for a needle in a haystack" even with 2 editions side-by-side. There are certainly errors in the 2013 edition (which may well of course be errors in Roche's sources, rather than introduced by him). If we knew what comments on the original edition the French reviewer had emailed him, it would be possible to check more easily. Davidships (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's possible that Roche never received the email, as the address could have been valid in 2005 but obsolete/abandoned by 2016. The 2013 edition may contain a more recent addy, maybe you could contact the author to gather if it's a revision or just a reprint? One reason for having it reprinted may be the fact that the volumes of the first edition are sold by second-hand/antiquarian book shops for 150 Euros each (and more), as they rate it as standard work (which it is) and as they know that there aren't many copies in circulation. If I am not mistaken, the original price was ~78 Euros per volume in 2005 (I've seen that price tag in a list somewhere once, but I can't remember where), so it's possible that Roche just ordered a reprint to a) meet the demand and/or b) to dry up parts of the secondary market trades and direct funds to his pocket, without conducting a full/partial revision. :) GeeGee (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have only just realised that on 18 November 2020 you erased all the material I had added to SS Tuscania (1921), only six hours after I added it. Why? What is it about correctly-referenced information about a the subject of an article that it must be swiftly deleted from Wikipedia?

Six months later, on 23 May 2021, you reinstated only some of that information. Material still missing, 19 months after you deleted it, includes her code letters, various maritime call signs, wartime pennant number, Second World War nickname, and the fact that she belonged specifically to the Ministry of War Transport, not just "British Government". You have reinstated her official number, but not put it back in her infobox. You have changed the order of the infobox so that it is now partly asequential. I chose the infobox format that I did in order to keep it as compact as possible, and for entries to be historically sequential.

You have not reinstated the fact that in 1925 there was a collision between Tuscania and Rochambeau in New York harbor. The damage to Rochambeau was assessed at $100,000. This is a significant event in Tuscania's history.

Even after I expanded the article, I left the introduction too short. But at least it included all her names. This is essential for any reader navigating Wikipedia who is looking for her under her later names of Nea Hellas and New York. You have made the introduction even shorter, leaving out much of the information that it should include.

One item that you did reinstate was a Blue Ensign in her infobox. What is your source to verify that she flew one?

I note also that there is a discrepancy between her passenger capacity as stated in the text (which has a reference) and stated in her infobox. If she was passenger capacity was changed in a refit, this should be properly referenced.

Thankyou, Motacilla (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Motacilla: Just a quick acknowledgement - it seems strange, and I will have a proper look later on today. Davidships (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Motacilla: Very peculiar, I am afraid, and certainly not intentional. It seems that, somehow, I inadvertently used my earlier version of 30 July, rather than the then current version, to make what was a small amendment. I am very sorry about that. Unless you prefer that I keep my clumsy fingers off this, I am happy to work through your version of 18 Nov 2020, adding back the missing material, in the light of later editing. Just let me know whether that will be OK with you. Again, my apologies for being so careless. Davidships (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou for your message and kind offer. I apologise for taking a few days to reply. I have put Tuscania on my "to do" list, and I will re-work the article in the near future. Motacilla (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Motacilla: OK - thanks for your understanding. Davidships (talk) 08:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Would you like to have another go? Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Mjroots for the heads-up. I suppose that I must have left it too long to save, and the session-data was lost (except that the intended change was made to the ship entry itself). Davidships (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Given your interest in the subject area, you might want to take a look at this ongoing AFD. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

You mentioned LR1969 at WT:SHIPS. The last one we have at WP:SHIPS/R is 1960. Are you able to add links to any later registers? Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You can update that table somewhat from Lloyd's Register of Ships Online Latest currently available is 1994, but note that there some missing years or some missing volumes for a given year. I think that they have already scanned more and are still adding further volumes from time-to-time, so worth rechecking every now-and-again - maybe add that portal to the resources page.

Also, I notice that the resources page lists the American Lloyd's (AL) available on the Mystic Seaport website, but not the Record of American and Foreign Shipping 1900 which has the advantage of covering up to 1900, and accessible on the same [search page, along with 1857-1858 New-York Marine Register, which was the immediate predecessor of AL.

Google Books also have at least 12 years of the RINA register in the range 1916-1938. Davidships (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Davidships: Wow. Many thanks. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Acad Ronin That's kind. It was a bit of an experiment to see whether something substantial enough would emerge, but it didn't, as I have kind-of-said on the AfD page. Davidships (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

No worries; I agree. It should end up a merge, which it was almost certainly going to anyway. Still, I really liked how you took the stuff from the shipbox and put it into the text. In the meantime, I am working on the Hibberts. I have already put up George Hibbert (1803 ship), which I am almost certain is not the one on the gate. The one on the gate is almost surely Hibbert (ship)#Hibberts (1784 ship). I have found a great secondary source that discusses a complex case arising out of the second (of three) times that she was captured. That, and Broichmore's picture, should tip her into WP Notability territory. Still, I will look for a little more. Nothing urgent though. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

For "merge" outcomes how much do you think can put into a Constantia (ship), without it no longer being a list article (or looking grossly unbalanced? Davidships (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Without the shipbox, the Lloyd's Register boxes, and the headings, the actual text usually compresses into a paragraph. The other vessels in Constantia (ship) already have paragraphs, though shorter ones. For an example of what not to do, see Woodman (ship); not what I would have done and something I am going to have to fix. Also, the ship page is a shipindex, which is close to a list, but I think not quite the same thing. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Shedden is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Shedden until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello Davidships,

Since you edited part of the Thala Dan page, can you help in italicizing the title to Thala Dan? I tried to do it using DISPLAYTITLE, but without any success.

Pepys (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Done - Davidships (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! This is tricky that the infobox caption interferes with the page title.

Pepys (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, List of ships named Buccaneer, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dylan | ✉ | ✓  21:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

  An article that you have been involved in editing—Maersk Hangzhou—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Much appreciated. Thanks - Davidships (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Maersk Hangzhou has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Hi, I see you have made the fleet lits sortable. I'm not sure this is much use, the first column is already in alphabetical order, sorting will merely bring the single motor vessel to the top of the list. Sorting on the next two columns will produce useful results but sorting on the notes column will just produce a jumble of results. Is there a way of exluding the first and last columns from being sorted? Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm already resolving the MV problem. The notes column can be ignored, that's common with sortable tables. The important thing is to able to sort by age of ship and by joining of company fleet. Thanks though. - Davidships (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Murgatroyd49:. Found how to remove a column from sorting! - Davidships (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good news must see how it's done. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Djong (ship) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discus sion page. Thank you.

Talk:Djong (ship) on a "History and geography" request for comment-- Merzostin (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for my mistake. I was looking for details of the novel, which had been removed, and I must have clicked on the edit tab for the older version. Thank you for restoring. PearlyGigs (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PearlyGigs: - Thanks for coming back to me. No probs. I've done that too.- Davidships (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You forgot to sign over at the composers group talk! I see your point about resolving Haydn (as I suggested) but these thing can take an age and other things can be done at the same time. Hope you are well! — Iadmc♫^talk  14:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear David, many thanks for your contribution and apologies for not having explored the subject sufficiently on my own ! Greetings from France ! Mitchosaure (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem Mitchosaure - we are all on learning-curves! - Davidships (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply