Talk:HMS Calliope (1884)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Promotion to admiral
From the gazette records, it doesn't appear that Kane was promtoed rear-admiral until 1897, London Gazette: no. 26924, page 7854, 31 December 1897., so I've deleted mention of this as it doesn't seem likely that this was as a result of his actions on Calliope. I've also separated out the two references from one footnote, as it seems much clearer that way. David Underdown (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I took the point from page 102 of this book. It does not specifically say that the promotion directly resulted from the incident, so I have modified the text to make a general statement. The book would be useful for an article on Kane, should anyone wish to add it. Kablammo (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's better. The book does seem to overstate things somewhat, also saying he was knighted - he was but not until after his retirement in 1911, and you note elsewhere the fact that the book says the Calliope was barque rigged whilst photos appear ship-rigged. On a tangent, I see you seem to prefer combining notes, whereas the more common approach seems to be to list separate sources each in their own note. I did split one such compound note earlier, but perhaps a decision should be made on a conistent style. David Underdown (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sourcing formats are a matter of personal preference, and there is no preferred one. I have put sources and footnotes in separate sections, which works well for footnotes with text, as here. It also is better for specific page cites; the practice of multiple uses of a footnote for a single source, when that source may be hundreds of pages long, makes it much more difficult to fact-check the text against the reference. And finally, it avoids having a string of numbers for multiple footnotes after a proposition. If it is felt that separate footnotes after each clause is clearer, rather than end-of-sentence citations (as present fn 29), I have no strong objection, but I dislike strings of footnotes for the same proposition.
- Thank you for your help on this article. Kablammo (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's better. The book does seem to overstate things somewhat, also saying he was knighted - he was but not until after his retirement in 1911, and you note elsewhere the fact that the book says the Calliope was barque rigged whilst photos appear ship-rigged. On a tangent, I see you seem to prefer combining notes, whereas the more common approach seems to be to list separate sources each in their own note. I did split one such compound note earlier, but perhaps a decision should be made on a conistent style. David Underdown (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wheel
The article mentions that Calliope's wheel was given to Samoa. According to this site, it now resides in the National Maritime Museum, New Zealand. The claim appears to be authentic (and shows a picture of a single wheel, whereas a contemporaneous photograph shows a doubled wheel) but the website likely would not meet the requirements of a reliable source, and the Museum's website is scanty on the contents of its collections. If anyone can confirm this with a reliable source it would be appreciated; a PD-photograph from a Wikipedian in Auckland would also be useful. Kablammo (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)