Talk:HMS Howe (1805)

Royal Navy Service section, ref to National Maritime Museum needs help

I just marked the citation to the National Maritime Museum as a dead link. It is not a pdf. Instead it is the general link to that museum, with no information on this ship or its voyages. I tried to find an updated link, but had no success. I did find a page about the warship histories explaining how delicate the microfilms are now, but still nothing to match the specificity of the id number for this ship, and being in volume i or Volume I. Can anyone find the pdf desired? Or otherwise update the link. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, the NMM no longer maintains the database nor makes it accessible. This problem will require someone with Wayback Machine skills to deal with. Acad Ronin (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, we wait for that fantastic bot to come around and find the old page. Thanks for the explanation. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Howe (1805). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110802041558/http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/pdf/Warship_Histories_Vessels_i.pdf to http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/pdf/Warship_Histories_Vessels_i.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I checked the rescued reference. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography

Acad Ronin This title is correct for the list of full length citations. References is the title for the section using the Reflist template, and having short refs. I know that the millions of Wikipedia articles are not consistent even in format, but I offer examples of articles using those terms. The book titles are not italicized because I am writing on my phone, which does not offer the marks for italics. See as an example the article about the novel David Copperfield by Charles Dickens. Sources that are not books are grouped and sub-titled under the main section Bibliography. The article on Persuasion (novel) uses the same approach, with short formats and a Bibliography section. The article on Charles Dickens uses the short ref/long ref method, with all the long refs headed Bibliography, and not sorted as to Books or other sources like news articles. The article on author Patrick O’Brian uses this method, References and the a Bibliography section, using some short refs in the References section. The article on his 1969 novel Master and Commander uses this same method and section titles. The article about the Chesapeake–Leopard affair also uses these section titles, with a Further reading section for items not directly cited in the text. The article about HMS Leopard (1790) uses these headings and short refs. The article about a more recent book, The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint Exupéry uses Sources as the title of the list of full-length references for the short refs in References. - - Prairieplant (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)