Talk:Dover Patrol

Copyright Violation?

I beleive that the latter three paragraphs of this article are copies, almost verbatim, of material on the reference site: "http://www.dover-kent.co.uk/history/ww1a_dover_patrol.htm", that is currently marked "© 2000 - 2010 www.dover-kent.co.uk". The bulk of the article thus appears to have been in breach of copyright since first creation in June 2007.

I'm surprised that no one has noticed this before so perhaps I've missed some agreement that the source material can be used in this way? If this is not the case, then I suspect that the article ought to be flagged for rapid deletion on these grounds but not knowing the procedure for this, I propose instead to rewrite the article with material extracted (but not copied) from other sources.

Comments? Inspeximus (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly appear to be a copyvio - the Wayback Machine proves that. Somewhat sneaky of the semi-retired user in question, but I'm assuming that he copied in good faith, intending to return to expand the article at some point and just forgot about it. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 20:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the material in question, it wasn't worth copying anyway. The words "poetic tripe" come to mind. The "Tribals" were only a part of the Sixth Destroyer Flotilla which was transferred to Dover from Portsmouth in 1914: there were already what the writer harshly describes as "near obsolete" destroyers of the "B" and "C" class in the flotilla - altogether it numbered 18 destroyers at the beginning of the war and a month later it numbered 24. At any rate, from the first day of the war what the relevant Naval Staff Monograph calls the "Dover Flotilla" wasn't composed of a "nucleus" of destroyers. It also comprised the Third and Fourth Submarine Flotillas, and was expected to work with two French submarine flotillas at Calais and Boulogne and the vessels of the Défense Mobile. Hardly a "fledgeling Dover Patrol" at all. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 21:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

New draft Article in User Space

A completely fresh draft of this article (apart from the final Memorial paragraph which still needs expanding) is offered at User_talk:Inspeximus/Dover_Patrol for comment. All references are unfortunately from a single and partial source, the two volumes of the work entitled "Dover Patrol 19150-1917" by Sir Reginald Bacon, which I've tried to handle appropriately.

I'm aware that the role of the force needs to be extended, as does the section on the operations; notably in the context of the raids on Ostende and Zeebrugge in 1918. No doubt a whole host of other improvements, additions, correction and deletions are also required. At best I hope that this might be considered as the basis for a starter replacement article, at worst that it might at least stimulate a debate as to what a replacement article might look like.

N.B. References have not yet been converted to Wikipedia format, neither have any wiki-links been applied as yet.

Feedback welcome. Inspeximus (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dover Patrol. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070615092848/http://www.dover-kent.co.uk/history/ww1a_dover_patrol.htm to http://www.dover-kent.co.uk/history/ww1a_dover_patrol.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Useful source?

This reference might be of assistance to this article:
Welch, Eamonn (2 January 2019). "The Operational Impact of the Loss of HMS Paragon in the Straits of Dover, 17 March 1917". The Mariner's Mirror. 105 (1): 60–80. doi:10.1080/00253359.2019.1553920.
The paper gives a brief summary of the purposes of the Dover Patrol, going into more detail on the net and mine barrage than we see in this article.

The main thrust of the article focuses on the point when the RN had lost the initiative in the Straits of Dover and discusses the failings that gave rise to that. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Referencing system

I am a little puzzled as to the reason for the partial shift to short citations by User:Keith-264. How does this fit with WP:CITEVAR? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't, if you prefer the original system I can put it back. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I have no preference either way, but half and half just seems a bit messy. Of course, others might have opinions, so don't just go on what I say. I only asked because of the grief I have received on broadly similar changes. The only thing I have an opinion on is the heading "Footnotes", where I prefer "References", with "Footnotes" being reserved for explanatory footnotes. But that is only relevant where explanatory footnotes exist. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)