User talk:Bcooke99

External images
External images
	Contemporary Banks dories.
	The Fog Warning by Winslow Homer

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Bcooke99, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Swampscott dory. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Geronimo20 (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swampscott dory

Thank you for your comments on the Swampscott dory. I don't think anyone around here knows much about them. You would be very welcome if you would like to have a go at expanding and improving the article. The various dory articles are rather scrappy and slight, and I have been considering merging them into one article. Have you any thoughts on that? --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dories

Yes, that's starting to shape up. Perhaps the end of the first paragraph is getting a little peacock. You could just say "well adapted" instead of "extremely well adapted". And do you really mean their "ultimate stability... is second to none"?

Sometimes you can get some useful pointers by looking at google counts. For example:

Banks dory: 7,670
Beach dory: 472
River dory: 4,730
McKenzie River dory: 40
Swampscott dory: 3,530
Gloucester dory: 482
Cape Ann dory: 44

These suggest the McKenzie River dory and the Cape Ann dory don't even rate a mention, let alone whole articles. I think we should wipe them. This site claims that the Cape Ann Dory is the same as the Gloucester dory, but cites no sources. The site also claims the Swampscott dory is a descendant of the Banks dory. You have to be cautious looking at uncited web entries on dories. The information might even have come from Wikipedia, and we know Wikipedia is unreliable on dories. This site also has a some interesting snippets – eg,"The name dory may have come from a redfish, John Dory Fish, found in Nova Scotia" – but no sources.

I have formatted the references into a more standard style. You should also give the ISBN numbers of the books. Cheers. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the local insight you have into some of the confusion about dory names is useful, and perhaps you could work that into the article itself. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well done. I am going to copyedit the article to bring it more in line with Wikipedia style guidelines, and add categories, templates, and so on. This will also include restoring a few bits and bobbles from the previous article. Please tell me if you are unhappy about any of the changes. (Bye the way, there is no need to sign an article (signing is used only after you make comments on talk pages). --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banks dory

Did you really meant to remove this stuff from Banks dory?

They would usually set out from a mother ship, such as the barquentine Gazela Primeiro, in the morning and return by sunset with the day's catch.

...and these images:

What are your reasons for these removals? I added that stuff myself, and it seems relevant and interesting to me. You may doubt Winslow Homer painting, but attributions almost always refer to a banks dory, and you have cited no reasons for your doubts. The painting is still an interesting one. Why would you remove it??? --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... I see you did give some reasons on the articles talk page. The point about the Gazela Primeiro is that there is a whole Wikipedia article on it, with a photo, how can you say it is unreferenced?. It was indisputably a mother ship to Banks dories. Just because most of the others may have been schooners doesn't alter that (you can make that point in the article). --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2008

Yes, you were right that the Gazela was not properly referenced. I've added in the references it draws on. We do talk about "tinnies" down under. While I don't really know anything about dories, I did help a friend build an 18 foot, half decked boat that he calls a dory. We still fish far offshore in it, and were caught in a big storm one night. I must say it is horribly "tippy". I'm no purist, and in rough waters I prefer a rigid hull inflatable. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations

Just a wee point about inline citations . When you cite an author that has more than one publication, such as Gardner on the dory page, you need to include the publication date in the citation to make it clear which source you are referring to. Thus instead of Gardner p.225 it should be Gardner 1987, p.225 or Gardner 1996, p.225. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing

Hello Bcooke99! I noticed your contributions to Dory, and thought you might be interested in WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing.

If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Geronimo20 (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying out our new "invite" template! --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]