Talk:HMS Waterwitch (1892)

Split

This namespace needs to be a dab page for a shipindex of HMS Waterwitches. Emoscopes ^Talk 01:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Photoreq

Quite right - photoreq removed. Shem (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct Information Provided?

Comparing pictures it is possible that HMS Waterwitch was The Lancashire Witch launched by Robert Steele & Company, Cartsburn, Yard No 107, on 29/8/1878, as the wooden Steam Yacht Lancashire Witch for Sir T G F Hesketh. This was owned in 1886 to 1892/3 by the James family who were members of the Royal Yacht Squadron (see Sidney Mail May 24 1890 pp. 1165 "Sailing Notes" Para 2 ). This vessel had many trips to various parts of the world (including round the world) whilst in private hands and many adventures so would have been a proven vessel for the navy to take over. This seems more probable than navy wanting The White Lady (Ladye). Sidpickle (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Disputed section added 18/1/13 because the Langtry connection appears to be a myth perhaps started many years ago and now difficult to erase. Therefore, it may be of benefit to leave the disputed section and argument in place in order to provide the evidence against the myth.

Sidpickle (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

May be worth starting an article on The White Ladye and just include a cross reference from this article to it. That would tidy things up. Sidpickle (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Destruction of this article under the misguided addition of non-notable information

This article has been seriously damaged by the indiscriminate addition of information largely, it seems, on the basis that it exists. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information - see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I understand that many hours have been spent here, and that the work has been with the best of intentions, but this is irrelevant and unfortunate. I advise the contributors responsible to have a read of Wikipedia policy (start with the link above) so that their hard work can help to move the project forward, not result in large-scale removal of their efforts. 2.101.37.82 (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr Talk

Do you have a log in for WIKIPEDIA? It would be easier to discuss if you had?

Noted your edits. At least we have got away from the WIKIPEDIA entry that stated Waterwitch was White Ladye that was a historical rewrite. Why have we still got entry information based on a postcard(4) that can now not be verified?

Have you looked at the article from the Korean Police magazine (7)? This is preferred over the report from United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO. Why?

Random entries for surveys have been left yet Vice-Admiral Archibald Day's log of chronological schedule deleted again baffling.

Also citations from newspapers preferred over information from Lloyd's register? Wikipedia has to be based on the best source available or not at all. Newspapers can only be used to back up source data not to act as fact.

Sidpickle (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no username on Wikipedia - I am an "IP", or anonymous editor. I find it helps me to make better edits.

When it comes to both newspapers & Lloyds register, have a read of WP:PRIMARY. But the basic point is not about the content of the article as it now stands; the problem is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a collection of random facts. By all means use the best references you can find, but don't just drop them into the text in toto - use them to reference the key points of the subject. Thus, it is indeed important that the White Ladye has been debunked (and I applaud your efforts here), but it is barely relevant in the text, and perhaps belongs to the talk page only. It is a key tenet of Wikipedia that this is not a place for original research.

When it comes to Archibald's log, by all means use it as a reference for a text that looks something like "Waterwitch was employed in such-and-such a place in 1897, surveyed so-and-so, and did something-or-other" - but don't drop the whole untidy mess into the text.

Good luck, and more power to your elbow - although perhaps best if your elbow is both powerful and well directed. 2.101.37.117 (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

And, just to show willing, I've had a go at the RN career between 1894 and 1912, using the Archibald Day reference you highlighted. I hope this helps. 2.101.37.117 (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr Anonymous

Thanks for the tidy up. I originally got involved with the article when I read that Waterwitch had been the White Ladye and the research and mass of data I put together was to disprove this. Not to have it properly researched would have laid us open to those that wanted to believe the story. The fact that Lancashire Witch had a most exciting life before joining the navy seems not to interest you. Shame as I am sure many readers would be interested but you seem to want to act as the arbitor. Why did the navy buy her? She was an oldish vessel but perhaps because she was such a proven craft under sail, covering great distances without the need to use coal? One example was the dash by Hesketh in her from the tip of South America to South Africa after the British defeat at Isandlwana. He went on to serve under Redvers Bullers, being involved with several cavalry engagements against the Zulus before rejoining the Witch to continue his world cruise.

Or was she purchased as a secret deal between Willie James and those in authority? He and his wife were part of the Marlborough House set and often hosted house parties with the Prince of Wales who was a great supporter of the navy. Conjecture agreed. I have contacted the archivist at West Dean to see if there was any history on the sale. No mention of the Witch going to auction but there is a good watercolour of her in full sail somewhere in West Dean House but they will not allow photographs. I also checked with the navy but they do not seem to be able to located the records. I do not think looking up records is "original research" but others may disagree.

Good to talk to you. We both seem interested in the subject which is positive although we are coming from different directions. Sidpickle (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Sid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.172.80 (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Sid, thanks for your comments, and I understand your points, but Wikipedia has a policy of no original research (because it is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source). I'm not an arbitrator, just someone who has a fair (but hardly infallible) understanding of the policy that guides what can and cannot go into these articles. Good luck with your contributions, and I hope you find an area you can contribute, while remembering the Wikipedia's core sourcing policy "verifiability, not truth". Yours, 2.101.39.88 (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

HMS Waterwitch (1893)

Does this article and everything associated with it in Commons need to be renamed "HMS Waterwitch (1893)". There are a plethora of "Waterwitch" and "Water witch" named ships on Wikipedia already without more confusion.BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HMS Waterwitch (1892). 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/20070927225353/http://www.gibbonsstampmonthly.com/storyprint.asp?sc=1396 to http://www.gibbonsstampmonthly.com/storyprint.asp?sc=1396

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

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) 01:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)