Talk:Sinking of SS Princess Alice

message: AnaWitts, Could you please stop edit warring, as has been requested several times, both here and on your talk page. I have given two reasons already: 1. This isn't a source; 2. it falls into the bracket of trivia to some extent. It is also not linked to a reliable third-party source, but as it is of dubious notability, it probably not worth including anyway. I have no doubt someone else will remove it on any of the above grounds, and I strongly advise you to discuss if this should be included, rather than edit war. I also advise that you should read WP:BRD and WP:STATUS QUO. - SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: I haven't edited this sentence as I cannot view the 1878 Manchester Guardian article to see what it says. However, Erith would surely have been within the jurisdiction of Carttar. I found another article (Dundee Courier, 6 September 1878, p. 6) where the proceedings were reported and I think that when Carttar said that he was unsure whether some bodies were within his jurisdiction he must have been referring to bodies landed at or near North Woolwich (an exclave of Kent at that time). Some of these bodies might have been just over the border into Essex. Erith was in Kent at that time and nowhere near any border that would have affected jurisdiction of the coroner for West Kent, at least as far as I can tell. Dubmill (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether the refs give any clarification, but on the highly tidal river some bodies are likely to have been recovered during following days at some distance from the scene. Davidships (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erith and jurisdiction of coroner for West Kent 

message: It is stated in an image caption in Halliday’s The Great Stink that SS Bazalgette was withdrawn only in 1998, but this seems dubious to me. Looking at the photo, I found it hard to imagine that such an antiquated-looking vessel could have remained in service disposing of sewage sludge from the 1880s to 1998, which is over a hundred years (albeit with a refit in 1922). I did some Googling but could find only what appear to be repetitions of what is stated in the Halliday book. Surely there would have been a contemporary news report about such an old ship finally being withdrawn (i.e. in 1998), or photos from the 1960s–1990s of the boat either in port or on the Thames?
I have altered the wording to say that the practice of dumping sewage sludge in the North Sea ceased in 1998. This is mentioned in various sources, including the body text of Halliday (on the same page as the photo of the Bazalgette), so the existing Halliday citation works for this. The following links support the idea that the boats in service at that time did not include the Bazalgette:
New Scientist, 19 November 1987 ('Today, weather permitting, four boats will head down the River Thames towards the North Sea. These are the motor vessels Bexley, Hounslow, Newham and Thames ... Each vessel can carry 2300 tonnes of sewage sludge from East London’s sewage works.')
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mxyJfJnVy04C&pg=PA57&dq=%22Bovril+boats%22+%22Thames%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiN1smMt5HgAhWZRBUIHXIGDV4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22Bovril%20boats%22%20%22Thames%22&f=false
Marine Treatment of Sewage and Sludge: Proceedings of the Conference, Institution of Civil Engineers, 1987 (In a section headed 'PRESENT OPERATION' it says: 'Four sludge vessels undertake a combined operation from Beckton and Crossness to the Barrow Deep disposal site ... in the outer Thames estuary.' It goes on to say: 'The three older vessels, MV Newham, MV Bexley and MV Hounslow, can carry 2300 tonnes. The newest of the fleet, MV Thames, can carry 2600 tonnes.')
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Bcxq2gjSGZ0C&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=%22MV+Bexley%22+%22Thames%22&source=bl&ots=lc6DJgUvXK&sig=ACfU3U2ZS53_6y0vx_zgcGtFmCFuC1PbkQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiGmYO0tpHgAhWEsnEKHTXxDi4Q6AEwAHoECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=Bazalgette&f=false
Dubmill (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is something I looked into when I re-wrote the Great Stink article: ,  and  are all published sources. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what anyone believes may or may not be true, it's what the reliable sources state. - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's moot now as the article's been revised, but for the record only one of those sources asserted that the same ship was still in service - the other(s) didn't (they are duplicates). Davidships (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Are the two sources I mention not reliable sources too? Do they not list the fleet of sludge boats in use on the Thames in 1987? Surely it is necessary to evaluate various sources and use judgement as to which to use. Do you personally think it is likely that a ship which looks like a museum piece could still have been working in 1998? When the sources conflict, creating at the very least doubt, in my opinion it is better to be conservative and in this case simply state that the practice ceased in 1998. Dubmill (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What I "personally think" is neither here nor there: we have reported what the weight of reliable sources say. - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Miramar which is a reliable source gives that she was broken up in 1933. Behind a paywall but you can get a free 7 day ticket if you want to check https://www.miramarshipindex.nz/ship/1094298 Lyndaship (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Lyndaship - a reliable source that doesn't just miss it off a list, but states exactly what happened to it. I'll tweak accordingly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  SS Bazalgette 

message: The collision took place within sight of a Powder Magazine, formerly HMS Talbot (1824). https://www.fold3.com/image/293580251 Reference Broichmore (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Powder Magazine 

message: Hi , thanks for another fine article. I have a question... Carttar "focussed his proceedings on William Beechley, the first body to have been positively identified..." The verdict though, spells his name "death of the said William Beachey". Lock has ""45-year-old William Beechey" and "centre the whole case on Wiliam Beechey" (no L), but also quotes verdict "Beachey". Lock's index has "Beechey (Beachey), William". Thames Police Museum quotes the verdict with  "Beachy". Does article need a note re various spellings? JennyOz (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , yes, probably! I'll go over the sources again to see if there is something useful they have to say about it and pop it in tomorrow. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Now added: Lock has something very brief, but it's good enough to cover what we say. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you . JennyOz (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note needed? 

message: In Sinking_of_SS_Princess_Alice#3_September_1878, the phrasing "Harrison was unfamiliar with the conditions, so employed Christopher Dix ..." sounds awkward. I can see either "..., and so employed", or "..., so he employed", but as it stands I'm not sure it's grammatical. Even if it is, just by being unusual it made the text harder to read for me, and I would expect at least a few others. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9, do you have a reason for reverting (that part of) my edit? Semlet (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It's written in clear English that is clear, obvious and grammatically correct (none of the reviewers who went over the article with a fine-tooth comb for the PR and FAC flagged up a query, let alone a concern. I don't see anything awkward about it, but the additional words in there make it all rather clunky to read. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not actually all that clear to me. The footnote clarifies that Dix was employed specifically for that trip, not just employed in general, which was not obvious to me from the main text. As for the pronoun, surely adding just the word "he" wouldn't make it less clear, obvious, or grammatically correct? If it would make it more so for even a few people, shouldn't it be done? Semlet (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We cover the point nicely enough without any unnecessary changes. Sure, it doesn’t make it less clear, but it doesn’t make it any more clear, just clunky. Less is more, just as Orwell advised. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:DB:F2BE:4807:9420 (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: The redlink for  has twice been removed by IP editors. I did revert one removal, so in order to avoid an edit war I'm invoking the D part of WP:BRD.
The link has been removed on the grounds that the ship isn't notable enough to sustain an article. I say that she is. We know that she was built in 1870. Apart from her involvement in the Princess Alice disaster, she went missing in January 1883. Her name is sufficiently uncommon that it should be able to discover her history during her thirteen years of service. So, the question is should the redlink be restored? Mjroots (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi . When I did the research for the article there was virtually nothing available about the ship. She was a coal hauler that had a rather boring existence except the two events of the Princess Alice and being sunk in a storm. That's it, as far as all the sources I saw. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but it would probably be best to do the research to see what there is before the links are re-added. Cheers - and I hope you're keeping well. The editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Tynebuiltships has a page on her. Mjroots (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So does the Miramar Ship Index (with pretty much the same information), but I'm not sure that's not enough for an article. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:11F2:723B:CAC4:ABD9 (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

text: Bywell Castle is called a collier here, but according to  she also carried loads like cotton, beans and cotton seed. So, wouldn't "bulk carrier“ be more accurate? --Jossi (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No. She was a collier at the time of the crash. This is also a reflection of the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Redlink for Bywell Castle

message: @SchroCat you reverted my good faith edits - I think the point about the RNLI lifeboats are worth including - that they were not introduced to the river until 2002 seems relevant in a section marked "Consequences and later events" with wording about "avoid[ing] future tragedies". Even noting that Lifeboats were not consequently introduced on the river would be relevant, imo.
(I'm aware that the Marchioness is unrelated to this event, that was merely background info to the lifeboat introduction - although I do think it's worth noting that the subsequent disaster on the river was because of a collision between two vessels...) Turini2 (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s a gap of 124 years and no connection between the two. If the RNLI had said ‘because of Marchioness and Alice, we’re installing a station’, that’s one thing, but not everything that happens after something is connected. - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RNLI lifeboats  

message: : despite the article's FA status, due to good work by many editors including yourself, it was still jumbled, particularly with respect to the High Court action. I made a set of changes to remedy these things and gave reasons for the main changes. You reverted the whole bunch, calling that just a 're-sort'; no indication of why you thought my changes were mistaken.
Now you have re-reverted me, complaining:  "Dummy edit: if you could use the talk page to explain the changes, that may be beneficial. Structural changes to an FA need better explanation than already provided, or - ideally - a discussion before doing them". What is a 'better explanation' is a matter of opinion, but I would appreciate an expression of opinion on the appropriateness of my changes. Errantios (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Errantios, The problem is that you didn't give a reason in your edit summaries for why you were making the changes and what you were trying to achieve. They simply describe what you did, which isn't an explanation. In your edit summaries it was completely unclear what you were doing with "Mansion House fund clarified", "High Court action distinguished" and "added High Court finding", except with the last of the three. Could you explain the rationale behind the edits - hopefully we can come to an agreement on what would be best changed and what left alone? Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have followed WP:ES as I understand itthat an edit summary should state what the edit is about and that no more is needed if the reason for the edit is evident from the edit itself. You have not followed WP:ES where it says: "Editors should not revert an otherwise good edit because of a missing or confusing edit summary". I will leave this here: if my edits were useful, someone else can now make them. Errantios (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Helpful summaries explain, and the changes across a stretch of the article need explanation (you can take this that the reason for the edits were not evident for me and the question of whether they were "good" edits or not is not clear without an explanation). If you could please explain the rationale, then we can discuss further. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes