Talk:USS Glasgow

USS Glasgow

Who should I speak to regarding inaccuracies in the article re USS Glasgow please? *1quincey* (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Please detail your concerns here, just as you posted the question I'm answering. If possible, please give references to support your claims. Maproom (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for getting back to me. I realise, of course, the Wiki setup.

I am, however, still utterly confused. Every time I click on something that I assume will bring up a 'form' or online version thereof, that I can fill in with the relevant info, I am presented with pages and pages of things that seem to have no connection with what I am trying to do. All I seem to do is go round and round in circles. It appears to me that everything is made intentionally confusing! So what DO I do and where do I go, please? *1quincey* (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@*1quincey*, literally just type out your concerns here as a Reply on this page. There are no forms or other things to fill out and there are no other locations to go to, so I am not overly sure where you are being presented with pages and pages of new content. Follow these steps:

• Click one of the Reply buttons (feel free to reply to this message)
• Write out your concerns. It may be worth writing it up in for example Microsoft Word first and then copy and pasting it into the Reply text box, so that you don't loose it
• Click the blue Reply button at the bottom of the text input box.

Someone will then come along to hopefully address your concerns.

Let me know if you have any questions, Qcne (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm... can you provide and example of these "pages and pages of things that seem to have no connection with what I am trying to do"? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Right, here goes!

The article on the U.S.S. Glasgow has made the mistake of conflating two ships of the same name (Eugenie), both of which were, however, blockade runners.

The 'Eugenie' that eventually became U.S.S. Glasgow, was built at a shipyard at Keyport, New jersey, for a stock company, of Mobile, in 1862. She was named 'General Buckner' when she arrived at Nassau in April 1862. On taking Confederate registry, she was renamed 'Eugenie'.

On 6 May 1863 she was captured by the U.S.S. R.R.Cuyler, on her way from Havana to Mobile. Sold by a prize court, she was bought by the Union Navy and added to the fleet as U.S.S. Eugenie. She was renamed U.S.S. Glasgow on 21 Jan 1864. She remained in the navy until June 4 1869, when she was sold to private interests, as a merchant vessel. There is a contemporary drawing of her as 'Eugenie', which show her to have been a typical US sidewheel steamer, powered by a walking beam engine.

The OTHER 'Eugenie, was, as the article correctly states, built in 1861 at (Kingston upon) Hull on the east coast of Britain, for the South Eastern Railway, to run on their cross Channel route between Folkestone and Boulogne. She was a fast vessel and when the Confederate Bureau of Ordnance made the SER a good offer, they sold her, at a considerable profit!

'Eugenie' made a number of runs, but on 7 Sept 1863, she was intercepted by several Union gunboats off Wilmington. Under heavy fire, running at top speed, she ran aground under Fort Fisher, still under fire. The commander of the fort told Captain Fry to abandon ship, but he refused, telling his men that they could escape of they wish, but that he intended to save the ship. Most of the crew decided to stay and they managed to lighten her by dumping much of the cargo overboard. A rising tide then enabled them to get into harbour.

On inspection, it was realised that 'Eugenie' was badly damaged from the grounding. She was repaired at one of the private yards at Wilmington -there being no Govt facility there.

She was then sailed to Liverpool, via Nassau.

On arrival at Liverpool, she was drydocked and more permanent repairs carried out. She was also lengthened.

She seems to have sat around for a few years, but in 1869, she was purchased by the General Steam Navigation Co (the world's oldest deepwater steamship company, now part of P&O) who renamed her 'Hilda' and ran her on the River Thames as an excursion vessel from central London to resorts on the Kent coast, such as Margate and Ramsgate.

Sadly, I have not been able to find a single illustration of this 'Eugenie', but descriptions tell us that she was a typical British cross Channel ship, with two funnels and masts, fore and aft of her paddle boxes. She had a fine clipper bow. Altogether a very different style of vessel to the US built one, but similar to a great many other British built blockade runners.

References to their being two different vessels may be found in Stephen R. Wise' 'Lifeline of the Confederacy' pub, by the 'Univ. of Columbia Press' in 1988. Details of her career may be found in various publications on blockade runners. 2A00:23C5:DB29:5801:DA37:B77B:3DC:6400 (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, *1quincey*. Wikipedia doesn't have an editorial board, or even a staff. It has thousands and thousands of volunteer editors, who work on what they choose when they choose. Several of them have been trying to help you at the Teahouse, but we don't quite seem to be succeeding in communicating with each other.

Most interaction between editors is not private and one-to-one, but public, on pages like this one, and the Teahouse.

One of the basic operating principles is the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle: you followed that with your initial bold edit; but unfortunately you don't yet know enough about how Wikipedia works to make such a substantial edit without breaking things, so another editor reverted. The next stage is to discuss. If you present, here, your arguments about what changes you think ought to be made, and the reliable sources that you are basing your argument on, other editors will discuss them with you, with an aim to reaching a consensus of what ought to be changed. As somebody pointed out, it's quite likely that the outcome will be two separate articles about two separate ships; but creating a new article is not a task for the faint-hearted, so it will serve everybody well if you engage with other editors to reach that consensus. ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear! I go to the BRD, as recommended by yourself. There are all the explanations as to what do do (or not), but, once again, where is the point/form/whatever into/at which you actually PUT the information you have? This is what has been throwing me at every turn.

Please don't think I am having a go at you, because really I'm not, but is it beyond the realms of possibility for Wikipedia to have a 'How to edit articles' with a set of instructions as to how to go about doing this?

Rant over! To change the subject completely (pedant alert, flashing lights, sirens etc!) the County of Middlesex was actually done away wiv as long ago as 1889. In that year, the LCC was set up and most of what had been Middlesex was instantly converted into London Boroughs. All that survived -after a fashion, was that little nodule known as the borough of Spelthorne which, as you know, became part of Surrey in 1965. Considering that we managed to get rid of places like Croydon and Sutton at the same moment, I think it a case of 'fair exchange is no robbery'! Middlesex used to stretch from East & West 'am and Poplar, all the way north to -er Hertfordshire and Bucks at the other end. So never let an East Ham-er tell you that they are from Essex, 'cos they aint! *1quincey* (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra info, I'll try that tomorrow, when my blood pressure has subsided a bit! *1quincey* (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick note, there's a good guide on how to edit articles using the new Visual Editor here: Help:Introduction to editing with VisualEditor/1. Sorry you're having so much trouble with the UI and that it's causing stress. Qcne (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

*1quincey*, what does all of that stuff about governmental reorganization in the London area have to do with a ship or ships called the USS Glasgow? The purpose of an article's talk page is to discuss improvement of the specific article, based on what specific reliable sources say. Extraneous discussion of unrelated items is not permitted, so please avoid that in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Absolutely nothing! I saw your profile, in which you stated that you had originated in Middlesex and seemed to suggest that the county had ceased to exist in 1965. I then put my local historian's hat on!

I've written a spiel disentangling the two 'Eugenies' so I now await results. I can say with great certainty that my account is entirely accurate, since I have spent considerable time in finding information on 'Eugenie/Hilda'.

Cheers 2A00:23C5:DB29:5801:DA37:B77B:3DC:6400 (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

*1quincey*, you have failed to provide references to reliable sources that verify that what you say in your "spiel" is accurate. That is required by the core content policy Verifiability. Otherwise, your "spiel" is Original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Also, please log in to edit. Cullen328 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry?, I gave an accurate reference as to where I got the information from. I don't understand the problem? 2A00:23C5:DB29:5801:6E11:CC6D:2F9C:12A (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@*1quincey*, I see that you did indeed cite "Lifeline of the Confederacy" at the end of your comment. However I think you might still be misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The vast, vast majority of content on Wikipedia is written by unpaid volunteer editors like myself. It's a collaborative effort between thousands of people. If you want to improve an article (which is fantastic!), you don't submit suggestions to a specific group of people. You learn how to properly edit the article (which is why people have linked so many help pages in responses), and do it yourself. There are a ton of people around here that are willing to help you learn how to do that. If you don't want to learn to edit Wikipedia—which, frankly, is totally fair, especially if this is the only thing you're interested in changing—you're somewhat unlikely to find success by just suggesting broad changes and expecting someone else to rewrite the article. WPscatter ^t/_c 18:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@*1quincey*: where is the point/form/whatever into/at which you actually PUT the information you have? There should be an "edit" button at the top of almost every page that allows you to modify the text.

Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Which was the first thing I tried, but got nowhere. (or into trouble) This is why I tried to change the text myself, as I thought was the correct procedure. Apparently, I didn't do it correctly, which brings us back to my first question/problem. Why is/are there no instructions as to how someone like myself, who has never done this before, goes about doing it? Surely, anything new should come with a set of operating instructions,shouldn't it? 2A00:23C5:DB29:5801:E204:35AB:CB02:37C2 (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Now we're both confused. Can you give a clear, step-by-step, detailed explanation of your problem? Also, please log in to reply, otherwise your IP adress will become connected with your account name, which I assume you don't want. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope I'm logged in now?

My problem is, that I just don't know how to go about editing Wiki articles. I follow instructions I am given, but these always seem to turn out to be wrong! *1quincey* (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@*1quincey*, unless you've tried on other accounts, you've made exactly one edit to a mainspace article, the one to USS Glasgow that was reverted. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that you're "always" wrong (though I guess that's technically true so far 😅). Let me reiterate that you aren't "in trouble" for the bad edit, and I think we can all tell that you're legitimately interested in contributing positively to Wikipedia. I would recommend reading through Contributing to Wikipedia and/or Help:Getting started first. WPscatter ^t/_c 21:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead and experiment in the sandbox. That is the place to learn how the interface works, and it's cleaned regularly, so your edits won't be visible for long. Its supposed to messed around in. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that then. *1quincey* (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)