Talk:Charles de Lacy

Charles John De Lacy
On the strength of the 1911 census return in which in his own hand the artist says Charles John De Lacy (see here), can the different matters like the Wiki Commons category all be made to agree on Charles John De Lacy? TWAMWIR (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the Wiki Commons category and the article names do now agree. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Charles_John_De_Lacy TWAMWIR (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Original research?
I've removed this citation, added with by Editor TWAMWIR who is also Editor Robertforsythe, because it seems to me to be original research. I've placed it here because it one day may be useful to other editors.


 * http://robertatforsythe.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/wikimedia-tyne-wear-charles-de-lacy.html A table by Robert Forsythe citing the 12 images Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums are presently known to hold.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I do struggle with that edit. I really do. I would appreciate it if you reverted it please. Original research to me comes with opinion and contention, a thesis. There is no thesis here, no opinion, I have simply transcribed information with no "side" from a document in the public domain which anyone may freely consult. Others may judge its significance and value elsewhere.TWAMWIR (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Original research does not necessarily need to be opinion and contention, a thesis. A gathering of unsourced facts is also original research.


 * If you have simply transcribed information ... from a document in the public domain then the citation should be to that document not to your blog.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In which case will you not object if I take the tabular information in its bare form and add it to the article as a note and reference its source?TWAMWIR (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably not.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * -Thankyou. I have done it that way with no blog reference.TWAMWIR (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Definitely don't like that. What you've created is too much "wall of text"; not easily read; contains information not related to de Lacy.  This isn't an article about Archive item 450/1. Here is your table rendered as a wikitable:


 * and with just the de Lacy bits (as such, the Artist column is redundant):


 * Note 2 refers to Elswick 1911 but that isn't listed in your table. Is that part of the TWAM collection? Is it part of Archive item 450/1?


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thankyou very much for doing all that. I agree it is looking much more digestible. Exactly how it gets deployed, do you have a suggestion? Is it best off left in talk with a lead from the article to talk? I can live with that. Now to answer Elswick 1911. Elswick 1911 is not part of 450/1. It is part of Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums 696/7/15. And whilst the image is not getting uploaded to Commons (a process I cannot entirely control), it can be seen publicly here. It has been used as a book cover and so a scan was made. The caption in the book reveals that the HMS Superb is in front of the Minas Geraes. I was handling an eight side brochure for the Chinese Warship Chao Ho which has two signed De Lacy images in it. Elswick 1911 and Chao Ho (today was the first time I saw that). This item is 696/7/15. I appreciate there is some challenge in all this, but the items are publicly available at the archives. I might personally wish they just digitised and uploaded it all but it is not that easy (more uploads today went to Commons). The thing is I absolutely did not set out to find all this. It has been one of those one thing led to another. I found images signed De Lacy. I needed to know about them, I found out De Lacy was not in Wikipedia but was on the web. I worked in the article in my own time as User:Robertforsythe. And more and more of these images have landed in front of me. I doubt not there are more there but my residency is nearly over. I hope that explains how this has happened.TWAMWIR (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have done a further edit on Note 2 in the article and pointed it to the table here. Also put live links to Commons from the table above. TWAMWIR (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have seen the latest edits. Let's live with where we have got with this now. I am happy the table is in here, it can always be pointed out to individuals. TWAMWIR (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't like that because it made statements that a casual reader wouldn't understand: "Transcribed information directly taken from archives 450/1 to assist users/editors wishing to make requests ..." So, I listed the TWAM de Lacy holdings, created two new references, and split Note 2 into Note 2 and Note 3.


 * This change made me wonder about the statement: "...a bound collection of W G Armstrong Whitworth printed launch ephemera." Are these images at TWAM prints or are they the originals?  If they are merely prints, where are the originals and do prints count as "holdings"?


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is my take and first let me say that a challenge here is the ambiguous nature of ephemera or what librarians calls grey literature. Google robertatforsythe and you will see it is something I know about with 100 metres of the stuff in the National Railway Museum which we owned until 2009. Everything I have seen at TWAM is by way of printed material (created at the original date over a century ago), so it is not original archive manuscript or the paintings (not primary pieces). Where the paintings are is not now known. Yet such shipyard ephemera from more than a century ago is very rare. These images have not hitherto shown up in the Commons category. It is possible the Archives may have the original paintings. It is simply not known. Please don't laugh. The archives obtained the entire shipyard archive as it was at closure. An enormous amount of material and cataloguing it although important to the Archives is a slow matter. I have not been browsing the items on shelves, I have had to find them with some rather limited search tools and then get them brought down from remote strongrooms to work on. Quite complicated, not fast, but once I saw what I was handling it seemed to me the opportunity to just walk past them would have been silly. As far as anyone knows AT THE MOMENT these pieces are the only traces of these images known in 2013. I would welcome anyone who could produce evidence for more in the public domain.BTW prints certainly count as holdings, the lead archivist I am working with would say that. TWAMWIR (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)