![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
{{ helpme}}I can't see any reference to PhDs among reliable sources, either for or against: should I draw an obvious conclusion from this, that PhDs are not considered reliable sources? I ask because PhDs are by definition peer reviewed, and form an obvious part of ongoing research.
In Wikipedia:Verifiability it states;
Chzz ( talk) 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi again!
Following our help discussion, I had a look at your contributions. You're doing a great job, clearing up grammar and other things!
Aha - and whilst I was typing this, you responded to my 'recte' query!
I have raised the question about that article as a helpme on my own talk page.
Just one other thing - regarding woking, and Mr Ishiguro. I googled, found a citation to support the claim he went to the college, and therefore I reverted your edit and added the citation. Whilst it is very important to be accurate about living persons, if you suspect something is not sufficiently cited, it's worth a bit of a google to see if you can find supporting evidence - and then you can add a citation.
I hope this helps.
I will let you know the result of the Medeshamstede - or, of course, you can see what happens on my own talk page.
Thanks for your time,
Keep up the good work!
Chzz ► 17:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on User talk:Chzz; I see your point, but I still disagree based on the "if there is adequate exposure to the community" bit. Although some issues were raised in the beginning (almost three years ago) by a few users, I really don't think the article qualified as "adequately exposed" until recently. Also, a good chunk of the 200-or-so edits up until a few days ago appeared to be simple vandalism by anonymous users. I guess at what point an article becomes "adequately exposed" can be debated ad nauseam. Anyway, just wanted to give you my thoughts on that. Nufy8 ( talk) 20:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see your article is going well, and I have a small favour to ask in return. I have just rewritten an article, and I would very much appreciate it if you had the time to have a look at it. Nothing to do with your field at all...but sometimes that's a good thing! It's about a small town in England.
The article is Eastwood, Nottinghamshire
The peer review is Wikipedia:Peer review/Eastwood, Nottinghamshire/archive1
If you have the time for a quick look, I'd appreciate it.
Regards,
-- Chzz ► 06:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[removed indent]
You've done a fantastic job on Eastwood - thank you so much! I was hoping you'd do just that, on the history side of things - not my forté. Specifically, thanks for the ref and further info on the toponymy, and the vast improvement to the Domesday book quote. I have no argument with any of it, one of questions for my own education;
{{ helpme}} I've just added a long paragraph to the article for Sexwulf: he's almost anonymous, so I've tried to give him a bit of background. I've given it lots of citations and relevant internal links, but I'd appreciate some guidance (possibly from someone with experience in Anglo-Saxon history?) on whether or not it constitutes 'original research'. If you do think it's original research, perhaps you could offer an opinion on any adjustments that might make it acceptable. Much as I'd like it to stay in, there's no point if it might get challenged for that in the future. Cheers.
(Later:) I'm now in the process of developing a major revision of this article, at User:Nortonius/Sandbox/SexwulfSandbox. Note that this proposed revision only omits some templates in order to avoid unnecessary internal linking: they will remain in the actual article. If you want to comment on the revision, please do so on Sexwulf's Talk page. But I'm still looking for comments here, regarding possible OR: obviously, these should now be based on the projected major revision. For all existing comments on possible OR, go here and here.
Note that my concerns regarding possible OR centre on my own discussion of Sexwulf's identity, particularly the notion that he may have been an East Anglian prince. I have two principal justifications for wanting to introduce this:
Obviously, you will make of that what you will! Cheers.
{{ helpme}} How do I stop this pronunciation being split between lines of text, i.e. in the citation at Medeshamstede? I can't find anything about it. Cheers.
I've been a bit side-tracked!
Following my investigations, I think it would probaly be worth creating 2 new stub articles;
First, sincere apologies if you know all of this;
William's son (ab. 1080-1155), also called William and known as 'the younger' inherited the Honour of Peverel. He later supported King Stephen, was a commander at the Battle of the Standard and was taken prisoner at the Battle of Lincoln.
Henry II prosecuted him for treason - allegedly because he was involved in a plot to poison the Earl of Chester, but commonly believed to be a sort of revenge for his support of King Stephen. The Earl of Chester died before he took possession of the Honour of Peverel.
Sorry I'm not being precise in this, but citations and info is available.
My main question to you is, do you think both warrent a stub - which admittedly at present would be quite small, or could both be put into one new article, or should all this go into the article on the first William? I'm sure both *could* warrent an article in the fullness of time, and I'm [leaning to giving them that scope for expansion. The 'honour' could hopefully detail the properties and land included - with some info about their subsequent ownership. 170 towns and villages in Nottinghamshire - lots of very notable buildings, inc Nottingham Castle.
Perhaps searching for 'peverel', 'peveril' and similar should lead to a disambiguation page listing the two Williams, the book, and perhaps a mention of "THE PEVERIL OF THE PEAK HOTEL" Derbyshire (big hotel), and I'm amazed that the Manchester pub doesn't have it's own article. One of the most famous pubs in Manchester. But I digress from my digression :-)
Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see how all of that would be distracting!
I don't actually know if they're connected; needs further research.
(apols for quick n dirty refs; lazy/unskilled)
-- Chzz ► 22:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
-- Chzz ► 23:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I've kinda screwed up the peer review page thing; I'm in the process of getting it sorted - help from a helper...I'll get back to you when things are back to normal - about the ? and the P and everything...but right now, the Eastwood talk and peer-review pages are in a slightly confused state :-/
Hang fire. I'll reply here in a short time. Cheers. -- Chzz ► 09:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
D'you think a family tree would be worthwhile? Like either William_the_Conqueror#Ancestors or William_the_Conqueror#Descendants perhaps? I can make stuff like that if we think it's constructive. -- Chzz ► 09:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Just a quick note, as we haven't communicated for a few days - after much discussion!
I got sidetracked again, this time by the China earthquake. I got embroiled in trying to improve the article - which was much like trying to groom a dog whilst it leaps and bounds through a muddy bog. I think I have learnt my lesson, but it was an interesting exercise. I'm still not 100% clear in my head about whether/how wikipedia should cover the news, but I think it's futile to chase around the net and try to keep up with BBC, CNN, etc. We can't compete with them, and we shouldn't.
OTOH, it's pretty 'cool' that wikipedia can have a reasonable article about an event within hours of it happening. 'Not a traditional encyclopaedia' and all that. It impresses people.
If WP made a decision not to cover news articles - for, say, 10 days...well, it would then be possible to create more of an encyclopaedic entry. But - what about when someone dies - surely their page needs updating ASAP. And then, a celeb death could result in a grey area.
On a related topic, I found User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article very worthwhile - and I recommend it.
I am considering 'leaving the fray' to develop great quality articles largely 'off-line'.
I'm getting frustrated by the 'admin overhead' on wikipedia; the tremendous waste of talents in arguing the toss. If that energy, plus the effort put into current news, could be channeled into making good articles - well, I feel that's what WP is all about - and I think many people are losing track of that original intention.
The recent debate over that 'virgin killer' article, which I think you were aware of, and subsequent discussion about WP:PROCESS has formed my opinions on that. As I see it, the vast majority of those voting were admins (or wanna-be's) and they voted to keep their job easier, rather than something that would improve WP for the general, non-voting readership.
Anyway - sorry to go on at such length; I just wanted to keep in touch.
I have noticed Medehamstede coming along in leaps and bounds.
I have noted your comments on the tree; I will get to it, eventually. Ditto Eastwood.
Regards, -- Chzz ► 16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)
Re. 'Numerous' - maybe drop the 'varying degrees' - which, although valid, could be considered superfluous as the nature of their involvement is detailed in the list. Also, I don't know if you'd agree 'of them' could be snipped? or a semicolon to split? ie
Re. 'The importance' - maybe warrents a new subheading, and then expand the para a little?
The significance of these daughter churches, and indeed that of Medeshamstede itself, is indicated by the likely relationship with royal Repton.
Tatwine, a scholar, was a monk at Breedon from ??? to ??? AD. He became archbishop of Canterbury in 731 AD, and was later canonised. St. Guthlac was a monk at Repton from 698 to 700 AD. It is possible that Tatwine was directly involved in Guthlac’s move from Repton to Crowland. (ref)
I would avoid the phrase, 'the fact that' - as it's an encyclopaedia, we can take it as read that we're stating facts. I think 'notable' might be unnecesary too?
I hope this little bit isn't original research? (I guess your ref covers that?)
Note: This is my attempt to 'have a stab at it'. At least it might give you an idea.
I would recommend not spending too long pondering one para; if you're stuck, move along. I think your time could be more productively spent gleaning core material; if it's going to be proof-read by many other eyes, later, then I'm sure the grammar, tone etc. can be improved as part of that process.
Re. images - I have found 2 resources to be useful;
Regards, Chzz ► 20:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
---
From the 66,000 injured added to the 15,000 dead (this is rounded), wouldn't the casualties be around 81,000? Just searching casualty on wikipedia gives "a person killed or injured in a war or disaster". Should somebody just change the heading from 'casualties' to 'deaths' or add the injuries in (for a true casualty total)? 72.200.21.121 ( talk) 03:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
---
Hmph. -- Chzz ► 23:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a test; I'm just demonstrating talk pages to someone. Cheers, -- Chzz ► 02:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well. As I said, I have to log out and get an early night. And then, following a chat on IRC, at 6AM I find myself proposing a merger between the articles People's Republic of China and China.
They've been arguing back and forth forever, about misrepresentation of PRC and ROC. It just strikes stupid old me that a user, typing in 'china' in wp, wants to know stuff. How hot is it, do I need a brolly, do they have McDonalds. That sort of thing.
Surely the distinction between PRC and ROC can be explained from a NPOV in a single, great article?
Well, we shall see.
So, now you know who to blame when the flaming reaches as far as the fair Medeshamstede.
'nite -- Chzz ► 05:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's definitely neater with 'the fact that...' substituted. I still think it's trying to cram too much information into a single sentence, though. But, like I said, it could wait - the structure of the entire bit could change, with all the other info you're adding. -- Chzz ► 00:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I've been trying to improve the 'readability' of the history part of Eastwood, as that's the area comments from the peer-review were directed at.
I want to quickly get it into an 'acceptable' state, before, perhaps, throwing it up to the dogs of GA assessment. However, I'm spending many hours scratching my head over re-wording, etc.
I've added some bits from other sources, and written a draft; without worrying about references (which I do have); I'd really appreciate it if you could look at User:Chzz/eastwood/hist.
There's so many changes it's hard to describe them, so I've put it there so it can be compared to the existing version. I don't know if it's easier for you to just edit it, or else comment on it; whatever works best.
Thanks in anticipation, -- Chzz ► 00:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have read over the article (as suggested by Chzz) and made a number of modifications to the spelling and grammar. But the main problem seems to be that it lacks a lead paragraph. What had been the "lead" was actually a discussion of the name. I have created a new "name" section of that material. Someone needs to add a short summary of all the other material in the article as the real lead paragraph. Ron B. Thomson ( talk) 15:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
When was he born?
Ref to 'old English dictionaries' - needs to link to the relevent bit (specific URL; right-clicky and 'properties' on the bit you want); which bit is it? I couldn't find it under 'sex' in the 'old' bit.
St Wilfred redirect needs fixing
If you put 'he died' in the 1st para, and remove it from the 2nd, then the whole article from para 2 on could be nice and chronological.
From 'Hugh Candidus' onward...it gets very hard to read; too many 'asides'; needs to state fact. fact. fact. I suppose really this will end up as sections; the 1st sentence being one, and another being about 'The charter of King Æthelred' - thus giving you space to explain the suppositions clearly. At the moment, it is rather convoluted.
Maybe say the 'forgery' stuff first, then explain why it's the only source, THEN say what it says about Sexwulf.
"Possibly Sexwulf was a son of King Anna" definitely needs citation (if not OR) - and I hate 'possibly'. "It's possible that ..." is better. Or "Evidence suggests that..."? Or something.
Instead of "make sense of" put "explain"?
After "of a royal family" put a full stop. It's getting far too long.
'evangelising' - wikilink
Re. "Alliteration such as that between "Sexwulf" and "Seaxburh" was a common feature in Old English personal name giving within families."
needs work, e.g.
Alliternation commonly affected old English names; hence "Sexwulf" became "Seaxburgh".
New para before Medeshamstede
"were both founded in the territory" - delete "founded" - repetition
Replace ""Gyrwas", a people who appear in the..." with "Gyrwas. These people appear in the...
(The 'Gyrwas' need an article too ;-) )
Could you replace "a document in existence by the mid 9th century" with "a 9th century document"? I do understand the precise distinction, but...for clarity?
"This would also give a sound basis"...sounds like you're trying hard to get away with OR! However, I think with more careful wording, it'll be fine. i.e. "This happened, and most people think this happened, so it's likely this happened". OR? I don't think so.
I don't think you need "which has been described as" - delete it - the quote covers you.
HTH,
Cheers, -- Chzz ► 03:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope you understand by now that, when I review, I tend to just 'say what I think' - so, if I appear inpolite, it's not that - it's just more efficient to state what I think, otherwise it all gets very wordy, e.g. "Perhaps it might be better if..." etc. There's an implied 'IMHO' on the end of every line!
OK - a look at the new version.
The date after his name; "?xc." ? What's that mean?
"was founding abbot" - A founding abbot, or THE founding abbot?
The head is a bit too short; should be a couple of para's summarising the rest.
History
Full-stop needed after 676 AD, then "Bede also descriBED him"?
I know why you've put 'see' in "with his see at Lichfield" (mind expansion etc) but couldn't you put 'seat' (and the word could still wikilink to the same article) to ease readability
Maybe move 'he died c.692' to the end, so the whole section is chronological?
Re. Eddius Stephanus mentions...""the profound respect...etc Is it Eddius who had the respect? If so needs rephrasing to show this...e.g. Eddius said, in xxx book, that he had "the profoundest respect..."
Identity
"According to John Blair," looks a bit lonely before the quote box. Could a sentence be put before that? A bit more info about the context?
"– John Blair, "Seaxwulf (d. c.692)", - does that mean 'died circa... or dated circa? Sorry, I know that's prob a convention, but for the layman...maybe spell it out?
After "King Æthelred of Mercia: " - should be semi-colon not colon? (picky!) or maybe full-stop, and "This charterpublication..." ?
"it is held to be of historical interest..." (facts backed up with refs don't need to be vague, if you know what I mean. Similarly, "It appears to describes Sexwulf..."
"one of the greatest monasteries of the Mercian kingdom" - could Mercian wikilink to something?
Cheers for now,
(P.S. If you have time, please could you comment re. last comments in User talk:Nortonius#Eastwood, history, head-scratching
-- Chzz ► 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. How about a picture or two in the article? Doesn't matter what (as long as vaguely relevent); I just don't like articles without pics! -- Chzz ► 19:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
...see my reply on my talk page -- Chzz ► 10:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
When this phrase is used as an adjective, modifying a noun, it is hyphenated (tenth-century refoundation); when it is used as an adjective + noun phrase, it does not have a hyphen (it was refounded in the tenth century). Cheers Ron B. Thomson ( talk) 21:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for the sub-page help. PajaBG ( talk) 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. I have another question for you. Can you recommend me someone who is doing the copyediting of the articles, since English is not my mother tongue? I have managed to find few people by now but they seem to disappear even before I post something new here (though I did pause for a while) :o) In any case, thanks PajaBG ( talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page. -- Drieakko ( talk) 12:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Nortonius, I must stress my point that I view the article Kvenland as a highly biased. The article is nothing but commentary of primary sources, presenting un-referenced suggestions and guides on how the obscure text passages should be understood.-- 130.234.68.211 ( talk) 10:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Nortorius, I am not intending to start a revert war, bur I ask you to read my objections against the map in the Kvenland talk page before you restore the map. The map presents a very original and unreferenced location of Kvenland in SW Finland, and such are are not allowed. It seems like a cartographical manipulation to me.-- 130.234.5.136 ( talk) 13:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Spanish and Portuguese are not specific to Spain and Portugal. In Spain and Portugal several Romance languages are spoken indigenously besides Spanish and Portuguese. There is no incongruity in speaking of the Romance languages of Spain and Portugal without specific mention of Spanish and Portuguese (which are Romance languages). "In Spain and Portugal, many Romance languages developed given names and surnames with Gothic etymologies." Srnec ( talk) 05:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nortonius, your changes are all to the good, and clearly your experience and information is more recent and more extensive than my own (and am glad to see more things like the charters on line - I took a quick tour). Well done (perhaps with more to come) and Best Regards, Notuncurious ( talk) 23:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Just a quick note to say, I'm back on Wikipedia. I see you haven't been here for a while, but if you do pop on, please drop me a note. Cheers! -- Chzz ► 17:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that ref, I am happy that addresses the issue of the tag.
Just thourght I would let you know that you marked the edit as "minor" - I think you may not understand what a WP minor edit is. To help you may want to take a look at WP:MINOR, taken from the page :
Thanks Codf1977 ( talk) 22:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Per the discussion on the talk page for The Man Who Sold the World (album) headed " Redirection", I thought I'd have a go at swapping the pages around. I read up on what I had to do, including moving over re-directs, and thought I'd be ok. I successfully moved the article for the song "The Man Who Sold the World" to " The Man Who Sold the World (song)", and then tried to move the article for the album currently at " The Man Who Sold the World (album) to "The Man Who Sold the World", but failed, getting an error message along the lines that "this page already exists". Yes, it does, as a redirect - and I did read about moving over a redirect. Now I just feel stuck... Or maybe I don't need to change anything else, except for redirects? Thanks.
Think I've done the redirects now...?
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I'd like to adjust the width of columns in the table at Abbot of Peterborough, particularly so that entries in the "Dates" column aren't scrunched, but, having had a look at Help:Table, I can't see how on earth the present widths were formatted in the first place! Or maybe I'm just being dim... Cheers. Nortonius ( talk) 14:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
== Abbots == {| class="wikitable" |- ! Name ! width="225" | Dates ! Works ! Notes |- |Example name |Example dates |Example works |Example notes |}
Name | Dates | Works | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Example name | Example dates | Example works | Example notes |
Thank my friend, that was a very kind suggestion. At the moment if you click Salisbury Cathedral it links to the statues page, but do know what? I think I like your idea better, it is more direct and meaningful. Right, must go, got a lot of re-editing to do;-)) best. Richard Avery ( talk) 14:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm going to keep the niche in front because I think the reader may have a tendency to stop at . . .Cathedral. cheers Richard Avery ( talk) 14:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I just moved article "HNLMS de Gelderland" to HNLMS Gelderland per the article's talk page, and fixed double redirects - only when I came to do the latter, I noticed that the redirect " German anti-aircraft cruiser Niobe" has a talk page " Talk:German anti-aircraft cruiser Niobe", which seems to have been left behind by someone else's earlier edit of that article, for which the summary was "merge and redirect". If you follow me. At which point, I haven't a clue what to do! Cheers. Nortonius ( talk) 18:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I saw your edits to Hugh Candidus. Thank you. On another matter, I posed a question at the humanities help desk as "... Alienated from... " in 17th century English history which was answered. I am still a little stuck though. Perhaps you can help. Was it the Act of Supremacy 1558 which gave Elizabeth the power to recieve the profits of a see during its vacancy? No worries if you don't have the time or an inclination to answer. It is only worth half a sentence to one or two of my articles anyway. I just like to get things right -- Senra ( talk) 21:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)the
The above helps a lot. Thank you for taking the time. Just for the record, Hugh is very new to me; the article is almost just a wikified copy of Hugh. I stumbled on him whilst trying to clean up the prose in Aldreth (more acurately, the flowery prose describing two battles supposedly fought there between Hereward and William), which frankly needs more work. Perhaps you would consider cleaning it up yourself or collaboration at least? I actually stopped work on it when I realised I was getting confused with sources -- Senra ( talk) 23:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
( ←) No problem - yes, the topic has drifted, but I wouldn't worry about protocol overmuch, as this is an exchange between you and me - for future reference though it's not a bad idea, so I've done as you suggest, which I think is spot on, with a subheading. Nortonius ( talk) 11:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
{{ helpme}}I can't see any reference to PhDs among reliable sources, either for or against: should I draw an obvious conclusion from this, that PhDs are not considered reliable sources? I ask because PhDs are by definition peer reviewed, and form an obvious part of ongoing research.
In Wikipedia:Verifiability it states;
Chzz ( talk) 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi again!
Following our help discussion, I had a look at your contributions. You're doing a great job, clearing up grammar and other things!
Aha - and whilst I was typing this, you responded to my 'recte' query!
I have raised the question about that article as a helpme on my own talk page.
Just one other thing - regarding woking, and Mr Ishiguro. I googled, found a citation to support the claim he went to the college, and therefore I reverted your edit and added the citation. Whilst it is very important to be accurate about living persons, if you suspect something is not sufficiently cited, it's worth a bit of a google to see if you can find supporting evidence - and then you can add a citation.
I hope this helps.
I will let you know the result of the Medeshamstede - or, of course, you can see what happens on my own talk page.
Thanks for your time,
Keep up the good work!
Chzz ► 17:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on User talk:Chzz; I see your point, but I still disagree based on the "if there is adequate exposure to the community" bit. Although some issues were raised in the beginning (almost three years ago) by a few users, I really don't think the article qualified as "adequately exposed" until recently. Also, a good chunk of the 200-or-so edits up until a few days ago appeared to be simple vandalism by anonymous users. I guess at what point an article becomes "adequately exposed" can be debated ad nauseam. Anyway, just wanted to give you my thoughts on that. Nufy8 ( talk) 20:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see your article is going well, and I have a small favour to ask in return. I have just rewritten an article, and I would very much appreciate it if you had the time to have a look at it. Nothing to do with your field at all...but sometimes that's a good thing! It's about a small town in England.
The article is Eastwood, Nottinghamshire
The peer review is Wikipedia:Peer review/Eastwood, Nottinghamshire/archive1
If you have the time for a quick look, I'd appreciate it.
Regards,
-- Chzz ► 06:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[removed indent]
You've done a fantastic job on Eastwood - thank you so much! I was hoping you'd do just that, on the history side of things - not my forté. Specifically, thanks for the ref and further info on the toponymy, and the vast improvement to the Domesday book quote. I have no argument with any of it, one of questions for my own education;
{{ helpme}} I've just added a long paragraph to the article for Sexwulf: he's almost anonymous, so I've tried to give him a bit of background. I've given it lots of citations and relevant internal links, but I'd appreciate some guidance (possibly from someone with experience in Anglo-Saxon history?) on whether or not it constitutes 'original research'. If you do think it's original research, perhaps you could offer an opinion on any adjustments that might make it acceptable. Much as I'd like it to stay in, there's no point if it might get challenged for that in the future. Cheers.
(Later:) I'm now in the process of developing a major revision of this article, at User:Nortonius/Sandbox/SexwulfSandbox. Note that this proposed revision only omits some templates in order to avoid unnecessary internal linking: they will remain in the actual article. If you want to comment on the revision, please do so on Sexwulf's Talk page. But I'm still looking for comments here, regarding possible OR: obviously, these should now be based on the projected major revision. For all existing comments on possible OR, go here and here.
Note that my concerns regarding possible OR centre on my own discussion of Sexwulf's identity, particularly the notion that he may have been an East Anglian prince. I have two principal justifications for wanting to introduce this:
Obviously, you will make of that what you will! Cheers.
{{ helpme}} How do I stop this pronunciation being split between lines of text, i.e. in the citation at Medeshamstede? I can't find anything about it. Cheers.
I've been a bit side-tracked!
Following my investigations, I think it would probaly be worth creating 2 new stub articles;
First, sincere apologies if you know all of this;
William's son (ab. 1080-1155), also called William and known as 'the younger' inherited the Honour of Peverel. He later supported King Stephen, was a commander at the Battle of the Standard and was taken prisoner at the Battle of Lincoln.
Henry II prosecuted him for treason - allegedly because he was involved in a plot to poison the Earl of Chester, but commonly believed to be a sort of revenge for his support of King Stephen. The Earl of Chester died before he took possession of the Honour of Peverel.
Sorry I'm not being precise in this, but citations and info is available.
My main question to you is, do you think both warrent a stub - which admittedly at present would be quite small, or could both be put into one new article, or should all this go into the article on the first William? I'm sure both *could* warrent an article in the fullness of time, and I'm [leaning to giving them that scope for expansion. The 'honour' could hopefully detail the properties and land included - with some info about their subsequent ownership. 170 towns and villages in Nottinghamshire - lots of very notable buildings, inc Nottingham Castle.
Perhaps searching for 'peverel', 'peveril' and similar should lead to a disambiguation page listing the two Williams, the book, and perhaps a mention of "THE PEVERIL OF THE PEAK HOTEL" Derbyshire (big hotel), and I'm amazed that the Manchester pub doesn't have it's own article. One of the most famous pubs in Manchester. But I digress from my digression :-)
Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see how all of that would be distracting!
I don't actually know if they're connected; needs further research.
(apols for quick n dirty refs; lazy/unskilled)
-- Chzz ► 22:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
-- Chzz ► 23:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I've kinda screwed up the peer review page thing; I'm in the process of getting it sorted - help from a helper...I'll get back to you when things are back to normal - about the ? and the P and everything...but right now, the Eastwood talk and peer-review pages are in a slightly confused state :-/
Hang fire. I'll reply here in a short time. Cheers. -- Chzz ► 09:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
D'you think a family tree would be worthwhile? Like either William_the_Conqueror#Ancestors or William_the_Conqueror#Descendants perhaps? I can make stuff like that if we think it's constructive. -- Chzz ► 09:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Just a quick note, as we haven't communicated for a few days - after much discussion!
I got sidetracked again, this time by the China earthquake. I got embroiled in trying to improve the article - which was much like trying to groom a dog whilst it leaps and bounds through a muddy bog. I think I have learnt my lesson, but it was an interesting exercise. I'm still not 100% clear in my head about whether/how wikipedia should cover the news, but I think it's futile to chase around the net and try to keep up with BBC, CNN, etc. We can't compete with them, and we shouldn't.
OTOH, it's pretty 'cool' that wikipedia can have a reasonable article about an event within hours of it happening. 'Not a traditional encyclopaedia' and all that. It impresses people.
If WP made a decision not to cover news articles - for, say, 10 days...well, it would then be possible to create more of an encyclopaedic entry. But - what about when someone dies - surely their page needs updating ASAP. And then, a celeb death could result in a grey area.
On a related topic, I found User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article very worthwhile - and I recommend it.
I am considering 'leaving the fray' to develop great quality articles largely 'off-line'.
I'm getting frustrated by the 'admin overhead' on wikipedia; the tremendous waste of talents in arguing the toss. If that energy, plus the effort put into current news, could be channeled into making good articles - well, I feel that's what WP is all about - and I think many people are losing track of that original intention.
The recent debate over that 'virgin killer' article, which I think you were aware of, and subsequent discussion about WP:PROCESS has formed my opinions on that. As I see it, the vast majority of those voting were admins (or wanna-be's) and they voted to keep their job easier, rather than something that would improve WP for the general, non-voting readership.
Anyway - sorry to go on at such length; I just wanted to keep in touch.
I have noticed Medehamstede coming along in leaps and bounds.
I have noted your comments on the tree; I will get to it, eventually. Ditto Eastwood.
Regards, -- Chzz ► 16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)
Re. 'Numerous' - maybe drop the 'varying degrees' - which, although valid, could be considered superfluous as the nature of their involvement is detailed in the list. Also, I don't know if you'd agree 'of them' could be snipped? or a semicolon to split? ie
Re. 'The importance' - maybe warrents a new subheading, and then expand the para a little?
The significance of these daughter churches, and indeed that of Medeshamstede itself, is indicated by the likely relationship with royal Repton.
Tatwine, a scholar, was a monk at Breedon from ??? to ??? AD. He became archbishop of Canterbury in 731 AD, and was later canonised. St. Guthlac was a monk at Repton from 698 to 700 AD. It is possible that Tatwine was directly involved in Guthlac’s move from Repton to Crowland. (ref)
I would avoid the phrase, 'the fact that' - as it's an encyclopaedia, we can take it as read that we're stating facts. I think 'notable' might be unnecesary too?
I hope this little bit isn't original research? (I guess your ref covers that?)
Note: This is my attempt to 'have a stab at it'. At least it might give you an idea.
I would recommend not spending too long pondering one para; if you're stuck, move along. I think your time could be more productively spent gleaning core material; if it's going to be proof-read by many other eyes, later, then I'm sure the grammar, tone etc. can be improved as part of that process.
Re. images - I have found 2 resources to be useful;
Regards, Chzz ► 20:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
---
From the 66,000 injured added to the 15,000 dead (this is rounded), wouldn't the casualties be around 81,000? Just searching casualty on wikipedia gives "a person killed or injured in a war or disaster". Should somebody just change the heading from 'casualties' to 'deaths' or add the injuries in (for a true casualty total)? 72.200.21.121 ( talk) 03:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
---
Hmph. -- Chzz ► 23:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a test; I'm just demonstrating talk pages to someone. Cheers, -- Chzz ► 02:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well. As I said, I have to log out and get an early night. And then, following a chat on IRC, at 6AM I find myself proposing a merger between the articles People's Republic of China and China.
They've been arguing back and forth forever, about misrepresentation of PRC and ROC. It just strikes stupid old me that a user, typing in 'china' in wp, wants to know stuff. How hot is it, do I need a brolly, do they have McDonalds. That sort of thing.
Surely the distinction between PRC and ROC can be explained from a NPOV in a single, great article?
Well, we shall see.
So, now you know who to blame when the flaming reaches as far as the fair Medeshamstede.
'nite -- Chzz ► 05:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It's definitely neater with 'the fact that...' substituted. I still think it's trying to cram too much information into a single sentence, though. But, like I said, it could wait - the structure of the entire bit could change, with all the other info you're adding. -- Chzz ► 00:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I've been trying to improve the 'readability' of the history part of Eastwood, as that's the area comments from the peer-review were directed at.
I want to quickly get it into an 'acceptable' state, before, perhaps, throwing it up to the dogs of GA assessment. However, I'm spending many hours scratching my head over re-wording, etc.
I've added some bits from other sources, and written a draft; without worrying about references (which I do have); I'd really appreciate it if you could look at User:Chzz/eastwood/hist.
There's so many changes it's hard to describe them, so I've put it there so it can be compared to the existing version. I don't know if it's easier for you to just edit it, or else comment on it; whatever works best.
Thanks in anticipation, -- Chzz ► 00:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have read over the article (as suggested by Chzz) and made a number of modifications to the spelling and grammar. But the main problem seems to be that it lacks a lead paragraph. What had been the "lead" was actually a discussion of the name. I have created a new "name" section of that material. Someone needs to add a short summary of all the other material in the article as the real lead paragraph. Ron B. Thomson ( talk) 15:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
When was he born?
Ref to 'old English dictionaries' - needs to link to the relevent bit (specific URL; right-clicky and 'properties' on the bit you want); which bit is it? I couldn't find it under 'sex' in the 'old' bit.
St Wilfred redirect needs fixing
If you put 'he died' in the 1st para, and remove it from the 2nd, then the whole article from para 2 on could be nice and chronological.
From 'Hugh Candidus' onward...it gets very hard to read; too many 'asides'; needs to state fact. fact. fact. I suppose really this will end up as sections; the 1st sentence being one, and another being about 'The charter of King Æthelred' - thus giving you space to explain the suppositions clearly. At the moment, it is rather convoluted.
Maybe say the 'forgery' stuff first, then explain why it's the only source, THEN say what it says about Sexwulf.
"Possibly Sexwulf was a son of King Anna" definitely needs citation (if not OR) - and I hate 'possibly'. "It's possible that ..." is better. Or "Evidence suggests that..."? Or something.
Instead of "make sense of" put "explain"?
After "of a royal family" put a full stop. It's getting far too long.
'evangelising' - wikilink
Re. "Alliteration such as that between "Sexwulf" and "Seaxburh" was a common feature in Old English personal name giving within families."
needs work, e.g.
Alliternation commonly affected old English names; hence "Sexwulf" became "Seaxburgh".
New para before Medeshamstede
"were both founded in the territory" - delete "founded" - repetition
Replace ""Gyrwas", a people who appear in the..." with "Gyrwas. These people appear in the...
(The 'Gyrwas' need an article too ;-) )
Could you replace "a document in existence by the mid 9th century" with "a 9th century document"? I do understand the precise distinction, but...for clarity?
"This would also give a sound basis"...sounds like you're trying hard to get away with OR! However, I think with more careful wording, it'll be fine. i.e. "This happened, and most people think this happened, so it's likely this happened". OR? I don't think so.
I don't think you need "which has been described as" - delete it - the quote covers you.
HTH,
Cheers, -- Chzz ► 03:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope you understand by now that, when I review, I tend to just 'say what I think' - so, if I appear inpolite, it's not that - it's just more efficient to state what I think, otherwise it all gets very wordy, e.g. "Perhaps it might be better if..." etc. There's an implied 'IMHO' on the end of every line!
OK - a look at the new version.
The date after his name; "?xc." ? What's that mean?
"was founding abbot" - A founding abbot, or THE founding abbot?
The head is a bit too short; should be a couple of para's summarising the rest.
History
Full-stop needed after 676 AD, then "Bede also descriBED him"?
I know why you've put 'see' in "with his see at Lichfield" (mind expansion etc) but couldn't you put 'seat' (and the word could still wikilink to the same article) to ease readability
Maybe move 'he died c.692' to the end, so the whole section is chronological?
Re. Eddius Stephanus mentions...""the profound respect...etc Is it Eddius who had the respect? If so needs rephrasing to show this...e.g. Eddius said, in xxx book, that he had "the profoundest respect..."
Identity
"According to John Blair," looks a bit lonely before the quote box. Could a sentence be put before that? A bit more info about the context?
"– John Blair, "Seaxwulf (d. c.692)", - does that mean 'died circa... or dated circa? Sorry, I know that's prob a convention, but for the layman...maybe spell it out?
After "King Æthelred of Mercia: " - should be semi-colon not colon? (picky!) or maybe full-stop, and "This charterpublication..." ?
"it is held to be of historical interest..." (facts backed up with refs don't need to be vague, if you know what I mean. Similarly, "It appears to describes Sexwulf..."
"one of the greatest monasteries of the Mercian kingdom" - could Mercian wikilink to something?
Cheers for now,
(P.S. If you have time, please could you comment re. last comments in User talk:Nortonius#Eastwood, history, head-scratching
-- Chzz ► 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. How about a picture or two in the article? Doesn't matter what (as long as vaguely relevent); I just don't like articles without pics! -- Chzz ► 19:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
...see my reply on my talk page -- Chzz ► 10:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
When this phrase is used as an adjective, modifying a noun, it is hyphenated (tenth-century refoundation); when it is used as an adjective + noun phrase, it does not have a hyphen (it was refounded in the tenth century). Cheers Ron B. Thomson ( talk) 21:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for the sub-page help. PajaBG ( talk) 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. I have another question for you. Can you recommend me someone who is doing the copyediting of the articles, since English is not my mother tongue? I have managed to find few people by now but they seem to disappear even before I post something new here (though I did pause for a while) :o) In any case, thanks PajaBG ( talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page. -- Drieakko ( talk) 12:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Nortonius, I must stress my point that I view the article Kvenland as a highly biased. The article is nothing but commentary of primary sources, presenting un-referenced suggestions and guides on how the obscure text passages should be understood.-- 130.234.68.211 ( talk) 10:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear Nortorius, I am not intending to start a revert war, bur I ask you to read my objections against the map in the Kvenland talk page before you restore the map. The map presents a very original and unreferenced location of Kvenland in SW Finland, and such are are not allowed. It seems like a cartographical manipulation to me.-- 130.234.5.136 ( talk) 13:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Spanish and Portuguese are not specific to Spain and Portugal. In Spain and Portugal several Romance languages are spoken indigenously besides Spanish and Portuguese. There is no incongruity in speaking of the Romance languages of Spain and Portugal without specific mention of Spanish and Portuguese (which are Romance languages). "In Spain and Portugal, many Romance languages developed given names and surnames with Gothic etymologies." Srnec ( talk) 05:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nortonius, your changes are all to the good, and clearly your experience and information is more recent and more extensive than my own (and am glad to see more things like the charters on line - I took a quick tour). Well done (perhaps with more to come) and Best Regards, Notuncurious ( talk) 23:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Just a quick note to say, I'm back on Wikipedia. I see you haven't been here for a while, but if you do pop on, please drop me a note. Cheers! -- Chzz ► 17:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that ref, I am happy that addresses the issue of the tag.
Just thourght I would let you know that you marked the edit as "minor" - I think you may not understand what a WP minor edit is. To help you may want to take a look at WP:MINOR, taken from the page :
Thanks Codf1977 ( talk) 22:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Per the discussion on the talk page for The Man Who Sold the World (album) headed " Redirection", I thought I'd have a go at swapping the pages around. I read up on what I had to do, including moving over re-directs, and thought I'd be ok. I successfully moved the article for the song "The Man Who Sold the World" to " The Man Who Sold the World (song)", and then tried to move the article for the album currently at " The Man Who Sold the World (album) to "The Man Who Sold the World", but failed, getting an error message along the lines that "this page already exists". Yes, it does, as a redirect - and I did read about moving over a redirect. Now I just feel stuck... Or maybe I don't need to change anything else, except for redirects? Thanks.
Think I've done the redirects now...?
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I'd like to adjust the width of columns in the table at Abbot of Peterborough, particularly so that entries in the "Dates" column aren't scrunched, but, having had a look at Help:Table, I can't see how on earth the present widths were formatted in the first place! Or maybe I'm just being dim... Cheers. Nortonius ( talk) 14:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
== Abbots == {| class="wikitable" |- ! Name ! width="225" | Dates ! Works ! Notes |- |Example name |Example dates |Example works |Example notes |}
Name | Dates | Works | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Example name | Example dates | Example works | Example notes |
Thank my friend, that was a very kind suggestion. At the moment if you click Salisbury Cathedral it links to the statues page, but do know what? I think I like your idea better, it is more direct and meaningful. Right, must go, got a lot of re-editing to do;-)) best. Richard Avery ( talk) 14:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm going to keep the niche in front because I think the reader may have a tendency to stop at . . .Cathedral. cheers Richard Avery ( talk) 14:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I just moved article "HNLMS de Gelderland" to HNLMS Gelderland per the article's talk page, and fixed double redirects - only when I came to do the latter, I noticed that the redirect " German anti-aircraft cruiser Niobe" has a talk page " Talk:German anti-aircraft cruiser Niobe", which seems to have been left behind by someone else's earlier edit of that article, for which the summary was "merge and redirect". If you follow me. At which point, I haven't a clue what to do! Cheers. Nortonius ( talk) 18:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I saw your edits to Hugh Candidus. Thank you. On another matter, I posed a question at the humanities help desk as "... Alienated from... " in 17th century English history which was answered. I am still a little stuck though. Perhaps you can help. Was it the Act of Supremacy 1558 which gave Elizabeth the power to recieve the profits of a see during its vacancy? No worries if you don't have the time or an inclination to answer. It is only worth half a sentence to one or two of my articles anyway. I just like to get things right -- Senra ( talk) 21:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)the
The above helps a lot. Thank you for taking the time. Just for the record, Hugh is very new to me; the article is almost just a wikified copy of Hugh. I stumbled on him whilst trying to clean up the prose in Aldreth (more acurately, the flowery prose describing two battles supposedly fought there between Hereward and William), which frankly needs more work. Perhaps you would consider cleaning it up yourself or collaboration at least? I actually stopped work on it when I realised I was getting confused with sources -- Senra ( talk) 23:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
( ←) No problem - yes, the topic has drifted, but I wouldn't worry about protocol overmuch, as this is an exchange between you and me - for future reference though it's not a bad idea, so I've done as you suggest, which I think is spot on, with a subheading. Nortonius ( talk) 11:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)