User talk:Dudley Miles

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Promotion of Cyfeilliog

Congratulations, Dudley Miles! The article you nominated, Cyfeilliog, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, David Fuchs (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of congratulations being earned, I must've missed this on the first read. Nice work! SerialNumber54129 14:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Serial Number 54129. That is a shortened version due to the journal's size limitations. The full article is in instalments in the June to August issues of the Hendon and District Archaeological Society newsletter. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelbald, King of Wessex: Unpiping/piping versus redirects

Dear Dudley: By reverting my today’s edit 1242491692, you restored the several redirects, which is, according to me, wrong; pls distinguish between piping and redirects; pls explain and/or consider reverting your revert Jan Hejkrlík (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was incorrect on two counts. 1. Pipes should not be used to avoid redirects. See WP:NOPIPE. 2. The article title is Æthelwulf, King of Wessex, but you piped to Æthelwulf of Wessex, so you were introducing a double pipe. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your explanation: ok, you are partially right; nevertheless, the redirect remained: Æthelwulf instead of correct Æthelwulf, King of Wessex; on the next line in the infobox, it is also incorrect: Æthelberht is redirected to Æthelberht of Wessex, and then finally to Æthelberht, King of Wessex; probably, there will be more similar double-redirects in the article– I will check it and fix it as soon as I have more time Jan Hejkrlík (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the error with Æthelberht. I have corrected it. Æthelwulf is correct in accordance with WP:NOPIPE, as I pointed out. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Brochfael ap Meurig

Congratulations, Dudley Miles! The article you nominated, Brochfael ap Meurig, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, David Fuchs (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of my edit to "Viking expansion"

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to "Viking expansion" with the comment "Too vague to tell us anything". How much more detail than "Cleaned up MOS:ORDER and other matters" do you want for three changes? —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. That was an error. I meant to delete "Indeed, one of the only detailed accounts of a Viking burial comes from Ibn-Fadlan's account." as vague and unhelpful and did not notice that you were moving it, not adding it to the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist problem

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms/Popular pages on my watchlist and when I checked it this morning a change by User:Community Tech bot showed up, but it is no longer showing on today's changes. Can you advise why this is and how I can stop it happening in the future. Thanks Dudley Miles (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helped. I believe going to the "Watchlist" tab of your user preferences and removing the

for Hide bot edits from the watchlist would be the solution. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance. Happy editing, Sam Sailor 16:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Meurig ab Arthfael

Congratulations, Dudley Miles! The article you nominated, Meurig ab Arthfael, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting the edit

@Dudley Miles:Thank you for reverting my Roman Britain edit when I added a source as no 1. I went through the article, and was able to craft a brief paragraph based on the source and added it to the relevant section (instead of just citing it as a source). Thank you for your feedback. Reykcultura7193 (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution Reykcultura7193, but I have had to revert again. Naming and summarising the book in the text is undue emphasis on one of many sources. You could write that Hingley states that the conquest was a long drawn out process and cite his book with page number(s), but a summary belongs in the article about the book. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Thanks for the feedback and constructive criticism. I will stick to a sentence and cite his book per your suggestion.Reykcultura7193 (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFL notification

Hi, Dudley Miles. I'm just posting to let you know that Suffolk Wildlife Trust – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for November 25. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Giants. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyfeilliog scheduled for TFA

Hi Dudley, I hope you're keeping well.

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat. I have made a minor amendment for clarity to the article and the blurb. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Darwin

We do not display modern names for historical locations in the infobox. Please stop reverting. See WP:MODERNPLACENAME - "Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts". Giant Snowman 09:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance you cite is about the title of articles about geographic locations, not locations in infoboxes about people. WP:MODERNPLACENAME also says "Infoboxes should generally be headed with the article title, and include these alternate names" (my italics). Dudley Miles (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you have quoted is talking about infoboxes about the locations themselves, not infoboxes which mention the locations. Please self-revert. Giant Snowman 11:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason I should revert. You have cited irrelevant guidance for deleting details which are useful to readers, and then object to me quoting contrary guidance in the article you have cited. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler and more informative to say;
Down House, Downe, Kent
(now in Greater London), England
The hidden comment was wrong, it now reads – Letter no. 3368 footnote; "spelling of the village name was variable. ‘Down’ was the commonest form up to the 1870s, and ‘Downe’ thereafter", and it was in Kent until 1965.
See Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 3368" . . . dave souza, talk 20:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox person birth and death places; "For historical subjects, use the place name most appropriate for the context and our readership. What the place may correspond to on a modern map is a matter for an article's main text." On that basis, I've commented out "(now in Greater London)" which could be in the article text if need be, but it's better covered in the Down House and Downe articles. . . . dave souza, talk 20:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]