User talk:Dudley Miles/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dudley Miles. 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 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Æthelred the Unready

Hi Dudley, first off, my regrets for my inartful attempt to link Edith of Wilton to Æthelred the Unready. It looks like our interests and projects are converging a bit; yours being Anglo-Saxon history and mine being female saints, especially these days with my foray into Anglo-Saxon nuns. Although St Edith wasn't really a nun; she was actually a non-religious member of the Wilton community. Despite that, she's very interesting, especially her part in the succession drama and as a member of King Edgar's family. Her bio is a bit complicated and has required lots of work to improve it, but it's been fun.

I wanted to make sure that I didn't embarrass myself again, but I had another idea about how to link Edith in Æthelred's article. How about this, which I would place before the final sentence in the 2nd paragraph in the section "Early life":

"According to hagiographer Goscelin of Saint-Bertin, in an account historian Susan J. Rudyard calls "highly improbable",[insert ref here], the throne was even offered to Æthelred's half-sister Saint Edith of Wilton, who refused it.

Please let me know if that line is appropriate, and I'll add it, along with the ref from Rudyard. Thanks, keep up the good work, and best. And congrats on your upcoming Edgar the Elder TFA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Christine. It is great to learn that you are working on female saints. Why do you think Edith was not a nun? Yorke in ODNB says she was and Farmer in the Dictionary of Saints and Foot in Veiled Women imply that she was. The references to her in Ridyard (not Rudyard) are so extensive that I have not gone through them, but the index says she was an abbess of three nunneries. If you have evidence that she was a non-religious member of the community I would be interested to learn about it.

As to her being offered the throne it is so implausible that I think Yorke's "no doubt apocryphal" is better than Ridyard's wording. I would personally leave it out as not relevant to the Æthelred article. The fact that he supported her cult - according to Yorke - is relevant and I think it belongs in a 'Religion' section, but as that does not exist I would put it in the 'Kingship' section. These are of course just suggestions for you to consider. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan as I mentioned above, the historian is Susan Ridyard, not Rudyard, but I see that you are still using the wrong spelling. Can you please correct it in all the articles where you have used the wrong spelling. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Oops, darn it, thanks for pointing it out again. Yikes, will go fix now! ;) I also now see that I never responded to your suggestions. I agree that my line doesn't belong in Æthelred. Since you've seen the changes I've made to the Edith article, I think that the inconsistencies about her life are dealt with. Farmer in Oxford Dictionary of Saints, which may be a more recent publication, doesn't mention her status as a nun, but Hollis is pretty clear that she didn't think Edith was an nun. After thinking about your feedback, I'll try and make sure the case is strong enough and see if Ridyard or others (like Goscelin) support it. I do think that I handled the inconsistencies about both the offers of three abbess positions and the throne well, though. Please tell me if you agree or disagree. The more feedback the better! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

OK. I will take a look once I can get hold of a copy of Hollis. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey again, I went back to Ridyard and saw that things aren't as clear as I was making them regarding St Edith's status as a nun. So I went back and added Ridyard's view and made the assertion less definitive. Ridyard never says, though, if Edith was a nun or not. Like many medieval things, it's unclear, even in Goscelin, so it would seem. I may write Ridyard and Hollis and ask if there's clear evidence of it one way or the other, and if there's a source supporting it. At any rate, it adds to St Edith's mystery. I think someone should write a novel based on her life, like Lauren Groff did for Marie de France. I'm sure you've read her marvelous book Matrix. Anyway, thanks for your feedback, which helped make Edith's article better. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is a very useful source for Anglo-Saxon biography. Barbara Yorke in her article on Edith at [1] says that Edith was a nun. You can access this source free if you have a UK public library card but it is obviously more difficult if you live outside Britain. You could try applying to the Wikipedia Library for free access to ODNB (if you do not aready have it) and other useful sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks Gog. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Herman the Archdeacon scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 5 August 2022. 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/August 5, 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gog. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Edward the Elder

Dear Dudley, Thank you so much for all your work on Edward the Elder, especially the list of children in the section "Marriage and children". It is a rare example of an embedded list in a FA, other than a list of works and lists in tabular form. I feel that Wikipedia underuses embedded list and seems to always advise editors to convert lists in prose, probably because paper encyclopedias avoid lists for reason of place. For example the essay WP:Nominating good articles, section "Brief fixes", tells GA nominator that "Lists should only be included if they can't be made into prose". Even the guideline MOS:LISTS itself has a section MOS:USEPROSE that prescribes "Use prose where understood easily". Wikipedia even has a template {{prose}} to make lists that should be converted. Otherwise MOS:LISTS admits that embedded list have their place. I feel there should be a more even-handed treatment of list and prose. The essay WP:Lists within articles tries to do this. Nobody seems to have tried to force you to change the list of children into prose. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. It did not occur to me to do it any other way and maybe no one queried it because it would be very difficult to do such a long list as prose. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, introduced: "Edward the Elder was the son and successor of Alfred the Great. He built on his father's achievements to defeat the Vikings in southern England, and united Mercia and East Anglia with Wessex into one southern kingdom. He has been described as perhaps the most neglected of English kings."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Good timing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you today for Herman the Archdeacon, "about a man who did not have a Wikipedia article until recently even though he was important enough to have an Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article. Once I got into it, I found him a fascinating character."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again Gerda. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Herman the Archdeacon

I think you are qualified for the User:Bilorv/Challenges#Minimalist by achieving FA in under 50 edits! There's loads more fun editing challenges there as well if you are interested. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks CactiStaccingCrane but that would be cheating as I did my editing in my sandbox. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, yikes... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hendon Coat of Arms

Hey Dudley Miles, I was wondering why you undid the addition of the arms of Hendon in Municipal Borough of Hendon, as a blazon with a source is already in the article in the "Coat of arms" section. I've re-added with a few extra sources, but as this isn't normally done in other articles on localities, I was wondering if you had more specific reason why you think it's necessary in this article. Cakelot1 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

There was no reason specific to this article. The Wikipedia standard is that all content should be referenced, although unfortunately this is often not done. I think this is especially important for coats of arms as people sometimes invent their own design, although the cases I know of are early medieval kingdoms which existed before coats of arms came in. You have now cited reliable sources, so your edit is fine, and I hope you will cite sources in future so that readers can check that the coat of arms is valid. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you think a source needs to be included in the article or would having it on the image's description would suffice Cakelot1 (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Both. In the article because citations should be provided for all content, apart from the lead, and in the image's description so that anyone who wants to use it in another article can provide a citation. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Ælfwynn, wife of Æthelstan Half-King

I think you could probably trim a few words about the sons; I could see someone saying the article strays a little too deeply into her relatives' achievements, though that's more an issue for people who have articles of their own. The article is currently 667 words; my own rule is that under 1,000 words I nominate for GA and don't nominate at FAC. There have certainly been shorter articles promoted at FAC, so that's just a personal preference. However, if you do cut a couple of sentences about her male relatives, the article would be quite close to the shortest FA; probably under 600 words. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I see you nominated it; I will take a look and I'm sure I'll support, but I might wait for others to comment first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Eadwig

Congratulations, Dudley Miles! The article you nominated, Eadwig, 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, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Cove Mountain

Dudley Miles—Thank you for the Peer Review of Battle of Cove Mountain. I have been busy with reviewing a battle for Good Article, getting Indiana Glass Company reviewed for Good Article, and a draft of another battle—causing me to miss your work until today. I will address each one of your concerns in the next few days. Again, thank you very much, and I am confident I will get this battle to Good Article. TwoScars (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Can I get your eyes...

At Talk:Battle of Val-ès-Dunes ... I'm exceedingly busy in real life and I cannot seem to get through to this editor that his "sources" are not reliable. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Ealdgyth. His latest suggestion does not look too bad and I have drafted a referenced version. OK with you? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

FAC question

Hi there. I intend to submit Ai-Khanoum at WP:FAC soon, which will be my first Featured Article nomination. Do you think it is likely that the nomination will be successful? I have also opened a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ai-Khanoum/archive1 for general advice - anything would be helpful. Thank you. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Last Glacial Period

Why did you change the recent edit when 2.59 million years is much closer to accurate than 2.58 million years? It makes Wikipedia look illiterate or incompetent in math. KyZan (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)KyZan

The most authorative source at [2] says 2.58 million. We go by authorative sources, not editors' personal opinions. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Ælfwynn, wife of Æthelstan Half-King

Congratulations, Dudley Miles! The article you nominated, Ælfwynn, wife of Æthelstan Half-King, 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) 12:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Londinium

I have done what I should have done earlier and moved the discussion on Londinium to Talk:Londinium so that other editors can see the discussion and comment if they wish. Please add further comments there. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I have put up a new draft, and also added some additional comments (referenced) on the research as to whether many roman temples were converted to churches in England. All quite interesting! Davebabsmith (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there a time limit for comments on the draft before it is uploaded to the main page? No one has commented in over 1 month? Thank you. Davebabsmith (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I am away on holiday this week but I will try to look at it next week. I have the new history of Roman London by Dominic Perring, but it will be some time before I get round to reading it. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Lady Godiva

Apologies for reverting you, but it was simpler to do that and get rid of all the uncited fluff, than start a merge from scratch as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Godiva in popular culture. No offense intended. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Alfred

If Alfred was "King of the Anglo-Saxons" and not "King of the English", why is "Rex Anglo" engraved onto his "Two Emperors" penny? Faren29 (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The two emperors were Alfred and Ceolred, King of Mercia and the coin dates to early in his reign when he was allied with Mercia and only claiming to be king of Wessex. Later, when Ceolred's successor Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, who controlled western Mercia but not Viking rule eastern Mercia, accepted Alfred's overlordship, Alfred adopted the title King of the Anglo-Saxons, but he never claimed to be king of the English. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Standard Formats?

Where do we find "standard formats" in WP? Readers don't need a "UK" for London or "NY" for New York. Nor do they need hyphens in the ISBN. When readers go to H:ISBN they will see "spaces and dashes" do not matter. Also, WorldCat results do not produce hyphenated ISBNs. Your rollback on your article may have "fixed" some issues you see in that article, but roll-backs are improper when the un-correct errors that really were fixed. (Such as hyphens in rather than endashes in dates.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I recently took this article through WP:FAC and it is as supported by reviewers. The recommended standard for publishers' location, as I understand it, is to have the state if it is the USA and country elsewhere. Whether that is the best convention is a matter of opinion which I am not concerned about either way, but it is not worth arguing about. ISBN with dashes or spaces is as in [3] and is how they are usually shown in books. As to spaces or endashes I do not understand the rules but this is always fixed by experts at FAC. On a number of issues there is no one acceptable rule, and an editor should not change an article from one format which is acceptable to another which happens to be their preference without good reason. I am working my way through the late Anglo-Saxon kings and I try to keep the articles to a consistent format. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Eadwig scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 16 November 2022. 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/November 16, 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "the latest of my articles about Anglo-Saxon kings"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hobbit Man

Why was the evidently more accurate date from National Geographic rejected? KyZan (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)KyZan

You have to cite a source so that readers can check it, not say a source exists without citing it. Also, your date is not evidently more accurate. No scientist would say that the exact date of the extinction of Homo floresiensis is known. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Neolithic British Isles

You recently undid some edits I made on the above page and explained that I needed to provide references. As part of the edit I did provide a reference to a book and also to a journalistic article, the latter of which discussed the discovery of evidence that enables us to put a much earlier date on the Neolithic revolution in the Near East, namely 12,500 BC. I'm therefore not sure what you mean when you say a reference wasn't provided. Is there something specific you believe was missing? Thanks. Theworks84 (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Apologies. I misread your edits. The Barker book is obviously a reliable source, although the Jerusalem Post one is doubtful. Newspaper articles are not generally considered good sources for archaeology. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I think the best thing for me to do then is add back in the section where I cited the book but leave out the information which was drawn from the newspaper article. Theworks84 (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

What hatnote? Can you elaborate, please?GOLDIEM J (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

At the top of Norman Conquest there is a hatnote "This article is about the Norman invasion of England in 1066. For other uses, see Norman conquest (disambiguation)." Dudley Miles (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Possible mentor/guide?

Hi, @Dudley Miles. Recently, I reached out to Ealdgyth about her possibly being my guide/mentor as I work on the article for Edward I, which I plan to nominate for FA by the end of the year. She said she was unable to assist at this time, but pointed to you as someone who could help me out. Can I get your opinion on this? It's alright if you are caught up with other business, though. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

It is very good news that you are working on Edward. No one has worked on 13th and 14th century kings of England since the sad retirement of the excellent hchc2009. My speciality is late Anglo-Saxon England and my knowledge of the later medieval period is limited, but I am happy to help as far as I can. I suggest that when you have got the article as far as you can you put it up for Wikipedia:Peer review and ping me to contribute. That way, you may get comments from other people as well. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I still lurk in the background occasionally... ditto, if you remind me when it's up for peer review, very happy to take a look at it! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Great. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow, I did not expect to see you here! Hope you're doing well, and thank you for your offer! Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I recently pinged you both in the PR. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not get the ping. This is because you did it as an edit of your nomination. Pinging only works if you do it as a new message with its own signature. I will look at the article in the next few days. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Unlimitedlead (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks and the same to you Unlimitedlead. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm honestly impressed. Dish-bearers and butlers in Anglo-Saxon England, which you created around ten days ago, is almost at FA-status. That has to be some kind of record. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia! Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Unlimitedlead. The article was actually drafted in a sandbox. so 10 days is misleading. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Still impressive, nonetheless. Speaking of sandboxes, I do have to ask: when you are working on a pre-existing article in your sandbox, when you are done, do you just paste everything into the original article? What exactly is that process like? Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I copy the existing article into a sandbox and cut out anything unreliable. I then go through the sources adding anything relevant. At this stage it is just a jumble of notes, which is why I prefer working in a sandbox. Once I have arranged and checked it I then overwrite the article with a comment "General revision". So far no one has objected, but I may have a problem some day. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Dish-bearers and butlers in Anglo-Saxon England

Congratulations, Dudley Miles! The article you nominated, Dish-bearers and butlers in Anglo-Saxon England, 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, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Kalends of January

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you Ealdgyth and I hope you have a successful year. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Edgar, King of England

Hi Dudley, just dropping by really quick to congratulate you for your work on the aforementioned article. I'm very impressed by how thoroughly you have expanded and illustrated it; I hope to see it at FA and DYK this year? Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will put it up for FA but I have never got involved with DYK. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Peer review

I have nominated Edgar, King of England for peer review and should be grateful for any feedback. Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Familiarity to IP edits

Hi Dudley, I noticed you made this reversion, which I support. The IP's other edits seem dubious and possibly familiar but I can't place what their previous incarnation may have been. Wondered if you had any thoughts? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

No I am afraid I can't. As you are no doubt aware, the use of the word Celtic for British post-Roman people is generally rejected by historians, and I do not remember previously coming across an editor pushing the word. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. I think they have elements of other editors but with other aspects that maybe don't fit the bill. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sheepwalk Lake

The article Sheepwalk Lake has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced, no indication of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Mattdaviesfsic you do not seem to be aware that the article was sourced and notable until today. It is about a nature reserve managed by the Surrey Wildlife Trust, but an editor connected with the trust removed the management information and the ref because it no longer manages the site. I think it is probably still notable as a nature reserve, but as I do not see any source which looks like an RS I will not oppose deletion. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Edgar, King of England

On 14 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Edgar, King of England, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that King Edgar of England wanted to marry Wufhild, but she rejected him to become a nun instead? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edgar, King of England. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Edgar, King of England), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Dudley. I'm just posting to let you know that Norfolk 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 March 17. 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) 21:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Edgar

Hello, Dudley. Just out of curiosity, can I ask when you plan to take Edgar to FA? It looks like the PR is a bit slow... Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I emailed a historian a couple of days ago asking him to comment on the article. He has not replied so far and I will give him a few more days and if he does not reply I will decide what to do. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to WP:CIII

Hello. Just in case you missed it, there's a task force up at WP:CIII which you may be interested in. There is, of course, no obligation to participate, but if you do, it is very much appreciated.

Best wishes, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Modern royalty is way outside my area of interest. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)·

Ah, sorry. I'd seen your dedicated work improving articles on Anglo-Saxon and English royalty, and thought you might be interested. Thanks anyway. :) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Humanities Submission

Hello, Mr. Miles. I noticed that you have had Æthelflæd published to the WikiJournal of Humanities, and I recently submitted one of my own articles to undergo this process. Is there anything you can tell me about it? Thank you, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I decided not to submit any more articles after Æthelflæd, mainly because hardly anyone reads it. In the last few months academia.edu seems to have started pushing the article to its members, but it still gets only one view a day, compared with 840 a day for the Wikipedia version. Some submissions have got stuck for years without reviews, although I cannot now find the page which listed timescales. They do seem to have a far bigger editorial board now, who may be trying to improve things, but the 2020 and 2021 journals only had one article each, which suggests that they still have a way to go. The upside was that I did get a review by a leading historian. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your experience. I too would enjoy the honour of having some of my writings examined by an expert, and maybe it wouldn't hurt my self esteem to be able to say that I have a published work :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Unlimitedlead submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate User Dudley Miles to be Editor of the Week for his outstanding help around FAR and PR. I was genuinely shocked when I discovered that Dudley had never been Editor of the Week before, so I'd like to rectify that. I think we can all admit that the royalty section of Wikipedia is not as active as other sectors. However, Dudley has constantly managed to push out quality article after quality article; not only that, but he has helped me at my current FAR, this PR, and this PR out of his own fruition. After 15+ years of magnificent service to Wikipedia, Dudley richly deserves an EotW award. This nomination was seconded by User:AirshipJungleman29 and User:Gog the Mild

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Francis Place

Dudley Miles

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning March 19, 2023

15 years of magnificent service to Wikipedia and outstanding help around FAR and PR. Sadly, the royalty section of Wikipedia is not as active as other sectors. However, Dudley has constantly managed to push out quality article after quality article. See this PR as an example.

Recognized for

Anglo-Saxon enrichment

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 17:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for the award and kind words. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, good sir. This award is much overdue; thank you for all your hard work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Some Monmouthshire gardens

Good afternoon Dudley - I write asking a favour. I know it’s not quite your usual thing, but I wondered, if you had time, whether you’d be kind enough to have a look at Registered historic parks and gardens in Monmouthshire. It’s got a bit stuck, here. It does have some importance, given that landscapes now have statutory status in Wales. If you are busy elsewhere, then no problem at all. Equally, if you did have time, I’d be pleased to return the favour with any FLC/FAC/Peer review you may have planned/in train. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Edgar, King of England

Congratulations, Dudley Miles! The article you nominated, Edgar, King of England, 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, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Nice. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

FA review for Li Rui

Hello! I nominated Li Rui for FA status, but the review is now at risk of being archived because there have not been many comments. Would you be willing to jump in and share your thoughts on the article? You previously were a reviewer for one of my other two FAs (Mary van Kleeck), which I really appreciated. Thank you! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to thank you for your comments on the Li Rui FA review. I appreciate your assistance in getting it to the state it's in today! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Irish nationality law FAC

Hey Dudley, I wanted to ask if you would possibly be interested in reviewing the Irish nationality law article at FAC? This currently has three supports and it would be great to just push it over the edge. You previously supported another one of my FAs, New Zealand nationality law, which I've modeled this article after quite similarly given the content. Would appreciate any assistance, thanks! Horserice (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I am tied up working on a non-Wiki article at present, but I will try to take a look in the next few days. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Richard I of England

Version of 4 May 2023 13:09 : What, unreferenced? I mentioned where that paragraph came from: Jean de Joinville, Life of Saint Louis, Chapter CVIII. What should I have added to make it a reference? — Tonymec (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

You have to give a full reference so that readers can see exactly what your source is and the page numbers. For example, another reference is <ref>{{cite book|last=Huscroft|first=Richard|year=2016|title=Tales From the Long Twelfth Century: The Rise and Fall of the Angevin Empire|publisher=Yale University Press0|pages=19–20}}</ref>. See other examples in the references section of the article and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Sorry that it is a bit complicated but readers do need to see the exact details of the edition and page numbers you are using. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't have the book at hand anymore, but it was Les chroniqueurs du Moyen Âge, coll. La Pléiade, Paris, Gallimard. I don't have the page number but I gave the chapter number and these chapters are fairly short, usually no more than a couple of pages. The chapter number ought to be the same in any edition anyway, IIUC it is a more "stable" reference than the page number; similarly when giving a quotation from the Bible I would mention the book, chapter and verse, probably also the translation used, and dispense with the publisher, publication date, page and ISBN. — Tonymec (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The details you provide are satisfactory for a blog, but not a Wikipedia citation. Also, who did the translation? This must be by a reliable academic source, not an editor's own translation. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The French text was, AFAIK, Joinville's own French, as written in 1309. That text is still perfectly understandable to 21st-century French-speaking people like me notwithstanding the differences in grammar and orthography, but I translated it into contemporary English for the benefit of English-speaking Wikipedians. My translation can — well, until you removed it, could — be checked against the French original, and if necessary corrected, by anyone with a similar bilingual background. — Tonymec (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but...

Hi there, thanks for the support in dealing with the IP at Talk:King Arthur. However I think you inadvertently reverted their latest attempt back in, not out! :) Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my error, now dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Great, thanks again. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

"No formal merge proposal made"

I see you removed the merge proposal [4] mentioning "no formal merge proposal made". Isn't it enough to create a section in the talk page to discuss the merge (like Talk:Miyake event#Merge)? C messier (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

No. You should use the template {{merge|OTHERPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merger proposal|date=May 2023}}. See. Wikipedia:Merging. Following this procedure ensures that people who may be interested in commenting are notified. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: I agree that one of the two merge templates required was initially missing, but I'd added it (to ensure that everyone was notified) ... at which point you removed both of them? Are you concerned that the merge template date should be May rather than March (on the grounds that both templates weren't present)? If so, I assume that you won't object to the templates now being added; the case C messier seemed well-reasoned, which is why I think that its worth continuing with the proposal, or formally restating if you prefer. Klbrain (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The template you added was on the article pages stating that a merge has been proposed, but it has not been proposed. It has to be proposed using the merge template on the talk page. This ensures that people who may be interested in commenting but are not watching the pages will be notified. See my comment above about the correct procedure. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The info page mentions that I had to start a new section at the bottom of that talk page and include the proposal itself, the list of the affected pages, and a merger rationale. The proposal is evident from the section title, the affected page is mentioned and added also the rational. Maybe it could be written better (using the suggested form), but all the elements required are there (eg. Klbrain undestood had I was suggesting). C messier (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I added the proposal to be as the example form [5] and added back the templates. C messier (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

As I have pointed out to you twice, you have to use the template because it notifies people who do not have the articles on their watchlist of the proposal. You cannot exclude people from being notified because you cannot be bothered to use the template. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:MERGE You may optionally notify. Not notifying the involved users is not a valid reason to remove the merger proposal templates. C messier (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

And yes, I used the template (that you keep removing) [6], created the proposal (that you claim that doesn't exist), even pinged the creator of the article [7] (which is optional), but you keep reverting, even though the issues you noted have been addressed or didn't exist. C messier (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: You seem to have misread the protocol; the template don't go on the talk page, but rather one the (article) pages; see, for example, the set of pages tagged in Category:Articles to be merged from March 2023, which are article pages. Klbrain (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking again, you are right. All other similar proposals go on the talk page, and I assumed that the same applies to merge. Apologies. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Edward III of England Featured article review

I have nominated Edward III of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorgia. The best editor now for this is User:Unlimitedlead. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thx! I saw they weighed in on the FAR. Bst regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Oughtonhead Nature Reserve for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oughtonhead Nature Reserve is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oughtonhead Nature Reserve until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JMWt (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Calling Anglo-Saxon specialists

I've looked in at the FAC for Edith of Wilton and added my twopenn'orth, but comments from someone who, unlike me, knows a thing or two about Anglo-Saxon England, would, I feel sure, be appreciated by the nominator. Hope all is well with you. – Tim riley talk 12:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tim. I have posted a note on the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

St Edith and sources

Hey Dudley, speaking of the above, thanks for your comments and feedback at St Edith's FAC. You've now become my go-to guy regarding my beloved English medieval saints, especially with Edith's bio since most of my work on femaie saints thus far have been about the obscure ones whose bios need saving. Edith's story just drew me in and it became a larger project than I was used to and kind of outside my field of expertise here on WP. You've been most helpful with sources, so I appreciate it, even if I don't always agree with you.

Speaking of, at Edith's FAC you suggested using an article from Bishop Wilton's Local History Bulletin, about the churches dedicated to Edith. I'm a little surprised that you suggested it, since local newsletters aren't considered the most reliable sources on WP. I'm happy to use it, since I believe that for many of the obscure topics we write about, we sometimes need to use them, in order to be as comprehensive as possible. So why is the newsletter from small villiage's historical society okay to use for Edith's bio but not hagiographies like the ones written by Agnes Dunbar and Sabine Baring-Gould are not?

I'm not trying to be argumentative; this is a question I'm sincerely curious about. I think it's important that we discuss this kind of thing, since the survival of many of the obscure female saints I like to write about on WP depend upon us answering and resolving it. I'm no medievalist, but scholars like Jane Tibbetts Schulenburg and Katie Ann-Marie Bugyis think that hagiographies are valid sources to use in research. Looking forward to your response and the ensuing discussion. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes I was aware when I suggested it that it probably would not be regarded by some editors as a reliable source. It states facts which agree with other sources I read and more importantly cites sources. It covers an aspect not covered by academic historians (that is on churches dedicated to Edith. I would not use it for anything else), and so far as I can judge reliably. It would probably not pass a source review - although I would personally not object to it - but it does point to other sources you can check and churches you can do research on.

Hagiographies are valid sources for historians as they have the expertise to judge how far they are reliable. We do not cite hagiographies for facts as we do not have that expertise. If you regard Baring-Gould and Dunbar as hagiographies (I would describe them as unreliable popular works) then they would be ruled out as interpreting them would be original research, which is forbidden. In other words we can only use hagiographies at second hand as interpreted in reliable secondary sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Dudley, I agree with you about using non-traditional sources in WP articles and bios. I think that sometimes we have to, in order to be, as I said, comprehensive. I think that WP needs to open up itself to non-traditional sources in order to include neglected topics and individuals, even sources like oral histories and self-published websites and sources. I would defend using this newsletter, for the reasons we both give here.

For me, this includes hagiographies. See, we WP editors and contributors make decisions about sources all the time. We discuss often at great lengths whether or not it's approprate to use them. Hagiographies are lists of saints, made by different people and communities. I've written about obscure female saints for the past three years and Dunbar and Baring-Gould are often the only sources out there about speciic individuals. There are all kinds of reasons for that, including systemic bias and sexism, so I don't think we should dismiss them out-of-hand just because they were popular at the time. I certainly wouldn't use some of the church, parish, and even denominational websites of lists of saints. The policies here about RS include popular works, even if they were popular hundreds of years ago. Readers are smart enough to know that. Both sources mentioned above have rare insights into their subjects, especially Dunbar. I think that's why, when I use her, I add annoying phrases like, "Dunbar says" or "According to Dunbar."

All that being said, I think it's all right for us to use Dunbar and Baring-Gould. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Hagiographies are accounts of saints' miracles by medieval writers who believed that they were literally true. They need to be interpreted by experts and we are not experts. Dunbar and Baring-Gould are not hagiographers. They are unreliable popular writers and if you use them then your articles are below Wikipedia's standard and they will not pass FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Dudley, I guess we're going to agree to disagree. I knew that D and B-G would be an issue for this bio at FAC, so that's why I followed your advice and removed them. I suspect that the bios of other obscure female saints I work on will never be FAs, anyway, and they shouldn't because they're too short (i.e., stubs) or they don't have enough RS available. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who is so obscure that D and B-G are the only sources is not notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Anyone who is notable will almost certainly be covered by Farmer's Dictionary of Saints, which is a reliable source. The best source I know on lesser known female saints is Sarah Foot's two volume Veiled Women. Reliable sources are not just necessary for FAs, they are required for any article. If you base articles on unreliable sources they are liable to be proposed for deletion by anyone who comes across them and your work will be wasted. Butler's Lives of the Saints is recommended by Oxford Reference at [8], which presumably qualifies it as an RS, althhough I am not sure whether Nikkimaria would agree. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

There are all kinds of RS and even high quality sources about female saints; we're just having a disagreement about hagiographies. I looked at the list of web resources you suggested; most aren't technically reliable because most of them are SPS (i.e., published by organizations like the Benedictines). I was surprised to see Catholic.org on that list. Perhaps you didn't know it, but it's a mirror site, sometimes from WP, and it doesn't even cite the sources it plagarizes. Edgar, King of England, a FA, uses it, only twice, but it shouldn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figureskatingfan (talk • contribs)

Your general point is correct. I did not look at the list closely enough. I wrote the article on Edgar, and Nikkimaria disputed citing Catholic.org, but I pointed out that I was using it solely as evidence of the view of Edgar in popular sources and she did not push her doubts so far as to oppose promotion. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

That link's not opening for me atm so I can't speak to what it says specifically. I would in general be cautious of applying a blanket-RS ruling based on something like that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Athelstan's bones

Hi there,

we saw that you undid our correction of the timing of the loss of King Athelstan's bones at Malmesbury Abbey. Here in Malmesbury, it is believed that it is a common misconception that his bones were lost during the reformation. Rather, they were moved from near the altar of the previous Abbey Church when it was demolished in the 12th Century to make way for the building of the new Abbey Church (which stands today). As recorded by William of Malmesbury, it was intended that they be placed in the new Abbey Church when complete, but as far as we know, this did not happen and his body remains where it was 'temporarily' buried.

Are you aware of any record of the presence/location of his remains at the Abbey (in the church itself or otherwise) after the 12th century, and up to the time of the reformation? If so, that would be great for us to know..

many thanks for your time,

Alan (IT admin at the Athelstan Museum in Malmesbury) Athelstan Museum (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I see that I omitted the reference for the loss of the bones during the Reformation and I have now added it. See the text to plate 16 in Sarah Foot's biography of Æthelstan. See her page at [9]. I suggest you contact her for further information. I should be interested to hear any information you get from her. Unfortunately an unpublished email exchange would not be considered a reliable source under Wikipedia rules, but we could use a reliable published source which throws new light on the fate of Æthelstan's bones. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah OK. Yes I see the text to plate in Sarah's book. We are seeing Sarah soon here, so can discuss with her then. Maybe she has a source she is basing that on, or maybe not. I will let you know what I discover.

A Athelstan Museum (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello again,

I have now had an exchange with Sarah Foot regarding the text to plate 16 of her book, and also with Tony McAleavy who has written a recent book on the history of Malmesbury Abbey. So here is an update on thoughts on the fate of Athelstan's bones.

Sarah Foot stated that she knows of no evidence for the location of Athelstan's bones after the 12th Century. The text under plate 16 was not intended as a historically sourced, definitive statement as to what happened to them. The key statement of that text was to say that the tomb is now empty. She said that the idea that the bones were lost during the reformation was put in there as she was taking what was the received opinion on the subject. But she does not know definitively what happened to Athelstan's bones after the reference by William of Malmesbury in the 12th Century.
Tony McAleavy's researches are more specifically about Malmesbury Abbey, (as opposed to Sarah Foot's, who was more focussed on the life of the King). He believes that it is a reasonable surmise that the bones could have been lost at the time of the reformation, but he knows of no definitive evidence that their whereabouts was known before that, so it is not certain. The one reference that comes from the period between William of Malmesbury and the reformation is as follows. There is a reference to Malmesbury Abbey being the resting place of Athelstan in a manuscript which exists in the Lambeth Palace Library, dating from around 1380. This would be just before the construction of the box tomb. But this reference does not refer to a particular location within the abbey, and could just be a reference to the fact that it was known that he was buried there.

So the current state of knowledge on this point seems to be that we are not sure. It could be that he was temporarily buried in the grounds during the construction of the new Abbey Church in the 12th Century and never retrieved, or he could have been in that abbey church from the 12th Century until the reformation and then lost, or something in between. Based on that, I'm wondering if the statement in the Wikipedia article that 'His bones were lost during the reformation' is a bit too definite.

best regards

Alan Athelstan Museum (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I have deleted the statement that his bones were lost during the Reformation. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of source

Hi, Dudley. May I ask your opinion on Michael Hicks (historian) and A. J. Pollard as high-quality reliable sources? I was planning on writing an article using their publications and I would like to know if they is FA-quality material. Thank you kindly, Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I can only give you my personal opinion. They are obviously RS but whether they are HQ depends on the subject. If the article is about their specialist area then they are HQ, but even experts can make surprising errors when they go outside their area of expertise. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for your input. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Dish-bearers and butlers in Anglo-Saxon England scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Dish-bearers and butlers in Anglo-Saxon England article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 24, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 24, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Selby and Ainsty poll

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/386866439035813891/1125092325111103599/image0.jpg JamesVilla44 (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

JamesVilla44 you have to cite a reliable source in the article, not an anonymous one on a talk page.

Hadrian's Wall

Dear Dudley,

Thank you for pointing out the duplicate information. I fixed it with the Latin quote, the first - and very brief - source for this wonderful Wall. Thanks, cheers, Hansmuller (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

dish-bearers and butlers in anglo-saxon england

hello, Dudley Miles! i had a quick question regarding this blurb for this article. would it be appropriate to add "and butlers" to the end of the blurb? butlers are mentioned every other time dish-bearers are mentioned in the blurb, so leaving it out in the last instance suggests to me that queens and æthelings did not have butlers, even though the caption of the image in the blurb contradicts this suggestion. dying (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. I do not remember the exact details, but checking the article I see that Edith had a butler, but there is no known case of an ætheling having one. This is probably because none happen to have been recorded rather than because they did not have butlers, but we cannot say that they definitely did. I do not see an easy way of dealing with this as spelling it out seems too much detail for the blurb. Changing "butler" to "dish-bearer" in the picture caption does not seem to add an extra line, so that seems the best way to avoid an appearance of a contradiction. Any views Jimfbleak? Dudley Miles (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Changing the blurb looks good to me, go ahead unless @Dying: sees a problem Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

oh, yeah, simply changing "butler" to "dish-bearer" in the caption is a better solution than what i had proposed. thanks for coming up with it. dying (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for the unusual article, introduced: "Dish-bearers and butlers were officers at Anglo-Saxon royal feasts. Dish-bearers are usually described as seneschals by historians, and Bazza 7 commented that it was unclear what "seneschal" means in the Eadwig article, so I have created this article to explain." - My story today matches the DYK-theme of Santiago well ;) - and describes what I just experienced, pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

While today's DYK highlights Santiago on his day, I did my modest share with my story today, describing what I just experienced, pictured. I began the article of the woman in green. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)