User talk:Richard Nevell/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Vast meandering slabs of cake and a happy New year!

Hi Richard, and thanks for the thanks. That one was pretty damn turgid, and whoever wrote it really meant it. Amazing how long thsese things can hang aroud unnoticed. Best wishes! Haploidavey (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC) @Haploidavey: It's good to see, sometimes things can just stick around longer because they've always been there. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

AfD Barbara Goff

Thank you for your vote on the titled AfD inquiry.

I did not realize that suggesting self-promotion implied outing the user/username. I definitely see how this is the case. Thank you for showing me this. Augu❤Maugu 💕 00:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Re François Debon

Hi, can you explain what the benefit is of having the ISNI link at François Debon? It takes its information from BNF and the like, which we already have in the authority control template, and doesn't seem to add anything useful for readers. If there is something I miss here, I'll readd ISNI to the ACArt template, but as far as I can see nothing is lost by removing this link (the link, just like many others not included in template:authority control, remains available at Wikidata, which is the actual repository of these links; the templates authority control and acart are only selections of these anyway). I'll not edit war over this, no worries, I just wonder why it should be included. Fram (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Fram. Part of the point of authority control is to link to other databases to help with identifying individuals. As such, there will often be some overlap in content between databases. That overlap does not diminish the value of such links, quite the contrary. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but how does isni help me or anyone at enwiki in identifying this individual? Why aren´t the other authority ids and links not more than sufficient for this? For simple identification, it adds nothing further, it´s just more of the same (but without the additional info some of the other links have). And for the few people who need as many links as possible, we have Wikidata which is much more complete. Fram (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If you go to the ISNI entry you see a list of names Debon can be found under, amongst other pieces of information. Some or all of that information will be duplicated in records on other databases. By your reasoning we could drop the authority control template altogether and direct readers towards Wikidata since it is more complete. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

ISNI looks like a badly compiled version of some of the other, really informative links. The different forms of his own name are listed everywhere, the related names are listed with more information (and links!) at WorldCat[1], the single "titles" "La Normandie" is explained at BNF[2]. And no, my reasoning (dropping ISNI because it is more of the same, in a worse format) doesn't mean that we can drop authority control altogether; removing duplication and links which add no extra value, doesn't mean dropping the links which don't have these issues. WorldCat, Getty, RKD, ... are truly useful, informative sites, both immediately on the linked page, and on pages you can access from there. ISNI doesn't have these characteristics. Dropping some doesn't mean dropping all, just like showing some shouldn't mean showing all. Fram (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Castles...in the Cardiff area

Hi Richard,

I've just seen your User Page....I'm impressed.

Over the coming weeks (maybe months) I want to create articles on:

1. Caer Cynwrig aka Twmpath Castle or Motte (there may have been two with the same name in the Cardiff area???),
2. Treoda Castle Mound
3. Rumney Castle

When I (eventually) create them, I'd be really be pleased if you would also help in editing [or even reverting :-) my edits]. SethWhales ^talk 15:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to take a look! It would be great to see those sites get some coverage. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Middle Ages in the Levant? And: "water castle" (Wasserburg) etc.

Hi Richard, and thanks for the thanks! Glad to know you, even in this form. I see you have studied castellology, so if you don't mind, I'd like to ask for your opinion in two related matters.

I have read somewhere, but I cannot recall where, that it is at least controversial to talk about "Middle Ages" when referring to the Middle East, apart from the Crusader states and period. It had to do with the definition, which is based on European history - it was in the "middle" between Classical antiquity and Renaissance, whence in the Middle East there was no clear end of the classical era (some consider the Umayyads part of it, for instance), nor did they ever have a Renaissance. Second, the feudal system didn't develop as it did in Europe. I don't know how much this approach has been discarded, is just fringe, has been accepted, is growing, or approaching consensus. It seems to me that Professor Denys Pringle does use the term 'medieval' for both Frankish and Muslim fortifications. Anyway, I can't figure it out.

Second, I came across an editor, Bermicourt, who was tremendously active in creating castle-related articles based on German terminology, sometimes by translating word for word the entire German Wiki articles, photos, bibliography and all. It seems to me that there are (here too, as in many other fields) a lot more precise German terms built by ways of compound words, I do sometimes miss them as a tool when writing in English, but I've had a heated debate on whether one can simply translate them and name WP articles like that, which does create the impression that these were established English terms. WP is not the Oxford Dictionary for... Anything, but does have a large impact. Concrete case: water castle (Wasserburg; Wasserschloss), only partially translated by "moated castle"; island castle (Inselburg); bridge castle (Brückenburg); lowland castle (Niederungsburg, Tieflandburg, Flachlandburg); or where does material about "Torburg" best fit in: gatehouse or fortified gateway? There were many more, but I can't find the list right now. What is your opinion?

Sorry for overrunning you like this with matters which might not interest you at all. If so, absolutely no problem, please just ignore, I mean it. Have a great day, Arminden (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The concept of the Middle Ages is a tricky one because as you say it was developed within a specifically European framework. The Wikipedia article on the Middle Ages makes it explicit that it applies to Europe. Then again, we also have an article on medieval India so within Wikipedia there are different approaches. There is a growing trend to look at a global Middle Ages, essentially looking at what was going on beyond Europe in the same timeframe. I'd still be cautious of viewing everything through a European lens, but 'medieval' seems to be a slightly squishy term so there's probably not a 'right' answer.

German castle studies does seem to have a more tightly defined typology when it comes to classifying castles. Bermicourt's articles make very interesting reading. Terms such as water castle can be found in English-language literature, but you'd be more likely to find it as a descriptor rather than a hard classification. There is some overlap in terms, but it's not always 100%; some moated castles would have had dry moats, for example. From what I've seen the articles go beyond just being dictionary definition, so I don't think there's a problem with whether these should be articles but I do see your point about titles.

It's difficult because I like the German vocabulary and having more articles which aren't written from a UK viewpoint is a good thing, but I can see that there can be issues. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Blast furnace

Blast furnace, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Chidgk1, I'll take a look but probably won't contribute many comments. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

drawbar (defense)

Hi Richard, I don't mind having it moved - I was thinking of Irish towerhouses and they usually don't have a prison, because they're just too small. But "security" makes sense, too. A.-K. D. (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Phyllida Barlow

Hi! I used an edit summary to give my reasons for reverting that edit at Phyllida Barlow by ZuJani--B, who's been relentlessly promoting her prize here for a while now. That wasn't very polite of me; happy to discuss if you think it's worth it. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Vikings

Hi Richard, you're welcome to replace the source on the 2020 study directly to Nature. Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Women's Classical Committee

Richard--I saw that you thanked me for an edit of Kate Norgate and saw that you are associated with the Women's Classical Committee. In my work on the Crusades I have encountered a number of female historians that may be of interest. I have not been able to find a list and in checking the ones that have Wikipedia pages, they do not seem to be listed anywhere. There are also quite a few with no Wikipedia articles. Let me know if you or anyone else might be interested in them. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Grampinator, it's always good to see someone around Wikipedia's pages on history. The Women's Classical Committee has a list of people to write about] (as well as an automatically generated list based on info in Wikidata). MedievalWiki has a similar list, so that would be an especially good fit for historians related to the crusades. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Jodie Lewis

On 26 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jodie Lewis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dr. Jodie Lewis led a team of students from the University of Worcester and volunteer archaeologists in excavating the first timber circle discovered in Somerset? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jodie Lewis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jodie Lewis), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

reference templates

Hi, Richard, thankyou for your message and for the courtesy of your question. I can only acknowledge with gratitude the good faith in which it is presented, though you'll see below that, since you do ask, I hope you will understand why my response is not one that is favourable to your suggestion. If you trouble to look at the edit histories of the articles I have worked on over the past few years, you'll see that a good deal of my time is spent in this work, freely given, and I hope given with great care.

I believe that, if you had spent the amount of time which I have spent, carefully searching out the details of these sources, and presenting them in a full and regularized format, in order to support the article texts so painstakingly assembled and written, you would hesitate further before attempting to impose a wholesale change of format on one part of the scholarly mechanism for somewhat arbitrary purposes. I have often collaborated, but what you propose is submission to an order which has no better validity than the order I myself, as author, have adopted. There is no rule in the matter of reference format, but I have aimed for consistency according to an accepted and recognized academic format.

The honest and direct answer is, that I really very much hope you won't go through all the articles I have worked at length on, replacing the journal references with your template. Since I started editing here in 2006 it took me a while to get up to speed with adequate referencing - things were looser in the earlier times - but over the past 6 or 7 years I have been, I hope, VERY consistent and thorough. The journal references follow a pattern which is related to all the other kinds of book references, so if you change just the journals it will make a hotchpotch of everything I have been doing. I would find it extremely disheartening, and actually a great deterrent to making any further contributions, if this were to happen. If it is done merely to add the names of some journals to a list, the better procedure would be for you to go through my references visually with a notebook and write the journal names down (as I do when I am working on articles), and to add them manually to your list, rather than disrupting the whole system of referencing in an article just to simplify a task of secondary importance to the article itself.

The formats of the references are therefore as I have intended them to be, and you will find that in almost every case the references are directly linked to the page in the source text. To change them all would be unnecessary in relation to your first reason for wanting to do it, would almost certainly involve a certain amount of loss of data (because many of the "journal" or "series" references are more complicated than allowed for in a simple template, and there is the problem of page-number ref and linkage), and (though the proces of alteration) would open the gates to a general possibility of confusion of data which I am not in a position to monitor. It would, above all, entirely disrupt my attempts to establish a consistent formula of referencing, without bringing any particular benefit. I really do not have the inclination to spend precious time correcting or checking for correction the corrections of another editor to what I have already, with great care, written correctly and consistently.

You have asked my opinion, and that is it. I don't see what more I can say. At any rate, thankyou for giving me the chance to say it. Best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• P.S. I'm sorry that my reply comes across as so crabby and starchy, it wasn't meant to be, but you frightened me! I will leave it as it is but hope you'll receive it in good will. I don't talk to people very much... Perhaps we might confer on one or two Kentish and South Saxon questions, sometime? Good wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your kind response. Even more (much more) drastic things have occurred to some of my work, which has made me prone to nervous reactions. Your question was fine. Still, I'll be glad if my system lives to fight another day... Regards, Eebahgum (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Harry Lambert (journalist) page

Richard, hey - I appreciate that you are providing oversight to this page. I had a couple of outstanding questions, if I may, having re-consulted WP:BLP. I can see why the article information was moved to "Career" but it is unclear as to why the subject's parents, who in any case lack a citation, are the second line of the entry (they were already listed in the sidebar). This is not what the subject is known for and it has no bearing on their work. This information was added in February by an otherwise inactive user who created an account for this sole purpose. As per WP:BLP, "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic."

WP:BLP goes on, as you will know: "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." + "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects… [inclusion is] subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." The burden of proof seems to be on those wanting to include this information - it does not appear to have been met.

Recent anonymous deletions have also removed a reference to the following, which seems to meet the WP:BLP standard for inclusion in "Career": In 2019, Lambert's profile of Dominic Cummings for the New Statesman was listed by BBC Media Editor Amol Rajan as one of his top five pieces of the year [as part of an ongoing annual series]. This seems equivalent to a film making a critic's "top ten of the year", as listed on other pages. It has been deleted by anonymous users, having been upheld by established editors from April 2020 until this week. As WP:BLP says, "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects."

The link for the UCL course is here . Links for this course date back to 2019. Thank you. 2A02:C7D:7EA3:E900:744A:BE32:535F:8722 (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bec Hill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hachette.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Azeem Rafiq impartiality

Added this about Azeem Rafiq because I believe we should be impartial and explain all the evident that we have and not have the article one sided 'A leaked report also states that if Rafiq was still at the club, he would face disciplinary action for using the phrase 'Zimbo from Zimbabwe' when referring to a player of Zimbabwean heritage.' Feel free to contact my talk page further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AccurateJournalist (talk • contribs) 19:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:Azeem Rafiq. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)