User talk:A.D.Hope/Archive 1

Penarth Fawr
I think the convention is that the article originator can choose the citation style. As such, I think your additions - welcome as they are - should probably follow the existing style, e.g. books in Sources. KJP1 (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thank you for appreciating my contribution to the article. When it comes to the referencing I can't say I've heard of that convention, and I still don't think it makes a great deal of sense to have a whole section for a single book which is also used as an inline citation. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Citing sources. KJP1 (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Converting a general reference to an inline citation isn't really changing the citation style, and is listed as a change 'generally considered helpful' in the guidance. Why are you so keen to retain a less-useful form of reference? A.D.Hope (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Have tried to show what I mean by putting the other books in sources. I appreciate it's a preference thing - you prefer them cited in full inline, I like them sfn - but I think that's what the guidance is saying. KJP1 (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's more the separation seems a bit unnecessary in short articles which are likely to remain so. I can easily see why a bibliography is helpful in your excellent Powis Castle article, where there are 119 sources, but Penarth Fawr only has eleven and is unlikely to gain many more (there's a handful I can't access just now), so having a bibliography for the four books immediately after their footnotes seems redundant. Having said that, I don't have some bizarre vendetta against bibliographies so I've no interest in making the existence of one a big issue.
 * While you're here, I should apologise for this exchange having a bit of an argumentative tone. You're an editor I'd like to work with, as I can see you've improved a lot of articles and our interests cross over somewhat — I appreciated you looking over Dolwyddelan Castle the other day. My long-term aim is to bring the articles on the major native Welsh castles in North Wales up to 'good' standard, with Dolwyddelan being the first and Criccieth the second. Truth be told I only expanded Penarth Fawr because I happened to have the Cadw guidebook and RCAHMW volume to have from Criccieth, but I hope I've been able to build on what you began. Do you have any thoughts on the Rufford image? It's frustrating that the Cadw and RCAHMW material seems to be under the wrong sort of licence to be used, although some of it may be Open Government. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * First, I should be the one apologising, and do so. I do try to guard against Own but sometimes lapse and did so here. I should have discussed the issue rather than reverting. Second, I take your point and can see that there may be a distinction that could usefully be drawn between long article with many sources v short article with few. I just tend to do them all the same way, irrespective: Lead/History/Architecture/Notes/References/Sources. Re., the Rufford, and indeed your other additions, I like them and think they greatly help the reader in understanding the building. And lastly, I’m always up for collaborations, and equally delighted to come across other editors with shared interests. Dank, Edward and myself did some good, and highly enjoyable, work on Registered Historic Parks and Gardens in Wales, as an example, and many of the most fun FAs I’ve worked on have been collaborative efforts. So, any time. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, please don't worry about it. I'm glad you like the changes, and feel free to ping me any time I might be of use! See you around, A.D.Hope (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Switcher maps
Hi A.D.Hope, given your activity recently on closely related subjects, I wondered if you might have an opinion on the thread I have started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography. Thanks, Rcsprinter123   (proclaim)  21:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dolwyddelan Castle
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dolwyddelan Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mertbiol -- Mertbiol (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello! Thank you for opening the review so quickly, I appreciate it. As this is my first GA nomination I was expecting you to pick up on a lot, and having quickly looked at the review page I can see you have. I'll be able to tackle that over the coming days, so here's hoping I can bring it up to GA standard! Shall I just ping you when it's ready? A.D.Hope (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Thanks for your message. Yes, please do work at your own pace through my comments and then give me a ping when you are ready. I know it can be a little overwhelming seeing a whole page of feedback, but most things I've highlighted are minor changes to wording - you'll get through those pretty quickly. The main issue is to make sure that the infobox(es), lead section and body text are  working together "in harmony". One more thing - don't be afraid to tell me that I'm wrong, if you disagree with something I've suggested! Remember - you are the subject expert - you're the one who has read all the sources in detail! And please do consult others, if you feel that they can help move the article forwards. Very best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Pingless
I see you aimed to ping several of us including me, but I didn't receive one. I don't mind but you might, if the others didn't receive pings. I suspect it was because that edit wasn't ended with your signature. You probably already know that simply adding a signature now won't work; in case it helps, I've recently discovered Help:Fixing failed pings has several methods. NebY (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh I'll have a look, thanks. I had to sort an edit conflict to make that comment so I must have simply forgotten to add a signature afterwards. Cheers! A.D.Hope (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That worked! NebY (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Amazing! Consider yourself pingéd A.D.Hope (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dolwyddelan Castle
The article Dolwyddelan Castle you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Dolwyddelan Castle and Talk:Dolwyddelan Castle/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mertbiol -- Mertbiol (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dolwyddelan Castle
The article Dolwyddelan Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dolwyddelan Castle for comments about the article, and Talk:Dolwyddelan Castle/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mertbiol -- Mertbiol (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Dolwyddelan Castle
Hello! Your submission of Dolwyddelan Castle at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Criccieth Castle reference errors
This edit introduced an error in the reference currently numbered 7 marked as "Cite error: Invalid tag; no text was provided for refs named FOOTNOTE". Please would you fix it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I've asked for help in fixing it, DuncanHill. Thanks, A.D.Hope (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations on a Good Article!
Hi A.D.Hope, well done on getting Dolwyddelan Castle promoted to GA status! Feel free to nudge me if the article goes to A-class review.

I see your talk page states your aim to see articles on major Welsh native castles brought to GA status. Though I can't guarantee I'll be able to help much, at the very least you have my moral support. If there are particular sources you are looking for, it's possible I may have a copy or be able to get hold of one so please do ask if you're searching for something. On a related note, the Gatehouse Gazetteer may be a useful tool; it contains a comprehensive bibliography for listed sites. It is getting a bit out of date as the author died in 2017, but it remains a useful resource and the Castle Studies Group are putting time into maintaining the site. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help, I'm thrilled the article got to GA status! Mertbiol did actually recommend submitting it for an A-class review immediately, so it's in the queue. I think it'll take a little while before it's picked up, but I will bear you in mind when it is.
 * I would like to give the major native Welsh castles a bit of a leg up — they're not as grand as the Edwardian castles, but just as important for understanding what was going on in and around Gwynedd in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Thanks for pointing me toward the Gazetteer, I'm sure it will come in handy! Finding sources is always the trickiest part of writing an article, especally when everything seems to be offline or paywalled. I'm sure we'll cross paths again soon, A.D.Hope (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * My first barnstar, how exciting! Thank you very much, and rest assured I'm already working on Criccieth Castle. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

No wood, no trees
You can encourage editors all you like but they cannot ride roughshod over Wikipedia conventions. I've been called names but I don't respond, and, to make it quite clear, I have never called any editor names. The adjectives I used today described what I read. Editors should not be "pinging" "friends" for support. That's all I have to say. Esemgee (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You need to apologise to DragonofBatley for referring to their actions as 'despicable', their edits as 'dire' and 'dreadful', and rudely referring to them in the third person. That is not acceptable behaviour, regardless of whether or not your wider points are valid. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly a prime example @A.D.Hope of my earlier point "Using other talkpages to say things but not reply on the relevant section". DragonofBatley (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of this sort of thing being spread across several pages, I must admit. Now, I don't think anything else is going to be achieved by dragging the discussion on past midnight, so I'm going to call it a day! It'd be a good idea for everyone else to do the same, I reckon. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

County leads
Following the brief clash at my home county, while I did notice you have re-done county leads, I did not initally notice you were adding technically uncited information, not mentioned or cited in the body of the article itself, per WP:LEAD. (Although you've since added it to that article, thanks!) But an example of yours is Conwy County Borough where most of the lead is not actually in the article, with the article itself mainly on Welsh language and the Coat of Arms (unusually). If you are adding uncited info to leads, please add the cited information to the body. Of course Conwy was a few months ago, so you may have since corrected any practice, but maybe check past leads you have edited, please? Also while it may be nice to make leads consistent, in the end, they are supposed to represent the actual article itself, so if an article is small or of lesser quality, it probably needs a smaller lead.

I opted to message you rather than technically tagging such leads with Lead extra info. I believe your edits are in good faith and can be easily corrected by yourself, and thanks for taking the time to expand them overall, as well as your other great Wales-related edits.

Kind regards  Dank Jae  18:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey Jae!
 * Firstly, I think it's important to say that I didn't think we clashed over Wrexham. I did sense that you were getting a bit frustrated, and I'm quite happy to back off, but I like to think we have a good relationship. I know I tend to be a BOLD editor, but I do try and balance that by being calm and objective about reversions or changes to those edits. If you cast your mind back to Snowdonia and the Brecon Beacons, I think that was a good example of us going through a few rounds of tweaking each other's edits and eventually coming up with something much better than it was before or which either of us would have produced alone.
 * I think Conwy was one of the first county leads I did and it's definitely not my best. I will go through the other leads (at this point it's nearly all the English and half the Welsh) and check the sources, I can tell you without looking that there's unsourced info and you're right to bring me up on it. The county articles as a group are in a bit of a ropey state, and my original thinking (contrary to your own) was that giving them good leads would at least be a start toward correcting that, but of course that only works if they're properly sourced! A case of speed overtaking good editorial practice, I fear.
 * Always happy to take criticism and advice from you Jae, thanks for commenting! A.D.Hope (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * brief clash was a light-hearted generalisation of all the edits there, not just yours. Tbh I felt more confusion than frustration as to why there is suddenly a tea party in my local garden, but issues do stand out to me being the main author and a local, but I try to integrate/clean-up such edits and refrain from ownership as much as I can. But nothing wrong with that lead in particular.
 * Not fussed here by the dispute or the wording, open to discuss there, just that any lead kinda has to represent the article itself, but mainly the info is kinda uncited and want to alert you in case you plan to do more of them, especially on shorter articles. If there is any dispute though don't simply back off without a discussion, we can all be bold, and you can be correct if given more than a edit summary to explain if you wish, but bold editor + bold editor = discussion probably needed, especially on longer, more-viewed, older and higher quality articles, and if the lead itself was subject to consensus ofc.
 * I fully understand the good faith reasoning for the lead re-write, probably fell into that too once or twice, especially as a newbie, and I still correct many of my past mistakes, I at least now try to add citations to a non-repeating lead so another editor can easily take over and move it to the body.
 * Also you done almost all the English ones? (are there like 50? or more; I do not understand English local government :D) That's dedication. :)
 * Regards  Dank Jae  20:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I completely missed that you were beng light-hearted! All that happened with Wrexham is that DragonofBatley accidentally put Holt in the wrong place, I corrected it, and then suddenly we were all there. When I say I'm happy to back off all I mean is that I recognise you know more about the area and so are best-placed to tidy things up, particularly as there isn't any major dispute.
 * You're absolutely right about the sourcing, and once I'm finished with Criccieth Castle I'll go back and fill in the gaps as best I can. Fingers crossed it shouldn't be too big a job, because if I recall correctly a lot of the info is sourced from the Britannica. If there are any disputes of course I'll stick around and talk them through.
 * I have done a lot of the work on the English county leads, yeah, alongside Chocolateediter and DragonofBatley. It all started with Lancashire, because the lead was disproportionately focussed on the 1974 boundary changes and I really wanted to make it more balanced. Truth be told I'll be happy to take a break once the leads are in decent shape — I've been 'county guy' for a bit, but between the sheer number of them and the discussions about flags, collages, and infobox parameters it's turned into bit of a slog. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Wendover
Is this place a town or a village? 92.239.240.153 (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Is that you, DragonofBatley? A.D.Hope (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)