User talk:Dudley Miles/Archive 7

Editing problem
. When I am editing, the visible text on the edit page randomly shrinks to three lines. Can anyone advise what the problem is and how I can fix it? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you using the visual editor or the source editor? Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 15:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just click 'edit'. I assume it is the source editor. I should also add that I have edited since 2006 and only had this problem for the last fortnight. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably best to raise at WP:VPT, then, as I am totally unhelpful with technical problems that don't have a glaringly obvious answer. Any chance your browser's zoom settings are on the blink? Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 16:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have raised it there. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

FA peer review?
Hi. I'm working on getting Fleetwood Park Racetrack into shape for a WP:FA review. This would be my first FA. I see you are willing to mentor in the area of history; would this article be something you could help me with? RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Ceol of Wessex versus Æthelbald, King of Wessex
Dear Dudley: On 3rd March 2016, you undid my revision 708053201 “links added” by reason of “Already linked”; on 31st August 2023, you undid my revision 1173151462 giving the exactly opposite explanation “Links in lead and main text are separate”; the (repeated) links in my revision 708053201 were also in the lead and main text; it seems to be a Wikipedia rule that links should not be duplicated, and although I think this is carried too far in long articles, I do not think duplication after a few lines is necessary;

moreover, by simply reverting my revision 1173151462:

·        you cancelled my “grammatical improvements” – I would strongly suggest that enwiki, especially history article, be written at least one level above the English spoken (or in this case: written) in “East London”;

·        you restored the redirect from “Surrey” to “Kingdom of Surrey” and back to “Surrey”; I am not questioning the existence or non-existence of the Kingdom of Surrey, I am just commenting on the redirect;

pls explain and/or consider reverting your revert; Jan Hejkrlík (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I have been advised that links in the lead and main text are separate, but looking at Manual of Style/Linking, this appears to be wrong, so I reverted you incorrectly. The Surrey revert was correct (if I remember correctly what I did) because Kingdom of Surrey redirects to Surrey, so when you linked to the kingdom you introduced a double redirect (to the kingdom and back again to Surrey), which is strongly discouraged. Thanks for raising these points. It would be helpful if you point to the changes so that I can see exactly what I did. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response; only one remark: you misunderstood my mention of the “Surrey” link – originally in the article, there was the double redirect from “Surrey” to “Kingdom of Surrey” and back to “Surrey”; with my revision 1173151462, I did fix it; with your revert of my revision 1173151462, you reintroduced the double revert; so, what now? will you revert your revert or should I do it myself? Jan Hejkrlík (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I got it the wrong way round. Reverted. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Æthelflæd
Note that in Wikipedia we use common names rather than official titles. While Æthelflæd had the title "Lady" she was still the ruler of a kingdom, hence a queen regnant. It is not helpful to remove her from a category with colleague queens regnant. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A ruler is not the same as a monarch. By your logic, Margaret Thatcher was a queen regnant and Queen Elizabeth was not a queen. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Sahelanthropus
Good morning, You reverted changes to the Sahelanthropus page on the grounds that earlier text was better. This is not entirely the case since: - in the caption of a photograph Professor Brunet's 'assistant' is in reality a Chadian civil servant working at the National Research Support Center and who therefore has no relationship of subordination with Professor Brunet, a retired French civil servant; - the Franco-Chadian Paleoanthropological Mission is in no way a financing organization. It was the French Embassy in Chad, through its Cooperation and Cultural Action Service, which provided most of the funding during the first years and provided a high-level technical assistant, a geographer experienced in Saharan zone with a Phd. On the other hand, I thank you very much in advance for restoring the previous version by providing the necessary additions so that: the National Center for Research Support, the Franco-Chadian paleoanthropological mission and Jean-Pierre Watté, who have Wikipedia pages in French, benefit from the appropriate link without having the skills to achieve this. Sincerely 2A01:CB1D:3CF:CA00:69D6:C90D:67FE:A0E4 (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edits because (no doubt accidentally) you removed the links to articles in French Mission paléoanthropologique franco-tchadienne and Jean-Pierre Watté, and because you gave no references for your amendments. As you obviously are an expert on the subject, can you please reinstate your edits with the links and references. I would be happy to give technical help if you need it. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help, it's really kind of you. French speaking, I spent yesterday evening trying to open the links to these three Wikipedia sites in French without succeeding while other links to sites also in French exist on this page.
 * Jean-Pierre Watté : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Watt%C3%A9
 * Mission paléoanthropologique franco-tchadienne : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_pal%C3%A9oanthropologique_franco-tchadienne
 * Centre national d’appui à la recherche : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_national_d%27appui_%C3%A0_la_recherche
 * It is the National Research Support Center (CNAR today CNRD, National Research Center for Development) of the Ministry of Higher Education of the Republic of Chad which is at work in paleontological research in Chad since 1993. His name deserves to be cited on this page. Thank you again for your help. Sincerely. 2A01:CB1D:3CF:CA00:69D6:C90D:67FE:A0E4 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you very much for your help but in fact it appears that it is not easy to refer to Wikipedia in French since if the sites do exist the links do not work. Good continuation. Sincerely. 2A01:CB1D:3CF:CA00:3DE9:271B:CA67:67B0 (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you click on the red link you go to a page to create a new article in English. You have to click on [fr] at the end of the red link to go to the article in French. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Typo reversion
Thank you for pointing out the typo I made on the Miyake Events page. I fixed the typo and re-added the other edits which were part of that reverted edit. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Younger Dryas talk page
Talk:Younger Dryas. I'm not dropping this. The article source is a cluttered mess. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for comments at peer review
I have Edward the Martyr up for review at Peer review/Edward the Martyr/archive1. Comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 * Many thanks Buster. People sometimes stand for me on the underground. I regard it as one of the benefits of old age. A merry Christmas and happy new year to you and your wife. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon history citations at Reflib
, Template:Reflib/Anglo-Saxon history

Hi, Dudley. I'm Mathglot, and I'm working on a project to provide a centralized repository of quality citations (a "reference library") for various article domains of interest to editors for their article development. Goals include availability, vetting of quality citations, and providing shareability of citations across multiple articles from a single source. This project is still in its infancy, but there are five article domains now, including a first version of Anglo-Saxon history as of today. mentioned that you would be a good person to talk to about the Anglo-Saxon history domain. I'm looking for feedback and collaborators to advance the project, either on that topic, or on any other topic that might be a good fit for the project.

A couple of things would help. First, is any thoughts you have about the project generally (see the template doc page linked above), and in particular, thoughts about the appropriateness of "Anglo-Saxon history" as a choice for an article domain–is it too narrow? too broad? correctly named? (This question will make more sense after you've had a chance to have a read-through.) Second, is any thoughts you might have about creating new article domains (topic areas likely to have shared citations in common among articles in the domain) that might benefit from being included in Reflib and having a library of citations devoted to it. Mike mentioned you were someone involved with pre-Roman UK archaeology articles, and might comment on that topic, but I'm open to anything.

I tend to prattle on too long, so at the risk of leaving you mystified with insufficient explanation, maybe I better just stop and give you a chance to have a look at the documentation at Template:Reflib, to see if youre interested in this at all or would like to commment. The proximate backstory for this is at User talk:Mike Christie, and Mike's original citation list For A-S history is here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I think I will pass on this one. Sorry to be thick, but I find the explanation of Reflib incomprehensible. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I Understand, no worries. Apart from the template issue, Mike mentioned you might have sources for pre-Roman UK archaeology. Do you maintain a list of top sources for that topic, or can you point me to one? I'd like to compile a list of several dozen quality sources in that topic area but I'm not knowledgeable about it and your advice would be helpful. Thanks Mathglot (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My field is history rather than archaeology. My library is at User:Dudley Miles/Library. It is mainly Anglo-Saxon. If you want to use it, I can point out which books I would not recommend as RSs. There are also sections on science, particularly evolution. I have a Word document with books and articles formatted for sources sections which I am happy to send to you if it would help. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is really helpful, thanks. I recognized a few names, and I have Ladurie's Mind and Method of the Historian borrowed from the library right now. As far as indicating which are not RS, yes, that would be helpful. Do you want to just put an asterisk or some other indicator (* † ‡ ⁇ ⁑ ) next to those ones? You can get the ❌ mark from template nay, and other marks can be found here. I'd love to have the Word document; you can email me via the 'Email this user' link in the left sidebar under the desktop layout (not sure where it is on the new layout), or this link should work: email Mathglot. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have used asterisks. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Gillham Wood
Hi,. I understand the revert on the PROD for Gillham Wood – nobody wants their article PRODed. However, an ostensibly experienced editor like yourself should be familiar enough with notability guidelines (please see WP:GNG and WP:NGEO, which both apply here) to understand how flimsy the stated reasoning behind the challenge was. "The article is notable and useful to readers who wish to know about [specific thing]" could be said to bypass notability guidelines for literally any subject. We draw the line at notability guidelines for very good reasons (the GNG sets the bar just trivially low enough that Wikipedia doesn't become an indiscriminate collection of information), and that's not negated (or influenced whatsoever) by the presence of a hypothetical readerbase who would like to have an article specifically about every character from their favorite TV show, their favorite small local business, or a forest which otherwise does not appear to be covered significantly in any reliable, independent sources. Bulbapedia shows that an article about every single Pokémon, move, ability, town, and character would be widely useful to plenty of people. KnowYourMeme's article on 'Are Ya Winning, Son?' has 1 million views, so we'll need an article about that too. You see where I'm going here. Perhaps newspaper articles from newspaper sources could be dug up here to establish notability? That's often how it goes for this sort of thing. Preferably they would be regional or national, but either way, they need substantial coverage about the subject itself; not just a mention that WP:ITEXISTS.

Right now, the sourcing on the article is entirely primary, and I was unable to find a way to fix that. Please find reliable, independent sources which give the subject WP:SIGCOV, otherwise it objectively does not belong on Wikipedia. A mention on Wikivoyage, perhaps(?), but not an article here.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  15:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In my view, the notablility guidelines artificially exclude articles which are reliably referenced and notable. Characters in game shows are trivia, unlike a nature reserve. However, I have found two other sources which should satisfy the requirements. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They really don't, however. They establish verifiability (WP:ITEXISTS), but they definitely don't rise to the standard of WP:SIGCOV (the longest of the two comes to 47 words). Disagreeing with the guidelines is one thing, but I think you may fundamentally misunderstand significant coverage as it pertains to notability criteria (these new sources are ostensibly both reliable and independent, however). When I looked into this before PRODing, the best sources I was able to find were from hyper-local newspapers via the Britsh Newspaper Archive (seen here), and even in those hyper-local human interest stories, the references to Gillham Wood amount to the briefest mention. This doesn't even rise to the level of significant coverage that some fan-made Pokémon receive. I think it's pretty cut-and-dry that Gillham Wood doesn't warrant its own article, most especially because it's largely a repeat of your (quite excellent) work at Sussex Wildlife Trust. Nonetheless, I could be wrong, and perhaps it has some prevalence in print-only books or digitized books which I was unable to find. All the best,  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  18:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be adopting an excessively strict interpretation of the requirements for notability. SIGGOV rules out passing mentions but does not specify a minimum length. I have seen much worse referenced articles survive nominations for deletion. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
The same to you and the pictures are brilliant. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

"Harry the house"
Hi,

I noticed you'd reverted a couple of edits by at "Wicken Fen" and "One Tree Hill and Bitchet Common" where he had reverted the changes made by an IP editor. The IP editor is a blocked user known as "Harry the house" (see the SPI archive here) and is very prolific. I'd like to try to coordinate a response to his activity. Would you mind joining the discussion here?

Thanks, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jean. I don't think I have anything to add to what has already been said by other editors. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
Merry Christmas. I didn't know that sculptors were producing that level of realism that early. Is there anything equivalent in Italian painting in the thirteenth century? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really - the sculptors were ahead of the game for a while, until Giotto really. In Italy they had lots of Roman models lying around, while painters just had mostly 2nd-rate Byzantine stuff to follow. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Many thanks. Happy New Year to you and yours. I have no excuses not to be productive as I am retired! Dudley Miles (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Customising watch list
I wish to use the delete bot edits option in my watch list, and I have implemented it many times, but each time bots are shown the next time I open the watch list. I cannot find how to save the change. Please advise. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Click here: Special:Preferences
 * Go to the Watchlist tab
 * Scroll down to the heading called Changes shown
 * Check the box beside Hide bot edits from the watchlist
 * Scroll to the bottom and click the  button.

Enjoy! —Scottyoak2 (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Scotty. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I have checked hide bot edits but it is erratic whether it works. Today, it worked when I first logged in but since then bot edits have shown. Can you advise what the problem is? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Without knowing how you are using your watchlist in your workflow, I'm not able to replicate any unexpected behaviors.
 * The watchlist options that you set in your Preferences section are activated when you log in. When you then go to your watchlist page, it will be displayed using your Preference settings. Whilst viewing your watchlist page, there is also a —Watchlist options— box at the top, with various checkboxes. You can toggle things on and off, and then click the  button. Doing so does not change your Preferences settings. So, if you then log out and log back in; your Preference settings will be reactivated (as expected).
 * If you need more help, post another help me on this page, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, to ask someone for assistance. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

William Marshal page
Hello Dudley Miles. I have started a talk page discussion on the whole four/five kings debate, and I would appreciate it if you could chime in. Best to you and yours. Vyselink (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

FA review
I have nominated Edward I 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. Jim Killock (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

FAC mentoring
Hi there, I recently took Edict of Expulsion to GA, and I am hoping to bring Eleanor of Castile to that standard also in the not too distant future. I was wondering if you still do FAC mentoring and would be interested in helping with me taking the Edict of Expulsion page through the process? Next year is the 750th anniversary of the related expulsions by Eleanor of Provence from her dower towns (Cambridge, Worcester, Gloucester and Marlborough) so it would be great to get some of the related pages to a good state, starting with the 1290 Edict. Jim Killock (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have looked at Edict of Expulsion and I have some comments, but I do not think it needs mentoring. I suggest that you take it to peer review and I can comment there. You may also get comments from other editors. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! I've listed it for review. Jim Killock (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Quick note to say thank you for the feedback on Peer review, that I have pushed this to FAR, if you have any further thoughts, or advice how I can get more feedback / support. Jim Killock (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverting
You referred to the cited article as "vague and speculative". As in contrary to the other sections of the article? It's called "Possible causes". Could you point out the part in the paper that disqualifies it as a source in the Wikipedia article, in contrast to the other sources? https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad24fb Hipporoo (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is vague and speculative because no mechanism is suggested in the source how a change in orbital eccentricity caused by a passing star led to global warming, or why the change was not permanent and was reversed at the end of the warming. Thanks for your edit, but you need to use the original source at in Astrophysical Journal Letters, which may provide the basis for a good edit and should be cited rather than a journalistic summary. The edit also  uses the word "revealed", which implies some sort of revelation and is not a good word for science. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Bristol West (UK Parliament constituency)
Maybe you know something I don't, but I thought Bristol West was being replaced by Bristol Central (UK Parliament constituency) for the next election. Tammbeck talk  16:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Revert on Henry III
Hello, I noticed that you reverted changes I made to the article regarding Henry III of England. In your summary you stated that it was "too colloquial", and I had some thoughts on that. First, I'm wondering if you read through the entire list of changes? For example, there is one point in the article where the way the sheriffs treated the lower classes during the reign of Henry III is described as "robust" when I assume they meant "heavy-handed", using "robust" (strong and healthy; vigorous / able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions) there doesn't make sense, and I don't understand why this part would warrant being reverted.

Also, how is making an article more colloquial a bad thing? I understand that some things can be lost in translation or over-simplified but I don't believe the edits I made reach that level and this website is to provide knowledge to as many people as possible, right? This can't happen if the language used is too complex or scientific, especially if the terms used are too archaic - but, again, I don't believe my changes really touched on anything like this to begin with.

I would like you to describe more thoroughly what the issues with my changes were so we can discuss it properly.

Sincerely, MeadeIndeed (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Cooloqualism is fine in many contexts but not in an encyclopedia. Most of your changes made the article worse in my view, and as it is an FA the current wording is likely to have passed review by FAC reviewers. "As time passed" is a vague colloqualism. "reduction in royal authority" reads better than "reduction of royal authority". "his own faction" is fine as it is. The Cambridge Dictionary prefers percent to per cent. "the major barons" has a specific meaning which is lost in "the powerful barons". "gave them a poor reputation" is a personal opinion whereas "generated much unpopularity" is neutral and more encylcopedic, Ditto replacing "was slow" with "often dragged his feet". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all, excuse the slow reply.
 * You mentioning the Cambridge Dictionary made me interested in trying to find out if there is a preference at all on Wikipedia when it comes to which form of written English should be used, what I found was this bit under the "Controversies" title and "English varieties" sub-title at English Wikipedia - "the English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language" - and it continues with - "an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation". So, technically, you're correct that it should be "per cent" as it's the preferred spelling of the word in British-English and the article is about an English king. However, there doesn't seem to be any set guidelines as to what style is preferred. I tend to go with "percent" since it reads as it sounds and also because most of my interactions with English both online and in books has written it as such. Though I will try to keep it "thematic" to the article being edited going forward.
 * When it came to why I switched out some instances of "major" to "powerful" barons was due to the word being used several times in close succession, I do however agree that perhaps changing from "major" to "powerful" makes it lose some of its meaning. I didn't change from "major barons" to "powerful barons" throughout the article but I see your point.
 * I thank you for pointing these things out, I still think some of the changes were valid - such as the one I mentioned previously regarding the sheriffs and their "robust" attempts to collect taxes - but I'll try to keep it in mind. I do admit that some of the changes were a bit more "flowery" than intended. MeadeIndeed (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Byfield Pool


The article Byfield Pool has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG."

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 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 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. Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)