User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 31

Norman Conquest
Hiya, I realise now I never got a response to my query in the ACR: Recent historians have suggested figures of between 5000 and 13,000 for Harold's army at Hastings, and most modern historians argue for a figure of 7000–8000 English troops. -- What's the difference between "recent" and "modern" historians? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing. I'm just trying to vary the vocabulary. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm all for varying the vocabulary, so perhaps we're at cross purposes here... Are we not talking about the same army here -- "Harold's" and the "English"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. Sorry. I literally just climbed out of bed. Give me a bit to dig into the sources to see why I doubled the information here? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was out of town this weekend - how does "Recent historians have suggested figures of between 5000 and 13,000 for Harold's army at Hastings, with most accounts settling on a range of between 7000–8000 English troops." strike you? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That strikes me as fine...! Cheers, 22:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Begging again...
This journal article ... anyone have it? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Or this? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone have this either? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have downloaded a pdf of the last one, the Glazing article, but I do not know how I get it to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Shoot me an email through Wikipedia and then I reply and you can then email the article... the first email won't allow you to attach the article, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * Thank you for writing such a nice little article! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1
I would like some advice at Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1. Should I move online-book references from the footnotes to the references section?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I treat online books exactly as I treat dead tree books ... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Middle Ages is European, not Asian
So, when we have articles of historical interest that do not relate to Europe, would you place the WikiProject History banner on them instead? I think you've been a bit too bold. Has there been any conversation to precede this edit grind? And yes, I reverted your assessment of mark system. I had already rated it as having high importance. I am a History major and feel the subject is important to the evolution of Europe. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 03:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See the project scope - it clearly states European - WikiProject Middle Ages - "The Middle Ages WikiProject is a WikiProject formed and developed to organise information in articles related to the period of European history known as the Middle Ages." I periodically do cleanup on the various categories related to WP:MA. Yes, plain old Wikiproject History is fine for those. You can put WP:History AND WP:MA on articles, if they are in the scope. Perhaps someone will create a Postclassical project... but Middle Ages is limited to European subjects, or subjects that impacted the European/Levant. I'm usually pretty lenient on things - if they had an impact on some bit of Europe I leave them in ... so Silk Road or Mongols stick, but Temple of Heaven, which is clearly not impacting the Middle Ages in Europe, shouldn't be tagged with WP:MA. As for mark - I'm not going to worry about it that much, but if it's a purely German system, it probably isn't really a high importance to the entirety of the Middle Ages in Europe. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing about what WPMA covers, my point is that it's probably a bad idea to remove a template without putting a better one in place. Although the poorly-written article doesn't indicate it, the mark system was created by the Romans.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick driveby comment on NCoE
I know "the last echo of the national migrations that characterized the early Middle Ages" is a quote, but I think it's misleading to include it without qualification, especially as the last line of the article where skim-readers will take it as "the last word". Otherwise, as and when this goes on the main page it will be flooded with people (rightly) pointing out that it's highly debatable. While the NCoE is (obviously) the one that's best known in the English-speaking world, there are numerous examples of conquest followed by colonization in the mediaeval period after 1066—the Norman conquest of Sicily & Naples, the Reconquista, the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans, the migration of the Rus, and the Teutonic Order's expansion in Poland/Lithuania were all at least as significant as the Conquest (and depending on where one puts the end of the Middle Ages, the Mongol invasion was probably of more historical significance than all the others combined).

IMO the legacy section should have at least a brief mention of the whole Norman yoke mythos, as well, or at the very least a link—whoever wrote in Wikipedia's article that it has "lost whatever historical significance it may have had" has presumably never encountered the English Democrats or the Eurosceptic wings on both the right and left, some of whose more swivel-eyed members give the distinct impression that it's only that pesky Frog taint that's held back the Golden Age for the last millennium. (Fairly representative example.)

(Also, do you think it would be worthwhile including a photo of Harold's purported grave? The images as currently used seem somewhat Norman-centric.) – iridescent  17:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Do we have a good image of Harold's purported grave? I assume you mean the one at Waltham (? or am I misremembering the name...). I've moved the "echo" quote up and added a bit about the myth of the Norman Yoke. I didn't know the myth had a name - I just knew it was pretty much discredited. It's not used popularly in the US, obviously! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems to be the best Commons has to offer, although because of the angle the inscription on the "tomb" is unreadable. If need be I can rustle up a from-above photo with no trouble—I live just up the road from what remains of Waltham Abbey. It's not the most prepossessing of monuments (although even in its current state of decay the abbey ruins are spectacular), but the only other tangible relic of the Saxon monarchy I can think of (aside from Westminster Abbey) is the even less prepossessing and even more questionable Coronation Stone.


 * I think the Norman Yoke myth is still alive and well in the collective subconscious of the US as well, just perhaps not explicitly—remember, the closest thing the US has to a creation myth is based entirely on opposition to the English (i.e. Norman) aristocracy. It's not a coincidence that pretty much every memorable Hollywood villain from the Emperor Palpatine to Cruella de Vil to Gary Oldman in every role he ever played has a long, thin face, is taller than average, and speaks like a drunken impersonation of a minor royal. – iridescent  18:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * On the Hollywood image, I think we need look no further than George III for that in the US. Most American's are clueless on their own country's history - the concept of 1066 doesn't even begin to register any more. Sad, but the truth. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Question on sourcing
I've never had to cite an eBook before, but I recently bought a Kindle and downloaded Higginbotham's excellent Encyclopedia of the Workhouse. It wasn't that much cheaper than the printed book, but I digress. As I'm sure you know, most Kindle books don't give page numbers, but some do give location numbers, such as 19 of 18295. In this case I know I could get round the problem easily by just using the section name as the location, which would be compatible with ODNB entries and likely what I'll do, but do you know of any general guidance in this area? Eric  Corbett  23:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think what I'd do is use the "location" as a page number - I wonder if the templates are set up for those yet? I'd also put in that the edition was an electronic one. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The templates can use locations, so that's no problem, and there's a handy |format parameter so you show it's the eBook version. But I was really wondering about quotations from novels for instance; you could always use the chapter number/title as a location of course, but that seems rather agricultural. Eric   Corbett  23:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, perhaps you mean location as in 19 of 18295? How would you feel about 19–35 of 18295? Eric   Corbett  23:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That'd probably work. It's close enough to a page range... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd feel happier with a convention such as 19:18295, similar to Bible articles. Maybe this is a question I ought to raise on the MoS talk page. Eric   Corbett  23:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably safer. I read fiction on my iPad/Kindle but haven't really found it good for reading non-fiction ... I use the index/footnotes too much and am constantly flipping back and forth, so reading non-fiction is pretty annoying to me on a tablet. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's early days for me as I've only had my Kindle for about a week, but I've found it really useful to set bookmarks I can revisit later. Like the yellow and red dresses in the workhouse article for prostitutes and unmarried pregnant females, which is what brought me here in the first place. As an aside, I was mildly amused when Amazon sent me an email thanking me for my purchase of William Harrison Ainsworth's Lancashire Witches novel, which had cost me absolutely nothing. Eric   Corbett  00:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had Kindles for.... gods, 9 years? I got one as they released. I love it for fiction - I buy books on average once a week. I just don't find it as useful for non-fiction. I will admit the iPad version of the Kindle software and the iBooks app are better for non-fiction - I used the iPad while we were in England to access some tour books and such like that. It's just for deep research on my topics, it's not nearly as useful... I may be an old fogey on wanting to flip pages when I research though! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I still buy and borrow loads of dead tree books, as I'm sure you do as well. I was thinking earlier that I can't think of a single FA that I didn't have to buy at least one book for. Are we fools or what? Eric   Corbett  00:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite true on further reflection, as the late-lamented User:Moni3 sent me loads of stuff to read on the Donner Party for instance. Eric   Corbett  00:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be buying books anyway, might as well buy some that are fostering knowledge. I buy at least 1 book a week, not counting cheapo Kindle singles at less than $3. Some weeks it's more, but that's the minimum. This week we're looking at 3 so far, probably at least 2 more I've got my sights on. I'm spending my kid's inheritance on books. Luckily, he's not that worried - he reads half my library. (I got him started on sci-fi at a very early age - he was reading Ender's Game at 7, Heinlein at 8.) This week's bedtime reading is Evans' The Third Reich in Power ... a most excellent book, as I've read it a number of times. (Yes, I read history in bed. Drives the spouse nuts - he hates getting the hardcover corners stuck into him when I fall asleep on them...). Ealdgyth - Talk 00:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Second Call)
{||} Ealdgyth - Talk 22:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Final Call)
{||} Ealdgyth - Talk 22:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)
--- Ealdgyth - Talk 22:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * }
 * Read this newsletter
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 November 2012
 * }

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)
--- Ealdgyth - Talk 22:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * }
 * Read this newsletter
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 December 2012
 * }

Good Article Nominations Request For Comment
Ealdgyth - Talk 22:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Wulfhelm
Should have known this was by you; you've always done excellent work in this field. I've passed it to GA status. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And ditto for Athelm. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * GA's 99 and 100 for me. (Actually, it's a bit higher than that, but I've shepherded 100 current GAs through the process... in addition to a bunch that are now FAs...) Thanks for the reviews. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, allow me to congratulate you on a GA century, if you'll forgive a cricket term! Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ceolnoth
I'm sure you have noticed, but I have promoted Ceolnoth to GA now. Well done - I enjoyed reading it and thinking about the topic.Doug (at Wiki) 22:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I'm on the downhill stretch with the Anglo-Saxon Archbishops of Canterbury - most of them are now GA or better. Just about 10 or so more to finish up and I'll have crossed off one of my major projects. Only ... the 1066-1300 ABCs, then all the archbishops of york to 1300, and 22 other various English bishoprics to 1300. Then I can start on the Norman and Welsh bishops... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

TPSs....
Someone find me a good DYK hook in Sybil (wife of Pain fitzJohn). I'm at a loss. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you know that Sybil brought Pain to the people of Ludlow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.172.10 (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

'Zup
Went crazy and did the FAC. Watchlist. Featured article candidates/Oxbow (horse)/archive1. Yeah, I'm nuts, but am blaming User:Eric Corbett, it was his idea. (LOL) Montanabw (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Norman conquest of England
A great article and fun to read. As expected the prose is fluent and easy to follow, even in some of the more complex historical situations. That leaves me just some nitpicky suggestions:
 * Origins "In 911 the French Carolingian ruler Charles the Simple allowed a group of Vikings under their leader Rollo to settle in Normandy ..." => I'd change that to "... in the Duchy of Normandy", the Duchy-article focuses on the medieval country and is the more relevant sub-article link.
 * I piped the link... it wasn't really a duchy at first (evidence points to it being considered a county and that one of the later counts (I forget which) self-upgraded his county to a duchy). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "William and Harald at once set about assembling troops and ships to invade England[ in support of their claims]." => the later part seems a bit redundant, why else would they invade England in that context?
 * Duh. Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Last resistance "William faced difficulties on the Continent ..." => i am sure, it was discussed before, but the Anglo-centric "the Continent" is confusing for non-British readers. "mainland Europe" seems the most accurate, world-wide term.
 * Total aside, but as an American, and an American with a history degree, and an American who teaches college history, I know what "The Continent" is, that's the only term I've really ever heard used, other than, occasionaly, "Continental Europe," and I have never heard of "mainland Europe" being any sort of "world-wide" term. ("Mainland Chine" yes, but not "mainland Europe")  Just saying. Carry on, though...   Montanabw (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Overall i am looking forward to see this article at FAC. GermanJoe (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, but sorta under protest. It's the common term in the sources... I've gone with "William faced difficulties in his continental possessions..." which is something of a compromise. This is an article that should use British English, after all. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If most sources and many readers use that term, i won't insist otherwise. Please change it to what you think best in the context. As a Continental i'm probably also not completely neutral on that point. GermanJoe (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Immigration "An estimated 8000 Normans and other continentals settled in England as a result of the conquest, although exact figures cannot be established." => Strictly speaking this information is already covered in the section Control of England. Maybe it makes sense to keep it duplicate in this case (?), just pointing it out. Also: "An estimated 8000 Normans and French" would be more specific than the vague "other continentals" (see info in "Control of England").
 * Ah, but they weren't "french" ... they thought of themselves as flemings or angevins or bretons. I'd rather repeat the info here, where it makes sense also - there isn't really a good reason we should be scared of repeating this fact. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In some places, such as Essex, the decline in slaves was 20 per cent for the 20 years. Should this be "20 per cent over the 20 years"? Ning-ning (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ping
Answered most comments at Horse Protection Act FAC, but comment for discussion on one. At your convenience. Montanabw (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Going to let Dana weigh in and see what she says also... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed the easy stuff, if you want to clear those pending the trickier stuff...? (Just put up Oxbow for FAC too, kind of anxious to clear HPA, that's all.  Also now have Paynter at DYK, so three things in the hopper of people reviewing, I don't usually have this much stuff cooking, particularly absent a bigger team ...)  Montanabw (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I pinged Dana (she might be busy IRL, it's summer...) and maybe in the meantime, if you can strike the stuff that I did fix to your satisfaction, it might make what she needs to check easier. Also, if any still-unfixed stuff is mostly techie and MOS, let me knot it's still an issue; I can probably work on that until she pops by... As far as jargon issues go, I'm thinking the non-horsey folks are in the best position to tell us how much gibberish we're spewing, and I value your input on the legalese jargon, as for me that is a bit of a blind spot too.   Montanabw (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Need a coin?
I've got standing permission to use these guy's coin images, and it struck me you might want it for your excellent Middle Ages article or some other work, or look through what else he has on offer, this for example. Let me know and I'll upload and include in my next batch straining the resources of OTRS.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Any bishops/archbishops (including Norman or Welsh) would be good. Any William II or Harold Godwinson would also be good. Thanks much for the offer! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, will keep my eyes open. He gets an amazing variety of stuff.  While his permission does not completely solve my coin image problems, it goes a long way towards doing that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Henry I, Henry II or Henry III would also be welcomed! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter
We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to  for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, and  being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Malfosse Incident
Hello Ealdgyth, I had attempted to re-insert the location of Malfosse as Oakwood Gill. This does seem to be the most generally accepted location by most modern historians: Michael Wood, C T Chevallier (who did much research), Peter Poyntz Wright and Battle and District Historical Society et al. This is also the site mentioned in the publications on sale on the battlefield site. I really do feel that Oakwood Gill should be mentioned, as other supposed actions and location are mentioned in the article. I do hope that you will agree to at least have a reference to Oakwood Gill in the article. With best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why should it though? If we were a battlefield guide, yes, it's interesting and important, but we're an encyclopedia. We don't cover every bit of detail of the battlefield and we shouldn't speculate on where it's located. None of the scholarly works on Hastings that I used for the article devote that much attention to the location of the ditch - including Lawson's book length treatment of the entire battle. The only work I have the discusses it's current location is a battlefield guide - Marren's 1066 - which tells me that the scholars aren't concerned with it's location, only the battlefield guides. We aren't a battlefield guide, we need to cover the entire context of the battle without descending into trivia. We don't discuss the theories on the various ponds that are now on the battlefield nor do we discuss the issue of where the hillock is located or any other minor features of the battlefield. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I do see your point, but the incident was important to the end of the battle and I don't consider the action to be trivia and nor do the historians I've mentioned. The location of the ponds etc; are on the battlefield, the Malfosse location is not. Can we not agree to accept this location off the main battlefield? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The incident IS mentioned though... just not the speculated location of it (and other sources do state that the location is not known, so this speculation is just that, speculation that's not necessarily accepted.). The ACTION is mentioned quite well, just not the possible location, which is what is getting into travel guide trivia. See the last bit in "Death of HArold" which states "The Normans began to pursue the fleeing troops, and except for the rearguard action at a site known as the "Malfosse", the battle was done.[67] What exactly happened at the Malfosse, or "Evil Ditch", and where it took place, is unclear. It occurred at a small fortification or set of trenches where a number of Englishmen rallied and seriously wounded Eustace of Boulogne before being destroyed by Duke William." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ealdgyth, I see no need to "shout". We are not getting into "travel guide trivia", not everyone agrees with the actual location of the battlefield itself, let alone Malfosse, but the battle site seems to be accepted in the article? Based on extensive research by the above mentioned historians Oakwood Gill is the most accepted site for Malfosse, just as the site by Battle Abbey is the generally accepted site for the main battle - though even this is disputed by some. This is not "travel guide trivia", just pointing-out the most likely sites of the battle and its aftermath. That surely is what a encylopedia is for?  I have no wish to keep editing, but still feel that from your distance, you are not seeing the whole picture of the battle and the area in which it was fought. In fact William of Poitiers records that the gully was overgrown, steep-sided and intersected with ditches, exactly the same as part of Oakwood Gill today. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The point I'm making is that we don't discuss the possible locations of the hillock on the current battlefield, so neither should we discuss the possible locations of the evil ditch. Those sorts of details of specific parts of a battlefield are better suited to a travel guide, not an encyclopedia article. It's undue weight to add this trivia to the article on the ditch when we don't discuss the other possible spots of events on the battlefield. And the fact that the possible ditch location is now overgrown and steep-sided isn't exactly helpful because the battle took place 900 years ago and the battlefield (and presumably the surrounding area) was changed extensively with the building of the abbey. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You really don't seem to get the point. The hillocks, ponds etc are still contained and identified on the "battlefield site" today. The proposed site for Malfosse is just under a mile north of Senlac Ridge and not on the battlefield.  This is not "trivia" or a "travel guide", but part of the history of the battle. I rest my case, for the moment. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)