User talk:Hchc2009/Archive 10

Battle of Öland FAC
Since you provided helpful comments and/or reviewing in related quality assessments, I'm dropping a notice that battle of Öland is now an FAC. Please feel free to drop by with more input!

sincerely, Peter Isotalo 05:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Cambridge Castle
Hi Hchc2009,

I noted your reversion of with the message "Image appears to be pretty similar to the basic view of the mound". The main difference is that it is a night view, and also encompasses a larger field of view, which provides additional context. Do you see any disadvantage of including the image? Thanks, cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9094;&#964;a&#671;&#954; 12:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm wasn't convinced that the night view of the mound adds much encyclopaedic value, given the day-time shot was already there - you can't see much from it because it is dark, and unlike some locations (e.g. the Eiffel Tour at night, say), the night-time view from the mound isn't exactly famous/notable. The MOS discourages excess images, unless they add particular individual value, and this seemed to me to be such an example. Happy to discuss it further on the talk page of the article? (We can always copy over this as a starting point? Hchc2009 (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Brough Castle
I had a look at your page and noticed this article and had a look. I was a little surprised as I didn't know Brough had a castle. Clearly it doesn't because my Brough is in Humberside.;O. I did notice that the references have red all over them, they seem to be harv but the citations are <><>.Keith-264 (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, the biblio references really need the "ref = harv" removed from them; at the moment its a superfluous parameter so, if like the two of us, you have the detect broken harv links on, they glow red! (the average reader wouldn't notice though...) I remember trying to draw the map for that one, and having trouble with the southern wall...! Hchc2009 (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was somewhat satirically amused by all the fires, it reminded me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

John Giffard (1602–1665)
Phew! The man from Delmonte he say.... Thanks for your input.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC))
 * ...and thanks helping to find a good compromise, and for the latest additions. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the feedback. I myself still learning a lots of things in wikipedia. Anyway, thanks for the enlightment. Dreamfayth (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, very happy to help with anything similar - just leave me a message here. I started back in 2009, and I'm still learning a lot myself too! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access
Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR. You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

Battle of Verdun
So, did Verdun pass for GA-status? I haven't received any notifications on whether it did or not. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've caught up with your suggested amendments; I'm finding it a useful discipline to have the prose subjected to such thorough scrutiny. Thanks for the effort you're making.Keith-264 (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case
You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

So when...
Are you going to tackle Ludlow Castle? I've been busy improving the people involved in its early history - surely the castle deserves some love! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah... I ordered the key book for it last week in fact, so should be ready to make some progress on it when it arrives! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dunstanburgh Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Porter. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks DPL bot, its now fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Pic of Farleigh Hungerford Castle
Thanks for your tweak to the caption of my pic at Farleigh Hungerford Castle (there are loads of others added to the commons cat). I uploaded it as part of WLM 2014 and nominated it for FP at Featured picture candidates/Chapel of St Leonard at Farleigh Hungerford Castle but got the response that the "fish eye" effect meant it was an "inappropriate projection". What do you think?&mdash; Rod talk 15:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm torn on this one Rod. On the one hand, you can see the fish-eye distortion in the image even after trimming, and in an ideal world you'd probably want a "flat" (or corrected, or whatever the right term is!) image, mimicking the image that would be seen by a human eye. On the other hand, with current UAV technology, the fish-eye distortion is quite a common effect, so you could argue it is rather like a blurred night photo: it is a by-product of the technology. I'd be inclined to let the discussion play itself out over the next few days and see where it goes. Whether it makes FP or not, it's a great photo; only a few years ago, only a university would have been able to take such a picture, and it would never have made its way for use on a free encyclopaedia! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Coordinator election
Hi Hchc2009, I'm just wondering if you would be willing to nominate for the MILHIST coordinator election? I know you ran a few years ago and stepped down mid-term, but perhaps things have changed? Your contributions (and continued quality content creation) would certainly be welcomed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker - firstly, apologies for the delay in replying: I'd been mulling your suggestion over. At the moment, I think it would be more appropriate if I didn't stand for election this year, but I hope to continue as an active member of the project over the year to come (and will look forward to voting next week!). Many thanks, however, for asking, it was greatly appreciated. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Castle Spurs
Goodrich Castle has a caption, 'the characteristic right-angled "spur", designed to prevent its undermining' that I don't understand; since you seem to know about castles and have worked on that page, perhaps you do understand. My guess is that, if I'm confused on this point, other readers will, too. I don't understand is how adding a spur to a basically round tower would prevent undermining. My guess is that the apparent "spur" is the residue of a basically pyramidal foundation, with a round tower spliced onto it. I would have phrased this as the foundation preventing undermining and the spur being the easily visible indication of such construction. The phrasing used in the article makes it sound as if the tower was originally built round and the spur was added later, perhaps even after the siege was initiated. This latter interpretation seems nonsensical. The hyperlink goes off to a fairly generic article, which doesn't clarify the issue and I've failed to find an explanation.

I would be relieved if you were to find or write a coherent explanation of how spurs prevent undermining and adjust the link in the caption to refer to it.--Wcoole (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Will take a look. The term "spur" is the architectural term used, and you see the design across the Welsh border regions during this period (there's a very similar design at Chepstow Castle, for example). As far as I'm aware, the concept was that by adding additional protection at the base in the form of the spur, you prevented an opponent from just smashing away at the base, or lighting fires etc. I'm not aware if this was ever tested in practice or not - I can't recall any specific incidents! 05:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * At the moment, spurs aren't particularly well covered by the literature. That may change soon as there's an interesting paper on the horizon in a forthcoming volume of Archaeologia Cambrensis which touches on the subject. I don't know how this is interpreted as a defence against mining, but my guess would be that the spurs or skirting gives the structure a bigger footprint, distributing the weight over a wider area. That way, if someone tunnels under part of the wall, there is less pressure on it making collapse less likely. That's just a suggestion though, I've not seen it suggested or talked through elsewhere but Hchc2009 might have some luck looking for more info. At Kidwelly Castle it looks like spurs are used to make the tower on the slope (pictured) more stable. Nev1 (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Cheers Nev. The literature is vague on how they were supposed to work; Pettifer, for example, just notes that they "made the foundations so massive that a mining tunnel would have little effect". I've a few other thoughts on it, but they'd be firmly in the OR zone! Do you know which article it is going to be in Cambrensis? Hchc2009 (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Replied by email. Nev1 (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm away on work for the next month or so, so I won't reply immediately, but will make sure I do on my return. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Verdun/GA1
Hchc2009, can you please revisit your review here, and give a status report? It's been over three weeks since the last edits, and if the issue is that everything you've requested isn't yet done, a summary of what remains—and probably a deadline for the nominator to finish it by, since this is two months old now—would be helpful. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder - done! Hchc2009 (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Verdun GAR
"As per talk page discussion" - Did I miss something?Keith-264 (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Should be on Talk:Battle_of_Verdun/GA1. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Berkhamsted Castle
Was the Anglo-Saxon settlement actually moved, is the any evidence, am I being pedantic? -- BOD --  11:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think you're being pedantic... The source being cited describes the old Anglo-Saxon manorial centre at Northchurch, and notes "after the conquest a new manorial centre was built on a new site: this was Berkhamsted Castle", and how in "1086 Domesday records the presence of 52 burgesses at Berkhamsted... This was a radical shift from the old centre at Northchurch." The same source also notes only one "manor of Berkhamsted" etc. after this point, with no reference to the old, abandoned location. This wasn't unusual behaviour for the Normans, of course.
 * The key points I think the article needs to communicate is that: there was an older location, used as a manorial centre, called Berkhamsted when the Normans invaded; when they took the region, they established a new manorial and administrative centre in the form of the current castle, and created a borough outside it, which is where the current town comes from and is what we think of as Berkhamsted.
 * The main article text now runs "The old Anglo-Saxon manorial centre was moved to the castle site, and a new settlement, the future Berkhamsted, grew up near the castle..." which I think is pretty accurate in terms of the cited source, although the word "moved" could potentially be interpreted in several different ways. The lead runs "A former Anglo-Saxon settlement was moved alongside the castle, and grew up to become the future town of Berkhamsted. ", which isn't as tight, and could potentially be improved. Be interested in your thoughts... Hchc2009 (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your detailed and acceptable reply...I once was had a good knowledge of both Anglo-Saxon History and Berkhamsted castle, but that knowledge is lost to me, so I am a little bit shakey. It is hard to think of a better word than "moved" especially when we are not sure of the exact details of how/who/where etc. I do wonder if there is anglo-saxon archaeology closer to the castle site. --  BOD --  18:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * For an earlier A/S mention of Berkhamsted The prologue of the Law of Wihtred states that Wihtred and the "great men" of Kent issued their legal code before a large assembly of Kentish people, "in the fifth winter of his reign, in the ninth indiction, sixth day of Rugern [rye-harvest]" (6 September 695) at "that place which is called Berghamstead." Not sure why a Kentish council was doing in Berkhamsted unless Wihtred was showing off some power over the Mercians?
 * refs cite book | title=The Beginnings of English Law | publisher=University of Toronto Press | author=Lisi Oliver | year=,2002 | pages=pp. 152-3, 164-65
 * cite book | title=Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England |publisher= Routledge |author=Dr Barbara Yorke|  year = 2002| pages = p30


 * The Institute of Historical Research: A Topographical Dictionary of England edited by Samuel Lewis  published in 1848 and The Historical Antiquities of Hertfordshire by  Sir Henry Chauncy 1826 both suggest Berkhamsted had been some kind of Mercian stronghold. These details are all a bit vague. --  BOD --  18:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're definitely right about the old manorial centre of Berkhamsted being important under the Anglo-Saxons, and I do wonder if they didn't have a burgh tower or something similar there... In terms of the language and "moved", I'll prod User:Nev1, who's often pretty good at finding a slick way of putting some of these things. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment of Land at Gossoms End, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire (for Lidl Supermarket) by NPS Archaeology in 2013  http://www.lidlberkhamsted.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Desktop-Archaelogical-Survey.pdf sections 5.2.3 and 4 supports the "move". --  BOD --  19:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a tricky task for the lead. How about something along the lines of "The castle was an administrative centre, and one of the effects was that the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Berkhampsted shifted focus from the area now called Northchurch to the castle." Nev1 (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that would seem to be correct -- BOD --  22:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OR is it "One of the effects of the Norman castle <> was that the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Berkhamsted shifted, durring the 11th-12th centuaries from the area now called Northchurch (formerly Berkhamsted St Mary) to its present location closer to the castle". see Church of St Peter, Great Berkhamsted ...cite book|title=Victoria County History: A History of the County of Hertford: volume 2|year=1908|editor=William Page|accessdate=7 December 2010|url=http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=43265 |pages=162–171 ... (dont know if that is a good source)

The VCH was good for its time, but I'd be less certain of it as a source for this sort of detail today - lots of archaeological work etc. since! I'll add in Nev's wording in a moment. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * agreed -- BOD --  06:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Caerphilly Castle reversion
Hi! Which one of the handfuls of references would you prefer?


 * WalesOnline
 * The Mirror
 * io9
 * some Facebook
 * YouTube
 * Doctor Who 24/7 Tumblr (architecture's rather distinctive, isn't it?)
 * Tom Riley's website

...Google Search: "Doctor Who" "Robots of Sherwood" "Caerphilly"

Eager to hear back! Thanks,

Corgi (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Corgi, my advice would be to look for a high-quality, secondary source, that lays out both the fact you want to cite, and its significance to the subject of the article - WP:RELIABLE gives some useful advice around identifying reliable sources. You'd certainly want to avoid self-published sources. You'd also want be looking for a source that ideally talks about both the Doctor Who episode and tells us something significant about Caerphilly Castle, which is the focus of the article, rather than only giving us information about the Doctor Who episode (there's some useful guidance at WP:What Wikipedia is not). Identifying a good source in this way usually also overcomes the problems of recentism and trivia which can easily creep in with lower quality sources. A good source in this sort of context might explain what qualities Caerphilly had that caused it to be chosen as a location for this episode, or perhaps explain if the owners, Cadw, are particularly keen that it is used for filming in this way, etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Henry II
Hi Hchc2009, I'm not sure why my edit to Henry II's appearance was removed, after all, I provided a source for it... Reicastell (talk | contribs) at 17:00, 15 September 2014
 * Hi! The answer is the same that User:Ealdgyth gave on her page. Historians divide sources into what are called primary and secondary sources; examples of the former are first-hand accounts by chroniclers, people writing letters at the time, etc. They might be correct or incorrect, biased or factual, etc. depending on who they were, and we need to be very careful using them, particularly when they were written a long time ago. A good example of a secondary source is a modern historian - they are writing long after the event, typically using primary sources. On the wiki, we use what are called reliable, high quality secondary sources, for example academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs etc. For Henry II, for example, you might use Warren's leading biography on Henry II: we can trust that Warren, as one of the foremost academic specialists on this period, has considered very carefully how to use primary sources from the period, and his work has been rigorously challenged and tested by other specialists.
 * Have a read through WP:RELIABLE, which will give you a good background on the sorts of sources you should be looking for for use on the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Glug-glug! Tastes nice, cheers Ed! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Jewel Tower
 * added links pointing to Crown, Vaulting, Scullery and Ministry of Works

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)