User talk:Martin of Sheffield/Archive 1

Witton bell
Thanks for note re photo file, glad it's of use RLamb (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

American vs. US
No, that was not my intention; there is, however, another complication to consider. If the phrase "US legislator" is used, a North American person familiar with the US Government might take that to mean "a legislator in the US federal government" (i.e., a member of the US Congress.) The more general term "American" (used as the demonym for the US, consistent with WP's article on the same) implies that the distinction applies to both state and federal law-makers, which it does (ie. the distinction applies also to members of the state legislature of, say, Nevada, as well as to members of the federal US Congress.)  The reason I chose to overlook the Canadian issue (which did occur to me), was because the article itself has the unclear title including the phrase "American English," and tends to specify "North American" or "Canadian" as appropriate. I have no objection to any rephrasing including the clause "in English as used in the United States." Together with most cosmopolitan people, I really wish "United Statesian" (or similar) existed as a valid demonym. My wife is Canadian, and we have these semantic issues all the time. :) Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact, I note the article begins with the (unhelpful) definition "American English (AmE) is the form of English used in the United States." I believe this is a true statement -- linguists using the term "American English" do mean the United States' dialect(s) of English.  While true, it reflects an a lack of clarity and short-sighted prejudices that disadvantage Canadians in many areas of life.  Anyway, my original phrasing was in deference to that usage, even as I concur with objections to it. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that in the context of the article, AmE referring to the United States is reasonable, there is a further article on Canadian English referenced just below the definitions. Once one moves outside the purely linguistic the issues crowd in.  We have a similar problem on this side of the pond, you really don't want to call a Scotsman "English"!  I have even seen US commentators refer to our last prime minister as the "English Prime Minister" when he was a Scot, representing a Scottish seat at the UK parliament.  Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Rochester Castle
Your edits were generally excellent, you explained yourself very cogently to people you reverted, and I very much appreciated the correction on "accommodation". I hope you'll be collaborating on future A-class and FAC articles. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Concerning the conversation above: speaking as an American, I'm happy to stipulate that most Americans are perversely clueless about all things British :) - Dank (push to talk) 19:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Warkworth Castle
Hi Martin, hope you're well. I was wondering if you could take a look through the prose of the above article when you've got time? Your comments over at Karanacs's talk page in particular were spot on, and that kind of attention to detail is exactly what this article needs as I intend to nominate the article at WP:FAC, perhaps this weekend assuming no major issues emerge. Nev1 (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Nev. I'll certainly take a look for you, but I know very little about the castle so will just concentrate on prose.  After all not knowing is the best reason for reading an encyclopedia article, and it does mean you don't skip sections! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, hopefully the article makes sense although it didn't help that a lot of the people involved in the castle's history had the same name. Nev1 (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I didn't get started on this last week, but I was lauching my first complete article. Here are my observations so far:

Warkworth Observations
My first read through indicated the same problem with the similar names, it is very confusing. I also noted under the "Percy family", para 4 the sentance "His brother ... as a base from which the Lancastrian held castles ...". It is not clear until a line later whether "the Lancastrian" refers to Neville or "Lancastrian held" refers to the castles.

Turning to a detailed read through:

Lead

 * para 1, Link to Roger fitz Eustace is broken.
 * para 3, The castle fell to the Scots in 1322, when and how did Edward III get it back to give to Henry de Percy?
 * para 3, According to Earls of Northumberland Hugh Smithson was created Duke of Northumberland, Earl Percy, not Earl of Northumberland. The dynasty is therefore not the Earldom of Northumberland.

Early History

 * For those unfamiliar with the geography of the area, if a sketch map covering roughly NU240050 for a couple of kilometers North and across to the sea, might make things clearer. Particularly this is true in relation to the town bridge and the strength of the castle towards Scotland.
 * para 1 - Henry of Scotland was not Earl of Northumberland, but Earl of Northumbria. The numbering (already quite confused) gets impossible if the distinction is unobserved!

- I'm out of time, will resume tomorrow. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Roger fitz Eustace doesn't have an article at the moment, which explains the red link. As it's so prominent in the article, I should probably put something together.
 * Goodall mentioned the 1327 off-handedly and spent no more than a single sentence on it. I found another source that gave mre detail and it suggests that the siege was unsuccessful, so I've followed that instead.
 * You're right, the rest of the article said Duke of Northumberland (which was correct) and the lead was wrong.
 * I'm no good at creating maps but that's a good suggestion and I'll see if I can find someone to help.
 * Ah, not sure how that crept through considering Henry's article is "Henry, Earl of Northumbria". Nev1 (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

- I did a few minor changes to the rest of the history yesterday.

Layout

 * I've switched the site plan and the gatehouse picture. The site plan is more relevsnt to the description of the castle than to its history.  After I had scrolled up and down half a dozen times trying to match the description to the drawing I felt bold.  Hope you agree!
 * That's absolutely fine. It was a bit tricky to find suitable places for the images, and I was wondering if the plan should be closer to the description of the castle so this answers my concern. Nev1 (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

West range

 * According to the plan it is the northern door of the Little Staircase Tower (LST) which leads to the great hall. I've ammended the article accordingly.
 * The LST description is confused, it appears that the floors have become mixed up. Since I don't have sources I will not change the article, but suggest that paragraphs 3 and 4 should read:
 * The square Little Staircase Tower acted as the entrance from the bailey to the withdrawing rooms south of the great hall. At ground floor level there was a doorway in each of the tower's faces. Moving from the bailey east of the tower, turning south took a visitor to the castle's chapel. The northern door lead to the great hall, and west to a cellar under the great chamber. There are only fragmentary remains of the spiral staircase. Above the passageway was a single room, of uncertain purpose: it may have been used as another chapel, a guest room, or an antechamber where guests would wait before being admitted into the earl's presence. A door in the west of the room gave access to the great chamber.


 * South of the great hall was a two-storey building containing withdrawing chambers, dating from around 1200. Narrow windows opening onto the bailey were original but have since been filled in. The first floor was entirely occupied by the great chamber, furnished with a fireplace. In the south-west corner of the room was a door to a small room which was perhaps used as a safe. The ground floor was used as a cellar, through which the Carrickfergus Tower could be accessed. The polygonal tower was also accessible through the great chamber at first floor level. Fitted with latrines and a fireplace, it was an extension of the lordly accommodation provided by the great chamber.

I've reached the end. Hope the forgoing is constructive. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to say thanks again for the help, I seem to be immune to my own typos and silly mistakes. I decided not to start an article for Roger Fitz Eustace as things got rather complicated with sourcing (as explained on the article's talk page). Nev1 (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Frindsbury
No- its your article now- it was one of my early edits, full of my signature spelling mistakes etc. I have moved on to other fields. When one starts to develop an article- you suddenly feel very lonely as everyone backs off and you end up getting no feedback, and experienced editors just step in to fix any vandalism making comments like--- XXX is the expert here. Frindsbury needs a fresh critical pair of eyes. Speak soon. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)