User talk:Dudley Miles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yo Ho Ho[edit]


Hello, Dudley. Just out of curiosity, can I ask when you plan to take Edgar to FA? It looks like the PR is a bit slow... Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I emailed a historian a couple of days ago asking him to comment on the article. He has not replied so far and I will give him a few more days and if he does not reply I will decide what to do. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to WP:CIII[edit]

Hello. Just in case you missed it, there's a task force up at WP:CIII which you may be interested in. There is, of course, no obligation to participate, but if you do, it is very much appreciated.

Best wishes, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Modern royalty is way outside my area of interest. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)·Reply[reply]
Ah, sorry. I'd seen your dedicated work improving articles on Anglo-Saxon and English royalty, and thought you might be interested. Thanks anyway. :) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiJournal of Humanities Submission[edit]

Hello, Mr. Miles. I noticed that you have had Æthelflæd published to the WikiJournal of Humanities, and I recently submitted one of my own articles to undergo this process. Is there anything you can tell me about it? Thank you, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I decided not to submit any more articles after Æthelflæd, mainly because hardly anyone reads it. In the last few months seems to have started pushing the article to its members, but it still gets only one view a day, compared with 840 a day for the Wikipedia version. Some submissions have got stuck for years without reviews, although I cannot now find the page which listed timescales. They do seem to have a far bigger editorial board now, who may be trying to improve things, but the 2020 and 2021 journals only had one article each, which suggests that they still have a way to go. The upside was that I did get a review by a leading historian. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for sharing your experience. I too would enjoy the honour of having some of my writings examined by an expert, and maybe it wouldn't hurt my self esteem to be able to say that I have a published work :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editor of the Week[edit]

Editor of the week barnstar.svg Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Unlimitedlead submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate User Dudley Miles to be Editor of the Week for his outstanding help around FAR and PR. I was genuinely shocked when I discovered that Dudley had never been Editor of the Week before, so I'd like to rectify that. I think we can all admit that the royalty section of Wikipedia is not as active as other sectors. However, Dudley has constantly managed to push out quality article after quality article; not only that, but he has helped me at my current FAR, this PR, and this PR out of his own fruition. After 15+ years of magnificent service to Wikipedia, Dudley richly deserves an EotW award. This nomination was seconded by User:AirshipJungleman29 and User:Gog the Mild

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Project editor retention.svg
Editor of the week.svg
Portrait of Francis Place.jpg
Francis Place
Dudley Miles
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning March 19, 2023
15 years of magnificent service to Wikipedia and outstanding help around FAR and PR. Sadly, the royalty section of Wikipedia is not as active as other sectors. However, Dudley has constantly managed to push out quality article after quality article. See this PR as an example.
Recognized for
Anglo-Saxon enrichment
Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7  17:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for the award and kind words. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Congratulations, good sir. This award is much overdue; thank you for all your hard work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some Monmouthshire gardens[edit]

Good afternoon Dudley - I write asking a favour. I know it’s not quite your usual thing, but I wondered, if you had time, whether you’d be kind enough to have a look at Registered historic parks and gardens in Monmouthshire. It’s got a bit stuck, here. It does have some importance, given that landscapes now have statutory status in Wales. If you are busy elsewhere, then no problem at all. Equally, if you did have time, I’d be pleased to return the favour with any FLC/FAC/Peer review you may have planned/in train. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Athelstan's bones[edit]

Hi there,

we saw that you undid our correction of the timing of the loss of King Athelstan's bones at Malmesbury Abbey. Here in Malmesbury, it is believed that it is a common misconception that his bones were lost during the reformation. Rather, they were moved from near the altar of the previous Abbey Church when it was demolished in the 12th Century to make way for the building of the new Abbey Church (which stands today). As recorded by William of Malmesbury, it was intended that they be placed in the new Abbey Church when complete, but as far as we know, this did not happen and his body remains where it was 'temporarily' buried.

Are you aware of any record of the presence/location of his remains at the Abbey (in the church itself or otherwise) after the 12th century, and up to the time of the reformation? If so, that would be great for us to know..

many thanks for your time,

Alan (IT admin at the Athelstan Museum in Malmesbury) Athelstan Museum (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I see that I omitted the reference for the loss of the bones during the Reformation and I have now added it. See the text to plate 16 in Sarah Foot's biography of Æthelstan. See her page at [1]. I suggest you contact her for further information. I should be interested to hear any information you get from her. Unfortunately an unpublished email exchange would not be considered a reliable source under Wikipedia rules, but we could use a reliable published source which throws new light on the fate of Æthelstan's bones. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah OK. Yes I see the text to plate in Sarah's book. We are seeing Sarah soon here, so can discuss with her then. Maybe she has a source she is basing that on, or maybe not. I will let you know what I discover.
A Athelstan Museum (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello again,
I have now had an exchange with Sarah Foot regarding the text to plate 16 of her book, and also with Tony McAleavy who has written a recent book on the history of Malmesbury Abbey. So here is an update on thoughts on the fate of Athelstan's bones.
  1. Sarah Foot stated that she knows of no evidence for the location of Athelstan's bones after the 12th Century. The text under plate 16 was not intended as a historically sourced, definitive statement as to what happened to them. The key statement of that text was to say that the tomb is now empty. She said that the idea that the bones were lost during the reformation was put in there as she was taking what was the received opinion on the subject. But she does not know definitively what happened to Athelstan's bones after the reference by William of Malmesbury in the 12th Century.
  2. Tony McAleavy's researches are more specifically about Malmesbury Abbey, (as opposed to Sarah Foot's, who was more focussed on the life of the King). He believes that it is a reasonable surmise that the bones could have been lost at the time of the reformation, but he knows of no definitive evidence that their whereabouts was known before that, so it is not certain. The one reference that comes from the period between William of Malmesbury and the reformation is as follows. There is a reference to Malmesbury Abbey being the resting place of Athelstan in a manuscript which exists in the Lambeth Palace Library, dating from around 1380. This would be just before the construction of the box tomb. But this reference does not refer to a particular location within the abbey, and could just be a reference to the fact that it was known that he was buried there.
So the current state of knowledge on this point seems to be that we are not sure. It could be that he was temporarily buried in the grounds during the construction of the new Abbey Church in the 12th Century and never retrieved, or he could have been in that abbey church from the 12th Century until the reformation and then lost, or something in between. Based on that, I'm wondering if the statement in the Wikipedia article that 'His bones were lost during the reformation' is a bit too definite.
best regards
Alan Athelstan Museum (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the information. I have deleted the statement that his bones were lost during the Reformation. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Congratulations, Dudley Miles! The article you nominated, Edgar, King of England, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FA review for Li Rui[edit]

Hello! I nominated Li Rui for FA status, but the review is now at risk of being archived because there have not been many comments. Would you be willing to jump in and share your thoughts on the article? You previously were a reviewer for one of my other two FAs (Mary van Kleeck), which I really appreciated. Thank you! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I wanted to thank you for your comments on the Li Rui FA review. I appreciate your assistance in getting it to the state it's in today! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irish nationality law FAC[edit]

Hey Dudley, I wanted to ask if you would possibly be interested in reviewing the Irish nationality law article at FAC? This currently has three supports and it would be great to just push it over the edge. You previously supported another one of my FAs, New Zealand nationality law, which I've modeled this article after quite similarly given the content. Would appreciate any assistance, thanks! Horserice (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am tied up working on a non-Wiki article at present, but I will try to take a look in the next few days. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Richard I of England[edit]

Version of 4 May 2023 13:09 : What, unreferenced? I mentioned where that paragraph came from: Jean de Joinville, Life of Saint Louis, Chapter CVIII. What should I have added to make it a reference? — Tonymec (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have to give a full reference so that readers can see exactly what your source is and the page numbers. For example, another reference is <ref>{{cite book|last=Huscroft|first=Richard|year=2016|title=Tales From the Long Twelfth Century: The Rise and Fall of the Angevin Empire|publisher=Yale University Press0|pages=19–20}}</ref>. See other examples in the references section of the article and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Sorry that it is a bit complicated but readers do need to see the exact details of the edition and page numbers you are using. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have the book at hand anymore, but it was Les chroniqueurs du Moyen Âge, coll. La Pléiade, Paris, Gallimard. I don't have the page number but I gave the chapter number and these chapters are fairly short, usually no more than a couple of pages. The chapter number ought to be the same in any edition anyway, IIUC it is a more "stable" reference than the page number; similarly when giving a quotation from the Bible I would mention the book, chapter and verse, probably also the translation used, and dispense with the publisher, publication date, page and ISBN. — Tonymec (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The details you provide are satisfactory for a blog, but not a Wikipedia citation. Also, who did the translation? This must be by a reliable academic source, not an editor's own translation. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The French text was, AFAIK, Joinville's own French, as written in 1309. That text is still perfectly understandable to 21st-century French-speaking people like me notwithstanding the differences in grammar and orthography, but I translated it into contemporary English for the benefit of English-speaking Wikipedians. My translation can — well, until you removed it, could — be checked against the French original, and if necessary corrected, by anyone with a similar bilingual background. — Tonymec (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, but...[edit]

Hi there, thanks for the support in dealing with the IP at Talk:King Arthur. However I think you inadvertently reverted their latest attempt back in, not out! :) Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my error, now dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thanks again. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"No formal merge proposal made"[edit]

I see you removed the merge proposal [2] mentioning "no formal merge proposal made". Isn't it enough to create a section in the talk page to discuss the merge (like Talk:Miyake event#Merge)? C messier (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. You should use the template {{merge|OTHERPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merger proposal|date=May 2023}}. See. Wikipedia:Merging. Following this procedure ensures that people who may be interested in commenting are notified. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dudley Miles: I agree that one of the two merge templates required was initially missing, but I'd added it (to ensure that everyone was notified) ... at which point you removed both of them? Are you concerned that the merge template date should be May rather than March (on the grounds that both templates weren't present)? If so, I assume that you won't object to the templates now being added; the case C messier seemed well-reasoned, which is why I think that its worth continuing with the proposal, or formally restating if you prefer. Klbrain (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The template you added was on the article pages stating that a merge has been proposed, but it has not been proposed. It has to be proposed using the merge template on the talk page. This ensures that people who may be interested in commenting but are not watching the pages will be notified. See my comment above about the correct procedure. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The info page mentions that I had to start a new section at the bottom of that talk page and include the proposal itself, the list of the affected pages, and a merger rationale. The proposal is evident from the section title, the affected page is mentioned and added also the rational. Maybe it could be written better (using the suggested form), but all the elements required are there (eg. Klbrain undestood had I was suggesting). C messier (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added the proposal to be as the example form [3] and added back the templates. C messier (talk) 10:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I have pointed out to you twice, you have to use the template because it notifies people who do not have the articles on their watchlist of the proposal. You cannot exclude people from being notified because you cannot be bothered to use the template. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:MERGE You may optionally notify. Not notifying the involved users is not a valid reason to remove the merger proposal templates. C messier (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And yes, I used the template (that you keep removing) [4], created the proposal (that you claim that doesn't exist), even pinged the creator of the article [5] (which is optional), but you keep reverting, even though the issues you noted have been addressed or didn't exist. C messier (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dudley Miles: You seem to have misread the protocol; the template don't go on the talk page, but rather one the (article) pages; see, for example, the set of pages tagged in Category:Articles to be merged from March 2023, which are article pages. Klbrain (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking again, you are right. All other similar proposals go on the talk page, and I assumed that the same applies to merge. Apologies. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edward III of England Featured article review[edit]

I have nominated Edward III 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks SandyGeorgia. The best editor now for this is User:Unlimitedlead. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thx! I saw they weighed in on the FAR. Bst regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Oughtonhead Nature Reserve for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oughtonhead Nature Reserve is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oughtonhead Nature Reserve until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JMWt (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Calling Anglo-Saxon specialists[edit]

I've looked in at the FAC for Edith of Wilton and added my twopenn'orth, but comments from someone who, unlike me, knows a thing or two about Anglo-Saxon England, would, I feel sure, be appreciated by the nominator. Hope all is well with you. – Tim riley talk 12:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Tim. I have posted a note on the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

St Edith and sources[edit]

Hey Dudley, speaking of the above, thanks for your comments and feedback at St Edith's FAC. You've now become my go-to guy regarding my beloved English medieval saints, especially with Edith's bio since most of my work on femaie saints thus far have been about the obscure ones whose bios need saving. Edith's story just drew me in and it became a larger project than I was used to and kind of outside my field of expertise here on WP. You've been most helpful with sources, so I appreciate it, even if I don't always agree with you.

Speaking of, at Edith's FAC you suggested using an article from Bishop Wilton's Local History Bulletin, about the churches dedicated to Edith. I'm a little surprised that you suggested it, since local newsletters aren't considered the most reliable sources on WP. I'm happy to use it, since I believe that for many of the obscure topics we write about, we sometimes need to use them, in order to be as comprehensive as possible. So why is the newsletter from small villiage's historical society okay to use for Edith's bio but not hagiographies like the ones written by Agnes Dunbar and Sabine Baring-Gould are not?

I'm not trying to be argumentative; this is a question I'm sincerely curious about. I think it's important that we discuss this kind of thing, since the survival of many of the obscure female saints I like to write about on WP depend upon us answering and resolving it. I'm no medievalist, but scholars like Jane Tibbetts Schulenburg and Katie Ann-Marie Bugyis think that hagiographies are valid sources to use in research. Looking forward to your response and the ensuing discussion. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I was aware when I suggested it that it probably would not be regarded by some editors as a reliable source. It states facts which agree with other sources I read and more importantly cites sources. It covers an aspect not covered by academic historians (that is on churches dedicated to Edith. I would not use it for anything else), and so far as I can judge reliably. It would probably not pass a source review - although I would personally not object to it - but it does point to other sources you can check and churches you can do research on.
Hagiographies are valid sources for historians as they have the expertise to judge how far they are reliable. We do not cite hagiographies for facts as we do not have that expertise. If you regard Baring-Gould and Dunbar as hagiographies (I would describe them as unreliable popular works) then they would be ruled out as interpreting them would be original research, which is forbidden. In other words we can only use hagiographies at second hand as interpreted in reliable secondary sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dudley, I agree with you about using non-traditional sources in WP articles and bios. I think that sometimes we have to, in order to be, as I said, comprehensive. I think that WP needs to open up itself to non-traditional sources in order to include neglected topics and individuals, even sources like oral histories and self-published websites and sources. I would defend using this newsletter, for the reasons we both give here.
For me, this includes hagiographies. See, we WP editors and contributors make decisions about sources all the time. We discuss often at great lengths whether or not it's approprate to use them. Hagiographies are lists of saints, made by different people and communities. I've written about obscure female saints for the past three years and Dunbar and Baring-Gould are often the only sources out there about speciic individuals. There are all kinds of reasons for that, including systemic bias and sexism, so I don't think we should dismiss them out-of-hand just because they were popular at the time. I certainly wouldn't use some of the church, parish, and even denominational websites of lists of saints. The policies here about RS include popular works, even if they were popular hundreds of years ago. Readers are smart enough to know that. Both sources mentioned above have rare insights into their subjects, especially Dunbar. I think that's why, when I use her, I add annoying phrases like, "Dunbar says" or "According to Dunbar."
All that being said, I think it's all right for us to use Dunbar and Baring-Gould. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hagiographies are accounts of saints' miracles by medieval writers who believed that they were literally true. They need to be interpreted by experts and we are not experts. Dunbar and Baring-Gould are not hagiographers. They are unreliable popular writers and if you use them then your articles are below Wikipedia's standard and they will not pass FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dudley, I guess we're going to agree to disagree. I knew that D and B-G would be an issue for this bio at FAC, so that's why I followed your advice and removed them. I suspect that the bios of other obscure female saints I work on will never be FAs, anyway, and they shouldn't because they're too short (i.e., stubs) or they don't have enough RS available. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone who is so obscure that D and B-G are the only sources is not notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Anyone who is notable will almost certainly be covered by Farmer's Dictionary of Saints, which is a reliable source. The best source I know on lesser known female saints is Sarah Foot's two volume Veiled Women. Reliable sources are not just necessary for FAs, they are required for any article. If you base articles on unreliable sources they are liable to be proposed for deletion by anyone who comes across them and your work will be wasted. Butler's Lives of the Saints is recommended by Oxford Reference at [6], which presumably qualifies it as an RS, althhough I am not sure whether Nikkimaria would agree. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are all kinds of RS and even high quality sources about female saints; we're just having a disagreement about hagiographies. I looked at the list of web resources you suggested; most aren't technically reliable because most of them are SPS (i.e., published by organizations like the Benedictines). I was surprised to see on that list. Perhaps you didn't know it, but it's a mirror site, sometimes from WP, and it doesn't even cite the sources it plagarizes. Edgar, King of England, a FA, uses it, only twice, but it shouldn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figureskatingfan (talkcontribs)
Your general point is correct. I did not look at the list closely enough. I wrote the article on Edgar, and Nikkimaria disputed citing, but I pointed out that I was using it solely as evidence of the view of Edgar in popular sources and she did not push her doubts so far as to oppose promotion. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That link's not opening for me atm so I can't speak to what it says specifically. I would in general be cautious of applying a blanket-RS ruling based on something like that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliability of source[edit]

Hi, Dudley. May I ask your opinion on Michael Hicks (historian) and A. J. Pollard as high-quality reliable sources? I was planning on writing an article using their publications and I would like to know if they is FA-quality material. Thank you kindly, Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can only give you my personal opinion. They are obviously RS but whether they are HQ depends on the subject. If the article is about their specialist area then they are HQ, but even experts can make surprising errors when they go outside their area of expertise. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Thank you for your input. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]