This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
I added a comment at BLB, but it doesn't seem to have posted yet. I got a message at posting that it goes into a queue to be reviewed before it's officially posted. I gave them the link you provided so I'm guessing the comment will be posted or the address will be removed in time.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very interesting map. It really helps illustrate the impact of the main road, I'm guessing from 1970, on the castle grounds.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was the building of the interchange that had the biggest effect - the Castle is just that much more isolated and difficult to get to. But Newport was badly in need of road modernisation. That narrow funnel, between Stow Hill and the Usk, is quite cramped. At least the name lives on in "Old Green Crossing", I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know Chepstow and some other castles don't get one at all. I was thinking about fixing that. For some of us that aren't familiar with the area, it's really helpful.
I'm happy to go with consensus, though, if there is already a guideline by the project not to use location maps - or if folks vote here that it's best not to use location maps. I guess it's clear I like it. I tried to find a way to use the Newport map which is smaller, but that would mean using a different Infobox, which would then be out-of-synch with other castle articles.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For me personally, it would have to be quite big to justify all that empty map of Wales. But I guess we must be guided by Project Castles or whatever. (It's more of an issue for me with churches, which often seem much more local than "big" things like castles!) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've dropped by from the MilHist pages. The default has been the Wales map so far, but it's not been subject to vigorous discussion or anything like that. I'm in favour of location maps in the infoboxes, as it helps the typical reader. Like you, I think it can look a bit empty... but my cautionary note about more local maps is that while us Brits can instantly locate the castle from them (particularly if they know Monmouthshire well, for example), a county outline can be baffling to the rest of the world. Someone pointed out to me once it was like a typical Brit trying to locate a town within a location map of Utah - very difficult, although we could manage to locate a town in the context of the US as a whole if the scale was increased. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the point that the location map doesn't help zero in on the specific area. I guess over the years I've become accustomed to a rough orientation to state/county lines from the location maps and then, if I need to, zeroing in on the exact location using Google maps from the title coordinates.
I reduced the map size significantly to 150 px, I believe - because there's no question it was a bit large before. Does that help?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. With the longer articles, sizing the maps to the infoxbox image size looks good, but with the shorter ones, I agree, it can look odd. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what "is this MOS?" from the edit summary means. If it's about having a section that pre-dates the subject of the article, removed the section and made it a note.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I saw that. I just wasn't sure what you meant (i.e., there's a LOT of content in MOS), especially since the edit summary was formed as a question, which to me meant something more needed to be done.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw both sites earlier. I liked the images from the 1st site and it seemed that there was good info on the 2nd site.
I hadn't run into them before, didn't know if they were and couldn't figure out from other pages if they were WP:Reliable sources. For instance, I couldn't tell if they were personal sites, or sites with content subject to good historical research and/or editorial control. If you say you know them to be good sources, that sounds good!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I recently suggested, at another Talk Page, that images were more reliable than words. To which the response was "*snort* What, the camera never lies? Are you unfamiliar with Photoshop?" To me a good photo of a castle, is a good photo. So even if "castlewales.com" is a "personal site" that can't be used as an WP:RS for text, I think it is still useful and should be linked if possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is, it's the first of the external links - and I'm using the Newport Past article as a source. Like I said, "If you say you know them to be good sources, that sounds good!--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The photos on castlewales.com are often very useful, and I think the website makes a handy external link. Though the site looks like it was designed in 1995, some of the people writing content for the site are authorities on the subject of castles, for instance Adrian Pettifer, Paul Remfry, and Philip Davis who have all either published books or articles on castles. Elizabeth Whittle wrote the entry for Newport; her name doesn't ring a bell but a good case could be put forward for treating castlewales.com as a reliable source in general cases. Nev1 (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's very encouraging to hear that. The material at that site has always looked good to me. I used it at Llanafan Fawr, although I had no idea of the standing of some of the authors. I always find the images excellent. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC) (p.s. but, then, I have been known to sing the praises of a certain much-despised UK tabloid, just because it sometimes has excellent online images, e.g. [5])[reply]
I'd be slightly careful in using it (the sourcing is sometimes unclear), but for general statements, I'd agree with Nev1. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Elizabeth Whittle text seems to be (almost) verbatim from what she wrote in this book - she's an inspector (or equivalent) at Cadw, and absolutely reliable. The other writings on that site may (I haven't checked) come from other volumes in that Cadw series, published in the 1990s. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the article about William Herbert (MP fl.1555), his father was named Walter Herbert, so if that's right, it's not him. It seems possible, but is not clear, that it's the (MP fl.1555).
Is it known if the William Herbert that leased the castle was William Herbert, MP? I'll keep researching, but if it's known that would help!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this information was reworded so that it's a close paraphrase issue now: "For only 200 years of its long history has it been the residence of the Lord of Newport."
No, I didn't mean to imply that you changed the meaning, just that it seemed to be easing into a WP:Close paraphrasing issue.
I pulled the source info: "Newport Castle had an active life of about 200 years and only during very little of this time was it actually occupied by its lord"
Some would say that this is becoming a close paraphrase issue. I would agree that your reworded is more straightforward, though. It seems to be a perenial issue when trying to paraphrase. I'll go along with whatever you think is best based upon this copy of the source info.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have seen this happen a few times. Someone (who has seen the source) paraphrases a sentence, and a second editor(who has not seen the source), then unwittingly changes it back to something more usual and closer to the original! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I was stumped how to handle adding the years of Edward's reign, so I used "reign of Edward III's [1327-1377] - since the years weren't in the Newport Castle article, but from Edward's article. If it's in parenthesis, should I get a source that states his years of reign?
The years do not need a separate reference as long as they agree with the article, which is linked anyway. Again, I was just trying to make the sentence simpler. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon the dates (Henry II, pre 14th century) in which Castel Newydd or Cas Newydd were used, it appears that the "new castle" may refer to the previous castle in Newport (Stow Hill) - that was a new castle for a pre-14th century lord (not finding his name now). Any info about this to help clarify whether there's a direct connection between the use of Castell Newydd for the 14th century Newport Castle?--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was common for women to hold castles by more than one method. A typical example of this was Elizabeth, widow of Nicholas Audley. She held Llandovery castle (Carmathen) and Newport castle (Pembroke) in jointure from July 1391 and Redcastle (Shropshire) from November of the same year, giving her three of her husband's four castles.
Just for completeness (and in case anyone was wondering), Fred Hando seems to have written only twice about the castle (for the South Wales Argus): "Random Thoughts on Newport Castle" (13-1-67) and "Newport Castle, it’s Stones, it’s Story" (27-1-67). As far as I know, neither of these articles were later included in any of his anthologies, but I need to check the latest ones. See [6]Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's generally accepted that, in some cases, Hando used a little "artistic licence" in his writings. But, still interesting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not in Hando's Gwent (Chris Barber, Vol 1., 1987). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 18 Ju 2013 (UTC)
Vol 2 (1989), presumably re-printing the random thoughts, includes a stanza from the 1911 W. H. Davies poem "Days That Have Been". I have now added it, in that particularly loathed "In popular culture" section. But I hope this doesn't unbalance the article? There is also in the book a small but effective drawing by Hando entitled "Moonlight on Newport Castle" so he might just warrant a very brief mention. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This citation is a glossary page - it does not describe Newport Castle. I left it in and will format it, but added back the true sources for the info.<ref>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_YjJc_c4BxsC&pg=PA175&dq=watergate+castle+glossary&hl=en&sa=X&ei=q-LnUc3jGIj8OYO6gJgG&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=watergate%20castle%20glossary&f=false Marilyn Stokstad, ''Medieval Castles'', p.175]</ref>
Where a direct quote from a source is used, it is essential that the source is cited. Although it didn't refer to Newport Castle - no-one suggested it did - it was the source from which those words came and should not have been removed. Having said that, I've since created Watergate (architecture) as a stub, so those words can now be removed. But you have a tendency, I think, to add too many references for uncontentious statements of fact, and in my view more need to be removed - see WP:OVERREF. One good reference, in those cases, is usually enough. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for leaving the sources about the castle itself. The way the <glossary> citation was placed it inferred that it covered the information about Newport castle. Thanks for correcting it so that it just covered the cited info. As an FYI, if I don't know where previous content came from, I put a {{citation needed}} tag before the information I'm citing to avoid confusion.
Yep, I do often have multiple sources citations, such as when the content comes from multiple sources. I could use a cookie-cutter approach where a few words come from one source - a few more words come from another source, etc. but that makes it hard to read. I personally don't think that three sources is overciting, but if there is consensus that three citations is too many, I'll go back and re-cite using the cookie-cutter approach.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, I had been toying with adding <image to the right> when I added 2 others. I like the juxtaposition of the new building through the ruin arches. You know the area, though, and I trust your judgement.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking pretty full on my screen, btw. It looks like "the first castle" section could take another, but, from this system, you'd then start to get a wall of images if you added more. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it was such a glorious weekend, I nipped into town and took a few more. I have now uploaded another 20 to Commons. Maybe one of these, or an edited version, could be used. I think maybe a stronger lead image is needed - perhaps from across the river? I was pleased to see that, for some reason, the castle is currently adorned with flags, although what flags they are, I'm not sure. Also, as it was low tide, I managed to get a couple of shots from directly underneath the railway bridge - an angle not often seen. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this one, which has the tower of St Marks' Goldtops in the distant background, could be cropped down a bit to reduce that expanse of Usk mud? But I think the one above is pretty good Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you. Are you going to scatter them through the article, or add a gallery? - which I quite like, though they get disapproving mutterings from some... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be happy to see a gallery. But also quite keen to get that Turner painting in first, perhaps in the (deeply despised) "In Popular culture" section? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favour of galleries if they meet the MOS criteria - but not if they're just being used to fit additional images in to an article. I still like the idea of getting the Turner picture in, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Under US law, there's no potential copyright claim. The original painting is out of copyright by a century (either in UK or US law), and in the US, photographs/scans of Public Domain images don't hold their own copyright.
The Wiki Commons would accept it, arguing that, for these reasons, there's no reasonable claim of copyright.
UK law *might* accept a copyright claim, on the basis that UK law is quite conservative in this area, often concluding that photographs/scans of Public Domain images do hold their own copyright.
Where that leaves you depends a bit on where you are situated geographically. I'd always urge caution on someone based in the UK, given the potential (even if slim) for them to be in breach of UK copyright law. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Newport Museum and Art Gallery is in my home town, for starters! Although the real Turner is at the Tate, of course. So.... we need a friendly non-UK editor? (you seem to be UK yourself). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They'd certainly be in a different legal position. Some UK galleries are prepared to donate versions of their digital images, though, if asked nicely - I've had had some luck with forward-leaning UK institutions in the past, particularly if they can see the local link/connection. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Newport Castle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
.svg)
Done
