Jump to content

Talk:Pinxton Castle

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

Some sources

[edit]

http://www.ecastles.co.uk/pinxton.html, http://www.pinxtonparishcouncil.co.uk/a-history-of-pinxton.html, https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1010025?section=official-list-entry, https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-2300-1/dissemination/pdf/071/DAJ_v071_1951_068-069.pdf, http://www.ecastles.co.uk/index.html, https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=MDR5890&resourceID=1023, https://her.derbyshire.gov.uk/Monument/MDR5890, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hen_Gwrt_Moated_Site, https://www.gatehouse-gazetteer.info/English%20sites/803.html, Doug Weller talk 12:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong castle

[edit]

@Moxy: I really appreciate your helping here, but that's another castle. See the photos on my talk page for instance..Doug Weller talk 13:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol omg Moxy🍁 14:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking

[edit]

Doug - apologies, living in a house that is being rebuilt around us, is preventing me from spending as much time on here as I might like. Just wanted to check you are ok with me messing around directly? I can certainly put notes here if you'd prefer. It's just with things like the NHLE citation template, it's quicker to do it, than to explain it! Let me know. KJP1 (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first oddity which strikes is that the Historic England (HE) listing report says details of the 1950s excavation carried out by the Pinxton Archaeological Society are lost, and yet you have them! Aren't they G. E. Monk's Report in the Derbyshire Archaeological Journal? As an aside, and if you could be bothered, HE are pretty good at making minor alterations to their reports. The great Peter Vardy sends them updates all the time, arising from his amazing listed building lists. But they can only make minor amends. As the listing is a statutory document, anything major requires approval from the Secretary of State (in name at least) and that is much harder to obtain. KJP1 (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @KJP1 Getting back to this in earnest. See [1]. "he excavations by the Pinxton Archaeological Society were conducted from 1951-4. They were not of a scientific nature and comprised sporadic digging to find walling, which was then followed. The plans made, photographs and sketches have been mislaid or lost."
    I'm in touch with the county archaeologists and hope they can help. Descriptions are contradictory and we have Scheduled monuments in Bolsover which calls it a castle, which seems pretty dubious and is sourced to [2] which has a lot of speculation. Agh. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love the "casual visit" by Mortimer Wheeler in the Derbyshire CC report. That is definitely worth a mention.
  • As per Hen Gwrt Moated Site, I tend to start with a History and then give a Description. One can do it the other way around, but I've found that readers (at least FA reviewers) prefer the "who/when/why" followed by the "what".
  • On the point of contradictions, Hen Gwrt also has this. All the old sources, Joseph Bradney's A History of Monmouthshire from the Coming of the Normans into Wales down to the Present Time etc., claim that the manor was the home of Dafydd Gam. But there's actually not a scrap of evidence to support this, and all the modern sources say it's rubbishy local lore. So, I tend to just report the historical view, but indicate that it is not supported by modern research.
  • As at Hen, you may want a section on archaeological investogations at the site. This is the record of the 1918 survey carried out by W. Stevenson, [3]. He was very prolific, [4]. Could he be this guy, W. H. Stevenson? Doubtful? My go-to on such matters is User:Richard Nevell, who knows a very great deal more than I do about this period. It would be worth dropping him a note in any event, as he will almost certainly be aware of any specialist sources on the site.
  • The sources are certainly strong enough to support an article. There is some repetition, as is common, the Gatehouse Gazetteer basically reproduces HE's listing record. The Heritage Gateway record is the same. I've no idea whether you intend to take the article through any of the approval stages (GA etc.), but note that, certainly at FA, there is a suspicion of "local sources", parish newsletters etc., as it is generally felt they don't meet the RS requirements for fact-checking/editorial oversight etc. In this case, the Pixton Parish History looks rather good and provides some useful background on the village. I'd certainly use it, but it may be challenged.
  • A History of Pixton - another question about this, who wrote the Castle section? I'm sure it's not the "local worthy" W. G. Barrett referenced at the start of the History section. I think it's the W. W. 1959 report referenced in Derbyshire CC's record. He was presumably the man from the Ministry of Works (United Kingdom), HE's predecessor. He is delightfully scathing about the Pixton Arch. Soc.s efforts!
KJP1's suggestions are spot on. I don't have much more insight, but that won't stop me waffling on.
The Archaeology Data Service has a scan of Stevenson's article: Stevenson, William (1918). "Pinxton Castle". The Derbyshire Archaeological Journal. 40: 78–84. doi:10.5284/1065737.
You probably already spotted that if you were looking at the Gatehouse Gazetteer, but I only checked the list after looking the PDF up myself.
The article lists him as William Stevenson, but I couldn't find anything more about him in that volume of the journal. He could be W. H. Stevenson but the Pinxton article doesn't appear in the bibliography by Harald Kleinschmidt. Omissions happen of course, and it's plausible but not conclusive either way.
The National Heritage List for England entry probably needs modifying since there is the short note on the 1950s excavations. It doesn't cover all the work as there were plans for the next year, and Heritage Gateway indicates that it was the detailed records that were lost.
Heritage Gateway mentions a geophysical survey in 1997 but gives no further detail. It doesn't appear on the Archaeology Data Service's website, and the 1994 investigations appear to have produced little of note (a desk based assessment followed by fieldwalking and trenching). The Pinxton and Normanton History Society has a Facebook page so I've messaged them in case they know about the geophys.
The earthworks show up reasonably well on Lidar which is available under an Open Government Licence. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that a Lidar image from one of those layers is already on Commons.—Odysseus1479 00:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Odysseus1479 and this article would be the first to use it. Excellent! KJP1 (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about 95% sure that the William Stevenson who wrote about Pinxton is William Stevenson (Q51683442). His obituary says he lived in Alfreton from 1906 to 1921 and "dedicating the remainder of his years to his archaeological studies and to literary work, both antiquarian and technical". Alfreton is about four miles from Pinxton. Unfortunately I didn't spot an obituary in the Derbyshire Archaeology Journal which might clear this up so it's not a nailed on certainty but it's pretty likely.
And this William Stevenson is the father of W. H. Stevenson, so not far off first time round! Richard Nevell (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Nevell - Good spot! I thought our W. H. Stevenson sounded a bit more like an archival historian than an archaeologist, but it’s interesting that I likely wasn’t so far out. Thanks greatly for your additional comments. I’m sure there is now enough as the basis for an interesting article. KJP1 (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1@Richard Nevell@Odysseus1479 Thanks. First, sure, mess around if you want. I haven't read all of the above but I have a paper copy of the Stevenson article I was able to purchase. I hope tomorrow or Friday I can read the above as carefully as it deserves. I really can't thank you all enough. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just notice the dates - I'm amazed I haven't looked at this for so long, sorry. I'll try to find a contact for Peter Vardy and ask about any updates. Doug Weller talk 16:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Nevell You say the National Heritage List for England entry probably needs modifying since there is the short note on the 1950s excavations - but who would do that? I don't know why I didn't think of the Pinxton and South Normanton Historical Society FB page. I've even posted to that in the past. I looked for the archaeological society but that's defunct so far as I can tell. Doug Weller talk 18:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the Castle section of the History of Pinxton in part the same as these? With the two Monk articles and the 1918 Stevenson article as sources. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping to get a video taken last month. Found someone on the FaceBook page who posted one. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to keep an eye on this if that's ok. Don't want to take the wind from Doug Weller's sails but I'll help as I can. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DIYeditor Finally getting past my writer's block or whatever held me up. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. Will continue to watch this page. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DIYeditor@KJP1@Odysseus1479@Richard Nevell I'm stuck on using, as I was advised to do, [5] as my source for the current view, specifically for the description. It's hard to get enough description into the article and avoid copyvio. Thanks Doug Weller talk 16:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doug - really sorry. I did notice your earlier ping, but the builders are a bit troublesome just now! I shall take a look tomorrow. It can indeed be tricky to take, say, the Historic England listing, and render it into non-copyvio prose, particularly as they can be stuffed with technical terms. I’ll see what I can suggest. KJP1 (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @KJP1 Thanks, that's great. Doug Weller talk 08:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @KJP1 Thanks. Went there today while my car was getting its annual safety test. Bad idea. Struggled to get over a bar protecting the steps (the stile was too much for me), coming back barely was able and scratched my leg. Couldn't find the easy access I did in April because of all the bush so went the hard way, over I don't know what, but really not very safe for someone 81 with Parkinson's. Couldn't see much as the area where I was was full of trees. On this lidar image[6] I came in from the north. See this map[7] - off the small roundabout there are the stairs I mention. April I was able to get access from the southwest - see the red dashes marking a trial but I couldn't find the entrance. I may try again with my wife. I'm not sure where the motte actually is, I'll print out the lidar and look at the description again. I wonder if it would be possible and legal to mark up the lidar? Doug Weller talk 12:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller: I don’t think there would be any copyright issues, assuming appropriate attribution per the OGL. WP:OR might be more of a concern, depending on the clarity & thoroughess of the available verbal descriptions. The coördinates of the Geograph photos may help. At any rate I’d be happy to collaborate on some type of site plan, whether or not it includes the Lidar image.—Odysseus1479 19:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Odysseus1479 That would be great. Geograph photos? I think I photographed the motte today (found the right entrance) (and in April). There are already photos on Commons but I need to figure out how to add mine in the right format. It would be good to have a gallery identifying the photos. Doug Weller talk 19:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The pictures in your UT thread archived at User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 66#My draft User:Doug Weller/Pinxton Castle provide coördinates that may be possible to correlate with the site descriptions. Three of the four have distinct camera and object locations. (ISTR your saying the vegetation has been cut back, so newer photos might well show more that those, which are from 2006 & ’12.) If your camera saves images in JPEG format, they can be uploaded to Commons as is.—Odysseus1479 20:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Odysseus1479 They are. I’ll upload them today if I’m ok. Damn chemo infusion right now is unexpectedly uncomfortable. Doug Weller talk 11:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Odysseus1479 I've created a category for Pinxton Castle on Commons and added it to some images I found plus one I took yesterday. I've got 12 on my computer some of which are duplicates and am unsure which to upload and how to name them. Is there a way I can put them say in Google documents so that you can see them and advise me? Or an other easy way? Email may be too much for you, I've got a silly amount of broadband. And of course easier to see if they are in one file somehow, like Documents. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve de-orphaned the Commons cat. (I was debating whether or not to include it in Ruins in Derbyshire, but since there’s so little above ground I opted for Archaeological Sites.) I’ll email to discuss logistical details.—Odysseus1479 21:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put two of the images on the page. I don't necessarily think what I did should be the "last word", however. There are layout issues that can be quibbled with, and I realize one might want to add more images in the form of a gallery, instead of the way I did it. One thing that would potentially help with layout would be to make the map that's at the bottom of the infobox smaller; I couldn't figure out how to do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doug - first, take a bit more care of yourself, your stile-vaulting days are behind you! Even with the assistance of Mrs Weller. Do you leap-frog over her, a la Colditz? She must be very understanding. Second, I've had a first stab at fleshing out the Description. I have heavily editing/filleted the HE entry as I think they go in for rather more detail than is suitable for our articles. It certainly needs more work, but see what you think. As I indicated in the edit summary, if you don't like it, or the IB, just revert - I won't be in the least offended. I shall take the "In use" template off now and you can have a bash. I'll return to it later today of tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well Doug - as ever, there is more that could be done, but personally, I think it's good to go as a Start Class article. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
p.s., only when I looked closely at the map, did I realise its proximity to Annesley Woodhouse, the Nottinghamshire village where my grandfather was born. Small world. KJP1 (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1 So it is. Unless there's a good reason not to, I'll leave this talk page, just adding a proper talk header and wikiprojects, etc. In a few hours. You and @Tryptofish have been marvellous. Glad my is/are error was caught, amazed I did that! Doug Weller talk 12:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1 We visited a safer way, with the dogs. I think the photo I took, dogs and all, was the motte. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

[edit]

Field walking 1993 [8] located fringes Sherwood Forest, Castles and landscapes : an archaeological survey of Yorkshire and the East Midlands PhD, I have copy, p252 Doug Weller talk 10:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas for a dyk hook?

[edit]

Just back from chemo, my arm feels bruised and despite great sleep last night tired. It would be nice to get this to dyk but my only experience there is arguing against fringe dyks dealing with archaeology. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t seem to readily lend itself to a hook:
That’s the best I can presently come up with. KJP1 (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Could the “unusual” nature of the moat being within the perimeter, rather than forming part of it, give us something? But it’s a pretty specialist feature. KJP1 (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s the first thing I thought of, and I don’t think it’s very esoteric: in popular imagination the stereotypical or ‘storybook’ castle, unless sited on a crag or hilltop, is surrounded by a moat and accessed by a drawbridge. (Something like Bodiam Castle with conical roofs on the towers.) So I think DYK that at Pinxton Castle, the moat was inside the walls? could raise a non-specialist eyebrow or two.—Odysseus1479 18:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish..? Sounds ok to me. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, something like:
  • DYK that the moat at Pinxton Castle stands within the perimeter walls, rather than surrounding them?
I’m sure one of you could make it a bit snappier! KJP1 (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the placing of the moat is the right way to go. (I had suggested DYK at Doug's talk, and I'd be happy to help with the process. If Doug would rather not deal with the quid pro quo review, I'm willing to do it.) Here is my suggested snap-ify:
  • ... that the moat around Pinxton Castle was inside the perimeter walls, rather than outside?
--Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish missed this. I’d like that but I’m not sure what you mean by doing the reviews. Shall I nominate it tomorrow ? Doug Weller talk 20:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By review, I mean WP:QPQ. But if you make the DYK nomination yourself, and if this is your first nomination, that requirement is waived. I was offering to do the nomination, but if you'd like to do it yourself, that would be very good. Please feel free to go ahead with that, if you want. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish@Odysseus1479@KJP1 DYK has a field for additional authors. Happy to share the "glory"! Doug Weller talk 09:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with whatever is the group decision, but I think it would be nice for you to have the spotlight to yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hey man im josh talk 17:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the moat around Pinxton Castle was inside the perimeter walls, rather than outside?
  • Source: [9] "The site at Pinxton is fairly unusual in that the moat is located inside a larger fortified enclosure."
  • Reviewed:
Created by Doug Weller (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Doug Weller talk 10:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi Doug Weller, nice article, review follows: article moved to mainspace on 3 July and exceeds minimum length; article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; I didn't spot any overly close paraphrasing and text taken from the source has been appropriately quoted; hook fact is interesting, mentioned in the article and checks out to source cited; no QPQ required. Looks fine to me - Dumelow (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huge backlog. I'm afraid I haven't added other authors but I probably still can. Just wanted to make sure it was nominated in time. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My images are now on Commons

[edit]

[10] Doug Weller talk 13:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help with the photos.

[edit]

I’m really pleased and lucky to have visited the site in April after it was cleared and on a good day. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information from one of the county archaeologists about my photos

[edit]

"Most of those seem to show the moat and enclosed manorial site within. The mound (potential motte) is visible on numbers 1 and 17. The HER record suggests there may have been a fishpond ‘in the northern part of the wood’ and the historic mapping shows a depression towards the NE corner (possibly on the LiDAR too) which could be – I’m not sure whether this appears in any of the photos." Doug Weller talk 15:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They meant 7, which we are using. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another spelling for the manor of Pinxton

[edit]

@Trappedinburnley: See [11] - Penkeston. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have encountered some of the old spellings already, but not this source. I have pondered adding more of the history of the manors before and after the Wyne family. Also, it may be worth mentioning that the Wyne's seem not to have been the direct tenants of the King. But I'm uncertain of the significance of that info in relation to this site, and am focusing on evidence that suggests a connection to the Wyne's. I have still been searching this week, and plan to add something about John le Wyne and Fulwood from this [12]. I would prefer the original book, but this website has been used on a few other articles, so will be OK for now I think. I also got a bit bogged down searching for 'Brocgrene', presumably Brook Green in modern English, without much joy. What strikes me from the source you have linked to, is how limited the info connecting the Wyne's to Pinxton is. Only a single mention of the lady, Dionisia (maybe we should include her?). Although I see about 20 other mentions elsewhere. The thoughts of others are welcome. TiB chat 12:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FFFeedback

[edit]

Hey Doug Weller. Thanks for the article. Some suggestions/questions are below, in rough order from the bottom of the article up. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Can the conclusions of the 1959 inspector moved up in the section so they come after the excavations of the early 1950s and before the work of the 1990s? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. That should be easy. Good idea. An outside eye is often useful. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "A building about ...": is this whole paragraph supported by the Derbyshire Historic Environment Record source? Are you accessing a more complete version than what's available via the URL? Whoever is doing the identifying/finding in this paragraph, we should mention who they are and when they're doing it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers It’s an official document but has no author. I’m not sure that page has a click through to [13] which then clicks through to [14]. This can be confusing and I guess we need to fix it. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There should probably be two references, one for each URL. There is still at least one bit I couldn't find in either: "The ridge tiles that were found were serrated and were in several glaze colours, two shades of brown and grey-green." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers wrong source entirely, it was the Monk article that was the source Doug Weller talk 11:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Overall, it would be good to consistently, primarily use metric or imperial measures, with conversions given in parentheses. Most measures are given in metric first, so the easiest change would be to fix up the few imperial-first measures in §Archaeology and excavations. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Thanks. I knew it had. To be done but forgot, I have to find the template. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had originally added that template to this page, and it can be a little tricky to work with, so I made those corrections myself. Unless I missed something, it should all be "metric (imperial)" now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, when I saw this on my watchlist, I was sure there was a typo in the section header, until I got here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a goofy prankster. Glad to see I tripped a fish. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Can we link Ordnance Survey? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done and I found the conversion template while editing. But I don’t want to try that on my iPad so it will have to wait until tomorrow. Again, thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At risk and image OR

[edit]

Needs a paragraph based on [15][16][17] Haven't found a source for it being cleared, but it was obviously this year - is referring to the images as evidence OR? Doug Weller talk 13:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be OR. It’s like citing to a Geograph image, which used to be very common but there’s less of it now. I can’t find the mention in the Heritage at Risk section. If you can give me the page number, it would be a simple job to drop a mention in. It’s looking very nice overall! KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P 13 [18]
p21 [19]
Am I right in thinking this can never meet GA. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1 forgot to ping. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. And I don’t think it couldn’t do GA. In fact, I think it certainly could. For FA, I think the local sources could be problematic. I’ll look at adding something from the At Risk documents. KJP1 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t the only local source the parish council? Doug Weller talk 20:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being on the Heritage at Risk register is definitely worth mentioning. It was still on the 2023 register. They're usually published in November, so the next one is a few months off. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Nevell Useful to know. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citatition doesn't lead to source

[edit]

<ref name="historicengland">{{NHLE|num=1010025|desc=Pinxton Castle motte and fortified manor with moated site and five fishponds|grade=SM|access-date=22 April 2024 }}</ref> should link to [20] but doesn't. This seems to have something to do with it being a template. Doug Weller talk 12:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug - not sure I’m getting the issue. The NHLE template will only ever link to the Historic England database, as it should. What Derbyshire Council have done is create their own record, the Derbyshire Historic Environment Record, which basically, at least in this instance, seems to be a lift of the HE listing. But you can certainly link to it. Just create a normal cite web reference, as we already have for Cite 13. Let me know if you’d like me to do it. KJP1 (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1 My concern is that clicking doesn't actually lead to anything useful so far as I can tell. The Derbyshire record says "Authority English Heritage" so it looks like a lift, but at least has the details we use in the article. If you could, please do as I've got to go do other things right now. Thanks as usual. Doug Weller talk 13:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doug - I guess you did not notice the official list entry button. Clicking it gets you to the good stuff. It was the result of a website upgrade a couple of years back, when they added a front page for each entry. I have just noticed that I could update the template to point more directly to the content.TiB chat 15:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely missed that. Others might be as unobservant as I am. :) So better to go directly to the source, thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that I don't have permission to make the change myself. I will formulate an edit request when I have more time.TiB chat 16:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, just that - the template takes you to the Overview. Then you have two buttons to the right, Official List Entry and Comments and Photos. You click the Official List Entry and you’re there. As the template is used on literally thousands of articles, I’d suggest some discussion before efforts are made to change it. And Doug, as I’ve said, if you want a direct link to the Derbyshire Record, that’s easy too. I’ll do one. KJP1 (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There - it’s Cite 8, supporting Note a. You can, of course, reuse/reposition it anywhere. KJP1 (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I’ve no intention of changing any template! Doug Weller talk 18:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trappedinburnley That makes no sense, the article isn’t protected. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trappedinburnley is talking about a change to the template, not to the article. The former would require a change request, I think. And I’d certainly suggest some prior discussion (see above). But I’m not sure it’s actually necessary, as the listing record is pretty easy to access. Although, I’d agree that is easy for me to say as a long-time user of the HE database. It may require a bit of work for those that aren’t. KJP1 (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1 Of course, I’d not thought of that. I doubt a change is necessary if we can be sure the average reader can access it. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. And I hope you didn’t mind my moving the images. I do think yours of the moat is a more interesting image in the lead for the average reader. The Lidar is good, but not so arresting, and doesn’t convey the “sense of place” so well. KJP1 (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1 I think it really catches the eye, thanks for moving it. I was so lucky with my timing and the weather. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very much like the new image layout, too.
I've been noticing the same issue with the Historic England citation. I don't want to change the page myself, given KJP1's experience with so many related pages, but it seems to me that it would be good to change the citation from that template, to just using Template:Cite web or the like, and using the url for the full text.
Also: I moved the new sentence, "If it had been crenellated, that might be why the site was called a castle", to an "efn", and I would suggest providing a cite at the end of the sentence, because otherwise it sounds like WP:OR. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template modification is complete. While I agree with @KJP1 that some discussion would be preferred, it is the sort of thing that can easily be undone if somebody squeaks (and the edit request creates a TP discussion anyway). After a little pondering, I felt that although the benefit is limited, it is an improvement. And this seems a better solution than not using the template to get around the problem.TiB chat 20:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trappedinburnley - a very neat tweak, which personally I prefer, and in my view much preferable to not using the template. Having checked it out on a few other pages, it seems to be site-wide,which is to be expected. That may not generate much, if any, comment, but if it does, we can respond with a cogent rationale. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Site plan for consideration

[edit]
Lidar map of Castle Wood
Lidar map of Castle Wood

I’ve drawn up a map of the site and am seeking comments on its suitability for inclusion in the article—and also suggestions for improvement. While I’m pretty confident of the dimensions of the features shown, some of their positions & orientations are conjectural. (There’s a technical problem in that the Berristow Lane label is failing to render; I don’t know why because it’s just like that for Alfreton Road … I’ll try and fix it but am holding off in case more changes can be made at the same time.) —Odysseus1479 20:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need to look at it in more detail, which won't be possible tonight, but at first sight it looks very good indeed. Sites such as this greatly benefit from a plan which can give readers a much clearer idea of what goes where. KJP1 (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing it with the Lidar - which I've inserted for ease - is very useful. Obviously, we have to be careful not to shade into WP:OR, but, from the sources, it looks accurate to me. And it will really help the reader. It does also nicely illustrate the sheer oddity of the moat within the walls. I wonder if there actually was any defensive purpose to it, or whether they were all just fishponds. But that takes me into OR-land! KJP1 (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the two images side-by-side like this makes me think it might be good to present both of them together on the page, with Template:Multiple image. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did use the Lidar to help place some elements. JFTR I started with Historic England’s 1:10000 PDF to establish the scale from the OS grid, then overlaid both a zoomed-in screenshot of their detailed interactive map and the Lidar image, registering them to a handful of ‘landmarks’ some distance outside the site. I then used whatever cues I could find to locate the described features.—Odysseus1479 02:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's excellent, and agree with Trypto that, combined with the Lidar, it would make a really good double image for the article. KJP1 (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I noticed is that there are question marks in the image, after the M, G, and T labels. I'm not sure why they are there, but they should probably be removed before this goes live. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for this, it's really great. Should have replied sooner but I'm so tired. After this is done I think I will let the relevand local authorities and archaeological societies know about it. Doug Weller talk 08:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Odysseus1479 I also like this plan, but I do have some minor questions and/or quibbles which hopefully can be fixed in the final version.
  • The building foundations on the island could be better identified, either similar to the other building platforms or in the key.
  • This is labelled as a Historic England site, which to me means the land is owned by Historic England. I'm fairly certain that interpretation would be incorrect. Oh now I look again I notice a faint green square, which looks innocent, but is anything but! I now understand that this part of the key, identifying the area covered by the scheduled monument status. 'Easy enough to relabel' I hear you thinking, but here comes the problem. IMO it is unlikely that significant part of the remains of the site would be outside that area (they normally are a little oversized). As several sections are, we seem to have a scaling issue. Hopefully I'm being melodramatic and it can be squeezed in a little.
  • Their are three (?) symbols. They puzzle me, but I presume they can be removed?
  • Using the same colour for the slopes of the motte as the outer embankment seems like it could lead to some confusion.
Assuming we are going with displaying it side-by-side with the LiDAR, ideally we need a bit more prose so it will fit in the Detail section without clashing with the infobox. As I previously said, I plan to add a bit more to the History section (which should help), but the plan shows some details have been omitted from the prose (if anyone else has time to help). Sorry to be the moaner, thanks for your work on this. TiB chat 19:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the comments, which are helpful. A couple of thoughts.
I’m confident we can expand the article text to ensure the plans are fully set in context. I’m very happy to pick this up. Can you point out any specifics you think are needed.
Historic England don’t own anything, as far as I know. Their sister body, English Heritage does, but HE are responsible for listing, irrespective of ownership. Is this something we need to make clear for the reader? It’s one of the problems with working on articles - you make assumptions about prior knowledge, when actually much of the context, in this case the minutiae of UK historic building regulation, will be a closed book to almost all of our readers. I could cetainly try a sentence or two to elaborate on this. KJP1 (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure EH owns this though, see [21]. Doug Weller talk 08:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Trappedinburnley: no problem; criticism is welcome. Point by point:
  • Agreed. I’d rather not make it the same as the G & T platforms, which seem to have been identified only as landscape features. How about a lighter tint of brown for the estimated footprint, leaving out the dotted outline (but keeping the dashed lines indicating the walls that were excavated)? I can slightly reduce & tighten up the legend to accommodate another entry, or even lengthen the ‘canvas’ a bit.
  • The green is indeed intended to indicate the site boundaries as shown on the HE maps, but I have little idea of the legal implications. If it required a double-take to discern what it is, its key could be better incorporated with the rest of the legend. How were you thinking of relabelling it? Sorry, I don’t quite follow the rest of your point, about scale. Actually (WP:OR alert!) there may be some remains of the NE rampart buried under the road: a colliery was built immediately to the east in the late 19th c., and the raised road-bed seems to have begun as a railway spur. IIRC one of the sources mentions infringement of coal-tailings onto the north pond. At any rate I had assumed the portion cut out of what would otherwise be a squarish outline to be a right-of-way or some such.
  • OK, I see the question-marks confused Tryptofish as well. They were intended to indicate tentativity; for example one of the sources considers the mound to be merely spoil from the excavations, questioning the whole motte-&-bailey interpretation. Evidently too laconic, though—how about “Possible motte” &c., or “Proposed ~”?
  • Point taken; I also had doubts about representing the top as a platform because of the disputed characterization. I could draw some thinner concentric circles, like a bulls-eye without the eye, so to speak; if it gets its own legend entry we can dispense with the “M”.
—Odysseus1479 21:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about some of the points, so I'll reply only about the question marks. Assuming we don't dispense with them in favor of other kinds of entries, I think it would be best to remove the marks, and instead have a small "header" above them, saying something like "Possible identifications:". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Odysseus1479: For an alternative label I will suggest either "legally protected site", "protected area" or "scheduled area", but I can see minor issues with all of them. Moving it into the legend might be enough? The more important point about this green shaded area, is that all of the remains documented in the HE record should be within it. As it stands, the NW rampart overlaps the edge at a suspicious angle and the SE rampart section is completely outside.
Assuming the ramparts are indeed ramparts, it seems that missing NE part must have existed outside the scheduled area. However if the officials in 1994 were confident that part had already been destroyed, they would not need to protect it.
On the question mark issue, I'm going to suggest a disclaimer along the bottom reading "The identification of buildings is uncertain" or similar.
Another quibble, this time with the missing label on the access road to Designer Outlet East Midlands (it is very bizarre that it doesn't render here but is in the file on commons). I was fairly confident that it is not the B6406 (because access to a private business only), but I'm now also doubtful it can be called Berristow Lane. The Designer Outlet gives its address as Mansfield Road which is a little more confusing!TiB chat 17:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trappedinburnley: regarding the boundaries, I agree in principle but am reluctant to second-guess the HE maps. The interactive map does not show the NW rampart—which I placed with reference to the Lidar image and the statement that there’s a 10-m space between it and the ponds—so is of no help there, but it does show what I took to be the SE remnant (with a semicircular ‘apron’ of hatching on its outward side) clearly outside the perimeter. Perhaps the ramparts were indeed deemed too badly eroded or disturbed to be worth protecting, or at least of less value than the moat & ponds. In general I believe compromises are often made WRT extraneous political & economic considerations, forcing heritage agencies to prioritize their ‘wish lists’ … At any rate that’s why I made sure to label the boundary as HE’s.
As for the road, on both HE maps its label is north of the motorway, and the 1:10000 shows the portion south of the roundabout in a different colour. OTOH some other maps online, OSM & Bing Maps for example, have the Berristow label (but not the B6406) right on the portion shown on the plan. On Google Maps it’s unnamed, with the B6406 appearing to end at the roundabout. On balance I agree that the number is probably wrong, but I’m less certain about the name. Apple Maps labels the A38 from the DOEM area westward to the M1 interchange as Mansfield Rd., but as Alfreton Rd. to the east. I don’t know quite what to make of that, except that Mansfield probably does not refer to the road in question. (BTW the renderings on Commons are the same as here; you can only see that label in the SVG file itself—probably displayed in a substitute font.)—Odysseus1479 21:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Odysseus1479: Yesterday I was going to suggest removing the green shaded area (and the label on the access road) as a quick way to solve several issues. I was struggling to make much sense of the contours depicted on the HE map, then I thought I'll just check a few more maps. To cut a long story short, I found this HD Lidar with the trees removed, and now there are another few issues! At this point, I will refrain from listing all the problems I noticed, and say the outline of the site looks rather similar to the HE protected area. Your thoughts?TiB chat 22:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned that I would forget something important by the time Odysseus returned, I decided to try to do it myself. I am not experienced with SVG editing, but after far more hours than I expected, I think I have got somewhere! I got lazy when I came to uploading and have just done it as a new version of the existing file. You might need to refresh this page to see it (at the top of the section). Where layout changes have happened, I have done it by eye (from the LiDAR). So some precision has been lost, but I did not change the size of anything so I think it should be satisfactory. One thing I remain certain of, is the footpath on the northeast side. OSM shows it but I can't figure out where it goes too? @Doug are you able to confirm that it extends as far as depicted here? Can anyone find anything else wrong? TiB chat 17:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my memory it does. I'm not up to going there, still weak from chemo - which does seem to have worked, new prognosis Thursday. Affected my taste buds, some food tastes bad. Getting better though. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked it over, and while I'm less of an expert on this than other editors here, I think it's good. I'm no longer confused by how anything is presented. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pinxton_Castle&oldid=1250860303"