User talk:Strings123

Welcome...

Welcome to Wikipedia! It's really good to see someone doing work on English castles. If I can help at all along the way, feel free to drop me a message, either on this page, or on my own talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. Check your talk page for questions I have. Look forward to hearing from you. Strings123 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morning! In terms of your questions...

1. If you're content that you've improved the citations in the article, just delete the {{cn}} tag in the text. It's a good idea to leave a message in the edit summary box explaining what you've done, so that other editors know why you've removed it.

2. It looks like its been submitted successfully, but there's an odd "move" message at the bottom. Might be worth leaving a query at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk to check that the system submitted it successfully.

3. It's called an "infobox"; I've had a look at the template, and there isn't a field for that sort of monument number. Most articles I've seen don't tend to list it (unless it forms part of a web link etc.) You could add it as a footnote I suppose - I can show you how to do this if you need to.

4. For external links, have a look at the guidance at Wikipedia:External links or MOS:LAYOUT first. Usually an article won't use external links to link to a webpage already used as a reference; you'll see that the National Monument Records link is used as a reference in a few articles, so you wouldn't wish to add it as a separate external links. On the VCH, my advice would be to use it as a source to improve the text in the article itself, but it could form a reasonable external link for some articles.

6. If you're confident that an article meets the criteria for Start-class - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment for more details - then yes, but you should also update the boxes on the talk page, and leave an edit summary message. My advice would be that for the first few articles, submit them for assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. That will give you some feedback as to whether others agree etc., and then move on to assessing them yourself.

7. Yes. Some people prefer to have the conversation on a single page, others prefer to go back and forth. If when you reply to this message you do so on this page, just note "I'll be keeping the conversation on this page", or something like that, and others will know to place any comments conversation here.

Particularly for castles, you may also find Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history of use - the community there are pretty good about helping with questions like these. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Bolbec Castle, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Hchc2009 (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further on Bolbec...

Hi - I've been over to Articles for Creation for you on Bolbec Castle Some thoughts on possible next steps, if you're keen to improve the article further...

It could do with a picture. There are some over on the Commons if you fancy them, but they're using the alternative spelling of "Bolebec" - the search engine will find them from the Commons page.
Given that some sources call it Bolebec Castle, is it worth noting its additional name in the introduction?
The link you've given on External Links to Pastscape has some addition useful facts on the size of the castle that might be worth adding in.
Pettifer has some additional details on the castle here.
The link to the English Feudal Barony should probably be in "See Also", as its a wikipedia link rather than an External Link.
It would be worth adding a link to your new article from Whitchurch, Buckinghamshire.

Feel free to drop me a line if you need any help etc., and congrats on your first article! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Bolbec...

Added all the suggestions And thanks for them all

One problem Trid adding link to Whitchurch page with no success. Suggestions greatly appreciated.

I've fixed it for you; the link is case sensitive, so the lower case "castle" was causing it to miss the article page. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, can you change link on your list of castles page?

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Higham Gobion Castle...

Morning. Yep, should be possibly to add in the alternative views. My advice would be to:

Choose a source for the physical description ("the site has earthworks, lies on marshy ground, appears to have been flooded, etc.")
Identify a source for it being a castle (I'm presuming Victorian or earlier). You could then have a sentence or two after the description that says "Traditionally, Victorian scholars such as X interpreted these as being the remains of a castle. The mound was believed to be the motte, etc." and you'd reference these sentences to the source.
Then say "More recent interpretations, such as that of the Bedfordshire County Archaeology service" (or whomever) "suggest that these earthworks were really a medieval fishery, because..." and then reference that to the Heritage Gateway site (or whomever).
If you wanted to, you could possibly add a sentence or two explaining why fisheries were important in the medieval period (e.g. "Fisheries were important in the England during the medieval period because...")
If you wanted to, you could then end on noting that "no substantial archaeological investigation of the site has occurred" (in case anyone wonders why we can't prove this either way).

This would then mean that both perspectives were given in the article, but that it was clear where the modern consensus was on the issue. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]