Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Hello Dudley, can you explain what was unreliable and which were bad links? The links were internal to Wikipedia and having researched this topic thoroughly the information is reliable. One of the big questions we get at the various Canterbury Museums and attractions is how many Archbishops of Canterbury were 'bumped off'. This answer is available, however the same is not so for the page on the Archbishop's of York. That is why I've tried to repeatedly add the information for future public enquiry. What can I do to satisfy your concerns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didymus Ridgeland (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Didymus Ridgeland. The cases on York either do not look reliable to me or in one case you are not linking to the right person. 1. Osbert de Bayeux was accused of poisoning William of York but he was never tried. The accusation may have been unjust. 2. The claim that Bonaventure was poisoned is also doubtful (as you say) and he was never consecrated. 3. Richard Scrope. You have pointed to a disambiguation page for several men of that name, not the correct one. 4. The DNB article on Bainbridge at [1] expresses doubts on the poisoning as the alleged poisoner admitted his guilt under torture. In general, I think very strong evidence is needed of poisoning in view of the very limited medical knowledge in the medieval period.

Thanks for your contribution, but you do need to cite reliable sources, not just say that your information is reliable. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Dudley Miles I am not acting as a historical detective of how plausible the supposed killings were, that's not my place nor the purpose of the edition. The point is, irrespective of whether they are disputed between historians, that only 4 Archbishop's of York were killed (died through unatural causes) according to historical records. There are many examples of disputed events throughout history, however they are generally accepted, like how Harold Godwinson died. You will find the events of the suspected murders of these archbishops cited on each their Wikipedi pages and if a person wishes to read more into the validity of each death, they can view each archbishop's Wikipedia site for themselves.

I can correct the ambiguous link of Richard Scrope, but I cannot provide more evidence than is available to prove that the archbishops were or were not killed. I would appreciate it if you could leave the edition in future and allow the public to follow the hyperlinks and make up their own minds as to the validity of historical records.

That is not how Wikipedia works. As Ealdgyth says, you have to provide reliable sources for your statements, not add unsourced edits and leave readers to find out whether they are correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Since there is no source for the date currently listed in the article, could you please explain why the source I added is unreliable? Deb (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

A history published in 1836 is not a reliable source, but you have a good point that there was no source at all. I have corrected the date, citing a reliable source, the Dictionary of National Biography article on Richard. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. While I was looking, I came across several other sources quoting different dates, ranging from 24th to 27th so I'm still unsure that any of them is correct. I tend to prefer older sources in general, as they are less likely to be copied from Wikipedia or elsewhere - though of course subsequent research can render them incorrect. Deb (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

A modern academic source is extremely unlikely to be copied from Wikipedia and should take account of recent research. In this case the difference of a day or two is trivial, but new evidence or interpretation is sometimes very significant. To take one example, Alfred the Great's journey to Rome as a young child has been taken as evidence that he was marked out as special from a young age, and it was only in 1997 that evidence was published showing that he was accompanied by his elder brother, which puts the journey in a very different light. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, true. But I don't think it can be guaranteed that newer works are reliable. I know someone who has reams of non-fiction books published by reputable publishers and does a lot of his "research" through Wikipedia! Deb (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with that, provided you check the sources in the article. I often check Wikipedia first as it is the easiest way of tracking down reliable sources on a subject. If an author quotes Wikipedia without checking the sources cited (or far worse quotes unreferenced comments), that is a problem. However, that type of author will almost certainly be making obvious errors which you can pick up. If in doubt, I check out reviews of the book. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

... since RexxS has nixed the second option. Even though he likes my other two tables, I'm never going to push my own formats ... if you want me to make any changes to your tables, I will, and if not, I'll leave them alone. Good work on the two lists I've looked at so far ... I'll be doing something on flora in protected areas in North Carolina that steals some of your ideas :) - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Dank this is way beyond my very basic knowledge of tables. I would much rather do what I am told by those who understand the subject - or even better if you are happy to make any changes you think would help. BTW thanks for your kind words about stealing my ideas. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy to steal your ideas any time. Since I got one objection to merging the Special Sites column (I like that name since "special" is right there in the designations, but I won't push it), I won't merge that one, but I'll go merge the other two columns. I may merge more columns in future reviews, but only if I get enough feedback on when to merge and not to merge columns. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Dank. Thanks for your edits. I like the merging of the details and map columns to save space. I am not happy with changing "Other classifications" to "Special sites". Having other designations or management by a wildlife trust does not make them special. I originally had "Other designations", but Rodw objected that management by a wildlife trust is not a designation. He accepted "Other classifications". I think this is still not quite right, although better than special sites, which could be confusing for readers. How about just labelling the column "Also", which is short and innocuous? Any views Rodw? The article is List of local nature reserves in Berkshire and it is under review at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of local nature reserves in Berkshire/archive1. (I refer you to Dank if you are interested in the discussion about table options.) Dudley Miles (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Does "Also classed" or "Also classified" work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 23:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

How about "Other designations and wildlife trust management" in the key, shortened to "Other" in the table? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not see any potential for further merging of columns as this would lose the ability to sort on them. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

"Other" works for me. Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 13:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

After a discussion with Giants, I'm keeping a log of examples, before and after, of tables at FLC that used to have tall, thin prose columns at 133%. Participation is voluntary, I won't include anyone's list without their permission. I just added yours so you can see what it looks like, but I'll remove it if you like, and I can remove the examples from your tables on User:Dank/Tables as well, if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 05:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Apparently the sidebar version of User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck has been broken for a long while. It should be fixed now. Sorry for the inconvenience. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I found the page in Kirby I was thinking of; it's in chapter 3, where he describes the West Saxon Regnal Lists as "political fictions". I think what you have covers it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

You take things out of context and then simply dump them in an encyclopedia. Read the WHOLE of the sources given. Then tell me I'm wrong.- Adam37 Talk 22:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Hi Dudley! Xact's edit has nothing to be said for it, obviously - a mere shout-out of an apparently arbitrary opinion. But what makes you describe 100 as "correct" (and "referenced")? I'm seeing only doubt (" an "exceedingly obscure" etymology" etc) - and no references at all? - SquisherDa (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi SquisherDa. I was not referring to the etymology section, but to the second paragraph of the England section. This has 100 and is supported by ref 3, the Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia. I have the encyclopedia and have checked that the citation is correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I see now where that section mentions "about" 100. Is it your understanding tht the OED is mistaken in mentioning a figure of 120? tht the two sources disagree? Or are you treating 120 as falling within the range indicated by "about 100"? - SquisherDa (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The article cites OED for "exceedingly obscure", not for 120. OED says: "Most of the English counties were divided into hundreds; but in some counties wapentakes, and in others wards, appear as divisions of a similar kind. The origin of the division into hundreds, which appears already in Old English times, is exceedingly obscure, and very diverse opinions have been given as to its origin. ‘It has been regarded as denoting simply a division of a hundred hides of land; as the district which furnished a hundred warriors to the host; as representing the original settlement of the hundred warriors; or as composed of a hundred hides, each of which furnished a single warrior’ (Stubbs Const. Hist. I. v. §45). ‘It is certain that in some instances the hundred was deemed to contain exactly 100 hides of land’ (F. W. Maitland). The hundred, Old High German (Alemannisch) huntari, huntre, was a subdivision of the gau in Ancient Germany; but connection between this and the English hundred is not clearly made out." I do not know where 120 comes from. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I've done some digging in the article's history, and run across something of a surprise. I hope you'll like what I've done to clarify. I'm expecting the reader to refer to the Long hundred article, and to rely on references there if interested; but could you add a citation of the above bit of the OED? - SquisherDa (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added refs and revised where the text did not reflect the source. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Great!! - SquisherDa (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, the recent edit to Æthelred I, King of Wessex removed the wikilink for Ecgberht: was that just a typo or did you have a reason? --Mirokado (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It was a typo. Thanks for pointing it out. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If you are interested in reviewing, here is my nom. Would appreciate your comments there. Dey subrata (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been working on Knap Hill recently and wondered if you'd be willing to take a look at it. I'm thinking of taking it to FAC but have not written an article about the Neolithic before, so would appreciate another pair of eyes. I still have to do a MoS pass, and probably a copyedit, and there's one source I'm thinking about adding a sentence or two from, but other than that I think it's more or less done. Any comments would be appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course, will do.

I do not know what an MOS pass is. Is there a tool for checking compliance with MOS? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I just meant I have to read through and pay attention to things like dashes and conversion templates and reference formatting and so on. I tend to make mistakes on that sort of thing as I write, and I have to clean up afterwards. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

So, what I've found out is that people don't care a lot about what things look like at 133% zoom (at least, not so far). Not a problem. But your new FL doesn't look right at 120% either (the last column is a little over an inch wide on my laptop) ... and I get the sense that people do care about 120%. There are two fixes that IMO are relatively painless: 1. several columns could get narrower, they just need an abbreviated column name (with {{abbr}} and a mention in the key) and the proper "width=x%" parameter, or 2. a format like the last table at User:Dank/Tables ... note that I've fiddled with it so that the first column looks prettier now (and still sorts correctly). I'm bringing this to your user page because I don't want other reviewers to get the idea that this is a problem, if you don't think it's a problem. But I'll be happy to fiddle with the table to fix this if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Dank. I am very grateful for any help with formatting aspects I do not understand. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Your choice, whatever looks best to you. Here's the option with description rows, I can make this change if you like, or I can work on the other approach: [removed]

This does not look right to me, with too much white space. I prefer the option with narrower columns, as you did with the local nature reserves. Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I removed it so that your talk page isn't showing an error category. I'll try the other way. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Made the column labels for two columns a little narrower. Looks good to go to me at 120%. Feel free to edit. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Btw, my list is having trouble getting off the ground ... suggestions and complaints are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Dan. I will not try to edit as I will probably mess it up. How about merging the map and details column, and shortening "Other class." to "Other", as you did in List of local nature reserves in Berkshire. That might make room to expand "PA", which some readers might find confusing, to "Access". I will look at your list tomorrow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: Stearn's botanical names (T–Z), thanks, your advice was helpful. I'll continue working on the lists in my userspace. - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It's probably better to respond to your review while it's fresh on our minds. (See User:Dank/Stearn's botanical names (T–Z)). I added the paragraph you were looking for, I hope. "For gardeners": Stearn writes that "most [species] interest only botanists"; this book isn't aimed primarily at botanists (presumably because he wanted to be able to sell books ... but I can't put that in the introduction). I removed the NHM. I doubled the list as you asked ... but I'm in discussions with plant editors, and if they want the lists expanded (by adding geographical names, say), then I'll probably have to go back to U-Z. I've added anagrams back in (annoying, but he doesn't list many of them, and it's more annoying to explain what anagrams are and why they're popular with botanists). People and place names are excluded mainly so that I don't violate Stearn's copyright, but I can't put that in the introduction. (Maybe we could make it clearer that these lists are aimed at people with some knowlege of Latin and Greek root words.) I don't think I can get away with bolding the genera. I expanded "L" to "L, G, O" with an underline (abbr) and a mention in the Key. I don't have room to write out "References" unless I combine that column with Examples (which would be fine). I have changed the table name to "Binomial names, examples and references", which should make "Ref" clearer. Please let me know if there's anything else. - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Further comments, including ones which did not occur to me before.

The most important is that I think the genus or species names should be links. Some will be red links, but that is OK - red links are helpful indications of articles which need to be written. This is particularly important with a name like tabuliformis, which goes to a disambig, so a reader who wants to know more about it will not know which one is correct.

As the correct names of species are two part with the genus first, should you not show both for species?

On both of these points, I don't think I follow. This is the link to search for (almost) all plant taxon articles with "tabuliformis" in the page title. There are two in this case; there can be up to maybe 20. There's isn't a single genus to go with each species name. My list is a list of words, not a list of species. The best I can do, I think, is pick one and call it an "example", which I've done.

I suggest [[Natural History Museum, London|British Museum (Natural History)]].

I don't follow, I need the whole sentence that you want.

I mean "and worked in the 1950s as Botany Librarian at the British Museum (Natural History)" Dudley Miles (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't look right to me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem I have with "for gardeners" is that it implies a popular work about those species of interest to gardeners, whereas the following quote implies that it is a specialist work for botantists. I find this confusing on a basic point about the nature of the book, but I do not know how to deal with it.

I have removed the quote.

"groups of related species" All species are related. I would say "closely related".

Done.

I think the second paragraph could helpfully be expanded, for example, give the definition of species, that genus is between species and family, and that the correct name of all species is the genus name first capitalised with the species lower case. How about some history of the progress in classification since Linnaeus's time?

I agree that there's tension between appearing straightforward vs. appearing serious, and telling a good story vs. not wasting the reader's time with extraneous details. Different writers will make different choices, and I'm rarely wedded to my choices as a writer. As a reader, I don't want a storyline wasting my time when I want to look something up, but I get that a lot of readers are expecting a good story. The problem is ... what story? None of the quick definitions of "species" (involving interbreeding, for instance) are quite right, and the longer definitions would give readers the wrong idea entirely about the level of discourse and intended readership for this list. I'd rather not have a paragraph on classification, followed by "Make sure you don't pay any attention to any of the extra details of classification we just gave, or it will confuse you when you try to interpret the words in this list" ... but if we included the extra paragraph without the disclaimer, then it probably would confuse some readers.

You have not covered my point that in the images it is not clear what some such as dandelion relate to. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Dandelion is the only one I can find without a genus name. Fixed.

I do not understand the problem with people and places. If he was recording names in common use, how can he have copyright? Maybe check with a Wikipedia copyright expert.

Have you seen Copyright in compilation and WT:Copyrights#Stearn's botanical names (U–Z)?

I do not see where there is a distinction between names based on people and places and otherwise. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to argue here for my own preferences because I'll be presenting the lists at WT:PLANTS in a few days ... and if those guys reach some kind of consensus that the lists are good and useful but would be more useful if they included X, then I'm very likely to include X. But to be clear: although I'll happily make the changes, there's a good chance I won't be on board with including X. It will be up to the people who want the change to argue (if challenged) that the additions don't offend people's sense of appropriate scholarly behavior. - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I think your solution for language looks clumsy. I suggest a separate key, as I have with my lists. e.g.

Lang. = Language

L = Latin

G = Greek

O = Other languages

Changed the column heading to "Lang." I don't follow the rest; I don't want to say anything redundant to what's already there: "The second column uses "L" for Classical (or occasionally Medieval) Latin, "G" for Ancient Greek, and "O" for other languages of origin." Is there anything wrong with that?

I should have made clear that I am suggesting replacing your explanation above, not duplicating it. I think the key format is clearer for readers, but of course it is your call. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a few suggestions for you to consider. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I and others have had problems with that editor. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes another editor has just reverted his edits on Historicity of King Arthur. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Dudley. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Norfolk – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for May 11. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 00:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The article already points out that any Carbon 14 (C14) deficient carbon absorbed by plants would make them date older per C14 dating because they would start off as deficient in C14.

It is common knowledge that C14 is created in the atmosphere by cosmic ray bombardment, and that carbon inside the earth is deficient. It should be obvious that carbon released from the earth by volcanoes and then absorbed by plants near the volcanoes would make C14 dating of those plants off. The amount that the dating is off would depend on how much deficient carbon was emitted by the volcanoes and then absorbed by nearby plants.

Since the half life of C14 is over 5,000 years, if nearby plants absorbed 1% C14 deficient carbon originating from the volcano, a 1% starting deficiency would equal a 1% age difference, where 1% is about 100 years.

In case you have not seen any - here is a picture of a volcano emitting gas - a good chunk of which is carbon. Also common knowledge.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

Per wikipedia guidelines common knowledge does not require citations. C14 dating of materials found near volcanoes is already widely recognized as problematic - Just because it is not common knowledge to YOU, does not mean it is not common knowledge for others. Do you have any background in Physics? Volcanoes? History? Carbon dating? Anyone on those fields would immediately recognize the issue, if he (or she) had bothered to use the 2 brain cells not yet dead from the poison of ego!

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-explosive-lies-volcanoes-age.html

The effect of volcanic carbon on eruption ages

Our study re-analysed the large series of radiocarbon dates for the Taupo eruption and found that the oldest dates were closest to the volcano vent. The dates were progressively younger the farther away they were.

This unusual geographic pattern has been documented very close (i.e. less than a kilometre) to volcanic vents before, but never on the scale of tens of kilometres. Two wiggle match ages, taken from the same forest, located about 30km from the caldera lake, were among the oldest dates from the series of dates.

This conceptual image shows how gas from the triggering event, decades before the eruption, works its way into the groundwater system and is eventually incorporated in the wood of the trees that we date. 71.174.128.111 (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As @Robby: pointed out at Wikipedia:Proposed_article_mergers#New_requests, your new article at Hurst Castle and Lymington River Estuary seems to be a duplicate of Hurst Castle And Lymington River Estuary. Perhaps you could merge them? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Titchfield Haven and Titchfield Haven National Nature Reserve are also the same, can you check these please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the merger was necessary as there it two topics about the same thing, doesn't really work together, does it. Good job on fixing that makes it easier for me to understand. Rawsar (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Merger done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Great! Nice to hear you have done it. Thanks mate! Rawsar (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Where i could put this image on? I get it that Mesoarchean is inappropriate to be placed on because it doesn't mean anything from that geological era.

I would like to put this on Ur once you reverted my edit, but i have to ask you first to avoid any mess up. Thank you! SMB​99​thx_{this might be ugly} 09:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I would not dispute you adding it to Ur - it is not on my watchlist anyway. However, I do not think the image should be used at all. It is just one of a number of speculative reconstructions and implies an unjustified confidence in the configuration of land 3 billion years ago. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks for letting me know. SMB​99​thx_{this might be ugly} 10:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The Witan did NOT "elect" kings. They confirmed them. Show me a King in the Cerdic line who is not ruling by hereditary right. You should not revert edits you know nothing about. 2A00:23C4:B607:CF00:6C44:A655:376B:EC30 (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Alfred the Great became king even though his elder brother's sons had a better hereditary right. Kings were chosen by the Witan. See for example Charter 123 of Æthelred the Unready in Whitelock's English Historical Documents: "all the leading men of both orders unanimously chose my brother Edward to guide the government of the kingdom". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Since the previous image i was going to use does not mean anything for the article, this time i'm trying my best to become more accurate. This image is Vaalbara, one of the first Earth supercontinents. IIRC Vaalbara is a Mesoarchean supercontinent, not a Paleoarchean supercontinent (since the article mentions proto-Vaalbara paleoarchean supercontinent that does not exist). As such i'm going to use that image on the article i've tried to add an image days ago but failed. Please note that i use this video as a source, and that video uses scholarly sources (please carefully take a look at credits in the end of that video). I would like that you allow it this time around, since this article was in your watchlist. And by the way, this image was used in Vaalbara article. I didn't use the Ur image because you told me that image is not appropriate for Wikipedia, but this image got used (Vaalbara) and it wasn't me who added it. I'm sorry for getting aggresive here, but i had to do so rather than getting in a conflict again! By the way, i know this is a reconstruction (in which 3 billion years out, considered "speculative"), but i want this image to be added to complete the project. Many other articles have it by this date (the reason why they are removed is because of the copyright problem. When i readded these images back, i'm doing my best to avoid copyright violations by using images that are Creative Commons licensed), and with addition of this image, all geologic periods and eras will have an image. SMB​99​thx_{this might be ugly} 03:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

BTW I've added this image to the talk page of Mesoarchean for more audience. SMB​99​thx_{this might be ugly} 07:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

There are several issues here. 1. What makes Vaalbara (if it existed) a supercontinent? It seems more like an island from the period before continents existed. On a quick look, none of the scholarly sources appears to use the term supercontinent. 2. Citing the sources of a YouTube video on a talk page is not satisfactory sourcing. You need to cite the scholarly sources used in the description or source fields of the file itself, so that anyone looking at the image can check the sourcing. 3. I do not see any evidence for the latitude you show in the image. 4. Why does the image not resemble the two cratons shown in the Vaalbara article? 5. Thanks for your work on the image, but I do not understand how an image which guesses the shape and latititude of a possible Archean island helps the reader.

I have copied this to Talk:Mesoarchean. If you want to raise issues in future, it is better to put them on the talk page of the relevant article so that other people can see them. You can ping me by adding {{u|Dudley Miles}} to your comment.Dudley Miles (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

In the list of plants beginning with "saw-wort" the last one needs correction Aineireland (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Done thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I just archived Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reginald de Warenne/archive1 because it's obvious I'm going to need to take FAC under some more intense management for a bit, but I'd like to get Reginald into shape ... so can we work together on the talk page to get your concerns dealt with? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Fine. I have added it to my watchlist. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Did I upset you? You don't have to do anything... I just figured you'd like to know that I was taking your concerns seriously, and that even though I didn't have the time right now to deal with an FAC, I ddi want to not leave you feeling like I wasn't taking your efforts seriously .. I value them highly. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I am not sure why you think I am upset. I just meant that I have added the article to my watchlist so that I will see any queries you raise on the article talk page and can add my two bits. Sorry if I have given the wrong impression. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

it was the short reply...after spending most of my morning reading F&Fs verbose reviewing style...your concise reply was...not verbose and very striking. Just me being involved with other stuff too much, I suspect. Thank you! --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Have replied to your concerns there. Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dudley Miles! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Technical problem with table, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite a bit has changed. Any comments would be appreciated before it goes to FLC. (And if it fails there, I wouldn't mind creating new material, spliting it up, and taking it to GAN ... but I'd prefer to keep it as a list if I can.) I think it incorporates most of your previous suggestions, but correct me if I'm wrong. (Some things won't make sense, of course, such as: why did I pick those three books? I think that's a discussion for the talk page or FLC instead of article-space. The discussion at WT:PLANTS#Lists of specific epithets may be helpful. Happy to answer any questions.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Dank Fine. I will take a look and post any comments on the article talk page. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Dank. Can you please give me a link to the discussion on your FLC nomination so I can remind myself of the issues raised there. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, WP:Featured list candidates/Stearn's botanical names (T–Z)/archive1. After the FLC, the discussion above: #Stearn's botanical names (T–Z). I'm also having (or trying to have) a discussion with Reywas92 on his talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 11:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

To clarify: don't spend too much time on this (unless you're personally interested in the list). I'm looking to get a sense of whether FLC is a good fit for these lists, and you know more about the FLC criteria and culture than I do. The main point of these lists is to help get consensus on short translations for epithets, to make it easier to write taxonomic lists in general. The taxonomic lists are the point, and that's the purpose these lists need to be suitable for. If that doesn't sync up with what FLC reviewers want, then I'll finish these epithet lists, then start on the taxonomic lists, and eventually break up the epithet lists, add narrative, and run them piecemeal through GAN. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Replying on the list talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Moved (for now) to List of descriptive plant epithets per your suggestion. - Dank (push to talk) 13:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Your last comment at Talk:List of descriptive plant epithets#Comments by Dudley was "How about an extra column with codes showing which of the three sources is used in each item?" My first iterations of this table had only one epithet in the first column for each row, so the citations in the fifth column provided this information, but now I see that over time I've bunched epithets into the same row more and more. I've made some edits today to respond to your comment (which I agree with) ... now the second, third, etc. epithets (if any) in the first column of a row all reliably appear in Harrison. (The first word appears in Harrison if it's cited to her). I'm also adding citations to all the notes. Let me know if you're looking for something more than that. Thanks for taking the time. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting this ... John wants to do a lot of work in his userspace on A through D, so I've temporarily moved the list and its talk page to User talk:Johnboddie/List of descriptive plant epithets (A–H) (and changed the section link above). Comments welcome there, too. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Fine. I have had my say now but ping me when you take it to FLC. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If you have time, could you check to see if the edits I reverted were reverted correctly? I saw a lot of original research. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller can you clarify what specifically you objected to? So far as I can see, the edits are mainly based on Brace, which does extensively discuss Cheddar Man. It is not peer reviewed, but its authors include the leading experts in the field, Tom Booth, Chris Stringer, David Reich. The edits reduce the reliance on the sensationalist New Scientist article which manufactured an unjustified controversy about Cheddar Man's dark skin. In my opinion, it is not a reliable source and should not be cited at all. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

My main problem is the Human Genetics article, pdf here. It doesn't discuss Cheddar Man. I've said that on the talk page but didn't mention New Scientist. No need, but if you really think it shouldn't be used please post there. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I didnt notice the grammatical errors, but why do you refer to what I wrote as POV? Did you ever read Adam von Bremen? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

If you claim that I made a POV statement, may I ask you, how do you translate Aurum ibi plurimum, quod raptu congeritur piratico. Ipsi enim piratae, quos illi Wichingos as appellant, nostri Ascomannos regi Danico tributum solvunt.Dan Koehl (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Adam von Bremen is a primary source which is not suitable for Wikipedia. We rely on reliable secondary sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

So why is he mentioned, and why is a false quote from hm provided? He never wrote that the vikings were Scandinavian? IF he should be quoted, at least the quotation should be correct,a nd not providing false information? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That is a fair point, as there is no reference to Adam in the source cited at the end of the paragraph, but the solution is for you to delete the incorrect statement, not add comments based on your personal views. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Dudley! You have reverted my edit adding information about free-diving genetic adaptations in Sama-Bajau, claiming that it's "Not significant and not referenced". How is it not significant? It's just as significant as high-altitude genetic adaptations. Tibetans have developed changes in EPAS1, Sama-Bajau have developed changes in PDE10A, BDKRB2, FAM178B. The references are provided in Sama-Bajau § Free-diving adaptations, which I have linked to in my edit. Note that the two preceding sentences about high-altitude adaptations don't have direct references either. Does that mean we should remove them? No. In any case, it's better to add a {{citation needed}} than outright remove material. I suggest that you revert your revert. Thanks! — UnladenSwallow (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the preceding sentences should have references, but apart from the comment about EPAS1, they are well known and important genetic adaptations. For an article on such a broad topic as human evolution, an adaptation for free diving does not seem to me significant enough to be worth mentioning, but if you disagree it is best to raise the subject on the article talk page so that others can have their say. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, will do! Thanks! — UnladenSwallow (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Gerda. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		Thank you for providing excellent and insightful reviews for several of my Featured list nominations. Truly appreciated! Tone 20:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Very kind thanks. It is always pleasant to be appreciated. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

When you update the table at COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country, you have to replace the old table with the new one. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. At {{COVID-19 pandemic death rates}}, there is no closing "|}" after the table. I started to add it, but thought I'd check with you first in case I'm missing something. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have made the change and I am not sure why the table seemed to work OK without it. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Shearonink (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC) 

• Thank you for all your time/patience/help at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of racing cyclists and pacemakers with a cycling-related death/archive2 in getting List of racing cyclists and pacemakers with a cycling-related death to WP:FL. Cheers! Shearonink (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Dudley Miles. Every time you update Template:COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country, you create a link to COVID-19 pandemic in China, which is a disambiguation page, not an article. Please update your source file to link to COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China instead. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Dudley. I'd like to also point out that these changes of yours doubled up on the <!-- please stop updating here--> — <noinclude> — Reflist bits at the bottom. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out these problems. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I just learned (from an FLC review) that PresN already addressed the problem with duplicative table captions back in May, here. (I was whining about table captions earlier.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dank. I remember that we had a discussion about captions but I have to admit that I forget the details. If I remember correctly, I was in favour of a caption and that is what has been decided? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you said that a caption isn't needed, and I said that some people are taking that recent RfC very seriously, even leading to blocks. PresN says we can use {{sronly|redundant caption goes here}} when the obvious caption only repeats the section heading. I just made the change in my two long lists. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Another question, if I may ... it's still early, but I notice that no one is reviewing my list (aside from a couple of comments). Can you think of any one change that would make it more attractive? My position is that considerations of article length are mainly technical and should be decided at WP:VPT rather than WP:FLC ... but it's also possible that FLC reviewers don't know what to do with a list that's chopped in half. If combining the two lists would get me some reviewers, I have no objection to doing it. (OTOH, if I double the length of the list, it might be harder to get reviewers for that reason.) What do you think? - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I would not be concerned at this stage. If you look at other nominations you will see that there are older ones which have not received much attention. I have not done any reviewing for some weeks as I am concentrating on an off wiki project - although I really should get back to reviewing soon.

BTW you will probably know that nominators who want reviews commonly review other nominations and ask for a review in return. I prefer just to wait (that is not to ask for reviews) as I know that FLC is a much slower process than FAC and I will get reviews in the end even if it takes months. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm doing some FLC reviewing this morning ... it's too early to ask, but if nothing happens in a week or two I probably will. - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This is trivial, but I'm probably required to say it per FLC rules: I've added links to Glossary of botanical terms (wherever such links are relevant) to my I-Z list, after your support. Very few people would care but I probably need to mention it ... rules are rules. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dudley, I was wondering if you'd be interested in providing some assistance with Cefnllys Castle. I've recently rewritten the article from a stub and have requested a peer review, but would appreciate any feedback you could offer (if you're able/willing to do so), with a view to nominating it at FAC in the near future as I haven't been through the process before. All the best, Jr8825 • Talk 23:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dudley, thanks again for your comments at the peer review. I've worked through them and would be grateful if you could take a look at the comments I left on the review page. Jr8825 • Talk 04:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

bruh it says Æthelred died in late April on 871 Meaning Alfred the Great's reign started in late April THEREALhistoryandgames (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It does not say in the article about Alfred that he died in late April, which is why I reverted. It does say so in the article about Æthelred, but you cannot copy information without providing a reference. I will copy across the date and the reference some time if no one else does it first.

Actually I am not sure he did die in late April. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle just says that he died after Easter, which fell on 15 April in that year, which could mean that he died in May, but saying that would be original research, which is not allowed. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Why can't you do original research? THEREALhistoryandgames (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It is against the rules of Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a aummary of information from reliable sources. Original research should be assessed by relevant experts, not by unqulified Wikipedia editors. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It depends on how you define 'capital'. In modern terms, as the 'seat of government', then few if any Medieval states had capitals, as kings and princes were peripatetic and the court and government followed them. This was case down to Tudor times. However, as the major seat of secular and ecclesiastical ceremony and the venue of important gatherings it would be hard to argue that Winchester in Wessex, York in Northumbria and the twin sites of Tamworth and Lichfield in Mercia, were not the pre-eminent settlements in their respective kingdoms. Urselius (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia ia not based on our views, but on authoritative sources. See my discussion with another editor (who has since been banned) at Talk:London/Archive 10#Winchester the Anglo-Saxon capital?. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

See: Commons:Convert tables and charts to wiki code or image files#Web to tab2wiki or excel2wiki. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

If you have time, could you take a look at Whitehawk Camp? I would like to take it to FAC and would really appreciate your thoughts on it first. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Fine, but what is your timescale? I have a couple of projects which I am anxious to get out of the way. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I have an article at FAC now which seems likely to be promoted within a week or two, and I have two others I can nominate ahead of this one, so that's likely to be a minimum of a month, and more likely closer to two. If you could take a look before the end of the year that would be great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you might remember reviewing Skegness, which I brought to FAC in the summer; as geology is far from my "comfort zone", I greatly appreciated your help with the geology section of that article. I'm now working up Grantham in my sandbox and wondered whether you would be kind enough to take a look at my draft of the geology sub-section? Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC).

I will take a look. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Ealdgyth and a Merry Christmas to you. Thanks also for your massive contributions to Wikipedia. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

You chose to revert my addition of Bede's story about Augustine of Canterbury's healing of a blind man when the British bishops couldn't. You dismiss it because 'a miracle is not a fact'. Such a historiographical approach fails to engage with the understanding of other cultures of what is important, and thus offers an incomplete understanding of history. I was careful to record it as what Bede said, not as a fact. Such an approach offers a deeper understanding of the people of the time without asserting that the event happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ender's Shadow Snr (talk • contribs) 18:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You did not say that Bede asserts, but that he records. That is saying that it is a fact. Also, as Ealdgyth comments, using Bede in this context is original research, which is forbidden. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dudley Miles, I hope this note finds you well. Is there a reason why Template:English monarchs begins differently than the list at List of English monarchs? Or is this an inconsistency? Best - Aza24 (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It is inconsistency. If I remember correctly, some years ago the list started with Æthelstan, who was the first king of England. It was changed to Alfred and I objected that this made no sense, but other editors disagreed. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I see; I'm not too familiar with the issue myself so I don't have a view one way or another. This being said, do you think it would be approrpaite that I adjust the template to match the list? Or is this something that should be brought up for discussion somewhere? Best - Aza24 (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You could raise the issue for discussion, but in my view it is not worth getting into an argument about it. I would leave it alone, but of course it is up to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Æthelred I article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 22, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 22, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the article "about Alfred the Great's elder brother, who led the resistance to the Viking attempt to conquer Wessex until his early death allowed Alfred to become king. Æthelred's reign is also important numismatically."! - Have a good 2021! I even have a FAC open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit??

Æthelwold is a character in the TV series The Last Kingdom based on the Bernard Cornwell's book The Saxon Stories, that first aired in 2015 on BBC and leater on Netflix.^[1] Some of the events of the series and the character are based on real events.^[2]

There are plenty of other sources to support this. Would you like me to provide more? Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. This says '"In popular culture" sections should contain verifiable information with sources that establish its significance to the article's subject.' You have provided sources for the character, but not for its significance to this article. See Henry II of England#Popular culture for an example of a popular culture section which provides a referenced analysis. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reviewed Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. It states: "When fictional characters are modeled after notable people or celebrities, they can be mentioned in the article about the person when the connection is identified in the primary source or attributed by a secondary source."

So in this case the character in both the book and the TV series is modeled after the subject of this article and there are many supporting sources.

Here are some additional sources: historyextra.com, radiotimes.com it states: Aethelwold is a character people love to hate in The Last Kingdom, known for his scheming and treachery against King Alfred as he eyes the throne for himself. Remarkably, this is inspired by events in real history. , screenrant.com, distractify.com Expertwikiguy (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That quote refers to the requirement for sources. You also need to establish its significance, not just list it without explanation. The guidance page also says: "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged." Dudley Miles (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I am having hard time understanding what the issue is. The sources clearly support that the book and movie character is based on the real-life person. Some of the sources are even analyzing how close the character is to the real character, there are some differences in the fictional character, but there are many similarities as well. What else should it say or is required??? Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that you need to explain (with reliable sources) why it is significant in the article, not just in this talk page. A vague comment that "Some of the events of the series and the character are based on real events" tells the reader nothing useful. As I wrote above, Henry II of England#Popular culture provides an example. 22:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok then how would this sound:

Æthelwold is a character in the Bernard Cornwell's book The Saxon Stories, and the TV series The Last Kingdom which is based on the same book.[1] Although the character is fictional, it was based on the real Æthelwold.[2] In the TV series, just like the real life, King Alfred becomes the king when his brother Æthelred, father of Æthelwold dies, while Æthelwold disputes it and claims that he has the right to the throne, but is denied due to him being young and inexperienced. When King Alfred died in 899, Aethelwold staged a revolt in an attempt to seize the crown, which is what also happened in the TV series. In both the TV series and real life, he was killed in the Battle of the Holme against the Vikings.[3].

Your version is too long and repeats what is in the article. I see that according to History Extra, Cornwell's version is that Æthelwold was passed over when his father died because he was a conniving drunkard, not because he was an infant at the time. A novel which threw light on modern views of Æthelwold would be interesting, but I do not see that a version so far from reality (if the History Extra version is correct) tells us anything. It might, however, be helpful to point out how unrealistic the portrayal is with a comment such as "Æthelwold is a character in the Bernard Cornwell's book The Saxon Stories, and the TV series The Last Kingdom which is based on the book, but he is portrayed as having been an adult at the time of his father's death who was passed over for the throne because he was a conniving drunkard." What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure if you watched the series, but this is not accurate. He was passed over when he was a kid when his father died in the series as well. In the series, when he was an adult, his uncle who had the throne died, and his cousin was up for the throne and this is when he was disputing the throne again and was considered a drunk. Yes there are many differences in the fictional character, but there are many similarities too, so how about I say that?Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)