User talk:Wilfridselsey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Owers[edit]

There seems to be confusion about the Owers with reference to sandbanks and shoals. Some concise dictionaries describe shoals as sandbanks, but from a marine perspective 'shoals from the OE are shallows (they can also mean groups of fish etc but not relevant for this discussion). A shoal can be defined as a shallow piece of water that is a potential danger to shipping. Most dictionaries come up with that definition and then go on to give sand or shingle as an example. Some historians have also been confused by the word shoal and have described the Owers as a series of sandbanks which is wrong. The English Channel pilot describes them thus:

The OWERS - Selsea Bill lies 11 miles SW of Littlehampton, and to the southward of the Selsea Bill are the Owers, a variety of shoals composed of several ledges of hard, black rocks......the Middle Owers shoal extends in a NW by W direction 3 1/2 miles to the SW corner of the Boulder Bank. It consists of several rocky heads having as little as 6 to 8 feet in some parts... The English Channel Pilot ISBN 0554869349.

I guess that the Owers have been described as shoals in previous documents, then when an author has been producing a new work they have looked up the definition of shoal it comes out as sandbank. Should have checked marine sources for nautical terms, perhaps?? Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


MOS: Notes and References [edit]

Notes and References appear after See also (click on image for larger view).
For how to generate and format these sections, see Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Citing sources, particularly "How to create the list of citations".

Contents: This section, or series of sections, may contain (1) explanatory footnotes that give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article, (2) citation footnotes that serve to verify specific information in the article, (3) general references (bibliography items) that are not explicitly related to any specific parts of the text or are the target of a short citation.

In a given article, some or all of these three sets may be present. If there are both citation footnotes and explanatory footnotes, then they may be combined in a single section, or separated using the grouped footnotes function. There may therefore be one, two or three sections in all. A general references section should come after any footnotes section(s), and the explanatory footnotes section should precede the citation footnotes (if they are separate).

Title: The title(s) of these sections depend on which of the three types of item are present, and whether the two types of footnote are combined or separated. Possibilities include:

  • for a list of explanatory footnotes only: "Notes", "Footnotes"
  • for a list of citation footnotes only: "References", "Notes" ("Citations" may be used but is problematic because it may be confused with official awards)
  • for a list containing both types of footnote: "Notes", "Footnotes" ("References" may be used but is less appropriate)
  • for a list of general references: "References", "Works cited" ("Sources" may be used but may be confused with source code in computer-related articles; "Bibliography" may be used but may be confused with a list of printed works by the subject of a biography).

With the exception of "Bibliography", the heading should be plural even if it lists only a single item.[1]

are you watching[edit]

Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain and History of the English language? Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller (talk). I am watching Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. I wasn't watching History of the English language but I will now! I guess that you have flagged these as they both could do with some work? You need some stamina to step into the Oppenheimer debate as you know! I will see what I can do. Rgds. Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Selsey Abbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tudor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


There were two edits of vandalism in your section entitled Background in the Hundred Years War main article. One was a change to bananaempire and another the changing of a country from England to Norwary. I used rollback to remove them. Please review to make sure there are no others in your section, or that anything was incorrectly removed. Thanks, Mugginsx (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


Speaking only for myself, I find it to be a medieval concept that is easy to understand but hard to write and I had some help!!! I am glad you find it acceptable. That means alot to me. Mugginsx (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that there are so many political threads to the hundred years war which makes it quite difficult to weave them all together in a coherent logical manner. It is too easy just to concentrate on various battles etc without explaining the background. I have tried to clean up the beginning section, so it provides a bit of structure. I have put the Scots into context as they pop up later in the article without any apparent reason given. Anyway we will soon see what people think. Wilfridselsey (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Sent an email but wanted to add that I'll bet you have also made some Scottish editors and readers very happy.Mugginsx (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Well I hope so, there was virtually nothing about the Scots contribution to the 100 year war in the article, yet they were probably France's most loyal ally at the time, and certainly had a major impact on the progress of the war. I think that the balance of the article was skewed towards the battles and not enough of the reasons behind the conflict. Anyway I hope that I have balanced it up a bit? BTW - I have already voted on the rewording of the lead. Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready[edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

  1. Go to
  2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at and, second, email along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have requested temporary page protection from IP vandalism[edit]

On Hundred Years War here: so hopefully you will not be bothered for much longer. The article is looking really good with your improvements. Mugginsx (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok Sir, you are good to go without anymore IP problems anyway. Mugginsx (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes we did seem to be getting more than our fair share of vandalism, so thanks for sorting that out!!
It would be nice to get to a point where we can get rid of the citation template, but way to go yet. Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I was the one who inserted the template because, believe it or not, this article used to have NO references in it and NO Reflist. When you feel it can be removed, please feel free to do so. It is looking very nice, Sir. Am doing some reading and made some revisions to the sister article #2 in a section which was not historically accurate and referenced it to the writings of Jean de Venette. Mugginsx (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
There are only inline references in a couple of the sections, as I said there is a way to go yet, before it should be removed. Wilfridselsey (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that the reference section is far too big and complicated, you have changed the Secondary Ref' section to Suggested Reading however I think that it is still somewhat confusing. Personally I prefer the simple Notes with {{reflist}} embedded in it, then a Reference section with the full details of the sources used in the reflist. I have had this discussion before when people have argued MoS! However, if you look at the top of this My Talk page I have copied what MoS actually says, and there is also an image that shows that although not strict about it, the Notes/ References is the preferred way to go. I think that in the Bibliography we should only refer to books/url's that are quoted in the {{reflist}} and I would suggest that we change Bibliography to References, as Bibliography means book list, whereas with References you can include URL's etc. What do you think? I hope by the time the article is cleaned up there should be plenty of reading matter in the Ref section anyway!!Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I changed it back the "Suggested Reading" because there is not doubt to me that someone just made a list from WorldCat and then alphabetized and inserted it in the article. I will change that back. I recommend a Reflist so that the editors remember to reference it!!! Anyone can make up a list of the most elegent sounding sources and it seems to me that it is most difficult to check but I will defer to your knowledge and experience and your making whatever changes you see fit. (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
OK - what I will do is change the name of the existing References section to a Notes section, then create a new References section, where we can list the sources used for the article, with the {{Cite.... format. Once that is done we can delete the Bibliography section altogether. I agree someone has just imported a reading list from elsewhere, it's a bit of a mess really. I think that I need to put this on the talk page before implementing it.Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good[edit]

I like your change to the Referencing and Notes Section. It looks good. I especially like the removal of all of the "Secondary Sources" which I always believe were originally just copied from World Cat and alphabetized. Always wanted to see that gone. These and all of your improvements are adding life back into the article and I think they are great improvements. Mugginsx (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I like the Notes/ Reference format as it is simple and easy to maintain. The previous list was far too long and complicated, whereas now any average reader can understand what is going on. Also, other editors should be able to cope with the new structure and have no problems in providing citations for their work! Thanks also for your copy editing. Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar-stone2-noback.png The Epic Barnstar
For your tireless work single-handedly saving the Hundred Years War (Main Article) Mugginsx (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox on Hundred Years War main article[edit]

I changed some things on the infobox but was not sure of the other countries that were supposedly involved in the conflict, and in particular, to what capacity they were involved. Would you please look over the box and see if it is accurate? I would be happy to assist you in any more changes that need to be made there. The article is looking wonderful as you have revised it with your knowledge and hard work. Mugginsx (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I will have to think about that one! I would rather like to see just England Vs. France, because that was about the only certainty and having all the other beligerants just confuses things a bit as most of it was not just black and white. I will do a bit of research on this one and get back to you.
I have moved the sentence about Sallic Law into the Notes section(Note 5) as it rather interrupted the flow of the narrative, also it was just a bit of a legal slight of hand by a later generation to justify male succession which had been a de facto reality since Charles IV. I didn't know whether to dump the reference altogether, but I think that it sits OK in the Notes section. Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I definitely agree about the Infobox just saying England and France. I have made reference to that previously and to the fact that mercenaries should not be mentioned as if the entire country was at war. It is misleading. As to removing it myself I am not sure about the history and that is why I have not removed more. In the body of the article I have previously removed (numerous sentences which mention over and over again Valois and Plantagenet for reason given previously on article talk page.
I would go for it, change it and in the Edit Summary say "as per discussion on Talk page", I notice that Sabre, was not against the idea and no one else contributed. So you might want to just put a note in the talk page too to explain? Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Done! Sorry, Sir, I did not see your remark about what to put into the edit history, I apologize. Anyway, they are well familiar with my remarks about the infobox on the Talk Page, as well as other things such as how many arrows were spent, etc. As to second Hundred Years Article, if you want to make this your life's work, it had in the infobox "casualties" A lot.Smile.png I just took it out.
Unfortunately Wikipedia has quite a few 'rambling' articles without citations. You can put citation requests up, but the original editors always seem very shy at fulfilling those requests, not sure why. I think that we have more citations in the first Hundred Years' War article than all the other Hundred years war articles put together! My main area of interest is the Anglo-Saxon to Norman period, although I do have general knowledge of the Hundred Years war. I am not sure about making it my lifes work but I think I could probably help on the Hundred Years' War (1337–1360) article, as I do have reference material that covers it. I will finish work on the Hundred Years war article first. Do you think that we should change the References/ Sources and bibliography names in the Hundred Years' War (1337–1360) article, to the Notes/ References format that we have in the Hundred Years article? According to MoS References/ Sources and bibliography is certainly quite acceptable, but it would be nice to standardise the format we use across all the Hundred Year articles. Wilfridselsey (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
As to you moving the sentences about Sallic Law into Notes, I think Notes are like links - a great way for people to read a "simple text" and then to increase their knowledge as to their level of education, age, etc. I think that the Note is excellent as is everything else you have done on this article. Mugginsx (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Beonna of East Anglia[edit]

2 years later, I've updated the article as you have suggested in the talk page. There's a bit more information added as well, if you're interested. Hel-hama (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I only suggested that the 'references' should be sorted out, I think Aboutmovies added a few other suggestions. It's certainly looking a lot better than when I last visited. Well done! rgds Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Sluys may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • G. H|editor-last=Martin. Tr|location=Oxford|publisher=Clarendon Press|year= 1995|isbn=0-19-820503-1)}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]


File:Editors Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]

The Editor's Barnstar
Brilliant work on the Heathen Army - well done Victuallers (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


It was nice to see your edits on the burh article, it's an interesting topic and it's good to see Wikipedia's article improving. Nev1 (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments! Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

[[ File:Eurasian_Eagle-Owl_Maurice_van_Bruggen.JPG|100px]]

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hundred years war in maps[edit]

Hello. I know you've worked on the hundred years war, and at present there are virtually no maps in the article - which to me makes it much less informative. I am wondeting if you have any opinions on maps from Wikimedia Commons that we could put into the article. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I have been away, I will look at this soon. Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Most of the maps are described in French, so perhaps you have more knowledge of that than my rudimentary tourist. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I managed to look at the maps in Commons. Most are not suitable for one reason or another. I think that the following are probably usable. The animated gif has been updated to fix a few issues so I guess is OK now. One of the others uses "English King" rather than "King of England". English King suggests that he would have been English which he definitely was not. See whether you agree:
Hundred years war.gif
Battle of Crécy, 26 August 1346.png
Hundred years war france england 1435.jpg
Ofensivas Tovar-Vienne contra Inglaterra 01.jpg

Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The gif seems most helpful, and compact, for an overview. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference pluralHeading was invoked but never defined (see the help page).