Talk:Miles of Gloucester, 1st Earl of Hereford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Peerage and Baronetage (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (marked as Low-importance).

Matilda's coronation[edit]

That's wrong, there was no coronation for her. PurpleHz

Source Citations[edit]

This article is based almost completely on a single earlier edition of a tertiary source. The remaining references are little more than list of publications and do not meet the criteria for source citations. 20:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "little more than list of publications and do not meet the criteria for source citations"?
The source is a reliable one (as was the EB1911 that I have largely removed as the DNB is far more detailed). If you think anything is not accurate then we can check it against the ODNB enty. -- PBS (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
It's reliable to a point. Most of this article is taken verbatim from a hundred and twenty year-old source, dated language and all. While this is permissible for materials in the public domain it doesn't make for a particularly good quality article on WP. And although Round was a notable historian in his time there is no attempt to deal with his opinions, biases, use of puffery and antiquated terms. Beyond that we’re still dealing with an article based predominantly on a single (tertiary) source, so the tag was appropriate. The 1890 DNB article being quoted contains incomplete parenthetical citations making verification and follow-up difficult. Likewise the list of what I presume is references do not each contain enough information for most readers to follow up on. For example:
  • Domesday Book (Record Commission);
  • Rymer's Fœdera (Record Commission);
  • Madox's History of the Exchequer
How would an average reader be able to follow-up and locate information from anything on this list? Many are missing the publisher information and all seem to be missing dates of publication, volume numbers or anything that might point to a specific source that verifies the information. Source citation is all about verification; if you can’t verify the source of the information (and its source or sources) the citation is not valid.
Take for example the “Domesday Book (Record Commission)”. Is this a reference to any of those edited by Abraham Farley, et al., published between 1783 and 1812? Or is this the 1833 edition edited by Henry Ellis; perhaps even a different edition? Or how would the average reader know “Madox's History of the Exchequer” refers to the original title by Thomas Madox, The history and antiquities of the exchequer of the kings of England, in two periods : To wit, from the Norman Conquest, to the end of the reign of K. John; and from the end of the reign of K. John, to the end of the reign of K. Edward II. Taken from records, (London : R. Knaplock, 1711), Volumes I and or II? It’s not the lengthy title I suggest repeating, but the location, publisher, volume number and year would be helpful to anyone wanting to find additional information on the subject of this article. According to WorldCat none of the above-mentioned editions are available in the U.S. Rymer's Fœdera, is actually a worst case scenario in that there is no indication of which of the sixteen volumes is being referred to. So lacking any details this simply seems to be a list of publications with no practical way of verifying they contain useful information on Miles of Gloucester.
I have found several details in this article that can’t be verified in other sources (at least not so far). And editing this to correct dates and other pieces of information is made more difficult because according to WP:PLAG we’re not supposed to replace public-domain text (that has an attribution notice) with inline citations “ unless it is verified that substantially all phrasing has been excised.” So in order to correct anything that sentence or paragraph needs to be re-written to paraphrase the modern (mostly copyrighted) sources. But that would conflict with Round’s writing style since most of the DNB article was copied here verbatim. What I’m suggesting is to edit this article, section by section, to modernize the language, improve the readability and base this on a number of quality sources instead of only one. I’m not particularly interested in tagging this article for being derived from a single source, for bias, or any of several other possible problems. I'd like to see this improved and I'm willing to help; but I’d like to reach some consensus as to how to help make this more reader friendly. Thanks Bearpatch (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that whether the DNB is a tertiary source, or a secondary source depends on the DNB article under discussion. If the DNB article is mainly based on citing secondary sources, then it could be viewed as a tertiary source, but--as you have highlighted above--much of it is based on primary sources which I think makes this a DNB article a secondary sources. As the new text largely replaced less detailed text from the EB1911 which until I added them added them] a few days ago (on 20 November 2012) did not include in-line citations to the EB1911 (despite the article contained EB1911 text for over six years), I think that the text now in the article is a large improvement, particularly as the EB1911 was far less detailed and did not carry in-line citations but only general references. I think that the Wikiepdia tag you placed in article space is inappropriate. It is an editor to editor message (and not also an editor reader message as is {{unreferenced}}}) and the message is better placed on the talk page and discussed there (as we are doing now).
As I contributed to the Plagiarisms guideline, and have been involved in talk page discussions about it, I think that you are misunderstanding the meaning of "we’re not supposed to replace public-domain text (that has an attribution notice) with inline citations 'unless it is verified that substantially all phrasing has been excised'." What this is referring to is the removal of the attribution template in the references section. For example I removed most of the EB1911 text that was there previously, but because I left the assessment, which is a copy of the EB1911 text, I could not remove the {{1911}} attribution template. If that paragraph was to by substantially rewritten so that it did not include a copy of the EB1911 text, (with or without other sources being used to summarise various other assessments) then the template could be removed and the {{cite EB1911}} template could be used instead. If the assessment by the EB1911 is removed then of course as non of the text relies on EB1911 then all mention of the EB1911 can be removed from the references section. This is true for all copyright expired sources it is not necessarily true for copyleft sources because of the derivative nature of many copyleft licences.
The DNB text can be treated like any other non-quoted text in Wikiepdia and subject to being mercilessly edited and redistributed like any other text. This includes rephrasing to out of date flowery Victorian language (although IMHO the standard of writing in the DNB is often higher than many similar biographies in Wikipedia), adding more information with newer sources that allow for the amending the current text for inaccuracies, or creating summaries in place of the current text that include important facts missed out in the DNB. Here are a of such article that has been amended: John Fenwicke and one of my favourites: Kirkman Finlay (philhellene).
To address your points about citations. Yes they will need work to bring them up to Wikipedia's standards, but this is part of "mercilessly edited and redistributed". Indeed when the full citation is found and the text is checked against it, then if the sentences that are supported by that citation are rewritten to remove plagiarism restrictions, then the DNB part of the citation can be removed per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT However, if you have read Smith's book yourself, you may cite it directly; there is no need to give credit to any sources, search engines, websites, library catalogs, etc., that led you to that book. To your specific points:
  • Domesday Book (Record Commission); reading the article Publication of Domesday Book it would seem to me that this reference is probably to the 1816 or 1861 editions, but that will of course have to be checked against the in-line citations.
  • Rymer's Fœdera (Record Commission); This source states "There are four editions, of which that by the Record Commission in 1816 is considered the best, although it is incomplete." so I guess that this is the 1816 version, but that will of course have to be checked against the in-line citations.
  • Madox's History of the Exchequer; you seem to have confidently found the details for that one. So there is no reason why the citation can not be expanded to include the other details.
-- PBS (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
If you think that any dates are wrong and you do not have access to the ONDB article, then let me know what they are and I'll check them against this 21st century source. -- PBS (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
No problem, I have access to a wide variety of sources. But thank you for the offer. And yes some dates are wrong or unsubstantiated, his DOB and his father's DOD for two examples. If I correct anything I'd cite good quality sources and in a manner allowing anyone to verify them. I don't particularly see the point of limiting the verification of these dates to a another tertiary source but, as the DOB given for Miles is wrong chronologically and is not supported by any source citation in the body, I'd simply remove it. There is nothing wrong with a few tertiary sources in an article, as long as the bulk of the citations are to quality secondary sources.
I agree that some DNB articles can be considered tertiary while others might be considered secondary. A criteria, I believe, is whether it is an interpretation and evaluation of primary sources or more a compendium of secondary and or primary sources. As this article is drawn from several of Round’s earlier works it seems to be more a compendium that includes references (lacking enough information in most cases to be considered source citations) to several primary sources drawn from other works. As an example of other problems, from p. 438 of Round’s 1890 article: "He had also (though the fact has been doubted) been granted his father's office of constable by a special charter (Dugdale MSS)". How is this complete enough to allow a reader to verify this? And if they figured it out where would the average reader find a copy of “Dugdale MSS”? And the weasel worded phrase, ‘though the fact has been doubted’; begs the question doubted by whom? Lastly it wasn’t a ‘special’ charter, it was simply a charter (puffery). Unfortunately you can find several similar problems in most paragraphs.
I wasn’t suggesting that the attribution notice be removed, but I also wasn't looking at the guideline as being quite that limited. I'm very familiar with what is and what is not plagiarism. But rewording is still very desirable given its dated nature and the inclusion of several unsubstantiated claims by Round. And, the use of modern language limited to just edited sentences, paragraphs and sections would stand out in contrast to Round’s style of writing, even though this article is toned down from Round’s more typical bombastic, opinionated and biased style. More importantly, however, many of Round’s theories and interpretations have been challenged by modern writers. In addition to his famous scathing criticism of Freeman (who has since been vindicated on several points) a 1988 article by Davis and Prestwich in the EHR (103, #407, pp. 283-317) showing the four charters that were the backbone of Round’s Geoffrey de Mandeville were all dated based on Round’s theory of the chronology, not the other way around. This look into Round’s methodology is not very comforting.
I fully understand WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT and in fact have worked with higher standards of source citation than WP outlines. The Domesday Book, a translation of a primary source (hence a secondary source) is problematic for the average reader in that it is indexed by county, tenant-in-chief, property holding and also most individuals are listed by their given names (surnames not having come into popular use until later). I have no trouble myself in navigating it; in fact I have a modern version on my bookshelf. But I’m not the average WP reader. As for Madox’s ‘History of the Exchequer’; yes I found the details but it isn't a question of whether you, I or other editors have the necessary researching skills to decipher these references, it’s whether the average reader does. Even though several references on the list are found in Walker’s article (see footnotes p. 69 as an example) and contain the volume and page numbers; as you so aptly pointed out, an editor needs to see that work before citing it. Then there is the question are any on this list contributing any substantial information to the subject, or as suggested by Walker’s use, simply used to verify a date of a charter, a name or a place?
I’d also suggest much of the material currently residing in the References section be moved to a ‘Additional reading’ or ‘See also,’ as very few support the short citation style used in this article. In other words, in the vast majority of cases Round has given no page numbers rendering a separate general references section unnecessary. True, the three references to Walker, and a few others like the reference to Cawley are supported, but it’s just as easy to provide a full inline source citation which is much easier for readers to follow. The three references to Lundy are incomplete as they make obscure references to the entire 13-volume, second edition of the CP and not to specific volumes and pages. And the is a textbook case of WP:QS, not to mention its reputation. It’s easily replaced by a single (correct) CP source citation. I'm willing to help work on this article but it appears several changes are called for. Bearpatch (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The citations to Lundy's secondary sources are complete (they include page number and volume). Just click on the links "Cokayne 2000a, p. 457" or "Cokayne 2000, p. 21" like the Lundy short citation before them, it takes you to the full citation that includes volume and page numbers. It may be that as you could not see the volume number for clutter that the current text in the Cokayne general references need to be simplified to make them clearer. I think that style (short citations linked to the general references section) is better than cluttering up body of the text with long references. Particularly when two or more inline citations are to the same source but to different pages (as with Lundy and Cokayne 2000).
I am not suggesting that the current citations are adequate for the average reader, I am suggesting that this is a work in progress and if you can identify precisely (down to the page number) the sources that Rolland used then add the additional information to the citation list. The general references can then be expanded and formatted using the {{Citation}} template which will link the short citation to its entry in the general references section.
I do not know (because I have not checked yet) if all of the DNB general references/endnotes are cited via the inline citations (it is likely to be true because some of the references may only have been used to support the paragraphs on the son Roger Fitzmiles, 2nd Earl of Hereford and those paragraphs have been left out of this article). This is something else that needs to be checked, but if any of the sources endnoted by the DNB are not used I suggest that they are removed and not placed into further reading, likewise I suggest that we do the same with the EB1911 endnotes.
The DOB is not in the DNB (if you can follow the initials!), I left it in from the previous version of this Wikipedia article, and if you know of no source that supports it (then obviously) it ought to be removed. The DOD of his father is extracted from the ODNB "Walter of Gloucester ... He died at Llanthony Priory c.1126."
--PBS (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No, I did not see the complete source citations to the CP but it doesn’t address the issue of citing unseen sources. If did cite the CP, then upon looking up and verifying each CP reference there is no longer any need to cite the; just cite the CP reference directly. The same is true for the long list of reference works indirectly sourced from the DNB and others.

I’d be willing to cite sources here but I don’t understand the cluttering up of the text using long citation style vs the short citation style. They both simply use a reference number in the text—unless you’re talking about the markup language itself. Then it’s a difference between "<.ref>Lundy 2011, p. 10257 cite Cokayne 2000, p. 21<./ref>" and "<.ref>I.J. Sanders, English Baronies; A study of Their Origin and Descent, 1086–1327 (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 7<./ref>". There’s little difference in the markup and frankly I find the second reference much easier to read in edit mode. The end result is a single reference section using the standard footnote style which again is more user-friendly for readers. I agree with your suggestion regarding some DNB and EB1911 references moved to further reading. Probably best to do that in case-by-case situations in the article depending on what secondary sources are available.

I recently edited the source citations for his father, Walter of Gloucester, and his DOD is taken from Sanders English Baronies although I broke the sentence because Walter’s endowment and retirement were not in Sanders but were found in Crawley-Boevey’s Cartulary of Flaxley Abbey (but it lacked his DOD). I never consulted the ODNB for Walter but have some books on order through ILL (Interlibrary loan) which on arrival should have more information on Walter of Gloucester for the article. You can see the citation style and layout used in Walter of Gloucester, with inline notes separated from inline (full) source citations as being a reader friendly layout. Even though Walter’s article is currently a stub and may never be rated much higher than a C-class, I used good secondary sources. If you have any suggestions on making this style more reader-friendly I’m certainly open to it. Thanks. Bearpatch (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you do if there are two citations to two different pages in the Sanders example you give? Do you repeat the long citation or use a short cite for the second instance? I think is is more useful to have a list of general references sorted on the surname of the author in the article than to present the authors in a random ordered list depending on the order of the footnote number in the article. So I think that short and long citations are better for these among other reasons. So with the example you have given. The inline section would be {{sfn|Sanders|1963|p=7}} (or <ref>{{harvnb|Sanders|1963|p=8}}.</ref>) then in the general references section:
  • {{Citation|first=I.J. |last=Sanders |title=English Baronies; A study of Their Origin and Descent, 1086–1327 |location=Oxford |publisher=The Clarendon Press |year=196 | |pages=7, 8}} -- which formats up into a standard format as:
  • Sanders, I.J. (196), English Baronies; A study of Their Origin and Descent, 1086–1327, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, pp. 7, 8 
--PBS (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
If there are two citations to two different pages in Sanders (supporting two different sentences), I write two citations. They are, after all, two different citations and would be treated the same as two citations from two different sources. It causes no more clutter than seeing the same number of short citations to the same source. And when you factor in the necessity of two sections for citations, the use of the standard long citation style saves space in an article. Further, having one list of short citations and a second list of general citations forces readers to have to look something up twice, once in each list with the possibility of getting a mismatch (yes, I know they can click on it but not everyone will). It’s so much simpler for readers (of all educational levels and experience) to see the complete citation in one place and with as few abbreviations as possible. I worked with students for nearly three decades and I understand how they think. I've just been applying that here for the last few years, so it’s not without good purpose. I know how to do short citations, I know APA, MLA and Chicago and since the latter is more widely used in the “real world” of everyday publications, it’s a natural style for readers of all experience levels to quickly recognize. No offense to anyone here but it seems popular at WP to make articles appear as scholarly as possible at the expense of being reader friendly. The long or standard citation style can easily be used with a template, as can the short style, and it’s a matter of personal preference to use one or not—personally I don't. All in all I’m just emulating ideas taken from WP:TPA, one of the most important of which I think is: “● Is understandable; it is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail, and thoroughly explores and explains the subject.” Now while that essay did not expound on citations styles, my experience tells me that the style I've been using follows the spirit of this particular point. WP allows us the latitude of doing it either way, but this is my reasoning for favoring the standard or long citation style. Bearpatch (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
We will have to agree to differ on that one, as I think having to write  Round, John Horace (1890). "Gloucester, Miles de". In Stephen, Leslie; Lee, Sidney. Dictionary of National Biography. 21. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 438–440.  cites" before two score of inline citations and also include it in the References section, because it needs to mark it clearly to meet the Plagiarism guideline, would be far more clunky than using s short citations.
It is not clear to me why you have made this edit because it has broken the links in the short citations that depended on the ODNB general reference and it has replaced a 21st century reference with one over 50 years earlier. -- PBS (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
That’s unfortunate as I edited the first three sentences using quality source citations as an example of using a variety of secondary sources in lieu of predominantly one tertiary source. Also, the DNB citation in Chicago style, (full citation) would be:
"Dictionary of National Biography’’, Vol. XXI, ed. Leslie Stephens (New York; London: Macmillan & Co.; Smith, Elder & Co., 1890), p. 438
Most readers who wished to could locate it in any library or in an online source (Google, Internet Archive, etc.). This style is as easy to write as it is to look up and you can always copy and paste changing only the page number for any DNB citations that remained in the article. The attribution notice would remain, so I don’t see the problem. It would be cited as any other source and I was under the impression we were in agreement that most of the DNB citations would be replaced with better quality secondary sources anyway. Sorry I broke a link but, as the intention was to keep replacing DNB with (arguably) better sources, it wouldn't have mattered even in the short run. If I continued it would have been a moot point very shortly. Bearpatch (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I didn't take the time to edit it, but if you're interested the missing information from Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum is that it's "Volume IV". Also, and from the title page it's the "New Edition" not "Second Edition". My copy of Vol. IV is the same, published in 1823 and contains Bergavenny, same page numbers.
Also, I neglected to touch on your last point, that of replacing a twenty first century source with one 50 years older. It’s a logical fallacy that something is good because it’s new, just as it’s a fallacy something is good because it’s old. A source is good because it’s evaluated to be good. I simply replaced a more recent tertiary source with a quality secondary source written by a noted scholar on medieval Wales.

Bearpatch (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reformatted the general references you added so that they are consistent with the others in the article and I put templates into the short citations so that their style is consistent and they link to the general references. I have no idea how common formats produced by the templates such as {{Citation}} (or the slightly different ones user in {{cite book}} etc) compare with other formats, and if they are less common that the Chicago style that you favour. That is something to take up with the developers of those templates. If you are correct and the developers accept you arguments, then the format of those templates can be altered to the style you prefer -- as whatever format is chosen, the templates will display that format on every article that uses it. Using manual formats means that every time there is a style change all the entries in an article have to be changed and if they are entered with a manual format there is far more chance errors and inconsistencies. The use use of templates also allows bots to fix problems and allows for the embedding of categories for maintenance purposes. For example the document for the template {{DNB}} lists some hidden categories so that problems with DNB citations can be fixed.
While I agree with your argument about a logical fallacy, part of the consideration of which source is more appropriate also has to consider accessibility (which one reason for using a DNB article on Wikisource rather than one with online restricted access such as the ONDB). But when the ONDB updates and contradicts information in the DNB the tendency among Wikipedia editors is to support the use of the newer source on the assumption that the author is more of an expert than Wikipedia editors and his/her research (both of primary sources and modern secondary sources) and judgement is likely to be superior to Wikipedia editors -- this after all is one of the arguments you put forward higher up this page "many of Round’s theories and interpretations have been challenged by modern writers" -- and is how research into a topic progresses. In this case, as the information I provided from the ONDB was from a newer source, that is more easily accessible to the average reader than the alternative that you provide, I have reinstated it and moved the older source into further reading. If in future any of the information you add to this article comes from that older source (and is not mentioned in the ONDB), then of course you should put it back into the References section and cite it within the article and I of course will not object to that.
As to Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum volume 4. It is already included with all details in the general references section, under Charles Cawley (who also cites Dugdale). So we could just remove the indentation and the chapter, and include it as a source in its own right, but the Round's short citations state that it is volume 6 not 4, are you sure that Round was using volume 4 and "vi" is a misprint in the DNB text?-- PBS (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No, given the discourse so far I wasn't surprised you changed the citations I added. A discussion of citation templates isn't really necessary as again, I don’t use them myself. Interestingly enough the finished product looks the same with or without them. I understand they’re to insure uniformity where that might otherwise be a problem and in that regard they serve a purpose. Citing sources remains problematic at WP as the majority of editors don’t cite sources when they add text. Of those who do many don’t cite sources properly. So anything that promotes citing sources is at least a good start. You're argument against "manual formats" is obviously something you've given some thought to but I can tell you from experience it's not a problem in most cases. First of all, a good article isn't always dependent on a single source so there usually are few instance where you'd want to change something in all the source citations. Errors and inconsistencies are reduced or virtually eliminated with practice and experience. Also we have a wealth of bots and copy editors who thrive on finding and fixing minor errors. And these problems are certainly not limited to "manual" source citations. An error can easily be transmitted through citation templates, it only insures the error will be consistent. Had we been able to work together here you'd readily appreciate that using ten, fifteen, or twenty good quality secondary sources and reducing the DNB and ONDB citations to being no more than any other would have none of the problems you predicted. But, your points are well taken were the article was to remain principally as it is now. Kind of a catch-22. But, there is more than one way to build up an article. Not surprisingly we have different concerns based on different experiences.
I’d still point out that the ONDB requires a subscription—which many will not have, that it’s a tertiary source and that all online links are subject to link-rot. For that very reason it's recommended the latter be kept to a minimum. Providing complete information to a source so that it can be researched online or found in a local library is far more helpful than providing a link that isn't so much a question of if it will be broken, but of when it will be broken. What is thought to be user convenience can easily become user frustration. While the DNB or ONDB are useful sources, neither is a benchmark that all others are measured against, and in fact it’s just the opposite. Tertiary means literally 3rd in order or level and that’s generally a fair assessment. In addition, it would be helpful if volume numbers were listed as they are commonly found in the work itself and not translated for the sake of uniformity in an article. The Complete Peerage, for example, uses Roman Numerals, not Arabic. And Dugdale (presuming a reference to one of his works, Monasticon Anglicanum and not the Baronage or another) on the title page it reads "Volume the Fourth" so Vol. Four would be close enough so as not to confuse. But a 4 or 6 by itself in the citation is not as clear as it might be. You might consider at least adding the word or abbreviation for volume.
Well this is getting lengthy and I've learned what I wanted to know. Most of what we both proposed falls withing the scope of WP guidelines and we each have our preferences. So as you say, we’ll just agree to disagree on a few points. Perhaps another time or in a different article... Bearpatch (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I think we are on the same page but I want to mention a few points. Yes I agree with your points about the DNB/ODNB although as we agreed above it is not a simple call to state if it is a secondary or tertiary source. I am happy to use either Roman or Arabic numeration for a volume numbers and as far as I know Wikiepdia has no guidance on that issue.
I am still not clear what you mean by "And Dugdale (presuming a reference to one of his works, Monasticon Anglicanum and not the Baronage or another) on the title page it reads "Volume the Fourth" so Vol. Four would be close enough so as not to confuse." because I am clearly confused! Are you stating that all of Round's citations to Monasticon Anglicanum such as "Mon. Angl. vi. (1), 127, 132." and "Mon. Angl. vi. 137." are in fact page references to this edition of volume IV?
"I’d still point out that the ONDB requires a subscription—which many will not have, ... and that all online links are subject to link-rot." The ONDB is more likely to be available either online or in hard physical format at a library than a copy of an article in an 1958 Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society. The online ONDB is not likely to suffer link rot because it uses a DOIs (Digital object identifiers). The current template does not display the DOI (it would probably be a good idea to do so -- I will give it some thought), but as the url includes the unique part of the DOI, so even if the url rots it is a few minutes work to change the template to navigate via the DOI. -- PBS (talk)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I agree it’s not at all a simple call that DNB or the ODNB are tertiary sources versus secondary sources as they have elements of both. We just use the WP guidelines and determine that it’s more one than the other. As for numbers you’re probably right, I don’t recall WP having a policy on using numerals but in the spirit of write it as you found it, keeping the numeral system a publication uses can avoid any ambiguity.

To clear up the confusion (perhaps too much information in one sentence), my comment was when Round or any writer of his day stated “Dugdale” we can presume he meant Monasticon Anglicanum , his Baronage or any one of a number of works William Dugdale was known for. In his DNB article Round specifically refers to ‘Dugdale MSS’ (manuscript) which means one of his published charters, while elsewhere he did cite MA. As for what edition Round may have cited, I don’t think that would be very easy to determine today. He clearly had access to a wide variety of primary and secondary sources and we could only presume he used the latest editions of Dugdale (MA and MSS) available to him.

As to link-rot; yes a DOI would help, but it’s still not infallible. A DOI only works if the digital object is still available somewhere and is posted by a DOI licensee (not all repositories belong to DOI). So while the probability of busted links would be reduced, it wouldn't be eliminated. By listing the source citation complete with everything needed (and not linked to a specific URL), a user has the opportunity to find it in several places online or through a library. An experienced librarian will point out that if they don’t have something in the stacks you can usually obtain it via Inter-Library Loan (or other similar networks). They will also obtain photocopies or digital copies of journal articles for little or no cost. Many libraries (in fact, all in my area) have online access to a wide variety of collections (JSTOR for one example). Convenience links, while well intended, may limit a user’s choices on one hand and inevitably lead to a busted link on the other. Most content editors take pride in doing a good job in writing and editing articles. Unfortunately, the more convenience links an article has (some are necessary), the more potential it has to both tarnish the good work of the editors and frustrate the readers.

Lastly, Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society are not that difficult to locate. Several libraries in the US have sets in their collections so photocopies are an option. Digital copies of this particular article (taken from his dissertation which is also available) were actually easy to locate. Also, this wasn't the only useful article in this journal; another by David Walker has an extensive discussion of Miles’ land holdings. See: David Walker, 'The 'Honours of the Earls of Hereford in the Twelfth Century', Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, Vol. 79 (1960), pp. 174-211. If you locate a copy easily enough, which I have little doubt you will, perhaps it helps make the point that convenience links are not always necessary. Something to consider at any rate. Bearpatch (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)