This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Disadvantages of date-autoformatting
(1) In-house only
(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
(4) Typos and misunderstood coding
(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
(5) Edit-mode clutter
(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
(6) Limited application
(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. If anyone objects to my proposal to free the dates of autoformatting in the main text in a day or two on a trial basis, please say so below. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just our millions of readers; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links.
Critically, since I’m an FAC reviewer, I want to state in unequivocal terms that if contributors object, this will have absolutely no bearing on my review or declaration at FAC. I’m proposing the action because FAC is an influential process, not because nominators might feel under obligation—in this respect, they shouldn’t. Tony(talk) 04:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I must say that I object to the removal of date linking in articles as it means that you cannot have dates in your desired format. Especially as there is now hand coding of date details into the cite templates rather than using the accessdate field for giving the reference access date. The change to the MOS appears to have crept in without a centralised discussion that was widely publicised, (may be you could point me to one). I would have thought that a minor software change could achieve both camps but no one seems to want to change the software to address the situation. Keith D (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I thank both of you for your input, but I do not believe this is the right place for this discussion. Tony1, I had already removed date autoformatting before I nominated the article at FAC, but thank you for the heads up. It would probably be worth informing FAs as well as FACs. Keith D, if you object to this new policy or guideline I think your views would get more exposure on the appropriate talk page, perhaps MOS or Tony1's. Nev1 (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
So you had. Foolish me. Tony(talk) 10:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Uploading of a pic
Hi, since I'm not an established user, I'm unable to upload this pic, which I wanted to add to the article. It's a watercolour painting by F.O. Morris in 1870, and therefore in public domain in the USA, out of copyright in Canada, hence royalty-free stock image for all purposes and no usage credit required. Thanks --Superflewis (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the find, a copy of the image has already been uploaded to wikipedia commons and is available here. For other images of Warwick Castle, please see the category on commons here. Nev1 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
burh
The article currently says that the castle was to replace the burh. This seems to reflect a common past misconception of which a burh was: it was a fortified borough, not a kind of castle. I would suggest that the castle was built beside or in the burh, rahter than replacing it. Warwick remained a fortified town, presumably as long as town walls continued to exist. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have a ref here, but is does not clearly state whether the Castle was built on top of the Burh or simply beside it. I assuming that once the Castle was built, the Buhr simply fell into disuse (If the Castle wasn't built on top) --Superflewis (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The source used in the article states that the burh was "almost certainly included the site of the later castle". The phrase fortified borough may be slightly misleading, as modern boroughs can cover many square miles whereas burhs were much, much smaller. The source does not explicitly state that the castle replaced the burh, although it was probably built in the same place for similar reasons. The lead has been changed and now says "Built by William the Conqueror in 1068 on the same site as an Anglo-Saxon burh". Nev1 (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Your source implies that the castle was built inside the burh. VCH (the source cited) is clearly talking about the earth ramparts of the town and grants made for their repair, not the walls of the castle, which are of course stone. I fear it is the WP author, who has misunderstood the meaning of burh. The word burh is (I think) cognate with borough, and most emerged in the later middle ages as walled towns. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I confess I am a little rusty on burhs. First mentioned in the Anlgo-Saxon Chronicles, burhs were developed by Alfred the Great as defence against the Danes. First he fortified Wessex and made more burhs as the Danes were pushed back. Sometimes the burh reused the old walls of Roman towns such as possibly Manchester did. Boroughs did derive from burhs. Anyway, the point is that the article no longer implies that a burh was a type of castle. You're right, the phrase "included the site of the later castle" would seem to indicate that the castle was inside the burh. Nev1 (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
pronunciation headache
war-ick (silent w in middle)
While the w being silent is correct, the war part is not. The IPA version correctly gives the a sound as the o in pot or cot (or the wha of what as I imagined it), which I think you'll agree is not the same as the a in war, whether you're from the US or the UK. I wish to remove the war-ick part, but find the silent w cue to be useful for those who will breeze over the IPA pronunciation. Can anyone suggest/include a succinct way to rewrite this to keep that cue, and to explicitly inform those who can't/won't read IPA of the other syllable's idiosyncratic pronunciation, i.e that it's not just war wick without the second w? I'd like to suggest wha'rick, but then you run into the problem of reader's first imagined wha word being something like whack or wham instead of what. 86.160.198.27 (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Given that 'war' has an idiosyncratic pronunciation depending on one's accent, perhaps should be amended to 'war-ick' (whatever the correct notation is), with a note that locals pronounce is this way while local (to the reader) will pronounce it 'war' (in reader terms) 'ick) (in IPA terms). Just a thought. Prince of Canada t | c 05:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This is the problem though. The war is pronounced very much like the start of warrior, which isn't pronounced as straight war in as many accents as I can muster. Regardless of the local pronunciation of war (to the reader), I believe the difference is there between the words. If Warwick was spoken with that knowledge then the pronunciation would be correct for the speaker's accent, no matter where they were from. It wouldn't jar, or stand out in the flow of speech, basically. It's just a matter of how to convey this succinctly for lazy laymen. 86.157.88.31 (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Another example, I believe, is warren. That may actually be better suited than warrior as an example as it's only two syllables, like Warwick itself. 86.157.88.31 (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Does "worrick" work? Abc30 (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, people are known to misspell warrior in that fashion (worr-) and the first syllable of warrior and Warwick are indeed identical. The only downfall is it being read as worr- from worry. 86.157.88.31 (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Some pictures I took
I went to Warwick Castle and took some high quality pictures. Feel free to use them in the article. Seriously I'll explode if they aren't included. Spiderone (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
English Civil War
Hello all,
I tried to alter the section on the English Civil War but it wouldn't let me. As it stands the page is badly incorrect as Robert Greville, Lord Brooke, was the Parliamentarian, Northampton was the Royalist, Dugdale wasn't a General and Capel had nothing to do with it. If you read the references already there they should make it clear (especially Bulstrode's text).
Quite right, the article has been corrected. I'm not sure why you weren't able to make the changes though, the article is currently open for anyone to edit. Nev1 (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Nev, have registered and tidied up that ECW section, all the best.
Thanks for the help, and welcome to Wikipedia! Nev1 (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Gap in the history: Tourism suggested text
I couldn't help noticing that there is nothing mentioned in the history from 1871 to 1978. I have tracked down a few details from the VCH chapter on Warwick from 1835, and I wondered if it might make a useful short section on 'The Growth of Tourism' or similar name, just before the 'Modern' section. My first stab would be:-
Individuals had been visiting the castle since the end of the 17th century[1] and this grew in importance through the 19th century. In 1858 Queen Victoria visited the 5th earl with great local celebrations. However by 1885 it would appear the visitors were becoming a nuisance as the earl closed the castle to visitors, causing consternation in the town. A local report stated, 'One day last week eight American visitors who were staying at one of the principal hotels left somewhat hurriedly in consequence of their being unable to gain admission to the castle'.[1] It soon re-opened again and by 1900 had a ticket office and was employing a permanent guide.[1] Through the 20th century successive earls expanded its tourism potential until, in 1978, after 374 years in the Greville family, it was sold to a media and entertainment company.[2]
^ abcW.B. Stephens (Editor) (1969). "The borough of Warwick: Warwick from 1835". A History of the County of Warwick: Volume 8: The City of Coventry and Borough of Warwick. Institute of Historical Research. Retrieved 18 May 2011. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) p.517
No need to apologise, a safety first approach with Featured article is always a good idea. I agree with all of the points you made. Trying to think about where we'd find out how much Tussauds paid I'm not sure there'll be an academic article on it, so we might have to track down news stories for that. I put this article together nearly three years ago so it probably needs a fresh pair of eyes. If I wrote it now I'd no doubt do things differently (there needs to be more on the architecture) and I'm almost afraid to look too closely at the article in case it falls apart! Nev1 (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Replaced info box photo with original photo of entire castle, not just one wall
Lead image as of the article's TFA dateImage the long standing lead was replaced by
The photo here should be one showing the entire castle, not just one side, wall or segment of the castle. This photo was here when this article was selected as an article of the day. I don't have a problem with my photos being replaced by better ones, but they should also be fit for purpose...in this case, to show as much of the castle as possible in one shot. If anyone has a better shot taken from the bridge, feel free to upload it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterweiss (talk • contribs) 18:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
It depends what you want the lead image to do. Neither photo shows the castle in its entirety, which would be ideal but isn't practical for most photographers as the front is obscured by the approach and the gardens. What's really needed is an aerial photo, and while I have seen some they're copyrighted. I was the one responsible for changing the lead image, and I think it was a justified move. The original does show more of the castle, but not much more and it's just not an interesting picture. The purpose of the lead image is to represent the castle, but also to present something interesting to make the reader want to learn more. That's why I replaced it with a much more colourful photo of the most visually arresting face of the castle. That it wasn't in the article when it was featured on the main page isn't a good enough reason not to use it; several of the images weren't included back then, but they obviously improve the article. Nev1 (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I know this is quite an old discussion, but I can't help agreeing at least a bit with Misterweiss. The river frontage is fabulous but (as someone who visited the castle for the first time yesterday!) it is not the one that instantly says Warwick, or even 'castle' except to those who already know it. Would something like this Lead image suggestion retain the colour and impact of of the current one, but give a better anticipation of arriving at the castle. A more specific picture of the river frontage could then be slotted in elsewhere. Just a thought. RobinLeicester (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Something like File:Warwick Castle from Banbury Road Bridge - geograph.org.uk - 1655470.jpg would be good, but preferably not actually that image. The castle's a bit out of focus and the foliage dominates the image, but something from that angle would be good. Warwick is an annoying castle to take a photo of that really represents it. I visited about a year ago and took a few photos and I probably have one of the gatehouse; I'll see if I can track it down as it maybe worth looking at. I agree with what you say, it's not really an image that screams "castle", and I'd much rather have a colourful image like Misterweiss' original shot – something that at once presents as much of the castle as possible and is visually stunning so that the reader goes "that's incredible, I want to know more – but it's not turned out like that. Nev1 (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
This one's a bit grey, but I do have a photo where the gatehouse is more prominent.
Hmm, the image on the left is the best I can do and to be honest it's not fantastic. It's a bit on the grey side for my liking and doesn't really convey how complex the castle is. What do you think? Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The greyness is not ideal. The photographer in the shot from the bridge above notes he was there early morning, to get the sun in the right place, which is why most daytime shots might struggle from that side. For what it is worth the Shell Guide to Warwickshire gushes about the view of the castle from the bridge.RobinLeicester (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hauntings
Probably better in their own section as the ghosts are from centuries back and signify strong events in its history so far from modern but the tourist and tv stuff relevant to it is modern so its own section works with everything related to the hauntings being a mixture.RafikiSykes (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, do you have a source for that statement? Nev1 (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
On further consideration, I can't support what you're suggesting. That the reported ghosts are based on events centuries ago is immaterial; the sources indicate that it has only really become significant in the 20th century. Moreover it is a small part of the castle's history, albeit one that has been sensationalised in recent decades with the tourist attractions, and I feel that having a separate section is placing too much emphasis on the issue. Nev1 (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of references for the moll material and the legend has been around for ages before the current tourist emphasisRafikiSykes (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Bare faced lying in edit summaries is frowned upon, I suggest you don't use false edit summaries (restoring a section under the guise of "fixing typos") as you did here again. You don't seem to be getting the point that a couple of ghosts at Warwick is just a small part of its history; adding rumours from tabloid rags and stuff from the Travel Channel is certainly not the way to proceed. This article uses high quality reliable sources, and your changes using sources such as country file certainly do not meet the standards set by the article. If you do not provide high-quality sources your edits will be reverted as you are placing undue emphasis on a marginal element of Warwick Castle's history. Nev1 (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I did not lie my text was still in progress as i was working it was not an exact restore as i was working on tthe wording and about to run reflinks There are plenty of more sources a can add re ghosts going back to victorian times if you have issue with those sources. The haunting section and material has been part of this article for long enough before you took issue with it.RafikiSykes (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I am well aware of how long that section has been in the article as I addedit, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't speculate on whether I "care for it" or not. This is not a matter of personal taste but standards. That the section had been in the article for nearly three years does not change the fact that it placed undue emphasis on a marginal facet of the castle's history, and adding more information on the subject is certainly not going to redress the balance. The article uses academic sources, a couple of webpages from Google news does not come close to a similar standard. If the best mainstream sources on Warwick Castle do not trouble themselves much with ghost stories, then neither should an encyclopedia. If you feel so strongly that this information should be included somewhere I suggest you start an article at ghosts of Warwick Castle or some similar title. Nev1 (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The articles you are producing prove nothing more than the stories are of passing interest; they do not put the phenomenon into a full perspective and how it links into the castle's history. If serious scholarly works such as the Victoria County History do not see fit to dwell on the issue when providing a detailed account of Warwick Castle's history then clearly they have assessed the matter and decided it was not important, regardless of however many newspaper clippings there were. Under those circumstance, it makes sense that we should follow their lead. Nev1 (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I have put together a list of all the people who owned the castle. Unfortunately it makes for a much bigger list than I had expected, so when expanded it may feel too big for comfort. I am very open to better ideas on how this might best be used, or where it can best be located. RobinLeicester (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Could it form a separate article, linked from this one? It's a nice list, but I think it is a little big to sit comfortably in the main article itself.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I did wonder that. I have never created a page, being quite new to the whole thing, so if that is the way to go, I would welcome guidance. Would its title be 'List of owners of Warwick Castle'?RobinLeicester (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The title sounds good. I tend to make my pages in one of my sandboxes first, then copy them into the new page when I'm happy with the first draft, but that's because I'm an, ahem, careless editor! Key thing I always forget is to add the categories on. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Useful ref. I have updated the list of owners accordingly. Land Registry would presumably be able to say - but they need paying for a report!.RobinLeicester (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Tourism
Warwick Castle is essentially a medieval theme park, and has been for decades. The article's understandable emphasis on the history of the castle downplays the grisly horror it has become under the Tussaud ownership. People from outside the UK coming to the article for info prior to visiting are likely to be misled. --Ef80 (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Meander versus bend...
Reference recent edits, changing "a bend of the River Avon" to "a meander of the River Avon", I'd argue that the former is more common, natural English. Happy to discuss further. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
