Talk:Dunstanburgh Castle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sir Guy

Just curious, but wasn't Guy the Seeker famous for finding Arthur and his knights sleeping under Dunstanburgh, and making the wrong choice between a horn, a sword and...something else? I can't remember the legend properly, or I'd have added it in. Anyone else know it? -Egoinos

Yes, it was something along those lines in the only edition of the story I know. It is not inconsistent with the story given here by Jeandunston - Sir Guy goes wandering round the castle trying to rescue the maiden (or looking for shelter, or both?), and finds a big hall full of sleeping knights who wake up and charge at him when he chooses the wrong object. It was published in some Northumberland magazine, I think. In the version I saw I am not sure it explicitly says it was Arthur. But it's probably about 30 years since I last read it! Nevilley

The version I referred to was published about 60 years ago and treats the story somewhat humorously. The choice in this version was between a horn once belonging to Merlin and a gleaming sword. He chose the horn and inevitably the mighty blast he blew on it woke all the sleeping knights who charged at him whereupon he dropped the horn( though a voice had specifically told him to hang on to whatever he chose) grabbed his own sword and found himself outside again in the rain..The lady was reputed to be lying in a coffin and presumably she is still there. My version did not mention King Arthur, only Merlin and I would love to hear of other versions.Jeandunston

I think I heard it in a tape I had of Northumbrian legends. I'll have to go and listen to it again and tell you what it says :-) (I've been avoiding the tape because, sad to say, the Long Pack story has a tendency to give me the creeps...I'm such a coward!) - Egoinos

I'd love to hear more about your version,Egoinos. The version I mentioned was published in a series of four books called The Friday book of North Country Sketches originally appearing in the Newcastle Journal. It is the first story in the first book.Jeandunston

Apologies, turns out it was Sewingshields Castle I was thinking of! Egoinos

I'd heard these stories too - Legend and Northumbria has both of them, and does note that Sewingshields Story is close to the Dunstanburgh one. If you're really into Northumbrian Folk Stories, there's a book out this month called Northumberland Folk Tales. I swear I didn't write it, just saw it reviewed in a magazine and was reminded of this talk page... Henriksdal 15:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

PoV

I was disgusted to see that this article contained loaded words like glorious and spectacular: this kind of thing must be stamped out. Thank goodness for the PoV Police who came along with their little parking ticket, because nailing the dreadful people who use words like this should be a very high priority for the encyclopaedia.

I have attempted to satisfy Police Constable PoV with a reword taking out the word "glorious" which so threatened the intellectual stability of the wiki. Of course it's tricky when the fact is that lots of people do indeed find it "glorious", and that, my dears, is actually a thing dangerously close to a fact. Obviously it would be much better if I could go up there and interview them all and say that 62.7 percent think it's choice A and so on, which would improve the quality no end. As it is I just stuck in some lame bit about the recent archaeologists' views on why it looks like that, so at least there is some tiny enhancement of content caused by this otherwise wasted time. Ooops sorry I mistyped that, it was meant to read "useful job of editing".

As for spectacular, I'm a bit stumped to be honest. It's on a f*cking great cliff on a near-island in the North Sea: it presents a spectacle. It is spectacular. Spectacular is what it is. I am having severe problems seeing what a fantastic NPoV rewrite could do to suppress this fact. Obviously getting rid of every adjective from every article in the wiki would be a good start. How about a description of how high the cliffs are? How many tons of rock are under the castle? Hmmm, it's jolly tricky. Maybe we should just leave it because it would be such a terrible terrible pain so say some bloody RUBBISH such as "perceived by many people as spectacular, though not by small babies, people who have a pathological disorder which prevents them from seeing perspective so they think it's the size of a matchbox etc" ... would that be much better? If the point of being a PoV Policeman is to replace one good word with 93 bad ones, then clearly yes, it would. And no doubt some humourless computer who thinks that their lunatic anal retentive approach to text is The One True Way will indeed come along and trash the article along just those lines one day: I can hardly wait. I suppose I might pop back in and alter things occasionally just to annoy them, but I probably can't be bothered.

Thank G*d I've given up editing Wikipedia so I don't have to worry about stuff like this any more :) ... yours, more in sorrow than in anger, and spectacularly and gloriously for ever more, 82.35.17.203 12:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dungeon

144.32.128.155 added something which was later reworded (slightly) into: "Although it is rumoured that a "dungeon" exists, the "dungeon" is actually a small storage room, possibly used to store grain in the left side (on approach) of the main gatehouse." I am a bit confused by this, or possibly 144.32.128.155 is. The text actually refers to an underground room under a hatch, down which you need to climb a ladder. It is not on approach, it's accessed only from inside, once you are through the keep entrance completely. I have been down into this cellar and if it is a grain storage room then it is the most impractical, wet and badly-accessed one in the history of storage rooms! I think that we are talking about two different places, and that the dungeon is indeed a dungeon.

I would take this up with 144.32.128.155 directly but it's a shared IP at York so there is little future in that unless one had the most amazing stroke of luck, hence this here. I'm removing the phrase pending anyone bringing new information: but simply dismissing what was there earlier won't quite do. :) 138.37.199.199 16:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I should perhaps add that Week 3 of the English Heritage dig site contains this: "And, strangely, Dunstanburgh does have an underground chamber, cut into the hard basalt rock beneath one of the guard chambers of the great gatehouse. It's usually thought of as a dungeon, and it's now too dangerous to open to visitors. I'll have to return with a torch to take a look." I don't know if I can get its monster URL to work but here is a try: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.001002003005002002001003 - and all I would add to that is that it was not always too dangerous to open. I missed the hook-and-lantern bit mentioned in the article text, (possibly by decades), but they were still showing it to people in the 60s and maybe into the 70s. 138.37.199.199 17:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: Dungeon

Hi, It was me that added the part about the dungeon. when I was last there, I spoke to a guide (I think working for English Heritage) who pointed out that dungeon was not actually a dungeon. I just hypothesized that it was a grain storage room, but it may have been used to store other things. About the location of the dungeon: when I said on approach, I was describing the side of the gatehouse, to prevent ambiguity. Perhaps I should have said, "the room is located in the left hand side of the gatehouse (left as thought you are approaching the structure from the outside)."

Sorry for the confusion. I guess it should probably be left to the imagination what the "room" was used for, unless they discover some hard archaeological evidence to support one theory or another.

Regards.

So, just out of curiosity and to make sure we are singing off the same hymn sheet (as it were), how exactly would you get INTO the dungeon or non-dungeon that you are describing? It IS the under-floor one, yes? 138.37.199.199 08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thats correct. As the castle wasnt built for defence, but more as a residence, it would seem a bit illogical to bother having a dungeon. Thats just my two cents.

I feel that "As the castle wasnt built for defence, but more as a residence," is slightly over-interpreting the recent (and brilliant) EH stuff about this. It was, however you slice it and dice it, built as a castle, and it is therefore not unreasonable for it to have had a dungeon. No-one has authoritatively said that room isn't a dungeon and the old custodian, referred to in the text, (Mr Stephenson I think) was very clear that it was, and had some evidence in support. Having been down there it makes more sense to me as a dungeon than anything else - as any kind of storage space it is user-unfriendly in the Nth degree! :) I will have another look at the text and see if it may be modified to reflect some doubt, without trashing its current rather nice take on the castle. Thanks 138.37.199.199 08:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Further to that, the dungeon is now a reputed dungeon. OK?! Hope this works for people. :) 138.37.199.199 09:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Plan of the castle

http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/11298056833/

©Geni (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change to citation style...

I'm intending to do some expansion work on the article, but would like to switch from the current long citation style to a short citation style using the harvnb format for the citations, and cite book format in the bibliography (see Caerphilly Castle for an example of how this looks in practice). WP:CITE requires that this be raised in advance on the talk page - thus this message. Comments welcomed! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've enacted. I've also updated the source for size to the latest archaeological reports in the process. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Expansion...

I've gone through and given the article a thorough scrub-over and expansion; I've one more diagram to add in, when I've completed it. It would probably benefit from a decent copy-edit though! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dunstanburgh Castle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 11:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well-written

a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct

b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Here is a list of sentence or grammar errors I discovered.

1. "and the estate was later sold the estate" - This needs tor re-written as it's grammarly incorrect.

2. "between 1985 and 1986 and 1989" - Simply writing "between 1985-89" is fine.

3. "may have influenced the construction Henry IV's gatehouse at Lancaster Castle" - The word "of" is missing between "construction" and "Henry IV's".

4. "where he met by a wizard and led inside" - The word "was" is missing between "he" and "met".

This article is excellently written. Giving the length, I was expecting to find lots of errors, but was only able to find four. Good job. :)

• Verifiable with no original research

a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

b. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

c. It contains no original research

The mostly uses book sources which are listed below and contain the necessary text information and also uses a few online sources which also contain the necessary text information. All in all, great sources.

• Broad in its coverage

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic

b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

The article is very broad, focuses on the main topics and does not go into unnecessary detail.

• Neutral

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

The article is neutral and does not include personal opinions or statements.

• Stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

The article is very stable with the last content dispute occurring in 2006. Its content does not change significantly from day to day (with exception of the expansions or improvements done in preparation for the GA-nomination).

• Illustrated

a. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

b. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The article is very handsomely illustrated with a total of 16 images, which is understandable giving the length. All the images are uploaded and from Commons and contain the necessary text information.

• Pass, fail or hold?

With the article meeting the GA-criteria I'm of course going to pass it. Excellent job people. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 12:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dunstanburgh Castle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714144751/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheadername3=Content-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3D297%252F965%252Fnt_acquisitions_dec2011-2%252C2.pdf&blobheadervalue2=abinary%3B+charset%3DUTF-8&blobheadervalue3=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1349117284549&ssbinary=true to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheadername3=Content-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3D297%252F965%252Fnt_acquisitions_dec2011-2%252C2.pdf&blobheadervalue2=abinary%3B+charset%3DUTF-8&blobheadervalue3=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1349117284549&ssbinary=true

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Edwardian castle link

Hello. Again. This article is jolly good nowadays - well done, all. In the infobox, there is a link like this for the "type" parameter: Edwardian castle - as a quick click will show you, this goes to Castles in Great Britain and Ireland#Welsh principalities and Edwardian castles. The odd thing is that when you get there, it is all about castles in Wales. There's not even a nod this way, nor any attempt to go on from the Welsh situation to a more general statement about the Edwardian castle. It's just a load of old Beaumaris, if you'll pardon my French. I don't think that this will do. I also checked how it was, both ends, since the GAR - no change, it was even then the same link to the same content. I am going to remove the link for now but would be happy to see it sorted out into something more useful. Have at it! Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I've been working (um, rather slowly...) on a proper article on Edwardian castles -current draft is in user space, User:Hchc2009/Sandbox4. Ultimately I'm hoping that this would give a decent landing point. I've been delayed a bit while translating some of the French material on Gascony... Nice copyediting, btw! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the interesting and useful reply. The draft looks great; I will very much look forward to seeing it published and linked from here. I saw "many Edwardian castles were designed to make sophisticated symbolic statements about their owners" and thought "yes!" Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Archive

I wondered if it was time for this Talk page to be archived. I'm pretty useless at this so if you can see I messed up, please put me right. I think I've put a reasonably conservative regime in place ... I think I have got it set up (possibly correctly) and then the actual archiving will take place, um, sometime. Also, maybe you hate the idea of archiving it in which case can we please discuss it? I just think it's getting a bit cumbersome having to wade past all that stuff from, er, 14 years ago ... or something. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to have worked with one minor glitch that I sorted. Is this OK with people? I think I should have asked first, in which case sorry, but please do say. Thanks. DBaK (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Nova / Novia Scotia

We've just flip-flopped between Nova Scotia and Novia Scotia for the name of the defunct settlement near the castle and it would be nice to nail it down.

The source for the sentence about NS (see what I did there?) is Middleton & Hardie 2009, p. 25, which is Middleton, Penny; Hardie, Caroline (2009). Historic Environment Survey for the National Trust Properties on the Northumberland Coast: Dunstanburgh and Embleton Bay, Report No: 0058/4-09. Barnard Castle, UK: Archaeo-Environment., which is - woo hoo! - here.

In that document, "Novia" gets about 6 outings and "Nova" gets about 18.

I find it particularly telling that on the page we reference (p. 25), Middleton & Hardie say Novia Scotia but as they do so they are referring to the Armstrong map of 1796. This is on the same page and clearly does NOT show this spelling, which I find damaging for its credibility here. In other places the authors switch, without comment and seemingly without noticing, from one to the other.

Is there more evidence somewhere to help us to a consensus? At the moment I lean towards Nova, despite the years for which it has been Novia, just because the Middleton & Hardie seems such a mess. But I would be very happy to see more evidence and discuss further. I'm going off now to try to read up more and would be very interested to see what others think.

Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: The lovely EH Research Report (Oswald, Alastair; Ashbee, Jeremy; Porteous, Katrina; Huntley, Jacqui (2006). Dunstanburgh Castle, Northumberland: Archaeological, Architectural and Historical Investigations (PDF). London, UK: English Heritage. ISSN 1749-8775) has it about 10 times, all as Nova Scotia. Novia is absent from the document. DBaK (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

We could go for "Nova or Novia Scotia", recognising both variants? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure. Is there any good evidence for Novia Scotia outside Middleton & Hardie? I had a bit of a look, but am rubbish at serious search, so it was not conclusive. I have also dropped a line to the company behind Middleton & Hardie, to ask if they can shed any light, but they'd have to be very very nice to bother with this - I think I'd probably tell me to get lost! :) DBaK (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, a thought - I will try SANT and see if they have archival materials with both versions! Worth a go yesno? DBaK (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Pastscape also use it... Given the age of the defunct settlement, the "novia" variant would make a certain degree of sense: it seems to be used as a variant of "nova" in older sources of around the same period. See [1] for example, [2], or [3]. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting - Pastscape actually do the same as Middleton & Hardie, using both without comment. I still find that difficult. Why would an author do this? The dictionary/gazetteer/whatever entries are very compelling, though - clearly we can at least accept that Novia has been used as a legit spelling in the past. This cheers me up, in that I now understand it wasn't just a recent invention by Middleton & Hardie or whoever! Meanwhile, I've had a go at SANT but I cannot get my head around search there. So actually, due to your diligent checking, I am leaning strongly towards your solution of simply having both - just treat them as straight alternatives. I like that! Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Done! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks! Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)