User talk:Richard Nevell

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Hey

Hey Richard, why are you going around complaining about me? Why not just write to me and talk about it? I didn't know I did anything wrong, and if you had just talked to me, I would have fixed it.

You wrote to me on December 20th and I didn't respond. I'm sorry if that hurt you. Enhazaam (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ten days without a response seemed long enough. It would be helpful if you updated articles that you have edited to add attribution for translations as suggested at User talk:Enhazaam#Non-attributed translations. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Muslim migrations to Ottoman Palestine

Hello Richard Nevell,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Muslim migrations to Ottoman Palestine for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Muslim migrations to Ottoman Palestine to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Adamtt9 (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, it saves me scrabbling for the right template while on my phone. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Al-Moghraqa

On 6 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Al-Moghraqa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that terracotta cones found at al-Moghraqa in Palestine are unique in the region, but resemble artefacts from ancient Egypt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Moghraqa. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Al-Moghraqa), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Detached church towers

Morning Richard, and I hope the New Year finds you well. In the course of doing this little Start, St Mary's Church, Pembridge, I came across an interesting article published in Vernacular Architecture, for which I hope I've cited the doi correctly! What's particularly fascinating is that the authors challenge the traditional explanation for detached church towers as defensive in purpose - a view I've always held. They suggest that a more likely explanation might be structural, in that a tower, being taller, would settle further into the ground than the body of a church, and if attached might cause the church to fall down! [I've summarised the argument rather poorly]. I was wondering if you are aware of any more literature on this? I'd like to do a bit more reading up on it if possible. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so the short answer is 'not directly' but I can think of two ways of approaching it. I don't recall coming across that particular explanation (though it is certainly interesting) but it brings to mind Michael Shapland's work. His 2019 book, Anglo-Saxon Towers of Lordship addresses free-standing towers. But the main focus is a couple of centuries earlier than St Mary's Church. As an intro, there's a recording of a talk he gave to the Society of Antiquaries.

That's the Anglo-Saxon direction, the other is from the direction of castle studies. Will Wyeth's paper on motte towers is well worth a read and mentions St Mary's Pembridge as a comparison. It's a while since I read it closely (more years that I realised until just now), so I can't speak to the detail. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard - many thanks, for the above and for the material. Very much appreciated. I shall read it with interest. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]