Talk:Nutwell

Domesday Dunns

Lt, I have a couple of queries about the Domesday Book section:

You've mentioned several Dunns there - is there a source that either states they are the same person as the one we're interested in, or that mentions them in the context of Nutwell?
I can't see in the reference you've provided that "Fardel and Dinnaton, [were] in 1087 [...] both amongst the 79 Devon holdings of in chief of the Count of Mortain".

I've got a few other questions about this section, but your replies to these two might make them redundant. Thanks, —SMALL JIM 23:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a great example of collaboration. That's unusual and very much appreciated. Did I say 1087 for DB? s/b 1086. I'm delighted to attempt to answer your queries: The text on the Dunns is from the same source Thorn, as quoted. My text sets out exactly what manors the various Dunns were associated with in DB. Is it not clear? The ref for the 2nd point is again, Thorn, as I think you know, but to clarify it's Fardel 15:67, Dinnaton 15:70. As I think you know chap 15 deals with all 79 of the holdings of the Count of Mortain. Do you wish to add that as a line ref in the text, if so that's fine with me.

You're not just being picky here or trying to make a point or build up a dossier against my work, or continuing a campaign of petty argument against me, are you? (Because that's not going to help to resolve our present problems elsewhere and might be interpreted by others as "unproductive" on your part) Or are these genuine questions really trying to build this article, in which case great. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Yes Lt, they are both genuine questions aimed at ensuring that we don't mislead our readers.

1. I think you must have misunderstood the first question, it wasn't about verifying what manors the Dunns were associated with. Let me rephrase it: to include those Dunns in the way you have says to readers that they have some relevance to Nutwell, and that they may even be the same person (especially the Spriddlescombe one, considering how you've worded it). Is there a source that confirms this relevance or was it you who decided to include them?

2. The second point is actually a very basic referencing issue: the ref you provided (Thorn, part 1, 15:67,70) simply doesn't verify the text it claims to. A reader wouldn't be able to confirm that those two manors were "amongst the 79 Devon holdings of in chief of the Count of Mortain" by looking up that reference.

—SMALL JIM 23:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lt, since it's such a minor and obvious point I've amended the referencing of the Count of Mortain sentence per point 2 above, and changed the link to point to Robert, Count of Mortain. Of more importance though is point 1: is it helpful to readers to include these other Dunns who don't seem to have any relevance to Nutwell? I'm open to persuasion that it may be, if a reliable source has already done so (I can't find one), but if we do then we should certainly re-phrase the Spriddlescombe one, because I don't think there's any evidence it was the same person, which is what it implies now. I've added a clarify tag. —SMALL JIM 17:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Lt, you've edited other parts of the article but haven't responded about this, so I've assumed that silence implies consent and have removed the text. —SMALL JIM 13:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further, William II didn't come to the throne till 1087, so shouldn't we be referring to William I's thanes? —SMALL JIM 13:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]