User talk:Peter I. Vardy/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great Budworth[edit]

One of the loveliest little Cheshire villages I've ever had the pleasure to cycle through, and yet the article is almost non-existent. I wonder, given your knowledge of churches and halls, if you know much about this place? Any good sources I could use to expand it? I'd love the opportunity to go back one nice sunny day and get some decent photographs. Parrot of Doom 10:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that this delightful village, almost deliberately hidden from the main road, deserves much better coverage. I think every house in the main street is listed. Can't really help though on sources; Pevsner is near-useless, apart from the material about the church, about which there is a reasonable article (St Mary and All Saints' Church, Great Budworth); and the article on Arley Hall is not bad. I've written a few articles on some of the individual buildings, so I'll add those to a See also section, which isn't much, but at least a start. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I need to finish up with my home town of Flixton (keep forgetting to go to the library) but I agree it's a gorgeous little place and deserves better. I'll see what I can do. Parrot of Doom 13:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you're up to Whatcroft Hall with the Cheshire country houses Peter, sterling work. Tell you what, to give you a bit of a lift I'll do the remaining ones beginning X, Y and Z. Can't say fairer than that. Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm rather enjoying myself, so don't spoil it. Seriously, I've been fascinated to discover what's there, where it is, and what's happened to it, so thanks for setting it up. If Dr B thinks he can make a controllable list of country houses in England, good luck to him; a half-decent list of just those in the (smallish) county of Cheshire would be a challenge. Less than 10 to do now! Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm equally dubious about that list idea. And as I'm sure you know there are no Cheshire country houses beginning with X, Y or Z. If there had been I wouldn't have offered. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I hadn't spotted that???? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded Great Budworth, more to come tomorrow, although some of the lettering of the 1810 PD text is awkward, probably best if it was rewritten into a coherent history and in chrono order. Why are you dubious about a list of country houses? There is a finite number. To start with I would list all of the houses currently with articles by country and then missing articles can gradually be added to it. It would of course take time to build as full a list as possible but it is achievable eventually. Of course I will require your aid Peter in routing out missing articles and routing out any duds I may have added such as townhouses by accident and working with me to try to cover them. Ideally we need a Country houses of Cheshire type book for every country. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a finite number of bricks in Cheshire; that a number is finite doesn't make it manageable. Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I knew you'd spotted that Peter, but the question is, did all the kiddie admins looking to be the fastest blocker in the West realise that your "don't spoil it" was equally light-hearted? I've been blocked for less in the past. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have such a pessimistic attitude Malleus to practically everything. Why are you such a negative, cynical person?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just lucky I guess. Malleus Fatuorum 14:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have never experienced MF as being negative and his cynicism is no greater than my own (I call it being realistic).
Re country houses, we now have 197 "Houses in Cheshire". Not all, but most, of these are country houses. I did a quick search on the National Heritage List for England for titles of buildings including "hall" in (just) Cheshire West and Cheshire; these totalled 260. Some of these already have articles; some are related structures (gates, outbuildings, etc); but some are not described in de Figueiredo and Treuherz, and still qualify as "country houses". IMO there would be no "problem" with the practicalities of compiling a list for the whole of the country, but it would be so big as to be impractical.
Re Great Budworth. Thanks for the addition. But IMO it needs to be translated into modern English, and to be used in the context of a 21st century encyclopaedia, rather than how things were seen (and described) in 1810. I do have some sources describing the role taken by Rowland Egerton-Warburton of Arley Hall, in whose estate the village stood, to employ top architects in the 19th century to make it more picturesque, which is pretty well the state in which we see it today. I will add this at some time, and try to link it to what is already in the article. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well based on that outlook we may as well give up building wikipedia right now because the scope of potential articles is impossibly large. If we can have a list of minor planets we can most certainly have a list of country houses in the small island that is Great Britain.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, if you do it in that sort of format. I shall continue to contribute in my humble way. Make of it what you will. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Over-Whisky's near Budworth? Ning-ning (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will go live with it shortly at List of country houses in the United Kingdom as a very rough start and many empty counties for Scotland Wales and N. Ireland. It will just be a simple list for now in 4 columns under each county. Initially I may have added some duds but the vast majority should be country houses. The idea is that over time we add a few missing articles under each country, start the articles then root out more etc until we can build the fullest coverage we can. I'm pretty sure many of the ENglish counties will have at least 200 country houses but right now many are poorly developed, like Warwickshire has less than 10 articles I believe. But anyway if the list gets too huge over time first we can split by region England, Wales, Scotland etc or List of country houses in England - Counties B etc. . Of course we could have tabled lists like Grade I listed buildings in Brighton and Hove for each county with a List of country houses in Berkshire etc but I for one am not willing to spend that amount of time on a list! But I'm sure you will find this as a useful page for building content on english manors and country houses on here. I've begun the list at User:Dr. Blofeld/List of country houses in the United Kingdom. I'm logging off now but I will continue on it tomorrow. Its a list of articles we currently have to start with of course the eventual goal is to add all of the missing articles bit by bit over time... Its currently 40kb, if it ever grows over 150kb then it might be wise to split but its manageble for now. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for expanding G.Budworth chaps. I'll definitely get some decent images for the article, just need a sunny day. By the way, I don't suppose any of you know anything about this house? I cycle past it sometimes, usually with my jaw on the floor. It's either some local lord's gaff, or the poshest farmhouse I ever saw. I only wish I could afford such a thing :( Parrot of Doom 22:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's a puzzle. According to the coords with the link, it should be Ashley Hall, Cheshire, and that fits with the GR given in the National Heritage List here. But the photograph for this building in Images of England here does not seem to match. Thoughts? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it isn't Ashley Hall - that's a few miles to the east, alongside the M56. I don't know how Google does coordinates, maybe when I linked it I'd also been looking at Ashley Hall. Which reminds me, that article also needs a pic. Parrot of Doom 19:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please, next time you're cycling by. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you could update the page when you start articles like this it would be a great help.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the London/urban dilemna and the previous naming convention has persuaded me to rename it List of historic houses in the United Kingdom. I think this is probably a more suitable title.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a surprise; some of the Cheshire ones were borderline anyway. I'll add some more town and otherwise-historic houses in due course. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Budworth has been improved further and copyedited.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ramsdell Hall[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Shotwick Hall[edit]

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Shrigley Hall[edit]

EncycloPetey (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your excellent and consistent work on British churches and houses and for setting a fine example for others to follow. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sort keys for churches[edit]

No time just now - got to go out - but I really don't think sortkeys like the one for All Saints Church Harewood are useful. By all means use the "sort as Harewood" for specific church-type categories, but for everything else please let it sort by the natural article title. Got to go. PamD (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. There seems to be disagreement about this and there may have been a discussion somewhere, sometime. It seems that Vegaswikian agrees with you, and that (at least) Bencherlite, who has been restoring defaultsorts deleted by Vegaswikian, and Belovedfreak, think the way I do (see the last comment here). If you look at a category such as Category:Churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust, almost everything would sort by "St" except for the occasional "Old" "All" "Holy" etc, and a few chapel that sort by place name; I personally see little sense in this. Have you any idea where we can find a consensus? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you (Peter) know, I am pretty much in agreement with you on this. I definitely think that for categories containing only churches, they should sort under location. In a location category such as Category:Buildings and structures in Manchester, there's not much point in sorting under that location. I do think there's a grey area though, where it's not 100% clear to me which is the best way to sort. With a category like Category:15th-century architecture, I see churches that have been sorted under their locations. On the other hand, there is, for example, Gallox Bridge, Dunster, currently sorting under "G". Categories are supposed to aid navigation, so I guess we need to think how a reader is most likely to look for a particular article. If I was looking for St Leonard's Church in Jesenice, should I look under "S", "L", "C" or "J"? Any of those is possible, but perhaps if we are consistent in sorting churches under locations (except in location categories) then readers using the categories often will soon pick up on how they are ordered. For readers using a category once, I don't think we can guarantee they will easily find the right article. I think maybe a wider discussion is needed, so that we can agree to a standard, but I can't think where. --BelovedFreak 08:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal templates[edit]

Do you still require these templates?

If not, I will tag them for speedy deletion. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a computer expert, I am not sure. They look like the navboxes on my User page, but are not up to date. Are they the same, or is it something I have used in the past and abandoned (can't remember)? I do not want to lose the navboxes because I am updating them frequently. If the templates above are different, and obsolete, yes they should be deleted. Advice please. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're using them. They're not linked to from your userpage, and it looks like you just update User:Peter I. Vardy with each new addition. If you're worried, you could always blank them first to make sure nothing's affected & then have them deleted.--BelovedFreak 08:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I've done that and it does not affect the navboxes on my user page. Looking at the history (which I should have done before), I have not used the templates for nearly two years, so clearly they are now obsolete and should be deleted. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just deleted the whole bunch; if you need any of them restored, feel free to ping me on my talk page. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St Thomas' Garstang[edit]

Hi, I've been looking at sources for St Thomas' Church, Garstang, and Hartwell & Pevsner make no mention of Paley & Austin. They say "The chancel was built in 1875 by Longworth & Gardner". (p. 302). It doesn't seem to be mentioned by the Victoria County History account. The official website for the church mentions a chancel being added in 1874, but doesn't name an architect. Can you confirm that this was a Paley & Austin one, and if so, how do you think we should deal with this conflict? --BelovedFreak 09:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've met this sort of problem myself and, (I hate to say it) but Pevsner (original series and subsequent updates) can actually be wrong(!). It causes difficulty when sources disagree. Who are we to decide which is correct (or the more authoritative)? In the case of St Thomas, Garstang, I gave the attribution to P&A because I found it in Price's book (details in the Bibliography of List of ecclesiastical works by Paley and Austin). This is a slim book, but it is devoted entirely to the Lancaster practice in all its phases. It was lent to me by our top local top historian, who knew the author (his copy was signed by the author). Sadly the historian died recently and I have returned the book to his widow, so I can't double-check it. From what I remember about the background of Price's book, the author spent a couple of years in the Lancaster archives to obtain his attributions. How to deal with the conflict? I did have this problem in another article (can't remember which one). I think I said something like: X says this, and Y says that, with both references, and leave it to the reader, new research, or whatever to sort it out (maybe) some time in the future. I don't think we should express an opinion on the reliability of the sources. (Although, off the record, for St T's I would go for Price, because his work is focused just on this practice, while Hartwell & Pevsner spread their interest much more widely.) What do you think about this? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree that Price is likely to be more reliable in this case as it is actually focussing on Paley & Austin. It would be strange to include a church in the book that actually had nothing to do with the architects. I'll work something out — I may put an explanation of the source differences in a footnote or something. I've been working on the first three churches on my list but have been travelling and not always where my books are, so it may take a few more days to get them up.--BelovedFreak 17:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Hi Peter, I've been thinking about your message regarding cats. I don't really understand them, other than the obvious. I only know that if I create an article and neglect to add cats before I know it the stub has more cats than text (and not always appropriate ones) I threrefore conclude I am no help at all. PS I am sure you are not as old as I feel after an hour on Wikipedia.--J3Mrs (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for St Bartholomew's Church, Penn[edit]

EncycloPetey (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

East Anglia[edit]

Hi Peter. Just a quick message to say two things: firstly, your work on British churches is fantastic. Many are wonderful buildings and I'm sure that the articles you write make readers appreciate their local heritage much more. Secondly, if you are after any internal/external photos of churches in the area around Colchester, north-east Essex or Babergh then just let me know. I occasionally mill around there on my bike when I'm not at uni, so I could grab photos the next time I'm nearby and upload them to Commons. Regards, Brammers (talk/c) 15:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really appreciate your comments. Re photos: what I suggest is (1) if you see an article without a photo (or not a very good one), please add it to the article: (2) if you see or hear of a church that looks or sounds interesting, take photos, upload them to Commons, and then they are there for any editor to use in the future. Multiple photos on Commons are fine; they can't all be used in a WP article (galleries are "frowned on"), but a link in the article to Commons makes them available to the reader. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sort keys for churches (2)[edit]

Vegaswikian has pointed me to a discussion he's getting underway at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Sorting of churches. I think as long as everyone is doing the same thing, and any exceptions to the general rule (whatever that is) are agreed, it doesn't particularly matter much. BencherliteTalk 06:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there has to be consistency, and I guess it will turn out the way that Vegaswikian wants. But when you get a category like Category:Churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust, with over 300 inhabitants, there's going to be an awful lot under "S", which to me does not seem to be particularly helpful. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for St Martin's Church, Bowness-on-Windermere[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Christ Church, Lancaster[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Hospitals[edit]

If you are interested in contributing more to articles about hospitals you may want to join WikiProject Hospitals (signup here).


Ng.j (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but too much going on in other projects just now. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Holy Trinity Church, Northwich[edit]

Calmer Waters 16:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decent review[edit]

A while ago you reviewed an article of mine, and I framed it as a decent review, telling WT:DYK, - but forgot to tell you. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Its quality made it one of my easiest reviews. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Christ Church, Barnton[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOUR for Norton Priory[edit]

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Norton Priory. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tony. I'd actually forgotten that I started the article (long ago). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Steble Fountain[edit]

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing[edit]

I'm gobsmacked at how much work you're doing on historic houses. Are there any houses you'd like images of, that might be on my regular cycling route? I go from Flixton through Dunham Massey, then past Arley Hall and around to Pickmere/Plumley/Northwich, and usually back through Tatton Park and Hale. My camera has gotten a bit dusty of late. For instance, I noticed one called the Governor's House that I've cycled past loads of times. Parrot of Doom 19:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be gobsmacked. It's all the fault of MF who complained that some of the country houses of Cheshire did not have articles. So I took on the challenge to produce at least a stub on all the houses in the de Figueirdo and Treuherz book. That's now done, and MF seems satisfied (phew)! Re photos, do you really need a list? Just go to Category:Country houses in Cheshire and choose any you spot without a pic. Will that do? It would greatly enhance the work of the Cheshire project, where I feel a bit lonely at present. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, I'm not reading through that lot! Tell me about the big ones that can be easily photographed, and I'll go do it :) Parrot of Doom 20:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See what you mean. I thought that some of the names might be familiar to you. The problem is that most of the articles are stubs without photos. Also I guess that some of the houses will be unapproachable without trespass. So where to start? Most of the Grade I houses have photos. Here are some Grade II* houses (at the start of the alphabet) as a start. (Not sure how they will fit into the geography of your cycling.) Alderley Old Hall, Antrobus Hall, Aston Park, Cheshire, Bexton Hall, Blackden Hall, Bostock Hall, Chelford Manor House, Clonterbrook House, Cogshall Hall, Crag Hall. Any contribution, however small or large, will be very welcome. Cheers and thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Righto. Parrot of Doom 19:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gobsmacked as well, great job Peter. Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Littledale Hall[edit]

If you start anymore can you add them to List of historic houses in the United Kingdom, or red link them there first? Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK nom for Rigby's Buildings[edit]

Hi Peter, I reviewed your nomination for Rigby's Buildings at Template:Did you know nominations/Rigby's Buildings and I have a quick question regarding the hook. Could you see my comments at the nomination page and reply there? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hargreaves Building[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Rigby's Buildings[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tower Buildings, Liverpool[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for St Mary's Church, Penwortham[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St Mary's Church, Westham[edit]

Hi Peter. I'll dig out my sources and expand this a bit. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 16:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was not sure whether or not to contact you about this, as it's more "your territory" than mine (ie you are likely to have many more sources). What I am doing at present is trying to have an article for every church in the List of ecclesiastical works by Paley and Austin. By far the greatest proportion of these are in the Northwest, but three of them happen to be in East Sussex; St Mary, Westham, St Mary, Willingdon, and St Peter, Wilmington. I did not really want to trouble you to write "full" articles, so I thought I would write stubs, for possible expansion in due course. If you would like to write articles with your usual excellent content, fine, but if not, I shall be happy to write stubs for temporary use. (I never know how busy people are on their current projects, so I do not like to ask them to do more.) Cheers, and thanks again. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I remember those three from when you were originally writing the list (probably some time last year?). I went back to Willingdon recently and got some better pictures (i.e. less dark and cloudy!), but I could do with revisiting Westham. It's always good to have the church redlinks filled in; I have them all listed on one of my user pages, and I have a sneaky look every so often to see if anybody has started an article. I find the hardest bit is actually starting the article; once it's started I can always seem to motivate myself to write a full article fairly quickly. As ever I have several different things simmering away in the planning stages: demolished churches in East and West Sussex, stuff about Crawley, the architecture of Brighton and Hove, several church articles, list of Roman Catholic churches in Arundel and Brighton Diocese... meanwhile I've started going back to some of my oldest articles, on the subject of modern railway tickets (my other main interest), and trying to overhaul those. (That is in connection with some stuff I'm doing in real life as well, where I write extensively on the subject for a specialist journal.) All a bit disorganised, but it's nice to be able to go from one thing to another depending on what I feel like doing! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 07:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for State Insurance Building, Liverpool[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for St Maxentius' Church, Bradshaw[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! I added some info from an antiquarians' visit in 1899 that speculates on how the church came to be dedicated to Maxentius. Rupert Clayton (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; and for the addition from such a splendid source. I've edited the article a bit, creating a new section for Dedication, and adding a citation. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mutiny at Sucro[edit]

Since it appears you are a very experienced editor, especially for DYK, can you help me? I am trying to submit a new DYK nomination for September 4 and not sure if I have done it right for the new procedure. Can you look at September 4 and see if I have done it right or if I need to correct something? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can see, it's all OK; it certainly looks OK on the nomination page. I guess a clear confirmation of the hook is in a page of the reference for which non-subscribers cannot access. (Hey, you're pretty experienced at DYK too.) Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs). Thanks for response. Not used to this new method yet.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think with some improvements that this article could be turned into a Good Article? Any ideas for this?--Doug Coldwell talk 20:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for butting in, and I hope Peter doesn't mind either, but a quick look at the article tells me that to reach GA there's still a bit of work to do. For starters the lead is way too short to adequately summarise the article, and it needs a thorough copyedit throughout. For instance, "The soldiers at Sucro heard of this rumor and planned a mutiny ...". Well no, they didn't hear of the rumour, they heard the rumour. "They were frustrated by many items and it then would be their chance to voice their objections." Items? "One of the first things they did was to be disrespectful to their commanding officers and didn't follow orders given to them." The second half of the sentence doesn't match the first half. "Didn't" is also too informal a register for an encyclopedia article, as is "figured" earlier in the paragraph. "They plundered towns and countrysides ...". Very strange seeing the plural "countrysides". These are just a few suggestions for the sorts of thing that would need to be fixed to have a realistic chance of success at GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 20:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks. I need some specific ideas like this...--Doug Coldwell talk 20:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might also find a peer review to be helpful before you embark on GAN. Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Malleus for "butting in"; reviewing is much more your forte than mine.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for St Lawrence's Church, Morecambe[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for St Michael's Church, Whittington[edit]

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of All Saints Church, Thorpe Bassett[edit]

Hello! Your submission of All Saints Church, Thorpe Bassett at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Suraj T 12:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

I doubt we'll ever see completely eye-to-eye about the purpose and usefulness of DYK, but I just wanted to make it clear that your offerings are a notable beacon in the darkness there as far as I'm concerned. Just in case there was any doubt in your mind. Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that; actually there is no doubt in my mind. I really appreciate what you do for me, and for WP generally (although the fruity language sometimes gets in the way of your good intentions (IMO)). Please stay around to help me when I need it. Sorry I sit on the outside of controversy, but I just get on with what I hope will be of value for those who consult WP in the future. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My view on "fruity language" is probably a little different from yours: I regard it as a sometimes necessary intensifier, which needs to be used judiciously lest it loses its impact. So far as controversy is concerned, you're paddling a wisely chosen channel. I on the other hand will never change. Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor should you! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Friendless Churches[edit]

Hello Peter, I was just mooching around on the Friends of Friendless Churches' website - were you aware that they acquired four new churches in England at the start of the year? [1]. I was wondering about updating the list page on here, but I don't know if you'd be best placed - I don't seem to be able to find very much about them. The one at Long Crichel Dorset looks particularly interesting. Rob (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for that. I am a "friend" but haven't yet received the autumn newsletter. I will add these to the lists; and they will need new articles. Do you want to do any of these; or leave it to me (in due course)? Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for St James' Church, Daisy Hill[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lancaster Carriage and Wagon Works[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bath Abbey[edit]

Hi Peter, I've been admiring your continued work on churches etc and wonder if I could ask a favour... If you had the time/inclination could you take a look at Bath Abbey? A few of us have been trying to bring this up to GA standard, however looking at a previous GA nom & other comments (detailed on the Talk:Bath Abbey) a separate section on architecture has been requested. I'm having trouble finding sources for this and wondered if you had anything or might be willing to write a paragraph or two?— Rod talk 17:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rod. This building is close to my heart, despite my being a Lancastrian now living in Cheshire. My parents met and were married in Bath, and I used to spend some weeks each summer visiting my grandmother in the city. Even as a small child, I would sit in the Abbey and wonder at its amazing architecture. Which brings me to a comment I made on the talk page in May 2008; THERE IS NO SEPARATE SECTION ON ITS ARCHITECTURE. True, there is some history of its architecture in the (too long for GA?) section on History. But no detailed description of the architecture of the Abbey as it is now. There must be sources for this (although I have none). {Have no books been written about this?) Over the years I have despaired about the progress of the article, but at least those awful lists have gone. I have nothing to offer, I'm afraid, other than encouragement. Let's have a detailed Architecture section, incorporating the information already present about the memorials, organs, and bells, plus the architecture of the structure of the exterior and interior, and the other fittings, etc. Sorry I can offer no more, but I really would like to see this as a GA, even a FA. Good luck to all participants in the project. It is (and has been) on my watch list. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I didn't realise it had personal connections. I'll look at trying to draft something on the architecture in a few days. I'm aware of one book specifically about the architecture (which I haven't managed to get hold of yet) & others have some bits mixed in with history etc, but not much.— Rod talk 18:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at starting the architecture section. It would be great if you could take a look.— Rod talk 21:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens and Graves[edit]

I don't normally do this (leaving notes on user talk pages like this), but it is rare to see three editors completely miss the obvious while arguing about something (well, actually, it is more common than you would think). I'm also not sure whether any of you are likely to look back at that talk page, so I'm dropping notes off on all your talk pages to point you to Talk:Lancaster Carriage and Wagon Works. In truth, I came close to missing the obvious myself, which is probably why I'm going the extra distance to make sure the old standby trick of putting square brackets around something isn't missed next time. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for St John the Baptist's Church, Allington[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for All Saints Church, Thorpe Bassett[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{onesource}} tagging[edit]

I've seen quite a bit of it today. What do you think's going on, just a couple of kids who don't know what they're doing? Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: I find all these tags irritating. They usually state the obvious, often result in no action being taken anyway, and look bad to the readers. If an article is unreferenced, or if it or a section need expanding, that's usually obvious. And I don't see any point in the orphan tag.
Which brings me to the merge tag that was applied to Chester city walls and List of sections of Chester city walls and associated structures. I expanded the article some time ago, and deleted the merge tag then. There has been no contribution from the perpetrator for over three months, so that tag has gone from the list as well.
I've just received the latest edition of the Cheshire volume of Pevsner, so will be occupied for some time in updating the references on the Cheshire aricles, adding any useful material, etc. Should keep me quiet. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the orphan tag, completely useless. I always remove it whenever I come across it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_I._Vardy/Archive_17&oldid=1140413377"