Hello, another great little church article on the main page today I see! Anyway, I thought it might be quite nice to make a little navigational template for the CCT, which is at Template:Churches Conservation Trust. Do you think it's suitable? Feel free to change it about! Rob (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for that — I'd just spotted it. I just wondered about adding Historic Chapels Trust to the See also section; or do you think we ought to keep it to the CoE (and Church in Wales)? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be a good addition. They're all relevant, aren't they? I suppose at some point there is also scope for adding the
Scottish Redundant Churches Trust once there is an article about them. (They don't seem to have finished their website, yet, though.) Do you think it would make sense to rename the template as something like "British redundant church trusts"? Rob (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't know about the Scottish one, although I suppose I ought to have realised there would be one. For the title, I always find the word "redundant" a bit of a turn-off, which I suppose was a reason for the Redundant Churches Fund changing their its (that's just a guess). How about Lists of British Preserved Churches (or Conserved in place of Preserved)? If we do that, CCT will have to have its five daughter lists. I also suggest we leave out "Church of England"; otherwise we will have to have all the denominations involved, which IMO would serve little purpose. A nice developing idea. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, yes I agree, actually - I only put that in there as a filler. I suppose I should have gone for "Church Commissioners". I quite like "Lists of British Conserved Churches", although I suppose that's a little bit ambigious, as I suppose working churches are also "preserved". I've had a go at revising it - what do you think? (I might start a stub about the Scottish one, just so it's there when they sort their website out. Rob (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scottish Redundant Churches Trust, shamelessly copying the style from your CCT/FoFC lists. In the process, have I missed anything out? Rob (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I like it too! An excellent list, in a short time(?). It's nice though to only have to have five churches in the list. Are you thinking of FLC — maybe when their website is up and running? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had't really thought about that, but maybe. It's perhaps a bit short, although there are only 5 churches under their care, so I suppose that's as long as it can be! As you say, I'll have to wait until their website is back up again (I can get it via the "Wayback Machine", but may as well wait for the new site). I might put it up for DYK in the meantime. Rob (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly go for DYK. I had in mind in the distant, distant, future, when all is complete, of working towards a FT. What do you think? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea, although I suppose that would mean that the article about the CCT would need to be improved to at least a GA standard. Luckily, the introductions to the individual lists are pretty good already, and then I suppose something about its history and formation could be added. Perhaps something about why CofE churches became redundant as well (it was quite often in the 1970s wasn't it?). I have their blue 1998 booklet (picked up at the wonderful St Nicholas' Chapel King's Lynn), although I suspect that's somewhat out of date now. Rob (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree; we need Churches Conservation Trust to be a GA. There's an interesting story to be told about why it was formed, how it was formed, the role of Ivor Bulmer-Thomas, its first chairman and previously founder of the Friends of Friendless Churches, how it chooses the churches to preserve, how it is financed, what it does on a day-to-day basis, its relationship with the Church Commissioners and the other church conservation charities. I've not found much inline, so I intend to contact the CCT directly to ask them where we can find published sources for this information. Then, I think, we shall have the material for a GA. Will keep in touch. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in touch with CCT. They are bringing out a new version of their website at the end of March, and suggest this may contain all the information we need. I have replied to say that I (personally) am prepared to wait for it and see if it does. If not I shall return and ask for more. Do you think we need to do anything sooner? The last two lists will not be completed for some weeks/months. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's good then, I guess it would be best to wait for that to go online, a bit like the Scottish one! I suppose it wouldn't hurt to add the generic referenced text from the regional list articles as a placeholder. Rob (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for brightening February on DYK Victuallers (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Former Salt Museum, Northwich
I've just moved the 'Salt Museum, Northwich' page to 'Weaver Hall Museum and Workhouse' as that's the name the museum adopted last year. The article needs improvements still so any suggestions would be helpful. By next week I hope to add details on the collections, visitor numbers and facilities, and also some more citations to support the statements about the building's history. Do you think a gallery of some images of museum items would be good idea? They have prehistoric, Roman, medieval and modern artefacts as well as salt industry related items.RLamb (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you. I shall watch your work on the article with interest. So far as a gallery is concerned, WP is not very keen on them. They prefer the images to be placed on Commons. See Wikipedia:Images, which says Rather than including an image gallery on an article, which could add significantly to the download size, consider creating a gallery/category on the Wikipedia Commons instead. You can then add a {{Commonscat}} template to the External Links section of the article, which takes you to it. Good luck. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for St Mary's Church, Akenham
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
A very nice piece of work - you seem to be getting through a lot of St Mary's Churches at the moment. :-) I've reviewed and passed your nomination of it on T:TDYK. Any chance you could have a look at my nomination of Cholesbury Camp, a little way above yours on T:TDYK? -- Prioryman (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been beaten to it: Dr B is back! Your article looks good too. I think that a) there are a lot of St Mary's churches and b) like the No. 11 bus, (when I was a student in London), they come in runs. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for St Margaret's Church, Abbotsley
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for this contribution to Wikipedia Victuallers (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for St Mary's Church, Barton Bendish
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Nice article. Readable, and with plenty of detail supported by accessible sources. There are just two minor GA points regarding the lead and some technical language. I'll put the review on hold until I come back from France on March 3 - that should be plenty of time to deal with the issues. SilkTork *YES! 18:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for St Michael's Church, Berechurch
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page
.
03:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 06:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
DYK for St Mary's Church, East Ruston
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, Peter. In case you hadn't noticed, I've finally bunged the above into the encyclopedia (my plan is to work (slowly) upwards from the bottom of the SE list, as I'm happier with named architects as against medieval masons and suchlike). I'm planning to add a stub on the architect of the original St Luke's - one of 3 architects called John Johnson who overlapped during the C19. Could you have a look and check the categories and Talk-page banners and so on. I might be able to wring a DYK out of this one if I think hard enough. Best. --GuillaumeTell 01:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's excellent; many thanks. Just the sort of article IMO suitable for populating the list. It's fine that you are starting with the newest. At present I am working down the East of England list; progress is good but there is still quite a lot to do. My plan is to complete the churches on that list, go for FL with it, and start working on the SE list. If I begin at the top, we may meet somewhere, sometime! Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the hook, I added a link to the source via GoogleBooks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for All Saints Church, Newton Green
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Just curious — if you know, how rare is it for a church to be partially redundant? I always assumed that Church of England church buildings were either redundant or non-redundant, not part of each; however, as an American, I could simply have missed what's actually a commonplace situation. If you reply here, please leave me a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting question. It's unusual, but not unique; at a guess, less than 5%. Examples that come to mind are St Mary's Church, Brentingby, where the body of the church has been converted into a house, but the tower has been vested in the Churches Conservation Trust, St Werburgh's Church, Derby where most of the church has been converted into commercial use, while the tower and chancel are vested in the Trust. In some cases only part of the church is still present, for example St Oswald's Church, Lassington, where the tower stands alone. But, up to now, All Saints Church, Newton Green, is the only one I can recall where part of the church is still in active use for Anglican worship, while the rest is maintained by the Trust. I hope this answers your query. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It answers my question, and provides much more information as well. Your example of St Oswalds makes me think of the Walnut Hills United Presbyterian Church, for which the situation is the same, although the article is substantially lower quality due to being created by a bot. More surprising are the two partly-commercial churches, but All Saints is definitely most surprising and most interesting. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Church of St John Maddermarket
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello Peter, we haven't met but you come highly recommended, and you're a DYK regular. Would you mind having a quick look at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Jim_Denomie? My question is whether the sourcing will be deemed sufficient for the new and improved hook. I personally think it's OK, but anytime you have sodomy on the front page it's best to be careful, I reckon. Thank you so much! Drmies (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. First, there has to be a citation directly after the hook (which there isn't). Second, and more important, I think the hook has to say (pretty well) what the source says. The source doesn't say anything about sodomy: the picture looks like it; it may be; but it may not be. IMO it is too dangerous to use this hook without the text being more direct about it. Hope that helps (a bit). Cheers, and thanks for contacting me. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, your concerns suffice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Old British buildings
Hi. I noted your interest in old churches and listed buildings. I've requested a bot to draw up a full list of listed buildings in the UK organized by town/county. Please comment Listed Buildings here and offer your views on whether this would be a good idea or not.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
possibly notable churches
Hi. I frequently notice your adding new items to church disambiguation pages, as you complete new articles on churches around England. Seems like great work, always!
In response to another editor, I've been cleaning up
MOS:DABRL). On this page, there are 7 unsupported redlink entries in the England section. Could you possibly please take a look at those, and possibly add support for them, if not start articles right away? The other editor involved is holding off while an "under construction" tag is on the dab page, and then will likely remove any items he/she deems are not perfect. --doncram 17:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for your query. I have been puzzled by the redlinks on this page and on corresponding disambig pages, and I don't understand why they are there. Whether the churches are notable or not, IMO they should not be included on this page unless there is a linked article. So far as I am concerned they can (should?) be deleted. If and when an article is written, they can then be reinstated. Sorry, I do not have the time to write articles on them at present, notable or not, as I am engrossed in other projects. Hope that helps (a bit). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. To explain a bit, I happen to be involved with these pages first because i was working in general in supporting development of articles on NRHP-listed places in the U.S. For these, we have a big list of 85,000 or so named, probably Wikipedia-notable places, actually now all listed on county- or city-organized list articles indexed from
List of RHPs
. From the National Register database I can run programs and identify that there are multiple places having exactly the same name. It helps to set up disambiguation for these in advance, i.e. to set up a dab page showing three places named exactly "James R. Jones House" or showing two places named "St. James Church and Rectory", with "(City, State)" disambiguation phrases attached, even before there are articles for any of them. This "pre-disambiguation" allows us to resolve article name conflicts in advance, avoiding cases where an editor starts one article believing it to be the only usage of that name, and then is likely to get mad and respond poorly later when other editors want to start other articles and set up disambiguation and in particular to rename that first one started. By setting up the dab pages including a lot of redlinks, it also has helped improve all the county- and city-organized list-articles, because the fact that 3 separate list-articles include a link to "James R. Jones House" dab page is now apparent, and their links can be made more specific. Instead of setting up editors in several geographic areas to be poised to create an article at the common base name, we then get editors properly focused on creating an article at a permanently acceptable fully-disambiguated name. The dab pages also directly help readers who are actually looking for one of the redlink places, a) verifying for them that they are spelling the name correctly and don't need to keep looking, but b) telling them no there is not yet an article in Wikipedia for it, and c) it is probably Wikipedia-notable as a topic and they could start an article for it. That's in general why i am involved, from adding the NRHP entries.
On church dab pages, I also notice the addition of scattered redlinks relating to churches around the world. This represents small contributions by new editors, asserting here is a start for an article, first adding it to a list of articles to be created (how they interpret the disambiguation page). For U.S. redlink items on dab pages of places that are not NRHP-listed, if i investigate the topic by searching, i find that i usually conclude the redlink is for a non-notable, local church. For non-U.S. ones besides in England, I usually find the redlink is for an obviously notable place. So, it seems respectful of the new editors' wishes to simply start the articles as stubs. That is really what they should do, perhaps, but they may not know how, and it seems to them that the first step is to add the item to a list of places of the same name. Just starting minimal stub articles for the English ones, if they actually seem notable, is one option.
Or, for ones that are clearly notable, another way to "defend" the entry on the dab page, is to add mention of the church into a city/town article, as a redlink there, but in context. And then one can provide a supporting bluelink in the dab entry as in ", a historic church in TOWN" (where TOWN is a bluelink), and it will then comply with dab page rules and survive the scrutiny of disambiguation-focused editors.
I happen to think it makes Wikipedia a more rational, friendly place, if we help the new editors along where with their inclusionist perspective, where we can easily agree that their nominated places are indeed Wikipedia-notable, by either way of supporting the dab entry. Of course you don't have to choose to be involved in this; it doesn't matter too greatly whether the redlink is removed and not added until later when a good big article like those you specialize in, is created. I just wonder if it would be easy for you as an apparently well-informed editor on English churches, to identify which of the English redlinks are in fact probably quite notable, and to further along others' constructive involvement. Happy to exchange views further, or not. I do think you do very good work, and you definitely do not have to get involved with this stuff at all, if it does not interest you. --doncram 13:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very impressed by the way this is organised in USA; we are miles behind! I have a (very) little offering to make on the St James' churches. Would you like me to have a look at the redlinks over the weekend, advise which of those are notable, and maybe even write a two-sentence stub that would confirm their notability (for example, if they are listed, they are notable in the opinion of English Heritage) — which should be good enough to deter the deleters? Being a highly-developed cynic (after years of experience) I suspect that some English editors will have added the name of their favourite nearby church, notable or not, just so they can say it's mentioned on WP! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, to start minimal stubs for the listed ones. That is a nod to the adding-type newbie people, and we can leave the rest of the redlinks to be deleted by others if they must. I did find that all the non-England, non-U.S. redlinks seemed notable, and started articles (or added mention to another article and set up a supporting bluelink) for all of them, on that church dab page.
About organizing in England, i recently saw a bot request about starting articles or lists from English Heritage. Any computerized big approach should include an effort to create or add to dab pages, as part of the upfront development, and part of what a computer can help with very well. I do think that my effort to "pre-disambiguate" in the U.S. has been worthwhile. I wasn't clear about the likelihood of a bot actually working though. Cheers, --doncram 22:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all the English St James' churches are now blue. A combination of new stubs, some retitling, a redirect, a deletion of a church already "done" under a different title, and the Rotherham church deleted because it was ambiguous (no such church IN Rotherham, and two around it, that needed different titles anyway, so no idea which one was intended). Having done that, what about the other redlinks for English churches in disambig pages? I'm not sure what has been achieved by this (very limited) exercise. Do we want stubs on all the listed St James' churches in England — and then what about St Peter, St Mary ...? It would be good to have something on all the listed English churches; but that might take some time! Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
About other English redlinks in church dabs, I'll let you know if I notice deletions of them going on, and perhaps you could help "save" the mention of Listed ones at least, as needed?
I do think English Listed buildings ought to get added systematically to all these church dabs, and commented towards that at the bot request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 41/Archives/ 23#British Listed Buildings. The first step however I think is for lists of the Listed buildings to be created, which i do support. That is first, or simultaneous with generating temporary lists of English churches to be added to the corresponding dab pages. Cheers, --doncram 21:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"To the west of this is the Library, and to the left, the Morning Room". The conjunction of "west" and "left" seems rather odd.
Gardens
"The larger garden is almost square in shape." Which is the larger garden? The immediately preceding sentence was talking about fish ponds.
"There is some doubt regarding the dating of the creation of the garden,[1] but it is generally accepted that they were a formal Elizabethan pleasure garden." An obvious mismatch there, but which garden are we talking about?
"To the north of the hall are four fish ponds." This ought to be moved somewhere, as it's breaking up the narrative flow about the gardens.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for your comment on my user page. I spotted above that the Northwich Salt Museum has been renamed, so added that in and linked to the article. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for St Peter's Church, Sudbury
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Peter, I'm reviewing your latest nomination. I have "aggravations" elsewhere "Up N'rth" so I'm decided to do yours instead (on the basis there there will be no aggro with this one). Pyrotec (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Delighted to hear that. I try not to cause aggro, but I do have form! If you dare, have a look at this. But I am sure you will not behave like that reviewer. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must be getting too "soft", in future I must remember to be more "nit picking" when I review your nominations. :-) My form is here - well the polite version. The |ref=harv is some "blackmagic" that no one told me about and it drove me up the wall trying to resolve the problem. Its similar in some ways to the wikilink as I call it. Your article has some Havard references, such as "de Figueiredo & Treuherz 1988, pp. 99–102", when the |ref=harv is added to the full references clicking on "de Figueiredo & Treuherz 1988, pp. 99–102" or "Anon. 1992, p. 8" in the Note subsection takes you to the corresponding citation in the Bibliography subsection. I once reviewed/edited an article where some citations worked and some did not; and these were the fix. Pyrotec (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like "soft" reviewers; they do not evoke anger (and I'm getting a bit elderly for that stuff!). I thought that Churchill might have been the cause of your northerly trouble. The Harvard links seemed to work without the extra field, but I'll try to add it in future (is there a Harvardmafia too?). Happy days. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Church of St Cyriac and St Julitta, Swaffham Prior
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Many thanks for your invitation. They look an interesting selection of heritage buildings. But I'm afraid that I am in the middle of a rather large project in making all the redlinks blue in
this list. Then, living in Cheshire, I have more work to do on local architecture. So why not have a go at expanding the stubs you have created yourself? There are plenty of models for you to follow. A tip: the Grades are in Roman numerals, I, II* and II. Best wishes and good luck. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
DYK for Oxhey Chapel
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Finally managed to look through the whole thing. Just one outstanding issue for me, which is the statement that St Andrew, Gunton, has an impressive portico. From the picture it does indeed look impressive to me, but I'm no historian of ecclesiastical architecture. I'd be happier if that were a cited quote from an expert.
One other thing struck me as I was looking through, that you're making a lot of work for yourself with the alt texts. Bear in mind that they're alternatives to the images, not descriptions of them; I generally just use "alt=Photograph".
Thanks for all you've done — much appreciated once again. I've deleted "impressive". And thanks for the advice on alt text. I thought I read somewhere that one had to describe it "as to a blind person". Having re-read the instructions I realise that, as you say, if it's just a photo of some thing described fully in the text "alt=Photograph" should suffice. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter. I will try to provide a review in the next day or two; have been busy with
this big one and another larger-than-normal article, but completion is not far off! On the South East England CCT list, I will try and do the three remaining Sussex ones soon; in particular, I'll pick up the one at Tortington. My work colleague looks after the church on behalf of the CCT—maintaining the interior, doing the gardening and suchlike—and she has promised to look out for guidebooks, published info etc. Also, I have found a decent DYK hook...!! Odd that it's only Grade II, but there has been some restoration. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the message; you certainly have some mega-projects. And thanks for offering to "do" the Sussex churches. I'm gradually working down the list, and User:GuillaumeTell said he would do some of the newer churches. My philosophy about the articles is to write something bigger than a stub but, with the limited sources available to me, they are mainly Start Grade (with the occasional C). I know you have much better material, but it is up to you (obviously) to write what you want. Basically it's to get the redlinks blue. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for All Saints Church, Haugham
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Andor Harvey Gomme's first name was a family joke? If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I liked the Andor twist of a hook. ....These events are usually in London. Fancy a shorter trip? See here - there are 3 nearby churches! :). Cheers Roger Victuallers (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, a nice idea. But I am booked for a Cheshire Archaeology Day in Winsford (much nearer, and I've paid for it!). Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for All Saints Church, West Stourmouth
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi again. I saw a comment on the FLC in relation to dates of redundancy ... this might be what you need. Each link is a PDF showing dates, present uses etc. for all redundant churches for a single diocese. Only problem is, the URL seems to change frequently (if the Diocese of Chichester list, which I've been using on WP for a few years, is anything to go by!). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that looks very useful. I had come across some of these pages on Google searches, but not really understood them, and moved on. Can you advise if my interpretation is correct: in the Date Effective column the date (or the earliest date if there are more than one) is the date of redundancy; if the church has been vested in, say, the CCT, it is the date opposite Preservation in the Future Type column (followed by the appropriate charity in the Preservation Detail column)? If so, that's a lot of work to be done (but worthwhile work); if you create a lot of articles, the time taken to maintain them that may mean that there is no time for new articles (true or false?). The CCT has changed all its URLs recently, and I am struggling to update them in all the articles (the lists have been done); and I am changing the IoE links in the Cheshire articles to Heritage Gateway links. Phew! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply (was finishing that cems & crems article!). Yes, your interpretation agrees with mine, which is that the redundancy date is the first listed, and the "Date Effective" next to "Future Type = Preservation" is the date the church was vested in the CCT. I'm reviewing the East of England list at the moment. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm glad you agree, because I have been adding this info to some new (and some older) articles.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having noted your very considerable work on the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic article, I wonder if you might be interested in commenting at the peer review of the article on Sir Thomas, who was no stranger to the Phil. Quite understand if not, of course, but any observations would be gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking me to comment. I'm not realy a reviewer, but I read through it and spotted a few trifles you may like to address. An excellent article, interesting and readable, and pretty comprehensive (but see my last comment!). The article should go well. Best wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid! Thanks so much for your comments. Very much to the point. If I can ever reciprocate please don't hesitate. Tim riley (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
St Mary's Church, Fleet Marston
Hi can you check your DYK entry for St Mary's Church, Fleet Marston, there is a problem with the hook.Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter - do you know about this. St Werburghs is opposite, we have pics of old churchs, a cathedral and a pugin church in walking distance ... Victuallers (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; yes I did know about it. But I already have an engagement for Saturday — Cheshire Archaeology Day in Winsford. I hope the Derby event is a big success. Best wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change of URL address at St Johns Chester
Mr Vardy,
Sorry to disturb you. I see that you are very involved in updating the St. John the Baptist site in Chester. I have previously contributed to that page by adding an external link that provides all of the details of the remaining gravestones at the location. My old URL expired, but I have a new one. It is http://www.historicalgems.co.uk/Gravestones-St-Johns-Chester%282363808%29.htm
I do not want to damage the editing that you have undertaken on this page as it looks very professional. Would you consider updating the URL for me?
Thanks,
Wayne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcwgresford (talk • contribs) 14:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is ok. I asked only because I'd almost run off an, inferior, article of my own in pursuit of completing all the outstanding entries for "Grade II* listed buildings in Greater Manchester", before I came across this one. But it's one less to do and, if I may say so, a fine article. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It IS a strange title for a church. I wrote it in some detail because I was intrigued by Sharpe's "pot" churches. I should have done more redirects at the time — to prevent this kind of confusion. Good luck with the rest of the articles. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for All Saints Church, Little Somborne
nominate
) 16:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Railway accidents in Vietnam DYK
Hey—thanks for reviewing the DYK nom for Railway accidents in Vietnam! I've replied to your comments there. In a nutshell, I've ref'd the original hook, and have a counter-argument about the ALT1, although I'd prefer the original hook anyway. Cheers! --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 17:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Malleus. Not being an owl, I have only just discovered it. Many thanks for the part you played in its success. It proved to be much more difficult than planned because the CCT completely changed its website during the process, so I had to change all the URLs, and get rid of some information no longer available. Working now on the last list to complete the set — SE England. I continue to be amazed at the number and variety of old heritage buildings still in existence.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for St Mary's Church, Sandwich
nominate
) 00:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Monsters and things
Hi Peter. I did St Mary Magdalene's Church, Tortington last night, which was interesting: lots of entertaining descriptions of the carved monsters and suchlike. Of particular interest at the moment, though, is the very recent (last 24 hours?!) overhaul of the English Heritage website, such that they now have a fully searchable list integrating listed buildings and the other types of site they are in charge of. This might supersede Heritage Gateway—hopefully not completely, though, otherwise we have some ref-fixing work to do!—but at the moment it looks like it sits alongside it and complements it. I have just tested it by searching for a building I know was listed recently (2009) and which I couldn't find anywhere on Heritage Gateway: the South Street Free Church in Eastbourne. Wouldn't you know it: not only does it appear, but a Heritage Gateway six-digit ID number is shown (under the heading "Legacy System Information", which makes me suspect they may be demising Heritage Gateway in the future). I note that the "new" list uses a completely different 7-digit ID, interestingly, and the map at the bottom looks useful. Anyway, I like what I have seen so far; go in and have a look round and see if you can find anything interesting. I'm offline for a few days from Wednesday (a long weekend in Dublin), but I'll pick up St John the Evangelist's Church, Chichester after I get back; various books have info, not least Pevsner, and Worthing library has lots of Chichester stuff. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the article and the info. I've had a preliminary look at the website and, like you, found a building listed in 2009 in Widnes (I did not know about this one myself). So it could be that Heritage Gateway will be frozen in a similar fashion to Images of England. At least the new site still contains the old number as a "UID", whatever that means (with luck Universal Identity Number!). Time will tell which website we will have to use in the future. I will stick with HG until this list is complete. We then may have the task of changing thousands of URLs (horrors). I have not yet mastered the finer points of searching the new website, but I suppose that will come with pain and practice.
Incidentally two of the Harvard refs in St Mary Magdalene's Church, Tortington did not work (ie did not jump down to the bibliography). I've fixed the Nairn and Pevsner — you have to use "|last2= |first2= |author2-link= " fields, not "coauthor= ". Also the Whiteman & Whiteman is not working; this is because the date in the refs and the date in the bibliography differ. I did not fix it because I do not know whether it should be 1994 or 1998.
Still all is not bad. Lancs have just beaten Sussex by an innings.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a spectacular collapse ... I'll say we made the wrong call on the toss. Thanks for fixing the refs; I think I copied the bibliography entries from another article rather than from my definitive book list (on one of my userpages), where they are all correct (I remember coming across the |last2= problem before and fixing it there). Whiteman ran to 2 editions, 1994 and 1998; in the old days I used the 1994 edition, but then I found the 1998 one and went with that instead. "Universal Identity Number" looks a likely explanation; it seems a sensible development. I've just noticed the interactive map which plots the location of listed buildings etc.; a very welcome feature! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter I. Vardy. First of all congratulations to getting List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the East of England to FL status. I noticed that one image is missing, and that it was requested in the FL nomination. Luckily, I live quite close to Edworth, and as its the half-term, should be able to cycle there tomorrow and get the picture for the article. I'll let you know when it's uploaded. Regards, Acather96 (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's great; we rather hoped we would find a "local" who could do the honours. Many thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
St Mary's Church, Shrewsbury
Do you have any opportunity to take photos (or get them taken) from stained glasses in St Mary Church, Shrewsbury ? I had found [2], but the owner did not answer to me. This is of interest to me because it would enable to illustrate the Foigny Abbey.
Many thanks, --Anneyh (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't think I can help. A pity about flickr: they look good photos. I don't live near enough; and all I can find is this: which I guess is no use to you. Good luck in your search. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice gift. I feel a bit lost there (so far I mostly contributed to wp:fr). Do you know of any place where photo requests can be done? --Anneyh (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanking you for all your dedication and terrific work on churches, but especially for introducing a page on Saint John Maddermarket, from where I was able to find a magnificent portrait of the 4th Duchess of Norfolk. Kevin Faulkner 15:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
