User talk:Peter I. Vardy/Archive 19

Runcorn

Is there any particular reason why the population growth listed in the History section isn't presented as a horizontal table? Any objection to me maybe changing it? Malleus Fatuorum 15:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason, other than that is the way I did it — a long time ago — and you may have noticed that I've since moved away from geographical articles. At that time the Runcorn article (my home town for my sins) was in such bad shape that I had to do something about it, and that's part of what I did. Any improvement to the table, or anything else in the article, would be heartily welcomed. Thanks for the offer. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look at that later. BTW, are you the same Peter I. Vardy who wrote the "Thomas Hazlehurst and his family" article? Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean the one in Cheshire History (2005–6)? Yes, that's me — there's only one PIV ...! It originated as a project for my OU degree, and that led to the only serious historical research I have done (or will do). Thomas Hazlehurst (businessman) and Thomas Hazlehurst (chapel builder) are spin-offs. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

George Edmund Street's works

Hi Peter. While doing my latest list, I found a new church attributed to him. However, unlike all the others in List of new churches by G. E. Street, it's not listed (and probably won't be, since its moderately unpleasant conversion to a house!). As that list only contains listed churches, should I add it to List of miscellaneous works by G. E. Street, or should I change the scope of the churches list to include it? Let me know what you think would be best. (It's the former Rake Mission Church at Rake, West Sussex, incidentally.) Best, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. The rule of thumb I would personally use would be that if it were designed as a church (or chapel) it would be best in the "new churches" list; and in the notes explain its later conversion (but nothing hard and fast about this — it just seems to make sense to base it on the original planning intention). All the buildings in the Street lists to date are listed because I found them in the English National List. There must be loads more; for example I know there are some in Wales, Dublin and Rome! And while you were writing to me last night I discovered a "new" one in the latest Cheshire Pevsner that I can't find (yet); and that must be unlisted. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Afternoon Peter. I've had a look in all my sources, and surprisingly only one confirms that Street worked at Rye; even Pevsner, while mentioning the restoration, doesn't name names. Anyway, Sussex Churches and Chapels confirms that he was responsible, and also gives an interesting quote about his views on and justification of church restorations. I might write a sentence about it in the lead. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 15:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Just finished digitizing Gothic Architecture of Spain by Street. Please do not undo the reference.Cbgrfwiki (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. I guess the previous reference was premature — to something not yet there. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Passion

He was despised --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Most appropriate today. I am very impressed by your work on this article, and on today's lead DYK — particularly the musical excerpts. Congratulations; and have a very good Easter. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Holy Trinity Church, Brathay

Orlady (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Congratulations, and thanks for your many, many contributions. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Source requests

Hi Peter, I would like to complete a spot-check of your sources for Edmund Sharpe as has become the custom at FAC. Since I can really only access the 1851 Sharpe book, I'm requesting that you provide screenshots or scans of the following: Price p. 29, Pollard & Pevsner p. 223, and Hughes p. 570. These cannot be posted on Wikipedia—please email them to me. If you are unable to provide these, you will probably have to wait for a spot-check by someone who has access to these books. --Laser brain (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Done — by e-mail yesterday. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Lewis Vullamy and the list of his works

Hi, with respect to Lewis Vulliamy, List of works by Lewis Vulliamy on large houses and List of ecclesiastical works by Lewis Vulliamy - the bio on the lists looks better than the one on the artist's own page - but the repetition of the content is not good. Could you please try to have the bio on the bio page, and not repeat it elsewhere? This would also avoid those copyright warning notices that keep popping up... --Alvestrand (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with the article Lewis Vulliamy, but I did create the lists. The lists are not biographies; they are lists with a lead approaching that suitable for FL status. The only "copy violation" is that the lead is almost identical in the two lists (and that's logical). I hope I have added the correct tag to the talk page of the appropriate list. If you are interested in seeing how the biography/list combination works have a look at this FT. What we need now is an excellent biographical article on Vulliamy. Any offers? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Lancaster Priory

Hi Peter, I noticed the link http://www.priory.lancaster.ac.uk/timeline.html is now dead, and it is used quite a lot as a reference in the Lancaster Priory article. Just thought you might like to know. Thanks, Mark M (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear! But I've found the site archived and will replace the urls when I have time; or one day it should maybe be rewritten. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, congrats on the recent FA win! Mark M (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Grade I listed churches in Cheshire

I've finished looking through now. Don't be afraid to revert any of the changes I've made if you don't like them, and good luck at FLC. George Ponderevo (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your excellent service. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts...

...as to a good image to illustrate Anglo-Saxon architecture in English churches? I'm trying to find a really nice image on the wiki to illustrate a section on "Anglo-Saxon churches", and I thought I might ask your advice! Any ideas welcomed... Hchc2009 (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I live in a part of Britain that has virtually nothing from this period, so I don't know much about it. Two suggestions: have a look at Category:Standing Anglo-Saxon churches and, on Commons, have a look through the category "Anglo-Saxon churches in England". Good luck. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Harrison (architect)

• "The bridges he designed at the start and end of his career incorporated innovative features". What about his other bridges? Or was it just those at the start and end of his career, and the rest were conventional? George Ponderevo (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Each of these two bridges made a big advance in bridge design, nationally in one case, world-wide in the other; doing this once in a career is enough for one man, to do it twice is exceptional. Nothing wrong with the rest of his bridges desigend using well-tried designs. Is the phrase confusing? Is there a better way of putting it? Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It might just be me, not sure, but the way it's phrased seems odd. Is it relevant that one innovation was at the start of his career and the other at the end? Was it a bridge he designed at the start of his career and another one at the end? If so, to talk about "bridges designed at the start and end of his career" is potentially rather misleading. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be less ambiguous to say something like "A bridge he designed at the start of his career, and another shortly before his death (or whatever, to indicate towards the end of his career), incorporated innovative features"? That of course leaves open the door for the question "What innovative features?" George Ponderevo (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

PS. I doubt any of this will have an impact on a GA nomination, probably more relevant for FAC. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• "It consists of an archway with Doric columns costing £600". Was it the columns that cost £600 or the whole memorial? George Ponderevo (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• "... Ionic half-columns some 23 feet (7 m) high". That's rather ambiguous; does it mean that some were 23 feet high and others were either shorter or longer than that, or is it a way of being vague about their precise height?

• I think you'd have some objections at FAC about using the inflation template to give present-day monetary values for capital projects such as bridges; might be better to use proportion of GDP or something, but all the issues I've raised are really to do with taking the article to FAC, which I doubt you'll be in a hurry to do anyway. For GAN this ought to be a shoe-in. It's a very nice piece of work. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Many thanks for all the trouble you've taken. I've dealt with the points above; I'm always fascinated that being so close to what you having written means that you can't see the obvious. Anyway it's been nominated, so let's hope for a reasonable reviewer. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know the answer to that question. I tend to use the calculator at the National Archives web site [here] (but its no longer maintained). The Bank of England also have tools [here]. Pyrotec (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Peter, A fine article that I believe could make WP:FAC in due cause. I've finished most of the GA review, but you got a few (but not many) actions to do first and then I'm happily award it GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• It's now a GA. Well done. Pyrotec (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Many thanks for a very fair and helpful review. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Grade I listed churches in Greater Manchester

Great work as usual Peter. The weather is rubbish right now but if you'd like better images for that list, let me know and I'll get what I can for you. Parrot of Doom 14:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I always welcome your improvements — especially if they give you some good and interesting exercise. Some of the photos are not very good — but the churches are a bit scattered, so you will cover some miles. Cheers. PS Sorry to see you've been experiencing a bit of trouble recently. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahh don't worry about that, the episode opened up an interesting debate and I think lessons may have been learnt by some. Not by me though ;) It's a shame the weather is so rubbish, most of those churches are easily within range for me. Having something to cycle to just makes life more interesting :) Parrot of Doom 21:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Transfiguration Church in Kovalyovo

Hi Peter, you were recommended by me as someone well familiar with the terminology related to ecclesiastical architecture. My article Transfiguration Church in Kovalyovo is currently on DYK review, and there have been some questions I am not able to answer. I would appreciate very much if you could copyedit the article, it is not that long. It is an Orthodox Church, but it should not be so much different. I will also ask Ghirlandajo. Thanks in advance.

WikiProject Country Houses

I was wondering if you or you know anybody who'd be interested in such a project. One of my chief loves is British country houses and I don't at present see a project set up to help coordinate it and to collaborate over. If interested let me know and I'll consider making a proposal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me. I'm not sure, mainly because of the boundaries of such a project. Would it be just country houses in Britain (searching for "country house" redirects to English country house, which is a bit odd)? We need a pretty clear definition; especially when included in List of country houses in the United Kingdom is 10 Downing Street, for example. And there must be country houses elsewhere; did not, say, the French have retreats in the country as well as city/town residences?

Perhaps it's because I'm not much of a project-supporter sort of person, I'm not enthusiastic. But if such a project were created, I would play a part in contributing articles (see Category:Country houses in Cheshire; I think I've written or collaborated in most of those). Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The idea is really to have a project page for organizing houses of Great Britain, to list GAs and FAs on and try to improve organization and coverage rather than a project as such as most of us tend to work by ourselves or with someone rather than as a group as such.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Working in such a way on British houses, in both town and country, sounds a good idea. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Lancashire Churches

Hi Peter,

You may have noticed that I’ve added a few Grade IIs to Lancashire Churches. I’ve done this in the hope of luring your church expertise over to my neck of the woods (no hurry). I’d have a go myself but they’d just be poor copies :( During the process I’ve realised that there are lots in this area that are still to be added. Should I continue adding new ones? Is there anything more I can do to help/entice you?? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I had noticed. I guess there are plenty more Grade II churches to add. As for luring me (!), there are some Grade II* Lancashire churches yet to do, which are a priority. I've made sure that there is an article on all the Grade I Lancashire churches, and at present I'm working through the Grade I churches in Cumbria (even greater priority?). So why not have a go yourself (if you're interested)? The sort of format and sources I use for church articles seems to work (for me, at least). Try a church article (or two) yourself, if you like, using similar sources, and give me a shout if you get stuck. IMO there should be an article on all listed churches — they are all notable — (Cheshire is now complete), but it's a big job. Any help (with good-enough articles) is welcomed. If you look around the country, I think the Northwest is ahead of most of the field (Somerset and Hampshire excepted). Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(WP:TPS): Can't be all bad to be trapped with gems like this?! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not guilty! This is the excellent work of User:Belovedfreak. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently Miles Thompson also designed St Mary's Church, Windermere. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a great article about one of a surprisingly large number of interesting buildings in what (when it isn’t raining) can be a beautiful part of the world. Price Charles has even become a fan don’t you know. If someone could just fix the economy, housing market, crime rate and many of the inhabitants’ political views, life would be great! I’d pester User:Belovedfreak for (more) help but she (I assume) seems to have disappeared. Hopefully it wasn’t anything I said!

I’ll probably get around having a go at them eventually, but right now my time here is very limited, and I’m just tinkering for half an hour here or there. Although my work back log is probably quite manageable by some standards, at the rate I’m getting through it, I’m probably a year away from looking at new church articles. St John the Devine in Cliviger has the grave of James Yorke Scarlett, I was working on the article recently and thought of you. Like I said absolutely no hurry, I was just hoping get them in someone else’s queue, however long it may be.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're interested in the Crimean War, you may be interested in Grand Crimean Central Railway. It may have won the war, or certainly played a big part! Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Annie Horniman

Well, do you know anyone else? --The Theosophist (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No, but someone might. If it's your own observation, it comes under the heading of "original research" and is not OK for WP. Find an authoritative citation, and it's OK. Have a look at Wikipedia:No original research. I know it's frustrating, but that's the standard required for statements in WP. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Lawrence's Church, Appleby

Thanks from the DYK team. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/St Andrew's Church, Crosby Garrett

I have created this nomination on St Andrew's Church, Crosby Garrett, just for you. I was going to create a DYK nom for List of ecclesiastical works by Alfred Waterhouse, but I guess you know the steps of DYK nomination. So I'll leave that to you then. --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know if they will regard the hook as "interesting" enough, but let's wait and see. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Michael's Church, Burgh by Sands

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Mary's Church, Abbeytown

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work on churches

Hello Peter. I would just like to let you know how much I appreciate your enormous contribution of articles on churches since April 2007. They now run into several hundreds. The church articles are often backed by lists, biogrpahies of architects or articles on related topics. All are very well prepared from the start with sections on the history and architecture as well as boxes giving all the basic details, nearly always with an image. And all are backed by reliable references. Recently you seem to have stepped up the pace, often producing two or three articles per day. Last but not least, you continue to submit the most interesting articles to DYK which also requires vetting other DYK submissions. Here you frequently contribute useful suggestions and advice. Yesterday, for example, (3 July) two of the DYKs were yours. I realize all this has required an enormous amount of time and effort. Your work also represents an outstanding contribution to WikiProject Architecture. Thanks once again for your excellent work which I hope will continue in the months and years to come. - Ipigott (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks: that's a very kind and unexpected message. It's all a lot of fun, and I'm learning much as I go. It keeps me conscious in retirement, and saves me from sleeping in front of the TV. Best wishes to you in your work on WP. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Every now and then it gets noticed that you are an awesome Wikipedian (18 June 2010 and 14 March 2012) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have a moment, please look at one of the few churches I introduced here, Unionskirche, Idstein, the GA reviewer asked for more on the architecture, I don't know the terms so well, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent help there, please keep it watched and feel free to keep improving it. I listed a few things on a personal "wishlist" on top of the rewievers remarks. I looked at your great examples and will do so again when I have more time, but right now I want to concentrate on other topics, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Building stone

You may (or of course may not) find these interesting. [1], [2] Hope you're well. J3Mrs (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks: certainly interesting, 'though complex. Anyway I've copied them to my hard disc. Runcorn Historical Society has been collecting details of buildings containing Runcorn stone (more accuately, stone from the Runcorn quarries) here and I had hoped for more from these sources, but I only found the "Iron Church" on Blackburn Road, Bolton (GM p. 15). Now what do you know about that? It's not in Tin tabernacle, so far as I can see. Oh yes, I'm fine (having recently got rid of an annoying virus). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting to see how far the Runcorn stone travelled. I'm familiar with it in the Leigh & Atherton churches. Not much stone in those towns so I was always fascinated by the few stone buildings I saw there. The Iron Church was replaced by a stone church. [3] So few in Greater Manchester. J3Mrs (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think we have enough info to add it to the Runcorn "list". But if you come across any buildings containing Runcorn stone, and not in the list (with good references, of course), please let me know. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wilmington

Evening Peter. Looks like quite a thorough start already! I'll add my various book sources to the bibliography now, then will make some additions from Wednesday evening onwards, all being well. No doubt I can find a fun fact somewhere for a DYK nomination. Surprisingly this is one of the few Sussex churches I haven't yet been for photos; it's not the easiest to get to. One of these days I will get round to expanding St Mary's Church, Westham as well (another Paley and Austin one from ages ago), but I think there is a book in Eastbourne library that I need to get and use. Willingdon is the other local one of theirs, if I remember rightly. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've expanded it as far as I can with the sources I have to hand, although some delving around in e.g. the Sussex Archaeological Collections will probably reveal some more stuff. I'll set up a joint nom for DYK tomorrow, not that there any particularly exciting facts (perhaps the ancient yew tree has the most potential). Best, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries; I had a free evening for once, and it seemed like ages since I wrote a church article (actually it's only 3 months, according to my contributions list)! Of course it helps fill a gap in my Wealden places of worship as well – only another 50-odd notable ones to go (!). Lately I've been doing some large scale research into the p.o.w. in Kent, having acquired some relevant sources, rather than actual article-writing. I'll pick up Willingdon at some point soonish. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit out of my depth

The author of this article, which was CSD tagged as a copyright violation earlier today, asked me to help improve it, but what I know about church architecture is basically very little to nothing. I've deleted all of the copyrighted material and started again with it, but I'm struggling with its architectural style. A quote from the church's own web site seems to say that it's in an early Decorated style, but it was built in the mid-1860s, and the Wikipedia article seems to suggest that the Decorated style died out in the 15th or 16th century, so I'm thoroughly confused. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Just nipping in here with a quick comment (sorry Peter for borrowing your talk page!); I've added some data to the infobox in the meantime. The website has made the common mistake of using terms relating to Gothic architecture imprecisely. The three periods of English Gothic architecture – in order, Early English, Decorated and Perpendicular – were from the medieval era; but from the late 18th/early 19th century they came back into fashion in a big way, especially for ecclesiastical design. Especially in the Church of England, it came to be seen that medieval styles were the only "correct" form for religious buildings. This was the Gothic Revival. The three subdivisions of Gothic architecture were still applied to Gothic Revival: hence Early English Gothic Revival, Decorated Gothic Revival and Decorated Perpendicular Revival. Anyway, English Heritage have given it an extensive write-up in their listed building report, so there's some useful material there for expansion. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 07:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

My response was under way, then Hassocks beat me to it (he must get up earlier than me!). So there you have it; and better than I could do it. The clue is the use of the phrase "Early Decorated Gothic Revival style" in the National Heritage List, the key word being "Revival". Hope that helps — if not, let me know. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That's great, many thanks to both of you. As you say Hassocks, there's a good deal of useful information on the English Heritage site, and the fact the church is Grade II* listed is enough for notability and prevent it being tagged for deletion again, which is all I was trying to do, to help. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Andrew's Church, Dacre

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Middle Ages / England in the Middle Ages

Stalking someone else's talk page, I spotted that England in the Middle Ages is quite a decent article now, compared to how it was a few days ago. You might want to link to that in future, rather than the general Middle Ages article, if you want to explain "Medieval" with a wikilink. Just a thought. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks very good, and a better link for church architecture articles. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Mary and St Peter's Church, Wilmington

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of George Enoch Grayson

The article George Enoch Grayson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

So he was an architect, but how is he notable? Any notable works? Awards? Sources?

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Alexf^(talk) 12:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• I strongly object to the deletion tag being dumped on the article without prior discussion. See my comment on its talk page. I have deleted the tag, and hope you will be more courteous in future. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Cuthbert's Church, Edenhall

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Mary's Church, Gosforth

Orlady (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Oswald's Church, Grasmere

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

List of works by F. X. Velarde

I'm a little puzzled why you made the article under this title instead of an article about the architect, presumably to be titled Francis X. Velarde]] ? Surely anyone looking would look primarily for the name? Normally I would just move it, but you are obviously very experienced in this area. I see by your user page that many articles have been made under this title, and I'm really puzzled. Is this standard practice here for architects, and why? It is opposite to the practice for all other professions, where a list such as that would be a supplemental page, only made if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a dilemma. When you look at the article as it is, it's really a list rather than an article, because the lead is so sparse. The trouble is, with this and other architects, it has been difficult with the sources available to me to make the lead more substantial. I have no idea about "standard practice"; I have just tried to be pragmatic. The ideal, I guess, is the FT I wrote consisting of (John Douglas (architect) and four associated lists. If you search for "F. X. Velarde", the list comes to the top of the page, so from the practical point of view of the user, that should not be a problem. But I take your point. I think what I will do is to expand the lead into a stub, with a few examples, and include a "See also" to the list. Do you think that would be best solution? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dunnit, anyway. Does it work OK? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it makes for a substantially better page--but it still doesn't match the naming convention. Even if all the content we had was a list of works, the principle article should be under the name of the architect--his name is significant information, the word "List" is not. Starting with "List" is like having the main articles on people titled in such ways as "List of books by Charles DIckens" "List of Music of Beethoven" . We might need such subsidiary articles--and we do I think have them in some manner for people where the material is as extensive as my two examples, but they are subsidiary articles. Now of course it's true that a general discussion about all creative people should be mainly about their work, not their personal life. But still the identifier is the name. I can, though, think of one good reason to use "List of ... -- the criteria for featured lists are much more rationally applied than the ones for featured articles. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(outdent)Sorry but I thought that is what I have done. The principal article is F. X. Velarde, with List of works by F. X. Velarde as a subsidiary article reached via a link. Is that not the correct naming convention? Incidentally, I have also created a a disambig page Velarde, and a redirect from "Francis Xavier Velarde". --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies if I got confused, everything seems OK. I thank you again for these important articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PIV templates

Template:PIV templates has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter. At the deletion discussion, you asked Does the one I use need to be "userfied"? The answer is: If it's in template space (i.e. if it's called "Template:<something>"), then yes. But if you're referring to the navbox on your userpage labelled "Some templates", then no, that's fine as it is (it's already in user space, so it doesn't need to be "userfied"). DH85868993 (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That's very helpful. Many thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Henbury Hall, Cheshire

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Loyn Bridge

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Was patrolling recent changes, and couldn't help notice the great stuff you've been doing. Keep up the good work! :)

Theopolisme _TALK 11:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• That's very sweet. Thank you. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Oakfield Manor

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Margaret Bernadine Hall

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Fantine (painting)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Mary's Church, Kirkby Lonsdale

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Francis Goodwin

I believe it was you that did a lot of presentation work on the list of works by Francis Goodwin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_by_Francis_Goodwin

Thank you, it looks much better. My Wiki skills are poor, I could not attempt such a re-presentation.

I added all of most of the images to an article that I found on Wiki as I felt that an article about an architect without images of his buildings was pretty uninteresting. So I took some myself,(County Jail, St John church and Meynell Langley are a stones throw from my home) or where I could not, I found suitable images in the public domain. Like so many projects it is unfinished, there are some missing images. It is still at the back of my mind, but it involves access to libraries of the type that make it as difficult as possible to the man in the street and even then may refuse or charge for a scan.

Contact me by email if you wish, much faster than using these Talk pages. aspdin@gmail.com, or check my Talk page.

Aspdin (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Further comment by Nigel Aspdin Aspdin (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my Talk page. Yes, its irritating to do something and then have someone pulling rank and telling you what you should do. On this topic I want to tell you that I am under attack from a Wikimedia "senior". Unfortunately, after he was rude to me by using the words "I would respectfully suggest (when of course he meant the absolute opposite) I reprimanded him for being rude to less experienced users !!. He then decided to trawl through ALL my Wikimedia uploads looking for obscure copyright infringements. In this I don't mean intended copyright theft, I mean the sort of detail a bored copyright barrister may set his pupil do do as a learning exercise or to show his prowess. This dear man, [James L Woodward] does not hold back on his self promotion and Wikego. Silly me, I can only blame myself, for bothering to respond to his deletion requests. I should have waited until he fell overboard. He wants to, or already has, arranged deletion of a photo I took some years ago of a statue of WW1 General Joffre outside the Ecole Militaire in Paris, a public space near the Eiffel Tower of course. Unfortunately he went to the trouble of establishing that the sculptor died in 1954, and therefore decided that under French copyright law I could not upload such a photo I had taken. The problem is, for me, is that possibly he is correct......but did the heirs object? He also did it to a letter (my family property) I uploaded ready to provide an illustration for the British Lions 1950 tour of NZ and Australia. You may see how silly it all becomes. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:British_Lions_1950_Letter_fromTe_Hapu_to_Mrs_Macdonald.jpg .

Now the problem is that he has turned his attention to my Francis Goodwin images, and is nit-picking about the image of the St James Oldham I got, with permission, for use (as far as a Court in England is likely to find) on Wikipedia, I got it from the architect charged with the quinquennial inspection. Everyone was happy as Larry until this crazed Bostonian decided to pick at it.

Why have I told you this? Firstly to get it off my chest ! But also quite simply, I think whatever I do now "Jim" (he likes to be called) will keep me in the lobster boiling for fun, so that's the end of the matter for me, he will not have the pleasure of his cross-Atlantic gastronomy. I could contact the kind architect who sent me his image, but I expect he prefers to earn his fees than join me in battle, so I do not like to bother him again. So I was wondering...can YOU find an image of St James, Oldham and upload it? It will save a gap re-appearing for poor old FG, and the nearest I ever get in that part of the world is Manchester Airport.

Many thanks. I do feel better. I hope you read this !

I have your page watched, so put any reply here.

Nigel Aspdin (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick response for now (going out soon). Your critic is correct about the copyright position of the St James, Oldham. picture. I haven't had time to study it again now, but there is (complicated to me) advice at Wikipedia:Copyrights. I do know that if you want to publish other peoples' work, you have to go to quite a lot of trouble to get an acceptable form of agreement - so much so that I've never bothered. Easier - and what I have done in this case - is to download a photo from Geograph (very similar in fact to yours; and the copyright is always OK from that source), and upload it to Commons. I have replaced the "offending" photo from both the list and the church article. Working on WP can be frustrating, but sometimes our critics are correct, and you just have to learn to do it according to consensus policy. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Nigel. I've had a bit of a look into copyright legal matters, and I fear that your critic may be right. The Wikimedia Foundation, and the editors of Wikipedia, have to be most careful that they do not provoke copyright actions; and the laws can be incredibly strict. I accept your "common sense" arguments above, but they may not stand up in a court of law, if it were to come to that. Regarding your photograph taken in France (and I had no idea of this), have a look at Commons:Freedom of panorama. My reading is that while it might be OK in the UK that if a statue itself is still under copyright, a photograph can be used legally, it does not apply in France. It makes no matter whether the "heirs" object or not, the law still applies. And I fear that the same may apply to the letter. The copyright of any written text (letter, book or whatever) is held by the author until his/her death, then by the estate of the author, until a period of time determined by the relevant country concerned expires. That will apply to your letter, whoever owns the piece of paper on which it is written; you may own a book, but you cannot break copyright laws about it — and I guess the same applies to a letter.

Sorry if this seems upsetting, illogical, irrational, or whatever, but that is the way the law protects intellectual property. Still there is plenty of good work we can do on WP while avoiding the minefield of copyright. Let's enjoy what we CAN do. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

St Mary's Widnes

Hi Peter,

I see you undid my alteration in the St Mary's Widnes entry. I removed the reference to a united benefice with St Paul's Widnes and replaced it with reference to the team ministry with St Mary's Hale and St Paul's Widnes. I can assure you I was correct. There is no longer a united benefice with St Paul's Widnes. The team ministry which came into effect 1 May 2010 formed a single benefice for the three churches (as by definition Team Ministries do). Are you ok to remove the reference to united benefice with St Paul's? Thanks Jeremy (Team Vicar in the South Widnes Team). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.14.57 (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jeremy. Thanks for your message. I've never really understood about the "benefices" of the CoE. I guess the problem arose first because your edit was unreferenced, and Wikipedia relies on reliable citations for verifiability (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Then I relied on this source, which MUST be reliable (?) and it still says that your benefice is a "United Benefice with St Paul" (!!). How does a Team Ministry prevent a benefice from being "united" (sorry I don't understand the "definition" to which you refer)? Anyway, so far as I'm concerned, it's no big deal; I've deleted the "offending" sentence; is that OK and correct (and it fits the citation adequately)?

Of course I accept that what you say is accurate. But Wikipedia demands more than that. As it states in WP:NOR: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, including quotations, needs a reliable source ..." (which I think you will agree is a reasonable requirement for an encyclopedia that is consulted so widely). And "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research." Original research is not acceptable in Wikipedia. I'm happy to discuss this further if you have any problem with it.

Best wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. Regarding 'benefices' a benefice is effectively a 'job' or 'living' that cleryy can be appointed to. In the old days 'benefice' tended to equate to 'parish' so being appointed to the benefice of St Bartholomew's meant being the vicar of the Parish of Bartholomew's. But now when one clergy person can looked after more than one parish, they no longer equate. The wikipedia page on benefice gets it right. A team minstry is a legal instrument for uniting the benefices of a number of parishes, but appointing more than one clergy person (hence 'team') to that benefice. So the forming of the South Widnes Team united the benefices of all three parishes - they are all equally linked to each other - superceeding previous linking of St Paul's and St Mary's. Just as you can't be married to two people at the same time, a benefice can't be united in two different ways at the same time. Sadly wikipedia doesn't have a entry on Team Ministries in the Church of England.

The fact that the diocesan website gets this wrong is very embarrassing. An email is going off to them in a minute! I take the point about verifiability on wikipedia though note that verifiable really just means 'there is somewhere on the web which says it', which sadly isn't always the same as saying its reliable or true. (Though in this case I fully accept the source quoted is one you would expect to be trustworthy.) And let's be honest the policy on citations always needs to be flexible. Every statement on the St Mary's page isn't supported in this way, e.g. the fate of the first St Mary's and the material the font is made of. The team ministry is a fact about the parish just as its membership of liverpool diocese and warrington archdeaconry which seemed uncontroversial and I didn't really see as 'likely to be challenged'. But thank you for your kind and generous response to my point. 31.53.14.57 (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeremy; that's very helpful and informative. Now here's a challenge; how about writing an article on Wikipedia entitled "Team Ministry (Church of England)"? But I guess you're busy enough without that! But one day it should be done (to help me and other people who are ignorant about it).

But I take issue with your comment that something is verifiable because "there is somewhere on the web which says it". That is absolutely not the policy (although I accept that many editors break it). The policy is stated in Wikipedia:Verifiability, which addresses this specifically in the sections entitled "Reliable sources" and "Sources that are usually not reliable". A good editor will not use a source that is, or appears to be, unreliable — on the web or anywhere else: if s/he does it will (should) be challenged, and deleted if it is considered to be unreliable. Not everyone keeps to the high standards required by Wikipedia, but if they do not, sooner or later their edits will/should be questioned and/or deleted.

PS. I live in Runcorn and admire your church as seen from Mersey Road, and am very interested in the architects of the church. Best wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. Just to finish the story, the Diocese has now taken down the web page which the reference points to, because it was wrong. Not sure where that leaves the desire to include a reference to a source, since I can't think of one. And yes, I take your point about wikipedia's good policies about sources. I wasn't meaning to make a cheap dig, just frustrated that the source in this case was wrong. Jeremy 31.53.14.57 (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone need a holiday?

'Domesday Book' ... and how many churches in Gibraltar? We would like to invite you to contribute to the GibraltarpediA project, the world's first WIkipedia City. The project needs writers, photographers, translators and others to help build the first wiki city which bridges Europe and Africa. We are going to transform Gibraltar and the surrounding areas in Morocco and Spain into areas rich with encyclopedic content immediately accessible using QR codes and NFC on plaques for visitors and local people. There are prizes to reward contributors in the Gibraltarpedia Multilingual challenge for the best editors, photographs and cartographers... whoever you are. More at Gibraltarpedia.org

'Domesday Book'

Hi Peter, I've cheekliy add ed the template avove. If you know anyone who might like a change of virtual scenery then I can offer some pretty far flung churches in List of Churches in Gibraltar. There are maybe 6 or 8 and UI'm sure we can find pictures. If your curioity insnt piqued then can I thank you for your time, the advertising space above and your contributions. Best Victuallers (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. It could be interesting but I am involved with a number of more local projects at present. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

WEll this part runs till boxing day - anyway - best wishes

Burnley Churches

Hi Peter,

Nice work on St Andrew's Church, Burnley, but then you had to go for the difficult one in St Matthew's Church, Habergham Eaves :) As I’m sure you’ve found there are no photos in the commons, geograph or flickr! Also I believe it is grade II, but I know it doesn’t feature on the EH site! Finally it isn’t in Habergham Eaves anymore either! In 1894 virtually the entire populated part of the township was transferred into Burnley, meaning that the present civil parish ends nearly a mile south of the church. I’m not sure but I believe that the ecclesiastical parish is still called Habergham Eaves and covers approximately the same area as the old township. I’ll nip over and see about a photo soon. All the sources I’m aware of are already in the article. If I can help further let me know. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comment and your local knowledge. Just a short reply for now as I am going out soon. A photo would be most welcome. Do you think we should move the article to "St Matthew's Church, Burnley"? I'm pretty sure it's not listed (and I've searched in various ways). The parish is still called Habergham Eaves, at least according to the A Church Near You website (published by the CoE!).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the very prompt photo! I've also added it the the relevant entry in List of ecclesiastical works by Austin and Paley (1916–44). In addition, I've "moved" the article (that is, changed the title) to St Matthew's Church, Burnley. So all is well now, I think. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem with the photo, it's only round the corner. On the grade II front, the only thing I’m going off is the tiny icon on A Church Near You and an assumption that it must be. I might try to incorporate the CP stuff over the weekend. Only other thing I can see, do you think it needs a "also known as St Matthew the apostle"?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding [4], I will of course keep an eye on it. But I'm feeling a little out of my depth. I know nothing about this stuff, and don't want to scare away a potentially useful editor. I'm thinking of copy-editing it, but at the same time it seems that if you thought it should be in the article you'd have added it yourself.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

To paraphrase, Wikipedia is the site that anyone can vandalise, so it's hardly surprising; I doubt a single day goes by when I don't revert something and get into an argument as a result. It's not the feelings of "potentially useful editors" you ought to be concerned about, it's the feelings of the proven useful editors who're pissed off with having to deal with that kind crap day after day after day. Surely anyone with even half a brain knows what copyright means? Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Ha, I can't even keep up with my talkpage posts! Whoever this person is they've already figured out external links, modified wp links, section headings and indenting talkpage posts. Not bad for a newbie. Why isn't editing limited to registered users anyhow? it seems like a no-brainer.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a no-brainer to me as well, but then we were born and brought up in England, not California. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

[5] It's now obvious that this is case of sock puppetry and now "above my paygrade", so I'm going to bed :) --Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It was obvious from the start, but as you suggest, we're powerless to do anything about it except lap it up and try to put a brave face on it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

St Matthew's Church, Burnley for DYK?

Hello, Dr Vardy. Thank you for the article on St Matthew's Church, Burnley. I have nominated it for DYK. The nomination template can be found here. Would you mind taking the questions from a DYK reviewer, please? Thanks in advance. --PFHLai (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

St Mary's Church, Longfleet

Hi Peter. You're a master at getting DYKs for English church articles. Would you mind taking a look at this one and letting me have any comments before I run it? I'm conscious it's a little short, but I couldn't find that much online apart from a turgid English heritage description. That said, the hook could be based on their summary i.e. Did you know that... "the northwest tower and spire of St Mary's Church, Longfleet is one of Poole's most important landmarks?" Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Matthew's Church, Burnley

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Another historic church

Hello Peter. Are you interested in creating an article on Christ Church, North Shields? It is Grade II listed; the listing text is here. Usable century-old photographs are here and here. My interest in it is somewhat minor, and comes from a recent edit to an article I wrote on HMS Calliope (1884), which was moored nearby until the 1950s. Some of the old cruiser's woodwork has been incorporated into the church, and Rotherstone, a newer user, has stated his willingness to photograph it. User talk:Rotherstone. Perhaps Rotherstone could assist on an article. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. Yes I am interested in writing church articles, and all listed churches IMO merit an article. But if I were to do it, it would be way down my priory list. Top at the moment are Grade I listed churches in the northwest, and the works of the Sharpe/Paley/Austin architects of Lancaster. Is there someone local to the church who might be willing? There are plenty of church articles to use as models for sources, layout, etc. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Laurence's Church, Morland

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Andrew's Church, Penrith

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Sharpe

May I nominate Edmund Sharpe for today's featured article for October 31st?--Lucky102 (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to its nomination, but I am not sure about the date. OK it's his 203rd birthday but it's also Hallowe'en, and I guess that the director might want a more "suitable" subject for that particular date. In any event I shall not be around to perform the necessary vandal-watch, so for that reason alone I should really prefer a different date. But many thanks for the thought. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Animal aggression DYK

Peter, I've just proposed a rephrased hook for this one, which takes me out of the running for further reviewing. Can you please take a look at it, and see whether you think it works? Whether it does or not, a new icon indicating where the nomination stands would be very helpful. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Columba's Church, Warcop

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Oswald's Church, Ravenstonedale

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Church article review?

Hi Peter, as our resident church expert I wonder if you might be interested in reviewing an article I've nominated for DYK? See Template:Did you know nominations/King's Chapel, Gibraltar. Prioryman (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Done; nice article. I'm no expert — just written a lot of church articles. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Peter - I reckon that makes you an expert by now, though. ;-) Incidentally, I've been visiting some interesting Saxon churches (which don't yet have articles) over the summer so I'll write them up in due course. Prioryman (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)