User talk:Peter I. Vardy/Archive 20

Temple Moore

Morning Peter. I noticed you have done various lists for TM. I had a quick look in some of my sources for mentions of any obscure works in Sussex; the only thing I dug up was some conflicting evidence of a scheme at Christ Church, St Leonards-on-Sea. He certainly came up with a restoration/extension scheme, but the extent to which he executed it seems to be up for debate. I'll do some more investigation before deciding whether it is a valid addition to the restorations list. PS. I haven't forgotten about Willingdon, Wilmington and Westham churches; I went to Eastbourne Reference Library, but sadly I couldn't dig up anything obvious. Will have to rely on my existing sources! Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes — and when I tried to add a link to the church article, you were doing it at precisely the same time! In these lists I prefer to only include work actually carried out; if you include all the unexecuted designs, there would be no end. The next job on my work-list is to do something to improve the article on the man himself. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Wythburn Church

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Works by George Webster

Fantastic page! very interesting to read and very well done, I have been interested in George Webster and his architecture for some time. JMRH6 (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Mary's Church, Acton Burnell

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Little Moreton Hall

I decided I wanted to create an article on the custom of concealing shoes in the structure of buildings, but I didn't want it to be an orphan, so in preparation I looked around for existing articles that might reasonably link to it. I pretty quickly came across There Was an Old Woman Who Lived in a Shoe, which I've expanded a bit, but then much more interestingly I came across Little Moreton Hall, in the structure of which 18 assorted boots and shoes were discovered during the last major restoration in 1992. I got a little caught up in the article itself, so I moved a few bits around so that it made more sense to me; I think if it's tightened up and the sourcing is improved it could make quite a nice little article.

Anyway, what I came to ask you about, as one of the major contributors to the article and a member of the Cheshire WikiProject, is whether you have any objections to my addition of that new Superstition and haunting section. It's only a single sentence right now, but barring objections I intend to expand it. What do you think? George Ponderevo (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in responding; I've been away. The article on shoes is fascinating; I had no previous knowledge about this custom. The article on the hall is, to me, somewhat embarrassing. It should be one of the best articles on a Cheshire building, but falls well short. Some work was done on it way back in 2007 mainly by Giano but I believe this let to a dispute with another editor and Giano gave up on it. I've never got round to doing any more with it, so thanks for your contributions.

I have no objection to your further expansion iro haunting, etc, although I personally am not keen on this sort of stuff (but it's not up to me). It has led elsewhere to this style of editing — uncited speculation. But I know you will do it better than that! Yes, please go ahead and improve the article in any way you can. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the Old Hall Hotel, a ridiculous over-emphasis on psychic quackery to put it mildly. And it occupies about half the article! I've no intention of adding much more, if anything, than the two sentences I've already added to Little Moreton Hall, my interest was piqued more by the concealed shoes. My general view is that if nothing at all is mentioned about alleged hauntings then it's a hostage to fortune, just waiting for someone to do another Old Hall number on it; at least this way the material can be kept sensible and within reasonable limits. I'm in email contact with Giano and he's expressed no reservations about me working on the article, so I'll see what I can do. Hopefully I can at least lift it from being an an embarrassment. I've continued to try and reorganise the material so that it makes more sense to me (I'm no architectural historian), and I'm intending to try and write something about the estate later today. I'm starting to think I see an overall picture of what the article ought to look like now, but of course any suggestions you might have as the article develops would be gratefully received. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Your attention would be highly welcomed. As I see it the first two sections should really be combined; then an Architecture section, with Exterior and Interior being subsections, then the final two sections as they are (but I'm no architectural historian either). What do you think? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to organise the Architecture section as you suggest, but I'd prefer to keep the History and Phases of construction sections separate, at least until the article's been fleshed out a bit more. Primarily I see the History section as being as much about the Moreton family as about the house, or at least the family's relationship with the house, and its 100-year construction period is quite a convoluted story to tell. I see what you're getting at though, so I'll have a think about it. I don't like the Present-day section as it stands, so that's probably what I'm going to look at next. Need to produce some sort of floor plan as well of course, at least for the ground floor. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

On further reflection I agree with you Peter, and so I've now merged the first two sections. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a little break from the architecture of the house to look at the Little Moreton Hall estate, which I think presents a fascinating picture of self-sufficiency. Not only did they have the usual orchards, vegetable gardens, farms and so on but they even had a bloomery producing iron, and when that closed they turned their attention to fish farming. Anyway, I've exhausted myself for now, so I'll resume later/in a day or two. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still working on the ground floor plan, about a third of the way through, but I think the basic thing is in place now, although still a few details to add. Hopefully you'll agree if I can persuade you to take another look. Giano suggested that the interior needed some serious expansion, so I've tried to structure it almost as if you were walking around the building; hopefully that'll work in combination with a floor plan. My ambition is to get this article to GA, I think the subject deserves it. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm impressed by the time and trouble you have taken over this article. Cheshire and I agree that it should be at least a GA. Incidentally, according the to accessibility guidelines, we should not use "pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup"; see this. And I suppose you do not want an infobox(!). Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes seem to be a minefield, so I'm not going there, just leaving the article as I found it in that respect. I'm neither for nor against them, but others seem to have strong views. So far as the accessibility issue is concerned, I've discussed this in the past with the likes of RexxS and Br'er Rabbit, who take an interest in such things, Basically the guidelines as written don't work when the article includes headings at the same level as the References subheadings would be. The way I've done it with Little Moreton Hall is the only reliable and practical solution to avoid clutter in the table of contents. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Eata's Church, Atcham

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Church articles

		The Christianity Barnstar
		This is a small token of appreciation for your huge contributions regarding churches. Thank you very much for your wonderful work. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind of you. Although, in reality, the articles have been more about history and architecture than about Christianity itself. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

as shown here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be on vandal watch! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice website

I expect you've been here but I came across it in an edit to Tin tabernacle. It's here and there are some great drawings and I noticed a few by some of the architects you seem to be interested in. I don't know if they could be used here, they are over a hundred years old. I could spend ages just looking. :-) J3Mrs (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't know this website. It's been added to my favourites. It's particularly useful for out-of-copyright images. Just in browsing I found one for a Liverpool building to fill a gap. So much to do .......! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Marriage to Jane Goodall

In entry Edmund Sharpe, the fourth paragraph under Churches says, "He also Married Jane Goodall.” I don’t think so. Sharpe died in 1877, Jane Goodall was born in 1934. Deleting this nonsense. 75.82.43.142 (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It was vandalism and has been reverted. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Giles' Church, Barrow

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiMedicine

Hi Peter

You might be interested in a new non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure, aims and proposed activities would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire (1066–1539)

While tidying up Little Moreton Hall and checking on a few things I discovered that the house isn't actually a Scheduled Monument at all; the monument is the ground on which the house is built, which is believed to contain extensive remains of much older medieval buildings. Here's what the English Heritage web site says: "Little Moreton Hall, its courtyard and bridge, all service pipes, fences and gravel paths are excluded from the scheduling although the ground beneath all these features is included".[1] So maybe the table ought to be updated? George Ponderevo (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, the earliest parts of Little Moreton Hall were built in the first decade of the the 16th century and not in the 15th century as was previously thought, as proven by tree-ring analysis. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of interest/information, I am (occasionally) working on updating the list here. EH must be right (of course), but there seems to be some inconsistency between authorities, particularly with the Cheshire Historic Environment Record. This says that LMH is a "Scheduled Monument and a Grade I listed building"; this and this say "The Hall, moat and prospect mound are a Scheduled Monument". But, for me, what makes most sense is that the site on which the hall, etc, stands is a SAM, while the hall itself is a Grade I listed building. Thoughts? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That the hall (and bridge) are Grade I listed and the site the hall sits on is a Scheduled Monument (because of the remains of an earlier medieval building) is the only thing that really makes sense to me. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for 30 Euston Square

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Your efforts in List of works by R. C. Carpenter was excellent and well done. It very nicely supplements the main article Richard Cromwell Carpenter. Thank You! Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you; that's very kind. In case you're interested, the R. H. Carpenter list is in preparation. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Sedgwick House, Cumbria

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Grade I listed buildings in Derbyshire

Hello there. I decided I'd have a go at expanding Grade I listed buildings in Derbyshire, and in doing so I came across Grade I listed churches in Derbyshire, which appears to have been almost entirely your work and is very similar to what I had in mind. I wondered if you had any suggestions or comments on my work-in-progress at User:Dave.Dunford/DerbyshireGradeI? With your approval, at some stage I might add a column to Grade I listed churches in Derbyshire for the Images of England (IoE) numbers - I find it useful to have a link to the official listing, and the {{IoEentry}} template makes it easy. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dave. You've taken on a huge project to fit all the Grade I buildings into one list; but what you've done to date is impressive. Feel free to use any material that is of value to you from the churches list (which seems pretty big itself anyway). The Derbyshire list is one in a series of Grade-I-listed churches by county I have created. To date I have completed Cheshire, my home county, then the adjacent ones of Greater Manchester, and Merseyside, each of which is now a FL. Lancashire is currently at FLC (and seems a bit "stuck"). After that I did Shropshire, Staffordshire, West Yorkshire and, of course Derbyshire. Judging by the successes at FL, the format I have used appears to be acceptable. Indeed at the current FLC here, one of the FL gurus has commented that it " should be thought of as a good current template for such lists".

Which takes me to IoE. Did you realise that it is out of date and will continue to get more so as time goes on? IoE was created as a Millennium project, and covered all the listed buildings in existence at the time. But it is frozen at that time, and has been superseded by the Heritage list for England (NHL). I have been in direct contact with English Heritage, who are responsible for both sites. They tell me that IoE has not been updated since 2000, and will not be updated in the future. Meanwhile the NHL, which contains all the IoE descriptions and more info, including maps and GRs, is updated, if necessary, daily. Since 2000, items have been added, gradings changed, properties delisted, and A, B and C grades converted into I, II* and II. The only "advantage" in IoE that I can see is its photographs; and for Grade I buildings these are usually available elsewhere. So I have stopped using IoE, and in all the articles in which I have a particular interest I have converted the IoE references into the NHL equivalents. The "Reference Number" button on the advanced search page makes this very easy. All the items on all my lists have a NHL link, so adding a IoE link as well would be superfluous and, if used, could lead the reader to out-of-date material. The template {{NHLE |num= |desc= |accessdate= |separator=,|ps=}} makes this as easy as the IoE template. In the successful FLs I have not used a separate column for references; I think they are perfectly adequate at the end of the text in the notes column, and save unnecessary "clutter". So, on the whole (and I would like one day to present the Derbyshire church list as a FLC), I should prefer not to have an extra IoE column. And I would urge you to use the current "official" listing of NHL rather than IoE in order to keep your material up to date.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. Although I was aware that IoE was a static project, I hadn't really thought about using NHL instead, but you're right - I'll convert my links to NHL. Since I've generally been able to source photos from Wikipedia Commons and Geograph, the photos in IoE don't add much as you say, though I like convenient links to the listing texts. Using NHL will make for slightly more work, as my preferred source for listing information is http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/, which quotes the old reference numbers, but it shouldn't be too onerous. I'll have a look at the NHL website and familiarise myself with the layout - it looks at first glance to be an improvement on the IoE website, which is very unwieldy. I take the point about the "clutter" of reference numbers too; I'll leave it out of the churches article, and I'll rethink it in mine, though personally I do still prefer a link "in place" somewhere in the table rather than the conventional link in a footnoted reference. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

British Listed Buildings tends to be less credited, I think, because of its advertising content. Also, it only really includes the description, although it is a link to the NHL (and also to Cadw, the Welsh equivalent of EH, whose site I find near-impossible to negotiate). Familiarisation with NHL takes a bit of time, but in my experience it is invaluable (and authoritative, of course). Cheers, --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The Carpenters and their architectural partners

Nice work on all these articles/lists Peter ... as you will have seen, the two Carpenters and both Slater and Ingelow undertook much work in Sussex, so having greater coverage of them on WP is welcome. In relation to the lists – from memory I think you have covered all of the works of both Carpenters, but I'll have a look in all my books to see if there is anything else. Incidentally, the picture of All Saints Church, Highbrook was the one occasion on which I really suffered for my Wikipedia work! On a mission to get several Mid Sussex church photos, I went by bus to West Hoathly and walked from there to Horsted Keynes (from where I could get a bus to Haywards Heath and a train back to Hassocks) – a distance of 6 miles or so, but nothing out of the ordinary for me on a Saturday afternoon. Unfortunately, although it was a nice sunny day (as seen in the photo), it was still winter ... and the easiest route from Highbrook to Horsted Keynes (a path across some fields, then a southward path along the Bluebell Railway) was unexpectedly muddy. I had gone far too far to turn back when I finally got completely stuck in some quicksand-like Wealden clay, losing my shoes: I had to stand on my rucksack and pull them out from under a thick layer of mud before continuing...! Nowadays I am more careful in planning my walking routes. Best, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the things one suffers for Wikipedia! Please add to these lists if there is anything worthwhile. The Carpenters did little if anything in my part of the world, but I am becoming increasingly interested in all the major Victorian architects, and I bought a book with a chapter about RCC, which led to compile these lists. Walk carefully. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Grade I listed churches in West Yorkshire

Hi, just spotted that Grade I listed churches in West Yorkshire has been rated as FL in all of the projects but has not yet had a featured list review. May be it would be good to get this reviewed as it looks as though it should pass OK. Keith D (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The FL rating is a mistake (mine I think), and I have corrected it. As you say, it has not yet been for a review. The corresponding Lancashire list is currently at FLC, and I don't think they like more than one list from an editor at the same time. Its time will come (I hope)! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

See also - why?

Hallo, Could you explain why you've added Grade I listed churches in West Yorkshire as a See also at Leeds Minster and ? Yes, it's on the list ... but that doesn't seem to me to justify adding the list to the article. I'll watchlist this page to await your answer! Thanks. PamD 18:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I included it to provide a link for any reader who might wish to know more about the most notable churches in the area —what they are, where they are, etc. (not just because Leeds Minster features in the list). IMO one of the major advantages of an electronic encyclopaedia like WP is that it provides the readers with easy and quick access to material that may interest them, or lead them to study the subject more widely. I see this sort of linkage as a major facility for the student or general reader to easily obtain more related and relevant knowledge. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is what the "See also" category is intended for, though WP:ALSO is pretty vague. But I won't fight over it. There could be so many other aspects of the article which a reader "might wish to know more about": churches with choral foundations, works by G F Bodley, Minsters, etc. It's why we have categories and navboxes. It does seem strange that Leeds Minster is not actually mentioned by that name at Grade I listed churches in West Yorkshire: surely it and Halifax need to have their new titles indicated in that list, rather than just appearing as "St Peter, Leeds" etc. .... Have just fixed that: I think the additions improve the article by helping the reader identify the churches in question (and reducing the surprise if someone clicks on St Peter and finds themselves at "Leeds Minster"). PamD 11:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

are there any churches in Great Britain?

that could be added to List of Methodist churches? There's a call on its Talk page for more representation of British ones, after i expanded out the U.S. representation hugely. And, there is List of Presbyterian churches. Your interest directly contributing, or your advice on how to determine the Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings of each type, would be most appreciated. Cheers, --doncram 00:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There must me some, but the real question is about their notability (we cannot include all 700!). Generally all listed buildings are regarded in the UK as being notable (including Grade II; the definition of this grade being that the buildings are "nationally important and of special interest"). (I will comment on this on the talk page.) Many Methodist church buildings in the UK are relatively humble, and not listed, but I guess we can find some (I'll look when I get time). In the UK the situation regarding Presbyterian churches is different from the USA; in 1972 the Presbyterian Church of England and the Congregational Church in England and Wales combined to form the United Reformed Church. Again, most of their church buildings are relatively humble. Best wishes, --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There are, of course, also many Baptist churches, some of which, because of their age, are listed as being of architectural importance, like e.g. Monmouth Baptist Church, and even some Unitarian churches such as Chowbent Chapel. I am wondering whether or not any new Categories are required; even perhaps something like "Listed Non-conformist Churches in Great Britain"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not keen on such a great proliferation and complexity of categories. We already have "x (=denomination) churches in y", "Grade X listed churches", and "Grade X listed buildings in Y". For me, that's enough. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That's very fair comment. Given your experience of editing in this area, I think many editors would take your advice here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your new article St Mary's Church, Burford Very good stuff! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• That's very quick! Thank you. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Mary the Virgin's Church, Bromfield

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Old Runcorn

I know there's much to do but I thought you would appreciate a glimpse of Runcorn before 1930. J3Mrs (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice set of photos. I'm not sure if our local history society is aware of them, but I'll pass the link on to our archivist. Many thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a really interesting site, somewhere for me to get side tracked. J3Mrs (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Lancashire list

Morning Peter. Yes, I should be able to take a look at lunchtime and this evening; hope to add some comments by the end of today accordingly. I've put the nomination on my watchlist. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St James' Church, Cardington

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Grade I listed churches in the East Riding of Yorkshire

Hi, just spotted this and think that it is missing the Hull ones that it indicates are included. I think that there are just two in Hull – Holy Trinity in Hull city centre and St James, Sutton. Keith D (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I had looked at Hull, but obviously not properly. I'll add them. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Chelsea Opera Group

I'm glad to see that you've started an article on this group, clearly an enterprising and worthwhile one. I've been adding some stuff myself. Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It came about because I saw the obituary of Stephen Gray, I had attended his retirement concert (the one with the six conductors) and discovered there was no article about him. So I wrote one, then discovered there was nothing abut the Chelsea Opera Group, so at least got that off the ground. I'm sure there's plenty more to add! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Nadolig hapus

Martinevans123^{Santas Grotto} wishes you and yours

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

---

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace ....

• Thank you — and the same to you and yours! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

I won't be back on WP now until 27th December, so I'd just like to wish you a happy Christmas; and keep up the good work on your ever-increasing range of articles! Best, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. I hope that you and yours have the happiest Christmas ever; and I look forward to more progress in the New Year.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Listed buildings in Lymm

Excellent list! Are you planning on expanding the lead a bit and submitting it to DYK? It looks like there's enough of a range of building types that an ideal hook could easily be written for it. If not, would you mind if I expanded & nominated it? Best wishes for the Christmas season, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've just done a basic job on Lymm (I'm a bit lazy at present), but would be most happy for the lead to be expanded as you suggest. Please feel free to expand and nominate! It's good to have you back in the Cheshire Wikiproject. I must admit that since you left for your break, I've tended to wonder elsewhere, but I pop back to Cheshire when I can, and keep an eye on what's happening to the Cheshire articles. Do keep up the work with the Portal (sorry I've not done anything with that but it's not really my "thing"). Very best wishes to you and yours for Christmas and 2013. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated here. I hope you don't mind, I've cheekily claimed co-authorship for writing (most of) the lead? (I did do a bit of work on the table, eg getting the date sorting working; would have done more but the NHLE appears to be down for Christmas.) Espresso Addict (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks: yes, definitely co-authorship. Good work on the lead. And thanks for the work on sorting; I had not been aware of the "hs" template. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for St Laurence's Church, Church Stretton

Gatoclass 12:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen Gray (musical administrator)

(X! · talk)  · @953  ·  00:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Wells Cathedral

I'm trying (with help from several editors) to get Wells Cathedral up to GA standard. Would you be kind enough to take a look?— Rod ^talk 08:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for NHLE

Just wanted to say thanks for pointing out the NHLE website. I know at the time I said that the search engine was a bit useless, but I have since found the "Find by Map" option, which shows an OS map with little triangles for all the listed structures. When doing rivers and canals, it is brilliant, and I am getting over the lack of images. Thanks again. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I use it for buildings, and at least it is kept up to date. The search facility has been improved since I first used it and, with practice, it becomes quite good. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Listed buildings in Lymm

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC) 08:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for All Saints Church, Claverley

Harrias ^talk 08:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

All Saints Church, Claverley:

Just a note of appreciation for the great job you did on All Saints Church, Claverley. Also, a friend of mine runs this website, which may be of interest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. The website looks like an impossible mission to complete — so good luck. The website could also use images from Wikipedia (as well as Geograph), maybe until they have been able to produce their own images. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Listed buildings in Great Budworth at DYK

Another nice list! I've reviewed it at Template:Did you know nominations/Listed buildings in Great Budworth. All seems well except that I think you'll need to add an explicit link to the NHLE search for the CP in order to comply with the DYK rules (or remove 59 from the hook, if you prefer). Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. As I cannot find a link for "59" that works, I've just deleted it as ALT1. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)