User talk:Peter I. Vardy/Archive 12

On August 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Mary's Church, Mundon, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On August 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St John the Baptist's Church, Papworth St Agnes, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all congratulations on the promotion of Historic Chapels Trust. You are a difficult act to follow! Thank you to for your edits to Listed buildings in Rivington. I must pay more attention.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; it turned out to be more complicated than I had thought – but more "lessons have been learned" (as the politicians keep saying) and the list is all the better for having gone through the process. I think you have noticed that I have applied some of these lessons to the Rivington list. But even when you think you have the "perfect" list, someone will find fault in it. Now you need some reviewers to come along; they're being a bit slow with Rivington. My next venture is to do a companion to the the Historic Chapels with Friends of Friendless Churches; it's well under way in a sandbox at present.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone live!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On August 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Mary Magdalene's Church, Caldecote, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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 from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've only looked at the lead so far, but there a couple of things I'm not sure how you'd prefer to tackle.

The first is a problem common in sports team articles, caused in this case by using the abbreviation "Friends" for the charity. It just looks strange to say "Since 1999, the Friends has been recognised in Wales as the equivalent of the Churches Conservation Trust ...", so quite understandably the article says "Since 1999, the Friends have been recognised in Wales as the equivalent of the Churches Conservation Trust ...". But then there's a clash with statements like "the income of the Friends was £1,332,882 ... During the year it had only two employees." The trick with the discretionary plural is either to be consistent, or to rewrite so as to avoid it.

The second is that you need to avoid run-on numbers, such as in "the income of the Friends was £1,332,882, 95.5% of which came from voluntary sources ...". Perhaps by saying instead "... of which 95.5 percent came from voluntary sources"?

Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to leave a job half-done, so I've tackled both of the issues I raised above. As ever, if you don't like anything I've done you know what you can do – revert it. :-) Good luck at FLC. Malleus Fatuorum 13:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On August 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tuxlith Chapel, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, just a quick query. You mentioned that when doing a listed building article you need to include a coordinate location, but I'm not sure how to get this. Can you help? Cheers mate --Daviessimo (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello... just butting in here! I'm not sure if you mean how to go about getting the coordinates, or how to put them in the article, but if it's the former, you can get them from the British Listed Buildings website (eg. Liverpool's list here)- each building page has the coordinates. As far as I know, they are accurate, but you can check them after you have inserted them into the article. Hope that helps. :) --BelovedFreak 19:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying; I've been away on grandparent duties. There are all sorts of ways you can get coordinates; Belovedfreak has suggested one way for listed buildings. Normally I use Earthtools; it's easy and accurate, and can be used for any location. From the home page, use the "Jump to country" box in the menu, then select United Kingdom. Then click on Find Places, type in the name of the place, then click on Zoom, and you're there or thereabouts. Then pan about under the Hybrid link, put the cross on the building (or whatever), then click on Location, and you get the coordinates is two formats, and the Grid Reference. And it's good fun too (IMO). Good luck. Let me know if you get any problem. A fantastic website IMO.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both of you for the replies, there both great websites so I better get started. Only 2500 locations to go... :s --Daviessimo (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On August 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Mary's Church, Derwen, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On August 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Ellyw's Church, Llanelieu, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On August 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Cynhaearn's Church, Ynyscynhaearn, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, these churches articles ar emuch better than most of the welsh villages. Note we have Template:Location map Wales Gwynedd so you can display a pin in your infoboxes. Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On August 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Michael and All Angels Church, Llanfihangel Rogiet, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On August 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Brothen's Church, Llanfrothen, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hodgeston Parish Church, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of St David's Church, Llangeview at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NortyNort (Holla) 09:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Manordeifi Old Church, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter; hope all is well. I've just found this document by chance when Googling – some of the info could be useful for future listed buildings work. On an unrelated note, and bearing in mind some of your excellent recent lists, I wonder if Churches Conservation Trust could be a long-term project for collaborative improvement? It looks like there are about 340 churches in their care, so a properly formatted list might be quite long, but it could be an interesting piece of work... Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes all is well in the wet Northwest. Thanks for the info about the leaflet; could be useful, as you say. Re CCT, I have to admit that I've already started, see here. In view of the number of churches, it will have to be split into separate lists. CCT have already divided their churches into regions, see here, and each region would make a manageable list (larger than the Historic Chapels Trust or the Friends of Friendless Churches but still IMO reasonable). I have started on Northern England (... begins at home!) and there's no reason why others should not work on other regions. It would be good if all have similar formats (we know this one works at FLC). The introductory text could be near enough the same for all the lists, and that would need some collaboration. However I am preparing an article on each church without one at present; this this will take some time, so there's no rush. As a matter of interest have you seen this? It's looking promising!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And even more so now; it may pass before you get back (hope you are having a good break!). I found nothing amiss apart from a tiny tweak which I made myself, so my Support statement is now there as well. Good to see that CCT work is underway already! I can try and pick up the "southern" list at least. I think there are about 7 Sussex churches under CCT care; I've already written articles for two of them as part of the Brighton & Hove list, but the others are rural ones over here in West Sussex (well, over the other side of the county from me actually!). They're on my schedule of "church articles to write" anyway. I may submit this at FLC soon, with the argument that none (or, at most, one) of the (ex-)churches are notable enough to have their own article (based on the amount of source material available) ... what are your thoughts? (The one which probably is notable enough is St Margaret's Church (1824), which I could easily write an article on in a couple of days). Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is "full bloodied" a typo for "full blooded" in the Friends website, or am I missing something? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, so I've changed it.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Baglan's Church, Llanfaglan, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St David's Church, Llangeview, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

Courcelles 18:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sometimes a bit OTT, sometimes even deliberately so. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were no longer watching Nev's Rfa page!! If I were a user of your terms, I would use them. But let's get Tabley House to GA — much more important in the great theme of life! Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious to see how it was going. I was quite shocked to see how rude and uncivil Nev1 has been in the past. Not. I really fail to comprehend anyone who takes offence at a phrase like "who gives a shit", but my general view is that linguistic intensifiers (that's my posh word for that kind of four-letter word) lose their impact if they're used too frequently, so they ought to be deployed with some discretion to emphasise a specific point, not scattered like confetti to the wind. So if they're used intelligently and appropriately I really don't have a problem. My problem here on wikipedia is with the assymetrical attitude of those who use incivility as a weapon against those they take a dislike to while being at least as uncivil themselves. Anyway, I've got Trafford Park readying itself for an assault on FAC, and then perhaps the ship canal, which still needs quite a bit of work, but might be able to make GA soon ... and I haven't forgotten about Little Moreton Hall, always wanted to do something on witchcraft in Cheshire as well ... I'm always amazed when I see people claim that wikipedia is in its maintenance phase; apart from all the articles yet to be written, there are about 3 million that need to be brought up to some kind of minimum standard. Keep on keeping on.

PS. I suppose you realise that you'll have done yourself no favours by supporting Nev1 at his RfA. Now you're tarred with the brush of having supported a rude and uncivil editor, which will likely be brought up against you at some time in your wikipedia career if you should ever trip up. Not that you should be bothered, of course. Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! What "career". I don't really care about Wikipedia and its administrators. What I care about is providing good and accurate information for future readers (and enjoying myself in the process). (and supporting those who have supported me.)--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate you casting a very brief glance over Senra/St George's church, which is my local church. To be frank, I stumbled upon your apparent single-handed attempt to create a wikipedia article for every church in England and stole your idea. I have only applied it to my local church although I also have my eye on St Jame's, Stretham, 2 miles south of me (Little Thetford). If you object to me stealing your idea, not a problem, I will step back; the article will stay in my user-space. If you think I have created something worth moving to article space, please do let me know --Senra (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in, I would think Peter wouldn't mind you using his format at all, I've used it for a few now. He's a very generous editor.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Senta's talk page.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Mark's Church, Brithdir, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Teilo's Church, Llandeloy, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if you've seen, but Norton Priory has been selected as the TFA for the 22nd. Nev1 (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, I spotted it yesterday. Feel very honoured.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Peter! I shall look out for it. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're enjoying your day in the limelight Peter ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been out all day — but glowing. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St Peter's Church, Prickwillow, Cambridgeshire, is in early draft form here: User:Senra/St Peter's Church, Prickwillow. I came across this little church whilst writing St James' Church and looking for the churches belonging to the Ely Team Ministry. St Peter's closed for worship in 2008. Also, as you can see, it is not an ancient church; nor is it listed; although the font and bell seem notable to me. You seem an expert. Is St Peter's notable enough for wikipedia? --Senra (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts about this as a stand-alone article. It seems that the only possible notable feature is the font — and this may of course be moved (again). A possibility might be to write an article on the Ely Team Ministry, with sections on each church (including St Peter's) and a {{main|}} link at the top of the sections relating to any separate article(s).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Andrew's Church, Bywell, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Oswald's Church, Kirk Sandall, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St John's Church, Throapham, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Holy Trinity Church, Coverham, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter -- Looks like a splendid job so far, as ever. I'm glad you've put it up for DYK -- the portal DYKs could really do with anything that isn't in Nantwich or Chester! I probably won't be able to spend any time on this until after the bank-holiday weekend, but de Figueiredo & Treuherz has several pages on Tabley so I should be able to add some detail then. (It also has a photograph of the Old Hall dated c.1860 which might be interesting.) Espresso Addict (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush. I see that Wetman's got involved; I'll have to check his edits later. I've ordered a new scanner, and written a stub on Anthony Devis, a previous redlink (I hadn't realised he was a Prestonian, like me). Have a good weekend.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peter,

I would like to say thank you for all the hard work you do for what another editor has described as "a one-man mission to have an article on every church in England". (He forgot Wales.)

I don't think that is just admirable, I think it is brilliant. I am not myself religious or a churchgoer particularly, but I do stop by from time to time. I just want to thank you because your articles are balanced, interesting, informative and well researched.

Now for my special pleading, which I don't mind you ignoring. I used to live a couple of doors down from St Andrew's Church, West Wratting. It is a beautiful simple church with six bells the last of which was installed at the millenium, in the key of D major I think. I was woken up every sodding thursday by the bellringers and again on sunday, but I never complained because one of them was my landlady. I'm kinda joking, although I'm not religious I edited the church magazine for about four years. It's a nice church and I could give you a lot of detail, so if you feel like hashing a skeleton article about it then I can fill in some detail. Just a suggestion and feel free to ignore it. Si Trew (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The top of the bell tower, if you want a DYK hook, is also the highest point in Cambridgeshire. Si Trew (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Simon. Thanks for the compliments. At present, apart from articles relating to my home county, Cheshire, I'm working on redundant and conserved churches. The Churches Conservation Trust has over 300 of these, so I may be busy on these for a while. Why not have a go yourself? (If you want to copy my format - and it's very basic - feel free to do so, and get a DYK hook for yourself!). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, thanks a lot for your explanation of how to get that template to work. I created it over 4 years ago for use in one particular article (Kerala, I think) and was rather surprised to see how much it has taken off since then! I suspect a couple of articles using it got put on the front page, and then other editors trying to write new FAs used them as inspiration. I'm really glad you find it useful, I think it's better than having the full book bibliography in with the refences! It's rather ridiculous that I didn't understand how to make it work as well as you do, but your explanation was very helpful.

I know you do a lot of excellent work on architecture; I am likely to start a discussion about the category scheme for architectural information about buildings soon, let me know if you'd like to be directed to it! TheGrappler (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to meet the creator of what IMO is a useful little template. I copied the technique from articles written by expert editors I admired. When things did not go "right" with it, I either experimented or copied what others do. Congrats on its widespread usage; it confirms its value.

Although I have written a lot of articles including details of architecture, I must admit that I don't actually know much about it. But have I learnt a bit and am still learning as I go. Anyway I should like to at least observe any discussion on categories, even if I cannot contribute much to it.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in here. I think Harvnb is great too; just a little too much work for one of my articles at this moment in time. On another related matter, do either of you know of any good Norman architecture images of Peterborough Cathedral for Hugh Candidus? See Talk:Hugh Candidus --Senra (Talk) 11:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Senra. It's not much work for books with single authors. I use {{Harvnb|Name|Year|p=.}}. For multiple authors it's {{Harvnb|Name1|Name2|Year|p=.}} (if more — NameX). Make sure that the year is in the Year field, and that authors' surnames are in a field such as last1, last2, etc. I'm not aware of any appropriate images that you have not already discussed.

Comment for TheGrappler. The only quibble I have with the template is that for multiple authors it provides an ampersand rather than "and". WP seems to dislike ampersands (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Ampersand).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, my reluctance to change Little Thetford referencing style is not obstructiveness in any way; it is just that there are 129 references to a 23 item bibliography. I accept that not all 23 will work with {{harvnb}} but most will. That is a lot of work. I will get around to converting it one day but only when I have enough time to do it in one sitting (unless, as stated elsewhere, someone with an automatic tool gets there first). Anyway, to show good faith, I converted one of my other articles (unassessed) to use {{harvnb}}. All book references converted fine except ODNB. There are no OED refs in this article but that would have a similar problem. Would one or both of you have a quick look at the result and make suggestions as appropriate? Particulalry ODNB (OED) references. Thank you in advance --Senra (Talk) 15:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an easy template to use... as long as you do it from the start. I generally use the template in most articles I put together now, but I'd hate to convert the references in either Sale, Greater Manchester or Maiden Castle, Dorset. It would be a lot of effort, and considering the way they're formatted is fine at the moment I don't see the need. As long as the reference style is consistent within one article that's fine, and which you use is a matter of personal taste. The Tower of London has a couple of ODNB sources which work fine, so you can take a look at how that's done. I just treated it as a book which happened to have a url and didn't worry about the page numbers. Nev1 (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you provide a brief note of support to these AfD discussions listed here on my talk page please --Senra (Talk) 16:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not really notes of support that are wanted, but rather improvements to the article. This is about article rescue. I've found an 1865 source (Francis Redfern's History of the town of Uttoxeter) talking about the church in Uttoxeter, but since this pre-dates the 1877 re-build, I still lack a source that links what Redfern documents to the modern building. It might not be the right church. Uncle G (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support at the recent Baxterley Church AfD et al which led to the the nom (RadioFan (talk · contribs)) withdrawing the AfD --Senra (Talk) 14:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your message. As it happens I was just preparing a message to you for your talk page. The AfD was nonsense anyway, four separate churches on one AfD without any good reason (apart from the nominator's ignorance, which he subsequently declared). I feel a message to the nominator coming on, maybe later today (talk page on your watchlist?). I fail to understand why people take such interest in deleting articles; there's plenty of room in Wikipedia. And they don't delete articles which IMO (showing my great age) are rubbish, like episodes of sitcoms.

      I don't fully agree with Uncle G. Notability is about notability, not about the quality of the article — that's a different matter. An article may be short, inadequate, or whatever, but if the subject is notable, it's notable, and that's that. IMO there is no question that listed buildings, by the very fact that they are recognised as notable by the official heritage organisation in England, is enough — and I think that's been accepted elsewhere on WP. However I think we have to be careful with churches and other buildings that are not listed, and if you write an article about one, have some good argument(s) up the sleeve to present in the case of an over-enthusiastic deleter. I can remember only one article I have written on an unlisted (so far as I can determine) church, St Mary's Church, Lead. And that has been chosen for preservation by the Churches Conservation Trust; if they consider it's sufficiently notable for preservation, that's good enough for me to argue a case in the event of an AfD. Keep up the good work!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Per the policy, notability turns on "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". For any medieval English church, and great numbers of more recent ones, that ought to represent no difficulty at all, thanks to Pevsner and all the other literature. I see the nom was withdrawn when more references were added. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And that is, of course, the point. The absolute best, irrefutable, argument is a good stub article with copious sources. I've no idea how many article rescues I've done over the years, but I've done several where I didn't comment in the AFD discussion at all, and simply made an entirely mute case by expanding and improving the article without mercy. It's not about acting like an old fogey and berating the young-'uns for nominating the "obviously notable" for deletion. Sometimes the oldsters conflate notability with personal preference, and their personal likes and dislikes of a subject, which is quite the wrong thing to be doing. (Everyone's interest is a minority interest, taking the population of the planet as a whole.) It's about setting an example of how to write, and about getting a good article at the end of the process. Witness loyalty, Tampa General Hospital, Westminster motorcycle parking charge, Souperism, loony left, and even hand-rubbing.

          We don't want people piling on to AFD discussions and then doing nothing. But we most definitely do want people who can write about U.K. churches banding together and quickly constructing a good solid stub on a church that has demonstrable scope for expansion. I've been involved in such collaborations many times, on many subjects, and I've found that a small group of experienced editors can, if the subject truly is notable, easily and rapidly come up with such a thing within the AFD discussion period. Witness Alabama Baptist Convention, for example. As is said at User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Always work from and cite sources, if one always provides a good stub with ample sources, one's experience of writing at Wikipedia becomes largely untroubled by deletion nominations. Griping and going around calling other editors names doesn't do that. But working from and citing ample sources right from the get-go does. From experience, I time and again recommend the writing well route over the griping and name-calling route. It just works so much better in practice. Uncle G (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

          • Completely agree; good well-referenced new articles should escape noms for AfD. Not (really) blowing my own trumpet, it's a long time since I suffered an AfD, and never for a church article (despite writing 100s). My gripe was about what appeared to be a knee jerk reaction — and this sort of thing can cause considerable distress to a newbie, and maybe lose a potential excellent editor before he has had time to settle in.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• [1] :) I agree with both of the above. In fact I demonstrably used both approaches to rescue these four churches. My first reaction was to support the editor (MarkBegg (talk · contribs) responding to the AfD here then asking Peter for support in this thread. I then counselled the editor to use a citing approach here then I started adding sources myself diff here. Like Peter, I did feel the AfD lacked substance and it did wind me up a little; especially when I think that there may be more needlessly aggressive PROD's and AfD's occurring, when such page patrol people Come to bury editors, not to praise them... --Senra (Talk) 12:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you cool down yet, Peter? See also --Senra (Talk) 19:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and another one here but this time a PROD by our friend that someone else has picked up as an AfD. Again, a similar case, where an inexperienced user just needs a little encouragement to seek sources; in this case, I cannot help (language barrier) but now I am getting wound up by RadioFan (talk · contribs) (apparently) picking on the weakinnocent. I want to make it clear here, I am not a new page patroller and frankly do not want to be, as I can imagine the work is thankless yet still needs to be done; I am very concerned however that there may be many new editors being lost through this PROD / AfD process on proto articles --Senra (Talk) 22:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a problem. As a penance, or when I'm bored, I'll look through a few new articles, the number of which is quite staggering. The problem though is that the admin wanabees have to rack up as many CSDs and AFDs as they can as fast as they can, to establish their credentials at RfA. I on the other hand get diverted into investigating articles like this, tagged incorrectly as a duplicate of this (or t'other way round, can't remember now). New page patrolling/recent page patrolling is a game to be played as fast as possible, the reward for which is adminship. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks to both for your messages. I'm sort of cooler — taking a few days break anyway. As MF knows I'm on WP to write and improve articles, and that's it. I have zero interest in becoming an admin. But I get upset by aggro towards others, especially new and inexperienced editors. I don't really like being drawn into disputes, but sometimes you have to do a bit of duty ...--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does that include aggro directed towards novice editors who do new page patrol? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, as a novice editor myself, I continue to try hard to welcome new users though at the moment, I fear I am becoming a one-man crusade against a certain page-patroller. Shakes head; smells the roses; goes back to article creation --Senra (Talk) 16:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Any aggro towards anyone (except I suppose those who have themselves instigated aggro and "need" some of it directed towards themselves (although I suspect that rather fuels fires than extinguishes flames)).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More churches

If you want to do a different kind of church for a change, there are sources for Powelton Baptist Church at User talk:Uncle G#Baptist State Convention of North Carolina article. Uncle G (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay; I've been away. You honour me by the invitation — but I've recently embarked on a project dealing with redundant churches in UK, and there are over 300 of them, so it may be a while before I can offer much to USA. Sorry.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent help and support; it really has been most welcomed. The process completed and I hope we now have a happy and more informed inexperienced user. I really do apologise for apparently dragging you into a situation; it is not worth the further effort we all could expend here --Senra (Talk) 19:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I remember a few unpleasant interactions in my early days, and I do not see why people should have suffer such experiences in this project. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that article added; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto from me. Hope you don't mind but I uploaded a photo from flickr that I think is better quality than the geograph one. Quantpole (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested the flickr user I nabbed the picture from appears to have taken quite a lot of decent quality pictures of churches around the yorkshire area, and I think they are all CC released. Link: [2]. Quantpole (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both for the messages, and especially the photo; the one I used was awful but the only one I could find of the exterior on Commons (there are some excellent ones of the interior). I've never really got the hang of the copyright rules about Flickr(!). The article is in fact part of a list I'm compliling of the churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust. You can see where I'm up to here; I'm trying to find or write an article on every church in the list before moving it to the mainspace. And it's only the Northern region — they have over 300 churches! Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr is very hit and miss as to what they've got, whereas with geograph you know it will be released. All I do is go to the advanced search and make sure all the creative commons options are ticked. It's pretty easy to upload from flickr with the tools available, but let me know if I can be of help. Looking at that list here's one of Holy Trinity, York, and here's one of St Andrew's, Bywell (at a different angle to the one you've already got). The main benefit of flickr over geograph is that the resolution of the pictures is normally much better - particularly if you download the original size. Quantpole (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St John the Baptist's Church, Stanwick, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

On 5 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tabley House, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

-- Cirt (talk) 06:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Holy Trinity Church, Wensley, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you fancy applying your expert eye to the Wells Cathedral which has been languishing largely unloved for a while. I can help with local info but don't have your depth of knowledge on the churches & cathedrals of England or eye for detail.— Rod ^talk 10:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You attribute to me skills which, alas, I do not have. All my writing on churches and cathedrals is based on what sources I have or can find; I don't have much knowledge or eye for detail, but I am learning, steadily. I just wonder if a good option for you would be to involve Amandajm. She contributed considerably to Chester Cathedral (admittedly after it became a GA, but it's still a GA). You will see that she has a pretty good track record in this field, and she may be interested in adding Wells to her CV. Might be worth a try. If you're thinking of GA (or more, and why not?) the sections on Media and Notable uses will have to go, and the lists transferred to separate lists (cf the organ and organists in the Chester article). Sorry to be unhelpful otherwise, but thanks for the invitation. Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ideas - I had sent her a message first as she & I debated the failings of the article on its talk page about 2 years ago! I'll wait for her response but may try to tackle some of it myself.— Rod ^talk 12:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Peter's Church, Wintringham, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Mary's Church, Lead, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Old Holy Trinity Church, Wentworth, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article All Saints' Church, Harewood, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, I know you're a busy man (I'm continually impressed with the amount of churches popping up on the main page!) but I was wondering if you could take a quick look at Listed buildings in Poulton-le-Fylde. It was a little easier to complete than the Blackpool one, which I'm still working on! I'm hoping to take the P-l-F one to WP:FLC and was wondering if you can see anything major that I need to do on it first. I still think the lead may need work/adding to, but any advice or suggestions would be very much appreciated, if you get a moment! --BelovedFreak 12:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good to me and probably does not need much more attention. This is not a full review but rather a few random thoughts. I suggest you ask someone to copyedit the lead and text when they are more or less complete. Suggest you mention that most of the buildings are in the centre of the town before mentioning the outer ones; it seems to make more sense to me. And is the town really "on The Fylde coast"; some distance away I think. A tiny point which would be brought up: make the references come in number order — this applies for example in The Manor and to Market Cross. No doubt other matters will come up when it is at FLC; they always do, even if you think you have covered everything. Let me know when you submit it and I will follow its progress. Good luck.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those thoughts. I'm so used to hearing "The Fylde" + "coast", I just put them together naturally, but you're right! I'll let you know when I nominate. Cheers, --BelovedFreak 09:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Mary's Church, South Cowton, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St John the Evangelist's Church, Leeds, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

TheDYKUpdateBot 18:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been admiring for some days now your contributions concerning the Yorkshire Churches Conservation Trust churches. Very impressive - and I've got my fingers crossed you are going to attack each county one by one with similarly excellent results! Jasper33 (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Michael's Church, Cowthorpe, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No - I didn't meant to do that. Yikes Thought all I got rid off was that uncited supposed undated work with the gibberish name. I can't find any reference to that anywhere else and its not mentioned in teh body of text, and looks like someone is taking the micky by putting it there. If you knwo better then fine, but at face value it seems total rubbish As for the pix - total accident, didn't even realise I'd done it. Thanks for the repairOlddemdike (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... interesting piece on redundant/ruined churches.--BelovedFreak 19:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, missed it; which programme was that? But I have been catching up with last week's programme on Civic Architecture on BBC4; much info on Liverpool's Bluecoat Chambers, Town Hall and St George's Hall — I've contributed to all of these.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... well it was only a short bit in the end, on Countrywise. In fact, by the time I left this note, it had become more about efforts to stop churches (some of which are just about active) falling into ruin. Probably not worth chasing up on catch-up, but an interesting little interlude. Must be fun seeing topics you've worked on cropping up in the wider world; I've not had that happen yet!--BelovedFreak 20:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of St John the Baptist's Church, Pilling at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Mary's Church, Tarleton, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Old St John the Baptist's Church, Pilling, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Mary's Church, Tarleton, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St John the Baptist's Church, Pilling, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St John the Evangelist's Church, Lancaster, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Martin's Church, Allerton Mauleverer, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Becconsall Old Church, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Mary's Church, Roecliffe, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]