User talk:Peter I. Vardy/Archive 3

Hi DidYouKnow nom

 * ...that Christ Chuch in Macclesfield was built by Charles Roe for the Rev. David Simpson, because he had been denied a curacy in another church? by Peter I. Vardy

nice article. Double nom by Victuallers (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC). I see there a number of related articles - are there any other that are new? By new I mean last few days or to be published in next few days? Victuallers (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)... a ha! we can use the same hook. See above. I'll make the change! Oh and thanks for contribution on Charlres Roe (Im a member of the Derbyshire project). Victuallers (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Chester Mess
Thanks for the message, peter. I did realise that you were probably referring to the new editor, but put in my own message to attempt to soften the blow a little. Unfortunately, it seems that the new editor has taken this as an opportunity to mount another attack upon me. DDStretch   (talk)  23:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK nomination of St Mary's Church, Cheadle
Hi. I've nominated St Mary's Church, Cheadle, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know, where you can improve it if you see fit. Black Falcon (Talk) 07:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Peter. I'm having problems with some of the information on the St. Mary's Church page, from the Wirral Heritage Churches web-page. It's most unlikely that the site of this church has been a place of worship since the 5th century, because it was originally just a chapel of another church; the yew tree isn't mentioned in Domesday Book, and there are more Kempe windows at Hucknall church in Nottinghamshire (plus probably others). It would also be well worth checking the Civil War sabre story from the same source! David Trochos (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK nomination of St Mary's Church, Eastham
Thanks for nominating the article I started about St Mary's Church, Eastham for DYK. Sadly, both hooks have proved to be based on unreliable evidence. I have amended the article and withdrawn the nomination. But many thanks to you all the same! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note, Dr. Vardy. That was a little disappointing, but it's okay.  I look forward to seeing more articles from you on UK historic sites at DYK. Happy editing. --PFHLai (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added a book source ref. for the Domesday priest (sadly, the online versions of Domesday Book all seem to be pay-per-view). In a spirit of extreme cheekiness, I've also added the old Chester city arms to "History of Chester"! David Trochos (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

John Douglas
Thanks for your good work on entabulating the works of John Douglas. It is a great improvement. The article itself needs improvement. I hope to borrow Hubbard's book in the New Year and do something about it (unless someone beats me to it). I wonder if it would then be better to make the "Works" into a separate "List". We could probably in time do with categories to John Douglas in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. What do you think? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fully agree - there is a precedent with List of works by Clough Williams-Ellis that, every so often, I think of putting into tabular form. Saga City (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Great work on these articles, Peter! I bet God appreciates it ;) I know that I do! --JayHenry (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: GA thanks
You're welcome, and best wishes for the new year to you as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * It was nominated by User:Alansohn. It wasn't nominated for long before I used it on that next update. It was awesome timing, because I was looking for an article from that date with a photo. I looked through almost all of them from that date to find a free use one used in this article. I went to upload it from Commons directly to the English Wikipedia so it could be protected here (standard procedure) only to find out that there was a character that wouldn't allow me to upload it here. I posted a message on the admin talkboard and it uploaded correctly for someone else. I don't understand why it worked for them and not me, but as long as it works! Royal broil  21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your copyedit request
On 18 August 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on Runcorn. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we aplogize. Since your request, this article has been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Runcorn again
I know that you've had some bad experiences with Runcorn at FA in the past, but do you think that you might be prepared to consider this idea? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Runcorn is currently awaiting copyediting - a major cause for opposition as a FAC last time. When that is done it might be worth reviewing the article and considering FAC again.  Thanks for the suggestion. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyediting is one of the skills offered by this group, so being a guinea pig in trying this idea out may produce results quicker than waiting for the LoCE, which seems to be permanently overloaded with requests. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Edmund Sharpe
I've had a look at Edmund Sharpe and I think the structure is fine so far. You get away with the listiness of the last half of the article because you've used tables, and if you separated that material out into a separate article it would leave poor Edmund's article as barely more than a start class. The amount of stuff that Brassey built meant that you had no choice but to put that into a separate list. Possibly Brassey's article ought to have used tables as well?

It's a personal preference of mine though to slightly reduce the text size in tables. They always look a bit "in your face" to me otherwise. Nice article, well done (again). --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I intend to make Brassey's list into tables in due course (unless someone gets there first).  I'm a bit new to tables and am very ignorant about them (I tend to copy what I find elsewhere).  I agree that the text size is "in your face".  How do I fix it?  Now John Douglas is in a different dimension and there is much more to do to that.  I look forward to your comments and accept there is much to do, but he is such an important, largely unrecognised, Cestrian (rather like Brassey). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed the first table so that you can see how it's done. I'll try and have a good look at John Douglas in the next day or so. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Dunnit! Applied the same to the Douglas tables, which also look much better.  Are the images OK, or should we find a better way of displaying them? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, the images :-(


 * I think the images do need some work, yes, but it depends on what you're trying to achieve. Are the images supposed to be in a single ribbon down the right hand side, or in separate ribbons, related to the tables? On the separate subject of the tables, I notice that they don't all match in terms of their column widths. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Early stages, as you realise, and a bit experimental. My first idea was to put the images, if and when I found them, opposite the relevant table, ie. separate ribbons. That may or may not work. I'll also look at the column widths, in due course. I just wanted a comment on whether things were progressing in a reasonable direction.  I think in time there will be so much Douglas "stuff" that it will merit a separate List.  Thanks for the comments to date. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that separate ribbons could work fine, and there's no doubt in my mind that you're headed in the right direction with Douglas' article. I'll try to be more specific in the next day or so, but for now all I can say is that I'm really pleased that you're putting these forgotten engineering giants of the 19th century back on the map.


 * My motivation for getting involved in wikipedia was to make local history easily available to everyone. I'm no historian, or geographer, but I felt that if people could connect more easily with their past, and the history of the place they were living in, then they might respect it more. Sorry, I almost started to unburden myself on you there. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess there's bit of kindred spirit there. When I first started messing about in WP I was upset by the Runcorn (my home town) article which was then not much more than a list of chip shops and take-aways. Eventually I plucked up courage (and some of the skills) to virtually re-write it. I then dealt with Widnes in a similar manner. So at least the reader now has a reasonable account of these towns. Then came the WikiProject Cheshire and I decided to try to fill some of the gaps in the Cheshire story (and a few non-Cheshire topics which whet my appetite). My philosophy at present is to write a range of reasonable articles rather than gain medals for the special few; I prefer writing to editing. Hence the seeming reluctance in my replies about trying FAC again. I too am no historian or geographer, but I am enjoying learning a lot in new disciplines. I await the outcome of the Middlewich "project" with interest. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)