User talk:Peter I. Vardy/Archive 5

Netley Abbey
Hi Peter. Just thought you might like to know that Netley Abbey, which you helped me so much on, is now undergoing its GA review. The reviewer has made a couple of good points, notably about wikilinks going to disambiguation pages than where they should go, but in several places he/she has clearly not read the article properly (for instance claiming statements were absent that were present in the text). He/she also thinks the article is under-cited rather than over-cited, which surprised me - I thought I had probably cited more than I should rather than the reverse. I can't say I cared for the tone either. Still, this'll be fun. Soph (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I've just seen that Netley Abbey has passed and is now a Good Article. I'm thrilled, this is my first GA. I could never have done it without the help and encouragement that you and Malleus have given me. Thankyou! My next one to work on is going to be either Vale Royal Abbey or Cleeve Abbey Soph (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridgewater Canal
I've noticed a lot of good edits on this article from you - what say we get it to GA status? I have a bit of tidying up to do on my Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal to get it through FAC, and the Bridgewater was next on my list. For such a massively important part of the industrial revolution, it deserves better than B-class don't you think? Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely. But I do think the article needs quite a lot of re-writing/re-formatting before it is anything like decent (and I think you said you would have a go at this).  There is plenty more stuff to come, I suspect (I am only at page 24 of After the Canal Duke, out of 356 pages) so I hope more can be added as time goes on.  Nevertheless with reorganisation I think the article could be made GA and, with further edits, could go towards FA.  Do you? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Most certainly it could be FAC - there is plenty of information around, about it - I've just added stuff from the internet thus far, library visits have been concerned with other things :) I'll put a request in for it to be copyedited.  Given it's importance I think its a good candidate for FA - the first canal of the industrial age (that began in the UK anyway) is most certainly an important subject.  Annoyingly, the free trial of The Time's archive service has now ended, so I can't use that unless I pay.  I do have a page saved about 'the dukes collieries' though, I'll give you a link to it shortly. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here you go click 'all sizes' to make it bigger. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Times archive is still free if you're a member of Manchester Libraries. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oooo good tip, I shall join then. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Vale Royal Abbey
Vale Royal Abbey it is then. I've done some work on it previously of course, but having been through all the stuff with Netley Abbey I can see now how far there is to go. I have good sources for the history during the monastic period, the mediaeval buildings and the limited excavation that has been done, but very little for the post-Dissolution story, which is why I left off work on it. Fortunately I have just tracked down what looks to be a rare monograph on the abbey (on e-bay of all places) so that should that should help a lot if I can win it. I find the story of Vale Royal fascinating as it's full of high hopes, disaster and quite spectacular villainy on all sides. Such a comedown to end up as a golf club... Soph (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter. I've started work on Vale Royal Abbey now - there is so much to do, especially now that I have many new sources packed with information and documents which will let me fill out the many gaps in the article - especially the later history, which was not written by me.


 * I was also wondering, seeing as you've done so much on Cheshire churches, if you had any recommendations for sources where I might find things on St Mary's in Whitegate, Cheshire? It's been put in to the Vale Royal article as having been owned by the abbey and possibly on the site of the gate chapel (the current church, pictured in the article, looks like a Victorian rebuild to me) but I need to confirm or remove it. I've dropped a line to the vicar as I've had great success in the past with asking clergy where things have been published about their churches.


 * By the way, the gentleman I bought the Vale Royal monograph from on ebay is selling a host of Cheshire-related antiquarian, local history and archaeological books and journals, some of them probably quite hard to find, at penny prices. While I was reviewing his list, which is here:


 * http://shop.ebay.co.uk/merchant/mithras-gallery_W0QQ_nkwZQQ_armrsZ1QQ_fromZQQ_mdoZ


 * I must admit that I wondered whether any of it would be useful for your research. I hope mentioning this is not inappropriate. Soph (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is an article on the church at St Mary's Church, Whitegate which contains most of which I could find at the time I wrote it. The church's website has been changed since, so I have today brought it up to date.  Their historical info is here.  I found the other historical stuff in Richards' book, which I had borrowed and have now returned.  There is a later edition (in the 1970s I think) and you may be able to borrow this through a library.  Other than that, there's not much I can offer.  Pevsner contains nothing about the history of the church but quite a bit about the history of the abbey.


 * Thanks for the info about the ebay site; nothing on it at present at a price I want to pay, but I'll keep an eye on the seller for future bargains! Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

St Mary's Church, Nantwich
I've had a good look through the article now, and the only obvious objection I can see is to this statement in the lead:


 * Richards describes it as "one of the great architectural treasures of Cheshire". Clifton-Taylor includes it in his list of "outstanding" English parish churches

The obvious question is who are Richards and Clifton-Taylor?

Apart from that, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't put this forwards at GAN right now. It's another nice, well-referenced article from the Peter I. Vardy factory. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

St Mary's Church, Nantwich review
The article was very good - I've left a couple of comments in the review rather than passing it straight away, but they're very minor, and not all of them need to be particularly addressed. It's on hold for a week, and I'll see if I can do anything to help. - Bilby (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I passed the article for GA - not that this should be surprising. You've been doing excellent work. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

St Enodoc Church
Hi, as the person who did it, I wonder if you could chime in to the question I just asked on Talk:St Enodoc's Church, Trebetherick about the renaming. Regards, Stevekeiretsu (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Henshall
I thought you might be interested in this article I created. I've got to work this weekend but should be able to add a bit more to it. Should make a good DYK candidate. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay - have been away. Interesting article; Skempton looks a good source.  Maybe one day we could improve the material on the Weaver Navigation which includes little history and no references.  Keep up the progress on the current projects! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Christ Church, Wheelock
Hi Peter just written an article for Christ Church, Wheelock. Wondered if you would have a quick look over it with your expert eye. Many thanks 安東尼   TALKies  20:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Netley Abbey at FAC
Hi Peter. Thanks for your kind words. I'm finding it an interesting learning experience. Some good improvements have been suggested, and been incorporated, some of the other comments have not been so helpful. Currently the scoring is three supports and one weak oppose. I don't know how many supports the article needs to pass nor how long the process will take. We shall see. The article is looking good now and that's what I set out to do (I joined wikipedia because the article on Netley really annoyed me as it was so bad), so I won't mind if it doesn't pass in the end, though I'd like it to. I have other abbeys to write about, Vale Royal, Titchfield and Cleeve. I can use the lessons I've learned on Netley to make them good. Soph (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the result's in the balance right now. The article's prose really has suffered a bit during the FAC, which seems to be the main reason for the oppose. It ought to be fairly easy to tighten up the prose now that the content and layout are pretty much sorted, and with that done the opposer may be persuaded to at least withdraw his/her opposition, which might well be enough to see you over the line, I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Lyme Park
I have been watching your work at Lyme with admiration, but I just wondered why you thought the style needed amending. I would have thought Palladian was spot on, as in England Italianate and (as far as I know the rest of the world - other than Italy) means a more 19th century style preferably with a belvedere, verandahs, terraces etc. Just a thought. Giano (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I have been struggling (as you have noticed) with describing the architectural style of the house.  I am no expert in architecture so I am relying on the sources which I hope are the most reliable.  Referring to the south front, Images of England says "For a garden front it is magnificent but more Baroque than Palladian" and makes no other reference to Palladian style.  Pevsner says "But his great south front is not a Palladian front".  So I have settled for the National Trust's safer use of "Italianate" - broader but maybe less controversial.  Do you have any better references or sources?  I do not intend to fight over this; really I just want to avoid the attention of pedantic editors (and I thought that the article might be getting near to submission as a GAC - what do you think of that?). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As an editor of Giacomo Leoni and Italianate I don't want to quote myself to prove a point, but I just feel that Lyme is not what is accepted as Italianate architecture, (the term does not mean looking as though it came from Italy at some vague time) if one were to remove that curious 19th century box addition from the top of the pediment, one could say it was almost a "Neoclassical Russian interpretation of Palladianism" but that is confusing the issue so let's not go there. I see where the Baroque commentators are coming from, but I would be happier to see it described as Palladian. Since starting to typed this message I have just looked it up in the National Trust's Guide 3dt edition (published 1984) and found that  page 156 describes it as "One of the boldest achievements of Palladian architecture in this country"  which it isn't  (in my view either)  there are far bolder. Anyway it is up to you,  you are the one who is writing it, it is just great to see a lacking page being so improved. Regards. Giano (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After my last message I found a booklet produced by the National Trust published in 1975 (I don't have the 1984 guide) which is also very quizzical about whether it is true Palladian or not. So I've changed the lead in a way that I hope will satisfy most, while being true to the sources. What do you think? I may add a footnote in due course.  Incidentally I'm pleased you are working on the Leoni article - it certainly needs some proper referencing with inline citations.  Good luck! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

GA
Are you sure that this Talk:Lyme Park/GA1 is the right plave to be commenting? On the talk page? What happens on the main page? Wikipedia instructions seem to become more complicated by the moment. I've just felt as though I was talking to myslef in a forgotten empty and distant room. Giano (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I was not clear why this discussion started here rather than on the talk page of the article. So I have copied the discussion to Talk:Lyme Park.  I have also copied the comment at Talk:Lyme Park/GA1 to the article's talk page.  Now it is more available to the whole of the Wikipedia community. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I think there is suposed to be a designated GA designated discussion page somewhere, I'll have a look and see what other people do. Giano (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems you were right first time, other GA candidiates are languishing on a similarly isolated pages - no wonder they are rarely reviewed. Giano (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Were you looking for Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations? But this seems to be a discussion page for GACs generally, not specific articles. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems we should be here after all. I just thought it was the wrong place because no one else was there after so long Giano (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the GA reviewer usually creates that GAn page when he or she posts the GA review, following which it's used for subsequent discussion of the review and a permanent archive of what was decided and agreed once the review is closed. Everything else, including suggestions for improvement, should be on the article's talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I thought. So what do we do about what's on the GAn page?  I feel it might get in the way; a potential reviewer might think the review has already been started.  Should the comment be removed? Not sure about the protocol in this sort of situation. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Already sorted. Like you I thought it would be confusing to a potential reviewer, so I've moved everything to talk. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! Thanks a million. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I Just need to get the review page deleted now, so that the talk page header doesn't incorrectly say that the article is being reviewed and then everything should be OK. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ... all fixed now and the article is being reviewed. Good luck! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The 50 DYK Medal

 * Many thanks - it's been fun. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Westwood Moravian Church
Hello there Peter! I hope all is well.

Westwood Moravian Church is a new article, created by a new user. I've added some of the more advanced features (categories, infobox, refs), and its now not too bad.

You do alot of work on churches in the North West, and you also submit alot of DYK?s. I wondered, would you be willing to have a look at this one? --Jza84 | Talk  13:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invitation. Comments on the article's talk page. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Gothic revival architecture
It's fine to add "in England" to the Gothic Revival Architecture category, but when there is Gothic (actual not Revival) architecture in the church as well as Gothic Revival, please do not delete it - it's a bother to revert it. Thanks. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Gothic Revival is a sub-category of Gothic, so no need for both. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your argument is not supported in any of the relevant WP articles - English Gothic architecture, Gothic Revival architecture or Gothic architecture. In fact the last article discusses the differences between Gothic survival and Gothic revival.  In my opinion (for what it matters) there is a world of fundamental difference between true original Gothic, developed over centuries by medieval masons working at the forefront of building technology, and Victorian architects who copied some of their ideas and designs.  But I am no expert in architecture, so I am asking for guidance from WikiProject Architecture.  I will add a link when then is done. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The link is here. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter - great points! The problem we have here is that when new editors want to add a new article, most will copy an existing article. Hence, you only need one Gothic and Gothic Revival categorised article to be copied, and then for more established editors to copy the precedent - and we resultantly have both categories stuffed to the brim with the same articles: making the two categories pointless. I am not an architectural expert, just an amateur fan of great design, but from a wikipedia view point the question if articles should appear in both sections is why do you need both categories? I think we have to make academically and encyclopedicly defined decisions in such cases, and focus groups here are the best way to define the policy. I thank you for your input, great discussion, and please let me know the outcome: and if ever I can help you, please just ask! With Best Regards, - Ian aka Trident13 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter - I replied on Trident's page - there's a clear distinction between Gothic and Gothic revival - I'm not convinced by his arguments above about new users and editor incompetence etc. I'm not especially militant about categories, but if you want some further support, give me a buzz. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

England wikilink & Citeweb/Citation reference template
Hi there, I don't mean to be nosey... I'm curious to know your rationale behind removing the 'England' wikilink from articles about towns/villages in Cheshire. Assumed that this was a standard wikilink in such articles and it seems a pretty widespread practice elsewhere - unless I'm missing something. (Surely it also doesn't do any harm having it in there?) Perhaps I've missed something at WP:UKG or WP:Cheshire? Also, what's the difference between and  reference templates? Best wishes, Snowy 1973 (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the above, I've just noticed that England isn't wikilinked in the UK Geog guidelines WP:UKTOWNS, so will not link it again. Regarding the references, I've reverted your edit to Daresbury as I've just noticed a difference to the reference templates: 'citation' misses out the 'work' field. Snowy 1973 (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to keep up with changes which seem to be happening. Wikilinking words like England and dates seems to have become "deprecated" - see WP:OVERLINK; they don't want common and well-known words to be linked.  And they seem to have created a new template:citation which is a coverall for all citations (the old cite web, cite book, etc).  I had found that all my dates under cite web had turned into 2008-12-05 instead of 5 December 2008.  If you use template:citation they come out properly - and you can use it for books, journals, newspapers etc.  This means that any of the available fields can be used/added.  I've become converted - it's much more flexible.  The citation template means that the Harvard referencing system can be used, as it says in the article.  Have a look at All Saints Church, Runcorn to see how it works.  Try it! Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. Will give the new citation template a go. Also need to get to grips with Harvard style referencing. Snowy 1973 (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, thankyou for taking the time to advise; your refs are always excellent. I do prefer the d/m/y date formatting to the alternatives. Snowy 1973 (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Runcorn railway bridge
Mr Vardy - no, I would not mind you reverting to the 'vaguer' date of 1868. The 'precise' date I used came from what seemed to be a good source - but you local historians appear to have looked closely at several other sources to come to a general consensus! It's a good idea to attach a note to the article to explain the apparently conflicting dates for the bridge's opening. RuthAS (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking
Peter, I've just noticed this. Try editing now, as I think I may have cleared an autoblock that was preventing you from editing. If you can edit other articles, I'll post the appropriate "unblock request accepted" message; if not, I'll try again for you. DDStretch   (talk)  19:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah! beaten to it by another!  DDStretch    (talk)  19:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. OK now.  I must say the response was pretty quick.  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Turnpike roads
I've been building a list of Turnpike Trusts in Greater Manchester, which eventually should be a good basis for improving similar articles around the region. I just wondered if you had any books at hand that could help with this list? I have one on order (Turnpikes and Toll Houses of Lancashire by Freethy, Ron) and my list is here: User talk:Parrot of Doom/sandbox but I really need to get a hi-res version of Cary's 1787 maps of the region (plenty on the internet but all lo-res). Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've virtually nothing on this, other than the road between Runcorn and Northwich was turnpiked in 1820. I can give you a reference for this if it is of any use.  I've nothing on the rest of Cheshire - and Runcorn was of course a cul de sac.  You could always try User:Ddstretch who has a lot of info on Cheshire. Greetings for 2009.  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I now remember I have Phillips & Phillips' Historical Atlas of Cheshire which has a bit (not a lot). If you could email me with your postal address at pvardy@doctors.org.uk, I could send you photocopies of what there is - some of the roads are now of course in Greater Manchester.  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll bear it in mind, I'll be off to central library in Manchester soon to get the rest of the details I need. The page I'm building is here, its very far from finished.  I'm also building a map of all turnpikes in GM, that should take quite a while :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck. Hope it goes well.  Happy New Year. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Scheduled Monuments
I've left some comments on the list of Grade I LBs in Runcorn and I think that with everyone's comments, you could probably skip peer review. Scheduled Monuments on the other hand are much more difficult to get information about. Pastscape is generally reliable, and does tell you if a site's scheduled, either under the main description or listed as a "Scheduled Monument Notification" under the sources. The problem is (as far as I know) you can't search for just Scheduled Monuments. Some local authorities might provide lists of SMs on their websites, but it's hit and miss; I just checked and I couldn't find one for Halton. Ages ago, I started a list of the SMs in Greater Manchester with an eye to taking it to FLC, but it's not finished because I couldn't be sure which ones were missing. It's just occurred to me that for a complete list it would probably be worth e-mailing Cheshire's county archaeologist. Hapy editing, Nev1 (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I feared as much; so I will work through the websites. But it's a good idea to e-mail Jill Collens - I met her when I was chairman of the local history society.  I'll do that in the New Year.  (Although I guess they'll be more excited by the forthcoming division of Cheshire than in SMAs.)  Best wishes for 2009.  Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire
Just a quick note to say how impressed I am with the work you've done on this article. I don't agree with all of the comments being made at its FLC, especially about the text size, but needs must when the Devil drives. Very nice work that fully deserves to be promoted. I was particularly impressed to see that you'd taken all of the photos yourself! --Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Dealing with all the comments has been a bit of a challenge, but I've also learnt a lot - and at last I've got one "support".  Like you I don't agree with all of the comments but I have have gone along with them unless I feel strongly or they are wrong, etc.  (Unlike some, I prefer the quiet life!) Interesting that the commentators ask questions that are already answered in the text! My main reason for embarking on this (apart from pride if it succeeds) is to have something featured that relates to Cheshire and to Cheshire alone (I'm very jealous of the work going on with the GM project and wish we had some more active editors in Cheshire).  Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheshire's got a good collection of GAs going on, 20 compares favourably to WP:YORKS 25. I'm impressed with the way the FLC's going, much smoother than Grade I LBs in GM went, and I tentatively think it will get promoted. I never agree with all the points these raise, but sometimes it is easier just to make the changes. And of course, good suggestions do get made, I like the map of all points, is it as simple as adding ? Nev1 (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I too like the map of all coordinates but take no credit for it - it was added by Doncram. I haven't a clue how to do it - and it needs some more work as only two of the points are named.  Too late tonight!   Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheshire certainly deserves a featured something or other, so here's hoping this is the first of many. Who knows, maybe one day you'll even take Runcorn back to the bear pit? It's got to be close by now.


 * The energy in the GM project is quite astonishing, God knows where it comes from! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't enjoy the FAC process with Runcorn - some helpful comments but too much aggro for me. I'm content that it is a GA and vastly better than when I started editing on WP.  I see it gets over 4,000 visits a month, so thank goodness it's been improved. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me how to do the thing with the map, I'll try to add it to Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester at some point. Nev1 (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Peter. I hope my very late comments don't derail the thing -- I hadn't realised there was a time limit. I feel badly about listing some of these things rather than fixing them, but I'm deeply into several different projects at the moment, several of which I hope will make it to DYK if I can but get my act together. (No Cheshire ones, sadly, I seem to be on a biologist bio thing at the moment.) Meanwhile, I hope you have a peaceful and productive 2009. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine - your comments are valid; and we want the Cheshire material to be good! I'll do what I can when I get a good connection. Thanks for your good wishes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I recognised SRX, I hadn't clicked on their name to see who they were. It's lucky you pointed that out, because I was rather annoyed with someone opposing on what seemed to be just the use of commas! I've implemented all of the comma changes suggested, although they don't all feel right; if you think they're wrong, feel free to change them back. I'll be a bit pushed for time today, but I'll help out where I can. Nev1 (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking of withdrawing the nomination. (Perhaps it's my virus infection; perhaps it's my unstable broadband connection; perhaps it's trivial comments about commas and suggestions of changes which don't make sense by an American school-kid.)  I have addressed, or at least answered, all the points made to date, but every amendment seems to lead to more problems.  The "consensus" at the moment is 1 support and 1 oppose.  I have changed all the descriptions into complete sentences - that will give unlimited opportunities for comma-comments!  I'll give it 48 hours.  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I know exactly how you're feeling right now Peter – about the nomination, not about the viral infection, of course. In my mercifully few encounters with the FLC process I've also found it to be arbitrary and frustrating, far more so than FAC. The most trivial objections come flying out of the woodwork, claiming that there are standards for things like column colours that nobody else except the opposer has ever even heard of, much less agreed on. Nevertheless, I'd encourage you to stick with it, who knows how it will end up. I'm going to add my support in any event. The article deserves no less. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a million, Malleus - you're a pal!. Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with what Malleus said, the article certainly has my [unspoken] support, that's why I got involved. It feels like some comments are based on WP:ILIKEIT, but hopefully the closer will understand. Nev1 (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks - another pal! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it would be premature to withdraw, Peter. I'm through with one of my pet projects now, so if I can get another one done this evening, I'll get on with having a run through the lead, after which I'll be happy to add my formal support. As to the column colours, I rather like the idea, particularly now they've been altered to be editable -- it certainly seems necessary to explain the difference between grade II* & grade II carefully! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Now I have a problem (maybe a nice problem). Following the last comment by doncram I should like to split the list back into sections (Grades) as it was originally. This makes more sense to me, gets rid of a column and those awful colours, and offers a ToC. BUT it now has 4 supports and no opposes (the hoped-for consensus), and the 10 days is close. Do I split it into three sections (WP:ILIKEIT), or sit back and wait for glory? Help, please! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And now I've added some External links, which has produced a ToC UNDER the list, which looks ridiculous. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved the table of contents. If you want to suppress it, then just change the TOC I added to NOTOC. Now that you've got four supports and the deadline is drawing close, I'd be inclined not to rock the boat, and leave things as they are for now. Actually I quite like that coloured column anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds like the voice of wisdom! Thanks for sorting out the ToC. I think I'll just sort the refs into numerical order (as suggested by Espresso Addict (tomorrow)) and then wait to see what happens. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's been successful! Congratulations! Espresso Addict (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's great. Many, many, many, thanks to all who have helped. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well. Well done! DDStretch   (talk)  19:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Castle Hotel, Halton
I have nominated Castle Hotel, Halton, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Castle Hotel, Halton. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Help! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC):::


 * Hi Peter! I've left a strong "keep", with reasons, on the deletion debate page for Castle Hotel, Halton. It's a Grade II* listed building, recognised by English Heritage as being notable, and has a very interesting history as a governmental and legal centre. To be honest, I cannot see why this article should have been nominated for deletion in the first place, it is clearly an important structure (and from my own point of view aesthetically rather cool) and part of a significant archaeolgical site. I think the "wiki is not paper" policy might be useful to us in defending the article. I'll be watching the debate page, and will help as much as I can. Best wishes Soph (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any danger of this article being deleted; the nomination is clearly absurd. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Aye, I cannot see see a rational justification for nominating this article for deletion. Dr Peter and his co-conspirators in the Cheshire tribe obviously have plans ahead for when they can get their mitts on sources, but this is a building that is recognised as being of national importance. Soph (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt the article would be deleted, consensus seems to be leading that way and it's clearly notable. Nev1 (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is probably a genuine mistake, with the nominator mistaking grade II* for grade II. I've left a note on his talk page, but I don't think there's any danger of deletion. Sorry my request has caused all this fuss, Peter! Espresso Addict (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone for your great support. I've been out for some hours and it seems there has been some activity in my absence!  Glad you all agree with me - and it's important for the development of the work we are doing. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Below is a lot of help Peter. Let me know if I can do anything. I am voting on the page right now. travb (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I came to this very late, but I agree with Malleus that the nomination is absurd, though I think the nominator didn't know much about the topic and made a mistake about the grading system. I am a bit more perturbed by the fact that the article had only been created 5 minutes before the AfD was slapped onto it, and it clearly to me didn't seem to be the kind of sparse article that would merit such a quick nomination. To then claim it was almost advertising, when the nominator had clearly not looked at the editing history of Peter or his contributions seemed to be almost a failure in WP:AGF. If the decision were to delete it (and I don't think that would happen), I'd be more than willing to save a copy of it to a sub=page of your talk page, Peter, so that you could beef it up a bit at your leisure more before it went back into article space. DDStretch   (talk)  01:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * From discussion with the nominator, I believe it was a genuine mistake in overlooking the "star". It does look as if there's widespread consensus among editors that grade II* denotes automatic notability, though I don't think the same would necessarily be true of grade II (in the absence of other sources). I'm more and more thinking that one of the few benefits of being an admin (as opposed to the many distracting responsibilities) is being exempt from the oversight process at article creation stage. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The decision was Speedy Keep. So many thanks to you all for your speedy contributions to this. I was interested to discover the existence of WP:SNOW. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you
The article you created, Castle Hotel, Halton maybe deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:
 * Articles for deletion/Castle Hotel, Halton.

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:
 * 1) List the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
 * 2) You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
 * 3) When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you. Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept. Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
 * 4) You can vote to merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

Finding sources which mention the topic of your article are the very best way to keep an article.


 * Find sources for Castle Hotel, Halton: google books, google news recent, google news old, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * RE: "I cannot understand why people are so keen to remove reasonable material"
 * Here is part of the reason
 * Congratulations on your speedy keep, I am very happy for you. Consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron and help other people with their articles.travb (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADlohcierekim&diff=263362680&oldid=263320275 Your are welcome. It was my pleasure. And thanks for the links]. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  16:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not looked at the article again, but would suggest that expansion should include details of what court used to use the house (pub). I have come across various references to manor courts meeting in (or at) the gatehouse of a manor house or castle: Oldswinford and Whittington Castle immediately spring to mind (but you will not find this in their articles).  I can aslo think of several examples of the court house being used as a pub: Kingswinford has a pub called the Court House, which I presume is where its manor court met.  The Hundred House at Great Witley was presumably where the hundred of Doddingtree met.  I stayed in a pub in Pembrokeshire some years ago and was told that the building contained a magistrates court.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Castle Hotel, Halton and Norton Priory
Hi Peter! It was my pleasure to help re the Castle Hotel in Halton and I am glad that the article has been saved. To be honest I think it was a mistake by the nominator due to not understanding the listed building gradings. Even so, I was most disturbed to see it being put up for deletion so soon after it was created and clearly with little reading of the text. There seems to me to be no reasonable justification for this. I haven't seen the new Norton Priory book yet - who is the author? Best wishes, Soph (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no details yet. Will try to remember to let you know when they find a printer.  Best wishes, Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire FL
Congrats! Hope to see more. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well deserved and a credit to WikiProject Cheshire. Nev1 (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)