User talk:Peter I. Vardy/Archive 6

Re: WikiProject Cheshire
Sorry! Periodically my level of disenchantment with the way the community (Wikipedia, not the Cheshire WikiProject) works -- or fails to -- grows to the point that walking away for a little while is the best solution. Last year was also rather stressful for personal reasons. You shouldn't diminish your contributions -- writing & improving articles is why we're (supposed to be) here, and you must be one of the most prolific content contributors to the entire encyclopedia! As a former journal editor, I'm also keen on the idea of providing access points -- front pages, if you like -- to enable people to reach decent-quality content in their area of interest -- hence my sporadic involvement with DYK & my equally sporadic efforts on the Cheshire portal.

You should be very proud of Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire -- it must have been a huge amount of work, particularly getting all the photos together! I found it fascinating reviewing the list in detail whilst working on the lead, in particular how the spread of listed buildings in Runcorn is so different from those of Nantwich, not 30 miles away. I'd love to get the Nantwich list up to FL, but fear you've set the standard impossibly high. There's no way I can get 100% photo coverage, as several entities are on private land and are invisible from the public highway, and some of the buildings that are supposed to be viewable from the road I've never actually managed to identify. The only way I'm going to get the coordinates is to buy a handheld GPS (I've tried with the car GPS, but it just isn't safe!). I'm also envious of the detail on the official material from the boroughs; the equivalent Crewe & Nantwich material just gives a bald list, and isn't even correct in all its details (the house I live in, for example, is listed under the wrong CP!), so one is left with IoE & in some cases Pevsner for the descriptions. Still, there's definitely more development that is possible, so perhaps I should focus on that!

As to another featured article, I think Runcorn will prove hard: there's so much information available about a town of that size, and you're inevitably at the mercy of the featured article reviewers of the month as to what they think should be included & excluded. I would think it might be easier to go for a building or similar site, perhaps Norton Priory or Chester Cathedral? My personal goals on the project for the coming year are to get Crewe Hall & Acton, Cheshire to GA, which I hope will be achievable.

I don't think it matters that the project has few active contributors, as long as we agree it's worth keeping it going. The projects that have been suspended have essentially no activity over months. I wouldn't suggest asking everyone directly whether they are still interested, but a newsletter (now we have some good news!) might be a useful way of stimulating interest, with the side effect that those who have moved on will tell us so. My recent comments on getting the portal featured seem to have stirred up quite a bit of interest, so hopefully some new article work will ensue. If you had a moment your comments & suggestions on the portal suggestions page would be very valuable. Also if I could badger you into writing/improving some more biographies for featuring on the portal, that would be useful! I might have a go at some or all of Tim Hunt, Elizabeth Gaskell & William Bowman, though there are several others on the list that pique my interest. I've discovered that hardly any Cheshire people have been project tagged, so I'm trying to work semi-systematically through lists & categories to tag the articles that are at least a decent Start class. Anyway, this has turned out far longer than I'd anticipated, so I'll stop there -- Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Belated response, sorry, I got involved in writing the newsletter, which seems to have stirred up some activity from others than the usual suspects, which makes it feel almost worthwhile. I will try and stir myself to do more on the Nantwich listed buildings list when the weather improves such that photos can be taken. I realise one reason that I've neglected the far end of Welsh Row is that Malbank School puts me off appearing like a paedophile hanging around nearby with a big camera. I also got harangued for taking a picture (from across the street) of one of the Nantwich cottages, which made me realise that some people consider having a photograph of their house on the internet is a significant invasion of privacy, even when it's listed. Thanks for the hint on how to get the coordinates, I'll give it a go.


 * I thought Chester Cathedral was an excellent article. It's a pity you've been put off editing it, because you have significant expertise in the area of ecclesiastical architecture, and I can't see anyone else trying to take it towards FA. I've just added Norton Priory to the portal, and we definitely must get this made a priority for featuring, it's extremely interesting. I know Netley Abbey (I was born a southerner), and it's much less interesting as an archaeological site than Norton sounds to be. Both Eaton Hall and Arley Hall are looking good -- the only 'objection' I have to the latter is that if it goes on the portal as a selected article, we'll lose one of the nicer of the selected pictures! Do you have a suggestion, btw, for which image to use to accompany the Runcorn listed buildings on the portal? Norton Priory and the Silver Jubilee bridge have already appeared elsewhere.


 * I'm not sure on your query about 'people from' categories. I don't tend to look into the category structure much -- will investigate when I get a moment.


 * Meanwhile I plod on with Crewe Hall. I'm wondering whether to draw a line under the work needed for a first attempt at GA shortly. Do you think it's adequate as is? (I have another photo to add and possibly another historical image to scan, a couple of the refs seem to have disappeared into the great webarchive in the sky, and I need to fiddle with the references as the cite web --> citation change has changed the formatting.) My medical writing background has made me anxious that I haven't at least skimmed all the available literature -- I don't even know how to search on architectural subjects! I know it won't fly at FA because the pictures aren't of sufficient quality, but there's a limit to how much I'm prepared to spend on meals at the brasserie to excuse wandering around with a camera!


 * Hope you are winning your struggles with your internet provider -- also with the GMC -- that sounds deeply annoying. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping out with Bridgemere -- I'm slightly surprised it got picked (my OH thought it too dull to submit). Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire (pre-1066) is a fantastic achievement, definitely something to tidy and submit for Featured list status. For now, I've added it to the list of topics at the portal (under History). I hadn't realised Baddiley had a deserted village -- must look into that! Your references are much more helpful for these than the bald list I've been referencing, and I hadn't realised that the Revealing Cheshire's Past website now included (some?) listed buildings -- they seem to have more information than the IoE listing in some cases though it's not clear how accurate it is (Crewe Hall had one doubtful point and one definite error). It might be hard to get photographs for many of the sites; I've walked over the Edleston moated site several times without seeing anything on the ground and I don't think the Acton one is visible from the road.


 * I've drafted a blurb for Listed buildings in Runcorn -- see Portal:Cheshire/Selected article/13. I went for Runcorn Railway Bridge in the end as the image -- a bit duplicative of the blurb for Runcorn, but a lovely photo and perhaps more representative than the church. I must know more now about Runcorn than any other place I've never set foot in! If you had any further comments on the other suggested material at the portal (esp. Widnes, Bridgewater Canal, A500 road & the images) that would be useful, as I think I've now run out of articles/&c that had clear support.


 * Thanks for the encouragement re Crewe Hall. I'll have a quick final edit and see what the GA reviewers think. I still have a page-long list of TBDs, but it's probably best to leave something for improvements before submitting it to FA!


 * I had an excellent holiday, thanks -- my first skiing trip since injuring my back a few years ago. There was so much snow, I didn't even get tempted by an internet café! I'm sorry to hear about your ongoing struggles with your internet provider. We decided to change recently to reduce our internet costs, and it was a lot of hassle even though the old provider wasn't being obstructive. The GMC thing sounds like pure extortion! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

New civil parishes in Halton
Peter, there seem to be two new civil parishes that have been created in Halton, judging by edits to List of civil parishes in Cheshire (there's also another one: Neston in Ellesmere Port and Neston. Have you seen anything about this on any local news you might have read or heard? It might be good to update various things if they can be verified, with stub articles created, etc. Best wishes.  DDStretch    (talk)  16:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've heard something vague about this - I'll look into it in the next few days. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll edit the parish template, and we can proceed with a couple of stubs for them, I think, but we could do with a bit more information first.  DDStretch    (talk)  16:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've created very small stubs. I am not sure where the boundaries are, or much more about them - sorry. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's all right. Thanks for doing that. I suggest we all keep an eye on the articles and periodically try to see if there is more information about them, as, being new, they might otherwise be swiftly nominated for deletion. I've just noticed that they are already marked on the election maps site, and so maps of their extent (and the others) could be made. I may get around to doing the maps if you think it would be helpful.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes please! You may have discovered that I'm not really "into" local government.  Now give me heritage..... Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I never made any conscious decision to get into local government, it just happened, and I slid into it without giving it much thought. Now, I think it is a large part of what I've been doing, especially the history bit, given the work on hundreds, ancient parishes, in my sandbox a list of the former districts, planned ones on former civil parishes, poor-law unions and sanitary districts and so on. None of them have really been ultimately the result of a seriously thought-out conscious decision to work mostly on local government areas.  DDStretch    (talk)  19:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Scheduled monuments in Cheshire
I just noticed you're making the list in your sandbox, and I like the way it's done, although you'll need a key to explain that SM no. and HER no. mean scheduled monument and historic environment number respectively. I would query whether it's important to mention them as they don't tell you specifically about the monument, and since those details are (I'm assuming) in the database you have access to rather than Pastscape, it might not fly at FLC. The remains section, though, is something I will definitely be stealing using for GM, and since there are so many SAMs for GM that don't have articles, I'll probably use a description column too. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's in very early, even experimental stage at present - really just collecting some info and ideas.  It's going to be big, so I'm not sure at this stage how much description there will be.  It's taking a lot of time; at present I am in the 900s of a database of nearly 3,000 (better than Pastscape with over 6,000 for Cheshire). Yes, keys are necessary; I'll probably not bother with the HER numbers but, as a reference document, I think the SM numbers should be there.  I've started including a reference to the Revealing Cheshire's Past site for the latest entries - you might like to have a peep at one of them to see the sort of info it includes.  I think it's going to take quite a time - and I'd like to add coordinates if I can find the sites with help of Earthtools.  Best of luck! Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Period would be an interesting way of dividing the list, but would by district be more practical? Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't thought about Warrington and Halton. It wouldn't make sens to have lists with one or two items, but when dividing by location only current administrative boundaries (or rather the April ones) makes sense, so probably best to dismiss that idea. On reflection, period seems like the best bet, although why 1006? It seems like an arbitrary date rather than one recognised as important in British history. Did you mean 1066? Also, there'd be scope for further division if necessary, such as prehistory, Roman to medival, and post-medieval to modern. Nev1 (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgot to say, go for it with Egerton-Warburton. It's hardly trial by fire for an article so well referenced and written, and should easily pass IMO. Nev1 (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Yes, it should be 1066 (slip of the finger).  I'll probably ask for a bit of copy editing on the R E-W article and then go for GAC. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Arley Hall
Hi Peter, I think Arley Hall is about ready for GAN now, so good luck. There does seem to be a problem with Arley Hall's web site though. Maybe it's just that their server has gone done? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Questionnaire
In an effort to assess the progress of Wikiproject Cheshire, it has been decided to send a questionnaire to members. To answer, please copy this questionnaire and paste your answers on the answer page. While participation is, of course, not compulsory, thoughtful answers will help the project to develop and improve. Thank you.


 * 1. The project is always looking for new members, so we want to find out which ways of attracting and approaching potential members work best. Do you remember how and why you joined?
 * Answer:


 * 2. How would you describe your involvement in the project? What activities do you undertake and how often do you edit Cheshire-related article?
 * Answer:


 * 3. Do you feel like you receive adequate support/contact from project members?
 * Answer:


 * 4. The project talk page is intended to be the hub of the project, where members discuss articles and help each other improving them. Until very recently it has been almost inactive, but do you check the project talk page?
 * Answer:


 * 4a. If the talk page was more active, would you get involved in discussions there?
 * Answer:


 * 5. When viewing Cheshire-related articles, are there any issues that have stood out as needing attention or frustrated you? (Traditional counties POV, poor coverage about a particular subject, vandalism going unnoticed etc)
 * Answer:


 * 6. Maintaining the Cheshire portal is one of the Cheshire WikiProject's main aims, providing a display of the best and most up to date articles that are part of the project. There is currently a drive to promote it to featured status, but input from a wide range of members is needed. Do you have the portal on your watchlist?
 * Answer:


 * 7. Would you be interesting in subscribing to a newsletter covering North West England, with details of work done by WikiProjects representing Cheshire, Greater Manchester, and Merseyside?
 * Answer:


 * 8. Finally, are there any improvements or initiatives you'd like to see WP:CHES undertake, or general comments you'd like to make?
 * Answer:

Edward Hubbard
I noticed you'd created an article for Hubbard -- I wonder if you've got another source you could add? The DYK people were getting quite sticky last I looked in about material drawn from a single source. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I've searched the internet and found nothing of value.  I think I'll add a quote from Pevsner's introduction to Cheshire, and hope that's enough. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had a quick root around and came up dry, otherwise I'd have just added something. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's got the tick of approval! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent! I keep meaning to submit something but I'm off on holiday next week, so perhaps when I get back. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Scheduled Monuments ... again
I've recently been expanding the Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester‎ article (it looks like I completed it a while ago without realising it), and was wondering what you thought of it. I'm happy with the way it's going, the description section compensates for most of the monuments lacking articles, bringing the key facts about the subject into one place. The images aren't ideal, many are poor quality and I'd like more, but those used are pretty much what's available. The map doesn't seem to work with OS coordinates, do you think it would be worth converting them into the format (that works) in listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire? (I think I probably know the answer, but I'm looking for an excuse not to spend an hour or so playing with numbers.) As far as the lead is concerned, I'm not sure how best to proceed and any suggestions would be welcome. The first two paragraphs seem like a good start to me, but more is probably needed. Nev1 (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Only 39 SMs in GM - lucky you! I've discovered hundreds (well over 200 I think) in Cheshire and keep finding more.  I am still experimenting with their presentation; the pre-1066 list is here and the post-1066 list here, still I feel I am still at a very early stage (and I think the latter list will have to be split again).  So my ideas are not yet finalised.  I like what you have done, and shall no doubt copy some of your ideas!  The lead: I don't really know what is expected of the lead in a list.  What's there now looks fine to me but if you go for FLC it may need expansion (and a peer review would help here).  My major problem is how much to write; you may notice that I have changed the heading from "Description" to "Notes".  This has allowed (me) to write in phrases rather than in "professional" prose (is that really necessary in a LIST?).  A lot of words in some boxes and only a little content in others makes the presentation look unbalanced (that's purely aesthetic and there were issues with link bunching and whitespace); and the small font for a lot of info upsets some people.


 * You may have noticed that I have got rid of the HER Ref No. but kept the SM No. The latter is the nationally recognised code for that particular item and I personally feel it is an essential field in the list; it helps to prevent confusion and duplication - Cheshire CC and Pastscape vary considerably in their titles.  I presume the map of coordinates works only with coordinates(!); they are after all universal while OS MRs will only apply to GB (I also presume).  I have just added it to the pre-1066 list and it does not work - but I was told at FLC that it takes up to 24 hours for Google to sort it out so I will wait and see.  Images: better poor ones than none.  Can I suggest that the "best" one be used as a lead image at 300px to make a striking first impression for the viewer.  Also how about making the images appear as near as possible to the description?  I shall not be able to do it with my unsectioned lists, but you could split the images between the sections (have a look here to see how it works).  My only other (random) thought is that it would look better if the corresponding columns in all the sections were of the same width (aesthetic again).  Hope that is of some interest (and gives you plenty to keep you occupied - I have been working on the Cheshire lists for about a month now and still have a long way to go).  Good luck. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I was initially ambivalent as to the utility of the SM Nos. but having realised there are four very similar monuments (the cross bases in Wigan) I appreciate the numbers would be handy to differentiate between monuments. Unfortunately, Pastscape doesn't provide them, and I'm not sure how to find them, so that may scupper that. As for the map, I'll just have to go through and change the format, oh well. I'm using an image of Smithills Hall as the lead image, although getting the other images to line up with their entries isn't feasible... at least not while the whole thing is wrapped in a table (an approach taken from Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester to prevent warping and some moving of links (I don't remember exactly what the issue was originally, but I think it was aesthetic). The images are in roughly the order they appear in the tables though. Getting the column widths to match is beyond me, I've played with it a lot before and while I completely agreed it would look better, it might have to stay as it is. But I'll ask around and see if anyone can help.
 * Part of the problem with the lead is there is no study on the SMs of Greater Manchester as a group, so all I think I can do is point out groups of monuments (which I think might be a good idea). I'll probably skip peer review, I know the people at FLC don't like it, but I want to strike while the iron is hot and I have some momentum.
 * 39 makes life easier when writing the list, but is a bit disappointing. There's enough information for pretty much every entry in the GM list to be fleshed out and prevent it looking unbalanced, but doing the same for 200+ monuments will me a mammoth task. Since I started the descriptions from scratch, it was easy to write in full sentences, and although the criteria is "professional prose", my impression is they're much less fussy about the quality at FLC than they are at FAC. How are you thinking about splitting the post-1066 list? Would medieval and post-medieval produce balanced lists? Nev1 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The business with the images was done to stop the "edits" being all over the place with some browsers. I've used the technique quite a lot and it IS feasible with separate sections - see how it's done in John Douglas (architect).  As the last (nearly correct I think) count, Cheshire has 81 pre-1066, and 125 post-1066 (and I'm still finding new ones).  There is no way of splitting the medieval count that makes sense (to me) and there are 105 of them.  Only 20 are post-medieval and modern and that does not make for balance, but 125 is too many so I will probably split at 1540 and have a long and a short list (does that really matter?). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Just found 4 more post-med and modern ones, I'm sure there are more to come! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, the list because featured a couple of days ago and your support was important. Not to mention your idea of adding a description column, without which I don't think it would have been able to pass. Thanks again, and if there's any way I can help with the Cheshire SM lists just let me know. Nev1 (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Rocksavage
I've just created a short article on the former Elizabethan mansion of Rocksavage in Clifton & proposed it for DYK. If you happened to be online and could improve it that would be very helpful; I'm hoping that you might even have some photos of the ruins. In any case, I hope your internet connection is fixed very soon! (PS: I'm offline now till Monday.) Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the article. I feel guilty because this is one I should have written (some time ago) - so thanks for filling the gap.  I am in the middle of a brief visit to WP from my daughter's computer but have added a 2007 image.  Rather poor, but that's all there is now.  Hope to be online at home from Tuesday but I will have many hours of catching-up to do! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the photo, Peter. The article appears to have been approved for DYK in my absence, so there's no hurry to expand. Looking forward to your return to net access. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Very glad you're back online now -- I hope the new ISP proves trouble free! The GA for Rowland Egerton-Warburton seems to be just round the corner; it's nice to see a reviewer acknowledging good use of the limited available sources rather than assuming one size fits all. I'll try to pull together a blurb for the portal in time for the GA success. I was pleased Crewe Hall went so smoothly: it's only my second GA and hugely different in terms of amount of available material from my earlier one, so I was rather nervous. I wondered whether you were involved with the Runcorn Historical Society -- it's a useful website. I just wish there were something similar around these parts (perhaps there is and I'm just missing it).
 * I think my focus until the end of March, unless I get distracted, is going to be trying to live up to my resolution to get all 69 Crewe & Nantwich articles to at least Start class before C&N is abolished. It's a long & fairly dull haul, with 24 stubs left (and some of the Starts are pretty ropy). Are you still working on the scheduled monuments lists and John Douglas?
 * As I mentioned on the project page, I'm keen to have a project meet up -- any suggestions as to where might work for you? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent news on Rowland Egerton-Warburton! You beat me to it on the portal blurb -- will try to get one written today. (Now done, see: Portal:Cheshire/Selected biography/10.) Espresso Addict (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First rate blurb - many thanks. Will reply to your other points in due course. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

SM DYK nom
I just thought I'd let you know that I've suggested an alternative hook for the article, and think that with so many pictures available, we probably should go for the top spot of the DYK section. Nev1 (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that; I thought it was a bit bare but it was late (for me!). I've made amendments to both hooks and added two images. Wonder what "they" will make of it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be so slow (was away all weekend) but I've added another suggested hook with another set of images. I hope this is more helpful than confusing! In my experience the DYK regulars aren't too keen on lists, so it might be worth adding to the lead if there's anything more that can be teased out. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I don't thing I'll add any more to the lead as I am getting messages that the article is too long at 98 kilobytes (and there may be more SMs to come), so I'll take a chance on it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you for not wanting to edit it -- it's extremely slow to save/preview! I've checked against the Crewe & Nantwich list and you have all the sites in this borough before 1540. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work on Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire (post-1539). I wonder whether the other two lift bridges in Wrenbury-cum-Frith are also scheduled (Wrenbury Church Bridge & Wrenbury Frith Bridge) -- they are both grade II* listed. Revealing Cheshire's Past seems to state that they are. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for that. I didn't realise the size of the challenge when I took it on! I think it's worthwhile because there doesn't seem to be an accessible comprehensive list anywhere else. I asked Jill Collens, county archaeologist, about it and she put me on to Revealing Cheshire's Past and another site. This seems to have a complete list but when I downloaded and unzipped it I could not open it because it was a GIS file (forgotten what that means but it is a map-based program). I have been in touch with Claire Hughes of the National Monuments Records Enquiry and Research Services who has promised to send me a complete list of the SMs in Cheshire, so I should be able to check the other two bridges and all the others I have missed. Phew! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note, if you haven't already noticed -- Awadewit has raised a query regarding the sourcing of the DYK hook -- I've asked exactly what is required, as the article seems to me very adequately sourced and it would be a pity if it missed out on a technicality. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think we've "lost" this one.  My response is somewhat emotive (so what?) late on the day of our family's "big" birthday.  I might turn into Malleus F if this sort of thing continues to happen. (Not really - we don't have to take DYK all that seriously, do we?) I only offered this as a DYK as a bit of fun and (maybe) publicity for the Cheshire project.  (But I do take articles, GAs etc seriously, as you've probably discovered.)  Life is too short............  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect it's just that the amount of work needed to check such a list is large. I've had a go (and my mouse hand aches to prove it!) -- the only problem I found is that there appear to be 27 crosses -- I suspect I counted Marton Grange cross (in the moated site) and you didn't. Anyway, we shall see whether my checking is considered sufficient. I'm feeling very disheartened by the whole business with Malleus. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Malleus leaving would be a waste, and I hope that after time away from wikipedia he will choose to return. If the numbers are still a problem for Awadewit, we could go with a more ambiguous hook, just mentioning the type of monuments (similar to the suggestion I crossed out because I thought Espresso Addict's suggestion was better!) Nev1 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Walking away from this whole mess before my blood pressure gets any higher. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I was going to e-mail you, but I realise your e-mail isn't enabled. I've left my e-mail enabled for now, if you want to e-mail me; otherwise my blog is at -- if you comment on a recent post there we can perhaps get into contact. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this a retirement from wikipedia? It's been a bad week for editors from the north west. Nev1 (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope not. I have e-mailed EA and await a reply.  I presume you know about Ddstretch and, of course Malleus F.  The Cheshire Project cannot afford this! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd noticed Ddstrtch's notice of resignation, and I don't think Malleus is coming back. WP:UKGEO can't afford this, never mind WP:CHES! This is a setback for the Cheshire Project, and I think Cheshire will find it more difficult to absorb the loss. Losing three (let's hope they don't all go) prolific editors is dispiriting, but I'll be hanging around as my approach to wikipedia is slightly selfish: I spend a lot of time on subjects I'm interested in, and expanding articles is a way for me to learn more about them, and it's a far more effective way of making information stick than just reading it. Nev1 (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Like you, I am selfish, writing and amending articles which interest me - perhaps it is a method for survival in Wikipedia. I too shall be staying around and trying to keep out of trouble; I feel I have something to offer to current and future readers (and I enjoy doing it and learning in the process).  Two of the three above seem to have run into difficulties after becoming admins; I have no intention of following them.  And (sorry) I'm not really interested in doing things for the Portal - but I shall of course try to support you in anything you do for it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In my experience article writing – even at FAC – is much less stressful than getting involved in places like RfA. DDstretch and Espresso Addict are/were much more active admins than myself; I generally just act when I see a problem rather than going looking for trouble. There's a perception that wikipedia is failing, I'm not sure I agree with this (there's more quality content than ever, but people are concerned with who is at the top, making decisions on who can and can't edit etc), but Malleus thought that, and got involved to try to improve this place. It's not right to disenfranchise oneself, and I'd like to see wikipedia improve, but you can't fight every battle. Nev1 (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter and Nev1: My email link still works if you want to send me email. Thanks. DDStretch   (talk)  22:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Pastscape and IoE references
I've just made this edit, trimming about 5kb of info from the refs in Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire (1066–1539)‎. The search parameters at the end of the url mean that the links don't work, so when using an address in references it's best to get rid of that bit (the webpage usually tells you somewhere the address without all the rubbish at the end). Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a giant job; many, many thanks. And, believe it or not, the article's got the top spot in one of the queues for DYK! (But not with one of "our" hooks.) Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It didn't take that long, but pastscape is down at the moment so I can double check that the links still work (doubly annoying because I was about to have a go at writing about some castles). It wasn't a big task really, it only took a few minutes. Thank goodness they chose the article, I thought the boat had been missed. Maybe not the first choice of hook, but at this stage any publicity is good publicity. Nev1 (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

duck decoys
Not bad at all, but you should consider whether you should limitt he lists to those you can show to be notable enouguh for an article, It will avoid challenges. 08:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not sure what you mean. The disambig page was created to avoid an article I had created (now Duck decoy (structure)) being replaced by the text of what I have re-titled Duck decoy (model) which was nothing to do with me or the other article. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire (1066–1539)
--Dravecky (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

invitation
You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at WikiProject Council/Proposals ! Could be helpful about listed buildings in many areas. :) doncram (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

List of castles in Cheshire
As promised, the article has gone live. What I've tried to do is give a brief run down of who, what, when, and why for each castle although for some very little info is available. As such, the entries vary in size. I think with a bit of polish it's ready to go to FLC (and I'll send it to DYK later today). I'd like your opinion on the article as a whole if you have time, particularly the map I made and that's being used as a lead image. It doesn't look as good as the Greater Manchester one did, probably because there are more castles and they're closer together. It ends up looking a little bit messy, and I'm wondering whether it would be worth redoing it, or maybe have one of the other images in the article as a lead image? Also, are there any unanswered questions from the lead (ie: do you feel like the reader needs more explanation of what castles were/why they were built)? Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks promising - well done. I've done few tweaks and added images, including a lead image (probably the best we have at present) as an eye-catcher.  No reason why we should not have the map as well.  It is not particularly clear and Google-type pointers might be better, but I have no idea how to do maps, so cannot help here.  Sorry I've not had time to have a detailed look at the notes; would it be a good thing to state somewhere/somehow that most/all of the castles are scheduled monuments?  Apart from some demanding social/family factors, I'm a bit involved at present in working on John Douglas and his works; if you are interested in seeing some early work in progress it is here and here.  There's not many of us working on Cheshire articles at present, so keep up the good work!  Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I think the lead is OK for a list. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the columns in the table is whether the castle is scheduled or not, but you're right that it needs to be summarised in the lead and I've mentioned that 11 out of the 20 are scheduled. I've dispensed with the map as it just wasn't satisfactory. I did the Greater Manchester map before I was introduced to the tool for putting points on google, and with that I don't think what I made is necessary. The Agricola Tower is a good striking image, and now I have a conundrum: what image to use for a DYK hook? I had decided to use an old engraving of Beeston Castle, but now I just can't decide. Then I have to decide whether to make the hook specific to the castle or generic for all of them! I think I'll mention that many of them were built as a defence against the Welsh as that sounds interesting.
 * I had noticed the churches in your sandbox and wondered what the plan was with such a large list. I knew Douglas was prolific, but I had no idea he'd been involved in so many places! It seems inevitable that when writing articles about Cheshire that you'll stumble across Douglas. I assume you'll be removing the list of works from his biography once the stuff in your sandbox goes into the mainspace? Nev1 (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'd missed the column on SMs (!!!) (combination of distraction caused by problems with my broadband connection, my printer and general fatigue). I think the Agricola Tower will look better as a 100px image on the main page.  It would IMO be better to have a generic hook - the Welsh will do OK, unless anything better comes to mind.
 * I find Douglas fascinating and so am spending (wasting) a lot of time on him. The general plan is to expand the biography article and remove the works from it, creating four separate lists.  But it will take some time, and I shall be out of WP action for most of May.  And I have discovered the church infobox which I think is better than the religious building infobox, so transferring info will take time.  And one of my regularly-used Church of England links has died..... Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the hook, not bad I think, but if you come up with one you think is better don't hesitate to add it as an alternative! Nev1 (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks fine; should be no problem. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

England
Hello Peter. I noticed that you delinked England on the Tabley House article. I understood that the previous policy was that England wasn't important enough to go unlinked, but had heard that the policy had changed. However, I have not been able to find confirmation of this anywhere. You referenced MoS as the reason but I cannot find anything in Manual of Style that refers to countries. Perhaps I haven't looked hard enough. Are you able to point to something specific? Skinsmoke (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your query. I used to "overlink" (ie link everything which seemed to have an available link) until I became more familiar with the rationale for linking.  Perhaps the best guide is here, specifically what should not be linked - including "items that would be familiar to most readers, such as the names of major geographic features and locations".  I would suggest that the major countries of the world, including England, fall into this category.  Don't worry; I have spent much time delinking the links I have made in many articles I have written.  It does make sense. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured / Good topic criteria
Just in case you've not spotted them, Featured topic criteria 1(d) - "(d) There is no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together." Obviously some of the listed buildings in Runcorn will struggle to get beyond start class, but there might well be some GA possibilities in e.g. the churches, hence my mentioning cherrypicking - not in a pejorative way, I hasten to add, but merely because that's the term used in the criteria. Anyway, I'm not a regular at WP:FTC so I don't know what the answer is to this one! Good luck, anyway. Regards, BencherliteTalk 13:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. To make the Runcorn listed buildings into a GT would need 59 GAs (or better) which would be impossible.  Anyway I'm just testing the temperature and if it gets nowhere, so be it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

St.Mary's,Stockport
The fact that St Mary's Nave is built from sandstone and not limestone is self evident to any visitor with basic knowledge of rock types (which apparently dosn't always include architects)! The fact that it was built with sandstone from Runcorn is attested in "Stockport Ancient and Modern" by Dr Henry Heginbotham (2 Vols) 1882/92. Sorry for not replying sooner but I only visit occasionally ! (Saxonholme (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)).

John Douglas (architect)
Looking good Peter.

I've only really got one comment, and that's to do with what seems to me to be an overuse of the passive voice. Just a few examples:
 * "Around this time work on two churches was carried out in association with Gladstone"
 * "Also built for the Kenyon family is Llannerch Panna in Penley, Flintshire (1878–79) ..."
 * "In 1890–91 an obelisk was built in the Belgrave Avenue approach to Eaton Hall."
 * "Alterations were made and furniture was designed for other churches."

I guess part of the problem here might be knowing whether some of these things were designed by Douglas himself or by his practice? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that and for the copyediting. You have spotted my fudging and the reason for it - but Hubbard has the same problem in his biography.  We shall never know which individual in the office designed precisely what, although I guess Douglas usually had the last word.  But it's difficult under the subtitle of a partnership to say "Douglas designed..."  I appreciate your help and support. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would be better then to explicity say, for instance, that Douglas's practice was commissioned to carry out work on two churches in association with Gladstone? BTW, just a personal preference, but I much prefer Douglas's to Douglas'. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just letting you know that I'm about to start reading through the article (first inmpressions are very good), and sorry it's been a few days since you asked. You might also like to know that I've expanded the Chichester Castle article and have nominated for DYK (... did you know that Chichester Castle was built in the Rape of Chichester in the 11th century). Nev1 (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A well-deserved GA-class article; and now a GA-class article. Possibly a FA-class article.Pyrotec (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on the FA award. I "knew" it was a good article.Pyrotec (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)