User talk:Peter I. Vardy/Archive 7

Province of York
Hi Peter - no doubt you'll tell me if I'm being thick, but surely churches in the Diocese of St Asaph are not part of the Province of York, and haven't been since 1920 when the Church in Wales and the Church of England parted company? Regards, BencherliteTalk 20:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you are right of course. Sorry, I will correct my errors.  Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problems. I've corrected three or four for you already; nice work, by the way. Regards, BencherliteTalk 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Churches of Wales
Greetings Dr. Vardy. Thanks for your recent article additions documenting the churches of Wales. If you're ever in need of a to-do list, look no further than my long ignored list posted here: Churches and Chapels of Ceredigion. I compiled the list, then had trouble finding further detail. Maybe you can make more of a go of it than me. I have made a few changes to your work, removing North Wales for Wales, and a reference to historical rather than present-day county. I created Edward Reginald Frampton and ref'd him here. Hopefully that's the correct fellow? BTW, how did you turn the infobox purple? Cheers. ~ Geaugagrrl talk 06:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

John Douglas (architect)
Congratulations on all the hard work towards GA for John Douglas (architect)! There was a great deal of dedication on your part to make this "dizzing height" of achievement! TTFN ~ Geaugagrrl talk 01:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to help by doing a peer review, which almost always includes a few copyediting suggestions. I looked at the article quickly just now and read the lede fairly carefully. Everything looks good to me at first glance. It might take me a couple of days to work up a full set of comments, which I'll post to the peer review page for the article. Finetooth (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your amendments all look fine to me. I responded on the peer review page but thought I would post a short note here too. I had one further thought. The caricature looks a little big to me. I thought so on the first round but didn't think to mention it. I tried adding an "upright" parameter to the image template to make the image a bit smaller. I couldn't decide whether this looked better or not, and so I didn't save the change, but you might want to try it to see which size you prefer. In answer to your question about lists, I have reviewed only two or three, and I'm still learning. I'd be happy to give it a try when the time comes, but you might also want to make a formal peer review request in hopes of attracting multiple reviewers. Best of luck with John Douglas at FAC. Finetooth (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The FAC nomination procedure guidelines near the top of WP:FAC say to close and archive the peer review before nominating for FAC. It's fine for the nominator (you) to do that. Closing the peer review is a two-step process explained at Peer review. The first of these steps involves an edit to the peer-review page for the article; the second step involves an edit to the article's talk page. Once those two steps have been completed, you are free to nominate at FAC. In addition to the closing and archiving of the peer review, the FAC nomination procedure requires four more steps, all numbered and explained in the FAC guidelines at WP:FAC. It's a bit tedious and stressful to work through all of the steps, especially the first time or two. If you get stuck, please send me a note. I would be glad to help. Oh, one more thing. The archive number for the peer review is 1 since John Douglas (architect) has no prior archived peer reviews, and the archive number for the FAC is 1 since the article has had no prior FAC nominations. Finetooth (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Peter I. Vardy factory has notched up another one. I've said it before, but I'll say it again; it's great to see these 19th-century collosuses properly represented. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Topic update
Your hard work has secured what I think it the North West's first Good Topic. Nicely done. Nev1 (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - you spotted it before me! It seemed to take ages after "consensus" for it to be accepted. Now for John Douglas.... Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Elmley castle
. --Kudpung (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

John Douglas
It looks like John Douglas just got promoted to FA, great stuff and thoroughly well deserved. I'm just disappointed I didn't get round to adding my support to the nomination! Nev1 (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am pleased about this (other than a certain feeling of pride!) for two reasons.  First, I regard it as the first "true" FA in the Cheshire WikiProject - the other two are really "passing through" Cheshire; the M62 motorway literally, and Joseph Priestley spent only some 3 years in Nantwich (Warrington was in Lancashire at that time of course).  Secondly, I have taken great pleasure in the works of John Douglas (who designed one of our local churches) and I consider that he is much under-recognised.  Maybe the article will help to redress this. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
Yes, I did notice, and I was happy to see it. Congratulations on a job well-done. Finetooth (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Wales DYK
Hi Dr. Vardy. Have you been listing your WikiProject Wales DYK contributions at this location? Bye for now. ~ Geaugagrrl talk 10:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think so; I'll check when I have time. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Maiden Castle, but not the one you might be expecting
I'm about to start an article on Cheshire's Maiden Castle, and I was looking to Kelsborrow Castle to see what templates and stuff can be cannibalised as the source is the same. I was wondering if the first paragraph from the first hill fort section of the Maiden Castle, Dorset, article might be worth adding? I think it gives context for why hill forts may have been built and the explanation is better than wikipedia's hill fort article, but I'm wary of putting too much weight on background information and drowning out the information specifically about Maiden Castle or Kelsborrow Castle. What do you think? Nev1 (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm all for using common pieces of text for common purposes. But the explanations for the name...not so sure.  Mai-dun is certainly plausible.  But a maiden looking impregnable???  I quite like the third possible origin which comes later in the article - never been taken - a sort of parallel with virgin.  No big deal - just musing. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you said I should give Maiden Castle, Cheshire its own article, and since it was on my to do list that's what I've done. Unlike Kelsborrow Castle, which seems to have been occupied only very briefly, there was something substantial to say about the site and I've ended up nominating it for GA. Malleus has ironed out the prose, which was hurriedly put together and I was going to re-read tomorrow as I knew it wasn't perfect, so hopefully it stands a good chance. It's not as long as Danebury, and will never be as detailed as Maiden Castle, Dorset, but there's not an awful lot to say about the site beyond the defences really. Even Mellor hill fort has recent excavations throwing up new information, but apparently the extent of the finds form Maiden Castle is one piece of Iron Age pottery and a tool left over from the mining. I don't think the size of the article should be a problem though given the background section. Anyway, fingers crossed. Nev1 (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty good article! I don't know how you get so much information, so well organised.  Now.....Eddisbury sometime?  There's a rather poor photo I put on Commons, but at least it shows the general topography.  I took some others but did not feel they were worth uploading.  Good luck at GAC - should walk it!  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The picture of Maiden Castle isn't great, and while this image looks quite good it's unfortunately the north part of Bickerton Hill, not the south where the hill fort is. I noticed the picture of Eddisbury on commons, and there are a few from Helsby so those two are next on my list. The information seemed to sort itself really; I think with sorter articles it's practical to break it down into sections such as location and layout, but for something as complex as Maiden Castle, Dorset, I think a more integrated approach is useful. Nev1 (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Chester Grosvenor and Spa
Hi Peter, thank you for the edit to Chester Grosvenor and Spa. After I finish the article on Simon Radley, I plan to nominate both at DYK. Just letting you know, in case you were considering doing so yourself. ;-)  Mae din \talk 10:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the article. I've added some details about the architect and done a few tweaks - hope they're OK.  Yes, do go ahead with the double DYK.  11:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent changes! Thank you, :-)   Mae din \talk 12:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I just wanted to let you know that I have nominated Chester Grosvenor and Spa and Simon Radley at DYK. Please feel free to have a look and make any changes you think might be necessary!  Thanks,  Mae din \talk 17:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Good luck - no reason why you should not make it. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorting dates
I've had a go at fixing the sorting for the listed buildings around Runcorn. It works by adding xx before each date. The table then sorts by whatever the hidden text is, so I usually go for 01, 02, 03 etc. It works fine for me, but you might want to check for yourself. The only problem is deciding where early/mid/late go, but see what you think of the order I've chosen. Nev1 (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fantastic! Couldn't be better. What would I do without people like you who know how to deal with things like this?  At least Dabomb87 has added something positive to the debate; s/he helped me with the last list and gives me some hope after the nonsense I have had to endure.


 * You've probably noticed that Eastgate and Eastgate Clock is now in the mainspace. I think it's not bad, but if you want to add/amend anything..... My next venture is an article on Chester Rows, surprisingly not yet done.  It's a bit of a struggle but I've made a start here.  A long way to go but IMO a very important subject for Cestrians (and those out there too). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (reply from my talk page) No problem. I personally like the lists separate too. FLC has gone in a funk recently about content forking and "short lists" because in the past editors could pass ten-item musician's awards lists (which could have easily been integrated into the main article) through FLC and call them our "best work". However, your buildings list does not qualify as such, and, as you said, numbers aren't everything; there are other things to be considered in stand-alone lists, such as those you mentioned above. Keep up the good work on the lists and good luck on whatever topic plans you may have. I'm male by the way :) Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

List of listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area)
I find these alt texts very hard to write as well. The best advice I've seen is to imagine yourself trying to explain the image to someone you're speaking to on the telephone. I've rewritten the alt text for the lead image to give an idea of how I interpret what's needed anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - much appreciated. One problem with the Runcorn list is that descriptions are already present, so you have to think of something else to expand rather than repeat.  Anyway Dabomb87 seems happy enough with what I've done; we await the others.  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you're probably right about the images in the list. That's a case where I might be inclined to argue that alt text is unnecessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom
If you've got a moment, I'd like your thoughts on the above list. The aim is to eventually take it to FLC and was prompted by this peer review. I've only done a couple of sites so far to see how it works, but I'm whether to do one table of the current sites or to split it by country as the previous list was laid out. Also, do you think there's any important information that's missing from the columns? There's a long way to go, but I'm addressing the table first and the lead last. Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You've taken on quite a challenge! It's a promising start and I've had some initial thoughts, but I'd rather sleep on it and express them (more clearly?) tomorrow.  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, it gives me time to do a few more entries. Take as much time as you need. It will certainly keep me busy for a while, but seeing as most of the articles on UK World Heritage Sites are in a pretty poor condition I think a good list would be of use to the reader. has stated that he's planning an overhaul of the lists but hasn't responded to my query about the format his plans take so I'm going to try and get there first. Nev1 (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it; you're setting a new (higher) standard for FLs. The inclusion of a description adds extra value and a new dimension for the lists, which others might well copy.  I wondered if there were too many columns but, on reflection, all the information is necessary.  It's a pity that the UNESCO Ref No is so wide, but that is governed by the size of the title.  I wondered if the descriptions are more detailed than they need be (they look rather crowded on my normal-width monitor but much better on my son-in-law's widescreen monitor), but on reflection I think they're OK.  The dates sort awkwardly, but I'm not sure what you can do about that.


 * I think one list for the existing sites; when I was working on the Runcorn lists I was persuaded to combine the separate lists, which was an improvement, and apart from England the other countries make small (or very small) lists. I'm not sure about the British Overseas Territories - do they belong here or in their regional lists?  And I guess that they will not all be "British" for ever.  Are you going to have a separate "Tentative List" in the article/list?  If it were done to the same standard as the main list it would give good information about the proposed candidates.  Enjoy the task! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not setting a new standard, I'm trying to work to the standards of the Runcorn lists! I think I'll have the country lists combined then; at least it means I don't have to mess about removing a column. What I'm trying to do with the descriptions is explain what each site is and why it's important. This is different to what I've done for lists such as castles in Cheshire and Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester where I tried to include the main points of the sites' history, ownership, and importance; this just wouldn't be practical for World Heritage Sites. The descriptions could perhaps be trimmed though, I certainly don't think they should be any longer.
 * As for the overseas territories, UNESCO lists them under the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so since it's verifiable I suppose it should stay. Agree it's not ideal though, but I'll just have to explain it in the lead. I agree with you about the UNESCO reference column; perhaps it could be solved by adding a key of some sort or a footnote explaining it. One thing I intend to explain in the lead is the whole natural.artificial/mixed sites issue; I was originally thinking of colour coding the table to indicate which was which, but I don't like that idea so I could explain in the lead which sites are natural or mixed as the vast majority are artificial. I will be making a separate table within the same page for the tentative list, although getting information for it may be less easy. Nev1 (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I agree that colour coding would not work (too complicated). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

List of works of John Douglas (new churches)
Another nice article. I've been through the lead and made a few minor alterations, but I do have one further suggestion. I think the lead would have a better balance if the first two paragraphs were swapped around. In other words, deal with Douglas's architecture right up front—which is after all the subject of the article—and then where he was born trained, practised and so on. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for prompt attention. I've switched the first two paras as suggested; does this work better? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that looks great now, hits the spot exactly. Good luck with the FLC. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I too think the list is good, fingers crossed that FLC isn't too problematic. I've got the page on my watchlist in case the situation starts getting tricky (as it did for Runcorn's rural listed buildings) so you won't be alone. My only suggestion for the list is that in the last paragraph it might be worth explaining what a listed building is and that some of Douglas' works have been deemed historically and architecturally important enough to warrant protection. At the moment, an American reader might wonder what the final "Grade" column means. Nev1 (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Gamul House
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Gamul House, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.virtualchester.org/view/view_location.php?id=16. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

John Douglas list
Yes, I'd be glad to, though it may be a day or two until I get to it. Finetooth (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's fine. No rush. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. The difference between underlinking and overlinking is somewhat subjective. I think it would be helpful to link the ones I've suggested, but other editors might disagree about some of them. When it comes to debating links at FAC or elsewhere, I'm inclined to give way on any about which I don't feel strongly. Finetooth (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of God's Providence House
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Metropolitan Cathedral
It would be great if you could, as there is hardly any website information on the subject. many thanks!! Tsange (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Chester Rows
Hi Peter,

Thanks for your note. I am away most of next week, so I fitted the WP:GAN quickly on the basis that it would be finished by this Sunday. The WP:GAN is not On Hold, so there is no ticking clock. If it is finish by this Sunday I can conclude the review; if it is not then I will not be looking at it until the following weekend. I will come to Chester fairly soon. I used to charge up and down the M5/M6 between Birmingham and Salford, but I never got any nearer to Chester than Natwich, Crewe and Middlewich.Pyrotec (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I hate to say this, but having pondered your first message, my first job interview was also 40 years ago, probably last month; but I only worked there for a year and a bit. The location was not as pleasant as Chester Rows.


 * I'm glad that the VCH was of use to you, I used to use them a lot when public libraries stocked books, as opposed to computer terminals; but at least under the new system I can request books from any public library in Somerset, Bristol and Bath; plus the two universities that I have borrowing rights. I bought the Somerset volume for an adjacent set of parishes, but I've not yet got round to purchasing the newer volume that covers the parish that I live in (and the adjacent ones).


 * I hope the expansion goes well. Prose, grammer and references, are OK; I'm just considering "scope".Pyrotec (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do like the new text that you've added. I've still got six weeks leave to take before the end of the calender year, so I might make Chester this year and if so can see the Rows myself, now that you have described them in detail in wikipedia.Pyrotec (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on another very well deserved GA Peter. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well done, another article that's a credit to Cheshire and it's unique history. Nev1 (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks folks. I almost enjoyed that one! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Chester Cross
Sorry about my bad link, Dr. Vardy. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I've removed the link from Q4. Happy editing. --PFHLai (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

St Stephen's Parish Church, Moulton
On revisiting the St Stephen’s entry to add a thumbnail of the Millennium window, I was surprised to discover that you had deleted my contribution in its entirety. This seems entirely contradictory to the spirit of Wikipedia. Whilst you may have a point regarding its length I would point out that there many articles which are far longer. The project provided a new window which is now an integral feature of the church and which hopefully enhances John Douglas’ original design and as such it seems reasonable to include information about it on Wikipedia. Regarding your comments on cut and paste, well I suppose it was in a way as I took it from a much longer document, which I prepared as a member of the project committee. Regarding your comments on the links I accept your comment about the separate section but I would add that they either pertain to the design of the window or those groups which had a hand in the project, none are intended to advertise.Merl666in (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)