User talk:Peter I. Vardy/Archive 8

naming of lists
Yikes, sorry it seems like a sore subject! :) I think it used to be that all list-articles were required to be titled in format of "List of ...", but that has changed in the last two years or so.  This must have been discussed in archives of wt:FLC (?).  I am only an occasional commenter within the FLC process, so I am not the one to speak to policy.

I just skimmed it, but I thot the previous peer review's discussion about the article names for the architect's works was focused on the parenthetical phrases.

I do agree that FLC's should be more focussed on content! Cheers, doncram (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Water Tower, Chester
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.

DYK problem - Bonewaldesthorne's Tower
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. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

John Douglas FL
Congratulations on getting the article FL status. It's well deserved and the issues raised over naming etc in the FLC should make it easier for any future FLCs of the Douglas lists. Nev1 (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it wasn't too bad in the end. How did you know I am planning to get the other Douglas lists "up there" too - sometime? Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you considering a featured topic? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In time - but there are three more lists to do - plenty of work yet (and I think the others will be more complicated)! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

←Really sorry I didn't do a review as I said I would ... I had prepared some comments at home, which I was going to add tonight, but I see it has been promoted! (I was pretty much at the "Support" stage anyway.) I was doing a big church list of my own and forgetting to go to WP:FLC. As Nev says, a Featured Topic would be good to go for, especially given that Mr Douglas himself is already FA-status. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  11:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to worry - it made it OK, so in the event didn't "need" your support! Nev1 has IMO raised the standard of FLs and the rest of us now have to do a pretty good job to emulate him. FT maybe - some time in the future.  Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

List of listed buildings in Widnes
I've had a good look through now Peter, good luck with the FLC. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks once again for your good work. I thought hard and long about your removal of "Roman". I was going to argue for its retention on the grounds that this is a list-article on architecture and that, any other considerations notwithstanding, it depends on its sources for its content, titles, etc.  My four local Buildings of England books all use "Roman Catholic" as a norm.  Images of England is inconsistent, but more pages use "Roman" than omit it - certainly in the Liverpool and Manchester churches.  Then I looked at the IoE pages for this list; both omit "Roman" - although the third (R)C church was listed too late for IoE and the Halton Borough Council booklet does use "Roman" in its title. So, on balance, I have decided to leave it out. Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As an ex-(Roman) Catholic myself I've habitually called it Roman Catholicism, but after following something of the renaming discussion here about the church's official name, I'm persuaded to drop "Roman", but I certainly wouldn't object to you putting it back if you have a preference one way or the other. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I had a look at this article when I was thinking about it and I also looked at this. As a now-rather-peripheral Anglican I understand the former argument and tend to agree with the latter one.  But I don't think I shall get involved in writing articles on religious subjects.  So far as I am concerned, if the article is about architecture, or any other non-religious topic, I would use the term used in the sources, whatever that is, for that particular subject - isn't that what we're supposed to do when writing an entry for an encyclopaedia - be objective? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Double Redirects
When fixing double redirects, don't just blank the outer one, you need edit it to point it to the final target, unless you think it's inappropriate, in which case, it needs to be nominated at WP:RfD Gigs (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Confused. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, that's your chances at RfA gone to Hell in a bucket. "Oppose. Clearly has no understanding of redirect guidelines and protocols. Suggest you come back in three months, by which time I'll hopefully have found another daft reason to oppose you." --Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? Bots take care of double redirects and have done for a while. Nev1 (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gigs (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If anyone opposes an RfA over this, I'll personally trout them. Anyway I left an "educational" message because a lot of people doing heavy article dev don't necessarily know all the technical details... which is the way it should be anyway. If this was a simple mistake then don't sweat it.  Gigs (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gigs - no sweat; thanks for the initial message (I should have said so in my reply). Malleus (great SoH) knows (I hope) that I have no intention of submitting myself to RfA.  I am a simple article writer who knows very little about technical details but I am always willing to learn (and even to try to understand these technical things).  Thanks to everyone for their interest. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Peckforton Castle
Have you thought about taking the article on Peckforton Castle to GAN? Aside from one fairly inconsequential tag it's a well-referenced article and I can't imagine there being much more to add, I just hadn't really looked at it properly since it's not a medieval castle (it's interesting that some people thought Tollemache was building it as a practical defence rather than just a status symbol). Nev1 (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a thought, but it needs some tidying up first, and maybe some updating. Thanks for fixing the dead link - looks a useful website.  The uncited material was added in March 2008 by an editor who has contributed nothing else to WP.  I think it will have to go but I'll have a look round to see if I can find any confirmation. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good for GAN Peter, just a few minor questions:


 * "It has a gatehouse, a portcullis, a dry moat, external windows that were little more than arrow slots, and large towers." Have they therefore been enlarged since the house was built? The article later says that the house still has arrow slots.
 * Tense amended.


 * Should Green Man be capitalised?
 * I suppose it should, in line with the article's title. Done.


 * Any info in what happened to the castle between the end of the Second World War and the 1970s? Was it just boarded up and abandoned? Where did the Tollemache family move to in 1939?
 * The answers are on the talk page. The trouble is that the info was added by an inexperienced editor in March 2008 and was not referenced.  I searched for the material but could not find it myself and moved it to the talk page in my recent preparation for GAC - no citation, so unacceptable.  The editor has made only two contributions to WP - both to this article in March 2008.  I'll try leaving a message on his/her (otherwise empty) talk page but suspect I shall have little chance of success.


 * "She renovated most of the existing building ...". Not quite sure what "existing" means here. Does it mean "surviving", as there's an implication that some of the building may not have been existing then?
 * "existing" deleted.

--Malleus Fatuorum 14:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks once again for your excellent improvements and advice. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Church of St Matthew and St James, Liverpool
Hello! Your submission of Church of St Matthew and St James, Liverpool at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Aboutmovies (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Leigh St Mary's
Hi, I've been writing some "stuff" on the townships of the old Leigh Parish and was looking at your, at least I think it's your, List of ecclesiastical works by Paley and Austin. You describe the work in Leigh as a restoration, I understand it was a complete rebuilding apart from the tower and reuse of the roof on the north aisle. Perhaps I'm wrong or nit picking but I was thinking of an article about Leigh St Mary's and I don't want it to contradict an editor who obviously has a lot more knowledge about these things than I do. I have enjoyed reading your articles, I'm easily side tracked :) Also can I ask for a bit of help? St Anne Hindsford was a 1901 Austin and Paley Church how do I link it to the article?     --86.162.229.54 (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I copied the word "restoration" from the book by Price.  The descriptions need quite a lot of fleshing out, which I have not had time to do - it's a job for the future, but I've changed "restoration" to "rebuilding" because that is more accurate.  The Images of England link will give you more detail, and it confirms what you say.  Also the book by Pollard and Pevsner says the church is by Paley and Austin, except the tower.


 * Sorry but I cannot find anything about St Anne Hindsford, and I haven't arrived at 1901 yet. Can you give me any more details?  Is there an article about the church?  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Listed buildings in Widnes
It was a bit of a struggle at times, but I see you got there in the end. Congratulations. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that; and thanks for your support (particularly knowing your feelings about FLs). Actually it wasn't too much of a struggle (especially considering the difficulties the FL people are going through at present), the comments made were constructive, valid and on the whole supportive.  That's fine by me; it makes for a better list/article.  What gets me is when people who think they know a lot are aggressive or negative in their comments - there's no need for that other than the satisfaction that "they" seem to glean from it.


 * By the way, what are your thoughts on the Lancashire and Cumbria Project? The project should exist but the "creator" seems to have backed off, and a major potential contributor, Pr3st0n seems also to have dropped off.  Methinks they bit off too much before they had sufficient experience of WP; and tended to be aggressive rather than conciliatory.  But the project is needed (and don't ask me to "lead" it - I have my own selfish motives for contributing to WP, and the inevitable conflict which would arise, is not one of them!).  I'll just carry on humbly writing stuff, mainly for Cheshire, Merseyside, Lancs and Cumbria, and hope it's appreciated by the folk who access WP now and in the future.  Next projects are: get more John Douglas (architect) lists to FL (and maybe FT), and do more work on the Sharpe, Paley and Austin architects' practice in Lancaster (sadly under-recognised).  Cheers, and thanks again. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think FLC's OK, but it all seems just a bit too arbitrary and seat of the pants for me to take too seriously.


 * So far as the Lancashire and Cumbria project is concerned, I'm in at least two minds. It's very clear that some have bitten off far more than they could ever hope to chew, but a little like you, I think, I want to spend time on topics that I find interesting for whatever reason—this is supposed to be a hobby after all, not a job. I was and am fascinated by the history of witchcraft, hence I did this and this, but the fact they happened to live in Lancashire is secondary; they were just exceedingly well documented. I can't ever imagine myself motivated to write articles about settlements in either Lancashire or Cumbria, and it does seem to be a geography based project. I find the history of an area and its people much more interesting than its geography. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What connects me with the GM project is Manchester's industrial and radical history, which is poorly represented on wikipedia. As is the history of witchcraft in Cheshire now I come to think of it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

John Douglas's restorations
OK, that's great; I'll keep the FLC on my watchlist and revisit when you have had a chance to respond. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  21:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask a favour?
Hi Peter; I believe you use Firefox. Could you quickly check Listed buildings and structures in Crawley, and let me know whether the strip of images and the three at the top are looking OK or are causing any whitespace, wrapping round etc.? I've just revamped it with a strip of pix down the side instead of one per row, because there are too many photos I can't get (private land), but if it doesn't work well in all browsers I'll need to think again. I'll be working on it more tonight when I get home. Cheers,  Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  12:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks very good on Firefox - no problems that I can see. One unrelated thought; have you considered combining the Notes and the Refs columns, so that the Refs immediately follow the text (as is usual in WP)?  This would provide more space in the notes column and reduce the white space.  I was persuaded to do this during one of my FLC escapades, and have been "converted" to it.  Good luck with all the excellent work you are doing; I do feel that heritage articles are going to be of much more value in the future of the encyclopedia than articles about the Xth episode of some soap opera - but that's just IMHO of course. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Great – thanks for checking. In the end I've had to remove a few because it looked strange in IE8!!  (I use IE6 at work, and it was fine on that...)  On combining the refs with the notes, I could be persuaded; I did it that way on the first list I did, List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove, then for some reason I opted for a separate Refs column thereafter.  I think the separate Refs column looks slightly neater, but is a bit space-hungry, as you say.  I might play around with the Crawley list in a sandbox once I've finished all the notes, coordinates etc.  By the way, your 31-33 Dee Banks article caught my eye: I know somebody who lives a few doors down from there, on the same (odd-numbered) side of the road!   Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  20:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not far from the big house that Douglas built for himself - Walmoor Hill. And to my shame I've never seen either of the buildings, although I live less than ½ hour away - must remedy that soon. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Buildings and architecture of Bath - help with GAN comments
Hi, I put Buildings and architecture of Bath up for GA and a reviewer has started the review, making several comments (at Talk:Buildings and architecture of Bath/GA1) about the structure of the article and areas for development. If any of you had any time to take a look and make any edits or comments you feel are appropriate that would be great.&mdash; Rod talk 20:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, I've taken some of them into account (along with those of reviewer & others) in latest edits. If you have further thoughts they would be appreciated.&mdash; Rod talk 13:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Castle
It seems that you've started half the articles on English castles and you've got Beeston and Halton up to GA, so I was wondering what you thought of the main castle article. I got sick of the article being in such a poor state so have essentially rewritten it with the intention of taking it to FAC. I'm seeking input from as many people as possible to ensure all the bases are covered. Nev1 (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * *Cough*. Beeston was one of my GAs. Not every Cheshire article is down to Peter (although most of them are, admittedly). ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good grief, how on earth did I forget that?! I only got to visit for the first time recently, it's an incredible place and there are some fantastic views. It wasn't until then I realised how rubbish this picture is! I should have taken more pictures for the article, but as I've already demonstrated my memory makes a sieve look good at retention :-) Nev1 (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's right, not me! As Malleus says, Beeston is "his"; I can't remember contributing anything worthwhile.  (I've "done" Peckforton, but of course that's not a castle.)  And Halton is not a GA (although Runcorn and Widnes are).  When I started playing on WP I had a book about castles, so I started to learn how to do things with castle stubs (you may notice that I only got part way through the alphabet before I became involved with other things).  I claim no special expertise in castles (or any expertise at all), but I'll certainly have a look, although I doubt that I shall have much to offer.  I'm certainly impressed by the progress that's been made with the article.  PS I think the rubbish picture came (indirectly) from me - mainly because I am fascinated by the works of the Buck Brothers.  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As a kid, I wasn't too fussed about the castle when we went on family visits, I was fascinated by the caves at the foot of the hill. Probably all sealed up now by the health and safety tsars I suppose. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The first time I saw Beeston it was a "wow" experience. Travelling on a train through the fairly flat countryside between Crewe and Chester it was suddenly THERE.  I took the job in Chester and have lived in Cheshire ever since. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The castle that always gave me that "wow" factor was Dunure. I just couldn't get enough of it, made even better by its close proximity to the amazing Electric Brae. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Liverpool Town Hall: There is supposed to be a portrait of James Maury (consul) first ever consul of the United States and consul at Liverpool, hanging in the town hall. At least, the US Embasy website says so. You don't mention it, and your update seems pretty exhaustive. Could you have missed it perhaps? Asteuartw (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * www.usembassy.org.uk/culture/cultural_connections_liverpool.html


 * Thanks. There are many portraits in the town hall but they are not mentioned in the sources available to me.  I have added a sentence about Maury's portrait.  Thanks for the reference. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Parker&
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Parker&, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: List of works of John Douglas (houses and associated buildings). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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) 14:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Parker's buildings
Re this DYK submission, could you please cite the claim that the buildings were named after Cecil Parker? I could not find any such statement in the existing ref. Gatoclass (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional ref added which does clearly confirm the hook. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Witton Clock
I've seen photos at the Salt Museum showing this difference. I'd assumed the faces were altered in the 1911 upgrade but one of the pictures showing the lozenge-shapes is dated 1928 AFAIR: and it's an aerial shot, so can't be much earlier. Nor perhaps much later, because a local woman b. 1920 has no memory of the church tower being other than it is. I'll try to track mention of the change down in the local papers. There is a little oil painting hung near the door to the tower showing the clock with lozenge-shaped faces but if there's a date I can't see it. RLamb (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to seem fussy, but increasingly WP seems to demand citations (preferably inline citations) for every statement, and these are supposed to come from "reliable sources": Verifiability says they "should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I try to do this all the time; if you don't, and you want to take an article towards, say GA, and editors have not supplied references, you have to either find them yourself, and if this is not possible, delete the uncited material - which is a pity.  Anyway, thanks for making the edit, and for getting in touch.  Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll withdraw the changed shape of the faces until I can cite a reference. Though I think I could only find it in a local paper reporting it at the time, and how far anyone could accuse the Northwich Chronicle of fact-checking and accuracy is another matter.  As far as I know there are no books or pamphlets that cover this.  Do you think WP would accept an early photo of the church showing the lozenge-shaped faces as reliable evidence?  Not that the Salt Museum would let me upload one of theirs, but they may know of one published in one of those photos-of-old-Northwich books and I could refer to it.
 * So, do you think quoting the memorial tablets in the church regarding the date of the clock's installation and upgrade qualifies as "a reliable third-party published source"? The facts are published in a way, though in stone not in print. I've uploaded photos of the tablets in Wikimedia commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WittonChurchMemTablet1.JPG) and could link to those, as verification of the source.  But I wouldn't like to link to them in a way that leads to their being visible in the article as I don't want to clutter it with random images.RLamb (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that your references to photos in Commons is a brilliant idea; people can hardly complain about the reliability of these! Newspaper articles are, I think, normally regarded as OK (unless there is evidence to the contrary).  And if they are contemporary accounts of events happening at the time, they must be reliable. (Incidentally I am no expert on citation; just that I have suffered, and thereby learnt a lot about it, during my attempts to obtain GAs.)
 * For a church of such architectural importance (it calls itself the "Cathedral of mid Cheshire", I am surprised that there is apparently so little published information about it. There is nothing about its history or architecture on its website.  I should have thought that someone would have written a history by now.  I know that the Northwich & District Heritage Society is pretty active; would it be worthwhile contacting them and asking?  I guess you've tried the Salt Museum.  It would be unlikely to find a photograph of the clock out of copyright; but a reference to a DATED photograph in a published work, with full details, page number, etc should be OK.
 * If sufficient information could be gathered (including much more history), IMO the church is of such importance in Cheshire to maybe merit a GA, joining the churches at Acton, Nantwich, and Nether Alderley. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You were right about a history; there's a booklet on sale in the church, 'An Illustrated History of Northwich Parish and Church' written 1981 by local historian Colin Lynch and a former parishioner, Michael Harries. In the Local History section of Northwich Library there's also a photocopy of an undated pamphlet (produced in the late 1930s at a guess), 'The Parish Church of St Helen Witton (otherwise) Northwich'. Neither has much to say about the clock unfortunately but if there are other details you think might be usefully added to the article, give me a list and I'll try to look them up.
 * The older of the two sources only gives its authors's initials, 'J.Q.E.W.' and 'A.W.M.W'. Anyone you've heard of?  They float a theory that the roof was bought in from Norton Priory after its dissolution. Is that possible, or nonsense?  They also refer to substantial work done on the tower 1931-2, which gives me a start date for checking on changes to the clock in the local papers.  (And I withdraw the crack about the Northwich Chronicle, now alas deceased.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RLamb (talk • contribs) 11:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have access to the History booklet, may I suggest that you add a summary of it to the article (with appropriate refs of course); the current History section needs expansion. I have no idea about the Norton Priory theory.  I own the two standard works on Norton Priory and they do not mention it; although one of them states that the "fine tower" of Witton church was designed and built by the mason Thomas Hunter, who is also thought to have built Norton's cloisters.  If you get more info on the clock, this would fit better in the History section - the Architecture section should IMO deal mainly with what is currently present. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've summarised the history as best I understand it. I'm hoping to contact one of the authors to ask him to read over it and correct any misapprehensions.  Would an image gallery be a useful addition? RLamb (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks, that's much better; I've added a few tweaks. I'm personally not very keen on galleries (but that's me). I've created a subcat for the church in Commons and added your photos to it, and made a CommonsCat link to it in the article. Are there any other photos that could be added? The plaques would not IMO add much to the article itself, but other photos of the exterior (and maybe a better one than that the current infobox), or of the interior, may add value to the article - or even the sundial. The article is now much improved IMO. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Commonscat link looks much neater than a gallery, though I suppose it might be less eye-catching for people who don't use wikipedia much. So, on Commons I hope to add an interior; the clock mechanism; the bells; an interesting roof boss if I can get a decent shot; a corbel and a window. Perhaps the bit of surviving pre-Reformation stonework now set up behind the Lady altar, though it's only twelve empty niches.  And a Green Man of course, because people like them.  I'll also do a closeup of the sundial, though someone's had the gnomon I'm afraid. I doubt if I can improve on the exterior shot, especially at this rather bleak time of year but I'll give it a go. RLamb (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds great; some of these images could well illustrate the article. "This rather bleak time of year" can be one of the best for photographing churches, if the sun's out, because the leaves are off the trees.  Good luck. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added some photos on Commons, would you take a look and indicate which would be useful to refer to in the article? RLamb (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Liverpool Town Hall
Hello again, I found a image of Liverpool Town Hall which would be suitable for the article, the only problem is that its owned by English Heritage. 

My though was that if its uploaded this template could be used to show that it is Crown Copyright. 

Anyway i would like to here your thoughts on the matter. thanks!  Tsange  ► talk 16:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding this. I do not fully understand the UK copyright laws but as a "free equivalent" is available, I think it would be tricky to substitute this.  I suggest we stick with what we have until a truly "free" image is available.  Otherwise we run into unnecessary problems at GAN.  Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

birth location
Frodsham, Norley, Cheshire, frodsham small part of norley, , Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's an advertisement from an estate agent and therefore not a reliable source; it's misleading and it's wrong. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The point I am showing you, is that after the location was changed I looked myself at the location and was happy that the location was correct, which it was, the estate agent link is for you, not as a reliable citation, to allow you to perhaps realize that the area is the exact same location. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry again, but I happen to live near Frodsham and Norley, and I can assure you that Frodsham is MUCH larger than Norley and that they are separate communities. That's not a reliable source; but an Ordnance Survey map (or any other map you can find on or off line) is.  These will show you that Frodsham is a very large village/small town, while Norley is little more than a hamlet - and they are separated by about 4 miles.  All the reliable sources say Barlow's birthplace was Frodsham, and that's how it has to be. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see from your history now you are from there, I was just a bit peeved to have checked the alteration and for someone not from there to have felt the norley edit to be fine and to be reverted, I see now you are correct, excuse me, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that message; glad we are both in agreement. I made the changes because a new editor had altered the articles on Gary Barlow and Norley with incorrect (or at least uncited) information, and it had to be corrected.  Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Liverpool Town Hall
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Liverpool Town Hall you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 5 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.  The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 20:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am pleased to say your GA review was Symbol support vote.svg passed. -- The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 01:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to make a fuss about it, but I don't believe that this article should have been passed as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I should be grateful for your comments towards its improvement (I always am).  And I did invite you to have a look before I submitted it! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Lyceum, Port Sunlight
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lyceum, Port Sunlight, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.portsunlight.org.uk/views/the-lyceum.html. 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) 18:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

List of works of John Douglas (other buildings and structures)
Hi Peter. This is a difficult one; any specific wording will be very long-winded. Having thought about it for a while, I have only come up with List of non-ecclesiastical and non-residential structures by John Douglas (or "buildings"/"works" instead of "structures"). Naming conventions isn't terribly helpful, unfortunately. I'll continue to think about it—something better may come to me. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  22:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - there's no rush; plenty of work to do before it's ready. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year Peter, and thanks for your note. Despite giving it more thought, I haven't come up with any more feasible or elegant titles than the above.  "Structures" would sound slightly better, but "works" would be consistent with the lead and wording on other lists, so List of non-ecclesiastical and non-residential works by John Douglas is probably best overall.  Having said that, alternatives will no doubt be offered once it is at FLC!  My technique for organising a new buildings or churches list is to assemble a collection of likely-looking sources first (any book that looks remotely useful, every relevant Victoria County History chapter etc.), then compile a spreadsheet with as much relevant info as I can find: name, location, whether I have a photo (or is one available on Geograph.co.uk? If so, I note the code number), IoE code, Victoria County History chapter URL, page number in each book etc.  I do this before I start any edits, even in a sandbox, otherwise it's easy to forget something, include something in error or get mixed up.  This works particularly well with church lists, where you have to use all sorts of sources and don't have a definite base to start from—unlike listed buildings, where you know that you will have at least an IoE record to work with.  Having said that, I find church lists slightly easier (well, less difficult) and slightly more satisfying to compile.  Unfortunately, with the exception of Eastbourne Borough, all the other Sussex districts will be very difficult to do comprehensive church lists for, because of their size and sheer number of churches and/or the lack of VCH data for certain areas (they never got round to finishing the Sussex volumes, and there are huge holes all over the county where you don't have that valuable basic information to work with).  I'll try though!   Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  22:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Brocksford Hall
Greetings old bean ! As a former 'Brocky' one was pleasantly surprised to come across this page. Appologies for the 'alterations'. Our own style of script... year, note, be inspired by a former teacher there (Ra Ra aka Mr. Varley). Methinks there be little else to add to the piece, with one exception... the year of the founding of the school (1942/3/4/5/ ?). One agrees with the description of the architecture - Jacobethan, but, Pevsner describes it as neo-jacobean, hm ! Are you responsible for the other references ?... under John Douglas... ? just for the record... one has amended these references to bring them up to date. Keep up the good work. Wiki geeks unite ! ROBERT TAGGART (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

DYK nomination of 2–18 St Werburgh Street, Chester
Hello! Your submission of 2–18 St Werburgh Street, Chester at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer  Waters  00:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Brocksford Hall
Seasons greetings... again ! As one has 'confessed' to the other contributor ( victuallers)... oneself be something of a geeky 'virgin' ! So ? So one be unsure as to how to input a reference - our amendment to the piece concerning the fornames of the halls commissioner -C.W. (Charles William) was obtained by googling his full name, then selecting several options. The best of which, albeit brief being... thepeerage.com/p29821.htm. Have tried installing said information... without success! Can you help ? Cheers. ROBERT TAGGART (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC).