User talk:Peter I. Vardy/Archive 9

too many Burton Halls
Oops! Thanks for catching that. I'll try to be more careful. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wondered
Hello Peter, I hope all is well,

I know you're something of an architecture enthusiast. I just wondered if you'd be willing and able to take a quick look at User:Jza84/Sandbox3, and, if possible, make some suggestions on where it could be improved. Of course, you are more than welcome to edit it if you feel the urge. Architecture is not something I'm too familliar with (I'm just pool soundbites from things I've read really), but I think this is a worthwhile page. --Jza84 | Talk  23:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for contacting me; I'm certainly no expert on architecture. My interest in the subject just sort of "growed"; working on a previously awful article on Runcorn led to an interest in its listed buildings, then to listed buildings in Cheshire, then to Victorian architecture, and especially the work of John Douglas.  Like you, I've picked up a bit of knowledge on the way, but have still a long way to go (haven't yet really understood High Victorian style, Germanic and Netherlandish influences and the like).  First impressions on your article: a big challenge and what looks an impressive start.  I'll try to have a more detailed look and, if there are any comments, I'll make them on your talk page; I shall not be making any edits.  Cheers.  Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Church of St Leonard, Middleton
Hello again ,

Having thoroughly enjoyed tackling the Rochdale Town Hall article (I have historically stuck to settlements), I'm eyeing up the possibility of taking Church of St Leonard, Middleton through DYK towards GAC. I have a little source material, but thought it only right to ask your good self for any tips on layout, contents and good sources. It's an incredibly interesting Saxon-Norman church, and Grade I listed too.

Following that I'm thinking about creating a Neilston Parish Church (of Neilston). --Jza84 | Talk  00:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Three hares
I only put it in because I found the link in this article. I think it is useful, as it is part of the iconography of the church. So yes, I agree. It would be a useful reference, IMHO. Have at it. Happy editing. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC) stan

Church Articles
Hi, I see that you have written articles about churches. I wondered if you'd look at Parish Church of St George, Tyldesley just to see if I'm on the right lines, I'm afraid it's not the oldest or most interesting. If I'm on the right track I'd like to improve some of the church articles around Leigh if I can find some resources. --J3Mrs (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking so much trouble, I have a bit of work to do then. And thank you for the advice, I will heed it. I think Tyldesley is in the Liverpool and South-West Lancashire volume of Pevsner because the Leigh Ecclesiastical Parish was in the West Derby hundred. I might be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time. I do hope you will make the odd edits, I don't mind being corrected, just want to see good articles, and I'm glad you liked the picture! I'm not the most confident editor, I seem to be surrounded by real experts at the GM project so encouragement from someone like yourself is very welcome.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I ought to say I haven't been intimidated by the GM editors, they seem to be very tolerant of me! especially MF who could not have helped me more, but there's so much to live up to and I don't understand anything technical whatsoever :( --J3Mrs (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have taken up your suggestions and expanded what I had, found the ref for Early English, found another photograph, so it definately has improved a bit. Would you be kind enough to provide a link to some of your GA church articles? There are so few around. (maybe I'm getting to be too ambitious!!!!)--J3Mrs (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for going to so much trouble, I do hope you didn't think I thought it finished! I do prefer the infobox you suggested so it is already in there. I have found a Pevsner ref online p65-66, but the quote, "It is archaeologically careful" seems rather odd to me, architecturally would have made more sense, but what do I know? I'll keep plodding on. By the way you said that church articles were easy, I'm not so sure.:-)  --J3Mrs (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello again, I noticed you were working on Waterloo Churches, I do hope I haven't sidetracked you. When I was working on Wakefield I came across this list . I have photographs somewhere of the Wakefield Million Churches if that's any use to you. Thanks for the information in Tyldesley St George. I am hopefully going to take some photographs, maybe later this month.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that; yes I have come across it. I've started to compile a list of Commissioners' churches but with 600+ it's a bit daunting; keep me going for a few months between other things.  It's in a sandbox here and it will be a while before it (incomplete) goes into main space.  When it does, please fill in any gaps, photos, etc.  Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Witton Church pictures
I've added some more pictures to Commons, would you like to see if any should be referred to from the article? Thanks RLamb (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this Peter, will read advice pages and try to implement. Yes, will take church exterior on brighter day. RLamb (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

problem with your dyk hook
Hi, there is a problem with your recent dyk hook as noted here. Can you address this? Thanks, — mattisse  (Talk) 19:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Commissioner Churches and Waterloo Church Pages
Amalgamation with Waterloo church? Well done Peter for allowing me to look at your draft amalgamation of these two pages. I fully support you in the work and the effort you have put in. I agree with your suggestion to a separate list-article even if with 600+ possible items. As you have said it could be a bit big but I have seen longer ones!. Proceed to upload this to the main space and make a redirect for Waterloo church?

Most of my current efforts are going into building up Wyfopedia and just making very minor corrections to Wikipedia. --DonBarton (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for noticing the two different versions of the article co-existed and attempting to merge them. No small task, I'm sure. However, I have noted that the latest article naming seems to be wrong according to the normal convention and have explained the rationale in the context of WP on the talk page of Waterloo church. I would suggest continuing any discussion on the article's talk page where others might notice it. With best regards, Ephebi (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. I agree that the debate should take place in a more open forum and will reply there, together with a message on Talk:Commissioners' church drawing attention to the debate; I will also draw the attention of two other interested editors to the debate.  I have taken the liberty of moving your comment to a new section so that the discussion can take place in date order.  Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * PS The "list" part of the article has not permanently disappeared. I am working on a more comprehensive and detailed list here.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

John Douglas as a potential TFA
Hey, there. I'm not sure if you are aware, but there is a process here that allows editors to request that a featured article that they have worked on be displayed on Wikipedia's main page as "Today's Featured Article". I noticed that the 180th birthday of John Douglas (architect) will be on April 11. You may or may not want to put in a request for the article to be displayed; the choice is yours. There is currently a 3-point article (Luton Town F.C.) nominated for April 11, the 125th anniversary of the club's founding. As John Douglas is a 5-point article (and thus statistically more likely to be displayed), it cannot be nominated just yet. If you want, I can leave you a note on when it is eligible for nomination. Would you agree with having John Douglas displayed on the main page? Regards,  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 21:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a nice thought. I'd played with the idea of going for 23 May 2011, the centenary of his death, but why not 2010?  I must say that I've not come to grips with the scoring system for TFA, but perhaps I'll go for 2010 as you suggest.  It that happens to miss out, I'll have another chance next year!  Yes, a reminder for the time for eligibility for nomination would be most welcome.  Many thanks for your suggestion.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. :)  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 22:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're now good to go for nominating at WP:TFAR. Here's a blurb below, if you want to use it.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 18:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 John Douglas (1830–1911) was an English architect who designed about 500 buildings in Cheshire, North Wales and northwest England, in particular in the estate of Eaton Hall. Douglas' output included the creation, restoration and renovation of furnishings, churches, houses and other buildings. His architectural styles were eclectic and many of his works incorporate elements of the English Gothic style. He was also influenced by architectural styles from the mainland of Europe and included elements of French, German and Netherlandish architecture into his works. He is remembered for his use of half-timbering, tile-hanging, pargeting, decorative brick in diapering and the design of tall chimney stacks. Of particular importance is Douglas' use of joinery and highly detailed wood carving. Throughout his career he attracted commissions from wealthy landowners and industrialists. Most of his works have survived. The city of Chester contains a number of his structures, the most admired of which are his half-timbered black-and-white buildings and Eastgate Clock. The highest concentration of his work is found in the Eaton Hall estate and the surrounding villages of Eccleston, Aldford and Pulford. (more...)
 * Many thanks for that - especially for preparing the blurb. I have made the nomination and should be grateful if you could check I've done everything "properly".--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Architecture
Hello and welcome to the WikiProject Architecture - here's the bulletin - if you don't like it just delete it from your talk page, otherwise, it automatically updates. Please give me or one of the other project members a shout if you need any help. Kind regards Elekhh (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Cross Bath
Hi Peter, I've added a note saying "All of the references use it as a title ie "The Cross Bath", but I'd be happy for it to be moved to Cross Bath, Bath or even Cross Bath (because Bath,Bath is clumsy) and there don't seem to be any others - hopefully it would then comply with the MOS." If you are happy shall I move it or will you?&mdash; Rod talk 10:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied on the talk page; suggest you move it if you are happy.  Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tis done.&mdash; Rod talk 12:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I feel better now!!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Unidentified lump of stone
Hello Peter, can you help identify a piece of carved stone lying outside the church of St Helen Witton? I've just uploaded the image on Wikimedia Commons and categorized it, but it doesn't yet display. The file is called 'Lump.JPG': currently it appears at the address http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lump.JPG Any ideas as to what it may have been, or any informed guesswork, would be welcome.RLamb (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! I don't know for certain but I would guess that it is part of a carved coffin lid - have a look at the image (it comes from the article on Norton Priory).  It could otherwise be part of a tombstone.  Perhaps someone at the church or local history society could confirm this - don't take my word for it!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Spot on! I couldn't find a reference in the standard church history but a pamphlet written c.1932 records it as having been found in 1840, before where the high altar would have been.  When the stone was moved the body beneath was in vestments, carrying a silver penny in one hand and a hazel wand in the other. "Sad to say nothing was preserved and even the stone was broken." RLamb (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it's good to get something right! Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Belated message and news
Hello Peter, sorry for not responding to an email you sent me quite some time ago: I no longer have access to it for reasons that will become clear. Because of various problems to do with a kind of racial harrassment my wife and son have experienced where we live, and not being able to do anything about it in terms of being able to afford to move within the UK, we've had to re-locate to China. This means that accessing wikipedia is particularly problematic. I am slowly transferring all my local history books about Cheshire over there which may mean I can get on with some stuff while over there, though I have been busy sorting out schools for my son (who is busy re-learning Chinese) and nursing my wife back to health after some major health problems. I can't recall how to email you from wikipedia, and so I've had to resort to this rather public message. If you send me an email at the last email address you had for me, we can re-establish contact. Best wishes. David  DDStretch    (talk)  17:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Norton Priory
Hi Peter, great to hear from you! It'll be a pleasure to give Norton Priory a look over; I'll give it a good read tonight and write my comments for you tomorrow. It's a very important site (probably the foremost monastic excavation of modern times in Britain) and the article was already very good - it certainly deserves to get featured status. I'll be happy to add my vote when the FAC comes up. Speak soon. Best wishes, Soph (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Christ Church, Attercliffe
Hi - thanks for your message and for the very useful list which you are constructing. I believe that Pevsner has the details, so I will check that later tonight and get back to you. Warofdreams talk 17:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The church isn't covered by the West Riding Pevsner, and the modern Sheffield Pevsner has only the barest of mentions, noting on page 14 that it was a commissioners' church and has been demolished. J. Edward Vickers' The Ancient Suburbs of Sheffield describes it on page 7 as "destroyed by enemy bombing during World War II".  I believe that this is a slight exaggeration, but that it was rendered unusable by bombing during the Sheffield Blitz, and the ruins were cleared at some point in the 1950s. Warofdreams talk 21:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

John Douglas, Paley and Austin etc
Hi Peter; hope you're well. I see John Douglas looks set for a Main Page appearance on 11th April – good stuff! I used to do a lot of work with spoken versions of articles, mainly for Featured Articles appearing on the Main Page (for maximum benefit). I should have time to record and upload a recording of J.D. before 11th, so if you see a sound file being linked in the External Links section that's what it will be. I tend to stick to narrating subjects I understand! Meanwhile, I was doing some research into Sussex churches, and I noticed that Paley and Austin (the 19th-century version) apparently restored three in the Eastbourne area: Westham, Willingdon and Wilmington. You've got Wilmington on List of ecclesiastical works by Paley and Austin; shall I investigate the other two? The info was at this usually reliable and scholarly website, but it is only a website (and technically self-published at that), so I'll need to dig further. Coincidentally I was planning to go to Westham on Saturday (and possibly Willingdon), and Commons lacks photos of either church... Finally, I noticed your work on Commissioners' Churches; I may be able to fill in some of the London-ish photographic gaps on the southern England list on one of my regular (at least monthly) visits to Croydon and London. Cheers, Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  13:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello - great to hear from you; I'm an admirer of your work. To include a spoken version in the John Douglas article would be a fantastic addition; please go ahead if you have the time.  Interesting what you say about Paley and Austin.  I compiled the lists from Price's book - slim but I thought comprehensive.  But maybe not.  On the website you mentioned I found this for Westham, and this for Willingdon.  Both are well-referenced and I see no reason not to accept them as reliable.  I will add them to the list and should be most grateful for your photographs.  Regarding Commissioner's churches, yes again any photos would be most welcome.  The London-ish content is far from complete and I have ordered the standard work on the churches (by Port) from the public library, but whether I get it or not remains to be seen (costs too much at ~£50 to buy).  I must say I have not searched assiduously for photos in Commons and Geograph, but I am sure anything you take will be superior.  Best wishes,--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Westham and Willingdon pics added just now. The weather was rather mixed yesterday and for some reason the light was appalling, even in the middle of the day (!), so I had to tweak the brightness.  I spent most of the day getting photos of Eastbourne's current and ex-places of worship for the next edition of "List of places of worship in ".  This is the last easy, small district left; the other six are so big, they will keep me busy for a very long time!  Next weekend looks good for producing the spoken version of John Douglas, by the way.   Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  16:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter – the spoken version of John Douglas is now in place on the article.  Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  20:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's terrific, thanks a million. It still looks promising for the main page on the 11th.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Welsh names were a bit of a challenge—this one especially! I hope I got "Boughton" right, bearing in mind the unpredictability of "ough".  It was nice to give the microphone a bit of a workout again; I used to record spoken articles quite regularly, but as I got more into article writing (especially the church and listed building lists) I found I didn't have enough time for both, plus all the non-Wikipedia things I do!   Hassocks  5489 (tickets please!)  20:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Norton Priory - comments
Hi Peter! I had a good look through the Norton article and it is superb, only a few tiny things needed to get it up to FA I think. I've done my comments by section and line count, but haven't put any of them into the article as I thought it would be be ill-mannered. Before I go into the detail, I had two general things. First was that you might get some annoyance at FAC from the use of 'likely', 'possibly' and similar qualifiers. I know I did with Netley Abbey from twits who do not understand that archaeology and architectural history are not exact sciences, so be prepared for that. Second thing is that it would be great if we could have a picture of the 18th century house if one is available. My guess is that 18th or 19th century engravings might be locatable, perhaps from one of those 'seats of notable gentlemen' books that were so popular at the time.


 * I've tried to add details of the authors for most of the qualifiers. I hope this does not lead to too much repetition, or add tedium to the text; but it should go towards satisfying some reviewers.  I thought that I could not find an illustration of the Georgian house that would be acceptable to the copyright Mafia, but on scouring Greene's book again I found one that I have added.

Anyway, my comments:

Intro

Line 3 I'd change this to 'partially demolished' as the undercroft survived. Line 8 Replace 'archaeological findings' with 'the excavated ruins'
 * Done.

Priory

Line 8 Fresh running water was needed for the latrines and domestic purposes and was considered essential to siting a monastery. We probably ought to mention this prior to the moats and fishponds etc Line 10 Change the second 'likely' to 'possible'
 * Dealt with.

Abbey

Line 1 Change to 'During the first half of the 14th century' Line 3 'Augustinian chapter' needs to be clarified – is it the provincial chapter or a general chapter of the order (if there was one, don't think so as the order was really decentralised)? It's also a bit opaque to a non-specialist. Suggest changing this to 'active in the governance of the wider Augustinian order and in political affairs' Line 26 Change 'inhospitable' to 'uninhabitable' Line 27 Change 'monastic' to 'domestic buildings of the abbey'
 * Done.

Country House

Lines 1-5 This para is confusing and needs a rewrite. We have also a contradiction with the end of the preceding para where we said that it wasn't known when the monastery claustral complex was demolished, but here we have it down by 1545. Suggest rewriting this para to say that Brooke used the former abbot's lodgings and the west range of the monastic buildings as the core of his new house (which leaves it open) then mention that the excavations indicate the survival of the cloisters and 18th century art the gatehouse and other buildings. Line 8 Change 'cannonier' to 'gunner' Line 12 Change to 'retained the vaulted undercroft of the west range of the mediaeval abbey' Line 14 Change 'monastic buildings' to 'mediaeval buildings' Line 16 'Outer parlour' is here confusing to the lay reader – I guess that we mean the former monastic outer parlour of the abbey, but that hasn't been referred to before. Suggest that we refer to it as the 'outer parlour, the former entrance hall to the mediaeval abbey'
 * I found that dealing with the transition from abbey to country house the most difficult bit to amend. I've re-written both the end of the abbey section and the start of the country house section, and I hope this now works.
 * Added "gunner" in parentheses - the sources say "cannonier".
 * Both done.
 * I've worked on this, and other appearances of "outer parlour" and hope they make sense.

Priory 1134-1236

Line 15 Possible typo in the dimensions of the early cloister, I don't think it was 510' north-south :) Metric conversion of that needs to be fixed too. Line 17-18 If we put in the explanation of the outer parlour above as previously noted above we may  be able to reduce it here. The comment re decoration about wealth and power is almost certainly true, but will attract criticism unless we cite it, best to say it was highly decorated and describe the features.
 * Whoops!
 * See above - I've included a cited quotation.

Priory and abbey 1236-1536

Line 9 'Contemporary' is problematic as the illustrations as far as I know are post-mediaeval and so not contemporary with the construction of the tower house. Are we talkng about the brothers Buck engraving, or do we have an earlier one? Suggest referring directly the image(s). We need to give a wiki link for tower house. Line 9-10 We need to rewrite this sentence to say that the cloister arcades may have been rebuilt and that there were some alterations to the east range – at the moment the phrasing is unclear.
 * Both dealt with.

Artifacts from daily life

Line 2 That pottery did not travel far in the middle ages is a disputable statement and is contradicted by the following lines. Suggest rephrasing to 'most was probably produced locally, however, 13 sherds of Stamford...' Line 11 possible typo – what is 'egg soda'? My guess is should read 'e.g. soda bottles'
 * Slightly re-written.
 * Not a typo; explanation given in parentheses.

And that's it. Hope this helps, the article is great work and let me know if there's anything else I can do to give a hand with it.

Best wishes Soph (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a query on your first point. I was aware that by using qualifiers I might run foul of reviewers but, so far as I can remember, each qualifier is taken directly from the source; and it is not for me to be more definite than the sources.  In your opinion would it be better in each occasion to say something like "X (or Y and Z) consider that...." (or "are of the opinion that...")?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's probably necessary to say who thought it possible, as in "X considers that ..." or similar. Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the way you've done it is fine. I'd probably say to any twits as you have here that the qualification is given by the source, which is of course cited, and the precise evidence can be found there. pace Malleus, I think that we might end up with too many 'x thinks that it is likely' which would break up the flow of the prose if we did it at every occurence, though we could do it at points where specific objections are raised. I hope your singing went well! Best wishes, Sophia Soph (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * FAC can be a fickle place; I'm just pointing out potential hotspots in advance. Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't I know it!! I've had enough for today.  Thanks to you both; I'll continue the contest tomorrow.  Keep the hotspots coming.  The concert was fantastic; the experience of a lifetime (didn't see either of you there} or did you not want an autograph? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Many thanks to both of you. I've tried to address all the points made. Are there any problems arising from this - or elsewhere? I'm very grateful for the trouble and time you've taken. My amendments may need more copyediting, I fear.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Norton Priory redux
Hi Peter! de nada it was a real pleasure to be asked to do a read-through, especially considering all the help you've given me in the past on my abbeys, and no worries about leaving things fallow while important and fun things happen. Bad luck about the dentist and your wife having to see a specialist, but I hope all will come out well. re singing at the hall in Liverpool the acoustics of that place are superb, try coughing on the stage and you will see the richness of the sound you will have. I do know Malleus, he is a man I respect. He is certainly bawdy :) but his help in writing for wiki has been superb and his comments, while incisive are incredibly useful. I tend to write too academically for the wiki audience and he has helped greatly in making my stuff readable to the general public. I hope he's able to give his hand on this one, he has a good way of sharpening up prose (and I say this as a professional editor). Have a great time with the parties.

Best wishes,

SophiaSoph (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Religion in Manchester
Hi Peter, I'm not sure if you're interested in religion or just ecclesiastical buildings, but if you look at the Graphic article I uploaded here there is a fair bit on page 3 and 6 about religion in Manchester in the 1870s. There are of course some nice architectural engravings in the article that may interest you too. BTW I saw something you were working on about churches in your sandbox. I intend to get a better picture of Stand Church before too long as the one on commons is pretty awful. Richerman (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for contacting me. I'm afraid that my interest in in the history and architecture of individual churches, rather than in the broader subject of religion.  What you may have noticed in one of my sandboxes is work towards writing articles linked with List of works by Edmund Sharpe and/or List of Commissioners' churches in northern England.  For a bit of variety I am also writing some articles on Grade I listed churches in Cumbria.  But the articles you have acquired are certainly very interesting.  Best wishes.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of works by E. G. Paley


The article List of works by E. G. Paley has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not a disambiguation page & unnecessary list - as is copy of an existing list in a section of the main E.G. Paley page at Edward_Graham_Paley

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Haruth (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No objection.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

St Kentigern's Church, Caldbeck
Just to let you know that I've commented on your hook at the submissions page. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria - displaying new articles
Peter, following our conversation on the project talk page, I've found an alternative method of indicating articles that have been assessed. I think it look much better but I'd appreciate your comments. NtheP (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that's much better. My concern was that there was no way in which folk could be informed of the newly written articles in the project.  Does this also incorporate substantially expanded articles too (they will need reassessment)?  Thanks for the trouble you've taken, and for letting me know.  Peter.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't incorporate expanded articles as it's a bot and I think it only looks at new articles. For expanded articles it depends on what is wanted.  if it's solely to advertise that something has been expanded, we could put a section on the project page for that.  if it's for re-assessment then a not on the projecyt talk page it best so that someone sees it and conducts a re-assessment. NtheP (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)