Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:20, 29 December 2012

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth Cotton, Lady Hope

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Cotton, Lady Hope. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Churches in Bedfordshire

• St Marys Church, Clophill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This came up on the administrators' noticeboard because of a huge edit war. I decided to have a go at it. But I've only done one of the apparently two churches by that name. The article could stand to have more on the second church, I think. So (after consulting my talk page archives to remind me who that person interested in U.K. churches was) here I am. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the heads-up but I need a little more context here. Where within the Admin' noticeboard is this 'huge edit war'? I can see in the history a reversion battle occurring between Logistics Speaker (talk · contribs) and Gwenlen (talk · contribs); one trying to promote a feature film and the other trying to prevent said promotion. To be honest though, I reduced my Misplaced Pages input due to similar huge battles in the past so I'm not really wanting to get into that stuff again.

Do these references help at all?

• Historic England. "Details from listed building database ({{{num}}})". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 7 December 2012.
• 'Parishes: Clophill', A History of the County of Bedford: Volume 2 (1908), pp. 320-325. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=62657 Date accessed: 07 December 2012.
• Nikolaus Pevsner's Buildings of England: Bedfordshire, Huntingdon and Peterborough might have something to say about the place too

For the record, I am not that interested in 'UK churches'. I am more interested in local history; specifically East Cambridgeshire. However, I have created detailed articles on two local churches viz St James' Church, Stretham and St George's Church, Little Thetford plus I have had considerable input into other churches. The reference and bibliography sections of those two articles might give you some hints on where to find more information. Consider, for example, Crockford's clerical directory (access is usually free via a UK library card), Clergy of the Church of England or the Felstead (Bells) database

--Senra (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#St Marys Church, Clophill, and you need not worry about the edit warriors. They've all had their account editing privileges revoked, and the edit war was over what is really, once one considers what an encyclopaedia article should be telling readers, only a very minor thing. Architecture, history, and geography are far more important to this article than whether someone on the WWW has just made a spooky movie. Misplaced Pages is supposed, after all, to be a proper encyclopaedia. Which is, of course, why I'd like to obtain and write more about the replacement church in the village centre, and probably work in things about the rectors if that turns out to be appropriate.

I'll have a look at what you cite, as much as is accessible to me; although if that 1908 one is by William Henry Page it's already used in the article. That's good stuff, though. I will, despite your protestations, continue to remember you as someone to consult about churches and villages in the U.K.. Locality, by the way, is relative. From some perspectives, Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire are right next to each other. ☺

Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha. You could have thrown part of Queen Gertrude's speech from Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act III scene II, back to me which is oft misquoted as "Methinks thou dost protest too much" and you would have been right! Point taken. Do let me know anything that is not accessible to you. I am always willing to help. For example, I'm pottering off to the local library this afternoon and I will see what Pevsner has to say about St Marys Church, Clophill as I know that Pevsner is not available on-line. Also, that 1908 link was indeed written by W H Page --Senra (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider also ...

• Clophill Heritage Trust has received a grant of £100,000 towards the repair of Old St Mary’s in Bedfordshire
• The church is apparently a scheduled monument as well as a listed building
• The church is on the English Heritage At Rick register (e.g. 2009 page 38)

--Senra (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just taken your {{WPB}} from Talk:St James' Church, Stretham. I leave the ratings up to the wiki-project members. As you may notice, I found out about the EH funding from an on-line newspaper, and I have the listing as well. I also found a contemporary journal by a William Laxton that I'll have to check is William Laxton, that provided stuff on the new church. What I'd really like, but I doubt you can provide, are the architectural plan and illustration that are on the immediately preceding page, Laxton 1850, p. 6 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLaxton1850 (help), which would make a very informative addition for the reader. I'd have to check their copyright status (1850 is probably out of U.K. copyright for architectural drawings) though. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Plans of both churches may be available at Lambeth Palace Archives. I will have a look when I get home. In the meantime Pevsner has a quarter page on the old and new churches at Clophill. I will drop you a link to an image of the relevant page via your Misplaced Pages email when I get home --82.103.128.45 (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Erm the above was me --Senra (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Not Lambeth Palace Archives but I found four entries for "Clophill" at Church Plans Online although each entry is accompanied by the statement "No plans exist in the archive". It is not clear to me whether any or all of these entries refer to the old or the new church. These entires might still be worthy of review as they declare work done when and by whom --Senra (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Senra, you protested too little. I'm also adding you to one of my shitlists, as a Person of Knowledge. Thank you so much for your help--and allow me to reiterate that Uncle G has done an outstanding job in expanding the article, and that we don't need to fear those edit-warriors again. At most they can become a minor nuisance. Thank you again, Drmies (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Drmies --Senra (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

More information ...?

• In 1848 at least, patron of Cophill was Earl de Grey from Coate', A Topographical Dictionary of England (1848), pp. 644-647. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=50886&strquery=clophill Date accessed: 07 December 2012]
• "There are two bells which were removed from the old church; the treble by Emerton of Wootton, 1774, and the second dated 1623" from 'Parishes: Clophill', A History of the County of Bedford: Volume 2 (1908), pp. 320-325. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=62657&strquery=clophill Date accessed: 07 December 2012
• History of the priory which I don't pretend to understand though the sentence "... these arrangements were completed before the death of John of Wheathampstead in 1464, and the priory disappeared so completely that even its site was for a long time forgotten." caught my eye as it might (synthesis?) date the church from 'House of Benedictine monks: The priory of Beaulieu', A History of the County of Bedford: Volume 1 (1904), pp. 351-353. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=40033&strquery=clophill Date accessed: 07 December 2012

--Senra (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have Earl de Grey already. It was in the 1850 source. I still need to sort out which Earl that is. The bells are new, as is the priory. Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is no which as I believe patronage is "The right of presenting a member of the clergy to a particular ecclesiastical benefice or living" (OED n 1.) and the title "Earl de grey" is a hereditary peerage so is only held by one (in this case male) person until becoming extinct on the death of the last holder dying without issue. I therefore believe it correct, for example, to say "patron Earl de Grey" --Senra (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There is in this case. The stone wasn't donated by a title. It was donated by a person. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I altered the bit about "Portland style" to "Portland stone", since I couldn't find any references to the former, and (judging from a photo) the windows etc. appear to be made out of a light-coloured stone. If that's correct, did de Grey donate the Portland stone? Ning-ning (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Laxton says sandstone. Uncle G (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Aha. We are talking at slight cross-purposes here. My comment beginning "There is no which ..." is in reference to my earlier comment beginning "In 1848 at least, patron of Cophill was Earl de Grey from Coate ..." (my later emphasis). The donation of a stone is a different matter entirely and indeed, in that case there is a which Earl de Grey --Senra (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • What a fascinating story. I'm intrigued by Lincoln Diocese's decision to build a new church, in what is a very small community (pop. 1,066 in 1848), based (in part, I assume) on the two documented enquiries in 1827 and 1839 (Church Plans On-line "Clophill"). I also note that, according to Church Plans On-line, the new church was built between 1848–50 under the Diocese of Ely and then approval was granted for renovation between 1961–62 under the Diocese of St Albans. Incidentally, the 1848–50 build cost of £2,300 equates to a present day (2010) value of £1,580,000 (Measuring worth: using average earnings). Truly fascinating --Senra (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
      • The £2,300 includes glazing, erecting the tower and nave, mortar, roofing (including purchase of lead), purchase, transport and cutting of Portland stone, purchase of pitch pine and oak, construction of flooring, ceiling, pews, pulpit and doors, moving bells and lych gate from the old church, drainage, landscaping of the churchyard, architect's fees and labour. Agricultural labourers in 1845 earned 2 shillings a week, so taking that as a base level, and assuming twenty unskilled labourers worked on the church for two years, the wage bill would have been £208. The price of lead in 1836 was £24 a ton and declining; estimating a weight of 30 tons, (Bere Regis church used 52 tons in 1628 for its roof) and a price of £18 gives a cost of £540. The figure of £2,300 seems a bit cheap. Ning-ning (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You noticed the name of the 1958 chapel, then? There's probably a little more to say on the subject of the rebuild decision. There's certainly more to say on the rectors over the years, which anyone reading this is welcome to add. An article like this should be fascinating, I think. It's doing its job if a reader like you comes across it and sees more than "run-down ruin that was the subject of a fad in the 1960s and 1970s". Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Ning-ning: My goodness! Your attention to detail puts me to shame. Was that financial costs detail from "The Ecclesiastical gazette ..." (1850)? If so, are those Gazette's available on-line? I could use that kind of information in future --Senra (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Uncle G: "... anyone reading this ..."—there's only you me and Ning-ning. Anyway, it's you who is making it fascinating. A superb article. I do feel that the decision to build the new church seems like a prime example of Victorian restoration gone mad and almost (but not of course by definition) a folly --Senra (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Senra: no, sorry, I just entered a few search terms like "price of lead in 1850". All very approximate! I suppose the decision to build a new church could have been justified by its position on the flat next to the village, and not on a hill. Imagine walking up Old Church Path on a wet windy day in a crinoline, and sliding down afterwards. Ning-ning (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry. Chienlit (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No need. Really. beats fair and square my friend --Senra (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: GA: Ely and Littleport riots

Hello, sorry for not replying sooner. I personally still think that this should qualify as a good article, but to tell you the truth it's been so long since I reviewed/wrote anything properly for Misplaced Pages, I suspect the standard of GA went up to an "almost a featured article" standard (I must have missed that memo), so I'm probably not the best person. I suppose what would be good is to see if the issues brought up in the original GA nomination can be fixed and then have another go at nominating it and see what another reviewer thinks, as I think the assessment was probably a little over expectant for a GA, at least at the time. Thanks Rob (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Cinematic television

I just wanted to say that your analysis and presented rationale on the AfD were very impressive. I wish we could all do that sort of thing in all deletion discussions, regardless of outcome. §FreeRangeFrog 23:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In general, I prefer to vote Keep in AfD's. In this case, I carried out some research, laid out the results and voted accordingly. It still hurts to see an article being deleted though --Senra (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for William Jennens

On 24 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Jennens, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the fortune of England's richest commoner, William the Miser, was lost in lawyer's fees in 117 years of litigation over his estate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Jennens. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 12:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Ferret legging/GA2#GA_Reassessment

Translation of response for those interested.

• The nominator should stop denigrating the article and use common sense instead of talking nonsense. Perhaps WP:RX for The Times Wednesday, Dec 31, 1980; pg. 2; Issue 60814; col G or perhaps WP:RX for The Times, Thursday, Mar 31, 1983; pg. 12; Issue 61495; col A?

I.e. use the resource exchange to read some reliable sources

--Senra (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Centuries in Stretham

Hi Senra, I saw your reversion of my changes to Stretham. As you asked, I reviewed WP:CENTURY again, and I'm not clear on what you were intending. The changes I made seem to me to be appropriate. Help me understand. Same issue at Little Thetford. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In the featured article Little Thetford I was inconsistent in my use of hyphens between numeric centuries. For example in the lead of this version see 7th-century and 10th century. My understanding stems from the Little Thetford FAC and this discussion where Malleus explains: It's Xth-century when used as an adjective, such as Xth-century cottage, but Xth century otherwise. Malleus Fatuorum 13:44, 13 July 2010, Tuesday (2 years, 5 months, 18 days ago) (UTC+1). See also:

• 10 July 2010‎:7th-century to 7th century
• 22:55, 12 July 2010‎:global replace of all th cent with th-cent
• 22:59, 12 July 2010‎:finish replacing missing hyphens between Xth-century (following MF's earlier edits today - hope I'm doing the right thing here :(
• 13:57, 13 July 2010: Remove hyphens from some Xth-centrury rep[lace with Xth normal space century

I guess I have always been confused with this rule. In this particular case, I reviewed your link WP:CENTURY before reverting you. I could not find evidence for your change at WP:CENTURY. However, on reviewing Malleus's 13 July 2010 statement and your changes in the light of WP:ORDINAL I now agree with you. I have reverted my revert.

--Senra (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)