User talk:Trappedinburnley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Citation formatting[edit]

Hi, before either of us add too many more to the list, I just wanted to mention the citation template, as we should be using the same one for consistency. Having looked at the dedicated NHLE template, I'm not really sure if it's best. We're going to have English Heritage linked on every occurrence, which is overlinking in my eyes, I'm not convinced the list should be in italics (WP:ITALICS) and I'm not sure we need to have the number mentioned in the title. On the whole, I'd rather stick with the {{Citation}} template. However, I'm not dead against the other one so would be interested to hear your opinion. What do you think? --BelovedFreak 09:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I’m a little surprised you have an issue with the template, I thought it a noticeable improvement in terms of space saving and the general advantage templates of this type have in combating link rot. Now I look it is relatively new and not particularly widely used, but my worry in us not using it is that we’ll be just creating extra work for somebody who later decides that we should have. If your concerns are just about the formatting it produces, could we look to improve the template?
Another thing to make a decision on is coordinates. Some of the records have multiple coordinates, do we use them all? If not which ones: the first one, the one we feel is best?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Space saving is one advantage I noticed, for sure. Does the new template combat link rot more than the {{Citation}} templates? My personal preference is the older template, for the reasons stated above, but it's not unusual to have different opinions on things like this when collaborating. I'm not wedded to the other one, consistency is the most important thing I think. I'm sure we'll come across bigger problems as we go!
As far as coordinates, I'm not sure what the best option is, but one possibility is to make it a shorter coordinate (ie covering a slightly larger area) to avoid using more than one. Do some of them have more than one coordinate because they fall into more than one parish? For now, I'd be inclined to either add them both, or just pick one, and we can go back and check later. --BelovedFreak 17:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The idea behind the template combating link rot is that the URL to the webpage is coded into the template, so should EH decide to change the site in the future someone would only have to change one URL not (potentially) thousands. Dropping the italics and link to the EH article would only take seconds and I hope nobody will mind. I'll do it right now if you want to see what I mean?
On the coordinate front, it seems that some of the sites have several areas of protection, the most I’ve found so far is Ribchester with 4 (see the 2 Burnley ones for examples)--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Right, ok, I didn't understand about the URL. That does make it more worthwhile. I'm not sure about changing the italics and link without discussion, it might sound silly but you'd be surprised how strongly people can feel about these things. Either way, that clever URL thing makes it worthwhile using the template, so carry on with it and I'll get around to changing the ones I've already added. --BelovedFreak 21:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
OK since I made my last statement I’ve found Template:Cite PastScape and that isn’t used at all despite the 1000s of articles it would apply too. This (and your reluctance) is filling me with a sense that I’m missing something and I’ll regret this decision later. I can’t really think what to do except plough on and hope for the best, just as long as I’m not railroading you into it?
Also I’ve tweaked the formatting and decimal places on the coordinates on the warren in Burnley to be closer to the Cheshire lists. I think this will work better especially for the ones with multiple sites, do you agree? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that looks fine on the coordinates. I really wouldn't worry too much about the template - you're not railroading me and I'm happy to go with the dedicated one. It may be that the formatting details can be tweaked later at the template, if there's consensus to do so.--BelovedFreak 18:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Westby[edit]

The Westby Hall at Westby-with-Plumptons [1] is in fact now a caravan storage site: [2] ! No witches in sight. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been searching for a source to add the Hall to the Westby-with-Plumptons article and link it to George Leo Haydock, as we have come this far. Sadly although I've found several mentions of a catholic mission there, I can't find anything suitable. I see you've been involved with the article previously, do you have anything?
I will have to check Porter (1878). Of course St Annes Church is still there - that may deserve its own article, but that dates only from 1860. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe the church was built 16 years after the mission was closed by a CofE member of the Clifton family.
In a weird coincidence I added links to the members of the Nutter family who were executed as priests. John Nutter (martyr) who is only a redirect at the moment, seems to have been executed with George Haydock, an earlier member of the same family. Small world! --Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd urge you to create an article for the church. I would be happy to help with photos, if required. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
So, "George Haydock has nothing to do with John Nutter"? But reading the Haydock article, it seems that they were both executed at Tyburn on 12 February 1584. Is that correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Having recently asked the resident church expert to create some new articles for me on the grounds that I haven’t got the time, creating this would be a bit tricky. But if you get Gawthorpe up to standard I’ll see what I can do. On that subject have you seen Townships - Habergham Eaves?
The Haydock article is backed up by the Catholic Encyclopedia source. And I noticed that Mr Happy removed the link, but I’m cool with that. Why do you ask? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Only since martyrdom seemed a convenient antidote to Mr Happy. ".. get Gawthorpe up to standard" lol. But do tell Mallodorous Fuk'em-all-am that Judith Mavis Cock deserves his full attention. Meanwhile Peter I.V. remains a shining example to us all. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I've also noticed your additions to Gawthorpe Hall, hopefully you haven't found User:Cj1340 to be too over protective. I've taken issue with him previously over the correct description of its location. While we are on the subject I'm not seeing much in the way of references, is this something you where planning on adding later, or can I assist you? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I've not heard much from Cj1340 lately. so I assume he's ok with the additions. All I have added is from the National Trust Guidebook (currently Reference 7) paraphrased as best I can. Many thanks for reminding me - I had better go and sprinkle a few refs there. I'd welcome anyone who was able to check my paraphrasing to check there is no copyright infringement. I sometimes seem to have a problem with putting what I see as "plain facts" into a new "non-copyright" format. Some editors have even chosen to make an example of this, suggesting that I need to be "taught a lesson". So feel free to adjust or condense as you see fit. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Malkin Tower[edit]

Orlady (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

St Matthew's[edit]

Warning: an unregistered editor is adding copyrighted material by cut and paste from the church website. As you know, this is unacceptable in Wikipedia. You may like to deal with it. I've done all I feel I can to the article and, as a local, you might like to keep care of it. Best wishes, --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite note, which will doubtless baffle some other future hapless random ip editor. Urgh, "an unregistered editor" - the worst possible sort, eh? Did you compare what I had written with the original, before your global delete? Do you honestly think Rev Williams, or his PCC, or the Anglican Church as a whole, would have a problem with this? I have tried to paraphrase further. But if you still see a problem, I suggest you have a go. Most of those additions seemed to me to be plain facts. Alternatively, if you think they add nothing, then I will not contest their deletion. I was trying to improve, that's all. Kind regards. 109.153.217.60 (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC) (p.s. how can the other 74 churches, that Burnley has seen over the centuries, have been overlooked for quite so long? and do you know if Burnley ever had a synagogue? thanks)

Burnley[edit]

It's already looking like a much more plausible GA candidate that it was just a few hours ago, don't you think? Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Great work! You’re a machine! I could hardly get an edit in last night, after about the third edit conflict, I thought I’d leave you to it for a while. Every time I came back to it, there you where again! We even made the same edit once (moving the mosque into religion). I’m in awe! I’ll keep dealing with the external links as fast as I can. I should also be able to come up with a ref or two for the Towneley section. But with the sock puppet (MartinEvans123?) and now J3Mrs getting involved, this is certainly the busiest article I’ve ever worked on!--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I’ve not had much time this week because I’m off on my jollies tomorrow and work has been somewhat hectic. I’m taking my laptop, but don’t know if I’ll be online much or at all even. I have just taken a copy of the article and bought a copy of Hall’s Burnley, so I should be able to sort the refs out in no more than a week. Can someone else take charge of binning content that is too trivial for inclusion, I think I’m a bit too close and struggle with losing any of it.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm very good at excising content, especially if I didn't write it myself. Enjoy your hols. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's definitely best left to Malleus. Not sure if I'll be able to add much but I've got the page watched now so we'll see how it goes. Have a good holiday, BigDom (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Warton Crag[edit]

Hallo, After an enjoyable walk there yesterday I was all set to create an article for Warton Crag, but fortunately my Googling found me your in-progress article!

I've found a few sources for further information or External links - AONB website (includes pdf of their 20-page guide for an External link), fell race, climbing website, Lancashire wildlife trust. What are your plans for the article? Shall I edit your draft, or do you feel ready to put it up in article space where I can edit it?

I see there are several incoming redlinks already. PamD 17:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, it looks as if you've stopped editing or are having a long wikibreak. I'll go ahead and start a new article. PamD 16:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

John Towneley (translator)[edit]

Now interested in him, mildly. He fits in with Robert Harding Evans that I'm editing today, as the uncle of the John Towneley mentioned there (1731–1813). I could copy edit your draft at some point. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Trappedinburnley. You have new messages at Bermicourt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Trappedinburnley. You have new messages at Pigsonthewing's talk page.
Message added 15:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Trappedinburnley. You have new messages at Pigsonthewing's talk page.
Message added 13:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Malkin Tower[edit]

Would you be interested in helping me and User:Eric Corbett get the Malkin Tower article up to FA standard like we always said we would last summer? There's a little thread at his talk page if you want to leave a message there. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this on the main page and wanted to say congratulations; a fine piece of writing, and a fine choice for Halloween... -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Do not threaten me[edit]

I understand what weasel words are perfectly fine. Please note that any attempts to stalk and harass me will be reported. LokiiT (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
@LokiiT I didn't threaten you, I warned you. As you've removed my message (as you do with most of the fairly large number of critical ones) I don't think you need to worry about it. With your repeated attempts to remove perfectly valid (all be it negative) content at RT (TV network), [3] [4] [5] by invoking a bunch of regulations that it isn't actually contravening, suggests bias on your part. Given all your recent edits seem to relate to the Ukraine crisis, I feel it appropriate that someone scrutinises your work more closely. Instead of throwing your toys out of the pram, why not try to find some sources at RT that rebut the criticism? In an attempt to be reasonable I tried myself, however all I could find makes them sound like the conspiracy theorist nut-jobs that they're so fond of giving airtime to.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Queen Street Mill editathon[edit]

We're running another editathon (full details here), at Queen Street Mill in Burnley, England, on 10 May. Hope you can make it! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Andy is Wikipedian in residence here and has put together this little event. It will be incredible useful to meet up with the LCC museum service and talk face to face on what we need to do to improve the weaving shed coverage. I am coming specially. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

When I promised Andy that I'd come to the next one I didn't actually think that would be happening! :) I'll get myself signed up, although I'm feeling slightly paranoid about my anonymity at the mo. Any Ideas? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A reminder; this event is on Saturday. I look forward to seeing you (both!) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

See you both in the morning! --Trappedinburnley (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Pendle Hill panorama[edit]

Thanks for your recent edit [6] of Pendle Hill - the panorama looks great! I'd wanted to make it larger somehow but wasn't sure how. And thanks also for correcting the file page. Don't worry, I wasn't lost on the day! I must have just got lost on Google Maps when I was filling out the file description. Having looked again, I think I was on Wheathead Lane (53°52'24"N 2°15'W). Regards, nagualdesign 02:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You’re welcome, it’s been bugging me for a while that all the images in the article were from the Clitheroe side. One of the great things about Wikipedia is how easy it is to fix mistakes you might stumble across. I’m not actually sure how to add coordinates to WP uploads so we’ll have to try to remember to add them when the image gets moved to commons site.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. nagualdesign 20:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
(TPS) What a stunning image. A magnificent addition. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It's actually a cropped/scaled down version of the original image, which was just a technical exercise to see if I could make an 8ft×4ft (180dpi) print with lots of sky. (Large thumbnail) I've yet to go back there when the light is better and the weather is more interesting to take a proper photo that's worth selling. nagualdesign 22:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC) ..PS. What does TPS mean?
Wikipedia:Talk page stalker - it becomes a more-or-less full time occupation for some of us, sob. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I see. Face-grin.svg nagualdesign 19:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── If anyone has any suggestions for other local scenes to photograph, or knows any good vantage points to take a decent panorama, feel free to drop a message on my talk page. nagualdesign 02:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"Possible Russian influence"[edit]

Please (re)read WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of both policies, please explain how you feel I've breached them with this edit [7] --Trappedinburnley (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
"Possible Russian influence", the section heading, implies that the SNP is under the influence (whatever that means) of Russia. The section supports this conclusion with a synthesis of various items. One of these is that various SNP figures giving interviews to RT. So what? I'm sure they have given lots of interviews to different news networks. Another is the Salmond quotes about Putin, the meaning of which is disputed by Salmond. It could be pointed out in this context that Nigel Farage, who opposes Scottish independence, expressed much less qualified admiration of Putin. The section also posits claims by a blogger and Michael Gove that Russia would welcome Scottish independence, but this is contradictory to the publicly expressed sentiments of Putin. I'm sorry, but I think you are creating original research by pulling together unconnected thoughts and events. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
In my view RT only puts people on air with views that are beneficial to the Russian Government. An interview could be put down to not realizing they were talking to Putin TV, it is still not that widely known after all. But all of them? To me that is suspicious as hell. Funny you should mention Farage, he’s on RT with great regularity. I expect his views on the EU are more important to Putin than those on Scotland. As far as I’m aware Putin’s sentiments, although widely interpreted as pro union he didn’t mention the possible effects on Russia in any way. I’m fairly confident that the reason both Salmond and Farage where asked about Putin was a suspicion that they have been receiving support from Russia and would have to say something positive. As is already covered in the article issues relating to Faslane are important to the debate, it doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to see that the Russian government would have a motive here. I’m not sure a section heading qualifies as a conclusion, but I’m willing to change it. If you feel that the wording implies a connection that the sources don’t I’m willing to change it. If you feel a different section of the article would be more appropriate I'm willing to look at that.However I’m not willing to give up and go away, there will be another attempt once I’ve reviewed more sources.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
As you say, "in my view". My view and your view is irrelevant. It is what is said in the reliable sources that matters. Unless you can produce a reliable source that says that Russia is influencing the debate, there should not be a "Russian influence" section. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverting on Revert[edit]

Dear fellow Wikipedian, I had made some changes to the page Pendle Hill on 17th January 2015. You reverted those changes. May I know the reason?
Radhamadhab Sarangi (Talk2Me|Contribs) 11:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:123sarangi, this was because I see no improvement to the article from your change. The image you chose to move is not really a panorama, is 1 of 3 that essentially show the same view, and is a quite low resolution. Also the differing width of the image when compared to the panorama you positioned it below looked a little unattractive.[8] I really think the prose needs expanding before we can justify adding more or larger images. I do however welcome your interest in the article.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
User:123sarangi, the photo was taken by me, and you may be surprised that I agree with Trappedinburnley's reasoning! -- Dr Greg  talk  13:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Listed buildings in Burnley[edit]

Judging by your pseudonym, and by some recent edits you have made, you may be interested in this new list. I think it is complete, but there are bound to be some errors. If you spot them, please correct them. And if you have a camera, there are some missing images! I must say that it has been a most interesting town to work on, with its variety of listed structures that very much reflect its colourful history. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Peter, I'm very happy to see this and the other fantastic quality lists (and church articles) you've created for the borough. This one is of particular interest as I was lucky enough to live at Spring Hill in the 90s and got involved with some fairly serious restoration work there. I believe it was originally built in 1827 and extended in 1845, so I'm a little surprised to see that's not in the listing. I'll have to see if I can find a source somewhere. It's sad that so many are in a poor state, I believe that quite a few are on the heratige at risk register, have you ever thought of adding that info to your lists? Also I find the Swan Inn quite interesting, today it stands right in the middle of the town centre and to think it was constructed as a farmhouse only 250 years or so ago. It really gives a sense of how the town boomed during the industrial revolution. When the weather is better I'll see what I can do about some images, although I doubt I'll have time for all the missing images so let me know if you think any are of particular importance.
Also you must have read my mind as I've been waiting to ask you about your impression of the area. As my pseudonym indicates, I'm not entirely pleased to be living here (especially as I came home today to find I'd burgled for the second time in six months). However through the research I've done for articles, I've found a new respect for the place. I really feel that if more locals had a bit of pride in the place it could have a much needed positive effect on the area's fortunes. Your efforts can only help with that so thanks very much!
Finally, a couple of years ago myself and Belovedfreak started a scheduled monument list for Lancashire. As you can see progress ground to a halt but you've reawakened my interest in it. My current feeling is to break it into smaller, more manageable articles, it would be great if you could get involved at all. Thanks again--Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, and sorry to hear about the burglary. Spring Bank IS in the list - work down to the c. 1820–30 date and you will find it. You are right about Padiham being a civil parish; I was misled by Civil parishes in Lancashire, and have corrected it. I haven't done anything about info on the Heritage at Risk list because it seems to be constantly changing, and it's difficult to keep the info up to date on WP. I can imagine that currently your town is not the most pleasant place to live, especially on a cold wet Lancs day. My comment was rather about the interest of its historical and heritage remains. In particular, as a former GP, I was delighted to discover the memorial to Mackenzie, a doctor much revered by the Royal College of GPs - I had forgotten about the years he worked in Burnley.
Re the scheduled monuments, what you have done is pretty good. The problem is always how to split the list, because to contain all in one is a bit too ambitious. I did something on this subject for Cheshire, and this county does not lend itself well to spitting geographically, so I did it in three time zones: here, here and here, and I guess it sort of works (at least no one has grumbled!). But for the present I'm into listed buildings - lists and articles, so, sorry, not able to help at present. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)