Talk:Rivington Church

Citations

As there is a bibliography in this article, is there any reason why Rovington cannot use it and cite books properly as I think he has done elsewhere?--J3Mrs (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You chose to use the harvard method, its not compulsory and you are free to adopt which ever method you choose, a simple ref tag with full citation is well enough for most wikipedia editors, if you have comments about how to progress to improve an article its talk page is the right place as well you know. I have seen how you make life hard for new editors, like a gatekeeper reverting any edit thats not your own, you don't own wikipedia and I am not an easy target for you. --PL.-Snr (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It is customary, as you have been told, not only by me, to reference in the style of the article.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

So practice what you preach, where the article did not use the harvard method then don't impose it and for wikis sake don't block other editors who find it hard to get to grips with that markup language - theres no button on the screen for editors who have never heard of it to simply click - it has to be coded. I have seen this used as gatekeeping and by editors owning wikipedia articles, its one of the most awkward and difficult citations methods to use, new editors would need a crash course in markup language for it - even your own edits using the harvard method have been corrected by bots. --PL.-Snr (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What absolute rubbish. I am no expert on "mark up language" what ever that is, or any other aspect of computers or anything else for that matter, but I took the trouble to find out. I do it by copying examples that are correct. You have asked for help in the past, the easiest way of being helped is to copy good practice.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Move this to talk its not about the article is it, for reference harvard used in few articles on wikipedia --PL.-Snr (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it's used in this one!! :-) That's probably because most articles are dreadful. To get an article to a decent standard, correctly cited refs are a must, you don't do them either do you? Citation is the easiest. you can learn by copying, I did. :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

PS this is about the article, it's about how to cite refs to improve the article. :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to this diff [1], you know perfectly well how to cite books. It is not for me to speculate why you choose not to here.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

1566-1541

It says the church was consecrated a quarter of a century before it was founded. If true it seems oddly phrased to me, is this some Anglican process or is one or more of the dates incorrect? If the true meaning is consecrated as .... in 1541, upgraded in status to .... in 1566 by a letter "founding" it, then can that be clarified and the sequence of the two statements reversed? Ta muchly ϢereSpielChequers 11:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I've sorted that out now. J3Mrs (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

1566 Chapel became Church

Depending on how you wish to phrase when a foundation occurs the years could be either or any. If it is to be the building then the date is long before 1541. If it is when the chapel became a church then the date is 1566, by license within the Letters Patent granted to the found the school. Before 1566 it was a Chapelry. I have changed the date to 1566 to match. If a year is to be given for foundation to match when the first church was built then it will be much earlier. The year was given as 1540 for Consecration, it was in error, it was 1541. I foresee there maybe attempts to ignore the Letters Patent despite the citation, if the article is to be taken seriously it should in opinion 1566, however I would welcome an expert or member of the Anglican clergy to input.

Report of the Commissioners, Charities, Volume 3, 1828, Bodleian Library, Oxford, page 198, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZTZbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=rivington#v=onepage&q=rivington&f=false

--Pennine rambler (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)