Talk:Peter, Abbot of Vale Royal

source review tips

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

• First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
• On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
• Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link; archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Greatly appreciate your advice, Lingzhi-Will a note about a peer review request on your talk be unwelcome in the near future? Thanks again for the scripts! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 09:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
• I waver between desire to edit and desire to quit, bu if you do ask, there's a good chance I'll chip in... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanking you, Lingzhi! That kind of makes me feel like the snake offering the forbidden fruit though  :) —It will probably be regarding this chap, which I'm trying to polish. I've installed your scripts, and they've done a great job. You'll see that I'm a bit stuck on both the sort errors and the archive link. (I know you said the latter is least important, but now I'm using the scripts, all that big brown text will irritate me enough to want to get rid of it!)
    So two things really—a) what is the sort error trying to tell me? is dating from most recent to oldest by a single author? (I assumed it was the opposite); and, b) where do I get an archive link from? Hope you can help. These are really useful though, thanks again! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I replied about sort errors over on the talkpage of the other article. This article, meanwhile, seems to need some attention paid to its References and Bibliography... as for archiving links, I just now tried it & it didn't work. I am asking Mike Christie. I am tempted to remove that warning from the script. We'll see... Lingzhi ♦ (talk)

Unclear sequential rank of Abbots of Vale Royal

Peter, Abbot of Vale Royal

1322–1339/40

Article says 5th abbot?

Robert de Cheyneston, Abbot of Vale Royal

1340–1349

6th or the 7th Abbot of Vale Royal?

Thomas Ragon, Abbot of Vale Royal

1351–1369

Article says 8th abbot?

I didn't notice anyone mentioned in the articles as having held an interim '49–'51 post.

--99.32.150.12 (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)