User talk:Weglinde/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, Weglinde/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, just type {{helpme}} and your question here on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, see the help pages or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Technopat (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately, due to the peculiar nature of copyright laws in England as pertains to photographs of statuary for whom the author died after 1968... you cannot release that collage as "public domain" until 70 years after Marsden's death... unless the collage is a physical work of art on permanent public display.

We can keep the picture on en.wiki as Fair Use, but it has to come off the Wikimedia Commons. Sorry. DS (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to keep as a separate article to that on Guildford Cathedral.Weglinde (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Guildford Cathedral

Hi there Weglinde. When you tried to re-start the article at The exterior sculpture of Guildford Cathedral, you performed what is known as a "copy-and-paste move", where you copy the text of a page and paste it at a new title. But this doesn't copy across the page history, so I moved the page correctly. In future you should use the "move" tab at the top of a page to change the title. See more about moving pages at WP:MOVE.

As to the merge, this was proposed by Blanchardb (talk · contribs), personally I think that with the amount of illustrations and information in The exterior sculpture of Guildford Cathedral, a merge is not needed. Although the page does require a bit of a cleanup. But you should discuss the merge, and why it was proposed, with User:Blanchardb. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but don't forget to leave messages on user talk pages, rather than user pages. I've moved your message from User:Blanchardb to User talk:Blanchardb . Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Weglinde. You have new messages at Blanchardb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Monument aux morts (Oise)

Greetings Weglinde. Sorry for not replying sooner. The work you have done at Monument aux morts (Oise) and the other articles is truly impressive. I added the template - and helped out with a few tweaks - because it still needs much work to bring it in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. Not least of the issues is that of references. It's only fair to warn you that there are editors here who are more than likely to propose it for deletion. I will continue helping out with the tidying it up - and will slap an "underconstruction" template on it - but I can't guarantee that it'll survive. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Monument aux morts (Oise)

Thank you for your comments. I will look at your tweaks and try to learn from them so that I can try to improve. I do hope that it will not be put up for deletion as I would be really devastated as I have put in a lot of effort on it and the other articles on "monument aux morts". If you could give me some hints on how to bring the article "in line with Wikipedia's guidelines" I would be most grateful. Weglinde (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Basically all I've been doing is de-linking the blue links - too many repeated links in the article doesn't go down well here. Right now, the most urgent thing is to provide references from secondary sources. With a couple of these, the article should be relatively safe from too much interference.--Technopat (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Monument aux morts (Oise)

I will re-examine the blue links and look to include any possible references to secondary sources. Thanks again for your help.Weglinde (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Weglinde. You have new messages at Haruth's talk page.
Message added 09:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Haruth (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. Was my pleasure. --Haruth (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Weglinde. You have new messages at McDoobAU93's talk page.
Message added 15:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Weglinde. You have new messages at KaySL's talk page.
Message added 15:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Maurice Ringot

Hi Weglinde! I wanted to just complement you on your contributions on French war memorials and their sculptors -- you've shed light on much beautiful, meaningful work. I hope it's clear that my edits to your pages are meant to be constructive, and to help organize your content into the format that's more familiar to other wikipedia users. As to Maurice Ringot, I'm going to have another go at it, with an eye towards removing that 'multiple issues' tag. All best to you! --Lockley (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Weglinde, yes I believe Maurice Ringot is looking better. I removed the three tags from that page and another user almost immediately put two of them back. I agree with one of them ("cleanup") but not with the other ("list" -- the list format for Ringot's other work is perfectly reasonable and acceptable. I suggest we leave the tags where they are for now; I promise to revisit it in the next few days for a final polish. All best. --Lockley (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Felix-Alexandre Desruelles

wikipedia articles and wikipedia mirrors are not valid references.

You recently added the above comment to the article on Desruelles.

If you can suggest improvements and ways in which this article could be "wikified" I would be most grateful.

Weglinde (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Alfred-Alphonse Bottiau

wikify (no layout !). some parts may need to be moved to other articles...) 

You recently put the above comment on my article on the sculptor Bottiau and I thank you for your interest.

I am keen to have this article and some others on French sculptors made up into a Wiki book- for my own use and would very much appreciate your advice as to how you suggest the article be "wikified" and what you mean in your suggestion that some parts be moved elsewhere.

I look forward to your reply with interest- I am relatively new to Wikipedia and want to do things correctly.

Weglinde (d) 26 octobre 2010 à 14:34 (CEST)

Hello Weglinde !

I'm from Château-Thierry, and I saw your images on common.

I put this message on page Alfred-Alphonse Bottiau because this article is very interesting (i had never searched who was the sculptor of the American Monument statues), very detailed, but, in the present state, not really in line with the "standards" of wikipedia.

What is needed is :

• adding some chapter title : == Bottiau's early works ==, == Commissioned works ==
• adding internal links to other WP subject (for example, the link to Chateau-Thierry American Monument or to Aisne-Marne American Cemetery and Memorial)

I had no time last week to do that, i'll try to make something to show you. Remember that if you feel that my modifications are not correct, you can always correct them.

two side notes :

• some of the text you put on Bottiau's page would be better on other pages. For example, the explanation on how the subscription for the American Monument was achieved is not related to Bottiau's work, but would take a good place on the monument page itself.

regards, Zeugma fr (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Something need to be done in the same idea as waht i've just done, but better.Zeugma fr (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! Look forward to your suggested modifications. Weglinde (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Alan Durst

Hey. For orphaned articles, to fix them, other articles need to be linked to this one. Right now none are, so if you find any information you can add to other articles and link Durst in those, that tag can be removed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I will dig around Weglinde (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Weglinde,
there are some questions waiting on your Commons' talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:The Acrobat by Durst.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:The Acrobat by Durst.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but the image went on rather more quickly than I thought. I need to put forward a case for using the image as the licensing is not straight forward and I am in touch with Tate Britain to clarify certain aspects. If you prefer you can remove the image and I will put it back once I have established the argument for putting it on.

Weglinde (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged

Hi there, I saw what you wrote on User:Crosstemplejay's talk page and hoped you noticed that right before he had added those tags to your article, he was blocked for being disruptive to new articles such as yours. Please don't be discouraged. Your contributions are valuable. Although the article you created could be improved, you are not in the minority there, as basically every article on Wikipedia could be improved. Please have a look at some other sculptor articles on Wikipedia and, if you see a good one, try and improve Newbury Abbot Trent in a similar fashion. Again, your contributions are very much appreciated, especially to articles such as the one you created, because sculptors and the like are quite under-represented on Wikipedia. Hope to see you around, Jenks24 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to make your comment. I shall take your advice and not be discouraged. Weglinde (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Peace Offering

Weglinde, I am very sorry for causing you so much. I accept the fact that my actions were flawed, though I had no intention of vandalising your work. It was a mistake. Once again sorry. I hope you will continue to contribute to WP. Please accept this as a peace offering. --Crosstemplejay 11:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"Peace Offering" accepted. Thanks

Weglinde (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

St Andrew's reredos

My source was St Andrew's Cathedral, Pictorial History and Guide by Joseph Kinsela (1986). I collaborated on this publication to a certain extent in the early stages. Joe was very thorough about his research. He states:

The splendid reredos behind the Holy Table was installed in 1886. Commissioned by Bishop Barry, Sydney's third bishop, it was designed and made by a London sculptor named Earp. The job was supervised by the great Gothic architect J.L. Pearson. The fabric is English Alabaster, a translucent, marble-like stone widely used for figure carving.

It then goes on to describe the subject and relate that there was an objection to the central carving which depicted the Crucifixion. "Oh Dear! Weee don't dooo crucifixions in Sydney! Much too Popish for us! " (Seriously!) So it had to come out, and be replaced. The Bishop made the scoffers pay for the replacement, which is the Transfiguration, which really is a beautiful thing, of itself.

Incidentally, the huge and quite wonderful Hardman east window doesn't have a crucifixion anywhere in its numerous scenes. The central picture is the feeding of the five thousand, at which Andrew, the titular saint, was present and brought forward the boy with the loaves and the fishes. There is a crucifixion window, but the subject of Jesus' crucifixion is played down by having the crucifixions of Peter and Andrew displayed in the same window. It's a large window in the north transept, and gets the light, but a gallery has been built in front of it, and last time I saw it, it was so stacked with boxes that you couldn't see, let alone photograph the window. I did ask if I could go up the stairs but was not permitted. Gone are the days when you could climb all over a building and sit on the top of the roof, if you wanted to. I have a particular interest in roofs and roof drainage, (which Edmund Blacket was rather bad at). We came to the conclusion that he didn't like heights.

Any way, I see several possibilities for Nathaniel Hitch:

1. That he provided the earlier, 1860s reredos which was replaced in 1886.
2. That he carved the new central group of the Transfiguration which replaced the Crucifixion in 1888.
3. That he collaborated, carving either the reredos itself while Earp carved the figures or Hitch the figures while Earp did the reredos.
4. The three scenes from the Life of Christ are framed by larger figures of Moses and Elijah in niches. perhaps these were carved by Hitch.

My gut feeling is that the central group is by a different artist to the other two scenes. The composition is altogether more complex. That may partly be explained by the complexity of the subject. The artist has not just shown Jesus with Moses and Elijah, but also the disciples cowering in the foreground in different attitudes which, unlike the figures in the side panels, don't mirror each other. However, I'm looking at a reproduction of a fuzzy photo.

I won't be able to do anything about this for a few weeks as I'm just heading for the UK. When I get back to Australia, I'll try to get a decent photo. All the best! Amandajm (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked into this a little more and concluded that Earp was definitely responsible for the architectural sculpture of the reredos at which he was highly expert. It seems to me that his figurative sculpture was rather more conservative than that of Hitch. It is a real possibility, in my mind, that Hitch did the replacement panel in the centre section. Amandajm (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for all of this! Look forward to hearing further from you when you return Australia. I will see what I can uncover when I visit the Henry Moore Institute Archives in Leeds later this month and look through Hitch's papers. These include photographs of most of the work that he did and I will make a point of looking at any photographs there may be of his Sydney work.

I guess the outcome will be that both Earp and Hitch were involved but it would be nice to be more specific.

Anyway thanks again.Weglinde (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Two Temple Place

For the record, the software I was using to add the {{uncat}} tag to the article automatically stripped the extra space from the articles; I didn't do it myself.

But the reason the software does that is because using blank space to organize photographs isn't good or helpful page design on Wikipedia — for one thing, not everybody's computer monitor is set to the same screen resolution as yours, so just because the photographs looked nicely arranged on your screen doesn't mean they weren't still a messy jumble on somebody else's. Rather, if you need to artificially control the photo arrangement there's a different approach that's preferred on here, which is to arrange the photographs in a "gallery" — and, in fact, I see that you've already stepped part of the way towards it by having "photographs of the interior" and "photographs of the exterior" sections.

So here's what you should do:

1. Move the other photographs that are currently strewn throughout the page down to those sections as well.
2. At the top of the subsection, right after the headline, put a <gallery> tag.
3. List the photographs in the format Image:filename.jpg|Caption, but without square brackets around each line.
4. At the end of the list of photographs, put a </gallery> tag. It's especially important not to forget this part; you'd be surprised how many pages I see each day where somebody has really screwed the article up by forgetting this tag (and causing Wikipedia's server to think the entire rest of the article is improperly formatted images for the gallery instead of actual text).
5. Choose one particularly representative photograph — I'd suggest "Exterior_of_2_Temple_Place_44", because it gives the broadest view of the outside of the building, but it doesn't have to be that one if you have another preference — and instead of putting it in the image gallery you've just created, bring it to the very top of the article by inserting [[Image:Filename.jpg|thumb|right|caption]] just before the introductory paragraph.

I'd also suggest that you give some thought to whether the page really needs that many photographs to begin with — believe it or not, there are still people in the world who access the internet by dial-up, and overloading a Wikipedia article with photographs can make it painfully slow-loading for them. But whether you choose to prune some or not, you should use the approach I outlined above instead of trying to use blank lines to arrange them.

Hope that helps a bit. Feel free to ask if you have any further questions, of course. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I will follow your suggestions. Many thanks.

Weglinde (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Nathaniel Hitch

Help!! I have just accidentally put a page on wikipedia in Nathaniel Hitch. I have by no means finished the article and would be grateful if an administrator would remove it. I should have used the sandbox!!

Weglinde (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Project to encourage cooperation between The National Archives and Wikipedia

Hi! As someone who's spent some time at Your Archives, I thought you might be interested - if you haven't seen it already - in a recently started GLAM project to encourage cooperation between The National Archives and Wikipedia. Ideas & participation welcome! Dsp13 (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Whall

Hi Weglinde! You've been editing for quite a while now, so it's important that you catch on to some of the finer points of editting.

• Read. This is the most basic requirement. Whatever you add needs to not only add information, it needs to fit in, and if you can make an improvement along the way, do it. In this case, a sentence about Whall's students became completely detached from the information on his life.
• Look. No list had been created. You created the beginning of a list with the major section heading Other examples..... Clearly, if there is going to be a major section on his works, then that's where they all need to go, not just the "others.
• Pictures. Put them left or right unless they are panoramic and take up most of the central space.
• Don't size pics up beyond "thumb" or the size of the lead pic, unless the image is very detailed and requires a larger size for viewing. In this case, being vertical, and very clear, the image is reasonably large at thumbnail size.

Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Weglinde, thanks for your polite message but you don't seem to have paid attention to anything that I wrote!

• Major artists like Christopher Whall have separate pages at Wiki Commons. For that reason, we don't attempt to add every picture that they did to a short article.
• Most f Christopher Whall's works were stylistically similar, which means that to show one or two goos pictures of different colours and subjects is adequate.
• This is an article about Whall, not a comprehensive illustrated list of all his windows. What the article needs is an expanded biography and a stylistic description/commentary adapted from some good book that talks about the quality of his works, and his standing as a 20th century artist.
• The dot-pointed list within the text needs to be left intact and not broken up with pictures from every church.
• The insertion of long vertical pictures that break the text is very poor formatting. I've already pointed this out. Please don't put in any more picture that separate a continuous section.
• It has already been pointed out to you that the right way to inset multiple images is to create a gallery. But be selective. Every picture needs to illustrate not a separate subject but a separate aspect of the artist's work. For the appropriate use of galleries, see the article Stained glass and note that every picture tells a story i.e. it is making a contribution to the matter of the article.
• Don't include any non-relevant material. It doesn't matter how pretty the 18th century memorial of the child may be, if Whall didn't do it, it doesn't belong in Whall's article.
• On the other hand, stating that the church which he ornamented is ancient, or 19th century, and built by a particular architect is relevant, because the work of stained glass is designed for the setting (one hopes!)
• Significance. Please don't keep pushing down the most significant commissions that Whall received. His works for the cathedrals are very important and should not be listed under the windows for parish churches. Except in the case of Holy Trinity Sloane Square, where he was a contributing member in a unique creation.
• Put the works in destroyed churches in the same list as the existent ones, with a not to say they are destroyed, or else make a subheading, not a whole new section, saying "Lost works".
• If you want to create a comprehensive list of Whall's windows, then there is a way to go about it. Wikipedia gives the option of creating "Lists". If you go to the main page, you ill find that there is a featured list, every day.

Creating a list is as simple as creating a new page using the title List of works by Christopher Whall.

You then make the list and illustrate it.

It can be an unformatted dot list.

A more effective list that allows you to put in many illustrations can be done like List of works by Leonardo da Vinci.

To do this, you will need to look very hard at how the formatting is done.

You can simply copy and past from the Leonardo article (or similar) and then change all the content, putting in pictures if you have them, in the spaces provided. The headings Attribution status and Location should be changed to whatever is relevant e.g. Description: a four-light window with complex tracery, in memory of Captain Jim Bloggs, R.N..

Amandajm (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is a tough nasty place. It can be quite horrid having ones edits reverted, and being expected to get on top of all the Style manual and the formatting. I am also a senior. One of the things one has to become accustomed to is that the person instructing you on how it ought to be done, or even correcting your facts, punctuation and world view might be your fourteen-year-old grandson.

I was thinking about how best to include your edits and also tidy up the article on sculpture at Guildford Cathedral which you have put a lot of work into.

If I create the articles in List form, then you could drop in the relevant info, and continue to extend by simply cutting and pasting the relevant formatting, below what was already there.

Also, apart from using galleries, which make the pictures very small, there is a way of putting pictures together in a row, which can be adjusted in width. It can take a lot of fiddling to make three pictures match in size, if they are all different crops to begin with but its worth the effort.

Look at the way the pictures are formatted at Architecture of Ancient Greece.

Check out the list at List of Ancient Greek temples

Do you have enough info on Christopher Whall to create a separate list, or should I simply create it as part of the article?

Amandajm (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

St Oswald's Church, Ashbourne

Here is a complete cut and paste of your info about that church. The article on the church would benefit by an expansion using this material, particularly the details on Christopher Whall, which should then be linked to his biographical article using double square brackets around his complete name. The article on Whall is the wrong place for the details of Penelope's tomb. Can you reference the quote to George Eliot and link her as well?

The tomb of Penelope Boothby

St Oswald's Church.Ashbourne.Derbyshire. This church has a spire of 212 feet (65 metres) referred to by George Eliot as the "finest single spire in England". The church was consecrated in 1241 and is dedicated to St Oswald, the King of Northumbria, who died in 642 A.D.In the 1870’s Sir Gilbert Scott carried out some restoration work which includes some Choir Stalls. There is much stained glass in the church and these include a Whall window dated 1905.It was given to the church by Mr and Mrs.Peveril Turnbull of Sandybrook Hall and it commemorates their daughters who died in a local fire. The window consists of three lights and contains representations of the Martyr Saints, St Cecilia, St Monica and St Dorothea. St Cecilia is seen falling asleep to the sounds of celestial music; an exquisite symbol of death. Girls play the organ dressed in medieval clothes with flowers and crowns in their hair and the celestial city is visible in one panel, viewed through a thicket of thorns. Whall’s signature on this stained glass was his own thumbprint. The church is also known for the Cockayne and Boothby tombs plus those of the Bradbourne family. The most famous tomb is that of Penelope Boothby who died in 1791 at the age of only five. The work is in Carrera marble and is by Thomas Banks. There is an inscription on the tomb from Dante, one in French, one in Latin. That in English reads "She was in form and intellect most exquisite. The unfortunate Parents ventured their all on this frail Bark. And the wreck was total."

You might want to check out the Holy Trinity Sloane Square article as well, because you may have details that the article is lacking.

Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I just checked out St Oswald's again. There is nothing on the stained glass. Amandajm (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

St Oswald's Church, Ashbourne Re St Oswalds church, just click on the name above, which is linked. It's blue, rather than black, which indicates that it's linked. Then you can edit in the material.

I'm not suggesting that you put in the whole paragraph, but just carry the whole lot over to that article, paste it there as a temporary measure, as an aid to inserting all the relevant information into the sections where it belongs. You could pad out the intro with the George Eliot quote, and create a new section on stained glass, which will take the bulk of your paragraph. Then delete your temporary cut n paste.

Meanwhile, I'll find out how to get an accidentally duplicated article removed.

Amandajm (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

All understood and thanks for advice.

Weglinde (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Christopher Whall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Powells (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

About uploading pictures to Wiki Commons

Every time you upload, other contributors come along and try to organise what you have uploaded into the best categories to facilitate use by the general public.

So there are two important aspects to every file: 1. the file name, 2. the description.

• A file name should identify the file in a way that makes its identity clear to others. "Gloucester stained glass Whall 01" would be a much better file name than "Gloucester 1".
• For the description, be as accurate as you can, starting with the location, stating what the object is, who the artist was, the date and the subject matter.

e.g. Whall work Gloucester is not a helpful description to others who search that site for information on either stained glass, or Gloucester Cathedral.

Write something like Gloucester Cathedral, UK, stained glass window by Christopher Whall, (early 20th century) depicting the Christ as the Good Shepherd.

If you do this, then someone will come along and categorise it under several categories such as: "Gloucester Cathedral", "Stained glass windows in the UK", "20th century stained glass", "Christopher Whall" and "Good Shepherd"

Then anybody who does a search on any one of these subjects will find the window.

Amandajm (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Have noted all your comments and will correct descriptions over the coming days.

Weglinde (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

About the new List

Creating that list was a good idea. Now nearly all the material in the Christopher Whall article needs to be cut and pasted to the list. Would you prefer to have it as a simple written list, as it is now, or would you like me to create a boxed list like List of Ancient Greek temples? Amandajm (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Have in fact created a new type listing which I am uploading now. Hope you agree format much better. I will cut and paste most of the material from the article to this new list.

Weglinde (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Christopher Whall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Holy Trinity Church

List of works by Christopher Whall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Guthrie

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of works by Christopher Whall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Richmond, Middleton, Norton, Marple, Lindfield, Killington and Over Tabley

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of works by Christopher Whall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hornby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Weglinde!

Christopher Whall is really looking great! What a lot of work you have done on it!

It needs a bit of tweaking to get it in line with Wikipedia Manual of style. I'll give it a work-over.

Amandajm (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I just discovered the list that you created. Very good!

Now, rather than having part of the list on the main page, and the rest on the list page, all the churches on the main page need moving across, including the cathedrals.

It is good to put one picture from every church into the list, if you have one. If you haven't, the box simply remains empty until someone drops on in.

Amandajm (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your two postings. Pleased that you intend to do some tweaking.

I will take your advice and move the churches and cathedrals from the main article to the listing.

Weglinde (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: Christopher Whall

Youve certainly made one heck of a good effort. a DYK nom may help too but im afraid its been around too long, unless there is a x5 expansion. Nevertheless, i used the disamb bot's software to find out which church it was talking about but i found many of the same name in the same country so wasnt sure which it was. Try and see which one may fit at Holy Trinity Church. Appreciate your politeness too ;)

couple of things: you add an ISBN to the lead itself, that should be in the refs/further readings area. Also the main pt of content was "arts & crafts" which should be arts and crafts in an encyclopedia. Feel free to remove the tagLihaas (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. Pleased to say that the Holy Trinity Church issue has been solved.

Will follow your suggestions and will also remove tag.

Weglinde (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, St Oswald's Church. Ashbourne

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, St Oswald's Church. Ashbourne. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - St Oswald's Church, Ashbourne. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at St Oswald's Church, Ashbourne - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat puzzled as I was not aware that I had created an article on St Oswald's Church.

Weglinde (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of works by Christopher Whall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Southwell, Ashbourne and Stamford

Works by Edward Woore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bath and Brookwood

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

These interventions are very useful. Thanks

Weglinde (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of works by Christopher Whall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Llanwnda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

The works of Veronica Whall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Carlisle, Woodbury, Westfield, Compton, Keswick, Amberley, Pleasant Valley, Swinton, Ewhurst, Bossington and Whalley

List of works by Christopher Whall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to St Raphael

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of works by Margaret Chilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Perth, Chelsea, Highlands, Pilton, Leven, Kirkton and Laurieston

List of works by Marjorie Kemp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Perth and Milburn

Works by Edward Woore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Havelock and Whalley

List of works by Christopher Whall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mount Barker

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. When you recently edited Works of Karl Parsons, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Norwood, Ansley and West Newton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Works of Louis Davis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Perth, Devonport, Ascot, Southwick and West Lavington

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Licensing of Images

I don't really know how licensing of images works but I'm fairly certain that you haven't done it correctly for the images used on Works of Louis Davis, particularly the ones from Blendworth. I think you've accidently stated that you took the images over 100 years ago on a camera that's only 10 years old. I'm not saying the images should be taken down, and neither is my Father - who actually took the images of Blendworth, but you're risking it by having incorrect information. Will Bradshaw (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Posting to wikicommons

For good measure please note that I have posted the following to wikicommons

.I uploaded the following images and inadvertantly stated that they were mine.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_Trinity_Blendworth_3.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_Trinity_Blendworth.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_Trinity_Blendworth_2.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_Trinity_Blendworth_5.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_Trinity_Blendworth_Tracery.JPG

The photographs were in fact takenb by Richard Bradshaw.

As a temporary measure I have changed the text to say that the images were taken by Richard Bradshaw and removed the licensing perameter.

I would now be grateful if someone could remove the images completely.

Just to repeat, the request to remove the images is made as the images were described as being taken by me but were not.

2. Should this situation arise again where I wish to upload an image taken by someone else, how do I upload to wikicommons and is it possible to then use the image in a wikipedia article. Would wikicommons in fact require the image to be uploaded by the person who took the photograph or in cases where I uploaded the image would wikicommons require the written consent from the actual taker of the photograph to use the image in a wikipedia article. What form would that written consent need to take? Would an e-mail have to be sent direct to wikicommons by the actual taker of the image? Advice would be appreciated.

I really would welcome someone removing the five images listed and advice as to how such situations should be avoided in future.

Weglinde (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Weglinde. You have new messages at Mr. Stradivarius's talk page.
Message added 10:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Stained glass & Christopher Whall

Hi - out of courtesy, I should inform you that I have raised a query here about copyright issues. I have no particular axe to grind, but would just like to clarify in my own mind what the copyright position is on stained glass. I created an article on Francis Skeat and, at one point, even links to photos on other websites were deleted with the edit summary "The images will be 2D artwork and are therefore copyrighted. Author is still alive so the links are links to probable copyright violations and have therefore been removed". I realise that the Whalls are both dead, so the situation is not the same, but I am still puzzled. Best wishes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

p.s. If you have any information about Skeat, especially whether or not he is still alive, that would be useful.

You say that you have no axe to grind but your comments and your tagging on this article, my article on Arnold Robinson and the Listing of Christopher Whall's works suggest otherwise.

On the Gloucester Cathedral article the grammar, style, cohesion, tone and spelling (my goodness what a pompous list!) are followed to the best of my ability but if anyone wishes to improve any of them then they are welcome to do so. There are several links already but I will see if I can find any others. As for a "lead section" I do not think this is appropriate as the article "develops" as it goes on. As for "intricate detail" I do beg to differ and what if it does only interest a specific audience! What is the fault in that? I fail to see your point.

On the listing of the works of Christopher Whall I have worked on this for the last seven months and assiduously so, and again if there is a need for editing in regard to grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling then I suggest this be done by anyone who feels it necessary. However it is a listing not a candidate for the Booker prize or Nobel prize for Literature!

On Arnold Wathen Robinson I do not agree with your comment on the lead section and the article is not attempting to make any "key points" but is a listing of Robinson's work. nor more and no less. As for the article being an "orphan" I shall try to put in a few links.

I am sorry that your article on Skeat was removed and you are entitled to ask the question you have asked and I hope you get an answer but why this leads you to make qualitative remarks about my work is beyond me and none of them seem justified.

I hope other editors or contributors may feel inclined to also challenge "Daemonic Kangaroo's" tagging and I look forward to the time when they are removed preferably by Daemonic Kangaroo him or herself.

Weglinde (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally not only are Christopher Whall and Veronica Whall dead but all the works mentioned are in "a public place". I think you will find that it is the latter that is the key factor but I am sure that experts will put you right on this.

Weglinde (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

On Arnold Wathen Robinson have added links to remove article listing being viewed as an "orphan". Hopefully Daemonic Kangaroo will be happy with this. Have removed tags.

Weglinde (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Have now had a chance to look at Francis Skeat article. It is well written and commendable. The format is not the same as the articles/listings I have done on Christopher Whall et al but I am sure Wikipedia can accommodate various formats. The format of my own listings were recommended by Amandajm one of your editors. I must not however be "pig-headed" and if there is anything in the Skeat format that I feel would improve my Whall formats then I shall act accordingly.

Weglinde (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

On the Gloucester Cathedral article I have removed Daemonic Kangaroo's tag. However if this is premature then he may wish to put it back but hopefully somewhat shorter than before. I shall take similar action on the listing of Whall's works.

Weglinde (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

CouchSurfer222

CouchSurfer222 changed position of image at the beginning of article and listing concerning Arnold Wathen Robinson which is okay I guess but also moved the Geoffrey Robinson quote which has nothing to do with the image. I have corrected. If you are going to interfere with and comment on the work of others (Lead is too short) I suggest you take a little more care! As for the "lead" being too short it is meant to be a short introduction to the listing as there was no wikipedia article on Arnold Robinson himself. I have decided to remove the tag. If anyone knows more about Robinson they can add to what I have written- I thought that was what wikipedia was all about.

Weglinde (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Arnold Wathen Robinson

Arms & Hearts

Since I posted this article this is the second time a tag has been added talking of "intricate detail".

I find this a difficult wiki rule to comprehend if it is a rule. Surely one man's "intricate detail" is another man's .....

I fully understand that not everyone would be interested in the exact iconography of a stained glass window but there are those who do think it interesting and someone looking at say the Tyndale window in Tyndale Baptist Church might want help in following the events the window depicts. If this is not of interest then surely the reader moves on!

I would worry quite frankly about someone making the decision as to what is over detailed and what is not and feel much more comfortable with such decisions being left to the reader.

On the subject of wikifying the posting I have already addressed this but seemingly not to your satisfaction so I would be grateful if you could give me some further guidance as in sticking the tag on my work I guess you have some specific ideas in mind.

I look forward to your comments.

Weglinde (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your contributions and your response to my concerns. I agree that {{overly detailed}} is inherently subjective, but it's worth remembering that almost all decisions on Wikipedia, including whether an article is overly detailed, are made by consensus rather than by individuals. This means that if you disagree, then you can just remove the tag. In this case, my main reason for adding the tag was the size of the article: currently 51kB, which means that it might be wise to split off some of the content. However, the problem then would be with the notability of those topics: I don't have access to the offline sources you've consulted, but I don't think the topics would meet the general notability guideline in their own right. Does that make sense? I'm having some difficulty explaining it. As for {{wikify}}, that one's simple: it just means the article needs more links to other articles. So in the "Background" section it'd be good to provide links to Barton Regis, Gloucestershire, Westbury, Justice of the Peace, etc. If anything's still unclear feel free to get back to me on my talk page. Thanks! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hearts and Arms. Thanks for explaining things further. I now understand where you were coming from but because as the problems we might have with "notability" I shall leave things as they are and take the liberty of removing the "tag". On the issue of "wikifying" I see what I have to do and will do the necessary and then also remove that tag. Thanks for your guidance which appreciated. Weglinde (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Lilian Josephine Pocock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ely, Stapleford and St Helens

List of works by Henry Payne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sunderland, Henry Payne and Will Hart

Paul Woodroffe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of works by Paul Woodroffe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Rochester, Alton, St Omer, Cranbrook, Hadley and Hurst Green

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Works of Reginald Hallward

Hi,

Thanks so much for your Works of Reginald Hallward - it's quite an interesting article and I love the images that you've provided!

I did some copy editing for the following things:

• wikify the article - narrow down content to encyclopedic content and copy edit to make it to focus on the subject of the article and tighten the wording a bit
• completed citations and added some more content and citations
• added more links to other articles, but I'm sure that there's more that could be done
• put the images into standard sizes for the article

I also started the Reginald Hallward article, moving the biography information to that article, added citations and more content.

There's still a wealth of information about Mr. Hallward - so, if desired, both articles could be expanded to include more works of art and more biographical information, as applicable. There is also a bit more work on some of the citations to provide more detail in some of the references.

All in all, though, the information is lovely and seems to me that the articles would be great candidates for Wikipedia:Did you know (DYN) submissions. For example, one idea is: Did you know that Reginald Hallward, noted for his glassmaking career, established a publishing business to publish his and his wife's poetry?

I'm not sure if: 1) other works, such as his books/poetry and painting should be moved over to the Works of Reginald Hallward or if the article should be renamed to something like Works of Reginald Hallward (glassmaking). I'll add it to the talk page for the works article and see if anyone weighs in - especially after I added the project templates, which can draw people in.

If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Rachel de Montmorency

Hi again,

I found another of your articles on the new pages patrol site, so I took a stab at making edits there, too.

Just a couple of things to think about:

• There are guidelines around WP:Reliable sources, one of which is to do no WP:Original research. You may want to take a look at that because I think that there are some examples of sources that do not meet the guidelines for reliable sources - and likely fall into the original research category.

"Courtesy of" is fine to use for sources of photos, providing the sources understand that their work has now entered the public domain. It's not, though, a viable way of sourcing unpublished information.

• More sources are needed for the Rachel de Montmorency article. I'm assuming that you can tap into material to help built out the sources.

If you have any questions about this - or need any help, please let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Mabel Esplin

Hi, Another great article. I've made some edits to the article, formatted it, etc. As a heads up, the article is tagged as "Refimprove" meaning that more citations are needed. Fortunately there are quite a number of sources for Miss Esplin.

It looks like you're adding a nice body of articles about stained glass artists!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Weglinde. You have new messages at CaroleHenson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Frederick Brook Hitch

If you're interested, I did some editing on your Frederick Brook Hitch and it could use some links to WP articles and additional references. He's done a great job making a successful, distinguished career!

In the meantime, I'll return to dad (Nathaniel Hitch) article and works article. Hope you're having a great day!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Weglinde. You have new messages at CaroleHenson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Have added some more links as suggested.

Weglinde (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:World War I War Memorials in France

By the way, I started the Template:World War I War Memorials in France and put it on the Monuments aux Morts and four War memorial articles.

This helps: 1) link the information and 2) provide more linked scenarios for the related articles. Do you know of additional categories, lists or articles to add?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Golly. This is a super template-must have taken you an age! I will see if I can think of any additional categories, lists or articles to add.

Meanwhile as the template provides so many links, I have removed the orphan tag.

Weglinde (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it was the orphan talk on the Edmond Delphaut‎ article that got me started with the template - it had been brewing at the back of my mind anyway. I've had similar thoughts about British stained-glass artists.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The existing template has the advantage of grouping together Christopher Whall and all his pupils/followers.

Incidentally you asked about any additional articles to add to the template. When at The National Archives I wrote umpteen articles under the "Art and Design" banner- http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=Category:Art_%26_design Some of these linked to war memorials. I also wrote several pieces under the WW1 War Memorials and Cemeteries heading- http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=Category:WW1_War_Memorials_and_Cemeteries Do not know whether any of these would be candidates for your template? You will also note that "Your Archives" will close in September 2012 although the content will be available in the UK Government Web Archive. Perhaps this would overcomplicate matters. Weglinde (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read our announcement for further information.

http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=Category:Art_%26_design

That sounds interesting. Did you have published sources for the articles that you wrote?

I'll take a look at the link when I'm done adding the templates and cleaning up the French WWI memorial articles. I'm almost done.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For several of the articles I had access to the Ministry of Works files in The National Archives. As for the French memorials I spent part of two years travelling along the entire line of the Western Front(400 miles)taking photographs and making notes as I went along. Citations will therefore be difficult to obtain so perhaps we should just forget the National Archives bits and pieces. In a sense it was a personal travelogue; no more no less. Weglinde (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's too bad - it sound like such a fun experience. Would it be fun for you to get it published somewhere? It seems like you've got a lot of great info!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Derby War Memorial

Thanks for improving article. I have made a minor change to distinguish between the designer of the entire edifice and the sculptor of the bronze. Note that you are repeating the link to The National Archive article on Walker and thought I should point out that that article and all the other short biographies of sculptors etc were written by me during my 8 years at The National Archive.

Weglinde (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting! I'm in the midst, at the moment, of putting the new WWI template on the other memorials - and in the process ensuring that they have the same infobox, etc.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Rachel de Montmorency

Trying to give the citations you requested.

In the section "Background" there are several facts that came from the exhibition catalogue of 1985- "nb2". Do I have to keep repeating "nb2" or is there some other way of dealing with this.

Yes, there's a great way to handle it. You create the full citation once and instead of <ref> you set a name <ref name=nb2> for instance. Then at the next places all you need to insert is <ref name=nb/> (the slash is important).

On St Botolph I have removed the citation request regarding the fact that the chapel is locked. This is something I learned when I visited Cambridge and the church earlier this year. A small notice in the church's entrance confirmed that the chapel is nomally locked. Useful to keep as a warning for future visitors although you can see the window through a glass panel.

Oh, I'll take a look at that.

When you look at the entry for Holy Trinity in Street and the request for a citation we come across a problem that will. I regret, be repeated again and again. When I did my groundwork I had various leads as to where de Montmorency's work could be found this often taken from the 1985 exhibition catalogue which made reference to a design for the window which featured in the exhibition. I then contacted the church who would have confirmed that the window or windows were in the church and intact and often obliged me with a description. Some sent photographs whose source I mention in the article or potted histories which again I acknowledged. Now comes the rub! Once I had done all of this I deleted all the e-mails and correspondence involved and I cannot therefore give any citation. I guess this will cause multiple wringing of the hands but what is done is done.

We have a rub anyhow, the sources need to be published, like in a newspaper, magazine, so on. I'm a bit confused - why can't we use the catalogue - is that because it just shows the items and not their locations?

What I propose therefore is that where I can give a citation I give one but in a "Holy Trinity/Street" like scenario I just remove the tag. Of course I would not have written anything that was not given to me as being factual but that hardly helps now.

Oh dear!

Weglinde (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've added comment above.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be thick but on <ref name=nb2> what name should I choose?

On the exhibition catalogue it could be quoted but often just said "design for a window for as church in Street". I then approached all the churches in Street to track down which was involved. When I understand <ref name=nb2> I shall add to the two churches where I could not give a citation.

Weglinde (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I just did the same thing to Soissons Memorial - so you can look at that as an example if you'd like. You can use whatever name you'd like that ties back to the reference. If the author is known, their last name is good. Or you could use the organization that hosts the website - as I did for Soissons.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I have had a go. Please take a look at latest version and see what you think. If you are happy with outcome I can repeat this on other articles.

Weglinde (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Will do. By the way, I've started a list of the articles on here to track the progress. Feel free to make updates and comments there. I'm going to make a couple of groups for done or in progress.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool - great job managing the multiple instances!!!

The citations need formatting a bit. If you want to take a crack, I tried to clearly ID what I was doing in the notes. And you can compare the before and after from the revision history - like:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mabel_Esplin&diff=507429091&oldid=507428228 - book example
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mabel_Esplin&diff=507429591&oldid=507429091 - web page example

Does that help?--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Note the progress tracking list. A great idea. I am sure that I shall eventually get the hang of it all. Wish to avoid your having to keep going back over my efforts.

Weglinde (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Disect the citations a bit

I just realized it might help if I disected the process a bit more for the citations. Here's one for Rachel de Montmorency that I just did:

From: <ref>http://www.kcoa.co.uk/0808/03.htm. Article mentioning 1988 fire. Retrieved 15 August 2012.</ref>

To: <ref>[http://www.kcoa.co.uk/0808/03.htm ''Tonbridge School.''] Kent County Organists’Association. Retrieved 15 August 2012. Note:Article mentioning 1988 fire.</ref>

Looks like this: Tonbridge School. Kent County Organists’Association. Retrieved 15 August 2012. Note:Article mentioning 1988 fire.

To make this change I: 1) put the left bracket before http 2) removed the period after the "htm" (or else the link won't work - it will look like a dead link) 3) added the title of the page, in this case Tonbridge School 4) got the publisher - who hosts the site - in this case I went to Index on the site, then homee 5) moved any comments you'd like to share at the end of the citation. It's not generally done, but it doesn't hurt to have extra comments.

I hope this helps.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sure that this will be a big help. Just give me a little time to get the hang of it all. I really am grateful that you have the patience to give me a little guidance.

Weglinde (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Progress Tracking List

Have entered my next four tasks- Brook Hitch/Mabel Esplin/Maurice Ringot and Exterior sculpture Guildford Cathedral and will let you know when they are finished so you can have a final look.

Weglinde (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Perfect!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Brook Hitch

Have had a go at citations but they are not coming out as I would wish. Please just check them and change them if necessary. I will then be able to see where I have gone wrong. Do not inderstand why I get [1], [2] etc. I think I am almost there but not quite! SOS Weglinde (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You're very close. There's a formula: [ + http:// + one space + title of the information + ] name of the site or publisher. retrieved date.

For #2 and #3 you had everything by the title of the information, like Frederick Booth Hitch for #2.

For #4 there was an erroneous pasting of a wikipedia link - you just need to follow the formula above and it will work out

There are two options if you'd like to switch the approach, both of which would mean using the citation template

• • Just supply the bare link and we can run a utility that puts the information into a citation template (url= title= ), etc. The only thing is we need to be consistent about approach in each article - either use the citation template for all or don't use the citation template for all. That approach works for English language web sites - not foreign languages and not books.

• • I could give you the basic formula for the citation templates for books and websites and you could enter the info there.

This was so hard for me to get, too - so I totally get the learning curve - I sure had it!!!

It's up to you what you feel most comfortable with.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As I am nearly there I will persevere and follow your directions.

Weglinde (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

See note 16. Think I have got it at last!!! Eureka!

Weglinde (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Very good. What do you think about spelling out the acroynm (Public Monuments and Sculpture Association) for folks that might not know what PMSA stands for? Congrats!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Adolphe Masselot

Do you speak French, by chance? I'm trying to sort of some of the information: - it seems that Adolphe's father was Joseph who was a "portrait sculptor" which I think means he did statues - I think his mother was Philomene Wilmot and died between 1935 and 1937 in Seclin, France - I cannot sort out at all the point about him being at the church on 26 Dec 1877 - but not baptized on 29 Dec 1877 - maybe that just needs to be let alone

I am having fun deciphering the info, though. --CaroleHenson (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to run the French by me I shall have a go. Taking the grandchildren out for the day tomorrow so if I go quiet you do not need to worry me that I have shot myself having given up on "citations"

Weglinde (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The items I'm talking about are in the first two bits of: http://jnmasselo.e-monsite.com/pages/biographies-masselot/biographie-d-adolphe.html

Have fun with the grandkids! I haven't had mine over here in a week and I'm missing them terribly! I've been getting better - so I'll likely not be as busy here myself. Things to do, people to see - we say over here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a really hard time with the Masselot article and I think I'm going to shift away to another article that might be more fruitful.

The key concerns are that the biography seems to provide information that contradictory or confusing with explanation. Aside from the items I messages you about above - there's not contradictory information about where he attended Beaux-Arts school between 1895 and 1900 - some part of the text seems to say it was in Paris. More detailed information seems to say that he was attending school in Lille during those years - and attended Paris in 1900. Another concern is that there's so little information found about this man - which calls into question notability and makes it hard to discern what really happened. If you've got a good idea about how to attack the art, that would be good to know! It could very well be that I'm missing something (especially as it relates to translation).--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not surprised your concerns. My suggestion is that we put the articles on French sculptors to one side for the moment and concentrate on the other articles. Suggest removal of Ringot and Masselot in tracking document to those not yet touched. When I have finished Esplin, Brook Hitch and Guildford Cathedral I shall tackle Paul Woodroffe's list of works. No doubt you will choose another candidate for your attention.

When all articles are done save for our French sculptors we can then apply our energies to our Gallic friends. Weglinde (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)4

Sounds like an excellent idea! I'm onto Alan Collins.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Tracking document

Just about to go off with grandchildren. When you have chance you can move Mabel Esplin and Frederick Brook Hitch to the completed section.On Brook Hitch I still need confirmation from St Giles' Church about the Brook Hitch work there and a similar confirmation from Cardiff University. I have written to both but previous experience has taught me that people do not rush in replying so I would ask that you leave it to me to monitor. Esplin is I think done. Will revert when I have further progress to report. Weglinde (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done great job! It's exciting to see the "done" list grow.

Notes of next steps

Confirm it is my intention put Maurice Ringot in the "on hold" pen.

Have looked at comments on my quartet of articles about Picardy- The Somme, Oise and Aisne and would also like to move to the "on hold" position. I do not disagree that they need an overhaul but for me they are very subjective and I would like the chance to ponder. We have lots to get on with for the moment. Hope you agree.

Before I tackle Paul Woodroffe I think that I should finish off those items where you have taken the preliminary steps.

I shall send you a couple of comments now but under appropriate headings.

Weglinde (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

ok--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

William Robert Colton and Reginald Hallward

Tomorrow I shall address the issue of "citations" and report when I have finished.

Weglinde (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Guess what I made today: Template:British and Irish stained glass

Hope you had fun with the kids!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow! This is a magnificent template!

---

I'm glad you like it! Please feel free to edit it as you like. I just took a stab at it. I was so excited though to find so many relevant articles to place the template. And, I really think it will help readers navigate through the topic. Win-win!--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Caroline Townshend

After Colton and Hallward I shall revisit Collins.

Next I shall look at Townshend and react to any comments you have made.

Here I have two basic questions on procedure.

1. If there is an existing link that works but is not in the preferred format - should I leave it or change it.

2. If you prefer me to change the way the link is formatted should I then add "Retrieved (and add the current date)" or try to find and add the date of the original retrieval. Obviously it would be easier to use the current date.

Okay will now get on with Colton, Hallward and Collins and move to Townshend once I have your answer on the above.

Guess we could say that if an existing link works then why change it but as a Wikipedian you must be happy with the end product so will respect whatever you prefer.

Incidentally note you have had a preliminary look at Christopher Whall and also the article on Whall/Gloucester. I will respond to your comments in due course. On the Whall/Gloucester Cathedral issue I was conscious at the time that what I was writing was not in anyway encyclopaedic; basically I wanted to tell what I thought was a good story and an insight into the trials and tribulations of the artist at work. I half expected the article to be challenged on the basis of suitability and format. Of course then I shall expect to now have to change it but hope it will not be diluted too much.

Weglinde (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to take these bit, by bit.

• Caroline Townshend - I really didn't do much to her page. There was an automated program that I ran (AWB) and then I added the template I created for stained glass - but that's it. I just made comments about what needed to be done.
• Regarding the reference format - for website or pdf files, it's good to add the date and I saw one or two missing just now for one of the articles (I forget which). If you bring up the web page on your brower, you can use today's date. I think that gets to your items 1 and 2.
• I'm not sure what "Guess we could say that if an existing link works then why change it but as a Wikipedian you must be happy with the end product so will respect whatever you prefer." means. By working do you mean that it's a reliable source? Or, do you mean that the link still brings up the cited web page?
• You know, if something isn't making sense to you - I'd say challenge it - ask me to give a reference guideline. Most of what I do is based upon guidelines, but there are some things that are personal preference - in terms of things that I look for, etc. I would say that I am not a purist, but I think I'm conscientious. And, in the earnestness to do something right - I could be too strict. I hope that makes sense.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• I went back to the Whall articles to refresh my memory - aside from citations, I don't think that there's a lot that needs doing now. I think the main question is about the notes that I moved to the talk page for the Gloucester article. If you want to run this by the Visual arts project - I'm guessing that's the right project - that might be a good approach. But, sure, let's talk about it. It would be good to get your take on how things are going in general since I've been diving in.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the guidance about web site citations from Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include:

   Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include 

   name of the author(s)
   title of the article within quotation marks
   name of the website
   date of publication
   page number(s) (if applicable)
   the date you retrieved it (required if the publication date is unknown)--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Have been through your various comments.

Firstly I must say that I have no problems whatsoever with the way things are going since your intervention and certainly have no reason to question your approach. Secondly I did mean that the link still brought up the cited web page and if that was the case then I questioned whether it was necessary to change the "access to link" format. I note that in terms of retrieval I can use a current date. Thirdly and on Townshend I shall go though the article afresh and once I know about the need to change linking formats.

I will now proceed with Colton, Hallward, Collins and Townshend and then report back.

Look forward to hearing whether you happy with what I have done on Guildford Cathedral and the matter of "Your Archives" being given as a link, and whether you agree with my suggestion that we put the four Picardy items on hold for the time being.

Once I have completed Colton, Hallward, Collins and Townshend I shall look again at Whall. I have no problems by the way with moving images into the appropriate box.

Guess this brings us up to date but please be assured that if I seemed to be taking a "protective" line on the Whall/Gloucester article or indeed the Picardy quartet then this did not imply any criticism of your approach. This is far from the case.

Weglinde (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I can see how something might be erroneously tagged as a deadlink when it really wasn't - especially if there's a character extra or missing. But even if it's exactly the same - I found an instance today where the program didn't gather up the information that I could see. It's a very cool tool, though in 99% of the cases.

I'm glad that you're happy with how things are going. If you have preferences, though, for approaching things let me know. There's becoming several variations depending up the volume of content and images per article item that you may have preferences. I don't think there's any questions here for me - but if I missed anything, let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Progress document

See you have been very busy! Great stuff. Think I am now seeing the basic modus vivendi. 1. You go through article with comments etc. 2. I respond and try to address your comments. 3. I then tell you that I have done what I can and ask you to re-check 4. Hopefully you then transfer to the completed section. Am aware this involves a great deal of work for you and hope this okay.

As I said much earlier all these articles are the last that I shall attempt and I would always have been checking whether or not someone had made substantial changes or challenged the work in some way. Now with your intervention I know that this is happening albeit in one big purge and as I am totally happy with your approach then this is a very satisfactory outcome.

Weglinde (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Good, it's been really satisfying for me. The topics have been interesting - they bring back memories.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Alan Collins

Could not find reference to his early schooling so removed from text.

Doesn't seem anything else so would be pleased to see it moved to "done" list.

See that on Colton and Hallward there are lots of "citations" to tackle so I will ge quiet now whilst I attend to these. I shall have the "basic requirements" for links/citations on my desk as I work.

Weglinde (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There were two good articles that I found and provided in the listing - I don't know if they help at all. There seems to be a fair amount published about Collins it seems. But, if you'd prefer to drop the non-referenced content - or move the items to the talk page for future reference, that would work. Whatever you think.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No I am quite happy with what you have done so hope you will now move to "jobs done" list. Weglinde (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There are still quite a number of citations needed tags, so I put it in the "good enough for now" category - because it is much better.

If you want some quick ones to know off and get into the done category, I have some good candidates:

• Blackburn War Memorial
• Dover Marine War Memorial

Would that be good? I moved Morecambe_and_Heysham_War_Memorial to done today. That felt good!--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Will move to "done" list

Weglinde (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Jumped the gun but now see what you mean. Will tackle them in due course.

Weglinde (talk)<

Articles- Christopher Whall. List of works by Christopher Whall and Whall work in Gloucester Cathedral

Could not resist having close look at these three and am completely happy with what you have done. Suggest pass to "job done" section.

Was of course sorry to see my extracts from Christopher and Veronica Whall's notes go but you are perfectly right in removing them.

When we have completed our present exercise I shall address suggestion separate note on "slab glass" and prospect of "Gloucester Cathedral" notes being printed elsewhere. Does of course mean that I have spent money on Pediapress books that probably wasted but I shall still go back to Gloucester and see whether the Cathedral bookshop are interested. At least I could give the four books printed to the Cathedral guides. When I visited Gloucester I found it sad that the guides there had little knowledge or feel for Whall's work in the Lady Chapel.

Anyway enough of that. Guess we all have pipe dreams of "writing a book".

To be philosophical for a moment I think this was why I embraced Wikipedia. It was a chance to do some writing/research and bring to the attention of a wider audience works that I think were often ignored.

When I started out on "Your Archives" my acid test was to see how much information on X or W was on the Internet. Often I found little or nothing so set out to rectify this.

Thought it worthwhile recounting some of these things as given that we shall be working together for a few weeks I thought it would help if you understood my motivation.

Now I know that at the end of the current exercise, my wiki efforts will be "up to the mark" and that will be sufficient motivation to carry out the changes that you indicate as being desirable.

One final observation.

On the work this year on Stained Glass I have sent dozens of e-mails to verify this and that but as I have already confessed all the e-mails and Correspondence went either into the ether or my waste-paper basket. In my mind the job was done and dusted so If I was happy that what I had written Had been corroborated then that was fine. I now realise that was daft but I hope you will understand that I would not want to contact again all the myriad of people involved. If therefore I cannot give proper "citations" I shall tell you at the time I finish on each article and then if the text where I cannot give a proper link has to be removed then so be it.

Weglinde (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I know it's a lot to wrestle with when you've put your heart and soul into the work for some time. I think your approach makes a lot of sense though -- and I hope that there's some way that you can make use of some of the other information that gives a rounder picture of the church background, etc. that may not be suitable for articles about the artists - or for wikipedia content. You do have a lot of great info!

Regarding Christopher Whall - let me take a peak, but I think it's looking good to close out - or at least move into the "good enough for now, but needs tweaks" category.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Works of Reginald Hallward

Whilst I cannot keep asking you to hold my hand I would ask you to please look at my effort on Hallward. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_of_Reginald_Hallward I am doing something wrong in for example reference 7 where I get [1]! If you could look through and put the citation links right I will study your editing and hopefully see where I am going wrong. I seem near getting it but am not quite there. Sorry about this!

Weglinde (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Truly, it's not a problem. I'm just being able to pay it forward after a lot of patience with me on the same types of issues.--CaroleHenson (talk)

Yep, you're getting there! Just a few finer points:

I left the period on the end of the url: click here Try clicking on the link for #17 and it will show you what happens with the "."

I updated the title to: Architecture & History (cut and pasted)

I updated the publisher to the info on the site: St Matthew's Church, Ealing Common (cut and pasted)--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If you could click on the link, then remove the period at the end of click here

then I think we're good!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I ran the automated AWB program and it found that there were some citations that could be combined - this was one of them - and it's now #4. And, the program removed the ".".

I moved the lost items without citations to the talk page and will now move this to "done" on our list.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please try the "click here" link: click here just to see what the period does.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Think I follow this now

Weglinde (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be a pest about it - I was having technical difficulties.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Reginald Hallward

Left computer for an hour or so and then went back. Seem to have got citations right now. I think I was using spaces when none required. Hope I have got there! Please just check over and then, I hope, the listing can go to the "done" box.

Weglinde (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Alan Collins

Now much improved by CH's efforts. Believe can now be moved to "done" box. Please confirm Weglinde (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Progress

Got hopelessly bogged down on Reginald Hallward but hope it now okay. Same with Alan Collins.

Hope that tomorrow I shall achieve more.

Will start with William Robert Colton and then move on.

Weglinde (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll work on Alan Collins now. There's lots of good info in the two articles which will result in uncited info being completed. I'll move it to done when I get it done.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

William Robert Colton

Wow! That certainly tested me with the format of references! Guess before you switch to the "done" box you will run your AWB to make sure references are not duplicated. Anyway hope it passes muster. I now propose tackle Alan Durst and Lilian Josephine Pocock. On Alan Durst you put in the tracking document-"L article - # images - someone did reflinks" Guess then that you would like the images to have references? I shall tackle Pocock first. I see that you just wish me to put in citations. Weglinde (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Lilian Josephine Pocock

Have finished this article so now ready for the "done" box if of course you happy with it. Bulk of references came from exhibition catalogue which I used as the basis research tool for the work. Will I think do Caroline Townshend first before Alan Durst. Here your comment was-copy edit, unpublished sources. Not entirely sure what this means but until you clarify I will see whether any references can be put in or improved. Weglinde (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look at both of them (Colton and Pocock) - and run the AWB utility.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Pocock, I made a couple of tweaks to the auto-generated citations, ran the utility (http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Dablinks) that checks for disambiguation links - removed one citation that's not a WP:Reliable source because it's a blog or forum. I am finding reliable sources, though, for Wilton Parish Church + Lilian Pocock, so I'll work on that for a bit. There's just a couple more places where citations are needed (tagged with citation needed tags). It's looking really good!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Will revisit and hopefully be able to add the required citations.

Weglinde (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully have now completed citations and this article can "go upstairs".

Weglinde (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, cool - I didn't know that you were working on Pocock at the same time! Probably because I kept finding new things to add, like illustrations. There's only one more citation needed - I think the 3rd section under Wilton Parish Church.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I needed to remove 2 citations:

For the second one, from a non-reliable source. See: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper). If you want to check yourself on this, feel free to bring the url to the Village Pump or the Visual arts project group.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A citation placed that described the nature of the work at the church, but the source just said she did most the of the work and did not describe the specific works she worked on (that I could tell anyway). Did you find something in the Building List site that I didn't?

How about I move this to the looks good category, but still needs something group for the moment?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes please move to the "looks good" category and tomorrow I shall look at it again.

Just packing up for the day. No doubt will be in touch tomorrow.

Weglinde (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Preston Cenotaph

By way of a change thought I would tick off one of the shorter articles. Hope it is okay now and that you will move to the "done" list. As you will see I have moved the bullet type references and taken that referring to the Aston University away as it had no particular relevance other than having Pegram sculpture. Weglinde (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good! I'll take a look.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry I misunderstood that you wanted me to look at it now. So we don't trip over each others edits, do you want to let me know you'd like me to look at it?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes please just check the Preston Cenotaph article with a view to moving it to the "done" list. Don't forget that I await your clarification on Alan Durst and Caroline Townshend. I have just had a look at Ferdinand Victor Blundstone. Think it is finished so perhaps you can also look at this. Weglinde (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will do - and then Townshend and Durst.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Alan Durst and Caroline Townshend

Had asked questions but they could not have been saved.

Tomorrow I would like to try corrections on Durst and Townshend but just asked you to clarify your comments on tracking document.

Weglinde (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Posted questions

As a heads-up, I posted the following questions on the Visual Arts talk page:

• The "Your Articles" question about whether it's considered a usable source for citations: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts
• A question about formatting inscription quotes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#Inscriptions

If you set that as a page to watch (click on the star just to the left of the search window) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts - when someone makes an update to the page, you'll see that on your "My watchlist" page. Feel free to write in any comments or questions that you'd like to add to the discussion.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Catch-up

How frustrating! I had just typed up quite a long entry and then it just disappeared. That must have been what happened with my Durst and Townshend questions.

As so far we have avoided any crossing of wires I would like to just repeat the report on progress made at my end today.

Firstly I have done work on Preston Cenotaph, Frederick Victor Blundstone and William Robert Colton and have asked you to check over what I have done and, if they pass muster, then pass them to the "done" box.

On Alan Durst and Caroline Townshend I would like to tackle these next but did not fully understand the comments against each which you had made in the tracking document. I would be grateful therefore if you would check and repeat what I need to do.

On Lilian Josephine Pocock I thought I had done but we have agreed to put in the "good for now" category. I suspect the Wilton Church entry is a good example of a situation where I got extra information from the church so that I could expand my notes. The information has now gone but whatever I put in the text would have been what I was told by the church. I had hoped therefore that the reference to the British Listed Buildings article and the Womens Stained Glass Artist exhibition catalogue would, on this occasion, have been sufficient. If not then perhaps it would be best if I just cut down the description to what there is on the British Listed Buildings piece and that from the Scottish War Memorial piece. Otherwise I suspect that we will search for information "online" that does not exist.

I note your comment on the "Your archives" aspect. The Blundstone article is a good example of the value of the "Your Archives" pieces. I had access to the Ministry files quoted in the article and any information that was in the file that I thought important was repeated. One way around this would be to make the citation a reference not to my "Your Archives" article but to whatever Ministry file was relevant. Therefore I would give a straight reference to file WORK 20/187 held at The National Archive and if anyone wanted to check out what I had written then they can go to The National Archives and see the document for themselves or ask for a copy. Do you think this would be an acceptable compromise?

Anyway we seem to be making good progress.

Weglinde (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

One further point. If you look at "Your Archives" file on Blundstone you will see that it lists other works and does not just deal with WORK 20/187. Therefore I could either also leave in a link to the "Your Archives" file in so far as it lists additional works or add to the wikipedia article the other works detailed in the "Your Archives" files. If this is your preference I would suggest that we put this to one side for the moment as it will involve a huge exercise for me but It is one that I would be prepared to do. In other words when we have finished our current task then I would go to each "Your Archives" article that also figured on wikipedia and transfer the detail unless it was a WORK 20/187 type file in which case I would just make a reference to that document. Sadly the photographs would not be transferable as they were all loaded onto "Your Archives" and I did not keep copies. As you will gather by now I am not a hoarder of paper.

Weglinde (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes we're making incredible progress!

• For Durst and Townshend I'll update the list with more clear notes about what needs to be done.
• I wonder if for Pocock we could put the information in a note - and note that it was gathered from individuals at the church. That way the uncited info wouldn't be in the body of the article, but could still be read and taken from the context of not being officially cited. Otherwise, I think you're right it needs to be removed until it can get published (newspaper article, etc.) at a reliable source. Update: I went ahead and made that change since there was a good resource that said she did much of the stained glass work in the church. You may want to contact the church to see if they have anything that was written in articles, etc. about Pocock's work in the church.
• I don't summarize the progress I"ve made because I assume you see it in your watchlist, or by seeing what changes I've made to our list. If you want me to, though, let me know.
• Regarding the resolution for the "Your Articles" citations your suggestion is spot-on! That's the way to do it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fine.

1. Will check again to see your comments on Durst and Townshend. Update I've added notes for Townshend, but I can do everything but the citations if you like. I've pulled Durst's works into the new List of works by Alan Durst. In the Durst article now it's only about citations - finding the missing citations and verifying that the citations cover the entire section being cited.

2. On Pocock let us go for the "note" Update Done, and moved the article to "done" group.

3. No that is fine.

4. When the current exercise completed I shall address the "Your Archives" issue in the way suggested.

Weglinde (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Added "updates" to items 1 and 2 above.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)