User talk:Mark Wheaver

Welcome!

Hello, Mark Wheaver, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you remove the phrase "by English Heritage" form a sentence about a listed building on Kewstoke. I've started a discussion about this on the talk page perhaps you'd like to give your perspective on why this is wrong?— Rod ^talk 17:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commented on that talk page that officially, and for the present, English Heritage do not list buildings, the Dept of Culture Media & Sport does

Can I ask where you got the source information for List of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset? as I think there are some omissions and inaccuracies in it. See the talk page for examples.— Rod ^talk 08:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebutted!Major-General Clanger (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template has reached far beyond its original scope of simply monitoring British Leyland. There is a propopsal for renaming it on its talk page which, as you are a contributor to the template, I hope you will participate in. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You appear to have mixed up Cornwall and Cambridgeshire as you have added several buildings in Cornwall into Category:Grade I listed buildings in Cambridgeshire. Please be more careful in future. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry!Major-General Clanger (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know which of the Chepstow bridges is the Grade 1 listed structure? There are two possibilities - the 1816 road bridge shown in the infobox here, and the 1852 railway bridge which was originally built by Brunel but has been heavily rebuilt since. If it is the road bridge, some of your links might need to change. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Road. Thanks, sorted now

Hi, just like to point out that the lists should also include the churches that are recorded as category A, which is the old classification for them. The one I noticed missing was St. Augustine's Church, Hedon from the East Riding of Yorkshire list this appears on the Images of England site as grade A, entry 166375. Keith D (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well aware that I need to catch them but IOE doesn't let you search on them. Many thanks for the spot! Major-General Clanger (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Now adding them from Heritage Gateway (some already included from other info I've found)Major_Clanger (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove the Category:Grade I listed buildings in York? The Museum is within the gardens, and described in the article although it has its own article too; the Tempest Anderson Hall is part of the Grade 1 listing, and does not have a separate article. PamD (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, because the Museum will then appear twice in the category. I've added the new redirects to the pages so that the category lists each building.Major-General Clanger (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also new page List of Grade I listed buildings in North Yorkshire - I'll add more links asap. (I'm working my way through England adding the lists and improving the Grade I categories.)

Hmm, are you sure that Redirects are allowed Categories? I didn't think they were, and I think if I found one I'd probably remove it as an error. PamD (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my reading of the Style Guide. Makes for much more complete categories; also allows pages to be expanded into their own articles in time. works well, e.g. if there is a substantial article on a village with a paragraph about the church, with a pic. The category shows the church not the village.

Hope you don't mind me dropping in - yes, redirects can be in categories - take a look at Category:Disused railway stations in Cornwall - the entries in italics are redirects. DuncanHill (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. I've learned something I didn't know - and I can see the reasoning, was just a bit surprised to come across this. I've now found Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Will bear it in mind in future, as I've slapped the "listed building" categories onto various articles where the article is about a wider subject than the listing. Thanks. PamD (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gracious of you to come back to me. Major-General Clanger (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but what main article? Scouting in East Midlands#Lincolnshire Scout County has Rutland as a District in Lincolnshire. That is the article where it should be discussed. The real point is that whatever Rutland is, we need a source. Original research is not allowed. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Rutland. Rutland is a county Rutland County Council website but was a district of Leicestershire between 1974 and 1997. I know nothing of scouting but the campsite mentioned is shown on Ordnance Survey only about 2km from the Lincolnshire border. Scouting_in_East_Midlands#Derbyshire_Scout_County suggests that scouting counties do not correspond to local government or ceremonial counties, so perhaps it made sense to them to operate as part of Lincs when Rutland was temporarily abolished. Scouting sites suggest that Rutland may be a scouting county again! Rutland County Scouts [1]. Major-General Clanger (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, Scout Counties can have no relation to government counties. I recall a link about Lincolnshire Scouts that said Rutland was now part of that County. I think Rutland was a separate Scout County throughout the time the government County did not exist from 1974 to 1997. The suggestion that it has been merged to Lincolnshire is certainly later. The Rutland link you mention seems to be old and some other links about Rutland Scouts are certainly old links. Many Scout links are just about recruiting and they have no reliable information about administrative structure. I'll keep searching for sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss you recent changes to Category:Grade I listed buildings in the West Midlands at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject West Midlands#Listed building category listings. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On that page, I've justified piping category members and invited rollback if consensus against

I came here to discuss St George's Church Leeds, but will talk about it at the above page instead! PamD (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been doing some work on List of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset adding architect, year, grid ref, & refs following the format used at Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester which is a Featured List. I've done BANES & Mendip but I have a problem with "Church of St John the Baptist - Wellington" I can't find it in the IoE lists & Wellington is not in Mendip - have you got a reference for this?

Also, how would you feel about dividing this list into separate articles for the districts - it already has 194 references & lots more to come! I intend eventually to do articles for each of the red links but this is a longer term project as there are over 1000 Grade I listed buildings in Somerset!— Rod ^talk 08:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi great to have you working on the list - this my longer term aim for all of them. Take a look also at Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire. I'm currently checking each county list against the new Heritage Gateway and will also tabulate Wiltshire properly shortly.

There aren't 1000 Grade I's! The list is complete, give or take the odd one upgraded since 2001 which I'll pick up shortly. However, the page is looking long. If you do split it, I'd be grateful if you provide an index page so that we can retain the category (see Cheshire), or create sub-categories.

Great work if you write all the articles - always worth checking that a village site hasn't got a section on the building already. I've been linking to these sections in other counties and may never expand them out into full articles.

Wellington should be in Taunton Deane.

I've checked Mendip and have a new one for you: Church Of St Mary, Causeway Bridge, And Gates ORCHARDLEA PARK, Lullington, Mendip, Somerset I

I've changed SS a & b to St A and St B as I am doing elsewhere as I think my original choice is not the most used form - hope this is not inconvenient.

There are over 1000 - BANES has 663 but often 1 citation covers 20-40 buildings in a street hence the difference in the number of buildings & number of citations. Many of the villages do already have a (referenced) paragraph on the church or other G1 listed buildings - because I've written them. If I do split it I'll do an index page similar to List of schools in the county of Somerset (for the ceremonial county) which has 3 lists, one for each Unitary Authority & 1 for the 5 non metropolitan districts in the current administrative county.

Fair enough!

I already have Orchardlea in the list sometimes called Orchardleigh (but definitely in Lullington)

OK, ta

One recent upgrade is Clevedon Pier which went to G1 in 2002 since the IoE list.

Yes, good spot. We've had the discussion on my flickr group [2]

I see Church of St John the Baptist in Wellington now ( a grade A not yet updated to G1) in Wellington & will move that one

Cheers

Should I change the titles of SS churches before writing the articles where one doesn't exist yet?

This is a tricky one. Probably. I started using SS because I thought it was a standard but noticed that it is rarely (but sometimes) used in my sources. Perhaps we need a redirect for every one? Excessive? I've already put in quite a few redirects from Church of St X to St X's Church, as neither form seems to have the upper hand. Full stops e.g. St. X are definitely unfavoured.

Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire looks good but the numbers in Somerset make that style impossible. I did Grade I listed buildings in Bristol years ago (& format may need updating) & then wrote Buildings and architecture of Bristol on the back of it.

I just spotted that this was you. A featured list which I'm aiming to emulate all over the place (assuming that I don't get deleted). My son thinks I'm talking about a Cyberman attack. Perhaps I am! Thanks for the support.

Can you point me to the "new Heritage Gateway"?— Rod ^talk 21:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[3] - I've added it to a few counties as I check them. Oh, and North Yorkshire.

I have nominated List of Grade I listed buildings in North Yorkshire, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Grade I listed buildings in North Yorkshire. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rebutted [User:Mark Wheaver|Major_Clanger]] (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the site it's going to be very useful in referencing the list and possibly in creating articles for some of its members. --Kaly99 (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After your comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/2009 local government structural changes task force it might be worth trying to set up a Wiltshire WikiProject see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. I did this for Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset so if you need any help with configuration etc let me know.— Rod ^talk 14:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rod, I was thinking of contacting you to see how this was going. I was toying with Wessex instead, as you seem to have the only county group in the region. What would you think about that? Do you have any thoughts about an English Heritage, or listed buildings and monuments in England project?Major_Clanger (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography which shows wikprojects in Bristol, Devon, Hants, Surrey, Sussex etc - I don't think that many people would identify with Wessex. I wouldn't go for English Heritage (govt bodies change their name too often & heritage can cover a multitude of sins) - but I would say a listed buildings and monuments task group could work as a sub set of WP:UKGEO or Wikipedia:WikiProject England but why exclude Wales, Scotland & NI which have similar systems?— Rod ^talk 15:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture as it could be a sub group of that and at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places for the US equivilent.— Rod ^talk 15:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rod. I'll leave the identification discussion to another day! But checking the list rather than speaking from memory, half of the counties I had in mind are covered which would probably leave Wessex stuck between England and the existing counties. There again, it could work as a level in the hierarchy but I'd get caught in the politics of Wessex vs South West England which is good fun but not great for a taxonomy!

For the buildings and monuments, I take your points. However 'similar systems' is true about counties too (why bother with Somerset when it's similar to Wiltshire) and English Heritage is set to take over listed buildings and apply the Grade I etc epithet to monuments too. You just beat me to mentioning WikiProject Architecture which I have also joined. All food for thought! Perhaps templates are more urgent than groups. Thanks for your input and offer of support.

I think a WikiProject for Wessex would be eccentric, unless its aim were to deal with the historical Kingdom of Wessex. In case anyone ever wanted to do that project, the name "WikiProject Wessex" should be left for them. Apart from the historical Wessex, the word means different things to different people, Wessex as described by Thomas Hardy, Wessex as used by all kinds of modern organisations, like the Environment Agency or the Campaign for Real Ale, to cover Wiltshire, Dorset, and Somerset, often Glos., sometimes Devon, sometimes Hampshire, sometimes even Berkshire... Dzw49 (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of many who strongly believes that the South West England region should be renamed Wessex and the boundaries examined (you missed Oxon!). However, I've given up on the idea of the group. Thanks for your input. Major_Clanger (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following these discussions you might want to take a look at the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England#WikiProjects for Counties.— Rod ^talk 18:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, I'll try to keep in touch with itMajor_Clanger (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there, I didn't know this discussion was happening, in the meantime, I've opended a discussion here, and invite your comments. I note you're also interested in Grade I listed buildings, and I have recently created Sheldon Manor, although I haven't been to the library yet for Pevsner's comments. --Rodhullandemu 18:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for getting in touch, have replied. Good work on the article. Pevsner (1963) says "The house possesses an astounding late C13 porch, much too big for the present house. The entrance arch has two continuous chamfers, the upper window two lights and a kind of rough Y-tracery, and the inside below is heavily rib-vaulted (single-chamfered ribs). Angle-buttresses. To the r. of the porch C15 work, see one cusped two-light window. The rest is mostly later C17, with cross-windows and gables. Detached a small oblong C15 chapel with an E window with simple Perp tracery and small cusped side windows. Very tall and old yew trees in front of the house."

Could you take a look at List of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset there are a few dates & grid refs etc I've not been able to find (& lots of red links!). I definitely think it is too long at 154 kilobytes long & over 400 refs - before I add more photos etc I'd welcome your comments on splitting it into several articles.— Rod ^talk 22:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Could you return the favour and see what you make of List of Grade I listed buildings in Wiltshire where I've been playing around with some ideas for sorting by district and type (part-populated) etc (and possibly Grade I listed buildings in North Yorkshire which other people are updating). I've taken the red links out of Wiltshire.--Major_Clanger (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - a few comments based on the Wilts list - most of the first para about changes to scheduling etc should go on Listed building so that is doesn't need to be on all the lists (& updated all over the places when/if changes occur). I think dividing it into sections as Somerset & N. Yorks have done based on Greater Manchester is the better way to go as to edit a section you don't have to open such a large file. I put photos against each entry on Bristol originally but during the discussion about Featured list status (see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed buildings in Bristol) the guidnace was to move the images out of the table & select the "best". HTH— Rod ^talk 19:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd say most of that! I agree about the first paragraph and will move in due course. I created all the lists by district, including Somerset and North Yorkshire, because I thought that was the right approach at the time. I'm now in two minds because I think it adds a lot to be able to sort on different criteria. The photo by each entry is experimental - you're probably right but I'm not sure yet.

I think Somerset is looking good. There may be slightly too much on listed buildings (but not as bad as Wiltshire!) and Somerset in general? The columns are fine - I do like my sorts though, e.g. I'll be able to sort the whole county into date order if I persevere. The grid references are on the Gateway. If the building's not on the Gateway, I've made a mistake. I haven't checked for recent additions yet. I'm on the fence where the length is concerned. The guidance at Wikipedia:Article_size excludes references etc - Wiltshire is only about 30kb at the mo and it is possible to template the references using {{IoE|999}}. I opened it on my phone to test a slow browser and it came up quickly (say 10s) with the sections collapsed and the photos invisible - they show up on linked articles. Wiltshire opened in about twice the time (still felt reasonably fast) with photos visible.--Major_Clanger (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen Oldest buildings in Britain? I've asked a couple of questions on the talk page - but I think it needs sorting out & I'm not going to take it on. Would you or any of your contacts from the G1 listed buildings lists be interested/willing?— Rod ^talk 21:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - thanks for pointing it out, Rod. I'll reflect on it a bit, I think. Quite surprising to include Norman-founded buildings. Perhaps lists by period would be better - had the Heritage Protection Bill gone through then we could do "Grade I listed Roman buildings" etc...--Major_Clanger (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark Wheaver! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as being in need of a little attention or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see talk:Croome Park

--Kudpung (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Months ago we discussed Grade I listed buildings in Somerset which I split into the 7 districts. I'm happy to let you know all GI listed buildings in Somerset now have articles & the 7 district lists are now all Featured Lists! Could I also ask for help from you or your flikr group to get the last few photos needed on List of towers in Somerset ie Church of St Paul, Kewstoke, Church of St Peter and St Paul, Kilmersdon & one which doesn't have an article (yet) St John the Baptist with St Catherine, Batheaston.— Rod ^talk 11:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Rod. We haven't agreed a copyright approach in the flickr group but I will publish your request. Best regards, Mark Major_Clanger (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Thomas Hardy Brewing and Packaging requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark Wheaver! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as being in need of considerable attention to avoid risk of deletion. If you can help with these minor issues please see Talk:Croome Park#Multiple issuesKudpung (talk)

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]