User talk:Pennine rambler/Archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, Pennine rambler, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Rivington unitarian chapel, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

To : Bearian

I have added statement to allow reuse of the page, I have not completed citations as yet, this may take some time as a great deal of research went into creating the page. I agree for Wikipedia it will need chopping down to a much smaller size.

On 24 Jul I have edited the article and cut it down greatly. My own site also contains the statement "The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License] (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." Is this enough - you will find the statement at the bottom of the [ http://www.angelfire.com/in/rivington page].

To HLE

I have reverted the article back to its edit, I am the author of the pages you suggest I am taking works from. I also own the copyrights to the old books that were sources. The article has been given a number of citations to link to A2A this is where national archive records prove the facts in the statement, unlike my page about Rivington where I have not used citations in the text. I am new to Wikipedia an just getting the hang of the thing. I have researched Rivington and Anglezarke history for 30 years. My work has been by private publication and is stored at Bolton, Chorley and Preston archives. The works draw facts from documents not used in the books by M.D Smith. The Rivington article as was on Wikipedia I noted disregards the history of the area before 1900.

To Beeblebox

My site now contains the state "The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License] (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." Is this enough - you will find the statement at the bottom of the [ http://www.angelfire.com/in/rivington page].

• Allrighty, that should do it! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Adding copyright tag, I think its formatted correcty but would appreciate some help on this.

Hi Rovington. I looked at the changes you made and they look great! As far as I can see, there are no issues. Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks Rovington (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Great House Barn

Archived NtheP (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC) (Rovington (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

Rivington Hall

Talk section Retained for reference:(Rovington (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)) Hi again. I've had a further look at the article and it still reading more like a history of the ownership of the estate rather than about the building itself. The only part about the building is in the lead paragraph. That's not a problem in itself if you decide what the article is about. If it's about the hall as a building then there's a problem. If the article is the Manor or Rivington then the lead would need redoing but the rest of the article starts to fit. The page can be renamed easily.

The rest is a comprehensive history of the ownership but to be honest I don't find it that readable. Not becasue it's grammatically incorrect but some of the language seems a bit archaic. If that's your personal writing style then I apologise if you find my turn of phrase offensive, it's not meant to be! If it's not your natural style I wonder if it's an influence from the primary source - the Victoria County History. Being in the middle of writing another article where it's a primary reference I can well understand how the early 20th century style gets to you (and I'm using one of the volumes that was re-edited in the 1960s). Let me give you an example from the lead paragraph "Robert Pilkington decided to have a more spacious Hall for himself at Rivington and in 1477 he contracted with William Holden for the building of an extension" could be re-written more idiomatically as "In 1477 Robert Pilkington decided to expand the hall and commissioned William Holden to undertake the work." I'm not saying how it's written is wrong but I think it's a turn off to the casual reader who form the majority of the readership of Wikipedia.

I'm going to concentrate now on the section on the Pilkingtons.

• 1) The big fact about them (and in relation to the whole history) is the first two sentences of the third paragraph - "There are various families in ownership of the manor of Rivington from the very earliest records to modern day. However one family had the largest portion of the Manor for the longest period, the Pilkington family of Rivington held the largest majority until the death of Robert Pilkington in 1605." To me that should start the whole section on history because even if I decide to read no further I now know something about the manor of Rivington.

• 2) Use of old English is fine but if the terms are unclear they need explaining either by wikilink to an article that defines them or by explanation in the text or the footnotes. Examples thanage and oxgangs. Both terms have their own wiki article so please link to them. Ditto currency - not every time, just the first. I'm just old enough to remember pounds, shillings and pence :) but that puts us in a minority, so the first use of s needs linking. If you don't want the whole word to appear you can pipe the link using the | sign (on most UK keyboards it's next the left shift key and is shift-\ ). The pipe lets you link to an article without using the article title so [[Shilling|s]] results in s

• 3) If the manor was granted in 1212 then say which king (John) and link to it rather than just the king.

• 4) Terms like assumed tend to be frowned upon unless you have a source to back it up, so when it's unlikely that Alexander de Pilkington didn't live locally but was a named tenant then either have a source to back your assumption up or omit the assumption.

• 5) Again don't use phrase like 'this shows us' or 'we can see' because to some people the answer is going to be 'not to me it doesn't'.

• 6) I was stuggling with the second paragraph until I realised it's trying to establish that the Pilkingtons did remain in the manor for 400 years. A rewording to something like "After the initial grant by King John, the records are scarce for the remainder of the 13th and 14th centuries but surviving records such as a list of tenants dating from 1240 and two 14th century tax rolls show that the Pilkington family remained in the manor. After these there are no further records until 1478 when . . . Less than 10 years later the estate was almost lost when the Pilkingtons fought with the Yorkists at the Battle of Bosworth and Henry VII confiscated many of the family lands. The manor of Rivington was not among these (reason if you know why)" I know this might be losing some of the detail but part of the skill (which I'm still learning) is what to leave out and what to include. After all wikiepdia is not a repository for historical scholarly essays.

• 7) Is the fact that James Pilkington was the first Protestant bishop of Durham relevant to this article? And does that make him the most well known?

• 8) Gets a bit messy with the death of Robert P in 1605. So let me see if I understand it

a) Robert provides a surety to William Bisham

b) William defaults on the debt and the Rivington estate is seized from Robert to settle the debt

c) William Bisham dies and his debts are such that his executor (his brother John) has to sell the Rivington estate

d) The estate is sold in 1611

So if the estate had been seized what is the relevance of the terms of Robert's will as there would be no estate to pass onto Richard Hutton? If it is relevant then I've missed something possibly that the value of the estate well exceeded the Bisham debts so who got the residue?

So that was the Pilkingtons then I looked again at the Lathoms and the Shaws and I see it gets really complicated because the Pilkingtons didn't hold the entire manor! I think you need to find an easy way to explain this.

I think the same can be said about the Andertons (incidentally I find the language of this paragraph very archaic) and the Breres and I think you complicate the issue by listing those parts of the estate that formed parts of the transactions. In a way this brings me back to my original point - what is the article about?

Finally on the content I'd move the section on the barn to the endf and make it read less like an advert for the business.

Regarding the use of {{convert}}, the absence of old imperial measures such as rod, pole & perch is a slight weakness but I think acres suffice. I don't think I would have bothered with sq miles as well but that's a personal choice. I'd also suggest leaving lk=off after the first use.

The references section is a bit ponderous and in fact a lot of the references you're quoting are really references to references in that you're referring the reader to the VCH but then directing them to not to the text of the VCH but it's own sources. I'd suggest that either you make a direct reference to the source e.g. your reference 14 becomes not a reference to the VCH footnote 16 but a direct reference to the Assize Records, or you leave the reference as being to the relevant page (not footnote) of the VCH e.g. the same reference becomes a reference to p XXX of the VCH. I accept that estimating page numbers within a range isn't easy but have a stab at it.

The references themselves can be made less overwhelming and the way to do it is this.

• 1) Change the title of the references section to Notes and add a new section called References.
• 2) In this section list all the source you use frequently e.g. VCH, History of the Pilkington family - I suggest you use template:cite book for paper sources or template:cite web for web sources and give each one a distinct ref attribute e.g. the Victoria County History could have the ref attribute VCH,
• 3) Then each time you want to refer to one instead of showing the full title or URL you use the following syntax <ref> [[#VCH|Victoria County History]] p. X. </ref> this will produce in the reflist the note Victoria County History p. X. and if a reader wants the full citation for the source they can clink on the link and it will take them to the references section the entry for the Victoria County History.
• 4)If it's a source you only use once e.g. The Records of a Lancashire Family then you can use cite book directly in the <ref> </ref> in the text.

Also if you want to refer to one page more than once use the name attribute for refs. I use a short title and the page number as the ref name, so if you have muliple references to page 286 of the VCH the first time you refer to it you type <ref name=VCH286> [[#VCH|Victoria County History]] p. X. </ref> and on all subsequent references to page 286 you only have to type <ref name=VCH286/>

I'm sorry to go on at such length and in such detail but I really do appreciate what you're trying to get over and I'd hate to see the effort wasted for what are in the main not major issues but to do with readability and formatting.

Incidentally you asked if I'm a Rivington historian, the answer is no but I live fairly close by. If you've any more questions or comments or just want to disagree with me over anything I've written just leave me another message on my talk page. All the best NtheP (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am very thankful for the above advice and shall work on it. Rovington

Just a quick update I have been doing more reading - the above is pending, (Rovington (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)).

Re:Rating on Samuel Oldknow Article

Archived: Arthena^(talk) 07:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC) (Rovington (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

Samuel Oldknow

Archived: Increase inline citations. Tom B (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC) (Rovington (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

John Willoughby, 9th Baron Willoughby of Parham

Archive : Ironholds (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Retained for future ref: [Willoughby source] edits for 12th - book collection. (Rovington (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

Brown

archived: Malarious

Re: Gordon Brown

Archived re: A new sub-section ninety:one (reply on my talk) 18:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC) (Rovington (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

Copyright & National Archive Medal Cards

Archived: David Underdown (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Richard Harvey (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status Confirmed Public Domain

Retained for future ref: Copyright expert at National Archive tim.padfield@nationalarchives.gsi.gov it was also confirmed that the reproduction is absolutely fine especially as it attributes original source as National archive and record number, although Mike Walker at National Archive stated with the public domain status of original the reproduction was not needed. (Rovington (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

Talkback

Hello, Pennine rambler. You have new messages at Template talk:Did you know.
Message added 14:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Supertouch (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of the nomination?--Supertouch (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I am speechless, thankyou so much, this shows how wikipedia can help a cause.

I have edited some of the introduction to ensure that Terry the historian is credited for his efforts and also the wikipedia community as this article played a vital role.

(Rovington (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

DYK for Gilbert MacKereth

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted my page talk back to an earlier page as it was cluttered - to allow me to focus on works in progress

(Rovington (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Request for assistance

I have been editing an article from extensive research about Rivington Pike, the article looked to meet C class ...

Archived: (Rovington (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)) (Rovington (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)).

Remember that your personal knowledge of a subject should not be the foundation of an article you write but rather independent and reliable third-party sources. As for your disagreement, WP:DR offers a wide array of tools for disputes. In this case, you might want to request a third opinion since it's only between you two but you should also try to talk to ---- first and ask them to explain their edits. Regards SoWhy 08:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks added to SoWhy.

archived here --J3Mrs (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

responded on other user talk page (Rovington (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

Got your message

I'll have a look in the next couople of days. NtheP (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC) I've done a revision and I have to say I've cut quite a lot out. There are bits from Irvine that weren't really relevant e.g. the mortgage being taken out etc. Other things were about the design and age as these weren't supported by the references given. It may well be that the original structure is 9th century but it needs more than a local historian's website to say so especially when the English Heritage entry doesn't support that ascertion.

I am wondering if this article, the one on the hall and others might best be merged into one article on the Rivington Hall Estates/Manor of Rivington as they are all so inexricably linked. NtheP (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, two heads are always better than one, yes I was thinking about a merge myself, I was wondering how best to do that? The historian you mentions had produced a great deal of work in booklet style has not published with an ISBN they are limited print runs. The Rivington Hall & Manor have at points in time had other owners, do you think a write up on the manor may be the best way to lead into the details about the Hall? Is there a wiki manual of stlyle for a Manor?

I will keep an eye open for other citations re the age of the Barns. I do have the barns leaflets but they are not easiliy accessible to others further away. I think A short history of Rivington by Wm Fergusson Irvine 1904 has some information in there. It can be read online. There is also Rivington, 1893 by Hampson, I can get a copy over to you if you want, it may need to be on CD as it a pretty big file. (Rovington (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

If you've got more than one source that gives the ages of the barns then use those to cite the claim. My big concern is that the reference material is all quite old i.e. 100 years + and authors of that time do have a bit of a tendancy to make extravagant claims which modern history often debunks. Something modern or at least post war would be really helpful.

Can the reports of Lancaster University be used here, they are not in widespread publication.

As to a merge the easiest would be to start an article in you userspace e.g. User:Rovington/Manor of Rivington and work the article up there. NtheP (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Retained talk as ongoing work in progress..

This is a great idea and an easier way of going about things, thanks for this and your help with the article. (Rovington (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

Request for independant help with article

Rivington article seems to need to be rerun for wikipedia style, anyone able to do this and preserve the details, if there are any sources in there that may need an alternative please let me know here before chopping them off.

Also looking for help with the Samuel Oldknow article article.

(Rovington (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)).