User talk:KJP1: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1 - 2007 – 2011 Archive 2 - 2012 – 2017 Archive 3 - October 2017 - January 2018 Archive 4 - January - February 2018 Archive 5 - February - March 2018 Archive 6 - April - June 2018 Archive 7 - June - August 2018 Archive 8 - September - December 2018 Archive 9 - 2019 Archive 10 - 2020 Archive 11 - January 2021 - July 2022 Archive 12 - July 2022 - December 2022

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Worldbruce (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Heritage citation templates
• Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS
• Template:National Historic Assets of Wales
• [1]
• Categories

Happy New Year!

KJP1,
Thank you for a wonderful year of contributions - I love reading your articles with the strongest pangs of hiraeth in my heart. That Cerberus Privy bought me so much joy!
No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

No Swan So Fine - And a very Happy New Year to you, Swan. I must say that getting the shots of the Cerberus Privy was a particular highlight of my year. What odd things bring us pleasure. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Capability Brown Wig
	For helping out so splendidly during someone else's GAN Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Capability Brown wig! That, I’ve not seen, but I shall wear it with pride. KJP1 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hussey (historian) - Needs work. KJP1 (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you so much for your contributions to Belton House so far. You have really filled out the bibliography and done a lot of good replacing not so good references with sterling ones. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 13:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about the Burges book at the Soyer FAC is very much to the point. Someone may well see the incorrect statement about WB's visiting the Middle East and innocently add it to the article. It might be a good idea if you were to post a note on the talk page of WB's article explaining that the statement on page so-and-so of Whatshisname's book that WB visited the Middle East is wrong, and add citations substantiating the fact that he never went further east than Constantinople. Ssilvers and I had to bat off the much perpetuated and wholly inaccurate myth that Richard D'Oyly Carte's real name was Richard Doyle McCarthy, and we've left a note refuting it on the article talk page. Might help, might not, but better than nothing. Ever thine, Tim riley talk 14:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the Grade I and II* lists I have replaced the "Cadw listed building header" with the equivalent wikitable code for now (I think these are the only ones, but if their are any other lists like these that use the header, but not the row template, these will need to be changed too). If the templates are changed and the columns are rearranged it would cause problems if using only the header without the matching row template. By removing the header template it means that changes made to the templates won't have an impact on these articles. Once the updating of the templates is complete these articles can be reworked as needed and the templates added back into them, but they won't have been messed up at any point during the updating process. EdwardUK (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EdwardUK - You are at complete liberty to change around anything on the Monmouthshire lists, but I can’t guarantee I’ll understand what you’ve done! Anyways, they look very nice. I’ve replied to the latest comment on the Wales page. I wonder if the best way is to put the Monmouthshire Parks list into the new format and offer it up to viewing. I can cut and paste the sandbox into your format, unless you have an easier way of transferring it. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think copy/paste is how I would do it. Making a second list below the original version, transferring the entry from the top of the first list to the bottom of the new list, using the grid ref link on the original list to get the decimal numbers for lon/lat parameters, and moving the completed date into the notes. Then, after error checking the new version, I would delete it from original list and add the next entry onto the second list in the same way. This makes it is possible to convert the information a few entries at a time over several edits rather than all in one go so I would be more likely to spot any mistakes. I would also probably wait until I had the full table completed before adding more info and references to the notes section (coflein maybe?). I will have a go at doing the list for RCT parks as it will also give me more of a chance to test out the template. Once we have completed a few lists I also have the code for a navbox in my sandbox which can be added to each article. EdwardUK (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the articles for RCT and Merthyr Tydfil and I've added an alt= parameter to the row template for improved accessibility. I left out the site type column (it didn't seem necessary on such short lists, but it could easily be added by setting the parameter to yes if wanted). The template seems to be working well so it is mostly general things that should need to be improved (manual of style, punctuation, etc - I'm never quite sure with some of these things). Also I have created the navbox for use on the articles: {{Register of parks and gardens in Wales}}. EdwardUK (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Penrhyn Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Desertarun -- Desertarun (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Penrhyn Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Penrhyn Castle for comments about the article, and Talk:Penrhyn Castle/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Desertarun -- Desertarun (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Powis Castle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Powis Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Powis Castle for comments about the article, and Talk:Powis Castle/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you're still promoting notable castles and are still active! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld - Good to hear from you, Dr. B, and glad you're still around too. So many buildings articles still to write and to improve. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Penrhyn Castle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the country house Penrhyn Castle (interior pictured) is a mock castle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Penrhyn Castle. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Penrhyn Castle), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,976 views (748.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2023 – nice work!

Bruxton (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GAR comments now addressed, I think. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amitchell125 - Indeed they are, and it's now passed. KJP1 (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think my comments at the peer review count as making "significant contributions to the article prior to the review"? If not, I'll be happy to review it for GA. Pray ponder. Tim riley talk 14:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley / SchroCat - Tim, a grand offer which I’d gratefully accept. You’re down at 68 on the list of contributors, with 20 edits - I assume correcting my grammatical howlers! - that ranks at 0% in the article’s overall split. I’d never diminish your contributions as “insignificant” - not least because you’d ask what they (didn’t) signify - but I think you’re fine for GA purposes. I was going to ask if you/Schrocat would mind having a look at Registered historic parks and gardens in Monmouthshire, which has got stuck at FLC with one support. I wanted it as a bookend to the Grade I/II* Monmouthshire buildings lists, which you were both kind enough to look at a few years ago, but for unfathomable reasons, people don’t seem that excited by some of Monmouthshire finest allotments. KJP1 (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look in at the Monmouthshire parks page. You might see if Dudley Miles is minded to have a look at it: I have had the pleasure of reviewing several similar articles by him, and he knows of what he speaks. Meanwhile I'll ask my GP for an injection to anaesthetise my aesthetic senses to enable me to look in at the frightful Hearst Castle. Tim riley talk 15:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley - It will hurt! Far worse than anything Burges did. But if renowned aesthete - is that a false title? - John Julius Norwich could cope with it… KJP1 (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a false title. I cannot deny being a great admirer of Lord Norwich – a real title – but quandoque bonus dormitat Venta Icenorum. (No, I didn't know Venta Icenorum was the Roman name for Norwich, and having looked it up I confidently expect to have forgotten it by bedtime.) Tim riley talk 15:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. I'm pleased to tell you that I've begun reviewing the article Hearst Castle you nominated for GA-status, according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a few comments on the review page – nothing earth-shaking. I shan't bother putting the review on formal hold unless you would prefer me to. Tim riley talk 12:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hearst Castle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hearst Castle for comments about the article, and Talk:Hearst Castle/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley - Tim, thanks greatly for picking this up. I know, with the castle being about as far from a Georgian box as you can get, reviewing will have been a chore. It was actually my last attempt at FAC, in those long-ago pre-covid days. But it generated absolutely no interest! I'll have another bash, but not just now. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Powis Castle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Elisabeth Whittle, a garden historian, considers the gardens at Powis Castle (pictured) to be the most important and magnificent in Wales? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Powis Castle. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Powis Castle), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, KJP1! The list you nominated, Registered historic parks and gardens in Monmouthshire, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Brightwell Manor, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Brightwell Manor was the home of a eugenicist clergyman who did not believe in democracy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brightwell Manor. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Brightwell Manor), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KJP! Could I trouble you to consult Pevsner for Sarfend? I visited it the other day on my travels and I think there's enough material for an FA. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry - Of course! Only issue, the books are all packed as I’m on the move. I’ll dig it out, but it may take a day or so. KJP1 (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I moved at the end of last year so I sympathise with the struggle of boxing up an entire library! Are you moving far? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, KJP1! Your work on Belton House has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s very kind, and it was a great pleasure, not least because User:Vami IV did most of the work! Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[2] KJP1 (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Nice article! I've just used the wide image format for the beautiful panoramic image. You can see the entire picture scrolling sideways. BorgQueen (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BorgQueen - Glad you liked it! And thanks for picking it up at DYK, and for the image tweak. The panorama is indeed fantastic. I’ll try the article again at FAC at some point. Last time, it sank like a stone through lack of interest. I was never quite sure why - such a building, and such a story. KJP1 (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have left a message on Wehwalt's talk page just now; I have added a new entry to this effect: "If you have world enough and time I have John Galsworthy up for peer review with a view to a run at FAC in due course and would be glad of your thoughts". And I'd be glad of yours if you have time and disposition. – Tim riley talk 17:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim - I absolutely will. I did have a read-through earlier this week, but let me have a more detailed look this weekend. KJP1 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you, dear boy! No rush at all. Tim riley talk 19:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, KJP1. I'm just posting to let you know that Registered historic parks and gardens in Monmouthshire – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for May 5. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 16:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I reverted here your unsupported use of the term "satire" for the Orson Welles film Citizen Kane. You are invited to proffer reliable sources that support your choice of words, i.e. that Kane, arguably one of the best films in the history of cinema, was merely a "satire" on William Randolph Hearst, instead of being inspired by the person and his place in American affairs. I trust we are all here after facts and not promoting opinions. Please be careful in considering WP:3RR. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome - You have some odd takes on policy/guidance. And on the meaning of words. And I’m not sure it’s helpful running one conversation in two places. Can I suggest, again, that you flag the issue on the Hearst Castle Talkpage, and then we, and others, can have one discussion. KJP1 (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. - To help you out, I’ve started the discussion. KJP1 (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC was posted up as soon as you suggested, KJP1. (See here). Your duplication is not "help" at all; it's just a hindrance. Kindly delete it in order to avoid confusion. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: WP:V is a policy; not a guideline, or a "guidance," as you put it. So, I fail to see the "odd take" you mention. The issue has been turned into an RfC in the appropriate talk page, i.e. that of of the film. (And, not, of course, of the Hearst Castle.) Further interaction here is, therefore, meaningless. Take care and see you there. -The Gnome (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it baffling that you have started an RFC at Citizen Kane, a page I don’t think I’ve ever edited, rather than Hearst Castle, the page about which we disagreed. There are now bits of the discussion at this page, your Talkpage, Hearst Castle and now you’ve opened a fourth venue. That seems a most odd decision. KJP1 (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hearst Castle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hearst Castle (pictured) inspired Xanadu, the lavish mansion in the 1941 film Citizen Kane? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hearst Castle. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hearst Castle), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]

April songs

my story today

Thank you for the article - been there, what strange place, with mustard and ketchup served in Renaissance surroundings ;) - Thank you also for saving FA, and more content! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid not. Not sure I've ever stopped at fleet.©Geni (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be passing by in the next few days and will try for a sunny pic. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Holkham - That would be great! If it’s open, and you have time, I’m particularly interested in how they’ve gone about restoring the ceiling. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Sorry we only seem to talk when I'm pestering you for Pevsner snippets. Would you mind having a look at Lincolnshire to see what he makes of High Bridge? And could you check London 3 for the Wharncliffe Viaduct? Do you have any of the Irish editions? I'm thinking of taking on the Irish National War Memorial Gardens for a bit of a challenge. Hope all is well with you. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell - Harry, have made a note and it will be a pleasure, as ever, to see what Sir Nik has to say. But presently the Pevsners, and almost everything else, are boxed up in store and I won’t have access for a fair while, likely a few months rather than weeks. As soon as my life is out of boxes, I shall take a look. And yes, I’ve all the Irish editions currently printed. KJP1 (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! I'm familiar with the issue. The books were about the first thing I unpacked when we moved late last year. Not sure I could sleep not having them on shelves; everything else can wait! Except the mugs and tea bags of course! Let me know when you're unpacked. I'm sure I owe you a pint or two for all your Pevsner snippets. I can only dream of owning a full set of my own! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A contest with a full set of Pevsner books would be quite a prize eh? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would indeed be a grand prize. But you’re not having mine! They have unfortunately become rather expensive. A standard volume is now £60.[3] They were £35 when I started to buy them. But it has taken the best part of 25 years. They are a superb resource, however, and there is no other national survey of buildings that matches them. KJP1 (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So a full set might cost in the region of £2760!!... I think the most WMUK would offer is to buy 4 volumes for an architecture contest. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Depends which county, but even the smaller ones are ~£45. The top result for a full set on Google is £2,625! We could certainly talk to WMUK about acquiring a "communal" set. I know I'd use them for every bridge and war memorial article. I don't know if it's something they'd fund or not but they'd probably consider it rather than reject it outright. The question would be where it would be kept. Keeping it at their office would seem cumbersome and much as I'd be happy to look after it and send snippets to anyone who wanted them, that would seem to benefit me more than anyone else. A digital version that we could all access a la WP:TWL would be amazing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve no idea, but would another option be some sort of deal between WMUK and Yale University Press? For English / Welsh / Scottish buildings articles (Ireland a little more complicated), the Pevsners are the go-to source, along with the Historic England / Cadw / Historic Environment Scotland databases, which are publicly accessible, and the Victoria County History, which is accessible in part, although incomplete, and superb in places, although more variable (outdated) in others. User:Richard Nevell would be a good person to ask, but I think any deal would be complex, with copyright/commercial issues all over it. KJP1 (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're indispensable sources. I should think that a publisher on the scale of Yale will have digital versions, which would make access easier and more practical than keeping track of hard copies going round the country. Though if WMUK does shell out for a hardcopy of the back catalogue, I am prepared to make the deep personal sacrifice of looking after them and posting them out.

Digital lending is steeply priced, so I think we'd be relying on a donation. TWL may have had conversations with Yale, so I'll drop them a line and see if it's an option they've ever explored. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you Richard! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, Dr. Blofeld!

While I'm here, I don't suppose anyone has the West Sussex Pevsner from 2019? I'm curious what it says about Knepp Castle (the medieval one, rather than the later mansion) but haven't got round to tracking down a hard copy yet. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nevell - First, thanks for taking a look at this. If WMUK were able to reach an access agreement with Yale, it would be of great assistance. On Sussex, as one lucky enough to have a set, I do have the Sussex volumes. But unfortunately they are presently boxed up prior to a move. When I unbox them, I’ll happily check out Knepp Castle. You’ll just be behind Harry in the queue! KJP1 (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard I'm pretty sure the Waterstone's across the road from me has the West Sussex volume. Would it be excessively cheeky do we think to look something up without buying anything? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! I popped into the Manchester Waterstones on Friday to do just this, but they didn’t have the edition, although they do have most of them. I would have bought a coffee, if they had. It’s tricky. While we’d love them to be publicly/digitally accessible, they must cost a fortune to produce (editors/fees/research/artwork/publishing/print etc. etc.) and the sales must be very limited. Institutions, Wiki weirdos like me, individuals buying “their” county. What we really need is a Mellon grant. KJP1 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[4] KJP1 (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm currently in the middle of a GA nomination for Dolwyddelan Castle, and I was wondering if you would either like to help or suggest an editor who might be able to assist. Truth be told I submitted the GA nom in anticipation of waiting a few months for it to be looked at and therefore having some time to iron out the creases, but I seem to have skipped the queue.

There isn't a vast amount to do (combing through the sources is the main thing, some aren't formatted well), but it would be helpful to have someone to bounce ideas off — if you have a copy of the guidebook then so much the better. No pressure, A.D.Hope (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you’ve been fortunate enough to get a good reviewer. I don’t have the guidebook, but very happy to make suggestions. Let me take a detailed look at the comments and I’ll see what I can suggest. KJP1 (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. User:Jr8825 and User:Richard Nevell are both very knowledgeable on real castles - my speciality is Victorian fakes! - and may be able to offer advice. KJP1 (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that you have Castell Coch, Cragside, and St Donat's (is that a 'true' fake?) among your featured stars. Surely Penrhyn will be up there one day?

Mertbiol has been great and made the process very straightforward. I've been working on their comments over the past two days and I'm about to respond, so you may want to chip in with any suggestions. The same goes for Jr8825 and Richard Nevell, any help is welcome and thank you for pinging them. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It must be castle season, this is the second time in as many days someone on wiki has asked about castles! I'd be happy to lend a hand. I'll start by seeing if Dolwyddelan is in my collection of guide books. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're in luck: I've got a 2010 reprint of the 2004 guidebook by the late Richard Avent. There's a 2016 guidebook, but I don't know if it's based on Avent's text. Either way, the core will be the same, and the guidebook would be my go-to source. I'll have a look at the review page over the next few days. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, thanks for chipping in! I'm also using the 2004 guidebook, so that's handy. This pamphlet is all I can find on the 2016 publication, is there a full guidebook out there? I must admit that I don't yet own one of the new series of Cadw guidebooks, but from looking at the examples on the website it seems that the changes are mainly aesthetic rather than textual. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was the one I found, I hadn't spotted that it was a pamphlet. In that case, I should think the 2010 guidebook remains definitive. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know I said this on the article talk page, but thanks to you (User:KJP1) and User:Richard Nevell for helping me with the GA nomination. It made my first time going through the process much easier, and I very much appreciate it. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re most welcome - not that I did much. You had written a strong article, and were then favoured with a strong reviewer. May it be the first of many. KJP1 (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Me again! I was just having a look at Castell Coch and noticed that the visitor figures were a little out of date. I've updated them, but I've broken... something. I did have a poke around myself to fix it but realised I was only making things worse, so it seemed sensible to let you know as you're very familiar with the article and can probably sort the issue quickly. Sorry for the work, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - sorted now. KJP1 (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I think I've grasped the 'house style' from the changes you made, so any future edits should hopefully be fine. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the godfathers of the Ham House FA you may be interested in the current FAC of Elizabeth Maitland, Duchess of Lauderdale. I've looked in and left a handful of comments, and you may (or may not) like to look in too. Tim riley talk 20:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Tysm for your help on Victoria Terrace, Beaumaris. Greatly appreciated by all! JacobTheRox (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KJP1!

I wasn't sure where to ask this, but you might just know. The infoboxes for many Welsh castles (including Castell Coch) use template:infobox military installation rather than template:infobox historic site — do you know why this is? The latter seems like the better fit in many cases, for example it has a dedicated 'architect' parameter which would be useful for William Burges at Coch. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A.D.Hope - Hi, it’ll just be the preference of the original editor who started the article/inserted the infobox. Like the referencing style, it just depends on what they choose. Like you, I prefer Historic Site as it has the majority of the parameters I want to include: architect/historic listing designation etc. My suggestion, particularly if the article is rated Good/Featured, is that you put a note on the Talkpage indicating your intention to flip the box, and give it a few days before actually making the change. This would let any interested parties, particularly the main author if there is one, have an opportunity to express any concerns. Taking Castell Coch as an example; that was mainly a collaboration between myself, User:Hchc2009 and User:Dr. Blofeld. H is sadly retired, and I doubt either he or Dr. B would object, but it would be good to give them the opportunity. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Given the consistency I did wonder if consensus to use one infobox over the other had been established at some point in the past and I simply couldn't find the relevant discussion. If it's simply a case of local consensus then I'll make the case for flipping the articles I'm working on, as 'historic site' seems to be the better fit. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, but I think we should probably try to be as consistent with types of infoboxes used in castle articles as much as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I seem to have chosen unfortunate examples when looking at what other castle articles use, as Warkworth Castle uses 'historic site' but appears to be one of the few to do so; the vast majority use 'military installation'. Nevertheless, the latter is a bit of an awkward fit for some sites so it could be worth discussing its use. I did wonder if a custom 'UK historic place' template would be too ambitious, with integrated support for the various sub-templates such as scheduled monument listings. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the process point (i.e. talkpage, then change) - infoboxes create far too much drama sometimes! Also agree with you on the Castell Coch case, btw, the historic site template would seem the best fit for that particular building. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]