Note from Hassocks: the bot which archives my talk page misbehaved in January 2009: a number of threads were overwritten in this diff. Any apparently missing threads should be available in the archive history, of course. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)

Hi - could you do me an enormous favour and have a look at the article I have just created on my local parish church. Any comments or suggestions would be gratefully received. Thanks.. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This church, presumably now redundant, is currently in the care of the Churches Conservation Trust, details here. I have added it to List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Southeast England, and added the appropriate category to the article, but thought you might like to update the rest of the article to reflect this. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thought of you with this one, London might be out of your "jurisdiction" though, but I thought you might have some books mentioning it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Goodwyns at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Providence Chapel, Charlwood at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hassocks5489. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the e-mail is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Nev1 (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoken Wikipedia review reminder

• As a listed DYK participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions00:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih(talk) 08:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih(talk) 08:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A very nice little article, but that infobox overwhelms it. Have you considered partially collapsing it? Eric Corbett 12:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of gunning for FA with this. What do you think? Can you add anything more?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, we'll wait two months then. Hope you are well!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih^Talk 15:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hassocks, I've prepared a different version of the West Sussex list linked above to sync up with the Wiki Loves Monuments tools. It can be seen here: User:Nev1/GradeIWSussex

If it's ok with you, I'd like to move the article into the mainspace. If you want changes made first, do let me know and I'll do my best to sort it out (it is a bit devoid of pictures at the moment). Nev1 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference column, so we can copy over the references from the current article. A notes column could be added to include information on current use, what do you reckon? Nev1 (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the ref you just added supports the contention in the sentence "As of 2025 the former chapel is for sale." The use of the current year template means that it is intended to be left in place into the future, 2014, 2015, etc. The ref provided only supports the claim that at the time the listing was placed the chapel was for sale. Changing it to "As of 2013 the former chapel was for sale." would rectify that. Personally I believe that should be in a separate trailing para and should probably read "As of 2013 the property was for sale.". As an aside, I understand that the property has been sold for a nominal sum to a new group of local trustees.not a great ref - just an indication that there are new trustees. Atlas-maker (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that there isn't anything in the local rags at the moment. The transfer of ownership may not have been completed yet, according to my sources, although in practical terms responsibility has passed from the original, rather remote, trustees to the local group. I'll keep an eye out too. Atlas-maker (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]