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]

Hi Hassocks, you've probably seen the lists of listed buildings springing up all over the place thanks to the hard work of Nev1. Most of them are in need of a little TLC (things like links for buildings which have articles, images where we have them, date sorting and consistency of date format). If you could help out with any of the lists, it would really be appreciated—we're hoping to have them all ready for 1 September for the start of Wiki Loves Monuments, which leaves quite a lot of polishing to do and not very much time! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of List of places of worship in Reigate and Banstead 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! AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of places of worship in Reigate and Banstead is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places of worship in Reigate and Banstead until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the list is well prepared and well referenced. My only concern is that so few of the buildings are actually covered by individual articles. I realize, though, that this is also the case with many similar lists. I have commented further on the AfD discussion page. Keep up the excellent work!--Ipigott (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Grade I listed buildings in West Sussex may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grade I listed buildings in West Sussex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parham (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) 11:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grade II* listed buildings in West Sussex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lindfield (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) 10:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I know that the Paley/Austin practice did not do any work on Sussex churches until the arrival of Hubert Austin, but I thought you might be interested in the List of ecclesiastical works by E. G. Paley which is currently at FLC. And if you have any comments to make on the nomination or advice on the list, that would be most welcome. Best wishes, --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I didn't find many references on Google Books, which is odd as it is a beautiful, listed building. Adelaide Crescent sounds very interesting as well. So does the Gothic House on Western Road I think, which I may create later--or feel free to do it. Do keep me posted.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]