User talk:Pathgrow

Hi Growpath! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ChrysGalley was:

Thank you for this very interesting article, however it needs some further work on it. The subject appears to be notable and the lengthy Newcastle Weekly Chronicle and Biodiversity Data Journal sources cover this. The Consett Guardian is a bit brief though. I have linked those newspapers into the references.

The core problem is that the second half of the article is effectively original research, which as per WP:NOR isn't allowed here. So this is taking snippets of information from other sources to build an incomplete table of presidents / secretaries. The "notable members" list include names who don't have an article already, so again original research is building a novel list.

The good news is that this can be resolved via several routes, I will send some ideas to the submitting editor's Talk page.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Vale of Derwent Naturalists' Field Club and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ChrysGalley (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

And greetings from Northumberland, @Growpath. I would like to get your article published, but the No Original Research WP:NOR rule means that if I did accept the article it could end up in WP:AFD. The article also had a few other minor issues, it could do with a bit of rewording for encyclopedic tone, and there are some longer quotes from sources, which isn't usual in an encyclopedia. I've linked in 2 of the early sources so people can read the original text now. But these are easy to resolve.

For the list of presidents, secretaries, past members: one option is to just leave those 3 sections out for now. If you can get an article in a Durham history journal or similar then you would be able to use them in the Wikipedia article afterwards. The past members - if they have an article already, which three of of them have, then it's not OR to say they are notable and were former members, it is the other members that can't be elevated to notable status via OR. So my suggestion for now would be to remove the presidents and secretaries and just keep the 3 names already with articles as notable members. The other names may need an article in the future.

I did notice that there are other newspaper articles in the Consett Guardian and the Newcastle newspapers but I didn't look into them for content.

Do you happen to know of any connection between this Field Club and the still existing one for Consett and Derwent? I can see that was created separately in 1907 but I wonder if the Derwent-only version folded into the Consett group at some point.

It's over to you for any thoughts / preferences / queries you have about this, and of course I would be very much willing and able to help further if needed. ChrysGalley (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I would like to start by thanking you for your most helpful critique. As you will have realised, this is my first attempt at an article but your suggestions have helped me get further up the learning curve.

Having now read the WP:NOR, I agree that I should delete the Officers of the Society sections.

With regard to the Notable Members section I have a query: although Meek & Potter do not have Wikipedia pages, they do have quite detailed obituaries in Nature. Does this mean that they are notable with this citation included? Or would it be possible to generate a page for each of them and link to that? Similarly, Fawcett has a book about him.

Thank you for showing me how to link to original newspaper articles; I myself use findmypast and was wondering how this is possible. I assume that it would be a breach of copyright to copy the clips onto Wikimedia.

You are quite right that there is a link between the two clubs and I think that what you say is correct and could be verified with newspaper articles. The clubs seem to have spun off a publication: The Vasculum.

Let me know about the Meek, Potter and Fawcett query and I'll get on with the changes. Growpath (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello again, and I am pleased to hear back from you @Growpath.

Nature is like the gold dust of Wikipedia sourcing - it's like the superior version of the BBC. If Nature says something in depth then it probably should end up in an article somewhere. Obviously a second source is usually required, but with Nature they often provide a source to help you. This is a separate issue, that many North East scientists (and industrialists, social scientist, writers, artists) are very much notable, but are not in Wikipedia, so if you want to carve a new career for yourself adding them in, then you are doing something very useful, in my view. However I would also suggest making a division here - get the Field Club in first, and then sort out the scientists, to keep stuff bite sized. You can always update both the scientist and the Club page later, as you progress. You can just leave a "red entry" for the name, which indicates that someone can / will write a future article. You just put a double brackets in: [[John Smith]] and that is an OK thing to do

The findmypast and Newspapers.com thing - firstly these newspaper are way out of copyright anyway, so that's not an issue, plus on both sites there is a heap of advertising for their services so I'm quite sure they would not make this facility with clippings if it was not to be used. Newspapers.com say in their FAQ it's OK to use in social media, for example.

For the Consett club, the decision there is whether they have their own article (they are still going, so in theory there could be future news about them), or to have a section within the Derwent article. I don't think there is a perfect answer on this, so I think you best use your judgement. The usual reason for having two-in-one is that it is too difficult to source notability for one of the entities, but I don't think that's a problem here, since there is newspaper coverage galore. The other pushback is "hyper local", so we don't normally have articles about things very mundane and local. In the case of Derwent this is over-ridden by the depth of coverage and the link to some famous natural scientists.

For the Consett club I'd probably use their Facebook account to get in touch with their historian. They used to run a website which is now offline, but copies are in the Wayback Machine, including the history page. This has photos on it, which should also now be out of copyright.

Well done on this so far, and let me know if / when you want me to assess your Derwent article again. Best wishes ChrysGalley (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks once again for your rapid and helpful response! I have submitted a revised article with the Officers deleted and the Notable Members reduced to those with a Wikipedia page. I discovered that M.C. Potter did, in fact have a page. I hope that this draft article is acceptable now.

I shall now do some work on the scientists, working outward from this article. I've found adverts in the local papers about evening classes given by some of these scientists, and I find that a good illustration of the self-help ethos of the time and place. Growpath (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks, I've marked it for review - and I will work on it later this evening since I'm working on another article at the moment. I think I will want to make a few changes, but I will check with you as to whether they are OK or not. ChrysGalley (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, happy Sunday @Growpath. I have added the text I had in mind, and added some more sources. Can you have a look? By all means delete anything you don't think is right to be there. I want one more source that actually names the Club, just so we are on 4 or so such sources, but I'll do that later. The pen drawing of Robinson will be out of copyright so that could be used in the article, which I can arrange, but I don't know if you think that is a a good idea.

For the Lebours and Potter - remind me how we know that they were involved in the Club? That's the sort of thing that should be sourced. Bagnall is easy. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

And best wishes to you, @ChrysGalley. I think that your additional text is really good - thanks for that.

You mention the Notes and transactions. I have scanned (and OCRed) copies of these from 1891,1892, 1905 and 1908; the 1891 issue is from Google books, the rest scanned from originals that I picked up secondhand. I also have the front matter from 1903 and 1913 (from the Durham archives). Would it make sense to put these on Wikimedia and refer to them?

The Notable Members are listed in the front matter of the 1908 issue and other issues. I plan to dig out more from this source.

I really like the pen sketches and it would be good to have Robinson's in the article.

I have a number of photos of outings of the Field Club, some from family sources and some other sources. Unfortunately, I can only guess at the people shown but some are in known locations; are these relevant to this article?

The reason that I have some photos is that William Johnson is my great-grandfather - I'm assuming that this is not a conflict of interest. Perhaps I should also say that John Forman is my step-great-great-grandfather. Growpath (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you are OK on the WP:COI - it would apply more if you were editing an article on William Johnson or John Foreman. You could put a sentence on your User page but given the passage of time I'm not sure it really matters, at some point anyone's list of theoretical relatives encompasses almost everyone else.

I think an example photo of an outing would be good, and perhaps alongside the pen picture. Wikipedia is primarily a text provision, but a couple of photos tends to add interest. I noticed this colour photo in the bottom left of this Journal article:

https://www.valscully.co.uk/jw-fawcett

If you have a colour or black and white photo similar to that, and definitely older than 1930 (the copyright cut off) then that can be added to Wikicommons (or I can do it for you if you prefer). I think it shows something of the world that has now gone.

For the 1908 reference, that's OK, I'll just create a reference citation for it, it is perfectly fine for it to be offline so long as the details are all there, and by the looks of it available in several libraries. So there is no specific need to upload that. Do you have a page number for that list? The other option is the Hathi Trust scan that is now in the article for "Notes", if the names are in there too, but I could find them on a quick look. There were other names in the Hathi Trust scan. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I had already found that photo; as well as this rather blurry colour-tinted version, there is also a sharper monochrome version. It is definitely taken at Derwent Head, probably by Billy Costello (see the page that you sent) and that is possibly Prof. Lebour at the far right. It is almost certainly a VDNFC outing, probably about 1913. What is the best way to get the jpg to you?

The list of members is in the unnumbered front-matter, and I think that is the best citation.

There are, indeed, other names which I plan to follow up and include if notable. Growpath (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I've sent you an email.

I found an article in the North Star newspaper which I have linked. The reason that is significant is that they are independent of the club and they made some comments at length about the Club. So that helps notability considerably, rather than effectively quotes and sources which are not so independent. So I am now OK to release the article. Once in mainspace it can still be amended, and perhaps more people from the area will have other interesting things to contribute. ChrysGalley (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again for all that hard work! I have started looking at notable members who do not yet have a Wikipedia page. I found Edwin Leonard Gill on french Wikipedia and, after a false start, have now created and submitted a draft article which you might like to look at. Growpath (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

• Hello again, yes I've had a quick look at Draft:Edwin Leonard Gill but for some reason neither of my two university accounts will let me into the text of the obituary, it probably needs me to connect from inside the building, or it's a temporary blip. Both catalogues did show other material, but they are print only (and mostly in the Hancock library, as we would both expect). I'll see if I can do anything more with this later today. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Growpath! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ChrysGalley (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for email. Although you were clearly acting in good faith, you created a page in article space with no content except an invitation for someone else to expand it; that's not an article. Make your translation first, and then post it in draft space or article space as appropriate. You must acknowledge the source of the original text in your first edit summary. Bear in mind that standards are generally lower in other language wikipedias than here, and you may need additional sources. Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have done as you suggest and translated, corrected and expanded the French version. I thought that I'd better put my training wheels back on and submit Edwin Leonard Gill as a draft. Growpath (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Edwin Leonard Gill, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ChrysGalley (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I cleared this now. The usual requirement here is multiple reliable source in depth. Two obituaries are usually sufficient, and since one is in Nature I can't see a reason to hold the article back. There are some other sources around, and the Nature obituary could be mined for more content. It is a bit of a mystery as to why French Wikipedia got an article before English Wikipedia. ChrysGalley (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is a mystery. I've added citations to articles that he published whilst in the UK. The information about his sister is fascinating. I'll add him to the VDNFC article. Growpath (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm from a Quaker family so I know a little about that from verbal history - because of being a CO during WWI, his dad actually ran the Hancock while he did the ambulance service. As a result his sister moved with dad to Newcastle, and she studied in Newcastle. Then Leonard returned, she decided to go to Edinburgh with him, and then lived together for the rest of their time. It's not so unusual in Quaker circles (but a little!). To add to your list of next articles (along with Marion Gill), in addition to dad (and I think sister) running Hancock, they promoted Leonard's secretary into assistant curator role, see

https://www.nhsn.org.uk/gladys-muriel-scott-the-museums-first-female-curator/ ChrysGalley (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Interesting information about Quakers; I was aware the Quakers were anti-war and so I understand his volunteering. Also interesting extra info about the Gill family which I shall follow up.

Meanwhile, I have submitted a draft Draft:Peter Phillips Bedson - another member of VDNFC and colleague of both Lebour and Potter; it would be good if you could look at that as well. Growpath (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Peter Phillips Bedson, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MelbourneIdentity (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@MelbourneIdentity Thanks for your help and encouragement! Growpath (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User talk:Growpath and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

(This message was sent to User talk:Growpath and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bond graph, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bond graph, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User talk:Growpath and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

(This message was sent to User talk:Growpath and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

(This message was sent to User talk:Growpath and is being posted here due to a redirect.)