Talk:Belton House

Untitled

The Machine Gun Corps was not trivial neither was its presence at Belton. It is the most significant thing to have happened there - building the place and the Edward VIII associations included. (RJP 14:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC))

I have dropped the link to Shooting range as the material there deals with pistols as a sport rather than with military training. (RJP 17:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

Notes and references

Circeus, I appreciate your concern for the referencing system, but please don't change it, at least not before the article is a bit nearer completion. The main author Giano, who is still working on the article, likes it as it is, and so do all the copy-editors who have commented, including ALoan, who is by way of being a footnote guru. I'm the one who introduced it, and my reasons for preferring single notes over combined notes is:

• it gives consecutive note numbers in the text. This is universal practice in the academic world, in fact I've never seen non-consecutive note numerals outside Wikipedia. Do we really want a home-rolled system of numerals appearing in any old order, which will look unfamiliar and weird to anybody who's ever written, or read, an academic paper?
• It leaves us free to write a separate alphabetical list of the sources used. The reader who is looking for a particular book will find it easily in such a list. By contrast s/he'll have a lot of trouble navigating the random-order list which combining references and footnotes into one list automatically produces.
• I have used my preferred system (actually not mine, but standard in my field) in a number of FA's, and never had anybody object to it. People aren't keen to try it for themselves--I suppose it sounds complicated when I explain it--but they do appear to like the result. On my latest FAC, S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 none of the twenty or so FAC "voters" had any problem with this notes+references system..
• It's so intuitive to use that there's no learning curve at all: the <ref></ref> tags are self-explanatory. That's far from the case with the combined-note code, in fact I don't understand it very well. :-/ Bishonen | talk 01:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

I would like to strongly support what Bishonen has said above. Paul August ☎ 02:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Amen! The protocol has the essential virtue: it is impossible to separate bibliographic information from article copy! --Wetman 05:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I don't entirely agree with Bish (and I would not claim to be a footnote "guru" - far from it!) - I think there are two things being confused here. First, where the footnotes refer to separate pages in a few references, I agree that it makes good sense to have a "notes" section, separate from the references. However, where the same page is referred to more than once, I disagree, in that I think it also makes sense to combine the notes (so footnote [1] say always refers to page x of a particular book). In a way, this is like the traditional op. cit. ibid. or loc. cit. thingies. Is this too confusing? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is for the man writing the page! let me finish it, and ref it then you can do what you like. I must say though with all due respect ALoan, I do think the abcde system is complicated, and also confusing what with all that 13623 business in no order. It also makes it harder for another edit to just pop in (as f one would dare) with a few facts. I just like to things very simple. Giano | talk 12:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I said there was consensus, I thought there was.[1] Three things in reply to ALoan:

1. I don't see a nostalgic harking back to the over-complicated old we-the-incrowd-only op.cit and ibid system as an actual advantage, now that academe has streamlined its own practices.
2. Cite.php gives non-consecutive note numbers in the text, which makes it a lot different from anything used elsewhere, whether traditional or current. I would rather see Wikipedia join the rest of the world in this respect. Being different is often a great thing, but actually not when it comes to these superfices of style. The more like the practice of everybody else they are, the less conspicuous they will be, and the less they'll distract from content.
3. There's no need to have a lot of low-value footnotes such as "Nicolson, 148"--that was an intermediate step. As I've been saying, for an example of the end product, please take a look at S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897. Having a separate references section allows for replacing many footnotes with parenthetic references in the text (which are IMO less distracting to the reader than footnotes that tease you to follow them to the bottom on the page, because who knows if it was about something interesting for once?). I've just now done that step, to have the system look its best before it's jettisoned.

I'm not in any case going to spend the (ahem) flower of my youth repeating these arguments, as I did with Simon Byrne. I'd rather actually copyedit the article, which fiddling with the referencing minutiae has been keeping me from, so, meh. P.S, though: I notice that the formulaization of the simple alphabetical "References" section I'd made now restricts additions to it to the minority that knows how to handle the formulas (say 1% of editors? Not me, anyway.) Is this really desirable? Bishonen | talk 13:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

To be honest, I don't find the non-consecutuve numbers confusing (I have seen scientific papers using this style - when you see [3], you know that it is the third reference being used again, whether it come immediately after [1] and [2], or between [19] and [20]), nor the abcde thing (you know that 3(e) links to the fifth use of the third reference), nor adding a new reference (just add in a new <ref> tag in the right place and <references> catches it and adds it to the notes/references section for you).

But Giano is right - this is just fiddling. Feel free to ignore what I say, and please don't let me stop you doing it however you want. There is no right answer. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen what is this edit summary supposed to mean " . Belton House‎; 22:36 . . Bishonen (Talk | contribs) (→References - Please add full references in the reference section, not as notes. Must it use this horrible code that makes it so difficult? I've asked that before, please see talk page.)" - What do you want me to do, it looks OK to me - I no understanding you Giano | talk 22:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not that I want you to do anything, Giano. The edit summary refers to my own P.S. above: "I notice that the formulaization of the simple alphabetical "References" section I'd made now restricts additions to it to the minority that knows how to handle the formulas (say 1% of editors? Not me, anyway.) Is this really desirable?" It's not about how it looks on the page — both versions look the same — it's about how easy/difficult it is to add to. What I would like, since you ask, is for whoever made the references section unmanageable for all casual editors (and unmanageable for the man who wrote the article, I see) to revert it back to the simple way it was. But I was just grumbling, I don't imagine that's going to happen, since it's a bona fide and recommended kind of formula. (Why we recommend a nerdfest over simplicity remains a mystery to me, but oh, well.) Bishonen | talk 09:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC).

The Nat. Trust's Belton House, and cites

Note 12 cites: "Chesshyre, J.F. (1984). Belton House. The National Trust." Is that the same work as the one listed in the references as "(2006) Belton House. The National Trust. ISBN 1843592185."? But perhaps an earlier addition? If so then we should add Chesshyre, J.F. as the author to the work listed in the references, and change the cites from "Belton House" to "Chesshyre". Also does the 1984 edition need to be cited in note 12, or can we use the 2006 edition? Lastly what is the page number for note 12? Paul August ☎ 15:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, that would be helpful, "Chesshyre"'s obviously a better cite. Only Giano knows the answers to any of your questions, I guess. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

RJP added the 1984 cite and ref, I will leave a note on RJP's talk page asking for a comment. Paul August ☎ 16:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The J.F.Chesshyre booklet was one which the National Trust produced when it first took over the house. The last paragraph of its introduction (p.5) says "A full guidebook will be published in 1985; this guidebook has been produced for the 1984 season. The National Trust is particularly indebted to Mrs Rosmary Joekes and Mr Anthony du Boulay for help in its preparation. J.F.Chesshyre May 1984" This is where the name comes from as there is no other statement of the authorship except that it was "designed by James Shurmer". I guess this means that he did the layout, chose the type faces and so on.

The information relevant to note 12 comes on the first page of the same introduction, p.4 - "In 1984, Lord Brownlow gave the house, together with the garden, a great quantity of garden sculpture and some of the contents of the house to the Trust, while the park and a substantial proportion of the contents were purchased with a grant from the National Heritage Memorial Fund." The introduction does not carry that title but "Belton House", though introduction is what it is and what it is called in the Contents list. (RJP 17:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

Earl of Guilford

On the face of it, this is a mis-spelling of Guildford. Do we know that the earl spelled his name this way? See Talk:Earl of Guilford. (RJP 09:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

Twentieth century

This section now has the consequences of the First World War before the events of the war. (RJP 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Once the page is finished it wil be fine........trust me! Giano | talk 17:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Couldn't the two trivia notes be worked into the most recent history section? Circeus 22:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've now done this, the danger, now though, is that everyone who has ever seen the house in an obscure TV commercial adds it to that section then this "trivia" media begins to outweigh relevant more important information. I suppose it can always be changed if that happens. Giano | talk 06:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We have a tiny version of the "historic house" road sign - - perhaps we could inline it? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not, can you make it bigger? Giano | talk 09:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't immediately find a larger version - but I meant how about changing the sentence to read "the claim has even been made that Belton's principal facade was the inspiration for the modern British motorway signs () which give directions to stately home" - that is, adding the image in the middle of the text. -- ~~

Good idea, I've just put it in. I looked for an image when I was writing it, but couldn't find one, I'm sure though I have seen another similar sign even more like Belton though. I'll have a closer look, I'm sure there is one on the Woburn Abbey turn off on the M1, I'll slow down next time I'm there and look, and have a little G hang out the window with a camera Giano | talk 10:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Portrait

I replaced the .gif of Leighton's portrait of Lady Belton with this better-quality .jpg Image:Leighton Brownlow.jpg. - PKM 05:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - great. Giano | talk 06:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And it's a lovely shot, which captures the mood. I've visited and it has this feeling.Geeene (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Carolean architecture

Surely Carolean architecture isn't the only vernacular style England has produced since the Tudors? What about Arts and Crafts style?--Stonemad GB 16:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Note the phrasing: the only truly vernacular style of architecture that England had produced since the time of the Tudors. More were to follow. [talk to the] HAM 18:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. However - what about Jacobean style? Was this really less vernacular than Carolean? And even if one discounts Jacobean, is this really a notable claim? After all, the Tudor period only ended in 1603, and sixty years is not very long in terms of architectural history.--Stonemad GB 19:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Jacobean was based on Italian Renaissance. Giano | talk 19:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It was (albeit in a very bastardised and idiosyncratic form), but then Carolean architecture was based on Dutch and French influences. Is it accurate to describe either as vernacular?--Stonemad GB 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dunno take it up with Nicolson, Nigel (1965). Great Houses of Britain. Hamlyn Publishing Group. ISBN 0-600-01651-X. Page 148. He said it! Seriously though I think Carolean is subtly different from the French and Dutch architecture of that time and did evolve in Britain. Whereas the Renaissance influences were clearly imported quickly rather than evolved here so were in reality a pastiche, all that ballustrading for example, the loggias massquerading as porches etc. I see where you are coming from but the problem is here we are not allowed own re-search, and I did not disagree with the statement enough to omit it. Giano | talk 20:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing verb

What does this mean? "The two cousins in 1676; three years later, the couple inherited ...". Is 1676 when they moved in? Mdotley 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That occured earlier today when some vandalism eas removed from that particulat spot. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll alter it. Giano | talk 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Belton was designed" sentence

Thanks for the attention to this sentence. Before I changed it, it was: "Belton was designed in the restrained almost Palladian-inspired architecture of the time immediately before the full emergence in England of the ornate Baroque."; I changed it to "Belton was designed in the restrained, almost Palladian-inspired architecture of its time."; it was later changed to "Belton was designed in the restrained, almost Palladian-inspired architecture, popular immediately before the emergence in England of the ornate Baroque". When I read this sentence originally, I found it very hard to understand; the wording seemed quite unclear. I thought quite hard about how to best improve it. I wasn't entirely satisfied by what I changed it to, but I thought it was at least an improvement. I was willing to remove the "immediately before the emergence in England of the ornate Baroque" phrase because it seemed to be mentioned above, and I couldn't find a way to gramatically incorporate it into the sentence. Using "popular" is good, but then the first clause: "Belton was designed in the restrained, almost Palladian-inspired architecture" becomes gramatically incomplete. The "in the restrained" could be changed to "in a restrained", but that might have other problems. I've made that change, feel free to further edit. And great thanks to the writer(s) of this article it's an excellent piece of work. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You have completely lost me, so long as we have a mention of the Baroque that was succeeding the Palladian is fine, that is important because it helps to bang home why Belton was not up to date when it was built, in fact it was considered old fashioned. Giano | talk 20:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I sometimes get a bit too picky. I think the current wording is now fine. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Country Life archive

I tried to find an online index to Country Life; and I found that the magazine sells their indexes for 80 pounds for all of them, together. link. I haven't found another source, yet. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Pics

What beautiful pics! Two things:

• I repositioned some to the west, because on a wider screen, when there is several pics above one that is in a fixed position, they cause a break in the text, which can effectively orphan the subheading from the text it pertains to. I hope the current arrangement is deemed suitable. (I don't know how you get away with sizing things at 300px, when my images are ruthlessly tracked down and reduced to thumbnails and uprights...) But if you are going to have a lengthy caption, then you need a large pic to support it!
• As soon as I saved, the pics broke themselves into revolting little pixels. I hope that this is a problem of my computer, which is lumbering along at four miles an hour, not something permanent that I have done to the images!

Amandajm (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed the pieces! I don't like the new arrangement either. setting image sizes is perfectly acceptable, especially in architectural pages. Giano (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely about the setting sizes of images for art an architecture pages. Readers need to see what the writer is describing without having to enlarge anything or go to another screen. still can't solve the other problem!Amandajm (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a concren that my newer picture for the archway had a couple of visitors in it and an older picture was put back in. I have removed them and reinserted my picture which has a higher definition and true horizontals. Generally I would not want to remove people as that's not honest about what is there. However in this instance they were at the focal centre of the picture and I could see it might be distracting. --Wehha (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it better without the people and the former image is less cluttered. so I have reverted you. Giacomo Returned 20:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. The updated picture does not have any people in it. Do you refresh your browser? My other comments about level of definition and correct horizontals still hold I think. --Wehha (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point of replacing perfectly good pictures with near identical pictures - the only differece is that yours have clouds in the sky - anyway - whatever - have what pictures you like, I don't see any great difference. I don't understand all this pixelating business. Giacomo Returned 19:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Messing With it

I think someone has been messing with the page. Could someone please put it back to DrKiernan version 06:54, 24 August 2009. Thank You Pete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.9.58 (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The only change is the removal of an external link which we do not intend to restore. Keith D (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As the primary editor of this page, I am not quite folowing? what was wrong with the link to an aerial photo? what am I missing here - and I do miss quite a lot. Someone elighten me..please  Giano  21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

May be a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seelicolnshire and the edits of the IPs in question will enlighten you. Keith D (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oh well never mind. Pity, it still seemed like a very nice picture. I wonder if he took it himself.  Giano  08:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Giano the link was not just to aerial photos, he does panoramic images, have a look at his youtube site to see how to view them. I think it's a loss for the page too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.22.178 (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Go away before you get us all banned :-(  Giano  10:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Seasick

Is how I feel looking at some of the photos (which are great). Several lean towards the left, with horizontal lines dipping down to the left side of the photos and verticals sloping leftwards too. Please can someone clever edit the photos to restore horizontal horizons etc? it makes me feel queasy looking at them!! Photos I mean are [File:Belton House North Front Giano less crane.jpg], [File:Belton West Giano.jpg] and [File:Belton Garden.jpg]. Theyre fantastic photos, don't get me wrong, just make me feel a little squiffy.86.159.193.163 (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have one leg shorter than the other, and it is very cruel of you to draw attention to it. However, funnily enough, I did once edit them to be level, and then someone re-editied tham as apparently that is against the rules or something - I think it was these pictures maybe another house I did - I forget, but the history is now lost in various uploads to commons by others, so who who knows. I will send for Durova, who understands these things better than I.  Giano  10:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Belton House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726163500/http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/Houses_hgpm.asp?ID=195 to http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/Houses_hgpm.asp?ID=195
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050320193135/http://homepage.ntlworld.com:80/peter.fairweather/docs/belton.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/peter.fairweather/docs/belton.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Belton House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071207215406/http://afsf.lackland.af.mil/DefChal/2002/dc_2002_fact_rafr.htm to http://afsf.lackland.af.mil/DefChal/2002/dc_2002_fact_rafr.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028222225/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/belton-house/hire-this-venue/ to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/belton-house/hire-this-venue/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://homepage.ntlworld.com/peter.fairweather/docs/belton.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belton House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724095841/http://www.architecture.com/WhatsOn/Exhibitions/AtTheVictoriaAndAlbertMuseum/Room128a/2006/SAVE/SAVEBritainsHeritage.aspx to http://www.architecture.com/WhatsOn/Exhibitions/AtTheVictoriaAndAlbertMuseum/Room128a/2006/SAVE/SAVEBritainsHeritage.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Update article / Featured article review

I think the article needs updating. It looks like it hasn't changed much at all in the last 10 years and in particular the events and changes by the national trust aren't mentioned sufficiently. There are also sections which aren't referenced that well. Szzuk (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Belton House hasn’t changed much over the last 300 years. Presumably, you think that is good reason to demolish it or rebuild it. Go and find some truly dreadful page and improve it. Giano (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I want to improve the page, and that isn't very helpful, if it doesn't meet the criteria for FA any longer that wouldn't be my decision or fault. For what it is worth I'm a member of the National Trust and know what good work they do. Szzuk (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You being one of several million members of the National Trust is worth very little. This is an article about a building of considerable importance; it is not an advert for the NT, its events or happenings. Neither is it an opportunity for its members to display their limited knowledge or misguided loyalties. What exactly is it that you feel is missing from the page? Giano (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009

Here are my comments as a part of the effort to review old FAs that have not been reviewed in a decade or more:

• There has been some coverage of the library in the academic literature over the past decade [2] [3]
• WP:LEADCITE issues
• Severe need for additional citations or trimming of uncited material
• MOS:BOLD issues
• Sourcing problems
  • Anon. The National Trust Belton House 1984
  • Moondial at IMDb.
  • "ALVA - Association of Leading Visitor Attractions". www.alva.org.uk. Retrieved 27 October 2020.
  • Christie's catalogue
  • Belton Park Golf Club
  • "History of the Royal Air Force Regiment"
  • John Harris, English Decorative Ironwork (1960)
  • Henry Williamson's Chronicle of Ancient Sunlight
• Mixture of using a date and not in the SfNs
• Footnote 2 provides no page numbers
• Prices are not as of a date

-- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Thanks for the comments above. I'm not sure if many of these have been addressed yet. Would you consider the above to cause the the article to be too far from the FA criteria that it would require an FAR? If so, can you indicate below that you are noticing this, and add it to WP:FARGIVEN? Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Links to the slave trade

National Trust pilot

Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. The second stage of the project, after an assessment period, is to try to enahnce the pages for some of the Top-10-most-visited properties, of which Belton is one. I see there's been a recent review of recent research and I wondered whether those invested in this page would mind me making some edits based on those suggestions? I hope to start this work shortly, but please do let me know if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore: You may be interested in recent events pertaining to this article, namely the opening of a Featured Article Review to address and resolve issues with the article. As part of that process I myself am about to undertake some repairs to the article. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much @Vami IV - the pilot project I've been working on is almost over, so I won't have capacity to add to this article this month. Good luck with your work on it! Lajmmoore (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

FAR

FAR issues

• There has been some coverage of the library in the academic literature over the past decade [4] [5] - personally, I think the small expansion is sufficient for a summary style article on the house. These articles, although interesting, are perhaps a bit too detailed. But others may disagree. KJP1 (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
• WP:LEADCITE issues - all now removed
• Severe need for additional citations or trimming of uncited material - Not striking yet, but 31 cites added and uncited text removed. KJP1 (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC) / Number of cites now doubled. I think we are close to addressing this. KJP1 (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC) / Now at 141 cites from 21 RS and online. KJP1 (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• MOS:BOLD issues - now sorted
• Sourcing problems
  • Anon. The National Trust Belton House 1984 - replaced
  • Moondial at IMDb.
  • "ALVA - Association of Leading Visitor Attractions". www.alva.org.uk. Retrieved 27 October 2020. - updated with 2021 stats. Nothing wrong as a source per se.
  • Christie's catalogue - replaced
  • Belton Park Golf Club - sorted
  • "History of the Royal Air Force Regiment" - replaced
  • John Harris, English Decorative Ironwork (1960) - replaced
  • Henry Williamson's Chronicle of Ancient Sunlight
• Mixture of using a date and not in the SfNs - sorted
• Footnote 2 provides no page numbers - sorted
• Prices are not as of a date - think this is done.
• Links to the slave trade - now added
• Image layout needs work - ok now, I think. KJP1 (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

FAR work

Vami_IV - As per SG's comment on the FAR page, it's probably best to keep the main discussion here. So, what does Pevsner say? A lot! It's a three-page entry, four if you include the floorplans, which is encyclopaedic-length for Pevsner. I can either scavenge it myself, or email you a scan. Let me know. There's also a good entry in Jenkins' Thousand Best, and I see that Colvin spends time discussing Winde as architect. I'll lob all of these into the Sources. KJP1 (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Referencing style - We've a mix of sfn and not, are you okay with sfn throughout?
• Footnotes - We've also got (Foot)Notes, titbits of additional info., mixed in with References, i.e. Cites. Are you okay for them to be split out?

My aim is to use SFNs throughout; that which is presently not SFN has just not been replaced yet. As the re-drafting process continues, I'll see if the footnotes survive; if they do, I'll use EFN and separate them from the citations.

I have fortunately been able to peel Pevsner's remarks on the house from another copy of Lincolnshire on Google Books, so no need for a scan of that, but whatever you have and can scan and then send to me, that much less time spent looking. It appears (once again) that this article will be longer on sources for and commentary about the architecture of the house than on its history; at the moment the only work I have that touches on its origins is a National Trust guide from 1992 (on the article presently incorrectly described as "Tinniswood 1999 [1992]"). –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Pevsner - I see you've got the 1989 second edition Penguin. Mine's the 2002 Yale. We'll need to stick to one, although I don't know how much they differ. Was the 1989 updated by Nicholas Antram? If not, I'd suggest we use the more up-to-date one. KJP1 (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it was, so probably ok to go with the one you've access to. Can you just check my page numbers. If the 1989 was smaller, old-style, they'll likely differ from the 2002 Yale. KJP1 (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Gardens and park - there’s a muddle here, where the section blends a discussion of the grounds with some Later history. Needs splitting.

Progress report, 25 January 2023

A day (my time) after the beginning of work on this article, I have replaced most of the problem references with better ones and started a redraft aiming to preserve Giano's prose or mimic it to the best of my ability. I have thus far worked from one source - a guidebook from The National Trust published in 1992 - but anticipate introducing more (Pevsner, principally) as the house starts to get built. After that, I anticipate coverage of the house's history having to again rely on the guidebook until the 1990s.

The next goal will be the completion of #Early history, which will have one picture instead of its present two. I anticipate that that picture will be the portrait of Alice Brownlow, as she lacks an article and the caption on the image of Clarendon House will be worked into the body prose somewhere—probably #Architecture. Many images will unfortunately have to be cut. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. The first paragraph of the Ethos section and some of the later content in that section looks tangential/off topic as it doesn't relate directly to, or discuss, the subject. It could possibly be reworked and kept, or deleted, maybe its ok too. Its worth thinking about anyway. Desertarun (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  I am thinking of condensing the design talk quite a bit and possibly combining with the sections discussing the interiors; my personal experience with architecture articles is that that is the way. Architecture... with the architecture. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 05:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Progress report, 31 January 2023

Six days (my time) after beginning work to renovate this article (rather fitting considering the subject matter), basically all the issues raised at and before the FAR have been resolved. The rewrite is still in progress and will involve the condensing of a lot of prose, and some expansions. #History is mostly done, but there still remain some holes to plug, especially in the 20th-century (there's a bit of history in #Interiors that I completely overlooked need to remove to #History). I anticipate that #Architecture will change dramatically. My first goal is to eliminate the other guide books from the bibliography and replace them with Tinniswood 1992. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Progress report, 1 February 2023

The rewrite is more or less complete. The only section that hasn't seen rewriting, rearranging, and reordering wholesale now is #Interiors. It probably needs it, but I am burnt out. In the course of rewriting this article I have noticed a lot of failed verifications and removed or substantiated text as available sources allowed. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Source requests

@KJP1: Could you send me pictures or a scan of Jackson-Stops 1990, pp. 56–58? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, not got that one. KJP1 (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

EBay, however… KJP1 (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll ask on RX, then. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have access to Musson 2005? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I do, what do you need? KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you send me images or a scan of every page relevant to Belton House? Searching on Google Books shows pages 124, 130, and 243, but I'm sure there are more. I'm currently working on the architecture section(s). –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Richmond Barthé

• [6]
• Possibility

KJP1 (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Infobox...

The "please do not add an infobox" sign has been here since 2008. Other reworks by the original writer of most of this page (currently dormant ...?) have resulted in the infobox being removed by him, and then added by someone else. Do users think this would be useful to have some concise information at the top? If so, how far? EPEAviator (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Especially as this is an FA, I would respect the views of the original main editor. I don't think infoboxes add much to country house articles myself, though a map can be useful. Most are far too long. Especially we don't want a whole screenful of bureacratic information on the heritage listings, as you have been adding to similar articles. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the views of the main editor should be respected. Vami and I, when doing rework for FAR, were able to do so. All of the listing information is already contained in the section, Listing designations. KJP1 (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I saw that. I had the passing thought the information may be better presented in a table (or several by location like the paragraphs), but it is out of keeping with the rest of the article. Not going to add an info box here if the case is to leave it even when main editor is dormant. EPEAviator (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Having looked at the additions of infoboxes listed in the link provided by Johnbod, I do not believe that an infobox will be useful here. Indeed, it's questionable whether they should be added anywhere. Infoboxes should be simple and succinct, and contain only the most relevant information per the guideline. DrKay (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ve already admitted my view that some listings are superfluous and if you see I have (against my beliefs of what should ever be mentioned in the articles… usually because I disagree with the listing grade itself; stables of large houses usually, sometimes C18 walls/railings that then have no good NBR description) become more detailed as time has gone on due to contents of the article being summarised (explained on Doddington, but basically as I saw more being mentioned in the articles than just the house).

I think some view the listings as just bureaucracy, whereas others (and me) view them as oftentimes a good way to have a summary of the building/park if you just click on the NBR#. If you think somewhat as I do (previous sentence), then I definitely think (and have done so ab initio, copying what was previously the case on articles I saw) it is sensible for a building to have its main listing, park, and then any architecturally significant, i.e. people would be on the page for it, buildings (stables would be the main one) in the infobox.

I’ve read (and now reread) the guidelines and I’ve discussed how, for some buildings which people may be on the article for and which are hard to integrate ‘’with information’’ into the article but may be notable, I think this could be considered like the reams of information on the Chemistry pages. Plus I would & have argued that the categorisation of a building as Grade I/Grade II*/a park/garden being listed at all is a pretty good indication and summary of its importance historically/architecturally, regardless of NBR utility.

On underdeveloped articles: (I’m not saying you’re doing this but I’m closing the door of the possibility:) I’m aware it should only be a summary of the article content, but a short article that should be more detailed isn’t an excuse for the summary for the detailed article it should be to be there. The guideline in that case is clearly being read the wrong way as it is to prevent the articles themselves being insufficient due to infobox presence. (This is badly worded but you get the gist). In due course I do plan to go back through articles and in my edit history you can see that occurring too, but it takes much more time and so I’d rather ensure an area isn’t lacking where it should be for the calibre of building on the largest number, than neither to very few text edits on a smaller number. I’m sure people understand and respect the logic there?

A pretty key side note… Nikimania seems to be a person involved with actual infoboxes and perhaps we should follow their (her?) Montacute lead and use collapsible boxes. I’d previously discussed my questions of usability for some readers but it would allow for the information to be there & not clutter readers who don’t every use it it. I suppose those who do would, in time, learn to find them there. It’d be better than searching the whole article for a listing statement. I’m more than happy with that & just adding a collapsible bit to my template.

To clarify as relevant for this specific page: No infobox here due to previous editor, this I get. EPEAviator (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Nikkima r ia EPEAviator (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)