Talk:Denham, Buckinghamshire

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire articles

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dating of Southlands Manor

Further to recent changes to this article, Historic England is indeed generally a reliable source. However, it is not always exhaustive or entirely accurate. Its description of Southlands Manor was most recently revised in 1985. The 28-page report on the building by Dr Andy Muir (which I have read in full) is detailed in explaining its methodology, reasoning and conclusions. It confirms that it was prepared along the lines advocated in English Heritage’s publication “Dendrochronology: guidelines on producing and interpreting dendrochronological dates” (J. Hillam, 1998). It is clearly also a reliable source. Therefore, it would not assist readers simply to state without qualification that the property was built in the 16th century. The hyperlink was included to enable those who wish to consult the full report. I am therefore minded to reinstate my original text but would not object to leaving out the hyperlink if, on reflection, others still think it is “spammy”. I shall be pleased to discuss if anyone wishes.Brixtonhill (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but the dendrochronology report is only one independent and very recent study, and it may not be sufficient to usurp the Historic England info at this stage. I should like to ask at the reliable sources noticeboard for further opinions. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not suggest that the 2012 study should usurp Historic England's description but just that both assessments should be mentioned. Three years is not an unreasonably short time to wait before mentioning a study on Wikipedia (many are cited elsewhere within a matter of days after their appearance). The subject is the dating of a single property, so further studies about it are unlikely to be published in the foreseeable future. Would you please draw attention to the points I have made when you consult on the reliable sources noticeboard? Will I automatically be notified of progress there or do I need to do something to access that information?Brixtonhill (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard here. I have drawn attention to this discussion, though you can also make your points there. It is possible that the thread won't draw much response, in which case I might also try at the plants Wikiproject. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I visited the reliable sources noticeboard a few days ago there had been one other response, which agreed that the source I quoted is acceptable. However, on looking again today, I cannot find the Tree-Ring Services section there at all. Do you want to take this matter further or do you accept that Tree-Ring Services is a quotable source?Brixtonhill (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that it may be considered a reliable source. Threads on the reliable sources noticeboard are archived rather speedily, which is why you couldn't find the Tree-Ring Services section the second time, but I had been watching the page anyway and no further posts were made. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your swift reply. I shall make the change.86.26.230.59 (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin-Baker and Southlands Manor

I don't know whether this is correct, but I used to go to school near Southlands Manor, and was told at that time (pre-1965) that Martin-Baker owned and lived at SM. If it is correct or that he lived anywhere local, you may want to mention this as well as list him in the "notable residents" section. If you google the two terms, there are several sites which list both terms together such as (e.g.) http://www.google.com/patents/US2971728 which shows that James Martin of Southlands Manor patented a modification to an ejector seat.46.7.85.68 (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Denham, Buckinghamshire. 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/20100208230244/http://www.ihgplc.com/index.asp?pageid=11 to http://www.ihgplc.com/index.asp?pageid=11

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) 07:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Denham, Buckinghamshire. 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:

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) 17:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]