Talk:Kentchurch

Proposed merger

The article on Kentchurch Court should be merged into this article. There is very little more text at the article about the building than there is here, and come to that there is very little more to be said about Kentchurch other than the Court anyway! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Kentchurch Court is a very historically significant building that deserves its own article (though it needs expansion). Kentchurch is a place with people living there, and i'm sure there is much more to be said about the village than just the court!Bleaney (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is virtually nothing at Kentchurch apart from the Court and the church (and a pub by the river). It just seems like creating additional articles for the sake of it. Separate articles are really not needed in this case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All settlements are noteworthy of having their own article as per Wikipedia guidelines. Kentchurch Court deserves its own article because of its historical and acrchitectural significance. The whole beauty of Wikipedia is that we are not cramped for space! Bleaney (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And there was I, thinking you wanted to create a new article simply because you'd seen the place on a TV show. I must be getting cynical. Shame on me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I did, so what? Your argument seems to be that because Kentchurch is such a non-place that anything about Kentchurch Court should be used to bulk it out, thereby denying the building its own article... what logic! Bleaney (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I probably can't stop you, but it seems supremely pointless to me, when everything that needs to be said about the house can comfortably be accommodated within the article about the village. "Denying the building its own article" ...!!! - as though it is a matter of pride that it should have its own article. Bizarre. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not as bizarre as your logic, what would you do, put Buckingham Palace in the same article as London? Perhaps it would be better for you to stop being so reductionist, and actually constructively try to expand either the Kentchurch OR the Kentchurch Court article? Bleaney (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will. I wouldn't have been annoyed if you had actually contributed some content to the article yourself. Simply copying and pasting other people's text in order to create an unnecessary new article (and adding a bit of trivia about a TV show), really isn't good practice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't get annoyed anyway. Besides, if you check the article history I didn't create the article and didn't add the bit of trivia either!Bleaney (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - sorry about that! Anyway, let's each add content and see where it leads us. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created the Kentchurch Court article using the form of all the other houses featured on Country House Rescue. Some of these pages have flourished with lots of information being added, some less so. However, it needs to be given this opportunity for information to be added rather than just being subsumed into another article. As pointed out in the program the building is very historically significant, and as such I feel it warrants its own page. Hennahairgel (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that various different houses featured in a TV series is absolutely no justification for suggesting that they should all be treated alike. Essentially, it is a bit of popular culture trivia. Some may justify standalone articles, others may not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Ghmyrtle, your original argument was that Kentchurch the place was so non-descript that it NEEDED the Kentchurch Court info to legitimise it. Can I ask what are you arguing for here... that Kentchurch, or Kentchurch Court shouldn't have their own article, or both???Bleaney (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that the village is notable, by definition, but that the bulk of any article about the village is bound to be about the Court - with a little about the church, which was the Scudamore family church - so the info about the Court is best placed in the village article. I don't believe that every single listed building (by definition, "historically significant") should have its own article, and I certainly don't think that the fact that it's been featured in a couple of TV programmes conveys any additional notability, which seems to be your claim. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I once in this discussion claimed that that the fact that Kentchurch Court article has extra notability beacuse in featured in a couple of TV programmes?Bleaney (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I suggested you did. But the Kentchurch Court article was started by someone who said: "I created the Kentchurch Court article using the form of all the other houses featured on Country House Rescue." In my view there is no good reason for all houses featured in a TV programme to have similar articles. TV programmes are, essentially, trivia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect all Grade I listed buildings to be covered in Wikipeida - either in an article of their own or, only if there's very little information available, as part of the area article. Kentchurch Court rates about a page in Pevsner. With more recent information that should be more than enough for a reasonable article.Cavrdg (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]