Talk:National Trust/Archive 1

Page title

The page title is clunky, but I couldn't think of anything better - that at least is its real title. You can't just call it THE National Trust because there are so many National Trusts worldwide and as soon as you start trying to specify WHERE it's the NT for you get very wordy because it's not just the UK, not just England, etc. Nevilley

Property links

I'm not sure about Renata's change of adding individual NT property links in. It seems to go from a general explanation of "what the NT is" suddenly to a rather fine focus on two properties. And if we add every NT property to the page, it will become rather long.

Here is a proposed solution - I've moved Renata's items onto a separate page which is referenced from this page. I've also pointed out that "What links to here" should find Wikipedia entries with NT links. I hope this helps. Nevilley

I can't see why the properties have to be moved. What harm can it do to have a few links on the page? I would prefer it if you put them back. User:Renata

My worry is that if everyone adds a property or two it will end up with a long catalogue of NT properties, something I thought these pages were not supposed to do. So they won't, eventually, be "a few links" - it will be potentially every property that the NT has. I didn't think this was a great idea, especially given that "what links here" should find correctly linked properties anyway - for example your two Norfolk properties, if they had pages already. I'm not sure, to be honest, that it needs such a list anyway, since it in effect creates another "duty", that of adding an NT property to this list when its page is created.

On a very minor point, I don't think it is helpful that this list, if on the main page, would, in the format you used, push the link to the NT's very good site to below these links - would people find it so easily there or would it be better with the main body of the entry??

Having said all that, I am COMPLETELY unsure that I'm really right and I do not feel very strongly about it. If you are, and do, you could maybe consider doing this:

• Restore the page to how it was
• Delete my newly-created page, which ^ that makes redundant
• Consider providing some structure for your list (eg counties????) (ooops, can of worms alert!!)
• Consider shifting the external link up the page to where it is more visible.

How's that? :)

Nevilley

Opening

Oh dear, it's now more complex - Tarquin has rewritten the opener and I've rerewritten it, so a straight restore will not now be right. And on the list page, the counties ALREADY look like the can of worms!!! Plus Renata, you've added to it but I thought you didn't want it there at all? Oh and the bulleted hierarchy there is wrong (Northumberland is at the same level as England, heheh!) and I don't know how to fix that.

What's the answer?

)

You want stuff restoring from an older version? No problem! Done! BTW, Nevilley, sorry about writing "Britain". I hadn't realised it excluded Scotland, and rushed in to simplify without reading first ... doh! -- Tarquin

Thanks but the current effort was meant to *not* have the places listed, though we are still trying to figure out the right approach for this. I've put it back to what i *think* is correct for the time being, i.e. no specific building/place links. But I think I should maybe now leave it alone to marinade for a while and see what happens! Nevilley Oh and thanks for the note re Scotland etc. :)

Ah. I'm confused, but I think I get it... How many NT places are there? Would a list be too long? Take a look at the World Heritage Site article. Anyway, I'll restore at least the header that has links to the coutries :-) -- Tarquin 21:47 Oct 6, 2002 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. The entry is back to where I think or thought it should be. I see what you mean about the WH site business. My initial worry with this entry was that it was wrong to list any properties, because we would end up listing them all - and yes, there are a lot! However, I think I may well have been wrong, and may have been being overprotective towards the entry, so I think I might just shut up for a bit (if I can) and see what happens! Thanks, Nevilley

"The"

"The" is part of the name - Not a formal proposal, but I suggest moving to The National Trust (England, Wales & Northern Ireland) Jooler 00:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Octavia Hill

Should Octavia Hill's birth place be included here? There is a link to her page and the information is readily available there. (RJP 18:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC))

No it should not. As you state, the information is relevant to her own article. In fact, I have removed this information. Grstain 15:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Early days

Seems to be something wrong here: "In the early days the Trust was concerned primarily with Richard Stearman open spaces and a variety of Sylvan Ebanks Blakes; its first property was Kevin Foley and its first nature reserve was David Jones. Its first archaeological monument was Chris Iwelumo."

And here. A masked gang? "The Trust has been the beneficiary of numerous donations of both property and money. However, probably the most bizarre were those given by mysterious masked group known as Ferguson's Gang between about 1932 and 1940." 87.61.170.53 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - the various acts of vandalism and subsequent reversions have become muddled. My own reversion went wrong the first time which I suppose is a measure of how tricky it is to get rid of the junk whilst being careful to preserve genuine edits. That and my own fallibility! ;) Anyway, should be fixed for now. – Kieran T ^(talk) 20:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles' miscellanea

Check The Beatles' miscellanea to see if there is anything in it you can use. A lot of 'miscellanea' needs to be trimmed (as linked articles are improved) so please feel free to use anything before certain sections get zapped into the ether... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty page renamed

I see that the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty article has been renamed The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty. I thought that Wikipedia naming conventions stated that the article should not be used in article names. Am I correct? If so, how can we go about moving this article back to National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty? — Grstain | Talk 19:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved it back. - Grammarian 12:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox ?

Is there a National Trust infobox, please?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Made one !! - at Template:Infobox UK property. Simple, but enough for me :-) --Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's only the first step, now you will find someone will propose it as a template for deletion - normally arguing it duplicates an existing function. 8^) I tried it no Sutton House, it occurs to me that parking requires a 'paid, on street' option; and it might be useful to include a 'nearest tube/rail' option.

NT/EH/RHS could be programmed to expand to the full linking if only the initial is entered. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep!!OK, I'm open to suggestions for easy improvements, but I did ask first :-) I think the bells and whistles brigade will have to do the more advanced alterations though. I'm just a run of the mill DIY type trying to keep things simple.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can see your priorities ... 2 Willow Road doesn't even have a loo ... I might have a go at automating the process when I have more time. Kbthompson (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not the loo !? :-)--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Use "| flush = ?" Kbthompson (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave it my best shot, at the moment, it's printing the default (ie input) value for the relevant field, so I'll leave it in the current version while I sleep on it. Any other ideas welcome! Could introduce multiple fields (e.g NT = yes, EH = yes), because I can think of some examples that are in multiple management. Kbthompson (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also some in private hands eg Castle Howard also fits Harlow Carr Gardens.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work !! Very versatile. Thanks.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention I got it to work by cheating with an external routine - but I needed it twice anyway. I've amended Category:National Trust properties in London, and it seems to do the business. Made a start on Category:English Heritage sites in London. As you probably noticed, I added SNT, CADW, HMG and various others. Hope that meets the criteria of a general template - I did notice GoogleMaps seems to have disappeared from coord - but that seems to be a general problem and not one related to this template. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere I ran into some little icons for UK attraction - including NT, EH, etc. I could add those to the template, if I could find them again - any ideas? Kbthompson (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean these Template:EngPlacesKey? I had them saved up. I thought they might "come in useful" one day.Along with Thanks--Harkey Lodger (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

---

the section title 'What the National Trust owns' is too long. I suggest 'National Trust Sites' instead? I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floorhugger (talk • contribs) 21:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I'm surprised there isn't a section about criticism of the Trust, eg development at Cliveden and Erddig; stag hunting in the past; purchase of Tyntesfield etc etc. The NT isn't as popular as it would have one believe. 86.135.215.70 (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to start work on one - there is plenty of material in the media, etc. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I was told that the trust used to own accommodation not open to the public but available to prominent personalities on a grace and favour basis. ( I am not referring to special arrangements for former owners made at the time of acquisition by the Trust). Was there ever any truth in this rumour?----Clive Sweeting29October2015

Move proposal >> National Trust

I propose we move this article to National Trust and change the page currently there to National Trust (disambiguation). The reasons for this are (1) this page has a title that in no way reflects its commoname, (2) this NT was the first and is the best-known, (3) the other NTs are called by other names - only this one has the commonname short title "National Trust". Welcome comments - if none, I will proceed with the Move tagging. See also Talk:National_Trust#Propose_move_to_disambig_page. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - sounds a good idea to me! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 09:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - common sense move to common name --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Please ignore my previous comment, I just looked at the National Trust page and realised the significance of what is being proposed. National Trust, as you can see from the disambiguation page is a phrase used for a plethora of organisations, any of which could make the same claim to have "National Trust" as their article name. Given that the name National Trust is so generic there is no way that it can be claimed by one country's organisation, even if it was the first to use it. I'm all for shortening the name of this article, just not to National Trust. I also think that the existing page should be made more clearly into a disambiguation page, --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I checked that - the names are all longer and more complicated than "National Trust" (see list of the others below) - this one is just "National Trust". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

List of other NT-related organisations.

An Taisce, the National Trust for Ireland, established in 1948.

Barbados National Trust, founded in 1960.

Bermuda National Trust, established in 1970.

Japan National Trust

Manx National Trust

National Trust of Australia

National Trust for the Cayman Islands

National Trust of Fiji

National Trust of Guernsey

National Trust for Historic Preservation, founded in 1949 by congressional charter — part of the National Trust Community :Investment Corporation in the United States

National Trust for Jersey

National Trust for Scotland, established in 1931.

Queen Elizabeth II National Trust — New Zealand (open spaces)

Saint Helena National Trust

• Strong oppose See the comments at the top, from when the page was created. You cannot call it just "National Trust" because there are many other organizations which could claim the same usage when they're talking locally - probably all of them! To say that this one should have special status and usurp the "National Trust" name may smack of regionalism to some. When the page was created alternatives were, believe me, discussed, but no reasonable one was found, and as the common England-and-Wales England-and-Wales-and-Northern-Ireland version, "National Trust", is unusable it may well be that the current name - which is, after all, what it is called, is still the best solution. Your only other alternative might be to call it some made-up name like "National Trust (England and Wales) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland)" which at least would be accurate, though it suffers from the problems that no-one says it either, and that it's not a real name. The lengthy one does have the large advantage that it is self-disambiguating and really is, like it or not, the actual name of the thing. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What is your evidence that they "call themselves" that and therefore it would be regionalism? From a preliminary trawl of those organisation's websites, they don't call themselves "the national trust". This one does. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any, but then you don't know for sure what common usage is in all these other countries. It doesn't matter that much what they have on the website, but maybe you could persuade them to change their official name to "National Trust". In the meantime, I suggest you go to a few say Scottish talk pages, and the Scottish NT talk page of course, and see what they think of your idea. It is obviously a regionalism, and I am truly amazed, with all due respect and the best will in the world, that you can't see it. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald is possibly one of the most trusted news sources in Australia. Search their website for National Trust (here) and you get "National Trust" on every single hit, not "National Trust of Australia". And although there is a national trust in each state, the Canberra Times and Herald Sun also use the words "National Trust" liberally, not always (or rarely in fact) using the full official name. Is that enough evidence to kill this proposal stone dead? It should be. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really. They aren't using the correct name - there are lots and lots of places (including, some of you insist, allegedly here!) where the correct name is used in WP over the colloqial name. Go to the Australian site [1] and you see National Trusts of Australia (another reason why Australia is a really bad example to pick - it isn't even trust, it's trusts with an S - the WP article is wrongly named! ), go to the English site and you see National Trust. [2] Go to the Scottish site and you see National Trust for Scotland. [3] I am simply suggesting that we call them by the names the organisations themselves use. The reaction against this appears to not be based on some pretty obvious evidence (which is why I asked for some). Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Your correct name argument is incorrect. You say National Trust is the correct name but as this article shows the correct name is actually National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty, more commonly shortened to National Trust, just as in Australia the various National Trust organisations have longer formal names but they too are more commonly shortened to National Trust. WP:COMMON applies not just to the name that the organisation calls itself, but the names that others use. The examples from the Australian press are evidence that the name National Trust is in common use outside England and Wales. You can even find articles in the Scotsman and Daily Record that show the National Trust for Scotland being referred to as the National Trust, but that is not so common as it is in Australia. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 19:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the argument, but in the case of Scotland it doesn't help us - media and individuals in Scotland frequently use phrases that are understood to apply to Britain as a whole when the main organisation is in fact S of the Border - many who say "National Trust" in Scotland will be in fact confused that the Scottish Trust is a seperate body, eg, they think of it as one national insitution - and it very nearly is, since the two are closely affiliated, NT helps Scottish NT in various ways, etc. The rules of commonname are not rigid - one seeks out the best formula that most closely matches the observed reality. The reality is that ALL of the other bodies are not called "National Trust" - the English/Welsh/NI one commonly is. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The English one is not called National Trust but that name is frequently used. The Australian bodies are not called National Trust but that name is frequently used. "Simples" as the annoying TV puppet would say. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 21:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not quite right actually. The English one is called the National Trust by the National Trust most of the time! It is called that on its website, on its Annual Report and in all, repeat absolutely all, of its printed membership literature. It really is a distortion of the facts to claim otherwise. There are lots and lots of examples throughout Wikipedia where we correct common misapprehensions about names. These are for example needed where the apparent common name of something is in fact wrong. That is the case in Australia where the common name "National Trust" (if used - yet to see convincing evidence) is wrong. And so at the moment is the Wikipedia article name for it. In the case of the English one there is no such problem because, by a happy coincidence, the most widely used commonname also happens to be what the organisation calls itself! The current WP article name is of course a complete Wikipedianism and we all agree nonsense. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No, we do not "all agree nonsense". No matter how good your intentions it would be nice if you could try to maintain some respect for the best efforts of those who set the page up in the first place, even if you now feel, with the wonderful benefit of hindsight (it's only lasted eight years or something) that they were completely wrong. Thank you. DBaK (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry, not "nonsense", just needs changing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. I do see it's difficult, and that the current one is clunky, and I honestly did do my best back in 1923 or whenevertheh*ll it was that we (well, I actually) set up the page. I think I might start to withdraw from this a bit as I've pretty much said my piece. And actually, it won't really matter where it ends up as it'll always be findable! Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Simple Bob has some good points, but for me they do not outwiegh the immense ugliness of the current title. I have been a National Trust member for many years and I can safely say I have never heard anyone ever use this name. If Simple Bob's arguments must be addressed I'd argue for having "National Trust (UK)", "National Trust (Scotland)", "National Trust (Australia), and so on. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely that the current title is ugly and I'm not opposed to its name being changed to something else, I am just opposed to the change as proposed here. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 19:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's to move from the current name and if "National Trust" is felt to be ill-advised then we'd need to be very careful about the choice of a new name. I know, Martin, you were just throwing out ideas but please be aware that "National Trust (UK)" would possibly cause some consternation. It's an E, W & NI body only so not UK. DBaK (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for reminding me. I was looking for something as short as possible. Suggesting that all others, apart fom this one, have a disambiguating tag, also seems to cause some consternation. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've yet to see a good reason why "National Trust" is wrong. (1) No other body has that formal name whereas the EN/WA/NI one does. (2) It isn't a precise disambig issue because the others all use that as part of a compound name. (3) It is also the commonname. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Right. I promise I am shutting up now and will try to add nothing more here after this. I'm aware that I am becoming (/have become) a bore on this topic. As briefly as I can (you might want to get a flask and some sandwiches): (1) I don't find it easy to accept that it is a "formal name" per se. The "formal name" - in the true sense of what it is actually, formally, er, named, surely is the little-used, much derided NTFPOHIONB. G*d, yes, it's clunky. I've been here before ... :) (2) I can't buy that. Bob's research in Australia demonstrated very easily that there are people round the world who say "National Trust" and don't mean the lovely thing that looks after Scotney Castle. James's arguments that those people are wrong are of course right, (if you see what I mean) but it's still clearly a common usage in other places that have some flavour of an NT - and wrongness/rightness and usage are strange bedfellows. If I lived in, say, Castletania I am pretty sure that if I said "the National Trust" I'd be referring to my local Castletania National Trust, not one thousands of miles away in sunny Englandland. (Erm and those other entities W and NI too of course he adds hastily.) (3) Yes! I agree, it is the common name, it's what I call it all the time, and I have never in my life said NTFPOHIONB unless for some kind of satirical or comedic purpose; or editing this encyclopaedia of course. I am totally with you on this but I still feel that it cannot be used here, as it will look like, and perhaps be, a form of Anglocentric usurpation of a name with wider international resonance and usage. I honestly think that this is key and that if you move the EWNI one to "NT" then you will upset people. In my experience (takes out cardie and pipe) people get very very defensive when it looks like the Old Country is throwing its weight around and claiming first dibs on Boston, Lincoln, Durham, pants, Curlie-Wurlies or whatever (consumer note: not all examples fully researched). This is how and why it ended up at NTFPOHIONB because "NT" seemed impossible to implement without looking like an English grab, and because the alternatives seemed so bl**dy gruesome! And NTFPOHIONB at least had the advantage of being a real, albeit hideous, name for the thing. I remain - oh you guessed! - opposed to a move to just "NT" but if it were possible to move it to something else which makes sense and is truthful then I might consider stopping being so grumpy about it all. On the other hand I could just, and probably should, just STFU which I am told is Young Person Speak for "have a nice cup of tea and don't come back for a while". Let's face it, if you do rename it in the face of my implacable opposition then no-one will die, no-one will be unable to find it, etc, due to the Wonders of Webness ... and if some Scottish, American, Barbadian etc people have problems they will no doubt let you know! I still think the proposal is a mistake but I have nothing but goodwill towards attempts to improve the encylopaedia, so good luck and TTFN! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Give that man a biscuit and a cup of tea! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 12:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would support National Trust (United Kingdom), which I know creates another issue for Scotland. The current title is really problemmatic & horrible, but even though this article receives several times the views of the disam page, I'm not sure the UK can be said to be primary. The Scottish NT I think normally brands itself & is referred to as the "National Trust for Scotland", & is clearly mentioned in the 2nd sentence. Several links to the disam page should be dab-ed here btw. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

On (some of) the points above - it's worth remembering that the English (and now Welsh and NI) NT was the first and that therefore it isn't, as with many things "invented" in England, anglocentric or superior in any way to claim that they are the primary disambig. See umpteen examples in for example city namespace. In almost every case, for example, of city clashes, US and Commonwealth-located cities take the bracketed compound name. The NT is precisely analagous to this situation in that it came first, it's the oldest, best known and served as the template for all the Commonwealth ones. There is no "English grab" here, and I am not motivated by that, my personal motive is to see accurate names that co-incide with common names where possible and not overly-Wikipedian names like the current one. Oh and by the way I just checked my NT membership pack and in the small print it informs me that "your membership entitles you to be considered a member of the National Trust" in the first mention of that term - no compounding, no Enwani, no Ntphinb'ing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Enwani is quite good on it's own. Sounds quite lyrical! 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That was my hope. Perhaps the whole acronyms henceforth can be Enwanint and Ntphinb. Of course, if they are combined, it will be Ntphinbenwani. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Creationism controversy

The Trust recently defended, somewhat controversially, its decision to include references to creationist theory at a new state-of-the-art visitors' centre in Northern Ireland: [4] Do editirs feel this is noteworthy? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

There has been some writing about this so, I suspect it may be (or at least will be, if the NT continues to evade criticism). Some links:

• 2012-07-04: Causeway centre gives creationist view - UTV
• 2012-07-05: The Giant's Causeway? God made it himself, of course - Metro
• 2012-07-05: National Trust reference creationism at the Giant's Causeway - The Guardian
• 2012-07-05: National Trust puts creationism on show at new visitor centre - National Secular Society
• 2012-07-05: Online group calls for removal of creationist exhibit at Giant's Causeway - BBC News
• 2012-07-05: National Trust sparks Giant's Causeway controversy - BBC News
• 2012-07-05: Why is the National Trust pandering to Creationists? - New Statesman
• 2012-07-06: National Trust installs creationist display at the Giant’s Causeway - British Humanist Association
• 2012-07-06: Trust in Causeway creationism row - The Belfast Telegraph
• 2012-07-06: What made the creationist footprints in the Giant's Causeway visitor centre? - Andrew Brown
• 2012-07-07: Richard Dawkins: Creationism at Giant's Causeway 'is intellectual baboonism' - The Belfast Telegraph
• 2012-07-10: Creationism controversy at Giant's Causeway - Museums Journal
• 2012-07-10: Memo to the National Trust… - Slugger O'Toole
• 2012-07-13: Giant row over age-old stones - The News Letter

- Soulkeeper (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC), 14:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be enough there almost to warrant an article in itself. I think part of the reason for such a high level of attention is that the Giant's Causeway is a World Heritage Site. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems that people also see this as the Wedge strategy being imported to Europe, and feel that it needs to be weeded out before it takes root and does the same damage to European education as it has already done in the USA. - Soulkeeper (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Paintings and Sculpture collection

I'm sure the two Rembrandts are very notable, and indeed newsworthy. But what about the other 12,565 oil paintings (not to mention the sculptures)? Choosing just two seems a bit like WP:UNDUE. But where would one start, and how would one choose? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I added further details about Trust New Art - National Trust's contemporary art programme - it's a small strand of the programming work they do but they have worked with over 200 artists now so I wonder if it's worth having its own page? They are showing as much contemporary art as any major contemporary art gallery - but to add extensive details here would really pull focus from the core conservation aims of the charity? Thoughts appreciated HannahLSP (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

National Trust Wiki

I removed a reference to the "National Trust Wiki" at http://national-trust.wikia.com/ as I don't think it's a valuable external link for this article. I've had a look round it; it contains ~31 pages on properties and has writing such as "National Trust is a charity founded by three people in 1895 who believed that historic houses and gardens should be protected from being knocked down and built into a house." and "It's not like a medival castle, where kings and queens lived. No, people who weren't kings or queens lived there too." Whilst I wish its (presumed) author well in the development of their site, and have no wish to disparage their work, I don't think that it contains anything that is essential here, at least not for the time being. Please feel free to discuss. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Most visited property

Is it really necessary to list all National Trust properties with over 50,000 visitors annually? I've trimmed the list down to the top 10. Sotakeit (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Cascading images

@Johnbod: Please have a look at the article on a mobile device. Scroll down to the Governance section within the 'tablet'. See how all the images appear in a column sandwiched between the heading and prose? That's why we don't cascade images like that any more. It does matter: 160 of the 309 visits (52%) to the article yesterday were on a mobile device... [5] Firebrace (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

National Trust redirect

I realise that it seems anglocentric to redirect 'National Trust' to the specific British one, but the plain fact is that there are over 400 articles with that link, and in every single one of them (bar half a dozen I've just fixed) it means the British one. So 400+ links are taking our readers to a place they're not expecting to go. It would be much more helpful to our readers to redirect National Trust to National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty and put a hatnote there pointing out that other national trusts are available. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

"largest membership organisation in the United Kingdom"

Apparently not? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)