Talk:Shirburn Castle

Military history: Fortifications / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Unattributed photographs (including interior)

Hi all, I am struggling with how/where (and whether) to cite either 1, or 2 sets of photos on the web that show the Castle interior (photos like this seem to be as rare as the proverbial hens' teeth).:

(1) One fine set, identified as photos of Shirburn Castle but the name of the photographer (or poster) is not given, appears on the Google "album archive" (formerly "Picasa Web Albums"), at https://get.google.com/albumarchive/117228741699179077370/album/AF1QipOOo6r6KxD9X46smP82tF8hz1nBCuIG9AQgs3Gk . At the moment I have it as an external link, also mentioned in the article text (I am guessing that is OK) (It is obviously someone's personal collection, but the album is shared to "public", at least at time of writing).

(2) Another excellent set is posted as an available locationworks (filming agency) location, under the title "reference 3808" only, described as "13thC moated castle, privately owned, containing more than 60 rooms, mostly empty, in a mix of shabby-chic, faded grandeur and semi-dereliction; surrounded by a large estate. Oxfordshire." From the images it is 100% certain that the location is Shirburn Castle, however this is nowhere stated. I am guessing that it is best form to respect the owners' desire for non-identification, however I am wondering if this is worthy of a note on the article page so as to be findable by the dedicated searcher - any thoughts? Tony 1212 (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second set are publicly viewable online; you're free to describe or link to them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing:Well - first, since the second set is not named as Shirburn Castle, would not identifying it as such perhaps be construable as original research? And second, identifying them as such might (conceivably) lead to the set being withdrawn since it seems to me that is an association which the owners seem to wish to remain quiet?? Just trying to second-guess here... I am looking for a form of action which seems justifiable without treading on toes or doing something I may later see as undesirable (what is possible and what is wise are not always the same) Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have whittled down the possible actions re a link to the relevant (location unnamed) page on locationworks to a few choices - comments welcome:

(a) Put the link in the article text

(b) Put the link in a footnote

(c) Put the link in an "external link"

(d) Mention the page without linking to it (e.g. give its locationworks ID but not URL of the page), e.g. in a footnote - although this (plus other options given above) might constitute original research (OR)

(e) Put the link elsewhere, e.g. in a blog post (actually I did this earlier, see https://handedon.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/shirburn-castle-oxfordshire/ , last comment) then link to the blog post as an "external link"

... I am coming down on the side of option (e), but happy to receive other opinions... my rationale being that the blog is the best place for OR, not Wikipedia, also it is easier for any parties who wish the material to be removed to request it removed from there (plus the material in someone's blog does not carry as much "published" weight, and is not as widely/freely disseminated, as WP content is). Thoughts? Tony 1212 (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of other opinions, I have proceeded with option "e" as flagged above. The link is not in the article, but it is in the blog post (now added under "external links") if anyone cares to look. Hoping that is OK with everybody. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing:Revisiting/reconsidering after a while ... the Google "album archive" (formerly "Picasa Web Albums") previously mentioned has disappeared, so I have removed that link; plus I have added a "slightly cryptic" reference to the Location Works website in the main article text, and it is then up to the reader to explore further if they wish to discover the images. Hoping that this is OK with relevant / affected parties. Regards Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]