Talk:St Donat's Castle

Correct pronunciation?

Do any of the editors of this article know the correct pronunciation of "St. Donat's"?--Eriastrum (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Donat is pronounced Doh-gnat. I live about thirty miles away.

5.80.195.37 (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"This is what God would have built if he had had the money"

Does anyone have a source for the Shaw quote? It appears all over the web, in text that closely echoes the text here (copyvio or others copying from Wkipedia?) but I've also heard it in relation to San Simeon, perhaps during his 1933 tour. It would be good to have a decent source. KJP1 (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello KJP1 . . try this URL: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/12/26/show-money/amp/ I'll save you a bit of reading - they don't have an answer either but do offer numerous times that type of quote was used and who used it.Dadrock33 (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

longest continually inhabited

Is this claim from a tourist promotion site suitable for the lead? It is not a summary of sourced content in the article body.SovalValtos (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It is now. KJP1 (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. That was rather terse. You were quite right, but this is a bit of a work in progress at the moment. I shall look for a stronger source for the lead, and have given Newman's comment in a footnote. I just need to go look up the page number. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I will leave you to it. I have found, in use|date=March 2018 or Under construction hat-notes useful when doing a series of edits.SovalValtos (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It's good advice, which I almost invariably forget to follow! Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Maiano roundels

As I understand it, Hampton Court Palace still has the eight terracotta roundels of Roman emperors commissioned by Thomas Wolsey from Giovanni da Maiano (I would have expected Twelve Caesars but there we are).

There are actually ten on display at Hampton now, and one more (female) in storage; at least two of the additional ones (Tiberius and Nero, either side of when is now the main entrance gate) came from the demolished Holbein Gate at Whitehall. Two more of the Holbein Gate roundels (one male, one female) are at the Tudor House in Hanworth.

There would originally have been four more Maiano roundels for the Holbein Gate (to make another set of eight, four on each side of the gate) and as I understand it James Lees-Milne has suggested that two at St Donat's Castle came from Holbein Gate too.

I know, we report what the sources say, but I can't see how the St Donat roundels could possibly have come from Hampton Court Palace, if Wolsey only commissioned the eight that still remain there. Perhaps they come from the Holbein Gate instead, but no doubt other sets were made too. 213.205.198.234 (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

213.205.198.234 - Hi, and glad you found the article to be of interest. As to the roundels, you may, or may not, be right but, as you say, we report what the sources say about an issue, not what we think about it. Out of interest, do you have a cite for Lees-Milne. I could certainly include that. Is it from his diaries? KJP1 (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I did have a long reply but it seems to have disappeared. I think it was this (Tudor Renaissance, Part 4, 1951, p.42), as quoted here (Brick Building in England from the Middle Ages to 1550, Jane A. Wight, 1972, p.194-195) and in a letter to Country Life in 1981.

There is good evidence that Wolsey commissioned Maiano to make eight roundels for Hampton Court, for example: this quotes from a contemporaneous letter from Maiano to Wolsey in June 1521, asking for payment for "octo rotundas imagines, ex terra depictas et deauratas"; transcript here. All eight roundels are still at the palace. (Is there any evidence that a pope presented the roundels to Wolsey, and if so why would the artist be asking Wolsey for payment? Or that there were ever more than eight?) 213.205.198.234 (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Ref for student numbers and nationalities

As at 2018, the college is home to 350 students from more than 90 countries.

References

Just a thought that an April 2017 article isn't the best ref for As at 2018... The college website gives the same numbers at https://www.atlanticcollege.org/community/ and is presumably more up to date but a primary source. There should be a new set of accounts (to July 2017) published by Companies House soon but that's equally primary and it will be this time next year before the 2018 numbers are published. Perhaps As of 2017... would be best for now. Cavrdg (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Cavrdg - Apologies for overlooking your comment. It's a very fair point and I shall amend accordingly. KJP1 (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

P. G. Wodehouse's photo

P. G. Wodehouse, P. G. Wodehouse's photo Fireonsoul (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, I removed some of the useless formatting. What are you trying to say? Drmies (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Fireonsoul - are you actually talking about yesterday's TFA? KJP1 (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Mis-named photo

It is confusing that the lead photo of the castle is labelled St Donat's church. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You are right. I have made an adjustment. Do you approve? ... Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 10:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but I do not know what change you have made. I think the file name should be corrected in Commons. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I edited the caption to read, St Donat’s Castle from the Tudor Garden
The File name cannot be changed here on Wikipedia. Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 16:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes I wrote "corrected in Commons". A mis-labelled photo should not be used in an FA, let along as the lead photo in a TFA. 17:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"Not guilty, M'lud". Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 17:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for appearing to imply that you were. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The fault is mine, for its placing. As to its original naming, I'd advise caution when booking Cowbridgeguide for a tour of old Llantwit. I agree it's unfortunate and I could replace it but, from the limited selection available, I don't think there's a better one for showing both the castle and Morgan Williams's Garden of Tudor Beasts. KJP1 (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Corrected --Yann (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yann - Many thanks indeed. Should have asked you earlier. KJP1 (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Citizen Kane's Domain

I know this article is getting a lot of attention because of it's "article of the day" status, so maybe today wasn't a great day to try to make a change, but I removed the section title "Citizen Kane's Domain" and changed it to "William Randolph Hearst". Simply put, this is an encyclopedia and it is listing the ownership of the castle in chronological order. Yes, I get that Hearst collected everything, and that Charles Kane was modeled after him, but that is no reason to place a tongue-in-cheek/innuendo/metaphor as a section heading. Kane never owned this mansion, and this section of the article is about who owned it. StarHOG (Talk) 20:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

StarHOG - First off, I appreciate your interest in the article. But I think there's a danger of being over-literal. You're quite right - Charles Foster Kane, as a fictional character, didn't own St Donat's. Nor, strictly speaking, did Hearst, as he used the National Magazine Corporation as his purchasing vehicle. But Hearst's monomaniacal collecting, including picking up a "castle in England", is what Welles satirised in Kane and that's why I used it as a sub-title. Personally, I doubt very much that its use will confuse readers. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate you taking the time to write here so we can have a dialogue about this. A part of my editing that I try to take pride in is to put myself in the shoes of a reader who knows nothing, a total lay person, or a 7th grader, and try to make an encyclopedia that informs a user like that. As a well-read adult, I totally get the Kane's Domain, but an international user, or a 7th grader doing a report for school, they aren't going to "get it". As editors we're not trying to be clever writers and we shouldn't be relying on people "getting it" or hoping that they don't get "confused" when we could just be straight-forward and brutally descriptive in our edits and creations. StarHOG (Talk) 13:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I see no need to write down to the level of school grade children. All language is allusive. The wikilink to Citizen Kane lower in the section should suffice to inform.SovalValtos (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with both KJP1's and SovalValtos's comments above. Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 16:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Although I like the title, I agree with StarHOG that Wikipedia should be clear and literal (except in quotes) and therefore referring directly to Hearst would be better. An additional point to consider is that the implication (to me) is that the castle was featured in the movie. Brutannica (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I was hoping that a few more editors would weigh in here so I didn't look like the heavy hand of pointing out the rules, but here goes. "Citizen Kane's Domain" violates several wikipedia policies on article creation and the manual of style, of most import are WP:FORUM and Section naming, to be styled after Title naming, such that, "...should be a recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles." Please do not revert the section title unless evidence can be shown that a) it abides by the description requirements listed above, or b) it can be shown that other, similar articles use the same style of section heading. Thank you. StarHOG (Talk) 18:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we should be celebrating the fact that an editor has almost singlehandedly raised an article to FA status rather than quibbling over what has been approved by the assessor. Heavy Hand might spend similar energy trying to achieve as much elsewhere. The gentle hints to leave individuality well alone for a while having been ignored we have no option but to accept the insistence. Meanwhile admiration and hats off to KJP1. It was a joy to watch the progress of their work.SovalValtos (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

What SovalValtos said. I find this very very depressing. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I completly endorse SovalValtos's and DBaK's contributions immediately above. KJP1's excellent work has my profound admiration. Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 17:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I really appreciate the comments. It's a pleasure to know that people actually read the articles one works on. To know that they are enjoyed is a greater pleasure still. On the issue of the section heading itself, I disagree with StarHOG and their interpretation of Wiki policies, but I know there can be differing viewpoints. So be it. The collaborative approach remains my favourite aspect of Wikipedia; it's worked well previously and, looking forward, I'll mention Sissinghurst Castle Garden. At a peer review near you shortly, and I have high hopes of a productive, multi-editor, collaboration. All PR/FAC comments gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding a group listing of the Stradlings to St. Donat's post

Good day . . newbie here so take it easy. I'm doing research on my family name (Stradling) and thought, after looking at what Wiki has published so far, that I might like to offer up some of my research and post "a bit", if you will. I'm an American living in Florida, retired and have acquired some interesting books on the family. Of note here - daughter and husband are living in London (Arsenal area, I think) so we're heading over in May, 2021 for the birth of our grandson - bearing COVID issues, of course. I've been to the castle once (it was "closed" but the headmaster allowed us to walk around [not indoors] due to our last name; even said: "Welcome home!") Hope to go out again in May and maybe get a proper insightful tour . . . might even get some more research done! My point was in the concept of adding groups to the main post of St. Donat's for each of the Stradlings and their contributions (or lack thereof) to the history of Wales and the closer area. I did a sample page (still trying to learn how to do all this) on Sir Thomas Stradling (1710-1738) who was the last Stradling to occupy the estates/lands before his ill fated duel in Montpelier, FR. Anyway, interesting reading and I was enjoying reading your comments from older posts. Thank you.Dadrock33 (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Dadrock33 - First off, welcome to Wikipedia. It can be an amazing place, so I hope you enjoy it. The Stradlings are an interesting family. When I was growing up in Monmouthshire, John Stradling Thomas was the M.P., and he claimed descent from them, although I’m unsure how true that was. But they were making up claims about their genealogy hundreds of years before! The thing about adding details to this article is that it may overburden it, as it’s primarily about the castle, rather than the family. The answer may be for separate articles on notable individual family members? Either way, there are three key points. First, are they notable? Wikipedia’s an encyclopaedia not a genealogy site, although it’s sometimes treated as such. Second, are there sources? If there aren’t, you can’t really write an article as, third, everything on Wikipedia should be verifiable. Happy to advise if required and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)the above paragraph restored by a Talk Page Stalker! :) DBaK (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Oops, hope I didn't do something wrong. KJP1's response was here but now is not! I gave an answer to the question of a source for Shaw's alleged quote and scrolled down to respond to KJP1's answer to the above comment but now the response is gone . . . if I did, sorry. Dadrock33 (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) – Dadrock33, yes you did accidentally zap a paragraph of KJP1's response during this edit, but I have put it back for you and absolutely no harm is done! Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Royal Visitors, 1960-present

I have added some details on various royal visitors to St Donat's over the years. I have attempted to cite reputable sources where possible, but a couple of them are weaker than I would prefer. For the visit of Elizabeth II in the 1960s, I have only been able to find photos that show her walking with the headmaster at the castle; although I expect Shutterstock is generally not a good source, it does show the factual nature of the statement (her 2014 visit is unsurprisingly easier to cite). Likewise, Princess Diana's visit in 1985 is captured in many photos (eg here and here, and shown on Diana-related blogs, such as here), but otherwise poorly documented online. The visit is mentioned in an article in Hola! Magazine, in Spanish, and a video on Youtube from the British Deaf Association shows her at the college meeting with students. Similarly, the visit of Queen Beatrix and Prince Claus of the Netherlands is mentioned in a couple of places, but the best source appears to be a video of the occasion on Youtube (albeit from the official account of the Dutch Royal Household). Given the relatively uncontroversial nature of the statements (person A was at location B), I feel like these are sufficient, but would love to replace them with better sources if available. cc: KJP1 Dotx3 (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I’ve two issues with the above. First, I don’t agree that we should use weak sources, such as Shutterstock and YouTube. This is a Featured Article and such sources would not have been accepted at the time of the FAC. To retain its FA status, I don’t think we should use them now. Second, we have an issue here with two articles about the same place; this one, which focuses on the history and architecture of the castle, and the Atlantic College article which focusses on the school that is based at the castle. My own view is that the royal visits belong in the latter, if they belong anywhere. As an aside, I note that they haven’t been thought sufficiently notable to go in the Atlantic College article. The reason every one of the mentioned royals went to St Donat’s was their connection with the college, either as patrons, or as parents of students. Therefore, to me, the article on the college is the place to mention them. A similar example, I’m sure there are others, is Stowe House and Stowe School. The former focusses on the history of the house and its architecture, the latter on the history of the school. Details such as headmasters and alumni all sit in the latter article. KJP1 (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

p.s. - Can I make a plea for the referencing style to be kept consistent, including the formatting of dates. Again, it wouldn’t have passed FAC with a mix of styles. KJP1 (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I was prompted to add the paragraph by the similar list of visitors in the section on Randolph Hearst ("Among his guests were..."), which is of a similar length and relevance to the castle's architecture. I do agree, however, that it makes sense for the content to be included on the College's own article as well, and have added it there. One of the reasons the college was able to attract such visitors, particularly in its early days, is its location at the castle, so I would stand by the relevance here. Given your argument around focus, which I do broadly agree with, I will strip out a couple of sentences from the section which do not feel like they add to the main topic. Regarding sources, clear video or photographic documentation of an event or visit seems to be pretty clear cut to me (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS); in this context, the reference does not rely on the editorial reliability of Shutterstock or Youtube (or Hola Magazine, for that matter). On citation style, I am still learning how to add using the sfn style, and the editor does not make it easy or obvious; it also auto-formats dates in what appears to be the wrong style; my apologies. I will try to be more consistent in the future and keep the quality of this articles, and others, high. I will refrain from further editing on this article for the time being, other than cleaning up things that I previously added (although I see you've already done much of that, thank you - it has helped me learn how to correctly format citations and dates). Thank you for your work on Wikipedia, and ensuring that pages such as this one get the care and attention that makes the site work. Dotx3 (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Referencing articles without authors

I've added two sources, and referenced them in the text as the wiki help pages seem to indicate.

 These sales did not recoup what Hearst had spent on many of the items.{{sfn|Time Magazine|1937}}{{sfn|The New York Times|1937}}

These do not seem to have correctly linked the inline citation with the sources list - apologies. I'm not sure how to fix it; perhaps the ref needs to be given a "ref name" of some sort? Dotx3 (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:SfnRef. I hope it is now correctly formatted and structured given the conventions used in this article. Dotx3 (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Tidying up

Dotx3 - I've done a tidy up after your latest additions. I won't go over most of the issues we've discussed before, around style consistency etc., although it is a bit painful to have to tidy up again. But can I reiterate that we cannot use Flickr as a source, in an FA or anywhere else, any more than we can use Youtube. They are sites anyone can author and are not reliable. As an example as to why, the image you've used, which you also used as a cite, purports to show GIs in front of the swimming pool used by Charles I. Charles I died in 1649. The pool was built in the 1930s. It's just not suitable to use. KJP1 (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)