Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://ica.princeton.edu/digitalbooks/digitalworldofarthistory2013/2.C.Larkin.pdf#page=2&zoom=auto,-14,793. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Jolly Ω Janner 00:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Revert 00:00, 4 March 2016‎ Jolly Janner: the text quoted is fully referenced, with full credit to author. This is not a copyright issue, but a mere quotation, perfectly proper.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.". This is of course subjective, but I've been involved in establishing where the line is drawn in these matters with other articles. This is the single most text I have ever seen quoted, so I don't think there's a slither of hope of claiming fair-use rationale. I am amazed that you are not aware of this, based upon how much content you have written for Wikipedia. It's worrying to say the least. Jolly Ω Janner 00:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The quotation has been used to "establish context" concerning Hearst's collecting habit. It could not be stated better than in Larkin's own words, hence the inclusion. Has been indented, placed in quotation marks, fully credited to Larkin (admittedly before the quote rather than after it, which can easily be altered). In my opinion it's just a paragraph, which is a not unreasonable length. The effect of this is not to damage the author or publisher in any way, rather to draw attention to her great work. Academics like to be quoted! WP is not going to be sued on this one, as no damage is done to anyone, let's take a common sense approach.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC))(further, see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 March 5)

I don't agree. There's absolutely no reason why the material could not be expressed in different words. But it's anyway of little or no relevance to this article; the collecting practices of William Randolph Hearst should be covered in that article, not here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Potted biographies

Much of this article consists of potted biographies of apparently non-notable people called Drewe. I can't see what relevance these have to the topic; why do we care if the wife of one of them "descended in a junior line from the Walronds of Sea"? I suggest removing all content that does relate to the Grange itself. At the moment this reads more like someone's personal family history than an encyclopaedia article about a notable house. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I take it this is the first time you've come across one of Lobster's articles? Jolly Ω Janner 12:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This is an article about a manorial descent, which is a well established subject written about for centuries by some of the greatest county historians. Sir William Pole's work concerns little else, Tristram Risdon's ditto, the fathers of Devon history. You may not "care if the wife of one of them "descended in a junior line from the Walronds of Sea", perhaps you are not interested in the topic. The Walronds of Sea were a very important Westcountry family. Please try to be more broadminded, WP has many nooks and crannies! (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC))

@Justlettersandnumbers: Firstly, I agree with you and the others who have commented here that both the quotes are inappropriate and need to be removed – the first (Swete) is far too long and rambling, and the second (Larkin) is substantially irrelevant and also violates WP:NFC. However, this article is just one of a series of similar articles that User:Lobsterthermidor has been creating over a number of years now (see for example Upcott, Cheriton Fitzpaine, Manor of Molland, and Heanton Satchville, Petrockstowe). While there have been concerns about his research and referencing, there is tacit acceptance that these descents of properties are acceptable content in the appropriate articles – at least you are the first one that I'm aware of who has deleted the content on the grounds of "not a family history site". I'm sure Lobsterthermidor can explain the value of these descents better than I can. Since the issue affects more than this one article, may I suggest that you reinstate the "descent" content for now, and if you remain unconvinced of its validity, raise an RfC? Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  19:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the pre-edit war version of this article in March, pending discussion on this page. In terms of the points mentioned above:

• Our policies don't encourage long (590 words in one of these cases) verbatim quotes in our articles - this is a certainly a problem.
• Describing the ownership of an estate or a building over time, in my opinion, isn't the same as producing a list of biographical stub sentences on particular owners, each in their own section, often with little explanation of how the information on each of them - which I think often ventures into trivia - relates to the subject of the article. It's not a style used by modern historians or in modern encyclopedias that I've read. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Always there when needed!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC))

I guess you folks had realised that I was going to restore the text following "Always there when needed's" latest intervention, but I jumped the gun a bit as my computer clock said 13:14 whilst after I had restored the edit summary said 12:14, so as I don't want to contravene the 3RR 24 hour rule, I immediately self reverted. My edit box comment was something like please address talk comment "may I suggest that you reinstate the "descent" content for now, and if you remain unconvinced of its validity, raise an RfC?" by Smalljim 19:04, 9 May 2016".(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC))

Hchc2009: regarding your bullets, I don't think any further discussion is needed for the quotes: your opinion just adds to the already clear consensus that they should not be included. About the descent – as I said above, this issue doesn't just affect this article; there must be dozens of them in which Lobsterthermidor has included descents like this. So based on your second bullet, there are three questions, IMO:

(1) should such descents be included in Wikipedia at all? After a bit of digging I found that Lobsterthermidor set out his rationale for them back in 2013 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Manorial histories. If they should be included, then:

(2) in what format should the descents be presented and how far towards trivia should the detail spread?, and

(3) should this one be in this article, or in a spin-off? (like was done at Orleigh Court / Manor of Orleigh, and others)

These are reasonable questions that need to be answered either by discussion leading to a consensus, or no consensus (or no discussion) – in which case the default will continue (i.e. the descents stay and Lobsterthermidor can add whatever he wants to them).  —SMALLJIM  12:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If you ask me, there is a place for manorial history on WP. They are included in many secondary works, including the most recent and scholarly editions of the Victoria County History (VCH). BUT they should not be included in the way Lobster has been including them. Whether they exist in his format in one, ten or fifty articles is irrelevant. Lobster has repeatedly claimed that his format follows the practice of county historians, stemming from the 16th century; it also follows the layout of some VCH works, especially earlier ones. That is also irrelevant. Wikipedia is not designed to be a County History; it is an encyclopaedia and like all encyclopaedia's, it's job is to summarise. In the case of WP, we summarise reliable secondary material. The descent as it stood on this page and as it stands in many of his articles are not summaries. They are something close to genealogies. The information they include may well be factually accurate and even well-cited (that is another discussion into which I shall not venture now), but they do not relate closely to the manor. To be sure, a manor in the legal sense is property and so it makes sense to describe the passage of that property, which under English law either reverts to Crown for some reason, passes to descendants by heredity or bequest, or is purchased. These are things which can and should be summarised. However, much of the detail Lobster puts into these articles detracts from the descent and amounts to trivia.

So what do I propose? Well, this article is actually, I think, about a manor, so there is no scope for a spin-off here, although it is possible in articles about villages. Here, we must re-write and convert into prose the descent which Lobster has shown; I managed to do this with some help over at Holnicote Estate (cf. [1], focusing on the manorial descent). Most of the books he uses are available online, so it is possible for editors to build up the descent based on them if need be (I would advise fact-checking - some of these descents are complex). I imagine it the size can be reduced significantly without actually depriving the article of the descent of the manor itself; layout can also be simplified, making navigation far easier. Now, if the families mentioned are notable according to our guidelines, then Lobster can create an article for that family. There, he can go into detail about marriage, offspring, heraldry and biographical details which are, in and of themselves, irrelevant to the manorial descent shown in this article. That will still need to be in prose form, without the trivia. Each person need not have their own section, but it can be useful and removes the perceived need to have family histories detailed in articles about manors. That's my two cents anyway. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC).

Noswall59 you are too self-effacing with your comment! I want to engage with it, so I have unhidden it above (you beat me to it yourself!, edit conflict). To address your points: You say "There is a place for manorial history on WP", good. You have stated that the VCH layout, the many works of County historians, etc., is not a valid precedent for WP. Why not? Until there's a settled WP policy on the matter is it not a good idea to follow a well-established way of doing it? You say WP's job is to summarise. To summarise a VCH manorial descent would produce a very meagre article indeed as VCH is already a bare-bones summary. Surely WP gives the scope for all kinds of fairly obscure topics to be dealt with in greater depth, provided sources are available? Manorial histories are indeed "something close to genealogies", as you state, so the articles are de-facto genealogies of notable county families. That's the whole point of them. Such articles are within the scope of WP are they not? You say "they do not relate closely to the manor", yet those families and their connection to the manor are the central point of the articles. In feudal times the importance of a family was determined largely by its feudal tenure, so the "seat" of that family was its powerbase. No seat no power! That's why seats and their occupants has so fascinated county historians over the centuries. That's why histories of estates are traditionally given in virtually every work on the subject family by family. You have classed some of my work as "trivia", yes, totally in the great world, but not within the very parochial world of that manor! It is thus essential for example to know whether a wife was an heiress, as it was mainly by the means of marrying such ladies that men became powerful, by increasing their land-base and feudal standing. You class such matters as trivia, yet the sources specifically mention them! You say "we must re-write and convert into prose", yet section headers and bullet points are provided by WP to be used. Such articles without a very well-regimented series of bullet points and sections would become genealogical spaghetti! Your final point "removes the perceived need to have family histories detailed in articles about manors". Without family histories an article on the topic of manorial histories cannot be written - it is the core topic. If you want to write articles about the funtioning of the manorial court, the court officials, etc, that's a different topic and in most cases no records survive.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC))

There is a policy on WP for how to write articles. To quote the very first point at Wikipedia:Five pillars, WP "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not ... an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents". And further in WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". Even if you believe manors should be afforded some 'special exception', then that does not diminish the fact that there is no reason to base how to write an encyclopedia on the way antiquarians wrote history books in the 17th century. Wikipedia serves a different purpose to those works.

To address the point about genealogical information and 'trivia', I believe that manorial histories are not genealogies. They are histories. The descent should, of course, follow a direct male-line descent, although, as I have said, there are lots of ways to acquire property. All of that can and should be described. But there is no need to list all of a lord's children, or his wife/wives. What we need to know is (a) when and how did he acquire the land, (b) what did he do with it, and (c) when did he die/sell it and who took over it afterwards. We don't need to know the rest to know the manorial history. That is the difference between family history and manorial history. Now, I agree that the marriage of an individual has always been important in defining their social status. Where the wife was also an heiress, it brought new sources of wealth and status to the person in question and their descendants. That I agree with. But that information has nothing to do with The Grange or any other manor. The only justification for including that sort of information in this article is when it explains how the manor or estate was acquired by someone. Where it is relevant, as I say above, is in a separate article about the family itself, or about the individual who married the heiress, if he (or she, the heiress) is notable.

On an organisational point, just because WP gives us certain tools, we don't have to use them. MOS:EMBED is one such case. I believe I have addressed your points. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

May I respond as follows. The text on the present article under discussion (and similar ones I have been involved with) is not an "indiscriminate collection of information", as you imply. The information all relates specifically to the manor and the family, so I don't follow your argument. If any points do not relate to the manor or family, then I would agree they should not be included. Perhaps you could give an example of "indiscriminate information" in this case? Most of the modern sources I have come across do indeed follow the pattern of "antiquarians (who) wrote history books in the 17th century", for example Lauder, Rosemary, Devon Families, Tiverton, 2002 and numerous others. In fact I don't think I've ever seen a modern work on the topic which does not use a family by family narrative. Perhaps because it's the best and most logical way of doing it? There is no revolutionary modern way of writing manorial histories, that I am aware of. You can of course propose a new way of doing it for WP, which perhaps you could set out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Manorial histories, which would be great. I would dispute your assertion that "manorial histories are not genealogies". Read Pole, Sir William (d.1635), Collections Towards a Description of the County of Devon, Sir John-William de la Pole (ed.), London, 1791 (which is one of my principal sources) or if you want a modern one, read Lauder. Almost pure genealogical info, and lots of what you call trivia, but what these authors felt were important pieces of info. Do we perhaps have a misunderstanding about article titles? My contributions are primarily about the descents of manors. Would you be happier if the article was re-named "Descent of The Grange, Broadhembury"? You state "there is no need to list all of a lord's children, or his wife/wives", I usually restrict myself only to listing such relatives where these provide links to other estates/manors or gentry families. The mediaeval gentry of Devon (with which topic I am most familiar, same for other counties too) is an amazing inter-connected network of relationships, and it is essential that the reader understands how one gentry family and estate relates to another. Thus a man's grandmother may be relevant to a future inheritance or marriage, and is thus mentioned. The fact that a brother form Norfolk visited his sister in Dunster Castle is relevant because during that visit he met and later married a great Somerset heiress and founded one of the most prominent English families, which included judges, MP's, baronets and Earls, all arisen from that chance meeting. Not trivia! Unfortunately on a cursory reading these details can seem irrelevant. Some WP articles need to be studied fairly carefully to follow the thread. You state "the only justification for including that sort of information in this article is when it explains how the manor or estate was acquired by someone". I disagree, as my contributions also concern the life lived by the family on the manor, which will include notable anecdotes, re-builds/demolitions of manor house, etc. You seem to want to restrict the article to a purely transactional narrative. You advocate "a separate article about the family itself, or about the individual who married the heiress, if he (or she, the heiress) is notable", but this would produce a series of dislocated articles on families who all occupied the same estate over time, many related to eachother. The logical way of doing it is to group such family histories together under the one common factor: the manor on which they all lived. That is a manorial history. The other problem with your suggestion is that a certain individual may be highly relevant to a manor, for example the proverbial black-sheep who inherits and gambles it away. He's not WP:Notable because he never did anything in his life except gamble away the family inheritance, which is highly significant to the history of the manor. And perhaps there was a card table made with the losing hand of cards depicted in marquetry? Which is still owned by his descendants? Trivia? I think not, fascinating, relevant detail. On your final point "just because WP gives us certain tools, we don't have to use them", they are there to be used, not to be proscribed, as you appear to advocate for this sort of article.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC))

Holnicote Estate (mentioned in Noswall59's first post) is an important point. Only once Lobsterthermidor's descent was radically re-worked did the article gain Good Article status. Like it or not, that status reflects current consensus on what our articles should look like.  —SMALLJIM  16:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

We have a problem, folks. Myself and the last above contributor have a problem, which was resolved on 9 November 2013 by Admin Kim Dent-Brown who closed the very lengthy and bitter dispute with the following words: "The consensus appears to be that you should both go away, act your age, leave one another alone and get on with editing". I am not prepared to disregard that much valued and very wise advice. The person concerned here after a self imposed WP:IBAN of almost three years has now popped up again on 23 April 2016 and has daily recommenced bombarding me with messages and notifications on a variety of topics seeking to renew interaction with me. I will be following Kim's advice and will not be entering into any dispute with this editor on any level. Including on this talk page.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC))

That's a shame. For anyone interested, I had this brief conversation with Kim Dent-Brown shortly afterwards.  —SMALLJIM  20:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I take issue with your response for several reasons. Firstly, you say that "The information all relates specifically to the manor and the family", but again, the manor and the family are distinct for reasons I have already outlined. You say that "Most of the modern sources I have come across do indeed follow the pattern of "antiquarians (who) wrote history books in the 17th century"". Again, History books and encyclopedias are different things with different purposes. Our article on William the Conquerer is not written in the way that antiquarians would write about him, nor is it written as a history book. It is a written as a summary of his life in an encyclopedia based on history books and other sources. It is not there to replicate those sources, nor the way that they present information. To return to my point: the way an antiquarian, modern or otherwise, writes about manorial histories has no bearing on the way that an encyclopedia should write about it. You say that "There is no revolutionary modern way of writing manorial histories". That is irrelevant. We are not writing manorial histories, we are summarising them. You say that "I usually restrict myself only to listing such relatives where these provide links to other estates/manors or gentry families". The interconnectedness between families is fascinating, but that is not the subject of this or similar article. It is relevant to the family, and an article for a family would allow you to show this information and it would be very appropriate there. Unless that information explained a change in ownership of this manor, it is irrelevant here. Further, you contend that "The fact that a brother form Norfolk visited his sister in Dunster Castle is relevant because during that visit he met and later married a great Somerset heiress and founded one of the most prominent English families, which included judges, MP's, baronets and Earls, all arisen from that chance meeting. Not trivia!" You're right, that's important information, but it has nothing to do with the manor, it has everything to do with the family. Once again, the two are separate. By linking to separate articles about families in articles about manors you can ensure that the manorial descent is clear, succinct and in summary form, without the clutter. Connexions between families relevant to the manor itself are retained, and those not relevant to the manor are to be found in the family articles. And, as for the gambler, someone gambling away his fortune is relevant to the manorial descent if it forced him to sell the manor; it fulfils (c) of my criteria for inclusion (above). Under those conditions, it is relevant to the article, and so I am not sure what point you are trying to prove with this example. Lastly, I am not suggesting that you write solely about the descent. If evidence about buildings etc. exists, then summarise it appropriately. If it relates to a building which has its own article, it is best to cover it in detail there, and perhaps mention only key changes in the article on the manor itself.

This reply is too long already. I do not want to get bogged down into further discussion on this. If you cannot see my reasoning, then we fundamentally disagree in two ways. You believe family history = manorial history, whereas I do not. You believe that articles should follow the style of county history books, whereas I find that inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If, as I suspect, we disagree on these points, then I have said enough and there is little point in continuing this discussion, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC).

Reference the questions above, posed by SmallJim:

(1) should such descents be included in Wikipedia at all?

• I think my views on genealogical descent histories are very similar to Noswall59's: as he proposed, the reader needs to know "(a) when and how did he acquire the land, (b) what did he do with it, and (c) when did he die/sell it and who took over it afterwards." This is the focus of modern works on National Trust properties, English Heritage buildings, local histories etc. The focus needs to be on the subject of the article itself.

If they should be included, then: (2) in what format should the descents be presented and how far towards trivia should the detail spread?

• Trivia is perhaps a loaded word (we shouldn't be including trivia at all!) but in general the article should follow WP guidelines, being expressed in prose, with proper sentences etc.; the attention to detail, and the sorts of detail chosen for the article, should reflect the focus of modern, secondary reliable sources and encyclopaedias on the given subject. I accept that Victorian writers wrote about county histories in a different fashion, but we should be following modern conventions. In this case, I might start, for example, by looking at English Heritage's summary of the Grange (available on-line).

(3) should this one be in this article, or in a spin-off?

• The genealogical details might belong in articles about the families concerned (if notable if their own right), but I can't easily see a spin off here. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Hchc2009. (1) & (2) If there's consensus for your and Noswall59's opinions regarding the descents, would you expect a programme of rewriting the existing ones (a lot of work!), or would it be OK to leave that to any future upgrading in article status (GA etc). Also, would it be reasonable to ask Lobsterthermidor to stop writing them in the style that he been using? Re: trivia – I only used the word following your use of it :)

Regarding (3), it seems to me that we should have an article focused on the house – its grade I listing ensures its notability: indeed it needs an article. This would necessarily include relevant details of its notable owners and those who did something to the building. The full descent could then go in a spin-off article, maybe named Descent of The Grange, Broadhembury, or if it's not so excessive as to unbalance the rest of the article, could remain here.  —SMALLJIM  20:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Hchc2009 here. Thank you for articulating this so clearly. —Noswall59 (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC).

Restore to status quo pending resolution

May I suggest we restore the status quo text pending resolution of this discussion, for these three reasons:

• Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary states: "Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved)", which suggests that in a fully developed dispute (I think we qualify here) WP does have a bias to the status quo.
• Smalljim's suggestion "may I suggest that you reinstate the "descent" content for now, and if you remain unconvinced of its validity, raise an RfC? Thanks, —SMALLJIM 19:04, 9 May 2016" has not been engaged with, one way or another.
• Other editors won't know what we're all discussing.

Thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC))

What next?

After the above discussions, there's clearly no consensus to restore the original content under "Descent" (as in this version). Lobsterthermidor wants his work reinstated, following the principles he has suggested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Manorial histories#Layout: sections. But Justlettersandnumbers wanted it all removed, though he hasn't commented since. Jolly Janner was only concerned about the quotes. Hchc2009 and Noswall59, who are experienced in writing Good Articles, have given persuasive policy-based reasons for rewriting it in a text format under a heading of "History", following the Holnicote Estate model.

I haven't expressed an opinion yet, and I'm not wholly convinced that a purely text format (à la Holnicote) is the best possible way of expressing this type of information that naturally falls into small discrete blocks. I'd probably prefer something like a bulleted list at the end of the article, with footnotes for any incidental information – though I haven't experimented to see whether or not this would work in practice. Overall, I'm happy to go with the GA-approved style (if I can call it that), and unless anyone else wanted to volunteer I would have a go at rewriting it.

It could be argued that more input would be desirable, since this decision will affect a number of articles, both already written and new ones to come. An RFC would be needed for this, since we're not likely to get any further unsolicited input in this historical backwater. We can reasonably assume that Lobsterthermidor would be the one who would most want to do this, so I think doing that is best left to him.  —SMALLJIM  14:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree from the discussion above that there's no consensus to revert to the March version - (I'd also add to your list User:Arjayay, who also removed the challenged material this month, citing WP:COATRACK). I'm relaxed about whether an RFC is necessary; this issue could simply be resolved on a case-by-case basis I think. That said, happy to take part in such a RFC if that is felt the best way forward. Given Lobster's preference not to engage with you directly (see above, 17:02, 10 May 2016), if you did propose an RFC, you might wish to find an admin to help chair the conversation or act as a mediator. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that additional revert, I hope Arjayay comments. Lobsterthermidor has tracked down a bracketed comment in an essay to support reverting again (section below); I won't comment on its applicability. Since this is more important than anything else he's doing here at the moment, I think it's reasonable to allow him one day to get the RFC going before we start rewriting the article. I'm sure he'll note the need for "a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue" in the RFC: if it's not worded carefully, it won't draw anyone in and we'd be left with the current consensus (even stronger now due to Just's comment below). Regarding our relationship, I think he's putting himself at a disadvantage by making that choice, but we'll see how it plays out: I certainly won't do more than voice my opinions in this RFC.  —SMALLJIM  11:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, regarding resolution on a "case-by-case" basis: there may be quite a lot of cases. I recently used AWB to correct the title of Vivian, the 1895 book of Devon pedigrees that's one of Lobsterthermidor's main reference sources. He obviously pastes the book details from an offline source, and the title was wrong. (It also needs correcting here now that the content is restored: it's "Visitations".) His use of that source in an article is an indicator that it will contain similar content to this one. There are about 400! – see 8 May edits by Smallerjim. Some will be minor uses and the ones used in bios would probably not be covered by the decision here, but (following your reply 17:12, 10 May 2016 to bullet (2)) all would in theory warrant being looked at for layout and relevance of content.  —SMALLJIM  18:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

NB: I don't deny that there are a large number of problematic articles involved here... Hchc2009 (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

That's good :) Hchc2009, I see you reverted Lobsterthermidor again. Now that the RFC has been started I wonder if leaving his version visible might make it easier for newcomers to the discussion to immediately see the matter at issue. After all, it's not the sort of content that we can't have in the article for a while (there are plenty of other live examples!). Or do you think the matter of principle overrules that? I know well how persistent he can be!  —SMALLJIM  19:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

On policy ground, I'd prefer it to remain at the last stable version (which was around for 6 weeks or so before the current edit-warring began). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

In response to a ping from Smalljim: I came here to deal with the copyright problem – the disproportionately large quotations; that's largely fixed, though there's still one small quotation that has no relevance or justification for being here (I'd copy-edited that section to resolve that, but those changes became casualties of war; Hchc2009, would you care to restore them?). I've only minimal interest in the rest of it. I've a couple of comments, though:

• The edit-warring by Lobsterthermidor is totally unacceptable and of course totally unproductive – repeatedly restoring content removed by three different editors is really, really unlikely to be seen as a persuasive argument for keeping that content
• A Wikipedia article needs to deal with the WP:topic in hand; we have a neat system (little blue links) to take readers to connected topics if that's where they want to go. A page on a historic house should be about that house. If the Drewe family is notable, an article on it could be created (Drewe family might be a good title for that page); if a specific member of the family is notable, that too could become a separate page. Our pages do not contain screeds of irrelevant content to give "context". The collecting practices of William Randolph Hearst should be covered in that article, not here, for example. And so on.
• A book written in the seventeenth century is not reliable for our purposes; our articles are based on modern sources. If what Pole wrote then is still relevant or considered correct, modern scholars will have discussed it.

Most of this has already been said by other editors above. I've asked for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Historic houses task force. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Matter now taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, as suggested, see new section below. This article is not about "a historic house", you've missed the whole point! Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Historic houses task force is not relevant. Your suggestion that "A book written in the seventeenth century is not reliable for our purposes" is somewhat sweeping and absurd. Pole is the principal source for the history of Devon estates! He spent much of his life visiting his friends' houses and looking through their ancient deeds and forming deductions therefrom. These deeds have now mostly been lost in the intervening centuries, so all that's left is Pole's huge and extremely scholarly work. A few of the estates he discusses were owned by himself or his son-in-laws or other relations! It's a shame to dismiss the work of such a great and well-regarded man in the way you have! Now if you had said Thomas Westcote instead of Pole, you might have a point, he's known to be unreliable, which is why I never go near him as a source!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC))

Justlettersandnumbers, I get it now – you were responding to Jolly Janner's copyvio report – thanks for that! Regarding your second bullet, Lobsterthermidor says you have missed the point, but I'd say it's an important point: "The Grange, Broadhembury", (or following the building's listing details, now called Grange, Broadhembury) is the obvious title for an article on the house, so apart from the other considerations we're discussing here, we either need to add the details of the grade I listed building to this article, or move the descent of the estate to another logical title (to be determined). The reliability of the old sources that he's fond of citing is a whole other can of worms!  —SMALLJIM  18:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Restored text per WP:ROWN

Restored to pre-dispute text. "Consensus to revert to the March version" not relevant as under WP:ROWN this is a case of a fully developed dispute which is attempting to be resolved. I will indeed be requesting an RfC, and thus there will be some further mileage to go before this dispute is resolved. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary states: "Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved)", which suggests that in a fully developed dispute (I think we qualify here) WP does have a bias to the status quo.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC))

By the way not "Lobster's preference" not to engage with editor concerned, merely Lobster following wise advice from Kim Dent-Brown! which will continue to be my policy.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC))

Request for comment made

I am procedurally closing this RfC. Dionysodorus (talk · contribs) wrote at WP:ANRFC, "Delisting The Grange, Broadhembury: the last comment on that RfC implies that the participants do not wish it to be formally closed at this point, and I do not believe it is feasible to do so. The participants can relist it if they wish."

This close is without prejudice against any editor undoing this close and relisting this RfC at WP:ANRFC.

Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To what extent is an article concerning the subject of the complete descent of ownership of an English manor or historical estate permissible on WP?(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC))

Should the use of section headers and bullet points be permitted or is a purely narrative style required? This is an area I have spent much of my 6 year career on WP writing about - and possibly pioneering, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Manorial histories. Some editors have now mounted a quasi-existential challenge to one such article, above (stubified), created by me, which after a lengthy discussion on the talk page I now bring to RfC as suggested there. I request your comments please. The relevant versions are [[2]] (pre-dispute text restored for discussion) and [[3]] ("stubified" text). (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC))

Proposal In agreeing that a the biography of every generation of Drewe to have lived there is overly detailed in the context of an article about an estate; yet also recogising that it would be an odd article about an estate if it never mentioned its residents; may I suggest that a small paragraph is inserted here, and the family themselves have an article about them: Draft:The Drewe family of Broadhembury...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support above proposal I agree with Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. An article about a manor should mention its residents. But undue weight should not be given to the content about residents. In this case, the history of the Drewe family is given undue weight in an article about the manor. As already proposed above, a good solution is to create a new article about the family, include a small section in this manor article and use Template:Main article to link to the family article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support above proposal The article is about the manor, if the family justifies an independent article, that needs to be seperate. Pincrete (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose above proposal. This doesn't answer the question raised by the RfC and it unnecessarily splits two inseparable parts of one topic into two articles, neither of which is notable in its own right. Note that for some manors we would end up with multiple articles on the resident families (see Manor of Affeton, Manor of Tawstock, Mohuns Ottery for examples).  —SMALLJIM  16:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input all three above. The big problem with each comment is that this article is not about an estate or manor!

• "odd article about an estate" (Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi)
• "article about a manor" (Lemongirl942)
• "The article is about the manor" (Pincrete)

I am finding it increasingly frustrating to get this point home, sorry for the bold. Just ignore the page title, that's a minor issue, if it's confusing. Here is the central point: I intended the focus of this article to concern the descent of the manor, sorry again for the bold. That is the question for this RfC. If "descent of manors" (as written about by countless county historians from the 16th century onwards and continued in the modern ere by VCH) is deemed to be a valid topic, then we can easily find a name for such articles which is not so confusing as the present arrangement clearly is. I think someone above suggested "Descent of the Grange, Broadhembury". I would be entirely happy with that and I think it would eliminate at a stroke any possible confusion about the article's focus.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC))

Yeeees- I see what you mean. But I still do not think that that would justify the (admittedly only occasionally) detailed biogaphies of inheritors. All things considered, I wouldn't have thought that such an article could justifiably consist of much more than describing any entail, and then listing those who entered into it (with any historical events that may have affected its descent of coutrse). But that does not equate to a history of the family per se. Nice iea though. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Would Descent of the Grange, Broadhembury be a notable topic? Where is the "significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content", as required by WP:GNG? We can trust that the building is notable due to its Grade I listing. I've assumed that the manor/estate of Broadhembury probably is notable too, though I haven't seen any reliable sources that discuss it yet. If the descent isn't a notable topic, then if we want the content it will have to be included in one of the other relevant articles, and in the pre-RfC discussion the opinion was it must not be of such a large size, or filled with such peripheral detail as to overwhelm the main topic. Disclosure: I have been in dispute with the editor who started this RfC in the past.  —SMALLJIM  19:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of the question that's been asked here, nor do I see how it relates in any way to the history of this (notable) house – more anon. However, in an attempt to answer the question as asked, the initial steps would seem to be:

• establish what is meant by a manorial descent, as unaccountably we have no page that explains that; Lobsterthermidor, do you perhaps mean the lordship of a manor?
• establish whether Broadhembury is or was a manor; the Grange surely was not, as it is a house (the OP is quite right that this article is not about a manor, though it may have been a manor house)
• if so, establish, as Smalljim has already said, whether the descent (whatever is meant by that) of this particular manor is a notable topic for an article, and whether there is sufficient detailed in-depth coverage in scholarly modern reliable sources to be able to write such an article
• if so, decide on a suitable title … and start writing

A few things seem to stick out: lordships of the manor are pretty unlikely to be notable independently of the manor itself, which in most cases will not be notable independently of the town/village etc at its centre; that houses tend to pass from father to son, often for several generations, is so commonplace as not to need description; that the lordship of a manor tends to pass with the manor is ditto.

For what it's worth, I believe the question that should have been asked here is:

• should our article on this house contain potted biographies of everyone who ever lived there?

As must be clear from what I wrote higher up this page, my answer to that is "no, definitely not". Encyclopaedia articles should contain content directly relevant to the topic in hand, nothing else. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Justlettersandnumbers. Even something like the VCH series, which presents the descent of manors as Lobsterthermidor intends this article to be, only names the holders and the manner they acquired it (their relation to the prior holder or their purchase date). It does not give a full biography of each person themselves. Sometimes these articles end up being used simply as a coatrack for family genealogy, and that's what this article appears to be doing - presenting a History of the Drew family in the guise of an account of their manor. 50.37.116.208 (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Some progress

Please forgive me for promoting my response to a new section, it's becoming a bit complex. May I start with Justletters, whose post I think is the most constructive for moving forwards not backwards. But before I do that let me deal with a couple of other points.

• Notability of Drew of the Grange: Vivian, 1895, pp.307-8 lists the descent of this family using the suffix "of the Grange" for 4 out of 7 of its members, including the first and last. It describes how Thomas Drewe of Sharpham acquired the Grange by gift of Queen Elizabeth, who sent him her portrait to hang there. (possibly not 100% accurate as Vivian p.307 has a slightly different version). There we have 2 good sources, to which we can add Pole to give 3. Now add the history from the museum which currently owns the....

Hold the press! I've just noticed the new article created by KylieTastic which as far as I am concerned is a very acceptable solution to this whole debate. Thank you KylieTastic. If the rest of you agree please say so and we can all get on with our lives rather than endlessly bicker here. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC))

It's a shame that you characterise constructive discussion – a fundamental part of WP – as endless bickering. Your comment makes it sound as if you just want to be left alone as soon as possible to carry on what you've been doing, undisturbed by matters of policy etc.

Anyway, what Lobsterthermidor means to say is that Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi promoted his draft into main space (with edit summary "Worthy of being a stand-alone article...") and KylieTastic then replaced the now-duplicate content here with a link to this new article, The Drewe family of Broadhembury. Presumably this is based on the two supports above. I'm not sure I support this as a solution. I think this new article may have the same notability issues as the postulated Descent of the Grange, Broadhembury (see my previous comment). I'll respond further after a bit more research.  —SMALLJIM  20:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Clarification I note that what you refer to as the 'new article' will not have the same (hypothetical, because never tested) notability issues, as it is effectively now a different subject. The descent of a manor; possibly hard to prove notability. The pedigree of a family; very easy. Note that the 'new article' achieves the latter and does not attempt the former. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 00:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
• Note Hi I just stumbled upon the two articles with duplicated content as both contained the same deleted image. I took action only based on the basis of the duplication not the larger discussion being had. Looking at the content it appeared to have little to do with the grange and thus made more sense as an independent article, as I assume was the opinion of Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi hence the original creation. This in no way makes a judgement of the content as it now stands in each article, only that I believe it makes more sense that each should be judged as their own subject. I'm up to my eyes in work at the mo so won't be attempting to catch up on the rest of the discussion and join in any further. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Large scale proposal

• Withdrawn – see below.  —SMALLJIM  15:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

We're not just discussing this article: see the RfC opening statement. We need a solution that will deal with all cases. What's missing is a framework to hang the articles on.

I suggest that the missing framework is a List of the historical families of Devon. There are very approximately 250 in Vivian, which in the absence of any later published research should be the main source for the list. (How to get an online copy of Vivian is shown here).

Under that top level list, articles can be written on each notable family. Not all the families will be notable, but that's OK, and some of the articles would be so long that they would need to be split in accordance with WP:SUMMARY, which is OK too, and will be useful since the obvious way to split out sub-articles will be the same as is needed for the "descents" of particular places. Fortuna's The Drewe family of Broadhembury would be one of these splits if it was necessary – but I don't think the entire Drewe family of Devon is large enough to warrant this split: it's three pages in Vivian and we would of course summarise the information, as already pointed out by others here.

With those two elements in place (they don't need to be complete, of course), we then consider the manors/estates that these families occupied. As with the families, I don't think that every manor is notable, and we shouldn't have an article on one where all that can be said about it is the descent of its owners taken from Vivian. But when we have a manor that is notable for some reason, we can provide summaries of its interesting owners, with links to the relevant family article(s) for the wider picture.

Then we have the buildings. Some of these still exist and are listed; from that clear evidence of notability we range right down to "we don't even know where it was". Once again, articles can be written on the notable buildings, even if they don't exist today. Summaries of the owners who did something interesting to the building will naturally be included here, neatly linking again to the appropriate section of the family article(s) for the broader view.

Regarding the second sentence of the RfC, about writing style (broadly bullets or text), I think that still has to be determined: it may be different for each class of article described above.

Does this sound as if it's policy-compliant, and would be something that people could live with?  —SMALLJIM  09:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm uncertain if we agree or disagree on one point, so just to check...! My concern is the phrasing above about "summaries of interesting owners". Histories of manors, buildings, etc. should be about the history of those entities, rather than a summary of other biographies. As per usual policy, descriptions of owners etc. should reflect the balance of weighting in modern, reliable sources that focus on those manors or buildings... rather than what we as individuals find interesting or curious. It should also reflect the summary style expected of an encyclopaedia.

I'd echo your points on notability as well; family histories are important to the wiki, but again using modern reliable sources to determine notability and the weighting of material is important - the wiki isn't a genealogy site. ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

We agree. That was sloppy wording ("interesting") on my part. I'd expect to provide just enough information about an owner's involvement with the manor or building to contribute to the narrative of that article. If the owner is notable enough to have his own article, extra detail would be there, if not, the article on the family would provide the needed context. Does that explain? One question for you: do you agree that Vivian is modern and reliable enough to use as the basic source for everything that we're considering here?  —SMALLJIM  11:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I've started a draft of the potential top-level list at User:Smalljim/List of the historical families of Devon.  —SMALLJIM  11:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

...and a draft rewrite of The Drewe family of Broadhembury – at User:Smalljim/Drewe family of Devon, to convert it into an article on the whole family per the above proposal and the other opinions expressed here. Help welcome!  —SMALLJIM  11:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, sorry – I have been busy IRL for the last couple of days. I would agree with everything you two have said about these articles. As for Vivian, it might be worth checking out the preface (pp. iii–iv). They are taken from heraldic visitations; I think they are usually taken with a pinch of salt for a range of reasons. Sir Anthony Wagner discusses them at some length in his book English Genealogy, but I don't have my copy to hand and it was released in the 1960s, so it's in copyright. The principal issue stems from the fact that visitations were testimonies given by people about their own ancestry; heralds recorded them to ascertain whether someone deserved to use a particular coat of arms. They are primary sources, and not always reliable ones. Now, the questions we need to ask is: to what extent did Vivian critically evaluate these, and extend them using expert knowledge, in order to make them into reliable pedigrees? I don't feel comfortable answering that question, but there may be historians who have reviewed or commented on his work. This is an important discussion, though we must be careful not to get side-tracked from the issue at hand. I would like to see that wrapped up. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC).

Firstly thanks for that link to an excellent OCR'ed pdf copy of Vivian. A full download is just short of 700Mb (!) but worth it. Yes, the reliability of Vivian's pedigrees must be a central issue here. He points out in his preface that the elements of the pedigrees in italic text are exact reproductions of the original Visitations. But to these he appends numerous comments – see for instance the first page of the Drewe pedigree where he comments about the accuracy of the early information and makes several additions from other sources, both within the pedigree itself and in footnotes. At the end of the book is a seven-page Addenda and Corrigenda, and on the very last page, in a Supplementary Corrigenda he notes that the early part of the Glanville pedigree "must be looked upon with considerable suspicion" because the manuscript has been "tampered with and altered". So I'd suggest, just based on internal evidence, that he did much more than simply record the early pedigrees, and did his own research to make them as accurate as possible. I would characterise the book as an aged, but reliable secondary source, susceptible to amendment by any later research that can be found (the 1981 book on the Acland family comes to mind). Would you agree?  —SMALLJIM  22:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd usually trust Vivian for genealogical facts (X was born in Y on Z dates) but our approach in the UK to regional and early modern histories has moved on considerably since the Victorian period (in particular, from the late 20th century onwards) I wouldn't trust Vivian as a modern source in terms of the weighting of what should go into articles, interpretation of events etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Weighting the space given to different aspects of our articles along the lines of the weighting used in the reliable sources that cover the subject is policy. Disclosure: I wrote that section of NPOV, but it was only a rehashing, to bring it to the fore, of content that was already in the policy. In fact the same point was made about the same issue by User:Dailycare in an RfC that I started at Talk:Orleigh Court back in 2012 (that I'd completely forgotten about). I think you're adding the additional condition that the RS's should be "modern", which sounds reasonable for the reasons you've already put forward. I suppose the meaning of "modern" would vary with subject area – since Hoskins, say fifty years, here?  —SMALLJIM  22:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• I withdraw this proposal as a solution to the RfC. While I think it may be the correct way to go about it in principle, I now consider that it would take so much work to properly implement even a small part of it that it would never get done in practice. Note that some points relevant to the RfC were brought up in the subsequent discussion, though.  —SMALLJIM  15:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed conclusions

From the debate so far, could I propose some possible conclusions that seem to have general (but not unanimous) consensus, with the aim of possibly starting to round this discussion off? I've reused some of the text inputted by various editors.

• Key policy etc. on this topic includes Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability, including Wikipedia:ONUS.
• Articles on manors, buildings etc., such as this article, should not be overly detailed: they should mention its residents but undue weight should not be given to the content about residents. As per policy, encyclopaedia articles should contain content directly relevant to the topic in hand and follow a summary style.
• Articles that might describe the "Descent of the Grange, Broadhembury", for example, might be legitimate, noting that a) the subject would need to be genuinely notable (several editors were unconvinced) and b) the article would still need to avoid entering into excessive biographical detail.
• Articles that might describe the "The Drewe family of Broadhembury", for example, might be legitimate and would expect to include more biographical detail, if the subject of the article was genuinely notable (several agreed in this case, and at least one editor was unconvinced).
• Articles that might describe the "The Drewe family of Devon", for example, might also be legitimate, if the subject was genuinely notable (the community thought this was likely in this case).
• The writing style in any article should follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, in particular MOS:LISTBULLET and MOS:EMBED.

What do people think - does that capture the consensus view? Hchc2009 (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Very good, Hchc2009, thank you! I suggest that WP:Notability be added to the first bullet, as it is of the essence here – the immediate answer to the question "To what extent is an article concerning the subject of the complete descent of ownership of an English manor or historical estate permissible on WP?" is "only to the extent that that topic can be shown to be notable by our standards". As for the large-scale clean-up proposal made by Smalljim, that too looks good, though perhaps a little premature before the RfC is closed. The personal animosity shown by one editor on this page should not be allowed to deter anyone from moving forward with that if there is consensus to do so. Hchc2009, can you tighten up the wording a bit? Less is more, here as elsewhere. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I reckon that's a good summary. For my part I think we should try to answer the question posed by the RfC: "To what extent is an article concerning the subject of the complete descent of ownership of an English manor or historical estate permissible on WP?". My answer to this would be Not permissible in most cases, because a descent is not independently notable of the property that hosted it, unless there are recent reliable sources that deal specifically with the descent and not the host property (which seems unlikely). We need "significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content", per WP:GNG. Teasing out the details from Vivian's pedigrees (or any other source) doesn't satisfy this condition for me. The same argument puts paid to the notability of articles like The Drewe family of Broadhembury, IMO. We should have articles on notable properties (buildings or manors or estates, etc.), in which all the relevant content is covered in the appropriate proportions, per WP:BALASPS. And I want to point out that there's no requirement to have an article on every notable topic – if it makes more sense to cover a potentially notable topic in a parent article, then that is what we should do (WP:SUMMARY is relevant here).

I think we should also say something about "recent". As already discussed, the requirement for sources to be recent is necessary because although descents were much written about until the early 20th century, we are writing an encyclopedia for a 21st–century audience which is evidently less interested in the subject. Recent reliable sources about manors and descents do exist, of course – for example eight articles (out of 186) published since 1999 in the Transactions of the Devonshire Association have the word "manor" in their abstracts, and two of these are specifically about new research on individual descents.[4] But the existence of these does not imply that all manors and descents are notable. Wikipedia follows and summarises its sources: it should not be hijacked by editors who want to include excessive information on the aspects that they personally find the most interesting.

Does anyone strongly disagree with any of this?  —SMALLJIM  10:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why you mention extraneous articles? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, sorry, but I don't get that question – which bit are you referring to? I'm happy to try to elucidate anything that's unclear.  —SMALLJIM  10:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I mean the article about the Drewe family; now it's been separated, I don't see its relevancy here? This is about the manor. Which is great! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks, I get it now. You split The Drewe family of Broadhembury out of this article, but I don't think that branch of the family has sufficient notability to be a standalone article: where's the significant coverage that's needed to satisfy WP:GNG? So I think that content is relevant and it should be brought back into this article and pruned appropriately. I did some work on the whole Drewe family of Devon at User:Smalljim/Drewe family of Devon as part of my Large scale proposal above. But I'm not now convinced of the notability of that topic either – is the publication of a pedigree and the notability of one or two of its members enough? Also, I couldn't imagine that the work that would be needed to write articles on the families involved in this broad topic of descents would ever get done, so I withdrew that proposal for this RfC.  —SMALLJIM  12:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd politely dissent on emphasizing recency. Burke's Landed Gentry is still being published and updated, AFAICT, and an entry for a given family in Burke's and in some other source (such as Vivian) would seem to me to fulfill the GNG. I generally agree with the points listed by Hchc2009. Like others, I'm not keen on the idea of spinning off "Descent of..." articles; it seems to me that a well-written article on a given manor should include a summary of the descent, with emphasis on notable individuals and transfers from one family to another (e.g., Shotteswell#Manor). Genealogy, heraldry, memorials, etc., more properly attach to a family than to a manor; making individual articles for the descent of various manors would result in a great deal of needless repetition when families owned multiple manors. Choess (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Choess. On the "recency" point, I think the concern is less regarding current publications, and is rather the use of 17th-19th century antiquarian sources as a justification for pursuing an undue level of detail on a particular topic or feature. As a compromise conclusion, could we draw on WP:RELIABLE, and perhaps conclude here that:

"Articles on these subjects should reflect the balance and focus in high-quality reliable sources; as WP:RELIABLE observes, older sources should be used with care, as they "may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed... Be sure to check that older sources haven't been superseded, especially if it's likely the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years."?

SmallJim, on the "complete descent" issue, although I personally agree, I'm not personally convinced that there is consensus above for as strong a statement as you're proposing; I'd be keen to keep the conclusion as is, but to refer to back to this discussion as necessary if and when the notability of a given article is challenged. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hchc2009, what happened was that I was planning on posting a "Small scale proposal" to replace my self-rejected Large scale one, when you pre-empted me with your proposed conclusions, so I clumsily tried to work some of my new proposal into a response to you. No matter, once again the discussion seems to be drawing to a close, but this time we've had a number of uninvolved opinions and the broad consensus on the core issue is clear enough. I'm not sure if Lobsterthermidor is following his RfC closely: the paucity of his responses suggests that he may not be doing so. It might be a good idea to wait a few days to see if he has anything to add, before the discussion can be considered to have ended. Do you think, as I do, that formal closure by an uninvolved editor should be requested? Doing so might help ease things afterwards.  —SMALLJIM  16:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Would you be willing to request the closure? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

If no-one objects to me doing so, then yes, of course.  —SMALLJIM  17:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you two work together so gracefully, a bit like Torville and Dene on ice! A great masterclass on collaboration. Since we've covered so much ground, let's tie this subject up in a place where it can form the basis for future articles on manorial descent, of which I have so many planned. I think this whole conversation should be copied to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Manorial histories where it can be more easily referred to in future. I would like to receive clarification here as to two specific sources I use: Pole and Vivian. How do these fare with regard to WP:RELIABLE, and your conclusion above that "Articles on these subjects should reflect the balance and focus in high-quality reliable sources; as WP:RELIABLE observes, older sources should be used with care, as they "may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed... Be sure to check that older sources haven't been superseded, especially if it's likely the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years." Vivian is in fact technically a secondary source, as it is a highly edited and re-worked presentation of the original manuscripts of the 1620 and prior heraldic visitations, and as has been pointed out above, they are full of his corrections and caveats, etc. So I would suggest Vivian is a WP:RELIABLE source. Can I request agreement on that? By the way Vivian is widely used by countless modern authors, for example by the History of Parliament biographers. Writing about historical topics is not always a quest for the truth, but merely recording what people said about events. Let's be realistic. If a family reports in 1620 that it's descended from King Arthur, then that's garbage, but still notable. Secondly, Pole, who is also widely used by modern Devon historians, often it's all they've got! can we please have a ruling as to whether Pole is a WP:RELIABLE source? Pole is certainly far better that Thomas Westcote, who I mentioned above is not always reliable. As for the matter of WP:Notable, I would suggest that families who have their pedigrees recorded in BLG and/or heraldic visitations are prima facie notable unless obviously to the contrary. (Some BLG families are far more important, wealthy and powerful than some Baronet families listed in Burke's Peerage, which are given WP pages as a matter of course. (e.g. the Berkeley family of Berkeley Castle, now with no title but still one of the most ancient families in England). Thus a family with no known seat/estate, with no notable connections within the county gentry, with no known notable members or marriages, no known heraldry, would perhaps not qualify as notable . Personally I would not be interested in writing an article on such a family anyway. (That sounds horribly snobbish, but that's unavoidable in trying to weed-out "un-notable" families!) But there might be exceptions, for example the Kelly family of Kelly in Devon, one of the oldest Devon families, still surviving in a direct male line, still living in the manor house of Kelly, but with no notable marriages, or office holders (Sheriffs, Members of Parliament, etc.), as far as I remember from a previous perusal. The family is in my opinion nevertheless undoubtedly notable just because of its continued existence in the male line at the same seat.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC))

To deal with your points since no-one else seems to want to:

1. Re: "Wow, you two work together so gracefully, a bit like Torville and Dene on ice! A great masterclass on collaboration." You should try cooperating, like most long-term editors do. Collaborative compromise instead of adversarial inflexibility makes Wikipedia a pleasant place to work and contributes to building the encyclopedia in a way that everyone can agree with. That's why it's one of the five pillars.

2. Unfortunately no-one showed any interest in a WP:Wikiproject on Manorial histories. That page wouldn't be the right place for this discussion. If you want to continue to advance your point of view I'm sure you can find somewhere appropriate. Let us know if you do.

Please do not ignore other contributors to this thread. Noswall59 clearly stated above: "If you ask me, there is a place for manorial history on WP" (Noswall59 13:39, 10 May 2016).(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC))

You've missed the point entirely, I'm afraid.  —SMALLJIM  16:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

3. You'll have seen my opinion of Vivian above, for what it's worth; other editors may differ, of course. Pole and several other old sources are listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Devon/Resources#Antiquarian sources, which you've been aware of since the page was created after discussion on your talk page. The first sentence gives guidance to the use of these ancient sources. Hchc2009 has pointed out Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Age matters too. I don't know why you're so keen on Pole anyway, he only devotes 67 words to the whole of "Broadhembiry" (p. 182), virtually all of which is covered by Hoskins and by Pevsner, which are accepted as reliable sources. Anything in an ancient source that hasn't been confirmed by a much more recent RS should certainly not be stated as fact in Wikipedia's own voice. And if it has been confirmed, we'd cite the later source instead.

Wikipedia's own voice? No such thing. That's what we have refs for. Wikipedia is about giving the reader sourced info, not "the voice of Wikipedia". Pole and Vivian are acceptable sources, quoted in refs as required.

No, it's a well-established principle that most of the content of our articles is written in Wikipedia's voice. See for example WP:WikiVoice. Content that is controversial or not reliable enough but still considered worth including is attributed in text to the person who made the statement, i.e. we should say something like "According to Pole ...<reference>". You actually know this.  —SMALLJIM  16:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Going back to closure of this RfC, do you have anything else relevant to add? If not, and you don't object to my requesting closure, then I'll do so shortly. However, judging by the backlog at WP:ANRFC, it will probably be some time before anyone gets round to it. If you want it cleared up quickly so that editing and creation of these articles can continue, I for one wouldn't object to you wrapping things up yourself instead, by providing a brief summary that we could all agree with.  —SMALLJIM  13:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion not finished, see new thread by Dicklyon today.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC))

Overly detailed

I don't understand this concept of "overly detailed". Isn't everything in reliable sources fair game for inclusion in wikipedia? I think it is. If it's too detailed for a particular article, then more specific articles can be made (on the people or parts that are notable anyway). Why would any info ever be excluded as "too detailed" if it comes from sources? Dicklyon (talk)

Looking at the article, I see that the detail was indeed split off to a separate article. But what was left is completely inadequate as a description of several hundred years of history. A compromise is obviously in order there. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Dicklyon: the excessive detail about the various people who have lived in the house is not unacceptable because it's "overly detailed" as such, it's unacceptable because it is irrelevant or off-topic or WP:UNDUE. On-topic detail about the house itself is acceptable at any level. Perhaps a retouch to your proposed conclusions, Hchc2009? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this point, although it seems to be a semantic one. I would like to point out that the article as it presently stands is far from perfect, but it is that way because there has been edit-warring. What we are proposing I think is doing what I did over Holnicote Estate a while back, where I reworked this into what it is today. If we get consensus here that something like that is the appropriate way to write these articles, then we clearly have to rework it and bring it up to scratch; it's proved impossible to do that so far. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC).

I think it all comes down to WP:SUMMARY – at some point the potential spin-offs run out of notability. That's when we have to stop.  —SMALLJIM  13:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

We're a long way from that point, this topic is notable, as the wealth of published material clearly shows.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC))

Dicklyon has made a valuable argument which I agree with. I understand it as "No such thing as 'overly detailed' if covered in reliable sources". That seems a great way of phrasing what the ambitious WP project is all about. If the content is "irrelevant or off-topic or WP:UNDUE" in the context of the current page title (which I've lost track of as it's been moved so many times) let's find a new page title that WILL be appropriate to detailed content. (sorry for bold, but a key suggestion which I think will resolve this discussion). Hchc is not against detailed text per se as he has indicated above. That is the beauty of Wikipedia, that topics can be treated in detail, and hived off if necessary. We have thousands of articles which are many times more obscure than the descent of a notable Devonshire estate or gentry family! I suggest a page title of: "Descent of The Grange, Broadhembury". This will be virtually 100% dedicated to explaining the chain of ownership of the estate from the Domesday Book (or as close to it as records allow) to the present day. That will be a detailed article, using excellent and reliable genealogical sources of Vivian, Pole, BLG, and the many others quoted at the bottom of this discussion. A description of such a chain of ownership will not be "irrelevant or off-topic or WP:UNDUE" to this new page title. What say you?(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC))

Sounds good to me, with or without the title change. The house is its history, including its people. Find the right level of detail, and try to understand the position of those who think moving some detail elsewhere will improve the article, and things should converge. I am not familiar with the players or issues here, and that's all I can say at this point. Dicklyon (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

[e/c] I would say that better historians than your average Wikipedia editor have struggled to make sense of genealogical material like this, particularly when using Pole (severely dated and frequently misinterpreted), Vivian (often confused when he ventured away from his primary material) and BLG (the most freely available 19th century editions of which are entirely unreliable). I also disagree with Dicklyon. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything reliable that has ever been published, however random or obscure. It is a collection of articles about notable topics (with clearly defined standards for notability), giving due weight to the published information about those topics. The solution to trivial or peripheral material is not to create a page on a non-notable topic merely as a home for that material. 50.37.103.107 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

If the sources are recognized as unreliable, so be it. But almost any verifiable detail about a notable topic is eligible for inclusion, or so my experience in other topic areas on WP suggests. Dicklyon (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me give an example of what I am talking about. A scholar writes a 250 page book on Henry II, our Henry II page is not 250 pages long, so a whole lot of material in the 250 page book is fully verifiable, but placing it in our Henry II article is UNDUE. In an admittedly absurd example, if on page 139, the author states that at the feast of the Epiphany in 1153, the future king was served an Atlantic turbot seasoned with cloves, it may reflect a lack of ingenuity on my part but I just don't envision there being any page where that detail fails to be UNDUE. I am not saying it isn't eligible, but on a practical level, some details about a notable topic are not just waiting for the right page to be created but are indeed both verifiable and so trivial as to not merit mentioning anywhere in WP. Thus the idea that the existence of material that doesn't belong on this page simply necessitates creation of another page to host it is not something that should be taken for granted. 50.37.103.107 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Another example. At some point the concept of being "about" a notable topic becomes stretched too far. For example is the verifiable detail (assuming that Vivian page 307 is a reliable source) that George Drew of Morchard's second daughter was named Susan, relevant to any article about The Grange, Broadhembury or its descent? (That detail isn't in any article: it's an extreme example) Part of what we've been discussing here is how far away from the core topic of an article is it reasonable to include this type of peripheral information. Lobsterthermidor, the creator of this and many similar articles, has always spread his net widely.  —SMALLJIM  15:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

What say you? asks Lobsterthermidor. I say that Broadhembury is notable as a village, Grange, Broadhembury is notable as a grade I listed building, The Grange, Broadhembury (historic estate) may be notable if there are sources for it – I still haven't seen any. But Descent of The Grange, Broadhembury is one step too far – it does not pass the WP:GNG. We have run out of notability. Remember that we need "Significant coverage [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." So teasing out the details from Vivian's pedigrees and patching in earlier and later bits from other sources doesn't count, unless someone else has already done this and published their results.  —SMALLJIM  22:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This is what I had in mind User:Noswall59/The Grange, Broadhembury. —Noswall59 (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC).

I think that's a good example of what we should be aiming for; compare and contrast to Edge, Branscombe, say, and I think the policy differences we've been discussing stand out. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Edge, Branscombe is a bit of an outlier – I'm not sure what's been going on there recently. I'd say that Manor of Tawstock is a better example of Lobsterthermidor's intentions for these articles.  —SMALLJIM  20:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, feel free to add, or alter this Hchc2009, if you would like to use it in mainspace. I reckon a separate section for the house, it's history and architecture is probably worth including. —Noswall59 (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC).

Noswall59, I think that MOS:EMBED would apply for an annotated list of over 20 consecutive names such as we have here. Trying to force it into plain text isn't as useful to the reader (it was described as "genealogical spaghetti" somewhere above). Won't a definition list or a bulleted list present the information more clearly? I've tried out both in User:Smalljim/Drewe family of Devon. (Ignore the level of detail: this was an uncompleted test of an article on the family, not a descent.)  —SMALLJIM  22:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi SmallJim. I've toyed with this too. I reckon manorial descents can be represented as plain text, as I've shown. I am not sure that there's anything too confusing in the draft; where the estate passes to a more distant relative, a note can be made using Refn or some other template to explain the precise connexion. Family articles are a bit different and I'm honestly not sure what is best for them. If we have 15 or 20 generations or people, then using lists are undoubtedly clearer, but is it encyclopaedic? Visually, I like what you've done with the "Early" section—it's clear and simple. My only concern is that it might not be so clear if the person has more than one paragraph written about them. We also need to account for the fact that families aren't just a long line; in some cases, younger brothers, male-line cousins and collateral lines may include notable or significant members. How do we incorporate them? I don't know and I really don't want a discussion on this to distract from the articles about manors because it seems like progress could be made on that front. However, this is an issue which needs addressing at some point. —Noswall59 (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC).

As per the policy links mentioned above, WP:VERIFIABILITY is explicit that "while information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article"; as various editors have mentioned on this page. Detail itself is not a problem, but material that is excessively detailed for an encyclopaedia article, doesn't reflect modern scholarship, or simply trivial, will not improve an article, and shouldn't be included. I'd also note WP:NOTABILITY applies to all pages - as it notes, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I'd echo Noswell's comments; the Holnicote Estate is a good example of how to transform an article. I suspect we're not treading any new ground in this discussion, though, and it is probable worth bringing this to a closure. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Re:Edge, a slightly over-enthusiatic editor has taken over at Edge, nothing to do with me gov. No comparison to the pre-existing quantity of well-referenced text, I think you know that wasn't me Hchc. Back to The Grange - I am quite happy with Noswall59's excellent draft article above. It is complete and covers all the important areas. I think it could do with some more images, and some breaking up of the text using lists and bullet points or sections, but then I've made that point before. Re (Smalljim 22:59, 23 May 2016) Sources for The Grange, Broadhembury (historic estate) have been copiously supplied by you yourself at the foot of this discussion page, that's on top of Pole, Risdon and Vivian. I don't know what you mean by "teasing out" the details from Vivian's pedigrees, do you mean "reading"? Just because the whole work is in very small print, smudged, and presented diagramatically does not make it any less valid a source. Also "patching in earlier and later bits from other sources" is quite acceptable, not an example of WP:Synthesis, which is saying "A is true and B is true thus I conclude C", we are not doing that here. If the info's there in another source, for a later or earlier period, are we meant to simply disregard it? That would be absurd. As for notability or otherwise of this topic of manorial descents, please see the following link [5] to the Victoria County History (VCH) complete descent of the manor of Bradford-on-Avon under section "Manors"). A very lengthy and detailed passage of text, several thousand words. Is that not notable? They have done the same thing for thousands of other manors in the UK, but have not yet completed the Devon sections. WP:NOTABILITY does not apply here, that text is not an "indiscriminate collection of information", but is a highly discriminated listing of a chain of ownership of the manor, some of which links in the chain are more or less notable than others in a stand-alone context, but are vital in the narrative of the descent. Funding allowing, VCH will certainly cover The Grange and every other historic estate in a similar fashion and they will use Pole and Vivian as sources, to which they will no doubt add further detail from primary source charters etc. But we don't need to wait for VCH, which may never be completed due to funding problems, we have the sources to get on with it now. As has been said above by (Noswall59 00:01, 24 May 2016) "where the estate passes to a more distant relative, a note can be made using Refn or some other template to explain the precise connexion", I would disagree, such dramatic swerves of ownership are if anything more significant and interesting to the history than a mere father to son inheritance. They need to be fully explained, often they include a change of family name and adoption of new arms by royal licence, and are frequently the cause of long-running, multi-generational and celebrated law-suits. Some even cause private pitched battles (see Battle of Nibley Green!)(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC))

Your novel interpretations of WP:N aside, we don't need articles on all three topics. Everything can be worked into one medium-length article called The Grange, Broadhembury based on an expansion of Noswall59's excellent draft article which you are quite happy with. Shall we all cooperate on doing that?  —SMALLJIM  09:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed conclusions v.2

Incorporating the various proposed changes above, the revised conclusions might read:

• Key policy etc. on this topic includes Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:NOTABILITY and Wikipedia:Verifiability, including Wikipedia:ONUS.
• An article concerning the subject of the complete descent of ownership of an English manor or historical estate is permissible only to the extent that that topic can be shown to be notable by the standards of the Wikipedia.

Sorry, that is entirely unhelpful! We are here to answer that question not to kick it back into the long grass, let's agree here some guidelines specific to this particular area.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC))

• Articles on manors, buildings etc., such as this article, should mention its residents but undue weight should not be given to the content about residents. As per policy, encyclopaedia articles should only contain content directly relevant to the topic in hand and follow a summary style.

It is not about a building! The intention of the article is to be about the families who owned it, "descent of the manor". Surely I don't have to make that point yet again at this late stage?(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC))

• Articles that might describe the "Descent of the Grange, Broadhembury", for example, might be legitimate, noting that a) the subject would need to be genuinely notable (several editors were unconvinced) and b) the article would still need to avoid entering into excessive biographical detail.

Again, unhelpful, kicking into long grass. We are here to determine exactly what qualifies a descent as "notable" and what is "excessive biographical detail". Still unanswered.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC))

• Articles that might describe the "The Drewe family of Broadhembury", for example, might be legitimate and would expect to include more biographical detail, if the subject of the article was genuinely notable (several agreed in this case, and at least one editor was unconvinced).

Ditto last, we need to know if consensus here considers the Drew family to be notable. If there is as yet no consensus, the process must go on until consensus is reached.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC))

• Articles that might describe the "The Drewe family of Devon", for example, might also be legitimate, if the subject was genuinely notable (the community thought this was likely in this case).

Ditto last, this is not helpful.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC))

• The writing style in any article should follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, in particular MOS:LISTBULLET and MOS:EMBED.

So are bullet points and sections allowed or not? We are still no further forward.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC))

• There was no consensus expressed as to whether J. L. Vivian's 1893 work was a reliable source; one editor felt that it was reliable; another felt that it was reliable for statements of fact but not for its interpretation or as an example of modern academic focus; two others expressed concern with it as a factual source. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

So what do we conclude, that it can be used or not?(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC))

This is a tricky question. When Vivian is relating what is found in the visitation, he is usually accurate in so doing (which doesn't imply the visitation pedigrees aren't themselves fraudulent or erroneous). When he added material it is hit-and-miss. He is usually trustworthy when reporting a death date or the existence of an inquisition post mortem, although he occasionally applies this to the wrong person, say, a nephew with the same name as an uncle. When it comes to material not found in visitations, that did not come from some other cited source (and that doesn't include his citation of the generic and uninformative 'College of Arms'), then it would be unwise to use Vivian without confirmation. Because of the comprehensive nature of Vivian, it has become the go-to source by such compilations as HoP, and in so doing they have repeated errors that had been corrected in the pages of Devon & Cornwall Notes & Queries a century before. So, respected sources rely on Vivian as being accurate, even when they shouldn't. Should we? 50.37.101.203 (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's carrying a little bit too far to say we can't use material for which Vivian provides no source at all unless it's corroborated. I think as long as we affirm that 1) Vivian is not absolutely reliable and might be subject to correction from primary sources and 2) it is always good practice to use multiple sources, including genealogical literature, when creating these articles rather than relying on a single secondary or tertiary source, we should be OK. Pragmatically, we can at least correct errors transferred from Vivian into our articles when they're detected; if the articles never get written here, people will defer to HoP and the like instead, and HoP certainly doesn't have the resources to correct their existing material. Choess (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This reads well to me, and I am happy to support it. I cannot stress enough the notion that summary-style is essential, and that undue should not be given to biographical details. A narrative style is necessary, and lists and section-headers should be used sparingly. I believe I've outlined my views and justifications for this above, and I've given examples of what I have in mind (i.e. my draft of this article, and Holnicote as it stands in the mainspace). This comment is not an invitation for debate—I am going to be busy over the next few days and need to be focusing more on offline things. Thanks for all the work you have done on this, Hchc2009 and SmallJim. I only hope that this gets closed with consensus now, and we can start to tidy things up here and elsewhere without getting into more edit wars. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC).

We are a long way from answering the question of the RfC with consensus, see my points above.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC))

WP:RFC#Ending RfCs says nothing about requiring an RfC to achieve consensus before closure. It's perfectly reasonable to say that we have consensus on points A and B, but opinions vary on X and Y. Choess (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Choess - would you be happy if someone now nominated the RfC for closure? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I support these general conclusions with some reservations about text vs. list format, as you know. Otherwise there's nothing contentious in them for me and they sound like a good basis on which to proceed. I think this is the only article that we need on the topic and I've suggested above that we should all cooperate now on improving it based on User:Noswall59/The Grange, Broadhembury which we all agree is good. If that proceeds OK, this RfC may not need formal closure after all.  —SMALLJIM  09:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source links

This is intended as a place where links to potential sources can be made available.

Fully and freely available online

• "Exeter Diocesan Architectural Society", The Gentleman's Magazine, 1865, pt. ii (London: John Henry and James Parker), p. 71 – provides some background about the manor; a more modern source would be better
• Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry, 1879, vol. 1, pp. 479–480 – especially useful for later Drewe family
• Devon Notes and Queries, vol. 3, 1904–05
• Vivian's Visitations of the County of Devon (full work online, available in USA - may not be accessible in all countries); Vol.1 (pdf download), vol.2 (pdf download) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.47.99 (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Available by subscription online

• "The Grange Estate, Broadhembury: Sold in Lots", Exeter and Plymouth Gazette, 16 May 1903, p. 3 – this is a full and detailed account of the sale in 1903 of the manor and related property.

Snippet view

• Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry, 1894, vol. 1

(I should be able to get access to a copy of this over the next few days)

This is a start anyway, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC).

Another snippet view:

• Mckechnie, S. "A Devonshire Family of Georgian Times", Devon and Cornwall Notes and Queries, 30 (1965-67), pp. 295-298.

Included as a reference in the listed building text.[6] It looks as if it's a narrative account of part of the Drewe pedigree. I could access a paper copy if needed.  —SMALLJIM  17:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

A complaint that is not relevant to this page

Not the foggiest idea I have not the foggiest idea what is going on here. Apparently now some proposal has been withdrawn. All I do know is that a certain user has been spending almost his entire waking life since 8 May 2016 tweaking, pinging, messaging, conflicting with me on articles contributed by me, ranging from the absurd message on my talk page "you have left an "s" off the name of your source", and then designing a BOT to correct the offending "s". I have not interacted with thuis user in any way, following my statement above. That certain user has been the chief flame fanner in this whole dispute, by his own volition. In response to my statement that I would be following the advice of Kim Dent-Brown, he responded "that's a shame". A shame? This guy is an admin, should know better. The last contact I had with him was the following post he made to my talk page 2 1/2 years ago: Apology Lobsterthermidor, I want to apologise for that second revert to Dunsland and for the above warning that I issued. A temporary loss of my normal imperturbability caused me to manage the situation badly. I'm sorry – it won't happen again. If you want to revert Dunsland back to your version, I'll be happy to work on improving it with you, calling on WP:3O if appropriate. Going forward, since the editors who've seen our disagreements have shown little interest in my concern for accuracy in WP's articles, there seems to be no point in continuing to review your edits and running the risk of causing further discord. So although I propose to tidy up some of the outstanding issues, I'll otherwise only deal with anything that I happen across during routine editing. In other words you can rejoice that the "two year vexatious edit war with Smalljim, who has developed a creepy habit of following him around WP" [7] – as you have picturesquely described my intermittent attempts to help you since July last year – has ended :)  —SMALLJIM  13:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Apology accepted, thank you. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)) So what happened to "In other words you can rejoice that the "two year vexatious edit war with Smalljim, who has developed a creepy habit of following him around WP" [8] – as you have picturesquely described my intermittent attempts to help you since July last year – has ended". I will not tolerate this behaviour and it must stop.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC))