Talk:Tyntesfield/Archives/2013

Young commission?

"In the 1880s, George commissioned alterations to the dining room and staircase by the architect Henry Woodyer. (Pevsner, p.349)" This is a little surprising, given that George was born in 1873 and did not inherit until 1907. The NT guide says quite clearly (p. 9) that this work was commissioned by George's father Antony, while his own mother, Blanche, was still alive. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah! That was me [1], I filled in a citation missing/request tag - Pevsner says that the work was carried out in 1880s - I just left the attribution to George which was already there; allthough I see itsays he was working for his father at the time - obviously a progeny. This page is a bloody mess.  Giano  22:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A very easy mistake, don't worry. Yes, it seems to need quite a lot of nurturing. I'm just amazed that no-one has used the official NT guidebook as a source here. It's a real gem (a bibliography with 17 sources), an informative and beautifully produced booklet. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. I think George would have still been at Eton in the 1880s.

I only looked at this page for the first time yesterday; I am beginning to wish I hadn't - it's testing my English to it's limits. There's a lot of people editing and I think we will start to edit conflict and have different views on the form the page should take. Personally, I would prune it completely and then re-write, but others, I think, would prefer to salvage what is there; so I think I will duck out for a few days, but be around if anyone needs any help with the architecture and its philosophy - you know where to find me.  Giano  23:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it needs gutting, I don't trust any of it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Tales of the riverbank...

I'm surprised that the bats and badgers have been turfed out. In 2009/10 the NT did make quite a effort with bats, the UK habitats for which were (and still are) under threat. Also, the badgers controversy last year seeem to have caused quite a stir - the whole issue of badgers, and the subject of bovine TB is still quite a fraught topic in British agriculture. But I suppose that both of these have nothing to do with the house as such, or it's long history. They might be regarded as "topical froth" that reflects more on NT conservation PR campaigns and local sensitivities. But what do other editors think? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I did the turfing [2] - so my view is obvious :-) Stick them back if you want, but the big problem with this page is staying on subject - we've had the gynaecological problems of a Lady Wraxall, minutiae of detail pertaining to little Wraxalls, the navigational problems of the Luftwaffe and now details of how the vermin digging up the garden are being ill treated. By nature, I am an inclusionist, but there has to be limits. As I said above, I'm going to stick to the architecture when required for a while and see how this page goes.  Giano  23:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Bit of a mouthful

Sentence from the orangery section: Its seven-bay east/west plan with central entrances, 3 bay north/south, is constructed from Ashlar and red brick, topped by an ironwork hipped-roof which is fully glazed. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed a bit of a mouthful, so I've had a go at rewriting that. Malleus Fatuorum 12:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio?

• (source)..after which the patriarch Gibbs in his chair bade each family member and guest goodnight in turn.
• (article)..after evening prayers the patriarch Gibbs in his chair bade each family member and guest goodnight in turn.

Found this in the chapel section, will try to root out any other instances.. — Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• (source)..principal rooms Crace installed wood panels and gold inlays, with oil-varnished woodwork and mouldings..
• (article)..principal rooms, Crace installed wood panels and gold inlays, with oil-varnished woodwork and mouldings.

Tyntesfield#Purchase_by_the_Gibbs_family here — Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I must admit that second cut-and-paste is the sort of thing that I'd do myself, claiming these were just plain facts. The other examples you have found are certainly not acceptable. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• (source)..the amazing tiled floor has been protected by a special type of matting which has the photographic image of what is below so that it looks just like what it covers.
• (article)..The amazing tiled floor has been protected by a special type of matting, which has the photographic image of what is below, so that it looks just like what it covers.

Chapel section again, different source this time. — Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC) — Done! Hillbillyholiday ^talk 19:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• (source)..rusticated corner pilasters with an entablature broken forward over the columns and pilasters.
• (article)..rusticated corner pilasters, with an entablature broken forward over the columns and pilasters.

Orangery section. Maybe the addition of a comma means that this one isn't a copyvio — Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC) — Done, (with some difficulty) Hillbillyholiday ^talk

And the parts that aren't copied are poorly written - apparently England is near Nailsea, things were "bequethed" (sic) and the widow of the Rev. George Turner Seymour, "lies only 8 miles (13 km) from the centre of Bristol" - to name but a few. - Arjayay (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with "lies only 8 miles (13 km) from the centre of Bristol". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm now suspicious of the flowery passages with off-line sources, such as:

• "The completion of the mansion's chapel further accentuated the building's medieval monastical air so beloved by the Oxford Movement's devotees.." — Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

More wholesale copyvio - this one is in the "House interior" section.. — Hillbillyholiday ^talk 18:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• (source) Originally designed around a huge T-shaped staircase lit by gasoliers on newel posts, a heavily carved screen separated the hall from the entrance vestibule, while doors led off to the music room, ante room and other adjoining rooms.
• (article) Originally designed around a huge T-shaped staircase lit by gasoliers on newel posts, a heavily carved screen separated the hall from the entrance vestibule, while doors led off to the music room, ante room and other adjoining rooms.

The 'flowery passage' reading "The completion of the mansion's chapel further accentuated the building's medieval monastical air so beloved by the Oxford Movement's devotees.." was written by me yesterday! I'll take the accusation of copyvio as a complement. However, that apart I have been deeply suspicious of copyvio in this article from the first time I looked at it. There's no doubt there are violations and they are all going to have to be snifffed out.  Giano  22:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh you certainly should take it as a compliment, Giano. After I spotted the word "bade" and found it to be a copy-violation, the phrase "monastical air so beloved" seemed to be far too fluent and evocative to have been composed by one of us lot..! Hillbillyholiday ^talk 06:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Originally designed around a huge T-shaped staircase lit by gasoliers on newel posts, a heavily carved screen separated the hall from the entrance vestibule, while doors led off to the music room, ante room and other adjoining rooms. After the death of William, his son Antony had the staircase reconfigured by Henry Woodyer in the 1880s to let in more light from the glazed lantern in the roof, and turning the ground floor into a more functional space. At the same time, Antony installed electricity and a service lift. Antony’s son George rehung the larger family paintings here in 1910, including the full length portrait of his grandfather by Sir William Boxall.[3]

I've removed the above chunk of plagiarism from the "House interior" section of the article. I would work on it, but I've been awake for two days and my enfeebled brain can't quite manage it right now. — Hillbillyholiday ^talk 06:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite right too. If it's on a newel post it will be a gas candelabrum not a gasolier - I'm surprised you didn't know that Hillbilly; but I expect you are from America so you can be forgiven; I was married to an American once - such a charming race; you are all so very rich, and that does make things so much nicer. I remember the house so very well when Cousin Ursula was alive and running the show - I so often stayed there, yet there is no mention of my visits in the article - perhaps you can rectify that? In those dear, happy days, the public were only permitted to stand and gawp at the gates and were given a bun on high days and holidays. I really think I should write a section on the De Burgh family and my recollections of those happier days - so relevant to poor, dear old Tynters. I shall start at once. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Reversion because of copyvio

I have just reverted this edit [4] of Russavia's because I feel that such a major edit should be the result of a debate between those who have put so much recent work onto the page. As yet, no one has specified where the remaining copyvio is; I have removed it where I found it, and I know that others have too. So a full revert seem somewhat major and possibly unnecessary.  Giano  08:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Architectural ethos

In the Architectural ethos section the article says "The Oxford Movement, of which both Pugin and Gibbs were disciples, later took this philosophy a step further and claimed that the Gothic style was the only architecture suitable for Christian worship; this, they believed, was because classical architecture was inspired by the pagan temples of Ancient Greece and Rome. Thus, the Gothic style became a symbolic display of Christian beliefs and lifestyle and was embraced by devout Victorians such as Gibbs." Do we need to reference some these claims & do we need to specify which of the Gibbs this is referring to? I think/presume it is William, as he is mentioned in the previous section, but it could be considered unclear.— Rod ^talk 18:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly have assumed it was William. But he does not appear in the Oxford Movement article, does he. I expect a friendly architecture expert here might be able to point us to supporting sources in that same article. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yerse, I suppose we do need a ref; I shall have to find one (as I wrote that) and yes, I was referring to whichever one of the Gibbs built it.  Giano  19:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe - however in "Design" which follows the arhcitectural ethos section we learn that it was rebuilt 30 yrs before Gibbs built it, then remodelled before Gibbs bought it - shouldn't these come before the 1863 Gothic stuff, somehow?— Rod ^talk 19:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well...it's complicated isn't it. I have fully refferenced the stuff which I have written. It looks like it was rebuilt in a classical style and then Gothicised and then completely 'wrapped' and enlarged. I'll see what can do with the chronology. Perhaps everything that happened before the Gibbs arrived on the scene needs shunting into an early history section.  Giano  13:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There! I've shunted some text about and chopped some superfluous stuff out. I think it reads a lot better - see if you agree.  Giano  13:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

copyedit help please

In the section on Antony Gibbs:1875–1907, there is a sentence "Antony then had the sideboard, originally commissioned from Collier and Plucknett, enlarged; they had already been extended twice was progressively enlarged." which I don't understand but I think needs some sort of copyedit.— Rod ^talk 19:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It was changed here - I've tweaked it again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

date confusion

I'm confused... According to the article in the section "George Abraham Gibbs, 1st Baron Wraxall: 1907–1931", we have the 1880 alterations to the staircase - this must have been before he was born & is also mentioned in "Antony Gibbs:1875–1907" when he would have been a child - should all this stuff be in "William Gibbs: 1846–1875" or are someones dates (possibly of birth) all wrong?— Rod ^talk 19:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Even Anthony Gibbs (1841-1907) did not move to Tyntesfield until the summer of 1890 (NT Guidebook, p9.) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC) (p.s. I cannot recommend the guidebook highly enough. It is really exquisite, lavish, informative, beautifully illustrated, etc., etc. Recommend blanking this article and instead putting a link to the NT on-line bookshop or even [5])

Antony Gibbs was the owner from 1875 to 1907 - they are not his birth and death dates.... He may not have moved there until after the work was completed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"Anthony's mother died in 1887 at the age of 69, and after very substantial alterations, Anthony and his family moved down to Tyntesfield, in the summer of 1890."

Thanks that helps me (as one with a tiny mind) - I wonder if others thought they were dates of birth & death?— Rod ^talk 19:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It might be less confusing if the dates were removed from the headings. It took me a while to work it out as well... Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the 1880s stairway stuff.— Rod ^talk 19:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Water Hydraulic Lift

Found this intriguing snippet on line, but not sure of its relevance or significance: [6]. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That link just took me to a list of dates however this one has lots more, including some photos and the concluding paragraph "Whilst it is unlikely that she will ever move again using water power it would, in my opinion, be criminal not to preserve her as she is truly part of our nation’s heritage. Not only is she old, she is also innovative, rare and an example of superb Victorian British engineering. Just as importantly she was manufactured and installed before the mighty American company, Otis, came to the UK to eliminate its greatest competitor". So might be worth a mention in the article.— Rod ^talk 12:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of its obscurity. Your link is an excellent find. And I'd agree it's certainly worth a mention. The company Waygood and Co., might even get its own article one day. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added a couple of sentences based on the source I found. Does it need more?— Rod ^talk 16:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What else is needed to get this article to GA?

This article has recently been improved and expanded. What else do people think would be needed before it could be nominated for GA?— Rod ^talk 20:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite a lot is needed. Rod who has written this? As requested I have begin to look through it, but have come to an abrupt halt at [7]. I smell a copyvio rat - I can prove nothing. Anyway, most of it is pretentious meaningless drivel. What pray is a 'muscular sillhouette'.?

"emphasized the restoration of architectural continuity as Gibbs's religious faith emphasized the Church of England's rediscovery of its Catholic traditions" means absolutely nothing to me, and I can guess what is meant; a layman wouldn't have a clue  Giano  20:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"The prospect of the house aligned Southwest,....." a house can have many prospect - which?

"The final external addition was a huge ironwork glasshouse conservatory by Hart, Son, Peard and Co. to the rear, in part based on The Crystal Palace.[13] The final external result was described by novelist Charlotte Mary Yonge, a cousin of Blanche Gibbs, as "like a church in spirit."." We have far too many quote here taken out of contest = the Crystal Palace was nothing like a church - so where is this quote coming from.

My view is that this section alone wants a complete re-write and far more serious Pevsner and far less Victorian romantics.  Giano  20:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Next section: "Then he commissioned Arthur Blomfield to add a dramatic chapel to the northside of the house...." We have too much drama going on - only theatres are dramatic - the architecture needs to be explained, not just fobbed of as dramatic.  Giano  20:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Having edited this article on and off for years I received a message asking me to look at it after a major expansion over Easter.— Rod ^talk 20:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

After conflict: "Yonge hailed the chapel as the necessary culmination of the Tyntesfield project, giving "a character to the household almost resembling that of Little Gidding", the Huntingdonshire home of Nicholas Ferrar during the reign of Charles I who was much idealized by nineteenth-century Anglo-Catholics." doubtless, he said it, but do we really need to know it? If we do, it needs t be explained. I won't make any more comments at the moment, but do you see what I mean about this article? Too many quotes, not enough substance and explanation.  Giano 

• I agree with Giano, this isn't ready for GAN, and like him I suspect that some of the text has been copied, far too flowery. Malleus Fatuorum 20:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Am I alone in thinking we have far too much family information here - it can never make GA with all this long winded stuff. The page is supposed to be about the house, while some background history of its occupants is essential, I am finding such phrases as "After suffering nine miscarriages, yet bearing him three children of which only his daughter Doreen Albina de Burgh Gibbs survived him, his first wife died at Tyntesfield from influenza in 1920." while the family connection to Wikipedia's own Lady Catherine is fascinating, the gynaecological history of those associated with the owners is less so; especially as the wretched woman dies of flu in childbirth, so I really think we could lose an awful lot of this verbosity - or dump it on a page about the family. Anyone agree? Giano  08:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I would support removing much of the family detail , which is generally on their own articles, and focusing on the house. Just one slight worry noting your own relationship to the Lady Catherine ("I'm very much afraid that my esteemed and most noble great aunt finds all forms of publicity vulgar and repugnant.") might imply a Conflict of interest with a family connection which we wouldn't want to impinge on the NPOV we are trying to achieve.— Rod ^talk 09:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Glad you agree the problem is where to start? I have introduced a small architectural ethos section (some more reffs to come) which should clarify all the religious family references - which should remain on the page as they explain the concept of the building. I'm pretty short of time at the moment and haven't the will to created loads of dull pages on people who were really probably not notable anyway. Don't worry about Aunt Catherine she hates poor Mr Pevsner too, and he is coming and her newly found cousin is going.  Giano  09:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the severity of this edit. Much of the material removed, about the estate during the war, seems to me to be directly relevant and noteworthy. Not necessarily the details of the breeds of cattle, etc., but the information about the army camp, and the date and details of the bomb damage, which specifically relate to the house and the estate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Tend to agree generally with Rod and Giano. The NT official guidebook has, as one might expect, quite a bit of detail about the family (and it would be a useful reliable source, for the other articles) but it’s not all needed here. But also agree fully with Ghmytrle about the inter-war detail. Indeed, if this artice is meant to cover the house and estate, as I believe it should, then the cattle breeds are quite relevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I'v left the relevant information. During the war, I would imagine half the houses in England had a disrupted water supply at one time or another, and the fact that it was visited by Eisenhower is really neither here nor there - are we going to mention every celebrity who has paid his 10 pounds to look round. I think before we can mover forward, we've really got to prune this article back to its bare bones, and then see how much room is left for decorative text.  Giano  11:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reinstated a little, and added a link to Bristol Blitz. The reference to Filton is significant - that is at least almost 10 miles away, so shows how inaccurate the bombing was. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know how big Ike's itinerary was, why he visited (possibly to visit convalescing US soldiers?), or if he stayed overnight. But I'm pretty sure he wasn't even asked to pay 10 bucks. Lady Wraxall was appointed OBE in 1945 for her services to nursing (NT guide p.12). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thought I'd see what goes on in a GA review - please could someone explain what this bit means? The Oxford Movement of which both Pugin and Gibbs were disciples, later this was taken a step further and claimed that the Gothic style was the only true Christian architecture; this was because classical architecture being based in Pagan temples. — Hillbillyholiday ^talk 11:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, this part: ..and then remodelled by Robert Newton of Nailsea shortly before Gibbs purchased it.[5] doesn't seem to be supported by the source given. The source does say this about the period in question though:

"Degraded to the condition of a farmhouse, and subsequently known from its occupiers as ‘Brodribbs’, ‘Sadlers’, etc its exceptionally beautiful situation attracted the attention, in 1813, of John Penrose Seymour Esq. (at that time the owner of the adjoining estate of Belmont), who purchased the place, his son and successor the Rev. George Turner Seymour erecting a handsome mansion upon it."p. 9

— Hillbillyholiday ^talk 11:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's a more notable Brodribb: John Henry Brodribb Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, suddenly it all makes sense. The Oxford Movement part in particular left me baffled earlier. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's clearer now [8] - that's what happens when you are called to the phone half-way through an edit - Just need to find a ref for it now!  Giano  13:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed a couple of dabs needed, where I am unsure what they should redirect to:

• Architectural ethos - tourelles - should this just go to Turret or is it a special type?
• Chapel - vault which goes to Burial vault but should this be Burial vault (enclosure) or Burial vault (tomb)?— Rod ^talk 17:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Burial vault basement I should think; it was previously 'crypt', but I thought that was too American and ghoulish sounding - just my POV; change it back if you like. Tourelle is a special little turret projecting from the corner of a bigger tower by a corbel - think fairy tales and châteaux. I'll write a proper page for it tomorrow. I'm not around any more tonight.  Giano  17:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It has always saddened me that there is little to no information on the Seymour family who built Tyntesfield and named it such. There is also no such person as John Penrose Seymour hillbilly, his name was George Penrose Seymour, and his son who built Tyntesfield was called the Reverend George Turner Seymour. There would be no Tyntesfield at all without the Seymour's contribution. Try getting out the book "The Grand Old Man of Marlborough" and get your facts right. Otherwise the Tyntesfield Wikipedia page is very biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.1.16 (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. My understanding is that the name (or Tyntes Place at least) comes from John Tynte before the Seymours. I don't understand your comment re "hillbilly". The sources I have give little information about John Penrose Seymour, describing most of the development of the house we see today being down to the Gibbs, however if you have access to reliable sources about Seymour it would be great if you could add it.— Rod ^talk 09:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the comment relates to one by User:Hillbillyholiday81 up above. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, Billy's not around to reply at the moment. But he was good enough to at least find one source, even if it has a wrong name. The moot point seems to be how much coverage is given to the origin of the name, the person who bought the estate and the person who then built the original main house? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)