Talk:Windsor Castle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

Windsor Castle is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: 4 September 2006

Windsor Castle is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Contents 1 Built Date 2 Re-write 3 Easter egg link 4 Selective deletion 5 Proposed new lead image 6 Failed GA 7 Templates

[edit] Built Date

Hi, does anyone know what year the castle was initially built? The article state it's been there for '1000' years at least.. but no specifics. Adidas 17:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, the exact date is not known. There was a Royal 'Palace' at Old Windsor from Saxon times and, in 1066, Edward the Confessor granted the manor of Old Windsor to the Monastery of St peter. When William I came to power, one of his first acts was to recover that land for the Crown. It is presumed that this was done because he saw the defensive importance of this piece of land. However, the castle was built on land taken (or rented) from the Manor of Clewer and was probably built about the same time as the Tower of London (1078), but could have been as early as 1070. It was definitely there by 1086, because it is mentioned in the Domesday Book. I'll look up some of the sources again and try to write something definitive! Bluewave 08:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It is unlikely that at a remove of nearly a thousand years you'll find anything definitive. -- Francs2000 01:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've narrowed it to a 17 year period, based on the research quoted in Ray South's book, and that was the nearest I could get to adding a definitive statement to the article. Bluewave 09:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write

I am planning a pretty big re-write here. The King's reign section headings installed today are temporary while I assemble information chronologically and still keep the page readable. When I've done that I plan to sub-divide them into larger dynastic and architectural sections. Its going to be quite a big job and eventually a long page, but I want the page to stay looking like a page as I do it. All advice/help welcome Aspern 16:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article needed some restructuring and your chronological structure makes sense. I also agree with your removal of the list of constables to another page. At present we are left with quite a gap from the 14th to 20th centuries and I suggest that we need, at the very least, to include something on Henry VIII (and his gateway); the civil war (when it was occupied by parliamentarians); and Wyatville's large scale remodelling for George IV. I'd be happy to draft some text for those bits but will leave your changes to "bed in" for a few days and see what other suggestions and contributions turn up first. Bluewave 17:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• I hope by tomorrow to have a framework in place (a skeleton if you like) where all information can be then be placed in a suitable chronological heading. This should make it possible for people to readily see where to addinformation. Certain features of the castle such as the chapel will probably need their own section - all help welcome. Perhaps that last remaining list of historical events can then be absorbed into suitable sections. They don't like lists on the FAC page! Aspern 17:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just done a few copy edits and tried to make some improvements. One thing that strikes me is that references to key features such as the chapel, St George's Hall and the round tower are a bit confusing in the way that they appear and reappear in different sections. For instance, the section on Henry II's reign seems to lapse into a general description of the layout. I wonder if we should have a section describing the modern layout of the castle, before embarking on the history. This would explain the wards, tower, chapel, hall, terraces, etc and might simplify some of hte other sections. Bluewave 10:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• • The whole thing is a bit confusing at the moment. There is a lot more information to add to the medieval section. The map of the castle is very good but I think the caption could be changed to make it a lot more clear. And then as you say it could go right at the top just beneath the lead. I'm going to work on it now for a couple of hours and then we'll see what it looks like after that. Aspern 11:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have found a plan of the modern castle that I compiled ages ago from various sources. Not sure if it is of use but I could tart it up a bit. What do you think? Bluewave 13:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Easter egg link

Bluewave, I see you recently added an "easter egg" link equating Angevin with Plantagenet — well, or rather equating two different names of the apartments in question, I suppose. Anyway, I don't understand the point at issue, but the real link isn't supposed to be concealed like that. Could you please unpack the easter egg in an explanatory way that shows both the names on the page ? See Wikipedia:Piped link for an example. Frutti di Mare 15:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

Well...learnt something new today...I'd never heard of an Easter egg link! Just to explain my reasoning, if you try to link to "Plantaganets", it redirects to "Angevin", so I thought it better to avoid the redirect. So now I'm assuming the accepted practice is that it is better to leave the link as "Plantaganets", so that people can at least see that they have been explicitly redirected. I'll change it based on that assumption but please let me know if there is a better option in this circumstance. Bluewave 17:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you don't need a pipe at all, "Plantagenets" is an unecessary detour. Plantagenet itself redirects to Angevin. Frutti di Mare 17:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

OK I now realise that I tried to fix the wrong problem in the original article. I noticed the link was red and tried to find the right place for it to go. What I failed to spot was that it was red because the author had spelt Plantagenet incorrectly! Bluewave 17:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selective deletion

I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this article will be deleted for a very brief period of time. Snottygobble 04:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete. Snottygobble 04:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new lead image

Hi, I propose that the main image on the article should be changed, it is not exactly the most comprehensive image as not much of the castle is visible. I feel a birds eye image or something similar would be more appropriate. Any thoughts? -- 86.13.155.120 19:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC).

• Yes, I have a thought - precisely which image are you recommending we adopt as the lead image? Or are you some form of seagull about to provide us with one? Please indicate your preferred image and we will discuss it here. Aspern 19:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've added an aerial view above the plan of the castle. Feel free to move it if you think it might be better placed elsewhere or shrunk.mjobling 18:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

I failed this as a GA due to the lack of references. Otherwise, it's great! Some P. Erson 16:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Please don't remove the talk page templates. Failing a GA is a matter of public record, and the British Royalty template assures the article gets assesses for Wikipedia 1.0. I'm assuming you want the article to be included in Wikipedia 1.0?

Furthermore, imho in no way is this a bad article. I originally assessed it as grade A (the best there is short of FA) and nominated it for Good Article status. Unfortunately the reviewer felt unable to give it GA status because of the lack of inline citations, so with no GA it has to be B grade - still good. Look on it as a helpful hint for improving the article - I think with inline citations this could easily be a Featured Article. It's a wonderful piece of work. --kingboyk 08:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)