Talk:Belton House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Belton House is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 6, 2006, and in the Did you know? column on June 17, 2006.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Portal:Architecture
 Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.

The Machine Gun Corps was not trivial neither was its presence at Belton. It is the most significant thing to have happened there - building the place and the Edward VIII associations included. (RJP 14:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC))

I have dropped the link to Shooting range as the material there deals with pistols as a sport rather than with military training. (RJP 17:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

Contents

[edit] Notes and references

Circeus, I appreciate your concern for the referencing system, but please don't change it, at least not before the article is a bit nearer completion. The main author Giano, who is still working on the article, likes it as it is, and so do all the copy-editors who have commented, including ALoan, who is by way of being a footnote guru. I'm the one who introduced it, and my reasons for preferring single notes over combined notes is:

  • it gives consecutive note numbers in the text. This is universal practice in the academic world, in fact I've never seen non-consecutive note numerals outside Wikipedia. Do we really want a home-rolled system of numerals appearing in any old order, which will look unfamiliar and weird to anybody who's ever written, or read, an academic paper?
  • It leaves us free to write a separate alphabetical list of the sources used. The reader who is looking for a particular book will find it easily in such a list. By contrast s/he'll have a lot of trouble navigating the random-order list which combining references and footnotes into one list automatically produces.
  • I have used my preferred system (actually not mine, but standard in my field) in a number of FA's, and never had anybody object to it. People aren't keen to try it for themselves--I suppose it sounds complicated when I explain it--but they do appear to like the result. On my latest FAC, S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 none of the twenty or so FAC "voters" had any problem with this notes+references system..
  • It's so intuitive to use that there's no learning curve at all: the <ref></ref> tags are self-explanatory. That's far from the case with the combined-note code, in fact I don't understand it very well. :-/ Bishonen | talk 01:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC).
I would like to strongly support what Bishonen has said above. Paul August ☎ 02:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Amen! The protocol has the essential virtue: it is impossible to separate bibliographic information from article copy! --Wetman 05:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - I don't entirely agree with Bish (and I would not claim to be a footnote "guru" - far from it!) - I think there are two things being confused here. First, where the footnotes refer to separate pages in a few references, I agree that it makes good sense to have a "notes" section, separate from the references. However, where the same page is referred to more than once, I disagree, in that I think it also makes sense to combine the notes (so footnote [1] say always refers to page x of a particular book). In a way, this is like the traditional op. cit. ibid. or loc. cit. thingies. Is this too confusing? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It is for the man writing the page! let me finish it, and ref it then you can do what you like. I must say though with all due respect ALoan, I do think the abcde system is complicated, and also confusing what with all that 13623 business in no order. It also makes it harder for another edit to just pop in (as f one would dare) with a few facts. I just like to things very simple. Giano | talk 12:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry I said there was consensus, I thought there was.[1] Three things in reply to ALoan:
  1. I don't see a nostalgic harking back to the over-complicated old we-the-incrowd-only op.cit and ibid system as an actual advantage, now that academe has streamlined its own practices.
  2. Cite.php gives non-consecutive note numbers in the text, which makes it a lot different from anything used elsewhere, whether traditional or current. I would rather see Wikipedia join the rest of the world in this respect. Being different is often a great thing, but actually not when it comes to these superfices of style. The more like the practice of everybody else they are, the less conspicuous they will be, and the less they'll distract from content.
  3. There's no need to have a lot of low-value footnotes such as "Nicolson, 148"--that was an intermediate step. As I've been saying, for an example of the end product, please take a look at S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897. Having a separate references section allows for replacing many footnotes with parenthetic references in the text (which are IMO less distracting to the reader than footnotes that tease you to follow them to the bottom on the page, because who knows if it was about something interesting for once?). I've just now done that step, to have the system look its best before it's jettisoned.
I'm not in any case going to spend the (ahem) flower of my youth repeating these arguments, as I did with Simon Byrne. I'd rather actually copyedit the article, which fiddling with the referencing minutiae has been keeping me from, so, meh. P.S, though: I notice that the formulaization of the simple alphabetical "References" section I'd made now restricts additions to it to the minority that knows how to handle the formulas (say 1% of editors? Not me, anyway.) Is this really desirable? Bishonen | talk 13:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC).
To be honest, I don't find the non-consecutuve numbers confusing (I have seen scientific papers using this style - when you see [3], you know that it is the third reference being used again, whether it come immediately after [1] and [2], or between [19] and [20]), nor the abcde thing (you know that 3(e) links to the fifth use of the third reference), nor adding a new reference (just add in a new <ref> tag in the right place and <references> catches it and adds it to the notes/references section for you).
But Giano is right - this is just fiddling. Feel free to ignore what I say, and please don't let me stop you doing it however you want. There is no right answer. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen what is this edit summary supposed to mean " . Belton House‎; 22:36 . . Bishonen (Talk | contribs) (→References - Please add full references in the reference section, not as notes. Must it use this horrible code that makes it so difficult? I've asked that before, please see talk page.)" - What do you want me to do, it looks OK to me - I no understanding you Giano | talk 22:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not that I want you to do anything, Giano. The edit summary refers to my own P.S. above: "I notice that the formulaization of the simple alphabetical "References" section I'd made now restricts additions to it to the minority that knows how to handle the formulas (say 1% of editors? Not me, anyway.) Is this really desirable?" It's not about how it looks on the page — both versions look the same — it's about how easy/difficult it is to add to. What I would like, since you ask, is for whoever made the references section unmanageable for all casual editors (and unmanageable for the man who wrote the article, I see) to revert it back to the simple way it was. But I was just grumbling, I don't imagine that's going to happen, since it's a bona fide and recommended kind of formula. (Why we recommend a nerdfest over simplicity remains a mystery to me, but oh, well.) Bishonen | talk 09:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC).

[edit] The Nat. Trust's Belton House, and cites

Note 12 cites: "Chesshyre, J.F. (1984). Belton House. The National Trust." Is that the same work as the one listed in the references as "(2006) Belton House. The National Trust. ISBN 1843592185."? But perhaps an earlier addition? If so then we should add Chesshyre, J.F. as the author to the work listed in the references, and change the cites from "Belton House" to "Chesshyre". Also does the 1984 edition need to be cited in note 12, or can we use the 2006 edition? Lastly what is the page number for note 12? Paul August ☎ 15:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, that would be helpful, "Chesshyre"'s obviously a better cite. Only Giano knows the answers to any of your questions, I guess. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

RJP added the 1984 cite and ref, I will leave a note on RJP's talk page asking for a comment. Paul August ☎ 16:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The J.F.Chesshyre booklet was one which the National Trust produced when it first took over the house. The last paragraph of its introduction (p.5) says "A full guidebook will be published in 1985; this guidebook has been produced for the 1984 season. The National Trust is particularly indebted to Mrs Rosmary Joekes and Mr Anthony du Boulay for help in its preparation. J.F.Chesshyre May 1984" This is where the name comes from as there is no other statement of the authorship except that it was "designed by James Shurmer". I guess this means that he did the layout, chose the type faces and so on.
The information relevant to note 12 comes on the first page of the same introduction, p.4 - "In 1984, Lord Brownlow gave the house, together with the garden, a great quantity of garden sculpture and some of the contents of the house to the Trust, while the park and a substantial proportion of the contents were purchased with a grant from the National Heritage Memorial Fund." The introduction does not carry that title but "Belton House", though introduction is what it is and what it is called in the Contents list. (RJP 17:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Earl of Guilford

On the face of it, this is a mis-spelling of Guildford. Do we know that the earl spelled his name this way? See Talk:Earl of Guilford. (RJP 09:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Twentieth century

This section now has the consequences of the First World War before the events of the war. (RJP 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Once the page is finished it wil be fine........trust me! Giano | talk 17:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Couldn't the two trivia notes be worked into the most recent history section? Circeus 22:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've now done this, the danger, now though, is that everyone who has ever seen the house in an obscure TV commercial adds it to that section then this "trivia" media begins to outweigh relevant more important information. I suppose it can always be changed if that happens. Giano | talk 06:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We have a tiny version of the "historic house" road sign - Image:HH icon.png - perhaps we could inline it? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not, can you make it bigger? Giano | talk 09:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't immediately find a larger version - but I meant how about changing the sentence to read "the claim has even been made that Belton's principal facade was the inspiration for the modern British motorway signs (Image:HH icon.png) which give directions to stately home" - that is, adding the image in the middle of the text. -- ~~

Good idea, I've just put it in. I looked for an image when I was writing it, but couldn't find one, I'm sure though I have seen another similar sign even more like Belton though. I'll have a closer look, I'm sure there is one on the Woburn Abbey turn off on the M1, I'll slow down next time I'm there and look, and have a little G hang out the window with a camera Giano | talk 10:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait

I replaced the .gif of Leighton's portrait of Lady Belton with this better-quality .jpg Image:Leighton Brownlow.jpg. - PKM 05:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - great. Giano | talk 06:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Carolean architecture

Surely Carolean architecture isn't the only vernacular style England has produced since the Tudors? What about Arts and Crafts style?--Stonemad GB 16:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Note the phrasing: the only truly vernacular style of architecture that England had produced since the time of the Tudors. More were to follow. [talk to the] HAM 18:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point. However - what about Jacobean style? Was this really less vernacular than Carolean? And even if one discounts Jacobean, is this really a notable claim? After all, the Tudor period only ended in 1603, and sixty years is not very long in terms of architectural history.--Stonemad GB 19:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC).
Jacobean was based on Italian Renaissance. Giano | talk 19:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It was (albeit in a very bastardised and idiosyncratic form), but then Carolean architecture was based on Dutch and French influences. Is it accurate to describe either as vernacular?--Stonemad GB 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Dunno take it up with Nicolson, Nigel (1965). Great Houses of Britain. Hamlyn Publishing Group. ISBN 0-600-01651-X. Page 148. He said it! Seriously though I think Carolean is subtly different from the French and Dutch architecture of that time and did evolve in Britain. Whereas the Renaissance influences were clearly imported quickly rather than evolved here so were in reality a pastiche, all that ballustrading for example, the loggias massquerading as porches etc. I see where you are coming from but the problem is here we are not allowed own re-search, and I did not disagree with the statement enough to omit it. Giano | talk 20:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing verb

What does this mean? "The two cousins in 1676; three years later, the couple inherited ...". Is 1676 when they moved in? Mdotley 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That occured earlier today when some vandalism eas removed from that particulat spot. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll alter it. Giano | talk 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Belton was designed" sentence

Thanks for the attention to this sentence. Before I changed it, it was: "Belton was designed in the restrained almost Palladian-inspired architecture of the time immediately before the full emergence in England of the ornate Baroque."; I changed it to "Belton was designed in the restrained, almost Palladian-inspired architecture of its time."; it was later changed to "Belton was designed in the restrained, almost Palladian-inspired architecture, popular immediately before the emergence in England of the ornate Baroque". When I read this sentence originally, I found it very hard to understand; the wording seemed quite unclear. I thought quite hard about how to best improve it. I wasn't entirely satisfied by what I changed it to, but I thought it was at least an improvement. I was willing to remove the "immediately before the emergence in England of the ornate Baroque" phrase because it seemed to be mentioned above, and I couldn't find a way to gramatically incorporate it into the sentence. Using "popular" is good, but then the first clause: "Belton was designed in the restrained, almost Palladian-inspired architecture" becomes gramatically incomplete. The "in the restrained" could be changed to "in a restrained", but that might have other problems. I've made that change, feel free to further edit. And great thanks to the writer(s) of this article it's an excellent piece of work. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You have completely lost me, so long as we have a mention of the Baroque that was succeeding the Palladian is fine, that is important because it helps to bang home why Belton was not up to date when it was built, in fact it was considered old fashioned. Giano | talk 20:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. I sometimes get a bit too picky. I think the current wording is now fine. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Country Life archive

I tried to find an online index to Country Life; and I found that the magazine sells their indexes for 80 pounds for all of them, together. link. I haven't found another source, yet. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/l/Talk%7EBelton_House_c2eb.html"