A good collaboration - thats the best bit!Victuallers (talk)23:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HeyYou are doing amazing work, thanks so much. please add yourself to the contributors list onWikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA. We're trying to sort out some sort of automatic points system for when we launch the Charles Rolls Challenge (a competition to reward contributors). We're having some drop in days to teach people wikipedia and general wikimeet in Monmouth in a couple of weeks with tea and cake, if you live in the area you are more than welcome.

Best wishes--Mrjohncummings (talk)22:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KJP1. You have new messages atMrjohncummings's talk page.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, KJP1. You have new messages atMrjohncummings's talk page.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi KJP. What a great little article. Do you think that{{Geobox|stately home might be appropriate here? I have never yet used it myself, but I see an example atCoughton Court. Just an idea. Thanks.Martinevans123 (talk)08:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I was unsure whether such a template might suggest (a) the "home" is lived in, or (b) it may be viewed. I will ask GH what he thinks. Regards.Martinevans123 (talk)21:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On19 January 2012,Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articleSt Mary's Priory Church, Monmouth, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was... that a gravestone inSt Mary's Priory Church inMonmouth says "Here lies John Renie" in 46,000 different ways? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,quick check) and add it toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on theDid you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?16:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On22 January 2012,Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articleSt Mary's Roman Catholic Church, Monmouth, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was... thatMonmouth had one of the highest proportions of Catholics in Wales 20 years beforeSt Mary's Roman Catholic Church was built in 1793? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/St Mary's Roman Catholic Church, Monmouth.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,quick check) and add it toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on theDid you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?16:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On26 January 2012,Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articleMarket Hall, Monmouth, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was... thatMonmouth Museum opened in theMarket Hall(pictured) six years after it was destroyed by fire? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Market Hall, Monmouth.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,quick check) and add it toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on theDid you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but Im not in Monmouth - I should try ghmyrtle/MrjohnCummings and some others for clues to find "stuff" about theseVictuallers (talk)10:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On28 January 2012,Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articleMonmouth County Gaol, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was... that threeChartists held atMonmouth County Gaol(pictured) were sentenced at theShire Hall to behanged, drawn and quartered in 1840? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Monmouth County Gaol.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,quick check) and add it toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on theDid you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk·contribs)00:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the burial registers for Burges I noted that Pullan and Chapple were two of Burges' executors; they were unknown to me and in doing a websearch to identify them I was delighted to be pointed back to the WP Burges article. (The 3rd exec. was James Adair McConnedie/Cowedine?) The pages there have really come on tremendously; its really rich in detail and good prose. Well done.Ephebi (talk)15:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your efforts on British churches. ♦Dr. Blofeld15:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing though, can you please fill out your sources with title and publisher information and not leave scruffy urls? Cheers!♦Dr. Blofeld15:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you like I'd be happy to work with you getting some of your articles up to GA status. I've recently got Bentworth and Llantwit Major up to GA and I have to say it is quite rewarding. We share similar interests with the British/Welsh villages and old castles , churches and inns in particular . Castel Coch and Cardiff Castle are within 15 miles of my house! If you like I can show you how to programmehttp://reftag.appspot.com/ and google books into your wiki itinery so all you do is simply search and then paste in url like I do. Web though unfortunately you have to make a bit more effort LOL. ♦Dr. Blofeld15:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very kind offer which I may well take up. On that very point, you're not interested in the work ofWilliam Burges (architect) by any chance? He was the subject that first brought me here and is really my only example of a sustained article. Ithink it's quite good now; reasonable prose, pretty comprehensive coverage, full of (badly-placed) references, nice pictures; and I'd like to move it from the B Class it's attained through to a GA. But I know there's much more to do, although I'm not entirely sure what's to be done, and I'm quite certain I won't know how to do it. A suitable subject for collaboration?KJP1 (talk)15:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its an important article which should be at least GA. Just glancing at it a lot of work though needs doing with the sources and structure of it. I will add it to my articles needing attention list (as if there aren't 3 million others LOL). I will give it a read shortly, anyway. ♦Dr. Blofeld16:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really appreciate that. And very happy to take instruction on what needs to be done and attempt to do it myself. But, be warned, I'm a slow learner in the Wiki tools department. Best regards.KJP1 (talk)16:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin a list of things which need to be done if it is to pass GA on the article talk page. Regards.♦Dr. Blofeld16:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eesh, there's a lot that needs sorting with the references first. Once that's sorted I can begin to look at the article! ♦Dr. Blofeld16:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're as fast as me with my Monmouthshire Grade I listed stubs! Many thanks for the work so far. The introduction I can certainly do, and will. The use of other sources I will also try to work on but he is a little-studied architect. Apart from Mordaunt Crook's magnificant tome, and some other things by him, there really is only Pevsner, some articles by Mark Girouard, the latest book on St Fin Barre's and some bits and pieces. But the middle item confuses me:

The book names in the citations pf the books already given in the bibliography should all be replaced with the surname of the author. If the author wrote several books then the surname and the year/ or surname name and name of the book

Do you mean I do what you've done with Crook and Murray, i.e cite the publisher? And sorry the references are so bad - I did most of the work on the article when I knew even less about citations than I do now!

And don't do it all! I'll start on referencing all the works and I can do the ISBNs for the bibliography. What are google booklinks?

Format the books like the Smith, Helen (1984). But if you follow my suggestion you can easily access google books and a ref maker with minimal effort hwhich will assist you greatly in every article you write. Urgh Crook I see had two books out in 1981 and his name is Crook not Mordaunt. The The Strange Genius of William Burges entries would need Crook, The Strange Genius of William Burges to distinguish between that and the other book. I cocked that one up, sorry about that! If I was you though I would try to replace a lot of them with varied sources looking in google bookshere

Thanks. Now I can follow the style you've shown for Helen Smith. Will do. Sorry, it is Crook and the High Victorian Dream and the Strange genius did both come out in 1981, the centenary of Burges's death.

Yeah that will need fixing. But I find it helps if you have the books linked the google books. If you let me know what browser and what skin you use I will instruct you what to do with this:

addOnloadHook(function() {

 addPortletLink('p-cactions','http://books.google.com/','GB','ca-gb'); });

addOnloadHook(function() {

 addPortletLink('p-cactions','http://reftag.appspot.com/','GB ref','ca-gb ref'); });

♦Dr. Blofeld17:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I've no idea what skin I use, if any, and as to my browser, I think it's Windows 7, or is it Google Chrome? I did say I can't do the techincal stuff, either well or quickly!

I think I've got one right!

Yes, that looks fine.♦Dr. Blofeld18:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll assume you use Vector and Google Chrome. Copy and paste the above apart from my signature obviously. All you do is simply paste it intoUser:KJP1/vector.js. Click edit on it and save and follow the instruction for holding down the reload button, however you got the current programming to work. Tell me if it works, this will make referencing 10 times easier and quicker in the future.♦Dr. Blofeld18:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I can do the bibliography, ISBNs etc. I can do the references for all the buildings and major works. And I can re-write the intro. But that's all for today, my head hurts. I really am very grateful and if we can get Burges to GA it will be a very good thing for Wikipedia and for the study of him - which he amply deserves. Thanks again.

Yes mine too! Its a heavy article I would not normally indulge in! Give me a bell when you've fixed most of the points suggested on the talk page and I'll give it another look. What I'd like to see is most of the major works covered chronologically in the main body of the text, like then in March 1865, Burges commenced work on .... His work showed characteristics of Moorish architecture. In 1866, he was commissioned by Sir William of Gaunt to fatten out his face and so on.. LOL. It isn't neccesary to covereverything but I would definitely try to cover it coherently. I'll look into that myself anyway! Happy editing! ♦Dr. Blofeld18:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. that Murray source is confusing, I gather is was intended to be Crook (1981), The Strange Genius of William Burges ? just in case you haven't twigged with what I was trying to tell you about coding paste a google books url intohttp://reftag.appspot.com/ and click load and see what happens.. Once done you just click "or" by the names to get the surnames to appear first. ♦Dr. Blofeld18:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad you made an exception. I think the {{harvid?}} for Strange Genius should be Crook, but then should it not also be for The High Victorian Dream or will that make it impossible to differentiate the two? Anyway I'll crack on with all of this and give you a shout when it's ready for a review. All the best and thanks again.

Definitely. Yes I would format the harvard refs for those two books of 1981 as Crook (1981),The Strange Genius of William Burges and Crook (1981),The High Victorian Dream.♦Dr. Blofeld18:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the John Murray (publisher) isWilliam Burges and the High Victorian Dream, whilstThe Strange Genius of William Burges was published by the National Museum of Wales. I'm lucky enough to have all of these. So, I shall go {{harvid:Crook (1981) ''William Burges and the High Victorian Dream''}} and {{harvid:Crook (1981)The Strange Genius of William Burges . Here's hoping!

I think I fixed it! As I go through ths I will be likely adding content and a lot of new sources. I'll initially use my automatic book sourcing tool to save time, at a later date they should probably be all book formatted with Harvard notes like the others. But getting the sources in and the content is most important first!♦Dr. Blofeld19:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm done for the moment, sorry for any edit conflicts you encountered, you might be a bit alarmed by my extent of editing but I can assure you I tend to work in phases and need to get in the right mood for editing such articles. Once I am, its difficult to stop! ♦Dr. Blofeld20:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not alarmed at all, and only a few edit conflicts! I'm delighted you're in the right mood and think we're well on the way to putting this article where it should be. My editing, when it involves Wiki tools, moves at a rather slower pace. Have a good night.

More detail here on his early travels, most interesting. My plan is to use the list and plough through it and try to find multiple sources to construct the bigger picture in the main section and make it more comprehensive. That Strange Genius book though appears to be the finest we have on him which you have!.♦Dr. Blofeld20:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is fascinating! And not a source I've seen. I've got almost everything on Burges, except for Pullan's volumes, which are rare and expensive, and a quite large collection of illustrations of his work, so if you need a reference I can probably do it.

Some of the quotes would be OK in the legacy section I feel but I don't think the intro should talk about his brilliance too much. I guess the one you readded is OK for now. But any such section should have a range of quotes from different authors really for neutrality purposes.♦Dr. Blofeld22:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't discuss his brilliance in the intro, where would you discuss it?! Don't worry, we'll get used to our different styles. The article'svastly improved from the position you found it in just a few hours ago and together we can make it something of considerable value. All the best.

Legacy section should provide an adequate discussion of how he is perceived today, his influence and genius etc. But quote stacking from the same author would likely see the article fail. Bare with me, I'll work on the lead tomorrow and start developing it from his early days and making it more comprehensive. If everything goes to plan it might be possible to have it up to GA status in just a few days. There's no rush, but if I'm working on something I tend to work very quickly as you've witnessed tonight. I'm finally off now, feel free to convert the sources in the last three quarters to the harvard sources and move them into the bibliography.♦Dr. Blofeld23:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, we'll get used to our different styles. But I should stress that Wikipedia GA status is far, far less important to me than Burges, so issues such as quote-stacking from a single source - when Mordaunt Crook is overwhelmingly the most important single source on Burges - worry me less than you might think. Now I'm off too, so you do the sourcing if you have time. I really would like to workwith you on this. All the best.

No, I needn't be "off" with it. I can't help but detect some unhappiness over this on your part. I get the impression you think I've invading your article when I most certainly do not have to bother with this. I don't plan on touching much of what you've written at all, its very good but believe me that even if it was never proposed for GA at some point an editor would have come along and tagged it for POV or that the intro needed a rewrite. It's an encyclopedia article not a gushing tribute which the previous intro was. The introduction should effectively summarize the article not be a summary of one's reputation, which the legacy could be. I can restore most of the quotes to the legacy section until we decide what to do with them but I in no way feel compelled to edit this article if you can't trust me to improve it.♦Dr. Blofeld11:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved most of the original intro to the legacy section. I agree they are mostly excellent quotes and it would be a shame to remove them but honestly they don't really belong in the intro in my opinion. I think the intro should be almost purely factual. The legacy section could accommodate for even more quotes and analysis of his achievements from other authors. Anyway I'll let you decide if you want me to continue on this. As I said I would really like to workwith you but its not an easy job editing an article somebody has put a lot of hard work into for obvious reasons. But you have my promise I will get help you get it up to GA level. Personally I believe we could even have a future FA in this, but obviously needs a lot of work. Featured articles require passion and you've got bags of it for Burges, so things look promising! ♦Dr. Blofeld11:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks very much for your message and your understanding, it's appreciated. Secondly, apologies for my wobble of last night. The problem is I'm too damn close to it. It was what I came onto Wikipedia to write, I took it from a stub to something quite reasonable and for almost exactly five years I've quietly tended it away from the attentions, or interest, of most of Wikipedia. So your energetic approach threw me. But I recognise my over-protectiveness towards it and I also do want to get it to GA. Burges deserves a good article and that status would vastly increase its readership. Therefore, I would very much like to continue to work with you on it. Trusting you is not the issue, I've seen your work, but my closeness is. I shall deal with that.

I very much hope therefore that we can continue with it. I shall plow away following your guidance on the talk page, and you plough away doing what's necessary for GA, of which you are in a much better position to judge. Now FA, wouldn't that be something.

Thanks and regards.KJP1 (talk)18:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand honestly, that's why I said don't be alarmed last night!! I did have a feeling you might feel a little miffed at some of the edits and start to have second thoughts. I will be happy to continue with it. We have all of the content stored in the history anyway should you disagree. If I'm planning on removing anything I'll let you know first, OK? I actually mostly intend to add content rather than remove it but I envisage some will have to be rewritten to accommodate it. The part about him being eccentric and over indulgent was on the Jones page 48 source, but quite rightly would be more suitable to mention that in the legacy section. Regards♦Dr. Blofeld18:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - I'm very glad. Absolutely no need to run anything by me before actioning it. As I said, it's my protectiveness, not a want of trust in your judgement, that's the issue. And, as you say, it's all retrievable if I feel something should go back in. I should say that I'm much more active on here at weekends, the working week tends to contain too much work. Looking forward to developing the article together - and don't hestitate to say so if I stray into protective "POVness"; "gushing tributes" flow rather too readily when I'm writing about "the soul-inspiring one."KJP1 (talk)19:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking very good. Much cleaner, easier on the eye, some great additional images and some good additional information. Shall crack on with your pointers on the talk page but, as I said, I have less time to spare during the week. All the best.

Have tried to do a little re. bullet 7 on the talk page. Shameless lifting from the other articles but, as I wrote them, perhaps not too much of a crime. More comprehensive?KJP1 (talk)00:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes a lot of it was already written by yourself with some additions by myself but your material is pretty good! If any text is superfluous it can be removed or reworded later. The important thing right now is ensuring it is comprehensive I think. Not that that is essential for GA but it will surely be needed should it ever go for FA.♦Dr. Blofeld10:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK - next I'll reference those unbuilt designs and those works which you haven't already covered. But I still haven't got the referencing right. Shouldn't ALL the High Victorian Dream references now look like Crook (1981), The High Victorian Dream, p. 85, rather thana b CITEREFCrook_.281981.29.2CWilliam_Burges_and_the_High_Victorian_Dream or William Burges and the High Victorian Dream: J. Mordaunt Crook, (1981) page 302? What am I doing wrong?

Yes they should. The Appendix source should be formatted and all linked to the one note, not separately. Yeah what I always do is "bulk" an article, try to cover as much as you can. Then the article can be copyedited and condensed later. It always makes them more comprehensive doing it this way.♦Dr. Blofeld19:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Eesh, there's a lot that needs sorting with the references first." I tell you I shall want another Barnstar when I've waded through this lot!

Nearly there on the references, I think. I'm worried about the three images of Burges. I took them from the web and I think they're all out of copyright but I can't demonstrate that and they're therefore liable to deletion. But they add hugely to the article. Any ideas?

The Cardiff Castle and Castell Coch sections I think need more focus and coverage on actual architecture. You could probably insert relevant text from those articles. I will look into it tomorrow myself.♦Dr. Blofeld21:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I pull something over from the other Burges articles I have to re-do the damn references!

I know, what you do realise you can simply use the replace xxx with xxx tools in the edit panel which will format them all in one go don't you.♦Dr. Blofeld22:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I told you I can't do Wiki tools. I am doing them line, by line, by line..................................

I know you did so stop moaning LOL!! ♦Dr. Blofeld22:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you are editing all you do is click the notepad and pen icon on the far right (says "search and replace" when you hover over it) and voila you have the replace tool. Seriously if you're telling me you can't work that one out!♦Dr. Blofeld22:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you and Dr. Blofeld so much for your marvelous work on Burges! I wanted to rewrite, but the High Victorian Dream bio is out of reach. The page looks excellent. Perhaps you should write to Mr. Page for some images for commons? The recent Panoramas of Lost London (9781566490153) feature some beautiful photographs of Tower House.Gareth E Kegg (talk)01:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a burger for your valiant efforts today and "fighting to the burger" to sort out the refs LOL! ♦Dr. Blofeld22:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need a burger. I need a pair of glasses as my eyesight fails with all these goddam references! But seriously, it's looking good, huh. What do we need to do next?

Hehe. Well the cheese does look plastic.. Yeah its looking good but obviously will need cutting in parts just to be more concise. That will happen once I research them and ensure we're not missing anything! Most of the material is looking very good. I'd say some of the lower section could do with a bit more focus but I'll get to that as I go through it. I;d say the only remaining major thing is to add some information about the actual pieces he designed and what years. I'll help format the sources with harvard refs towards the end tomorrow probably.♦Dr. Blofeld22:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good. I'll write some stuff on the Cat Cup, the Elephant Inkstand, the furniture, the stained glass etc. You're right, I've plenty of material. I also think, having re-done it in the light of your comments, that Cardiff Castle does need some more, as his "premier" work. I can do that also. And the bloody references, although help here would be appreciated.Now, a worry and a query. I do fear for the three images of him. They add so much but I don't know how to "source" them. I know you've had your own issues with the image copyright zealots. Any thoughts would be appreciated.And the Summer House at St Fagan's interests me. Do you ever visit, given you're not that far away? I have an illustration from The Builder (1880s?) of the Swiss Bridge which Burges built from Cardiff Castle to the Pre-Raphaelite garden in Bute Park. The more I look at it, and at the image in WikiCommons, the more I think the summer house is a section of the Swiss Bridge. But the Commons image is end-on, and a side-on view would really help. Crook says the bridge was demolished in the thirties but was a section re-used? However, all very original research and not Wikipedia, so do ignore if it doesn't get your pulse racing. Strange the things that do mine.

If you have a chance, can you look at references 59 and 155? They're both quotes from Burges's letter of 8 January 1877 to the Bishop of Cork. The letter is reproduced as the Preface to Lawrence and Wilson'sThe Cathedral of Saint Finn Barre at Cork, on page 13 (unnumbered). But can I get the references to say this!

Have played around with the intro - as well as more bloody referencing - to try to give a context and, looking at the GA advice on leads, to ensure it covers the main points of the article. Is it still too short? My problem is that, when I start to add, I pack it with quotes and "gushing" again. Advise, please.

Intro needs to mention more of his works, have done that..♦Dr. Blofeld19:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tower House section has way too many quotes. Needs to be more focus on the architecture itself and his style.♦Dr. Blofeld20:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Court and Anglican Church, Mariánské Lázně worth mentioning in the text?♦Dr. Blofeld21:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Court possibly, because of its interiors. But I've never been able to find out what actually remains. Crook hints that the answer is not a lot. Mariánské Lázně I doubt. I included it in the List of Works for completeness, and because, when you see it, it shouts "William Burges built me!", but it's a very, very modest church, which Burges never saw, and I doubt it has much merit beyond being his. The whole thing is coming along, but you're right, fewer quotes in the Tower House and more about the furniture, glass and metalwork. I'll KBO.

If you don't think the Elephant Inkstand is anything other than completely astonishing you haven't seen it!!!

I'm sure it is but "completely astonishing" isn't exactly the most neutral of phrases!♦Dr. Blofeld18:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good!♦Dr. Blofeld20:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it is. Thanks for your very tactful driving of it. Had I been left alone, it wouldnever have progressed. Now to criticism! You've taken out my "Burges never married." from the "Personal life" section. That was my Telegraph tribute! OK, I'll let it go, maybe. I'm going to have a go at St Fin Barre's now. After that, some tidying, some more referencing, a full copy edit, winnowing out of the verbiage. A POV check. Review of the images - hopefully the images of him are now ok. And what else?

OK, I see you just moved the never married reference. St Fin Barre's ok or more?

Why do you keep moving the photo of Castell Coch to the early life section?♦Dr. Blofeld19:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't realise you were on. Just playing around with various photos and wanted the opener to have the "wow" factor. But take your point, it doesn't relate to the text. What would be a great image that does, I wonder. I'll trawl the commons but there's less than one might think.

I would put it at the beginning of the Castel Coch section. It seems out of place in the early life section. At least the Arabic room of the Cardiff Castle is mentioned.. Plenty of photos in the article, first section in my opinion doesn't really need one, unless it is something closely related..♦Dr. Blofeld19:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Blofeld - where are you? I need driving on! Shall I do more on the buildings, the furniture, the other works, stop messing around with the pictures, re-draft the intro (no!)? Advice please. Would it help if I sent you a burger? Needless to say, I've no idea how.

Hi, I tend to blow hot and cold over wikipedia I'm afraid. Article looks great, offhand only thing I can think of is the last 3/4 of the refs need book formatting. I'll give it a read shortly and let you know.♦Dr. Blofeld19:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Dr Blofeld. I understand how enthusiasm ebbs and flows. The problem with the two unreferenced books is that they're not really books - rather pieces of ephemera I've unearthed, and bought, in my obsessive hunt for Burgesiana. Pauline Sargent's Cartoons is the, very flimsy, catalogue to an exhibition in 1977. It has no ISBN, was published by Cardiff City Council and printed by CSP Printing of Cardiff. And that's it. Google brings up nothing. The Mirrored Sideboard is a catalogue for the sale of the item by Vost's in 1999. A much more handsome pamphlet, it was published by Vost's, printed by Miro, has no ISBN, and seems to bring up one Google hit, to a Country Life article on the sale. And that's it again. So I just don't know how to reference them.

Is it getting near to GA submission? How do we do that, by the way? Again, I am really grateful for all of your advice. It would have languished as it was without your input, poorly referenced, badly sourced, weakly structured, and full of my POV. You've done him proud.

Needs a copyedit first. You've done a great job with the content, exactly what I wanted to see. Your dedication to the article is admirable. In the next day or two depending on whether I'm in the "wiki" mood I'll give it a copy edit and make some additions if I can. Then we can nominate it. I'll ask User:Tim riley to review as he always does a very thorough review and think the article will improve considerably if he does it. BTW if google doesn't come up with them I'd bin them (unless you can verify the information by having it in your possession) and try to replace with another source. Citing a pamphlet is fine.♦Dr. Blofeld21:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have both items in front of me as I write this. I'm an obsessive hunter/buyer of anything Burges that I can afford. So I can certainly verify them if you tell me how. Alternatively, I can replace the references, as they may be of limited value if few can actually access them. I very much appreciate your comments re. dedication but, in the end, it's all about Burges and Wikipedia. I like the concept of Wikipedia and I love Burges. He's a stupendous architect and merits a suitable article. Which we've created (POV).

That's OK, just the title, publisher and that its a pamphlet will do. Out of curiousity are you interested in getting any of his buildings up to GA status? I'd love for Cardiff Castle and Castell Coch of course in particular to be promoted.♦Dr. Blofeld22:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should be absolutely delighted to work on Cardiff Castle and Castell Coch to move them to GA. As we know, the buildings and the architect fully merit it - it's only the inadequacy of the articles themselves that are the encumberance. Which is a matter of some shame, given that I've done work on them. I have a plethora of sources. Shall we move Burges up first and then work on the subsidiary articles?

Cool, let's do that then.♦Dr. Blofeld14:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Dr Blofeld, are we good to go with a GA review by Mr Riley? I'm still a bit worried at Colombo - Crook lists an unexecuted plan for Lahore Cathedral - could Morris have mixed them up?

I will try to give it an edit tomorrow and see what I can do, remind me evening time if I haven't started on it. I admire how you can concentrate on one article like that!♦Dr. Blofeld21:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can be a nag, an unfortunate trait of which you may be reminded tomorrow evening! Have a good night.

No nudge required! Grand work on extending the sources - looking at the GA criteria, I see I'm way over-reliant on Crook, which you knew. Let me know what else I should be doing.

Yes, to be honest. You rely on the Crook source and quotes a great deal. Its the best book on him but I still feel some of the uses should be replaced with other sources. I will try to get around to the content tomorrow and will see what I can do.♦Dr. Blofeld21:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. And no need to be reticent about your honest opinion. Crook is the best by a mile, and he is very, very good, and Burges is a sadly under-appreciated and under-studied architect. But I quite accept it can't be all Crook, even his four separate volumes, or it will look too single-sourced. So let's bang on. I'll see what I can do, also. But let's not be too hard on ourselves. Comparing it with other GAs, and quite a lot of the recent FAs, I still think we've made it a damn good article which gives the reader who doesn't know Burges a very good overview of his life, his works and his importance. Not a bad joint effort.

Nominated for GA. I've asked Tim riley to review it. I anticipate a thorough review from him which will hopefully identify many of the remaining issues. There may be a lot to have to address, but I'd imagine you'd be up to the job! BTW I'd strongly advise moving William Burges (architect) to William Burges. He isthe William Burges most will be searching for. If you agree I'll get an admin to move it ♦Dr. Blofeld15:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent - and very, many thanks. As I've said more than once, it wouldn't have moved anywhere without you. I shall roll up my sleeves to address Mr Riley's issues - but I will need help. Where do I go to find his comments when he's had a chance to review? Don't worry, I won't rush him. As to that damn Australian politician, I've thought more than once of obliterating his page! Seriously, I do think Burges (architect) far exceeds him for notablity and would be delighted if you could get the switch done. Thanks and very best regards.

Requested a move. HilariouslyGerman wiki has an article on the Aussi politician but notthe Burges LOL. We are nowWilliam Burges and Tim has reserved the review for a few days time atTalk:William Burges/GA1, so put that page on your watchlist! BTW I startedLlanrothal which you might find something to add to.Dr. Blofeld20:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the interest in the old boy's gone through the roof today, relatively speaking. Is that your GA listing, or your bumping that irrelevant aussie politico off the Burges front page?

Well I have quite a lot of people who watch my work on wikipedia and a lot of people will have seen the GA listing, yeah probably a bit of both.Talk:William Burges/GA1 has begun BTW. I'll be unable to attend to the points today as I'm rather busy but I'll try and help you out tomorrow.♦Dr. Blofeld16:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you haven't started addressing the review? Are you daunted by it?♦Dr. Blofeld21:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look now - was out earlier but sleeves now fully rolled-up. I'll have covered all the comments by tonight.KJP1 (talk)21:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Daunted" - Oh, ye of little faith. It's Burges, I could edit all night. But there are a couple of points where I'd appreciate advice - detailed on the review page.

I think the Worc Coll Chapel deserves its own section. Among other things, each of the choir stalls has on its back three letters which together make up the start of theTe Deum in English, viz WEP RAI SET HEE OLO RDW etc., etc., ending up the Provost's stall where the final three letters are GOD. Anyway, have a look atthis.... --GuillaumeTell23:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, and thank you very much. My order is already in the electronic post. I think you're right, his work on the Chapel requires more than a passing reference. I shall do it tomorrow.KJP1 (talk)23:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've also dug out a 1963 "Victorian Architecture" book edited by Peter Ferriday, intro by John Betjeman (I knew I had it somewhere!), which has a chapter on Burges byCharles Handley-Read, with 6 pages on the chapel (plus a gloomy photo). --GuillaumeTell01:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Handley-Read, the John the Baptist of Burges studies! I would love to work something from him in.

Worcester College now added. Sufficient?

Yes, fine, though I made a small but not insignificant alteration. I'll read through H-R's piece about the Chapel this afternoon and see if I can find something suitable (but short) to add. --GuillaumeTell11:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not. I'd rather over-stated the extent of Wyatt's contribution! A direct quote from C H-R would be fantastic.

The currency you mean. Not sure either. I've added some more info about some of his stained glass windos auctioned or valued recently BTW.♦Dr. Blofeld15:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KJP1, starting to push the Charles Rolls challenge - I have adverts on lot of non emnglish wikis. We should also have quite a few Monmouth DYKs on the front page tomorrow - and have you seen the news about the wifi! Could you sign up herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA/Charles_Rolls_Challenge/Points if only to wencourage others :-) Oh and thanks for your support!Victuallers (talk)15:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate your comments - it was great fun running through Monmouth's Blue Plaque list adding stubs - some of which have developed into very nice little articles. Unfortunately, I've quite forgotten which ones I created some wouldn't be able to claim my Rolls points!

Hello, KJP1. You have new messages atPigsonthewing's talk page.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

+1

I have dug out four articles from learned journals that you may find of interest.They are temporarily at my personal webspacehere,here,here, andhere. If you like to download them and let me know, I'll then delete them (for reasons of copyright).Tim riley (talk)14:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All downloaded. Very many thanks. They look fascinating. Now, do I read them, which will only cause me to put more into the article, to the fury of any hard-pressed editor, or do I try to address your latest comments before the next set arrives?

I'd hang on to them and put anything you extract from them into the articleafter GA promotion and before going on to Featured Article candidacy.Tim riley (talk)15:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very sound advice. I think its probably got enough information for GA anyway, just needs rather fewer of my inaccuracies and less of my POV! The photos in the fourth/4th article are superb. I went to the 1981 centenary exhibition in Cardiff as a school boy (I mean I actually was at school, rather than that I chose to go dressed as a school boy) and still have the "Strange Genius" catalogue which is a mine of information. I get the impression you're not a natural Goth but isn't Burges's work amazing?

I refer the honourable gentleman to P G Wodehouse: "Whatever may be said in favour of the Victorians, it is pretty generally admitted that few of them were to be trusted within reach of a trowel and a pile of bricks." I was brought up in Liverpool, a city with more listed buildings than anywhere other than London, and nearly all of them neo-classical. Scott's Anglican Cathedral is the glorious exception - my most revered building anywhere, not excluding San Giorgio Maggiore, so I do Goth – sort of.Tim riley (talk)15:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice indeed. But Wodehouse was writing when everybodyloathed the Victorians. Though I have to acknowledge that Burges probably didn't build anything quite as beautiful as San Giorgio Maggiore. As to how his work compares with that of Giles Gilbert Scott, I shall remain silent for fear that you would stop your fantastic review.

Brute! I laughed aloud at that, and shall not be prejudiced thereby. I'll conclude my review either tonight or tomorrow. It really is a top notch article, and once it's been thoroughly reviewed after GA it should certainly feature at FAC.Tim riley (talk)17:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice words Tim, thanks. Now if we could get everyone of Burges's works up to GA status..♦Dr. Blofeld17:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kind words, indeed. It's been made immeasurably better by your review. If it passes GA, I, for one, shall need a rest before joining the Doctor on the Cardiff Castle and Castell Coch pages. Re. the remainder of your review, I may take a little longer to respond as the working week sometimes restricts my activity here. Thanks and best regards.

Thoroughly merited. Loud applause. I wish I could say you have converted me to the neo-Gothic, but heigh ho!

If you feel like getting your own back for my three days of nitpicking you can do so on an article of mine,Georg Solti, which I have up for FAChere. Don't feel any obligation, but if you were to spot anything untoward I'd be glad to know about it.Tim riley (talk)18:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Well your hard work as I said was always admirable on it. Well done!♦Dr. Blofeld19:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise but I can sometimes exhibit the characteristics of an impatient child. The article is still flagged GA nominee. It there some further process it goes through?

Give the bots 24 hours or so to filter through the system.Tim riley (talk)

I shall certainly have a look at Sir Georg, the very least I can do, but I know little about him and my proof-reading skills are not of the highest quality, as you know to your cost!. And thank you again Doctor, it is quite superfluous to say it would not have got there without your efforts and your understanding. And I should very much like to work with you again on Cardiff and Coch if your interest in him hasn't waned.

Fantastic!

Yes indeed whenever you want to start on either of the castles let me know. A break would be advisable right now though!♦Dr. Blofeld19:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'm exhausted. But you know that sometime we will get together to move Burges to FA.

Happy to help in that FAC drive.Tim riley (talk)20:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could not do it without you, nor would we want to.

Hi, I have just taken a look at this excellent article and read through the GA review expertly done by Tim. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Having missed the boat in terms of comments, can I offer a late one (and small one to boot). I know from experience that image reviews atWP:FAC are strict and it may be one less comment you recieve if you were to swap, from left to right, the image in the architectural team. SeeWP:FILE and more specificallyhere for a bit more detail. Congratulations on a good article! --Cassianto (talk)22:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate your comments and very glad you enjoyed the article. Yes, Tim did do a rather marvellous job. Have moved the image as suggested.

Yes, and more congratulations from me, too. I've been looking through the article today and have spotted one or two things that you might want to think about:

• Section on St Fin Barre's Cathedral, Cork:Carrigrohane, Frankfield andDouglas, County Cork - what was Burges doing in those places? Just visiting, building churches or what? Incidentally, I don't find that the various Lawrence & Wilson reference links to Google Books and their snippet reviews are at all helpful.
• Dover: Connaught Hall is mentioned in the text, but is lumped together (as Town Hall) with the Maison Dieu in the list of works at the end. Shouldn't it have its own article?
• Church of St John the Baptist,Outwood, Surrey: not mentioned anywhere in the article, but is one of the Burges churches included in my copy of Betjeman's Collins Pocket Guide to English Parish Churches, South, and seehere.

Don't know why I overlooked this one. And there's a good photograph in Commons. Shall set too.

• Personal life: it would be good (IMO) if the limerick could be displayed in the usual form, viz:

"There's a babyish party called Burges,

Who from childhood hardly emerges.

If you hadn't been told,

He's disgracefully old,

You would offer a bull's-eye to Burges."

--GuillaumeTell23:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciated. Your prompt on Worcester greatly added to the article. I shall put your excellent suggestions on my list of further things to do. Best regards.

I took the liberty to lower an image so the text is no longer squeezed and closed a few gaps in relation to the references. I do have one remaining little nigglewith some of the references however:

• If a range of pages are being used as a source, then the page's should be formatted with a pp instead of a singular p. For example: pp. 288-89 etc. instead of p. 288-89. You may want to work through these when you can. --Cassianto (talk)00:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a liberty at all. I'm delighted that you liked the article and am very grateful for the improvements. I will add the formatting of references to multiple pages to Tim's list of things that need to be worked on. Best regards.

Before FAC I'd say there is quite some scope for content improvement. It could be finely tuned and made even more comprehensive aside from the minor issues needed. But I definitely see potential of it, but hopefully we can get a good peer review on it. I wouldn't rush into it.♦Dr. Blofeld13:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, Doctor, I'm not for prematurely rushing to FA. Firstly, I'm exhausted and I strongly suspect that FA will be more demanding - and less fun?; secondly, there are the lesser issues to address; thirdly, I need to learn/practice quite a lot of what I've learnt and, fourthly, you're quite right, there's a considerable amount to do on the content. So we'll take a break and see when we feel like picking it up again. Re. the peer review, shall I put it back on the Architecture project site? All the very best.

Its unlikely to be a few weeks anyway, I'd leave it as it is! More demanding and less fun is an understatement. There are times during FAC you feel as if you're bending over backwards so much you can smellAlf Stewart's burgers inSummer Bay,Australia! You might be interested inHilston Park in the meantime..♦Dr. Blofeld22:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KJP, you will want to clarify, I'm sure, the Grade thatHilston Park is listed at. Regards.Martinevans123 (talk)23:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StartedClytha.♦Dr. Blofeld15:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You startedMonmouth County Gaol too!♦Dr. Blofeld21:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No end to my talents! Now, have startedChurch of St John the Baptist, Outwood, whichGuillaume pointed out was missing from Burges (ever attentive to the content). But can I find it on British Listed Buildings On-Line? What the hell parish is the church in? Bletchingley, Godstone, Nutfield - all blanks. Help! But look at the referencing! Have I learnt from you or what?

Is it not inRedhill, Surrey? --Cassianto (talk)22:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly. But BLBO doesn't list it there.[1] But I'm very pleased you responded as I was having some difficulty accessing your Talk Page and I wanted to thank you for your sorting of the Burges images. They look very much better now.

My pleasure! It's a stirling effort and one to be very proud of. It certainly seems to be well on its way to FAC. I adore English architecture and I dip in and out ofSir Edward Maufe from time to time. If you need anything else just drop me a line, I'll be happy to help (if I can!). --Cassianto (talk)22:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not listed, apparently - probably because of Ian Nairn's remarks in the B of E Surrey vol, is my guess. Anyway, thanks for adding the article.

An unlisted Burges church! What a heresy.

Its Grade II. Still pretty low for Burges.

I've finally read through Handley-Read's piece in Victorian Architecture and notice that he mentions "a gallery for the Marquis of Northampton" about which he knew nothing. It seems to me that (if it exists) it must be at eitherCompton Wynyates orCastle Ashby Manor, perhaps when Burges was working withMatthew Digby Wyatt. No mention of Burges in the Warwickshire or Northants Pevsners, however. Anything in Crook about this? --GuillaumeTell01:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know this but shall check in Crook. Compton Wynyates is a rather secretive house, so perhaps overlooked if there. Castle Ashby's a possiblity, reasonably close toGayhurst House and the connection made thereby?

Castle Ashby Manor it was. Four designs for the decoration of the Long Gallery in 1875. Unexecuted, and the plans now "vanished", according to Crook.

DearCassianto - really appreciate your work on the referencing, it's not my strong point! Nor can I work out how to leave a message on your Talk Page, so I hope you get this.KJP1 (talk)06:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some break you're having from it KJP..♦Dr. Blofeld11:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help where I can. I will continue with it over the next few days. Incidentally, to leave a message on a talk page you can click on "Talk" and then "New Section" — seeWP:TP. Remember to sign at the end of the message with the four tildes. All the best! --Cassianto (talk)13:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KJP. I would much appreciate you giving the architectural description I have added to this article the once-over, if you find a moment. By the way, I also had quite a productive trip toLlanrothal at the weekend. Many thanks.Martinevans123 (talk)21:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, but it will probably have to wait until the weekend.KJP1 (talk)06:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KJP, I have a few documents which I think you will be interested in and I would like you to take a look at them. Is there a way I can send them to you? --Cassianto (talk)22:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very interested but I've no idea how I put my e-mail up securely. If you can tell me how, great. Alternatively, Tim Riley posted some documents in his userspace and I downloaded them, which worked. Any good?

Tim's more of a technical wiz than me i'm affraid. I'm still struggling with the tin opener! :-) If you followthis link and send an email to me I can then reply and send you the attachments. If this doesn't allow then go to "My Preferences" in the top right hand of your screen --- Scroll down ---check the box or add/ change email address. Once you have saved this then follow the above link. This will then enable you to send and recieve email's. If you still have no joy get back to me. --Cassianto (talk)17:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am much touched at being the dedicateein pectore of this article. A pal of mine was made a Papal Knight recently, and I shall attempt to catch up with him by swanking about this private dedication. Now, then, Scott diversions notwithstanding, what are you doing about taking Burges to FAC? It's much too fine a piece of work to languish as a mere GA.Tim riley (talk)18:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second that! --Cassianto (talk)18:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't nominate it yet though, I still have a few things I might be able to add.♦Dr. Blofeld19:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KJP, could you supply a cite for the flag added to the end line of theCardiff Castle section --Cassianto (talk)20:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Where are we to with those documents?

Still no email I'm afraid! Tim is hopefully going to show me how to send a PDF file tomorrow so I can send the pictures over. I will email you again using the WP service. --Cassianto (talk)22:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try this link. If it doesn't work blame Tim! :-)

Cassianto (talk)20:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

https://connectnow.acrobat.com/chrismaxim2006

It invites me to join a conference and then tells me it hasn't started because the host is not there! I'll try another e-mail approach.

On27 March 2012,Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articleLlanrothal, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was... that theCwm inLlanrothal, a college on theMonmouthshire–Herefordshire border, was a "stronghold" of Roman Catholics likeHenry Milbourne in the 17th century? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,quick check) and add it toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on theDid you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 01:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

On27 March 2012,Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articleHenry Milbourne, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was... that theCwm inLlanrothal, a college on theMonmouthshire–Herefordshire border, was a "stronghold" of Roman Catholics likeHenry Milbourne in the 17th century? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,quick check) and add it toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on theDid you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 01:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If you follow[2] it will take you to a free version of what I was looking at. You can view the documents there. Click on "scan" and it will show you the death register. Have a play around with the various dates and see what you can find. If you can't find or view certain things, let me know and I will look on my subscription service. It will be on there and I will send it to you with a citation.

You can cite the death by formatting it like this - William Burges"Index entry".FreeBMD. ONS. Retrieved27 March 2012., accessed (and then the date)

Copy and paste the above format to a reference on the Burges article. But beware. Ancestry information may prove particularly problematic atFA if not cited correctly. To cite the census try using - Class: RG 9; Piece: 57; Folio: 49; Page: 1; GSU roll: 542565. This is given at Ancestry.Com. If this is rejected at FA, then you may have to delete it as I can't think another way on how to cite it.

Glad you liked it and please let me know how you get on. --Cassianto (talk)21:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions!66.87.2.193 (talk)16:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you! I see quite a lot of progress has been made on articles on Rolls family members, with some great photos too! Definitely the right idea to spread the history of the family elsewhere, it's great that there are articles for this now. Thanks for all your hard work!Ithundir (talk)15:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing todisambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

Chevithorne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing toVictorian,Jacobean,Red sandstone andTiverton

Carrigrohane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toCork

Darenth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toVictorian

Thomas Nicholls, sculptor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toCork

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)14:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this it? A hunch would be yes, there is probably two of them. I'll look into it more tomorrow. I'd doubt there are two Grade I listed buildings under that name though.. William Burges. Allow me to look over it in the next week. I want to check every building mentioned in it by doing a google book search for it and trying to find any missing scraps which could make it more comprehensive and ensure it is as well read and researched as possible. If you could begin doing this I'd be very grateful and we could check it in turn if you see what I mean. I want to ensure every building covered in the article has been fully researched. ALso google book searching things like William Burges glass etc might turn up more.. ♦Dr. Blofeld19:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one north of Abergavenny which I think RCAHMW lists as Grade I, and not the one south of Raglan. I agree its unlikely both are Grade I listed and I think I've probably wrongly attributed the listing to the Raglan one. Although, as Newman says, the gates are impressive, although the building behind them looked less so. Re. Burges. that's fine. I agree there's more that could be done. But then that will always be true! Regards.KJP1 (talk)19:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KJP1. You have new messages atGhmyrtle's talk page.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Create the article on the one you have photos for and the location you are sure of and I'll do some pussy footing around to see if I can find evidence of another one. BTW if you have a few decent stubs started let me know. I'd have expandedChevithorne ‎ for instance and nominated for DYK.♦Dr. Blofeld19:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I've created, wholly inadequate, stubs for Burges's team,John Starling Chapple,William Frame,Horatio Walter Lonsdale,Thomas Nicholls (sculptor),William Gualbert Saunders, andCeccardo Egidio Fucigna, all of which would benefit from the Dr B touch.

And can we do anything with the Church of St Peter,Carrigrohane, where you've already worked and which stands out as the only one of his buildings without a decent reference?

As you may have seen,Nev1 says this:

"You're right to question the location, because what's happened here is two castles with the same name have been confused:Upper Pen y Clawdd ringwork at SO457073 andPen y Clawdd Castle, Crucorney at SO30992009. Castlewales.com which the Wikipedia articles references is about the latter site, whereas the former is the one near the village in Monmouthsire."Martinevans123 (talk)20:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should now go through the Burges article and google book search each building to ensure we've not missed anything of note out. Perhaps we can keep each other posted of how far we get. I'll make a start shortly. After that, yeah let's nominate for FA.♦Dr. Blofeld12:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr B - that's a plan. I shall work through tomorrow and let you know how I'm getting on. You're certainly right that there will be more we could add but I don't think we've missed anything of great significance. I thought about adding more to the stained glass and furniture sections, particularly with the stuff Tim sent me, but I'm now worried it's getting too long and we'd face the criticism that it should be sub-sectioned. As it is, I think it nicely illustrates his importance in all the subsidiary areas, without drowning the reader in just too much detail. So let's see how we progress next week and then, would you be kind enough to nominate it? Best regards.KJP1 (talk)23:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion we should google book search as many Burges buildings and things as possible and ensure the article is definitely as comprehensive as possible first. Like I did yesterday. Its not so much detail, its just ensuring it is fully comprehensive.Then we can worry about shortening it, which shouldn't too difficult to do. I think we could cut back on some of the quotes for a start...♦Dr. Blofeld11:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info: it should be "Pen y Clawdd"; "y" in front o f a constanant, "yr" in front of a vowel. "y clawdd" but "yr Aifft" (Egypt). "Pen" means "head" or "top", "clawdd" is a "boundary" or "fortification". "Pen Clawdd" is a village in the Gower Peninsula.Llywelyn2000 (talk)05:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per my Talk page, I've ceased recategorising articles, and am asking for iscussion onCategory talk:Buildings and structures in Monmouth.--A bit iffy (talk)22:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested a new subcategoryCategory:Buildings and structures in Monmouth. Discussion is atCategory talk:Buildings and structures in Monmouthshire.—A bit iffy (talk)17:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It now appears the proposed category does exist, but with a slightly different name ofCategory:Buildings and structures in Monmouth, Wales.—A bit iffy (talk)18:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KJP1:Autopatrolled was requested for you atWikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled by Gilo1969, basicly because the new page patrollers do not think they have to patrol your pages, and can trust you to make a good new page. The bit does not allow you to do anything, but is a convenience forWP:new page patrol.Graeme Bartlett (talk)23:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On9 April 2012,Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articleGanarew, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,quick check) and it will be added toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on theDid you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 09:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

On9 April 2012,Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articleKing Arthur's Cave, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was... thatKing Arthur's Cave, nearGanarew, to the northeast ofMonmouth, is reputedly the oldestArthurian site? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,quick check) and it will be added toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on theDid you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 17:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently editedChurch of St Peter, Carrigrohane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageCork (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I really ought to get a copy myself and will do so post-haste. I was pondering the chapel this afternoon. Pevsner says that the Evangelists are by W.G. Nicholl - William Grinsell Nicholl, a sculptor who needs a WP article[3], whereas somewhere else (Handley-Read?) I saw that they were by Nicholls. Nicholl certainly carved the lectern and, I think, the candlesticks, and he had worked on theAshmolean Museum withCharles Robert Cockerell - and also at ...Waltham Abbey, according toRupert Gunnis, who has a comprehensive list of his works. (More here).

I was in Cardiff ten days ago for the Mariinsky show at the Wales Millennium Centre and took a rather rushed tour round the Castle which I hadn't visited for some years. Wowee! --GuillaumeTell21:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look atthis page please, and leave any comments you may think fit. Thanks.Llywelyn2000 (talk)05:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bore da! I've started a new articlehere on the Rolls family, as you suggested. Please change or suggest any amendments. Thanks for the inspiration!Llywelyn2000 (talk)03:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All done:The Rolls Family, Monmouth.Llywelyn2000 (talk)09:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find anything on this dead house? I've startedThe Doward BTW.♦Dr. Blofeld 14:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Mmm yeah that looks like it, but it was demolished, so maybe a new one was built, it looks further south than opposite Leys which I think was supposed to have been about 50 yards further north. Feel free to add, I got Newton Court wrong though its on the left side of the road and river.♦Dr. Blofeld 18:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Yes the area is called Hadnock, the hamlet is Little Hadnock. I'd say it constitutes its own article! Its astounding how we're getting information on every square kilometre in this area!♦Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Looks like it, yes. The way the sources are worded implies the former house demolished in 1822 was located further north practically opposite Leys, about 50-100 yards further north.♦Dr. Blofeld19:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have reworded to indicate the article covers 2 buildings, as I think it does, and added some references. Hope this is ok. Don't know what on earth has happened to my Reflinks Tool. It just causes havoc. Shall have to re-install but in the meantime you'll have to fix the bare references.

KJP - exactly the same thing happnens when I do Reflinks. But then, I did see my laptop ontv last week.Martinevans123 (talk)20:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I was only thinking the same think last night. But it ought to be peer reviewed first surely? I'll see what Tim thinks. I still wants a few hours on the article though. BTW just because reflinks doesn't work doesn't mean it is acceptable to leave bare URLs!! ♦Dr. Blofeld11:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're underestimating just how long and lugubrious FAC is. Its April 20 and if you're going away in early May it definitely would still be ongoing. Most FACs from what I've seen last at least a full month, certainly a lot longer than 10-15 days in general! I think we should nominate it when you return. By then I hope to have improved it further anyway.♦Dr. Blofeld10:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I saw! I can only imagine the chuckles from the Morgan family...Benbristol00:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently editedHewell Grange, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pagesVictorian andRed Sandstone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On20 April 2012,Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articleHadnock, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was... thatBaderon of Monmouth tookHadnock back fromMonmouth Priory and gave three forges in exchange? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,quick check) and it will be added toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on theDid you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk)16:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have anything onVelindre House in Whitchurch, Cardiff?♦Dr. Blofeld13:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Fraid not. If it still exists it's on the site of Whitchurch Hospital, which you'll probably know. It was owned by a Thomas Booker, colliery owner, in the later 19th century. It's not in Newman and I can't find it on any of the usual listing sites.

This[4] says Blakemore, of Velindre House, was High Sheriff in 1820.

And this[5] gives them both a mention.

I'd expected it to be a major house, its like a small detached house, I found it on google street view! Probably not worthy of an article at least architecturally it is as normal as they come!♦Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)I nominatedKilgwrrwg but it needs another 500 bytes. Can you find a bit more?♦Dr. Blofeld07:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, but it'll have to wait until tonight. Give me until then.

User:Ghmyrtle's added loads. You must be way over the limit by now.

I'm going to work on it tomorrow with a clear head, I got sidetracked today and can't concentrate too much on it right now. Then yeah, nominate within the next few days. Hope you had a nice break!♦Dr. Blofeld10:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I hope your head is clearer today. Did the , rare, sunshine lead you to take one Pimms too many at lunch? I'm now looking forward to the FA process which I'm sure will enable us to make some real improvements to the article. Let me know when its nominated and whether you need me to do anything before then. All the best.KJP1 (talk)05:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some additions and edits. Go ahead and nom once you'd addressed the clarify and vague tags I've added and sorted out the bare urls I mentioned below. If I was commenting on the FA I would have mentioned them.. I can still spot some things which I think will be picked up on at the FAC. I personally think there are still too many gushing quotes by Crook, particularly in the lower sections. Also one or two sources need checkinghttp://www.cecilhigginsartgallery.org/ you use to reference William Burges gallery in APril 2013 but the source makes no mention. There should be no bare url linked sources, they should be formatted withTemplate:Cite web. If you can address these. I'm not entirely convinced the prose in part flows as well as it could and is quite up to FA standards quite yet but I might be phased by past experiences where the standard expected at the FAC was beyond ridiculously high. Overall having read it thoroughly today though I'd say it is now close enough to open a FAC. But be prepared to slog your guts out at the FAC...♦Dr. Blofeld15:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earth to KJP1. Are you going to nom?♦Dr. Blofeld15:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, this time next week things might look different!♦Dr. Blofeld16:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and its just getting started. Expect more critical, borderline nasty comments at some stage. Doesn't always happen but always used to. Certainly expect criticism. At some point in my experience the FAC always reaches a point where you think "I'm bending over so far I'm drinking a Foster's at a bar in Cairns", people are expecting perfection". This has started very promisingly though so it may not happen that way. But its definitely very tough. Yeah if you could speak to Tim about that. I'll gradually plough away at the other comments over the next few days..♦Dr. Blofeld18:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its within our sights though and achievable as I said. If I hadn't have seen the potential that it could actually reach the top level I wouldn't have said so. I've addressed all of Tim's and Cass's points but I'll leave the quote sorting to you as you added them! It would be a good idea though to keep on top of the comments we get, otherwise if we leave it until several other have commenting it might seem more overwhelming. After this of course I want to work with you on getting Cardiff Castle to FA. ♦Dr. Blofeld12:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that yeah quotes should be attributed, so good work on that. But I also agree with Cass in that there is one quote too many and we could cut back on a few. I did say remember that the quotes might be cause difficulties at FAC. Maybe remove a few of them as you address them?♦Dr. Blofeld14:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try, and I have taken one out. But every deletion is a knife-wound to the heart!!!KJP1 (talk)14:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Hokay medieval it is.♦Dr. Blofeld21:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, best to keep on track with the comments, seems less daunting then. Can you check the Burlington magazine sources. I spot two from JSTOR and one which says something like page 55 of the burlington Magazine. Are they all the same source?♦Dr. Blofeld11:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah strike em all out which are done, and in future we should strike out immediately once done. This FAC is actually going well, no unpleasantries or disguised insults as of yet.♦Dr. Blofeld12:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find the url for ref 189 "Bedford Borough Council website, February 2011"♦Dr. Blofeld12:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added as bare URL which needs fixing. Glad it's going well! Might need advice on how to strike through text.KJP1 (talk)13:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - Ido need advice on how to strike through text.KJP1 (talk)13:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just click edit on the FAC and see how it is done with a <s> and </s>.♦Dr. Blofeld13:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now much clearer as to what remains to be done.KJP1 (talk)14:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know!! I think i can still improve it a little further. Some of the longer quotes may be suited to side quote boxes. Providing they aren't cluttered with images of course. in my own opinion some of the sections are still not quite as strong as they could be and need reinforcing. Especially Park House.♦Dr. Blofeld16:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No prob.s, I can beef up Park House, and any others you think need doing. I like the quote box against his churches. It looks very good and I agree that some more, with some of the longer quotes, would be very pleasing indeed.

Yeah, obviously its close to FA now, but I always like to make it as good as possible even with support. If you have some suitable longer quotes to go in the first half of the article. Especially Cardiff Castle and Castle Coch, there are probably some great quotes, although best not all be by Crook!. Don't want to clutter it too much though, some of the paragraphs without images could have a few quotes maybe. I'd also like to see one or two more quotes by Burges himself as I feel they are valuable. Maybe another 3-4 quote boxes, so long as they odn't interfere with images or bloat it as I said, they would have to be strategically placed. Yeah, Park House I think needs beefing up with architectural details. Does CADW have a PDF with details like I added toHilston House? (which passed GA BTW this avo.♦Dr. Blofeld17:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine - I'll look for a couple of good Cardiff quotes, beef up Park House, do another check of the references - I've noticed a few more that aren't links - and askUser:Nikkimaria about what are now Footnotes 185 and 265, where neither of us can work out what the problem is. Incidentally, I agree that further improvement is always valuable and, if I undertand FAC, which I may well not, isn't the timing out of our hands now? As I read it, the admins now decide when, if ever, the consensus on FA is reached. Now for supper.

Park House and actually Tower House could do with more on the actual exterior architecture I think.♦Dr. Blofeld17:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, the article with your additions on Park and Tower House and review comments has improved it further.♦Dr. Blofeld11:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, I think it's coming along nicely. As you said, Park and Tower Houses did both need a bit more, but I think they're ok now. A couple of things:

• User:GuillaumeTell has promised he'll try to get his final batch of comments today so I'll respond to them when received. He really has done an excellent job.
• Can you Reflink 133. I wish I knew what had happended to my Reflinks tool. It was so helpful and now it just blanks everything.
• Can you check the quote box for Knightshayes. Neither I norUser:GuillaumeTell can work out who Mallory is and did he really have a boudoir?
• I haven't had a reply fromUser:Nikkimaria on the 3 outstanding formatting queries, or the point she raised regarding listing sources from the same author, which neither you nor I could fathom. Should I chase her? She seems rather important, BTW.

Apart from that, we do seem to be in pretty good shape. What do we do now - wait around for more comments?KJP1 (talk)16:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for getting a picure. I have never seen it before. Had you thought of cropping it down to remove some of the molehills?Martinevans123 (talk)18:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, there is this one at geograph:[6], which I suspect may have been taken from a similar vantage point, with a zoom (or has been cropped down).Martinevans123 (talk)21:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On19 May 2012,Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articleKilgwrrwg, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was... that the Church of the Holy Cross atKilgwrrwg,Monmouthshire, is one of the most remoteparish churches in the UK still in regular use? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Kilgwrrwg.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,quick check) and it will be added toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on theDid you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk·contribs)00:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish someone would sort out who gets the credits for these DYKs. By my count, you added 2532 bytes to the article, and I added 3615. Bah humbug!! (Not that such trivialities matter, of course!)Ghmyrtle (talk)11:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Suppose you want to get a link to a sub-paragraph - here we go (using a Burges example):

• You're aiming for a link to a sub-para ofFrench Gothic architecture
• Have two iterations of Wikipedia in separate tabs up top - use one to try out these instructions and the other to show what results will be produced
• Having got theFrench Gothic architecture article on your screen, look at the Contents box below the (rather vestigial) lead.
• Click on the sub-para in the Context box that you want to include as a link in your article - in this case, 2.1 Early Gothic
• This should produce:

a) a header entitled Early Gothic but also:

b) up at the top of the screen, following the Big W (reminds me ofIt's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World), the beginning of the URL, i.e. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...]]

• Now you have to get rid of the - for this purpose - beginning of the URL. Keep the square brackets but delete the bit after them, i.e. the bit that says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
• That should leave you withFrench_Gothic_architecture#Early_Gothic
• Use the above link in the article.
• Gosh, it looks very complicated, but you can keep experimenting and pressing the "Show preview" button down below until you end up with the Real Thing.

Feel free to contact me if anything goes wrong... --GuillaumeTell00:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, although, as you say, it sounds complicated. No doubt it'll be simpler when I try it, but thanks for doing the two you spotted in Burges. And thanks again for your comments. Really very helpful and have added much to the article. I hope you're ok with the details and dates for Worcester College now - Gillingham was helpful as to what exactly is left of Burges in the Hall. Have you got a copy yet - it really is beautifully illustrated. Sometime, I must go and see it for myself.

Yes, I've gone through the Worcester College bits. Haven't got round to ordering Gillingham but will do so soon. The College is publishing a book about itself in 2014, which will be the 300th anniversary of its creation - rather recent for Oxford! - and, ahem, the 50th anniversary of my matriculation there, which shows my age a lot! And I saw and loved most, maybe all, of Sergeant Bilko on TV in Kenya in the early '60s. --GuillaumeTell11:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have just ordered Gillingham (sometimes I do things decisively, but not very often). I see that she is the spouse of the last Provost. Should finally finish comments tomorrow, tho' not before about 3pm. Best. --GuillaumeTell23:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think your using, and my recognising, the Big W from MMMMW shows our age a little. Phil Silvers is terrific!KJP1 (talk)14:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pps - what more could you expect from the man who brought us Sergeant Knocker! --Cassianto (talk)07:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"My real focus is pre-WWII, Asquith, L-G, Baldwin etc. but I can cover more modern figures too," you note. We'll miss you at the editing jamboree on WW1 at the British Library a week today.[7]. I know little about the battles but am turning up to add anything I can on the politics, and perhaps the poetry.Tim riley (talk)21:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. There's a page number in the Weinreb ref that I think should be removed from this section, as it's in the proper place in the "notes" section.

Done.KJP1 (talk)21:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Your recurring note "no ISBN" is notcomme il faut: see WordCat for OCLC numbers which should be quoted instead. For instance:this (scroll down the page to find the OCLC number).
2. Images: since I last looked in you have added a lot of images and quote boxes. I find, in particular, the twin image of Burges and Bute too big for comfort. I suggest you resize it to match the one above it.

Done.KJP1 (talk)21:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a horrid suspicion that these comments really ought to be on the FAC page, but I recoil from putting my oar in there yet again.

Yours, Anonymous Neo-classicist.Tim riley (talk)19:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, your oar is always welcome. I'll look at these tomorrow but, for now, I'm exhausted with the soul-inspiring one. I hope your WWI weekend goes well.KJP1 (talk)21:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't leave it alone. I'll look at the "no ISBN" issue tomorrow - but I'm likely to need help.KJP1 (talk)21:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mallory. means Heathcoat-Amory of course, maybe its a printing error? I like the quote though and think its productive.♦Dr. Blofeld20:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URLS for web sources. When you click edit you'll see a prove it ref at the bottom right. CLick "add a reference, Paste the url in there and fill out the form, it will help you draw up a full ref.♦Dr. Blofeld20:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Stained glass section could do with a few examples of his works, especially those he designed not for buildings he worked on. I feel it needs a bit more and a bit more analysis of his style etc?♦Dr. Blofeld12:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could add the quote under the first Cardiff Castle image. As for Castell Coch quote mmm, I would remove the picture on the left and put it there? I think it would be too cluttered otherwise?♦Dr. Blofeld10:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both sound good. You wantme to try and put in a quote box! Could be messy.

Just copy and paste an existing one, look how its set out, and simply replace it. You'll see it says either left or right at the top, your choice.♦Dr. Blofeld12:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Hopefully it won't go on much longer. But you see the tenacity that is required to achieve FAs. And that's why I stopped contributing to FAs as I thought me time spent on the minor edits "perfecting" it would be better spent on much more lacking articles. But working with you, you have the passion to see it through.♦Dr. Blofeld[reply]

As you can't quote something that doesn't exist I'd explain the facts on the FAC page. That should do, I think.Tim riley (talk)13:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...I enjoyed working through the Burges article and trying to improve it a bit. I've just got back from a trip to Birmingham (strangely not in my copy ofCrap towns but maybe it's in the 2nd vol) where I spent a bit of time in the Art Gallery. In one of the pre-Raphaelite rooms I came upon a very nice side-table by Burges (one of a pair, apparently). It actually looked a lot older than the Victorian era - maybe renaissance Italy? - not that I'm an expert on such things. I asked the lady at the shop there if there was a postcard of it but, alas, there wasn't. She said that it would be OK to photograph it but I didn't have a camera with me. Oh well! Good luck with the FAC. Best. --GuillaumeTell18:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you or you know anybody who'd be interested in such a project. One of my chief loves is British country houses and I don't at present see a project set up to help coordinate it and to collaborate over. If interested let me know and I'll consider making a proposal.♦Dr. Blofeld12:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had expected a few more people to comment at the FAC actually but the amout of "issues" needed addressing is exactly what I'd anticipated. You see now why I usually refrain from nominating articles for FA as alone I would not have the willpower to make so many minor edits. I hope somebody will pass it in a day or two as I agree its starting to get wearing. Your efforts to answer all concerns are almost superhuman.♦Dr. Blofeld23:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wearing isNOT the word. But I am so very grateful for your support - as I have indicated on the FAC Project page. From your co-author.KJP1 (talk)23:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've concluded the reasons it didn't get more comments is that, firstly, it's an esoteric subject, and secondly, it's so damn good!KJP1 (talk)23:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for the message. I will always make time for Burges, whom I feel, will be making his appearence in the not to distant future . --Cassianto^Talk07:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a gander atUser:Crisco 1492/common.js. What you need to do to see the script is copy importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to your common.js pagehere. That will cause mistakes in the Harvard referencing to leap out at you. Remember to clear your cache after installing it though. — Crisco 1492 (talk)07:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loud cheers! Warmest congratulations on Burges's elevation.Tim riley (talk)08:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey! I didn't see that. Congratulations on a much deserved FA article (and for the kind mention in your acceptance speech :-). --Cassianto^Talk.

Hear, hear! And I also echo Dr B's comments - superhuman indeed. BTW, browsing around the Burges stuff in the Victorian Web (whose pictures, I see, are freely available for projects such as WP provided appropriate credit is given) I came uponthis magnificent monument. --GuillaumeTell10:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congratulations, KJP. A superb article.".. an atrociously rich Gothic swine"? - sounds a bit likethis monumentMartinevans123 (talk)11:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see I added the article to the wrong section of our FA page[8], sorry about this. I have deleted my entry. Congratulations. Graham.Graham Colm (talk)21:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk)20:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Featured Article Contributor Barnstar
	Congratulations on your first Featured Article and showing tremendous tenacity and perfectionist traits to capitalize upon the potential I envisaged and building the article in exactly the way I had suggested. Who would have thought that almost exactly 4months later it would achieve FA status.♦Dr. Blofeld10:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Castle to GA next? Has this put you off FA then, or will it become your goal to get all of Burges's building up to FA status and create a featured article topic about them all? In regards to country houses I think I'll set up a project page under WP:Architecture later. I'd best give them a bell about it first though.♦Dr. Blofeld10:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way you've been evading it when I mention Cardiff Castle or working on more I get the impression you've had enough of wikipedia now!♦Dr. Blofeld20:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it might be at least 2 years before Burges is featured on the front page. Kiarostami took 5 years to hit the main page.♦Dr. Blofeld21:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Kiarostami took 5 years to hit the main page! The average article probably takes 2 years, you should enquire. Either way its gonna be a long long time before you ever see it on the main page. There's 3500 other articles to compete with. Take a well earned wikibreak anyway and the offer still stands to bring Burges's building up to GA status even if not FA.♦Dr. Blofeld21:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it, sorry you didn't realise that though. I've nominated the Castles article for GA, I see FA potential.16:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Congrats on a nice article. Please seehere. I'm not criticising the article per se; my concern is the values of the FA-process itself.Br'er Rabbit (talk)16:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have run across this editor recently. I had to revert his/her wholesale edits to an article made in defiance ofWP:CITEVAR. I hope you will not be put off making further contributions to Wikipedia on account of such representations.Tim riley (talk)18:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, newbies are the sweetest. Just go agitate a little at TFA and they will put your article up very soon. Queues are for wheels that don't squeek. Go get your first article on the front page.

And, um...Caerphilly. Um and the Pembrookshire Coast. Reminds me of this book I read when on a liberty break in Wales. Some historian dude. He was even pro Welsh. But he had a funny comment about "when WAS Wales"? Then the mind wanders to Lloyd Alexander (not Jimbo).64.134.168.97 (talk)21:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested "him"for his birthday, --Gerda Arendt (talk)06:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So pleased that the recent flurry about citations hasn't put you off. I shall go and try to make my peace with the editor in question. Meanwhile I am plotting to put you off much more seriously, as I'm working onGiles Gilbert Scott, and will be seeking to lug you into those murky Mersey waters, butnot yet! More anon, beware. Hahahhaaah! (Mad post-neoGothic Scouse cackle.)Tim riley (talk)18:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Wikpedia administrator:User:Tim riley expired quite unexpectedly, foaming at the mouth and babbling of green fields without Victorian buildings. Did you know that Giles's loony dad, Sir Gilbert's son, died in the Grand Mad Midland Hotel at St Pancras? One can hardly blame him. But I was wowed by the middle Scott's Norwich RC cathedral (as it is now) - the interior, anyway. The exterior is revolting, but the inside is magnificent – even measured against pretty serious competition from God's own cathedral down the road.Tim riley (talk)19:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andromeda (constellation) passes on June 2, and is today's FA. 5 weeks. So never say never!! That has to be a record though. Haven;t seen you around of late, hope you are still interested in Cardiff Castle and Castel Coch.♦Dr. Blofeld13:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very impressive indeed. Still enjoying my wikibreak at the moment but shall certainly drop by at some point to suggest we kick off Cardiff Castle and Castell Coch. When I do, shall we start with Castell Coch? I rather fancy it will be a little easier, if only because its history is a fraction of the length of the other. Very much liked Shirenewton Hall by the way. I fear they don't do open days - the nearest I've got is standing outside the, rather gaudy and over-ornate, gates, from which one can't see the Hall at all. All the best.KJP1 (talk)17:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to your return.♦Dr. Blofeld09:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sending this note to Wikipedians with whom I have most closely collaborated over the last six years or so. After pondering hard during a month's wiki-break in July I have sadly decided to withdraw fully from contributing. I have been worn down by continual carping, sniping and belittling from a wearisome few (you know the sort of people I refer to); the joy has gone out of taking part in this wonderful enterprise. I should be more resilient, but alas it's finally got to me.

Working with you has been a pleasure and a privilege: I count myself fortunate to have had such colleagues. My warmest wishes go with you for the future. I shall be happy to do any research, copy-editing, fact-checking etc you may ever feel inclined to ask me to do – but safely offline.

With my very best wishes,
Tim. (Tim riley (talk)16:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Tis OK I returned today, it was only my intention to just pass by this morning. Sometimes you need a day or two away. I never thought Tim would fall victim, its a tremendous loss. I was counting on him to review Cardiff Castle at a later date. Its disappointing that he didn't rate us and those others he enjoyed working with highly enough above the wiki nasties but if he was worrying too much about it and it was literally affecting him then I understand but I hope it isn't permanent. That catalogue sounds good, perhaps you could scan em in and upload to the commons, should be public domain?♦Dr. Blofeld20:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I nominated the article for DYKhere. I've also cleaned up the links a bit. I think Tim would have wanted it to be shared. — Crisco 1492 (talk)14:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. I noticed the reflinks tool didn't work very well either; hope its not a new trend (the tool that checks the quality of articles that are part of a specific Wikiproject hasn't been working for a while now either) — Crisco 1492 (talk)14:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Tilden (of whom I'd previously never heard - interesting article) to theList of British architects - worth remembering if you're going to do any more architect biographies. Shame about Tim R, with whom I had an entertaining lunch a few months ago. Best. --GuillaumeTell17:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks for that, only the couple of bits of vandalism so far, but it is only 9 o'clock! Hope your doing OK. --Cassianto^Talk08:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On21 August 2012,Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articlePhilip Tilden, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was... that a design for a courtyard byPhilip Tilden was compared to a "Spanish brothel"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Philip Tilden. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page(here's how,quick check) and it will be added toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on theDid you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk)00:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem! I think that you've mixed up Burges's Thomas Nicholls (http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=ann_1270727750), who appeared in London directories of 1900, with Thomas Nichols (http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=msib4_1239103133) whodidn't. And let's not forget William Grinsell Nicholl (http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=msib5_1246023398). Best. --GuillaumeTell20:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject has started its2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of thecurrent coordinators on their talk page.This message was delivered here because you are amember of the Military history WikiProject. –Military history coordinators (about the project •what coordinators do) 09:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending

Hi, I saw the Burges has been proposed for the main page on 2 Dec and took another look at the article. The referencing mechanisms can be significantly simplified and made more flexible. I've made a few edits and will finish up over the next day or so. This will cut thousands of characters of repetitive ref-markup, making the text in the editbox much clearer. It will also automate the collation of duplicate footnotes. Enjoy,Br'er Rabbit (talk)12:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know Jack.♦Dr. Blofeld14:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ma'af; no slight intended. Looking, I see that you've hundreds of edits into this article, too.Br'er Rabbit (talk)14:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well lucky to get TFA within this year eh KJP? Cardiff Castle??♦Dr. Blofeld20:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to take a screenshot on Dec 2 and frame it on your wall!♦Dr. Blofeld20:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(watching, also I was the one to make the suggestion) you don't need a screenshot, simple take Main page history, there's one every day, here'smy favourite, --Gerda Arendt (talk)20:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm developing a new main page design proposal,User:Dr. Blofeld/2012 main page proposal. And look at the TFA!! .♦Dr. Blofeld07:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Best of luck with it. And roll on 2 December|KJP1 (talk)05:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm eager to begin on Cardiff Castle some time.♦Dr. Blofeld06:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Dear Doctor, yes, I am sorry. The demands of a new job and a new puppy have rather extended my wikibreak beyond that originally planned. And I go on leave in a fortnight. Hopefully I'll be better placed in November. In the interim, I'm ploughing through The Grand Designer, the new Bute biography, which will give us plenty of material. All the best.KJP1 (talk)05:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool.User:Sionk seems local and interested in architecture, he might be interested although my recent run with him was not not initially exactly fully amicable.♦Dr. Blofeld19:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...as promised, I've gone through and done some expansion work on it. I've left a note on the talk page.Hchc2009 (talk)19:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123^{Santas Grotto} wishes you and yours

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

---

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace ....

Merry Christmas! When you said busy didn't realise you meant unable to edit!!♦Dr. ☠ Blofeld12:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd ask around!♦Dr. ☠ Blofeld12:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Ghmyrtle (talk)21:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedWyndcliffe Court, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageArts and Crafts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't a picture sadly, and the cupboard of commons is bare. Winner did make passing references to Tower House in articles over the years, claiming to floodlight it unless Mr. P_ complains! Cute. Lovely Cardiff Castle article in this monthsCountry Life.Gareth E Kegg (talk)15:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any opinion on whether this is Brownfield Mill (per the online refs) or Brownsfield mill (per the Hartwell ref)? I see you moved the page once, but I'm not sure if where it is now is where you intended it to be. Regards,Mr Stephen (talk)22:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listed Buildings in Monmouthshire and in every other Welsh county look very neat. Thanks KJP1Victuallers (talk)21:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedPort Lympne Mansion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageJohn Aspinall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)13:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like/hatemy coherent table? i do think it is the clearest way of presenting this information. P.S. I just checked the British Library's catalogue for Pullan's House of Burges, and it said it had been destroyed! So sad.Gareth E Kegg (talk)01:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks great. Very clear and informative. Is the BL really saying that no copy of The House of WB exists? How can they know. The Buildings of WB certainly does as I saw one on e-Bay last year for 600 pounds. It didn't sell. All the best.KJP1 (talk)14:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

£600???♦Dr. ☠ Blofeld14:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr B - How very good to hear from you. Yes, I think it was 600 (can't find the damn pound sign on this ipad). Should have bought it actually,as that's rather cheap. There's currently a copy of his designs for the Law Courts, annotated by the great man himself, for sale for 2700 in a London dealers. Now that, I would like. Sorry to see from the yawning seal that Wiki's proving dull at the moment. I'm sure it'll pass. If you fancy a trip, can I suggest the Cecil Higgins in Bedford, when it reopens, I think next month. Perhaps the best collection of Burges furniture in the country! Warm regards.KJP1 (talk)15:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I visited Cardiff Castle over the weekend, incredible and exhausting interiors. When I entered the Summer Smoking room I was genuinely shocked to find it existed, having only seen that old watercolour! I've started uploading some images to commons.[9]Gareth E Kegg (talk)22:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to intrude on the Burges party down below, but I'll be so excited to see the Victorian Menace on the front page next week. It'll give me impetus to finish Tower House. Congratulations once again!Gareth E Kegg (talk)22:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: I hope you don't mind my asking, but I'm curious why you undid my revision? I added the authority control info because I thought it would be useful to have the WorldCat link; it shows at a glance how many books have been written by and about Mr. Burgess and in what languages. The VIAF link by itself doesn't show this information. Respectfully, FS7--FeanorStar7 07:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

His edit looks OK to me and he spaced the author name..♦Dr. ☠ Blofeld07:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Of course I don't mind. I do apologise. I thought your edit had broken the reference link to the Pauline Sergeant book, which is now showing red. But it didn't. I shall try to restore your edit and find out whatdid break the link to the Cardiff Castle cartoons book. If I can't do the former, do please re-instate yourself. Apologies again and all best wishes.KJP1 (talk)08:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the ever vigilant Dr. B's undone it already. Any ideas what's caused the error in the refs?KJP1 (talk)08:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes unfortunately because the page was created from information on a spreadsheet semi-automatically using a very crude script, it doesn't know anything about linking to individual building pages. That will have to be added manually by a human. The need to do that is being kept track of oncommons:Commons:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2013_in_the_United_Kingdom/planning/lists#Wales. Feel free to help if you can. The wikilinks work just as normal, your attempt onGrade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire didn't work only because the target page didn't exist. Linking to Troy Housefor example works just as one would expect. In terms of sorting, yes they are currently sorted by HB Number. I could change it, but since the columns are sortable, I'm not sure whether it's an issue. --KTC (talk)09:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can help with the page links, although it's a pretty massive task. Re. The order of listing, I really do think a simple alphabetic listing would make it more accessible. Nobody knows the HB numbers and they seem to have no logic, as, for example, they cause Llanvihangel Court to appear at the top of the page and the stables to that house to appear at almost the very bottom.

Thank you for taking care of the Monmouthshire Grade I list, your efforts are very much appreciated!Nev1 (talk)11:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing todisambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing toLlanarth andOld Court

Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing toCaldicot

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)11:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedGrade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageHenllys (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What ho! It is I, who put you through the wringer over Burges, returning to haunt you. If you have time and inclination you might enjoy looking in atOld Church of St Nidan, Llanidan andWikipedia:Featured article candidates/Old Church of St Nidan, Llanidan/archive1. Hope you are flourishing.Tim riley (talk)16:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tim, great to hear from you, and so glad you're back and knocking out musical FAs by the score. St Nidan is a lovely church, and an equally lovely article. As such, not sure there's much I can add, but I'll have a look. Sometime, I must do some work on the young Scott. Although his current, Start rating seems rather mean! Best regards.KJP1 (talk)07:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings fromWikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annualproject coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on theelection page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September!Kirill ^[talk]16:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggestedWilliam Burgesfor TFA on his birthday, --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't care to also inform me Gerda?♦Dr. Blofeld14:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember right I wasn't welcome your talk then, --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors ofWilliam Burges know that the article will be appearing astoday's featured article on December 2, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please askBencherlite (talk ·contribs). You can view the TFA blurb atWikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions atWikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

William Burges (1827–81) was an Englisharchitect anddesigner, and one of the greatest of theVictorian art-architects. He sought in his work to escape from 19th-centuryindustrialisation and theNeoclassical architectural style and to re-establish the architectural and social values of a utopian medieval England. He stands within theGothic Revival tradition, his works echoing thePre-Raphaelites and heralding theArts and Crafts Movement. His first major commission wasSaint Fin Barre's Cathedral, Cork, in 1863. Burges's most notable works areCardiff Castle andCastell Coch, both forJohn Crichton-Stuart, 3rd Marquess of Bute. Other buildings includeGayhurst House,Knightshayes Court, andSt Mary's, Studley Royal. Many of his designs were never executed or were subsequently demolished, and his plans for the redecoration of the interior ofSt Paul's Cathedral were abandoned. He also designed metalwork, sculpture, jewellery, furniture and stained glass.Art Applied to Industry, a series of lectures he gave to theSociety of Arts in 1864, illustrates the breadth of his interests. The revival of interest in Victorian art has led to a renewed appreciation of Burges and his work. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk)23:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and bloody good he looks too! I have my pitchfork at the ready, and will wait to prod the vandals and vagabonds back into the audition rooms ofThe Jeremy Kyle Show!Cassianto^Talk08:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many congratulations to all involvedGedge67 (talk)22:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hearty congrats. Justwonderfully measured.Martinevans123 (talk)22:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1578 edits vs my humble 403! Yup as Tim says below without your enthusiasm for Burges I wouldn't have bothered. It was only because I saw you were so keen and saw potential that I decided to help you promote it! I'd love to help you promote Cardiff Castle... ♦Dr. Blofeld12:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, and merry November! I've just had the pleasure of peer reviewing this article, and I think perhaps you might enjoy joining in, if you have time. Pray ponder. With best wishes, Tim. –Tim riley (talk)21:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, dear KJP1 (may I call you KJ?). Delighted to hear that your protégé will be on the front page next week. The Doctor and I do our best hither and yon, to good effect I think we can both immodestly say, but the Victorian Menace's FA triumph isyour doing. (Your morbid taste for his work is, I fear, paralleled by your susceptibility to Sauvignon if you mean Blanc rather than Cabernet. Le chat a pissé sur les groseilles à maquereau. Not, of course, that I am prejudiced in these matters.) I was in Carlisle Cathedral this afternoon, where the surviving wall paintings made me long to see a CGI of the interior of, say, Wells or Durham in their vibrant colours of medieval times. Even I have to concede that there's some exquisite Victorian silver in the cathedral treasury at Carlisle, but I will averin articulo mortis that the Victorian brasses on the walls of the nave are perfectly frightful, though gleamingly polished by, I assume, devoted volunteers, whom God preserve. Now, as to practical advice,Brianboulton, one of my mentors in WP, gave me the wise counsel to ignore all changes to TFA while one's nominated article is on the front page. Coachloads of illiterates, smutty schoolboys and point-pushing obsessives will pile in to bugger it up, and valiant, wonderful Wiki-stalwarts will revert all or most of the resulting crap then and there. For your own peace of mind, do not attempt to emulate Horatius at the bridge, but hide under the bedclothes for 24 hours and look in when the all-clear has sounded before trying to weed out the rubbishy changes from the few useful ones (there will assuredly be a handful of the latter). I find it helpful to post a note on the article talk page summarising the recent non-loony changes that might be considered for retention, and inviting comment. –Tim riley (talk)23:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Burges
Thank you,William Burges enthusiast, for your contributions to his article, an example ofspirited collaboration, for covering also the people around him such asJohn Starling Chapple, for buildings in Monmouthshire such asThe Rolls Hall, forcleanup and simplicity, - you are anawesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk)07:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 680th recipient of myPumpkinSkyPrize, --Gerda Arendt (talk)08:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, you were recipient no.680 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk)08:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for today'sMonnow Bridge, the "bridge has some importance as the only fortified bridge of its type remaining in Great Britain. It also has some significance to Wikipedia as the symbol of Monmouth, the world's first Wikipedia town." - I had forgotten that it was scheduled for today, so was pleasantly surprised looking at the Main page ;) - I have a little DYK there,pleasant easy music, --Gerda Arendt (talk)05:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just did a bit of fiddling around - seems a long time ago. I'm slowly trying to get back to WP after a lot of operas and trips to Italy, Croatia, Bayreuth and Wexford. Anyway, congratulations again for the enormous volume of work you did on the article. Best wishes.--GuillaumeTell17:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pray examine your email in-box at some convenient point. In the face of your overview of the truly great organs of Europe I am not going down without a fight.Tim riley (talk)22:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being of a singularly forgiving nature I have put behind me the frozen monsoon that God kindly sent to assail my brother and me in the early hours of Christmas morning as we plodded back from Crosthwaite church to the Riley ancestral shack inPortinscale. Pray look in, if you have time and disposition, and commentad lib. A short article, though I hope adequate, but, if not, pointers will be gladly received. You will I hope note the restraint with which I have refrained from commenting in any way whatever on Mad Victorian Restorers. Hugs and Merry Christmas.Tim riley (talk)00:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wotcha Timbo - and Happy New Year to you. I think Crosthwaite's very nice but I can, and shall, add a little gleaned from my Hyde/Pevsner Cumbria; it's listed status etc. Actually can't add that just yet as the English Heritage website's down until 31 December. Mind you, the great Peter J. Vardy's really your man for North-Western churches. Loved your diva story by the way, it almost outdid the Finbar organ, but not quite. All the very best to you and yours.KJP1 (talk)17:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell - what's the world coming to when you have to do your own tidying up. I shall try harder with the Pevsner additions.KJP1 (talk)18:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Nice place to spend Christmas Tim. Happy Christmas both!♦Dr. Blofeld19:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen both, pray see the FAC of a larger old church:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wells Cathedral/archive1. I think you might find it interesting. I have added my two groatsworth.Tim riley (talk)23:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've created theGreat Bookcase, and intend to bash out theYatman cabinet, theWine and Spirits sideboard, thePhilosophy cabinet, theZodiac settle, theGolden Bed and theNarcissus washstand. We also need, in my opinion,List of buildings by William Burges,List of church fittings by William Burges,List of furniture by William Burges andList of objet d'art by William Burges. Once that's done, I'll be able to rest my eyes from the "Victorian Menace", preferably in a Queen Anne house that he so detested. Happy New Year!Gareth E Kegg (talk)15:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds excellent and very happy to help. I could do the lists - is there a standard format for these? The Tower House is looking great, by the way. What I wouldn't give to see inside.KJP1 (talk)16:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A typical amazing list by User:Peter I. Vardy should suffice for the buildings, but we are in uncharted territory with furniture and objet d'art...Gareth E Kegg (talk)00:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, started the list of buildings, lifted wholesale from Mr Vardy! But I can't do the co-ordinates, which I'll have to learn. I can do the refs., which I shall get on to. All the best.KJP1 (talk)09:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly estranged from the web at present, so excuse my relative silence on here and the reviewing process!Gareth E Kegg (talk)14:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I do get frustrated sometimes when reading articles that seem to have been written by drive-by editors who throw in all sorts of extraneous bits of information that don't really belong where they are. So, seeing that you are obviously a more conscientious editor who does care about the article, I withdraw the "dumb" part of my edit summary, but I will stand by the word "pedantic." And here is why: the relevant portion of that sentence isa mental breakdown, which Bettley attributes to Tilden's attempting to reconcile his homosexuality with his marriage to Amalia.

Now I admit I know nothing whatever about this couple other than what I read in the article. But the subordinate clause there is explaining his mental breakdown, and it gives a wholly sufficient cause for that breakdown. Many gay men before and since Tilden have likewise suffered psychological distress by being trapped in a heterosexual marriage that they ultimately come to realize is not wholly satisfying. For that matter, many millions of completely hetero men, and women as well, also come to such a point in their marital life, and decide that a dissolution of the marriage is the best recourse.

But such difficulties arise regardless of the birth status of one partner or another. It seems quite pointless, then, to drop that little factoid about Amalia into the sentence, when it hasno necessary connection with his breakdown or their marital difficulties - no more so, without further explanation, than her being aSwedish author rather than a British or French or American one.

Having said that, I think if you wanted to add another paragraph to the article explaining how and why he and Amalia got together in the first place, and particularly delineating how the circumstances of her birth and social position contributed to their troubles, it would be a fine addition to the article, which could use some expanding.

But merely to drop in the one wordillegitimate as it stood there seems so very supercilious and completely unnecessary, and does not enlighten the reader at all about his or her or their situation - it acts, instead, as a mere gratuitous slur as originally written. As if someone were to write of you, "KJP, beingillegitimate [or from a broken home; or a member of a certain race, or whatever], is always losing his keys - or overdrawn at the bank - or forgetting where he parked his car." Do you see what I mean?Textorus (talk)04:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we had this discussion; if you had put it on the article talk page, I would never have seen it. I was only looking at Tilden because I am intrigued by the way he redesignedChartwell - apparently it was his idea to add the three-story rear extension, which would give those rooms wonderful views over the weald. But strangely enough for such a famous house, there seem to be few photographs of the interior on the Internet, and I have searched several times for the floor plan but without success. You wouldn't know where I could find that online, would you?Textorus (talk)10:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Humm, a groundplan of Chartwell. Not sure I've ever seen one, on-line or off. Have checked the two books specifically on the house that I have -Churchill and Chartwell, Robin Fedden (Pergamon Press, 1968) andChurchill and Chartwell, Stefan Buczacki (Francis Lincoln, 2007) - and neither has one. Nor do any of Sir Martin's magisterial volumes, although the companion volumes might but I don't have the one which covers 1922, the year in which Churchill purchased the house. The only other book specifically on the house that I know is the National Trust guide, written by Mary Soames, but I don't have this. NT guides frequently do have floor-plans, however, and I've just ordered the book, so, when it arrives, I'll let you know. I could probably scan and e-mail an image if there is one, but I couldn't upload it to Wikipedia as it'll be copyright. The building history is fascinating and Tilden and Churchill fell out badly over what the latter believed to be architectural shortcomings in the design and construction of the house.

Incidentally, as I write this, I am reading the following in Buczacki's book (p. 118), "In 1914 (Tilden) married, itself an awkward event for a homosexual;but it was compounded by the woman being considerably older than him and of mysterious and exotic antecedents" (my bold italics). I might just put that reference back in!, although on what Buczacki bases the statement, I don't know.KJP1 (talk)17:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Some nice interior shots here [[10]]

Thanks for the link, those are great photos. I've looked at the National Trust page for Chartwell before, but I never came across that collection. If you ever do find a floorplan for Chartwell, I suppose you could simply upload it to Picasa or one of the other photo gallery sites, and then you could make the link available to anyone.

Buczacki's sentence is rather mysterious and exotic itself. How, exactly, does the woman being older than the man make their marriage "awkward" - can you explain it in your own words? Can you even picture how that awkwardness displayed itself? What does "awkward" even mean in that sentence? It's uncommon for the wife to be appreciably older than the husband, but not a completely unknown thing, even in strait-laced Victorian times, as witnessDisraeli andMary Anne Lewis. And as for her being illegitimate - well, she was from Sweden. How would anyone in Britain know that she was illegitimate unless she told them? Did she introduce herself to Tilden's friends by saying, "Hello, I'm Amalia, and I'm a bastard" - ?? If you want to add a paragraph about Amalia and her origins, and even use Buczacki's quote in toto, that would be fine, I think. But do remember that the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to answer questions in the reader's mind, not raise new ones.Textorus (talk)01:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see the floor plans, and if you have the skill to scan them from the book, you have the skill to upload to a photo-sharing site.Picasa.com andFlickr.com are two of the most popular out ofmany free sites, and uploading a pic from your computer to either one is super easy. Picasa will require you to create a Google account, Flickr a Yahoo account, but after you do, you can always use one or the other to share any photos you like with others, and create unlimited albums and collections with ease. Why not go take a look at them at see what you think?Textorus (talk)07:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing todisambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

List of buildings by William Burges (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing toFleet,Waltham Abbey,Cork andTiverton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedList of buildings by William Burges, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pagesHarrow andCork (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)08:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KJP and@Gareth E Kegg: I think we can get this up to GA quite easily. I'll look into it over the weekend. It's about time we got some Burges buildings up to GA! I'll see if I can add to it further before nomming if it's OK with you both.♦Dr. Blofeld21:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there nothing that can be legally done to stop this sort of thing? Heigh ho! Will review in due course if asked and if you can't find anyone else.Tim riley (talk)22:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim, I had you in mind for the review anyway!♦Dr. Blofeld10:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Have a look and let us know what you think needs doing.KJP1 (talk)

Hello Dr B. Gareth and I have had a go at tidying up. What do you think? Plans would be highly desirable - do you think we could use those from the Survey of London, or will there be technical/copyright issues? The elevations from the Survey are also superb. Again, can we use? Interestingly, the text in the Survey appears less reliable. For example, much of the text regarding the decoration of the Dining Room, the "Dropped H" etc. actually describes the decoration of the Library. We will need to be careful here. And lastly, other thoughts on what needs to be done? Best regards.KJP1 (talk)17:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks very good, thanks. I'll get around to this later in the week.♦Dr. Blofeld17:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eugène Viollet-le-Duc was today's google doodle! The stars are all aligning...Gareth E Kegg (talk)19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So he is! Now there's an architect who needs some work on Wikipedia - a miserable 8 footnotes and very poor coverage! Do you knowBenjamin Bucknall, who's also mentioned as being a follower, along with Burges? HisWoodchester Mansion is a very fine building indeed.KJP1 (talk)19:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And nowCarcassonne, the google doodle, is an answer onUniversity Challenge. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Gareth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."KJP1 (talk)20:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...To ruinate proud buildings with thy hours, And smear with dust their glittering golden towers; To fill with worm-holes stately monuments, To feed oblivion with decay of things, To blot old books and alter their contents, To pluck the quills from ancient ravens' wings..."Gareth E Kegg (talk)21:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that we can't use those images, they're copyrighted and will definitely be deleted in the commons without adequate licensing. For GA the article has a requirement for images to be aptly attributed and licensed. What I'd do is delete your commons uploads and reuploadFile:Melbury Road elevations-2.gif on here and claim fair use with a non free rationale but make sure you crop off the ugly red url link at the bottom on paint/clipart or whatever you have..♦Dr. Blofeld08:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you're right. Can we leave them for a little as I've asked Crisco about them but I'm sure he'll come back with the same response as you. I'll see what else I can find. All the best.KJP1 (talk)08:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe I have a lot of experience with image deletions that's all  :-] The sourcehere is actually dated to 1973 so unless the plans are definitely from the 1870s and PD then I don't think we can freely upload them. As I say I think we might be able to claim fair use on the elevation plan. Can you reword "Betjeman discovered the 'Narcissus washstand', made by Burges for his rooms in Buckingham Street and subsequently moved to the Tower House, in a shop in Lincoln" -I'm not quite sure what you mean.♦Dr. Blofeld09:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'll re-word and do another copyedit when I'm back. So where in Cardiff were you born?KJP1 (talk)09:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

750 metres away from the castle atSt David's Hospital. On the image front the book was published in 1973. Unless we can prove the plans are from the 1870s then I don't think we can use I'm afraid! Let's see what the others have to say anyway.♦Dr. Blofeld09:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll nom it for GA now I think. Hopefully Tim can reserve it asap. He can start the review, but my concern is that if you're away and he has some queries about some of the info, it's you who has the books and will need to answer them.♦Dr. Blofeld10:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you think is best. I'm back Sunday even ing, so I can address Tim's comments next week, There's a, very little, bit onThe Tower House, Lubenham in the Williamson/Pevsner revised Leicestershire, which I can add. Interestingly, that village was also the site ofEdwin Lutyens' Papillon Hall, now sadly demolished.KJP1 (talk)11:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've found two images of the interior including Burges's bedroom which can be usedhere, click forward for pic 5 too, both dated to 1878. Andhere andhere Problem is that when I enlarge to save it will only save as a php which won't upload in the commons and has a big watermark on it. There's definitely a way around it, I'll ask Jmabel I think our image expert.

Just noticed that the source of the photos is The House of William Burges ARA, edited by R. P. Pullan (London, 1875-1885) As its portfolio no. 26 and seeing those four are sourced to the book, it should contain a gallery of images of the house. Have you ever heard of the book? If so and a copy could be obtained we could potentially scan in the photos in the book and upload to the commons.♦Dr. Blofeld12:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, took quite some effort before we could grab them. Obviously modern colour photos with details would be warmly welcome but they're at least OK for the time being. The plan though is likely 1970s rather than 1880s and will be deleted soon enough I suspect. Probably better to remove it now. Hope you enjoyed Prague, it's a superb place to go for a winter weekend I went there about 12 years back.♦Dr. Blofeld11:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simple error, and easy to make; the coordinates are wrong. First you have to enter them twice in the info box, and of course they must be the same. Second, in the longitude remove the "-" sign. This places it to the west of the 0.000 longitude; Chartham is to the east. So you need coords (N) 51.2559 (E) 1.0181. It looks an interesting church, although the NHLE details are rather sparse. Good luck. --Peter I. Vardy (talk)11:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the hardest GA review I've ever conducted. Well on its way to FA, I'd say. Can't help you with the stray "Square" in the book title – something to do with the arcane and complicated referencing technique (is it "sfn"?). The Doctor will know what to do, or else will know someone who does. I trust Prague was satisfactory.Tim riley (talk)14:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. I feel confident on this that we can get to FA. Can the scholar section be improved further? Is there perhaps analysis of the designs of the house etc? ♦Dr. Blofeld15:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not seen you around for a while! Still up for Castell Coch?♦Dr. Blofeld20:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did it really bother you that much what Eric said? I see worse practically every day on here!! A lot of editors complaining haven't a clue what they're talking about and seem to attack the work of others just for kicks. Eric isn't one of them, he at least identified an issue with the sourcing and it had a constructive end, although I agree he could have been cooler in his approach to Tim.♦Dr. Blofeld11:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I, as a benevolent watcher of your talk page, add my endorsement of the Doctor's comments? There are some bullies and monomaniacs about in the WP community (and couldn't we name one or two, my dear Doc!) but Eric isn't one of them. I have considerable respect for him; emollient isn't a word that comes to mind, but he is on the side of the angels and always in my experience talks very good sense, with or without the soft answer that turneth away wrath. Don't abandon us, KJP, I urge you!Tim riley (talk)14:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear! You're a hero here!Gareth E Kegg (talk)07:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have put theJohn Gielgud article up forpeer review, and if you have time and inclination to comment there, you will have the gratitude ofTim riley (talk)13:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings fromWikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annualproject coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on theelection page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September!Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for theMilitary historian of the year andMilitary history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for theMilitary historian andMilitary newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators,TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read this!♦Dr. Blofeld13:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of taking this to FAC.Bramshill House first though. If you stick around long enough Castell Coch would well be worth developing..♦Dr. Blofeld19:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dr., I hope you're well. Bramshill is a very interesting article, although I'm a bit dubious about that ghost reference in the lead. Rather DYK. I could probably be tempted by working upThe Tower House with you. With the exception ofThe House of William Burges (see below), I think I've got most/all of the available books. When Bramshill's up, let's see how we stand.KJP1 (talk)22:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that the lede has to summrise the article, and there's a section on its legends.♦Dr. Blofeld22:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, still not sure it belongs. Or the whole ghost section. Stripped out a reference to child ghosts haunting the nursery of the Tower House. As if Burges was ever likely to have had children! But then he did build a nursery. Puzzling.KJP1 (talk)22:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So pleased to encounter you again, this time in passing with your addition to Sir Ralph's article. If, by any chance, we can interest you in his colleagueSir Laurence, we have him up for peer review in hopes of getting him to FA alongside too. Best of all possible wishes,Tim riley talk16:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim - my absolute pleasure. Saw your splendid article on Sir Ralph (early congratulations on yet another front page), thought I could add nothing to it, so created a little stub on his favourite church instead. Very glad that you're keeping well.KJP1 (talk)17:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must have walked past it hundreds of times when I worked in Carlton House Terrace and then Regent Street, but have never been in. You inspire me to stand at the door and knock. I don't suppose they'd throw a moderate Anglican like me out.Tim riley talk18:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton House Terrace and Carlton Gardens is one of my favourite spots. Kitchener / Northcliffe / Curzon in the space of 500 yards - a galaxy of early 20th century political stars! Whatever were you doing there - you're far too young to have been in the wine trade with Herr Ribbentrop?

My dear lad, I was Librarian to theCrown Estate until I retired four years ago. If only I could show you, of all people, the mad, opulent, high-Victorian interiors of our HQ at No 16 byOwen Jones, but alas the building is now a private residence once again, as, of course, it was intended to be, but still...Tim riley talk20:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that explains alot of things :-)♦Dr. Blofeld12:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a fascinating job! I don't suppose you know a charming young Italian-sounding chap, who does something at the Royal Collection at Windsor Castle. I don't but he has invited me to the Round Tower to viewThe House of William Burges - the only known copy of which was collected by that famous aesthete,George V. I cannot wait - but must as the copy is presently at Buckingham Palace Mews for an exhibition.KJP1 (talk)22:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no objection to charming young Italians, in moderation, but I haven't had the pleasure. What a splendid invitation! I don't doubt it will be a fulfilling and memorable event, and I hope the London exhibition won't be too protracted.Tim riley talk21:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree strongly that when dealing with historical situations context is vitally important, I felt that the statement did not actually clarify context as it was essentially a point of view. The statement did not have a source to back up the claim, indeed to only source provided describes him as "shockingly racist". Furthermore, no source stipulates whether Lutyens beliefs were indeed in-line with those with his class and period. Therefor, to make a statement that affirms his views were contemporary would be a fallacy, for his attitudes can be understood in the context of the period; where such luminaries such as Winston Churchill would today be seen as racist, it cannot account for the extent of these beliefs. Therefore, the statement that "...although commonly held by those of his class and times..." is not only unfounded, but also inaccurate as it suggests that, his contemporaries held that "mixed marriage is filthy and beastly and they ought to get the sanitary office to interfere", for it is also possible that even during his day he may he been considered a odious man, as implied by the viceroy.Bodha2 (talk)19:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that the original statement was not ideal, being un-sourced. My concern is that over-emphasizing of Lutyen's racist views presents an unbalanced picture of the man. First and foremost, he was an architect, and it is from his buildings that his fame derives. It was for that reason that I originally moved the "racism" statement from the lede to the section on New Delhi. That said, his personal life and views are obviously also of interest and here one has to deal with his undoubted racism. But itis important to see his views on race in the context of his times, and in those times racism was certainly both more prevalent and more socially acceptable than it is today. I shall look for a source to support this but hope the amended wording will suffice for the present. Best regards.KJP1 (talk)08:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've opened a peer review. I think we can get this up to FA status with a bit of work! Castel Coch as you know is one I've long been wanting to work on with you..♦Dr. Blofeld19:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Dr B. Fortuitously, I'm close to having copies of the two major Burges sources I haven't yet got. I obtained a photocopy ofThe Architectural Designs of William Burges by his brother-in-law, Pullan, from the British Library store, and think I have tracked down a copy of Pullan's other Burges book,The House of William Burges at the V&A. The latter will be exceptionally useful for the Tower House FA. If the V&A lets me down, I know there's a copy in the Royal Collection at Windsor, and have a invitation to see that. With these, we'll definitely have all we need to do Castell Coch. One other thought. Crook's book was revised and re-issued in 2013. Do you think we should really bring the references for Castell Coch up-to-date with this? And maybe those for the Tower House as well? I should really also do the main Burges article but that is avery daunting task. Do you want to leave CC until TH is through FA?KJP1 (talk)07:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed you KJP1. As an aside, when I went to the British Library to see Pullan's book on Tower House, I was told it had been destroyed by enemy action in the Second World War! Burges continues to delightfully elude us...Gareth E Kegg (talk)20:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate Gareth! KJP do you think there's a lot more info to be added? I assumed it was highly comprehensive already. If not, perhaps it would be better to close the peer review and wait until it really is with those books? The Burges article is already one of our best researched articles though! I think it would be best to concentrate on getting some of his principal works up to FA first.. Yes I think get Tower up to FA first and then start on Castell Coch.♦Dr. Blofeld20:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I close the initial PR then so we can work on the expansion and improving the flow?♦Dr. Blofeld20:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it up for review to the weekend - we may get another taker and it doesn't stop us working on it. I can do the references and we can add to the content. Then we can review where we are, scrub up the prose, look at the flow and structure and see how close to FAC we are.KJP1 (talk)07:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How much more content do you think could potentially be gleaned on the Tower KJP? I was under the impression it was very comprehensive as it is.♦Dr. Blofeld17:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr., you're quite right, it's perfectly comprehensive enough, I think. I could always add more but nothing essential is missing right now. I'll wander over and look at BB's further comments, which are always of value, and I really would like to include a couple of floorplans, but beyond that, I think we'll be good to go. The leasehold question, whilst interesting, is secondary to the architecture. I suppose my only other thought is the Danny La Rue bit. Is it now at least clear enough as to what La Rue/Harris meant, even if they were both barking?KJP1 (talk)17:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the PR seems to have done a good job of getting it to FA quality. Eric did a good job sorting out the sourcing too. Can you locate the source of ref 59? "William Burges' Tower House. Ein Künstlerhaus des ausgehenden 19. Jahrhunderts in London", Albert-Ludwigs-Universität zu Freiburg im Breisgau, 1984. Is this a book? If so it ought to be in sfn and the book placed at the bottom. ♦Dr. Blofeld18:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might see if I can pick anything up in the newspaper resources I have from the time the house was built. Occasionally it can turn up something. I have a serious headache so am going to lie down for a bit now!♦Dr. Blofeld18:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have just re-read the entirety of Crook's chapter on the Tower House and I don't think there's anything significant we've missed. It is much longer than the article, of course, and we could add more, particularly on the metalwork and furniture. But I think we'd just be going over ground we've already covered in the main Burges article. So, content-wise, I think we're good to go. Hope your head's better tomorrow.KJP1 (talk)18:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. We've been quite thorough with our scholarship. Here's to the little bastards! Wherever they are!Gareth E Kegg (talk)20:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 'built on an orphanage' is nonsense, but we could say 'that he believed blah...' Sorry!Gareth E Kegg (talk)23:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolute nonsense, but it is sourced! I'm not removing it now or I'll have wasted £2.99 on Danny La Rue's atrociously egotistical autobiography. I'm sure I said somewhere that I had the very slightest concern regarding the whole Harris/Liberace/La Rue farrago.....KJP1 (talk)23:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check ref 64, is the German source a book or what? Of so it needs to be sfn. I had a good look through the newspapers and found nothing. I found a few quotes which I think helps, nothing else. The content is all there. I'll give it a full read once Brian is done, and we can then nominate :-).♦Dr. Blofeld21:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure its an academic study.Gareth E Kegg (talk)22:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and so says the article: "In 1984 the Tower House was the subject of a masters thesis by Helen Adkins at the University of Freiburg im Breisgau (unpublished)." - If you need anything German looked at, ping me, --Gerda Arendt (talk)22:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made two points on the peer review which need to be settled. I've given it a read and copyedit and think it's about ready to nom. Will do so for the three of us once the peer review is closed.♦Dr. Blofeld14:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been contacted by Gerda Arendt concerning the MA thesis of 1988 on Tower House. It is in German and available at the art history library at the University of Freiburg (Prof. Heinfried Wischermann). 1988 was a long time ago and I would have to re-read the thesis (125 pages text / 80 pages illustrations) to update myself! I researched the sources available at the time. I found photographic material with the GLC Historic Buildings Department; some images were provided by Campbell-Smith from when they did restoration work (1966/67). I discovered this extraordinary house originally in: Hermann Muthesius, ″Das englische Haus - Entwincklung, Bedingungen, Anlage, Aufbau, Einrichtung und Innenraum″, Tübingen 1904. Other important sources were: Maurice B. Adams, ″Artist's Homes", London 1883 and original drawings at RIBA. Next to an introduction of the house within the work of Burges, and the development of the house from an earlier design, the thesis covers both the architecture and the decoration program, including restoration and stained glass windows - not the furniture. Generally, I focussed on the ″artist house″ as a particular form of model residence and set it in context with other neo-Gothic houses from Walpole, Pugin, Webb etc. as well as further artist houses in North Kensington. By chance, I know that the mosaic table from The Golden Chamber (bedroom) was sold at auction at Christie's on April 19, 1990.Cashen1 (talk)18:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cashen1,Dr. Blofeld,Gareth E Kegg, andGerda Arendt:

DearCashen1 - Thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to reply. Our interest inThe Tower House grew out of a collaborative effort to make theWilliam Burges page a Featured Article. We managed this and the article appeared on Wikipedia's front page on the anniversary of Burges's birthday, 2 December 2013. We're now trying to do the same for the Tower House and would hugely appreciate any information that you may be able to add. I didn't know of the Maurice B. Adams' book and shall look out for this, although an initial Google Books search doesn't look too promising.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with Wikipedia conventions and editing tools but we'd certainly be able to assist if you need any help. With thanks and best regards.KJP1 (talk)08:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I moved your reply to the foot of my talkpage to make it easier to find.

Yes, well done Gerda! Great to see a response Cashen, I hope you can further improve the article before it heads off to the featured article centre.. We'd love it if you could learn the ropes and contribute to articles on here too!♦Dr. Blofeld12:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nommed The Tower for FA. Can you quickly address Schro's comments at the PR, I hadn't realised he was in the middle of posting! An After thought, I think perhaps three quotes is a bit excessive for the lede, one or two at most usually. They are all useful though but can't help thinking that one should be paraphrased. Let's wait and see if anybody picks up on it anyway.♦Dr. Blofeld22:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're edit-conflicting again. AddressedSchroCat's very helpful comments - my fault for badgering. Can certainly strip one quote out from the lede if you wish. But they are all really valuable. Burges on his own house, the foremost scholar of Burges on the house's importance, and a recent historian on why it's one of the most important houses in London. Let's leave it and see if it's challenged. Burges wouldn't have built Coch if he'd worried about what was "usually" done!

Dear Tower House enthusiasts!infected by your interest, I have been through my old thesis again and have picked out some issues that seem to me to be of importance. However, I consider that YOU have been working on the entry and I would not like to interfere. I realize that this may not be the principle of Wikipedia, but I currently don’t have enough time to work in any changes and it looks as if you want it all quite soon. I would still love to support your mission. Please feel free to use my infos or not, as you wish. My research is over 30 years old but I can gladly discuss things with you, if that is of any help!

My thesis can be characterized as follows:

A monograph on the Tower House including extensive documentation and relating to questions of style and architectural context of the time. The thesis ends with an interpretation of the Tower House as an artist house and as a Gesamtkunstwerk (synthesis of the arts).

I have sifted out details that I think are of interest – but, once more, as you wish.The original house number was 9. Melbury Road was renumbered in 1967.

The Tower House is not “almost a replica” of the McConnochie House in Cardiff. It is based on the design of the earlier Cardiff townhouse…. Or is a further development of… The Tower House is less monumental than the representative Park House….

??House listed since 1949: You must know better than me, but at the time I found mention that The Tower House was listed in 1964 only, on the initiative of Pevsner (documents at GLC). Maybe Grade II?

At the time of Burges’s death, only the library was totally completed. Of the other rooms, the dominant chimneypieces, ceilings and wall friezes were polychrome, with the exception of the armoury and the garret, which remained white. Pullan oversaw further completion according to Burges’s detailed design (drawings at RIBA).

The House could only be heated by the fires in the chimneys, although gas heating would have been possible at the time. Likewise, Burges preferred oil lamps to central lighting.

History of owners:187590 year-old leaseholdPullan until 1988Burges’s niece?, Elizabeth Wentworth-Watson (born Ormiston), until 1920Sold/passed on? to Colonel T H Minshall, who lived there until 19303 years emptyMajor “Auction sale of the contents of the residence of Col. T.H. Minshall including some unique examples of furniture decorated by the Pre-Raphaelite artists” at Chestertons & Sons on 16 October 19331933 acquired by Col. E.R.B. Graham – upon the death of Mrs, Graham, last 2 leasehold years bequeathed to Sir John Betjeman.Plans for demolition and redevelopment for when the leasehold runs out on 24.6.1965 (GLC, letter August 1964)1966 -1969 Lady Turnbull, restoration work with the support of Historic Buildings Council and GLC75,000 GBP to Richard Harris who continues the restoration work350,000 GBP to Jimmy Page who rents it out to Michael Kamen until end of 1983, when he moves into the house himself.

The original iconographic scheme embraces not only the room decoration and its central chimneypiece, but also the furnishings and fittings, which, however, are for the most part dispersed. The eclectic scheme is most personal and developed from Greek mythology, Roman antiquity, Italian Medieval sagas, Geoffrey Chaucer, as well as popular Romantic and Victorian literary sources such as Alfred Tennyson. Added to this, private elements such as in the hall with the constellation of stars of when the house was built are to be found (Pullan 1885). There is plenty of humour and irony in Burges’ss adoption of historical quotes such as the labyrinth mosaic on the floor of the hall in which Theseus is represented as a medieval knight.

The themes of each room were published by Pullan in 1885.It could be noted that, whereas Burges owned a large collection of medieval weapons and illustrated manuscripts, he was no art collector. Far more, he commissioned artists, sculptors and artisans to realize the decorations, chimneypieces, furnishings and fittings for his house.Mosaic floor of porch depicting Burge’s favourite dog Pinkie, a visual pun on the cave canem mosaic on the way in to the House of the Tragic Poet in Pompeii. The bronze entrance door depicts the four ages of life.Hall: Time, light and the solar system.Dining Room: Chaucer’s House of FameThe original sculpture of the Fame chimneypiece has disappeared. A replica was made during restoration in the 1960s, but is no longer in the house (1983).Drawing Room: Tender passion for loveLibrary: Literature and the liberal artsThe five original alphabet bookcases, decorated by Burges friend, Fred Weekes (spelt this way!), are in situ. The painted panel for “A” shows Burges together with a model of Tower House.(I think that the rooms on the first floor should be treated separately).Guests’ Bedroom: Earth and its productions. The flower frieze comprising 23 different painted niches depicts English garden and wildflowers such as fox glove, poppies, Canterbury bells, daffodils and roses.Burges’s Bedroom: The sea and its inhabitants (possibly inspired by Tennyson’s The Mermaid). The wave frieze under the ceiling is reminiscent of woodcuts by Katsushika Hokusai.

Armoury: The ceiling was painted according to a design for Richard Harris and carries his initials. The chimneypieces in the armoury and the nursery rooms were also painted during restoration, although Burges’s didn’t leave any colour design for them.

Garret:The day nursery is above Burges’s bedroom.The Night nursery is above the armoury.Above the guests’ bedroom, there was a room for a governess.

Basement: Modern kitchen with original floors. (1983).

Garden: access to the garden was originally only from the east side of the house; a small staircase now enables direct access to the garden from the drawing room. The garden is a mixture between a Hortus Conclusus of around 1400 AD and a kind of small open Lesche, or place for conversation. The semi-circular apsides of the oval terrace are equipped with marble benches. Originally, the central fountain comprised a marble statue of a boy holding a hawk sculpted by Thomas Nicholls; the statue has since disappeared (1983).

References: (I miss the following historical references!)Maurice B. Adams, Artist's Homes, London 1883Anonymous, A burgeoning of medievalism in Kensington. The Tower House – the residence of Mr, and Mrs. E.R.B. Graham, in: Antique Collector, August 1959, pp. 129-135Edward W. Godwin, The home of an English architect, in: Art Journal 1886 pp. 170-173, 301-305Hermann Muthesius, Das englische Haus - Entwincklung, Bedingungen, Anlage, Aufbau, Einrichtung und Innenraum, Tübingen 1904. Richard P. Pullan, The house of William Burges, London 1885F.H.W. Sheppard (Ed.), Survey of London, Vol. XXXVII, London 1973RIBA, Drawings Collection, Wiliam Burges, drawings for Tower House, Melbury Road, KensingtonBest regards!Cashen1 (talk)16:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DearCashen1, thank you so much for your very comprehensive reply. It is really useful and will help us greatly as we try to take the article to Featured Status. I also really appreciate your generous approach and will work through your comments to see what can usefully be incorporated. And we'll let you know how it gets on. With thanks and all best wishes.KJP1 (talk)17:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear KJP1, I'm glad to be able to help and delighted that my original research can be of some use. Best wishesCashen1 (talk)07:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible! Thank you so much.Gareth E Kegg (talk)00:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did mention the thesis source before. As it was unpublished to be honest I'm not really sure we should mention it. Squemish does make a point of this.

I think Screaming Ossifrage is right about this, but the top notch OR material need not be lost. It should go in the article talk page, with a clear Health Warning. Rules is rules, and we can't use unpublished, unverifiable material in an article, but it would be profligate and indefensible not to incorporate such fine material on the talk page, with an appropriatecaveat.Tim riley talk00:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, a very good suggestion, which I shall follow. It really would be tragic if this invaluable material just sat on my Talkpage - particularly as the house is little studied and you can't get into it. I shall letCashen1 know what we are doing, and why. Really appreciate your wider help on the article.KJP1 (talk)07:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address:

• "Figures within the chimneypiece represent parts of speech, noun, verb, preposition": Are these four distinct figures? I ask because, obviously, the latter three are all themselves parts of speech.

Done.

• Are the "founders of systems of theology and law" metaphorical, or are these depictions of historical personnages? If the later, I think the phrase shouldn't be italicized, as it would be literal (and, if available, it'd be nice to know who).

Done.

• In the dining room, "The tiles depict fairy stories", but it isn't until later in the paragraph that we learn "The walls are covered with Devonshire marble, surmounted by glazed picture tiles". My first guess was that these illustrations were on the floor, like the earlier labyrinth.

Done.

Dear KJP1!My thesis is publicly available for verifiability at the art history library of the University of Freiburg im Breisgau. Any German master thesis of the olden days is accessible at the University where it was written. If you have to take out the reference, then the consequence is that my information cannot be used.The mention of my thesis enabled you to contact me. I find it quite absurd that now that I have provided information, the reference to my thesis is deleted! Is this not the difference between source material and published material? An upload of the thesis is a constructive proposal but it was written before digital times and I would have to scan it - without professional library equipment, this is out of my reach (both financially and time wise). And then it is still in German. I have a PhD and have widely published: If I were putting a publication together on a subject matter such as the Tower House, one of my duties as a scholar would be to check materials that are not so easily accessible such as German master degrees. If I miss a monograph on the subject, I'm not a good researcher.Concerning your most recent issuesLibrary chimney piece: The theme of the chimney piece is "The dispersion of the parts of speech at the time of the tower of Babel" (Pullan 1885). A queen, the personification of grammar, sends out her subordinates, towards the left and towards the right, into the world. Prepositions, articles, noun etc. are represented by various characters in a cortege.The six figures on the library ceiling are historical depictions.Check the pictures of the dining room and you will see that the glazed picture tiles depicting fairy tales form a frieze above the Devonshire marble. The names of the figures that include Friar Tuck, Robinson Crusoe, Red Riding Hood, Aladdin and St. George are inscribed above each one, just under the ceiling.However, this information is from my thesis... Best wishesCashen1 (talk)10:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

♦Dr. Blofeld21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. B. Thanks very much for picking up so much! I'll try to find some more time today to go back through everything and see what's still outstanding.KJP1 (talk)07:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all so much for your work on the FA.Gareth E Kegg (talk)00:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's coming along!KJP1 (talk)07:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea what Gerda wants at the Tower FAC? I originally though it was the quote apparently not, then I thought it seemed like she meant including the ground floor plan, not that either...♦Dr. Blofeld18:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a little hard to understand. Ithink what Gerda would like is this[11] at the start of the Interior section. While that may have made sense when the overall plan was at the every end of the article, after the Garden section, I really don't think it does now. The plan helpfully sits between the descriptions of the Exterior and the Interior and I just don't think we need another. Too cluttering.KJP1 (talk)18:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I linked that very image in the plans section and explained it would look too cluttered. Did she not understand and accept that?♦Dr. Blofeld19:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check outthis, file 156 (page 32) especially. Mentions the 2nd floor♦Dr. Blofeld22:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely amazing! What a superb find. I shall check Crook to see if he knew of the article. He must have done, but I certainly didn't. The image of Pinkie is wonderful - and I have seen that somewhere but can't remember where. Can we get it into the article? This is Wikipedia at its very best.KJP1 (talk)23:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hope Can any of those images be uploaded? I just tried to access the pages and they don't work, is there a 12 hr limit on viewing them or something?♦Dr. Blofeld11:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See alsothis page 13 onwards. Can you or Gareth find anything to add from them?♦Dr. Blofeld11:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, there's no limit on viewing; having the link will do it. After I read this, I tried going into the OneDrive and had some issues signing in even though the password is correct. Could be a temporary MS glitch. I just madeanother link for you to try. The link gets you into the Burges folder. All images in the article are PD in the US so thy can be uploaded as Pre-1923 to en:WP. If you still have problems with viewing, tell me and I can put them elsewhere or e-mail them.We hope (talk)11:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear KJP1 - no comment as to the rules and regulations of wikipedia. It was known from the start that the thesis is unpublished, nevertheless, I accept your apologies. Do what you think best with the talk page. Currently, I'm not interested in putting the book on wiki source, mainly due to the time-consuming mechanical work involved. Maybe, when/if I have time, I will update the thesis and look for a publisher. I wish you best of luck with your endeavors.Cashen1 (talk)14:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, ready to to be featured! When do you want that to happen? --Gerda Arendt (talk)05:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://tools.wmflabs.org/fengtools/reflinks/ - This is the stable version of Reflinks. Paste the title of the article into the Page name textbox. It's also possible to choose using plain links or Empty citation (help)7&6=thirteen (☎)17:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you're doing but you've removed the source and left the mention of the vandals stripping the lead and the pigeons and a Gelson ref. I thought the content I added was quite useful and an improvement, filling in some gaps in the vacant period. The article IMO is weaker without mentioning that and the January 1965 assessment and March 1965 filing, which also use that source.♦Dr. Blofeld11:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine now.♦Dr. Blofeld11:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - apologies. How do we address Crisco's concern re. the Harv error? I'll have a go but don't go ballistic if I mess up first time!KJP1 (talk)12:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, it was the end of the Gelson ref which didn't have harv in it.♦Dr. Blofeld12:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Peacock Cabinet Award
	For helping get the Tower House to FA !♦Dr. Blofeld06:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we arrange/agree on a day for this to appear? ♦Dr. Blofeld06:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 December 2017, architect's 190th birthday? Or any day, could be soon? --Gerda Arendt (talk)06:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20 April on the 134th anniversary of his death also a possibility.♦Dr. Blofeld06:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so good, - I prefer to celebrate birthdays. Also it would be the 135th, scheduling is done for April 2015. If there is no strong date relation, it could be any day soon. --Gerda Arendt (talk)07:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of thoughts. First, I'll see if Gareth has any preference - if he doesn't, then the sooner the better. Second - I wonder if its appearance on the front page would interest Mr Page? When's his birthday?KJP1 (talk)07:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January.♦Dr. Blofeld07:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blast - I still wonder whether you might let his website know. He may be interested. So, any day for me.KJP1 (talk)07:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did contact them for images and didn't get a reply.♦Dr. Blofeld07:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - but he might be a little more interested if he knows it's going to be front page. Or maybe that would turn him right off!KJP1 (talk)08:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know if it was my house appearing on the front page of one of the biggest websites in the world I doubt I'd like it, especially if I was famous! ♦Dr. Blofeld08:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/The Tower House --Gerda Arendt (talk)09:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Well done for getting Castell Coch to FA status! ♦Dr. Blofeld14:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done us! Let me know when you andHchc2009 want to continue with Cardiff Castle.♦Dr. Blofeld14:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we not interested in continuing with Cardiff Castle then?♦Dr. Blofeld10:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr. B, you know I always need a wikibreak after an FA, never mind two! But I am, of course, very happy to move on to Cardiff. That said, I have got a crazy week coming up work-wise and I then go on leave at the back end of the following week , returning on the Bank Holiday at the end of May. What would you and Hc like me to do? Shall I pick up the Victorian mansion - the only bit I know and for which I have the sources? I think it will need a room-by-room account along the lines of Castell Coch. I could work away on this while you did whatever else needs to be done. Although, as you say, it is looking pretty good already. Let me know but, as I say, it will take me a while. Best regards.KJP1 (talk)17:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A slight wikibreak from FA would be good (I have a busy period at work coming up...) but yep, happy to collaborate.Hchc2009 (talk)17:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I have a lot to be working on with the Kubrick stuff anyway!♦Dr. Blofeld18:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To help solve a scheduling problem, I have brought forward this article's TFA to 1 May. Please would you inform your conoms accordingly? ThanksBrianboulton (talk)10:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "conom"?? has been informed.♦Dr. Blofeld11:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conom: precious again to seeThe Tower House featured, but sad to seethis house no more, --Gerda Arendt (talk)06:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the Clandon Park fire was awful and the damage horrendous. A very sad loss of so much.KJP1 (talk)06:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, terrible news!♦Dr. Blofeld09:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent to see the article on the front page so soon. Looking at it once again I am impressed for the third or is the fourth time? Bravo! Apropos of the sad, sad fire at Clandon Park, do look in at the PR of an earlier blazehere if you have time. Meanwhile, let me pass on some wise advice given to me years ago about one's articles on the front page,viz, to ignore all changes until the article is no longer TFA, and only then go in and clean up. There will be some good tweaks among all the bilge, and you can blitz the latter and keep the former in peace and quiet once the caravan has moved on.Tim riley talk20:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tim, many thanks indeed. I'm currently mulling over how to respond to the best comment of the day; "i think it is dumb and boring." I initially thought it was from you! But I shall heed your advice and delay replying until tomorrow. On a different matter, whilst stalking your peer review comments did I see you are thinking of doing something on Asquith? If you are, and assuming it is HH rather than Anthony, I'd really like to help. I have a fair amount of material on him and he does deserve an FA. A suitable bookend for Lord H of the H? All the very best.KJP1 (talk)22:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the house as a good examplehere, and expect everyone interested to have this page watched. --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KJP1, I have recently been working on theBurning of Parliament, which is nowat PR for comment. Any input you could have would be much appreciated. Cheers –SchroCat (talk)16:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's like this. Having jointly gotDisraeli to FA,Wehwalt and I had it in mind to work on Lord Salisbury, but after further reading I went off the idea, finding Lord S a less congenial subject than Dizzy, and Wehwalt indulged my change of mind. We have agreed instead to work on Asquith, and I have secured Wehwalt's approval to co-opt you. Now, perpend: for Disraeli we split the writing very simply: I got him from birth to election as MP and Wehwalt took him on from there. With three editors working on Asquith, we should need to agree how to split the writing three ways. Views, please. I am working on P G Wodehouse with SchroCat at the moment (not in main space yet) but Asquith is next on my own worklist. SchroCat, as you see above, is meanwhile busy burning down the Palace of Westminster, and no I don't hate Barry and Pugin's Gothic replacement: I used to work there in the 1970s and I love it with all my heart, so you see I am not an irredeemable classicist.Tim riley talk21:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim - if you andWehwalt are content, that would be great. But I'd be equally happy with a commenting/sourcing role if that suited. I've just tried my hand at my first PR, although whether SchroCat will appreciate it remains to be seen. But if we go for a split - how about:

Early years to the premiership (1852-1908)

Premiership to the war (1908-1914)

The war, the fall and after (1914-1928)

A roughly proportionate division of labour? Incidentally, what approach do you take re. the existing article? I've never tried sandbox and tend to edit directly. Is this wise? Do you work with what is there as far as possible, or is that too constraining? There is some good stuff in the article, although it's very weak on sources. And the sources themselves are puzzling. What is the difference betweenBiographical andScholarly Studies? And is Blake morescholarly than Jenkins? Perhaps, but Cassar? It appears to have one major contributor, who, rather oddly, doesn't have a user page. Just let me know your preferred approach on all of this. One logistical point. I go on leave at the end of the week and am back towards the end of May so an immediate start would be tricky. Thanks and best regards.KJP1 (talk)17:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair. I really can't get started until near the end of the month.--Wehwalt (talk)23:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up to my eyes ina sandbox working with SchroCat on P G Wodehouse (of whom Asquith was a fan, by the way). June would suit me to a t. Agree the division - very shrewd. Anyone fancy one section over the other two? If not, I'll opt for the first section, as I didchez Disraeli, but I'mcompletely biddable on this. As to how to proceed, I'll send you an email with my words of wisdom rather than clog up this page.Tim riley talk16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the latecomer, I would be quite content to take either the second or the third section. SoWehwalt's call. Tim, got your message and very happy to proceed in the way suggested. And a June start seems to work for us all. So, if Wehwalt makes the call on whether he wants Peers v People / Home Rule and Suffrage or The War / The Fall / The Maurice debate and the 20s, I shall know which volumes to pack in my holiday luggage.KJP1 (talk)05:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i'd rather do peace. --Wehwalt (talk)08:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect - so Tim takes him to the premiership, you to the outbreak of war and me to the grave. I shall pack my Beaverbrooks.KJP1 (talk)08:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just starting my reading. Meanwhile I think you might enjoy looking in at a current FAC with a late 19th C artistic flavour (in a way):Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Waddesdon Bequest/archive1.Tim riley talk15:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley,Wehwalt, andWehwalt: Tim - I quite like to have an idea of deadlines - any thoughts on when we are looking to have this ready for PR? Hint - a longer rather than shorter timeline would suit me just at the moment. Many thanks.KJP1 (talk)20:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am off to the Lake District for a week from tomorrow, with Jenkins in my luggage. I shall probably start writing when I get back on 11th inst. BTW, KJP, what edition of Jenkins are youj working from? Use any of the three you like, and I'll make sure all three editors' refs are adjusted to the third ed. I have suggested the same to Wehwalt. You may be assured that neither of your collaborators is in any rush whatever, having other things yet to be completed. Tim riley talk 21:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

We are not under any sort of deadline. As it happens, I am halfway throughWarren G. Harding and I'm at least a week away, maybe longer from completing that before I even start the reading.--Wehwalt (talk)21:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, that suits me very well. My Jenkins is the 2nd Edition, December 1964. By the by, I've begun a list in my sandbox of the, mainly primary, sources that I have and will probably use. If you need any of it for the earlier periods, and don't have easy access, let me know. Best regards.KJP1 (talk)21:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel confident you will be unable to resist contributing to the peer review just opened by SchroCat and self on the man who wrote, "Whatever may be said in favour of the Victorians, it is pretty generally admitted that few of them were to be trusted within reach of a trowel and a pile of bricks". (Asquith liked him, and was the dedicatee of one of his books.) Do look in, if you have time.Tim riley talk16:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim - really sorry. Would love to but heavy pressures on both the home and work fronts mean I cannot. And I must try to start Asquith. It's a great article and I'm sure it will fly through. Best regards.KJP1 (talk)12:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hurry on Asquith. I am leisurely reading and enjoying not doing much writing for a change. And I'm off next week on a trip though I shall be taking at least a couple of books with me.--Wehwalt (talk)12:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. Unfortunately, real life is intruding to the extent I'm hardly on wikipedia at the present. Enjoy your trip.KJP1 (talk)12:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk)13:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Castell Coch --Gerda Arendt (talk)13:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done us! And thankyouGerda Arendt for thinking of us, it's nice to have a local TFA!♦Dr. Blofeld14:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Wales Barnstar
		It was a real treat to see Castell Coch on the front page today. May I take the opportunity to thank you not only for that wonderful article, but also all the other work you have contributed to Welsh articles. Hats off!FruitMonkey (talk)22:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThankyouFruitMonkey your appreciation is greatly appreciated. Yes, it meant a lot to us having it as TFA!♦Dr. Blofeld14:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you or Gareth would be interested in expanding that one?♦Dr. Blofeld14:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that I took some photos of the chapel stained glass panels at Castell Coch a few weeks back. They're now up on the Commons, titledFile:Castell Coch stained glass panel 1.JPG through toFile:Castell Coch stained glass panel 12.jpg. Not perfect, I'm afraid, because of the angles, but they're lovely pieces!Hchc2009 (talk)17:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And very good they look, too. I'm afraid that issues in real life mean I have little time at all for Wikipedia at present but I must try to get down to Castell Coch sometime. All the best.KJP1 (talk)08:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings fromWikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annualproject coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on theelection page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours,Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015Military historian of the year andMilitary history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan! What do you reckon needs to be done to warrant nomination?— Precedingunsigned comment added byIthundir (talk •contribs)10:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedChurch of St Thomas, Redwick, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pagesSt Thomas andRedwick. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)10:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and the time you have taken over them. Some of the later Polish material is, as you identify, difficult to convey. It is not actually libellous, but some of it is certainly shocking. Much of it comes from newspaper reports of court cases. The Polish 'info' website is a collection of sources, including English ones: newspaper articles and in the case of the Museum, a peer reviewed book about the collection and a peer reviewed article, in Polish, about the demise of Polish libraries in the West, including the fate of the one in Fawley Court. The difficulty we have is that a reader with no Polish can only take the verifiable Polish sources on trust. Otherwise they need to be removed and what we then have is close to a cover-up. I am afraid the 48 hour time frame is not practical in my case as I shall be away very shortly. There could be others who have the possibility of addressing the challenges you present, as they return from holiday. I am in agreement with you that the text should be made more 'water tight'. Regards, --Po Kadzieli (talk)21:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A reply has been placed on theFawley Court Talkpage. Regards, --Po Kadzieli (talk)17:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing todisambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

Goldenhurst Farm

added a link pointing toAldington

Noël Coward

added a link pointing toAldington

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've started a new initiative, theWikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. It's a long term goal to bring about 10,000 article improvements to the UK and Ireland. Through two contests involving just six or seven weeks of editing so far we've produced over 1500 improvements. Long term if we have more people chipping it and adding articles they've edited independently as well from all areas of the UK then reaching that target is all possible. I think it would be an amazing achievement to see 10,000 article improvements by editors chipping in. If you support this and think you might want to contribute towards this long term please sign up in the Contributors section. No obligations, just post work on anything you feel like whenever you want, though try to avoid basic stubs if possible as we're trying to reduce the overall stub count and improve general comprehension and quality. Thanks.♦Dr. Blofeld13:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note reDyrham Park. I don't have that Pevsner volume so anything you can add from there would be great (although a lots of the Pevsner comments are incorporated into the listings of the National Heritage List for England citations).—Rod^talk15:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from theMilitary history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on theelection page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KJP1. Voting in the2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please reviewthe candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]