Jump to content

Talk:Blenheim Palace

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateBlenheim Palace is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 8, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted

Tenure

[edit]

I may be wrong, but I believe that the Blenheim estate is unique in some way as to its tenure, possibly through some grant of Queen Anne's, and not ordinary freehold. If any legal expert can explicate this it would add interest to the article. Seadowns (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seadowns - I think you may be referring to Fact 13, here, [1] which is covered in The palace today section, here:
As of October 2016, the Marlboroughs still have to tender a copy of the French royal flag to the Monarch on the anniversary of the Battle of Blenheim as rent for the land that Blenheim Palace stands on.

KJP1 (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Blenheim Palace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Monumental Country House"?

[edit]

Both Chatsworth and Castle Howard (structures of comparable size and national importance) are simply described in the lede as 'Stately Homes'. Any particular reason for this specific description? Hanoi Road (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted - but I would be OK with the previous description if anyone has strong views. Dormskirk (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is describes as monumental because unlike all other “stately” homes it was built literally as a monument as well as a home. I believe this is unique in Britain. It is a designed monument and mausoleum to the 1st Duke and his military glories. The text does explain this. Giano (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair to me. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Building

[edit]

Proposing to add the infobox building template to the page. It provides a great way of summarising the page in a couple of field. Smithr32 (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - this was debated at length, albeit some time ago. I believe the position is broadly - infoboxes aren’t mandated and should be considered on an article-by-article basis. The consensus view here was not to include an IB. I’m not sure if anything has changed since the last discussion. I doubt very much the view of the main editor has, but am pinging him so we can find out, Giano. I appreciate the “Own” position, but believe that the views of the main editor/s should be a factor for consideration. Lastly, I’m aware of the dreadful time-sink these discussions have been, and continue to be, as well as the extraordinary acrimony they generate. Are there really no better ways we could collectively work to improve the encyclopaedia than to re-litigate this topic? I say this as one who has included infoboxes in every FA I’ve contributed to, but I am quite willing to accept that my personal preferences are not universally shared. KJP1 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1, re: "I doubt very much the view of the main editor has, but am pinging him so we can find out"; please see WP:VOTESTACK. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Read - and I would do nothing differently. KJP1 (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping, but it wasn’t votestacking as this page is on my watchlist and I would have come straight here anyway. If you look at the page history, I am often here. Giano (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in this instance an info box would only over simplify and confuse. Baroque: it’s a very unusual form of Baroque, it needs to be explained. Architect: Vanbrugh? Probably more Hawksmoor. Client: Queen Anne? The British Government? The Privy Purse? Duke of Marlborough? The Dowager Duchess of Marlborough? I doubt anyone could answer that in two words. Building dates: interrupted. Need I go on? No, I think it’s better to let people read the lead, or better still the whole thing. Giano (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and I just looked at the reverted infobox, where it’s described as a “palace.” Which show a complete misunderstanding of the building. It’s a country house, just because it’s called a palace doesn't mean it’s a palace, any more than the myriad of wealthy bankers who buy huge farmhouses in the English countryside and then call them Rose Cottage means they are cottages, or houses called the Grange, but don’t have farm buildings attached are granges. Giano (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This article is already extensively illustrated, and per WP:IG image galleries should not be used to shoehorn in indiscriminate images of the article subject. For that reason the newly added gallery should be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - it's already well illustrated, some of the intended images are of poor quality, and it's not at all clear to me what point is being demonstrated that isn't already covered. I undid the addition for now. It's best we have the discussion before making, or not making, the proposed change. KJP1 (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well I don't agree at all!
"some of the intended images are of poor quality, and it's not at all clear to me what point is being demonstrated that isn't already covered." it's "poor quality" for people that didn't appreciate the subject of the article in this case Blenheim Palace, basically I gave more picture showing the details of subject more closely from multiple angle to show the scope of the Palace!
A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. WP:IG Wentwort12 (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this type of gallery for historical country houses are typical, example Chatsworth House, Castle Howard. Because obviously there are many important historical artifact and details in the said country houses
I reverted your WP:GF Wentwort12 (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are qualified to edit in country house articles since you clearly have no appreciation for these subjects as per rule a gallery section can be appropriate and country house articles fit the criteria Wentwort12 (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from such baseless attacks on other editors - focus on content, not the contributor.
A rule of thumb provided by WP:IG is that "if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons". This is a pretty textbook example of such a case. There is no indication that the purpose of the proposed gallery could not be easily or adequately be replaced by individual images. The fact that other articles may also include inappropriate galleries is not a reason to do so here. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you are entitled to your own opinion but it's not "attacks", that's what you think.
"Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons" then I can "revamped" it!
There is every indication, it's a country house! filled with historical items and treasures, which formed a collection of the house, as your decision was rather subjective than objective. People who had passion for historic houses would appreciate the added image showing better aerial photo, entire south facade, aerial north facade, important historic items commissioned for the house, while people who didn't care about art and culture would not appreciate it. So it's entirely subjective.
"The fact that other articles may also include inappropriate galleries is not a reason to do so here." this page isn't even relevant to the "gallery", you are just doing the most to enforce your own baseless subjective opinion about the article, you haven't even made any good argument why the gallery about a country house shouldn't exist, just bunch of arbitrary rules that didn't say it should be deleted
then please do remove all the galleries from Chatsworth House and Castle Howard then, what's stopping you? Wentwort12 (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blenheim_Palace&oldid=1260092749"