# Talk:Cardiff Castle

Hi didn't know where else to mention this - have put some photographs which may be useful on my wikkicommons userpage under Cardiff [[1]]help yourself if they are of any use... Merlin-UK 21:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I just swapped around the logo and photo of the castle so that an image of the castle is now the lead picture; it seemed odd to relegate the subject of the article to second place below a logo. That got me thinking, is the logo really worth including? It's non-free and I'm not sure if it adds that much. The fair use rationale for the logo reads

The image is used to identify the organization Cardiff Castle, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.
Nev1 (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC) 

I agree that the logo adds very little. The article is about almost 2000 years of the building's history, not about the building's current owners. Daicaregos (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I have not been involved in the discussion, as my broadband had been down for well over a week...Actually I do disagree with the article "not about the building's current owners". The article must be about the entire history of the castle, and including the logo for recognition is important...I do agree with moving it down the infobox. SethWhales talk   16:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the logo adds much as far as recognition is concerned; of far more importance in that regard are the photos of the castle itself. A coat of arms or logo can be a useful illutration at times, for example it might be useful on Bodiam Castle or Warkworth Castle to include the coats of arms of the owners as they were used for decoration of the respective buildings. But here I'm not sure it's necessary. If it was free it probably wouldn't be an issue as there's more than one way to illustrate an article, but I think it's worth asking how important the logo is considering it's copyrighted. Nev1 (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, the article uses the harvnb templates for the citation, but doesn't use a matching citation template in the bibliography. This means that the "clickablility" function of harnvb linking the reference to the bibliography doesn't work. Also, where two books share the same date, the current style uses the title to differentiate in the harvnb template( e.g. "Crook (1981), William Burges And The High Victorian Dream, p. 271"), rather than the date + letter (e.g. " Crook (1983a), p. 271"), which is unusual. The templates don't also typically use the year, again unusual for this template.
What I'd like to propose is applying a "cite book" template to the bibliography; adding the year in for the citations (e.g. "Newman, p. 194" would appear as "Newman (1995), p. 194); and adjusting the inline citations for "Crook (1981), "William Burges And The High Victorian Dream" so to appear as "Crook (1981a)". This is covered by WP:CITEVAR, so I'm asking for consensus before doing so. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Do it; it's only a start rated article, so any improvement would be well recieved. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes please!  I fear I may be responsible for the problem as citations are not my strong suit and slabs of the article are lifted - with the citations - from the article on William Burges.  I did this when attempting to create Wiki coverage of all of Burges's buildings.  User:Dr._Blofeld and I have plans to try to take this, and Castell Coch, to GA and your sorting the citations would be a great help.  Best regards.  KJP1 (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. One missing book filled in as well. I've got one other article to finish off now, then I'll turn and help out on this one. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
If you had time to help that would be really appreciated.  Dr B.'s been raring to go for a while but I've been on a bit of a Wikibreak.  Additionally, whilst I know quite a lot about the Victorian re-build, and Dr.B's knowledge is wide-ranging and inexhaustible, I had thought we'd need assistance with the earlier periods of the castle's development.  And I really can't think of anyone better able to assist us on a castle article!  Thanks and regards.  KJP1 (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

As promised, I've gone through and done an initial stab at an expansion. I've got two addition works on order, so will return to the article once I've got those, but I think the bulk of the content is in there now. In the Victorian section I've undertaken a mild copy-edit, and removed some close paraphrasing that had crept in. In the current day bit, I've trimmed back some bits where I just couldn't find references. I've added in a plan, happy to tweak that if anyone sees something which is missing, and I've played around with the images a little. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cardiff Castle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 03:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I look forward to reviewing this article. I expect to complete my review within 48 hours. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
prose flows well and is both concise and informative
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 
this article is very well supported by by solid academic references, periodical articles, and governmental reports.
C. No original research: 
I do not see any "original research" concerns.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
this article is comprehensive in its coverage of the subject and its history
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
no bias detected at all.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
In the last two years, only minor vandalism. I do not see any content disputes that became edit wars.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
no copyvio issues, images are appropriately creditited and tagged.
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Congratulations to preparing an comprehensive and excellent article that deserves Good Article Status.

The castle is owned by the city council; the Cardiff Castle webpage notes at the bottom that "Cardiff Castle is owned and managed by Cardiff Council"; although the language in 1947 talked about giving it "to the people", it was actually given to the city council, which as a corporation can hold land. The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales says in their 1991 book, "Glamorgan: Early Castles" that "the fifth marquess presented it to the city" (p.172) and notes the help given to their survey by "the city authorities and their staff at the castle" (p.174). I've tweaked the text slightly to reflect this and added in the additional reference. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Misschoos, will you please stop changing cited information, and engage on the talk page. The reference for current ownership is the castle's own website, presumably a reliable source - as noted above, it explicitly says that "Cardiff Castle is owned and managed by Cardiff Council"; the statement on 1947 is referenced both to the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales and to Nigel Jones, an historian. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

User: Hchc2009, the castle was given to the people of Cardiff in 1947. I haven't seen evidence that it was given to Cardiff council, but I have seen evidence that it was given to the people of Cardiff by the 5th Marquess of Bute.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misschoos (talk • contribs) 09:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
User: Hchc2009, The castle website also states the fact that the castle was given to the people of Cardiff at the bottom of the page here http://www.cardiffcastle.com/the-butes/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misschoos (talk • contribs) 09:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Misschoos, the material is in the reliable sources cited in the article, and restated above.
To explain the background again, in UK law, land is owned by a person, or, in some cases, by a corporation (literally, "a body"). When the 5th Marquess gave away the castle (facing huge tax liabilities!) he gave it to the city of Cardiff (as cited), stating it was a gift to the people of Cardiff. Legally, it was given to the City of Cardiff in the form of the city council, which is a corporate body under UK law. This is why the website of the castle is so explicitly clear about the ownership, which matters under UK law - if you were to be injured while visiting the castle, you would be able to sue the council, as the owners and managers of the property, for example, and the city authorities are similarly liable for paying tax and similar legal duties. The city council was presumably quite a good body to give it to, since it is elected and accountable to the people of Cardiff.
This is quite common in the UK - someone who owns a ruin, or a nice area of land, may leave it "to be enjoyed by the community", but it will invariably owned by a council, or a government or charitable body like English Heritage or the National Trust. The phrase is similar to someone saying "I want future generations to have and enjoy this place" when they give land to a charity - it expresses intent, but the legal owner is not then "Future Generations", but rather the charitable body is it passed to. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
It's also a common verbal convention in the United States - to "give to the people" usually means either give to a governmental body or a charity, not literally to invest the ownership in a new corporate body named the "people of somewhere". Ealdgyth - Talk 12:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The above is self-evident. Under property law as it applies in the UK (and Australia), property can only be divested to a legal entity, usually a legal person (or corporate entity). Something as vague as "the people of Cardiff" would not suffice to meet the requirements of the law. Which would explain why it was in fact transferred to the City of Cardiff, which presumably is a corporation elected by "the people of Cardiff". Cheers, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 13:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Should something be in this article about the clock within the clock tower?
It's been non operational for a few years.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/cardiff-castles-clock-comes-stop-1811552
This article mentions Edward Dent as the creator.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.237.64.150 (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Cardiff Castle. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221215132/http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/ to http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221215132/http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/ to http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221215132/http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/ to http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221215132/http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/ to http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221215132/http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/ to http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221215132/http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/ to http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221215132/http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/ to http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221215132/http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/ to http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221215132/http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/ to http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221215132/http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/ to http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221215132/http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/ to http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221215132/http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/ to http://www.coflein.gov.uk/pdf/CPG211/
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) 19:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cardiff Castle. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120907071804/http://www.rrw.org.uk/index.shtml to http://www.rrw.org.uk/index.shtml
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.publicarchitecture.co.uk/knowledge-base/files/cardiff_castle_lnterpretation_centre.pdf
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) 08:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The 08:34, 6 December 2017‎ InternetArchiveBot version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand an existing stub.--Wing (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Cool! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)