# Talk:Lyme Park

Needs expansion and some thought as to sectioning it more.
References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. (See WP:References, [[WP:V], and WP:CITE for guidance.)
 DDStretch  (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in helping me expand this article? I don't particularly mind doing it alone, but different sources that improve the neutrality would be appreciated. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 22:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You might like to join the fairly new Cheshire WikiProject and ask on its talk page. I am sure there are some who would be very happy to join forces with you.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, 
I am suprised it hasn't been mentioned that it was the setting of Darcy's home in the BBC adaptation of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice.

It's been cut out at some point. Feel free to add it back in. Majorly (o rly?) 19:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It waas edited out on 20:33, February 26, 2007 by User:Majorly. I'll add it back in under a "trivia" section, if that is all right.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently rewriting it all, so it'll probably get moved again at some point. Majorly (o rly?) 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Not to worry. I saw the message by the anon user, and just thought that I'd put it back in after searching it down. At least its now in a discrete section, so can be moved around fairly easily.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I glanced over the article, and it seems to me that much of the introduction should go into the History section. (I was prompted to look at it in detail because the introduction, before the index appears, seemed over-long.) If no-one else objects, or wishes to do it themselves, I'll turn my attention to it in a day or so.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to any improvement. Majorly (o rly?) 19:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok - I don't want to muck up any plans you are currently working through with it, but a lot of the intro is currently historical stuff that is not mentioned again or expanded upon in the History section, so I just thought it would be better placed there. Incidentally, are you using any particular sources for the information? There's a book that looks promising, though I haven't seen inside it yet, called "Historic Parks & Gardens of Cheshire" by Linden Groves [1]. I think it ought to have Lyme Park in it, but I'm not sure.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The book is listed, as well as some websites. You can do whatever you think is best, I haven't got plans as such. Majorly (o rly?) 19:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit [2] for obvious reasons. Giano (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not obvious to me at all. The replacement image was a better quality image, and should remain. I am aware of no policy that requires the use of "passport style" images. Mayalld (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, have it how you like it, with a portion missing and at an angle and on a slope. Giano (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. You may like to read Rule of Thirds which explains why the replacement image is superior. Mayalld (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You forget that the point of the image to illustrate the text, which in this case is to demonstrate the similarity of Lyme Park to a North Italian palazzo and refer to the architectural points. The image you prefer does not do that in any way - beautiful as the English lawn and overcast sky may be. It is a holiday type snap, nothing more, it shows little, not even the Palladian symmetricallity. It is of insufficient standard to even decorate a box of cheap chocolates. Giano (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching your work at Lyme with admiration, but I just wondered why you thought the style needed amending [3]. I would have thought Palladian was spot on, as in England Italianate and (as far as I know the rest of the world - other than Italy) means a more 19th century style preferably with a belvedere, verandahs, terraces etc. Just a thought. Giano (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.  I have been struggling (as you have noticed) with describing the architectural style of the house.  I am no expert in architecture so I am relying on the sources which I hope are the most reliable.  Referring to the south front, Images of England says "For a garden front it is magnificent but more Baroque than Palladian" and makes no other reference to Palladian style.  Pevsner says "But his great south front is not a Palladian front".  So I have settled for the National Trust's safer use of "Italianate" - broader but maybe less controversial.  Do you have any better references or sources?  I do not intend to fight over this; really I just want to avoid the attention of pedantic editors (and I thought that the article might be getting near to submission as a GAC - what do you think of that?). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
As an editor of Giacomo Leoni and Italianate I don't want to quote myself to prove a point, but I just feel that Lyme is not what is accepted as Italianate architecture, (the term does not mean looking as though it came from Italy at some vague time) if one were to remove that curious 19th century box addition from the top of the pediment, one could say it was almost a "Neoclassical Russian interpretation of Palladianism" but that is confusing the issue so let's not go there. I see where the Baroque commentators are coming from, but I would be happier to see it described as Palladian. Since starting to typed this message I have just looked it up in the National Trust's  Guide 3dt edition (published 1984) and found that  page 156 describes it as "One of the boldest achievements of Palladian architecture in this country"  which it isn't  (in my view either)  there are far bolder. Anyway it is up to you,  you are the one who is writing it, it is just great to see a lacking page being so improved. Regards. Giano (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
After my last message I found a booklet produced by the National Trust published in 1975 (I don't have the 1984 guide) which is also very quizzical about whether it is true Palladian or not.  So I've changed the lead in a way that I hope will satisfy most, while being true to the sources. What do you think? I may add a footnote in due course.  Incidentally I'm pleased you are working on the Leoni article - it certainly needs some proper referencing with inline citations.  Good luck! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Pevsner's take is that the south front is not Palladian because of the pilasters, but nor is it Italianate.  He tends towards the Baroque, but notes "So Leoni was more original at Lyme Park than one might at first sight have realized."  In other words, classify under unclassifiable.  Mr Stephen (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is the pilasters, they were around for centuries before Baroque and are a classical feature, I think it is more the level roofline and lack of emphasis on the terminating bays that makes him say Baroque. I still think it is Palladian, but more the  "Inigo Jones" early 17th century version that hit England before the Baroque. Leoni was pioneering the second wave of Palladianism in England, so it quite natural that he would refer to the earlier 17th centry form than the later 18th century Palldianism which was still evolving 20 years after Lyme's completion. Giano (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Between the last two comments I amended the lead and footnote to try to achieve some sort of acceptable compromise.  I am no expert in the matter (as is quite obvious); all I want to do is to improve (not make perfect) some of the articles on Cheshire topics.  We could have an edit war.  But how about giving it a rest for the time being, see what the GAC reviewer says, and take it from there. Whether it passes GA or not, maybe some expert could then take the discussion on.  By the way Pevsner says (he is the expert, not me) "giant pilasters all along a façade belongs rather than to Palladio to the Baroque...."(p. 260); he does not say "classical".  It is well known that experts disagree (that's how careers are made). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this page is vastly improved. There is architectural debate about the south front, so I think the Baroque features need to be defined, e.g., no variation in roof height, no pediments at the end of the range, solid mass etc., as the front lacks the obvious and usual Baroque features, it is important to explain  why "experts" say this is spelt out. You could mention that English Baroque is more subtle, plainer and less obvious than the more exuberant forms found elsewhere in Europe (not a lot of people know that!) Can you give a page number for Pevsner's views (if only because I want to quote him at Giacomo Leoni).  Also, I feel the page could say more about the interior, how far did the clasicising of the house go, we know that Leoni retained may original features such as the Gibbons wood carvings etc. Was the entrance  hall on the upper floor in Tudor times, did the Tudor rooms retain their original use. Is the saloon  at the centre of a Baroque double state-suite as the exterior design implies or is the suggested piano nobile of the south front just for exterior cosmetic reasons - to give the Italian feel? You have said much about the Tudor rooms, but not a lot about the 18th century.  Finally, could the lead image be just a little larger? Just a little more information and I think it is there, it would make a nice short FA, if you felt so inclined. Giano (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, just a quick & part response.  That the wood carings are Gibbons' is not certain either.  But, as a guide once said to me – if not Gibbons, then who?  I think most of the other questions are answerable too.  I'm sure I've got a guidebook here somewhere in this pile of stuff.  Mr Stephen (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
That's why I said "attributed".  There is a discussion on this in Waterson (p. 17) saying that "by long family tradition" they were by Gibbons; there is reference in some 1684 correspondence to carved work by Gibbons, but this has not been regarded as conclusive.  The booklet is dated 1975 and there may be something more up to date.  But I think "attributed" is OK for the moment  Do you? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm dredging my memory here, but I think there's something doubtful about that letter.  Possibly it doesn't actually refer to Lyme, or something like that.  Mr Stephen (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added a footnote re the discussion about their provenance. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


### Lead image size
I noticed a comment in the GA review about the size of the lead image. What the MoS says is that if a thumbnail size is specified it should be at least the size of the maximum that can be set in user preferences, which is 300px. So I've increased the size of the lead image accordingly. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this page is vastly improved. There is architectural debate about the south front, so I think the Baroque features need to be defined, e.g., no variation in roof height, no pediments at the end of the range, solid mass etc., as the front lacks the obvious and usual Baroque features, it is important to explain  why "experts" say this is spelt out. You could mention that English Baroque is more subtle, plainer and less obvious than the more exuberant forms found elsewhere in Europe (not a lot of people know that!) Can you give a page number for Pevsner's views (if only because I want to quote him at Giacomo Leoni).  Also, I feel the page could say more about the interior, how far did the clasicising of the house go, we know that Leoni retained may original features such as the Gibbons wood carvings etc. Was the entrance  hall on the upper floor in Tudor times, did the Tudor rooms retain their original use. Is the saloon  at the centre of a Baroque double state-suite as the exterior design implies or is the suggested piano nobile of the south front just for exterior cosmetic reasons - to give the Italian feel? You have said much about the Tudor rooms, but not a lot about the 18th century.  Finally, could the lead image be just a little larger? Just a little more information and I think it is there, it would make a nice short FA, if you felt so inclined. Giano (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I assume that this is a comment rather than a review; I have copied it to Talk:Lyme Park.  Regarding the comments made, this is a submission for GA, not FA.  I do not have the knowledge or sources to deal with the complex architectural matters raised above.  I think the content is appropriate for GA; future editors can then raise its standard to A class or FA. To answer two specific comments.  Regarding the size of the deal image, I understand that the consensus is that "thumb" images should be left to the default set by the reader.  I should actually prefer the image to be larger; if the reviewer agrees it should be larger, I will be pleased to fix it.  The reference to Pevsner will be found in the References section - I have added the page number of the specific comment "not a Palladian front" to the footnote. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It was meant as a review.Giano (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
If this is a review, then it should be assessing whether or not this article meets the good article criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Just some suggestions for how it could be improved to meet GA criteria, I assume comprehensive is one of the needs. Please don't worry about it, forget I mentioned it. Giano (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
GA does not demand that an article is comprehensive, that's one of the FA criteria. GA simply demands that an article be broad in its scope and cover the subject's major topics. I'm a bit confused now though. Are you carrying out the GA review of this article or not? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think I will, far too stressful. I'll leave it to you. Giano (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I won't be reviewing this article either, so I'll move all of this discussion to the talk page, and leave this page ready for the GA review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lyme Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I shall be reviewing this article (I've visited Lyme Park many, many times myself, so I look forward to reading this and perhaps finding out something new!) – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"It consists of a mansion house surrounded by formal gardens, standing in a deer park" Do gardens stand?
Figure of speech: WP would probably consider it redundant; "standing" deleted.
Is it on the edge of the Peak District? Wow, I didn't realise it was so close!
Good point.  I've checked the OS map, and it's IN the Peak District National Park.  Text amended + ref.
"The estate was granted to Sir Thomas Danyers in 1346" By whom?
Edward II as it says in the History section.  I don't think this detail needs to be repeated in the lead. Do you?
"Formal gardens were created and developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries" Again, who did?
Again this information is in the History and Gardens sections.
How about a mention more recent aspects of Lyme in the lead, such as TV appearances?
Done
"granted his family a coat of arms in 1397" Is a picture of the arms available?
I am not aware of one which is copyright-free.
"However, Piers was executed two years later by Henry Bolingbroke" Why was that?
Because he was a friend of his rival Richard II. I have added a few words which I hope clarify that.
"Later in the century William Legh, 1st Baron Newton, added stables" Which century?
19th.  It follows the alterations made by Wyatt the dates of which are three lines above.
The measurements of the house are confusing. What exactly do they represent?
"Overall" added
More pictures to compliment the exterior description would be nice.
Agreed - and there is room.  But I cannot find any more suitable free-use images.  There is nothing in Commons or Geograph which adds anything of value in this respect.
Have you tried looking on flickr? Not that images are essential, but it's so easy to get pictures of the exterior, I'm surprised there's not that many around. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I've flicked trhough a few hundred images on Flickr and found nothing (yet) which adds to what is already in the article and which is free to use.
Interior section:

You discuss various rooms, but don't really go into their history much. Example, when was the entrance hall built, was it always the entrance hall? You only really discuss it after its remodelling.
I don't have any more information on this.
"Portraits of Edward III and the Black Prince decorate the hall." They aren't the only ones, if I recall. Any more detail about the paintings? (That they're copies, for example).
This is interesting.  Waterson does not say anything about a portrait of Edward III; that came from the UK Heritage site (which I hope is a reliable source).  In respect of the Black Prince, Waterson says "UNKNOWN, (?) 17th century.....Said to have been bought from St. James's Palace in the early 18th century....."  Waterson also describes the presence of paintings of Peter Legh (X) and his wife Frances. (pp. 13–14)  One of the problems of working from an oldish (1975) source is that paintings come and go and get moved. So I decided to stick just with the two portraits mentioned as they come from a 2008 source.
"They were originally in the Legh's London home" What London home?
In Belgrave Square (Waterson, p. 12.).  Does including this add any value to an article on a Cheshire house?
It would help just to link to it. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Done
What's a tabernacle?
I presume it was a niche or a cabinet for storing the Eucharist so I have linked it to Church tabernacle.  If this is felt to be confusing or inadequate, perhaps it could just be deleted.
Are room names normally capitalised?
They are capitalised throughout Waterson, so I assumed this was a convention.  It certainly presents confusion in situations between, say, "the room was used as a drawing room" and "they had tea in the Drawing Room".
"To the north of the Entrance Hall, on the first floor" We're still on the first floor, aren't we? No need to mention again. And while I remember, a basic floorplan would be nice.
I'm not sure.  The steps from the courtyard lead to a door which is between the first and second storeys (see text) and this is confirmed by the image in this section.  Looking at the floorplans in Waterson (p. 4) there are steps (? up) from the Entrance Hall to the Drawing Room, etc.  So I think what is said is actually correct.  A floor plan would of course help to clarify this but I do not have the expertise to create one (and the one in Waterson is under copyright).
Yes there are steps; have you ever visited? The entrance hall is slightly lower down than the rest, and there are a few steps going up. This doesn't mean it's an upper-floor though. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I have visited, once, decades ago.  Any memories of the details have merged into memories of many other stately homes, palaces, etc. visited since.  Reference to the first floor in this context deleted.
Surely there are more important rooms that could be discussed?
There well might be, and more rooms may have been opened to the public since 1975, but I do not have any information about them.  The only rooms described in Waterson which I have not included are the Morning Room and the Yellow Bedroom, about which it is difficult to pick out anything particularly notable.
"To the west of the house is the former mill pond." What do you mean by "former"? How can something be formerly a pond?
Now it is a pond.  Formerly it was a millpond, but the mill has gone, which I think makes it a former millpond.  I suspect confusion has been caused by splitting millpond into two words.  In the original version it was one word but it was split by an editor into two words, I think, to avoid a re-direct (was that really necessary?).  The Wikipedia article uses two words, but I would argue that it should properly be one; this is confirmed by Chambers English Dictionary and Wiktionary. [Perhaps the WP article should be moved from Mill pond to Millpond!]
Saving at this point, keyboard issues. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment.  All the above points have been addressed.  I hope this article is going to be reviewed according to the six Wikipedia:Good article criteria.  Of these, most of the above comments have been, I think, under criterion 3 - "Broad in its coverage".  It is not meant to be comprehensive; that would be for the article at the FA stage.  I think its coverage is broad enough for GA, addresses the main topics, and is focused without unnecessary detail (otherwise I would not have submitted it). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm certain this won't fail. I do this for every GA I review - just go through it and try to give it a fair review at the same time. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
"The most obvious structure in the park is a tower" How do you mean, obvious? To whom? Surely the most obvious structure is the house?
Dealt with.
Completed review. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think all the points raised have now been covered. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, excellent work. I think this now meets all criteria, so it's now a Good Article. Well done! – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the trouble you have taken over this. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:South facade of Lyme Park house, 2013.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 29, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-01-29. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lyme Park. 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/20080828214243/http://theheritagetrail.co.uk/stately%20homes/lyme%20park.htm to http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/stately%20homes/lyme%20park.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 06:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lyme Park. 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/20081228234644/http://www.mastiffassociation.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=73 to http://www.mastiffassociation.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=73
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927162214/http://www.hlf.org.uk/news/Pages/LymeCaxtonMissal.aspx to http://www.hlf.org.uk/news/Pages/LymeCaxtonMissal.aspx
Added archive https://archive.is/20130420025007/http://www.discovercheshire.co.uk/country-parks.aspx?refnum=CPK022&region=1&mapCategory=PRK&mapBackLayers=PRK1P&mapBackE=363000&mapBackN=363000&mapBackMpp=160&mapBackSearchTxt= to http://www.discovercheshire.co.uk/country-parks.aspx?refnum=CPK022&region=1&mapCategory=PRK&mapBackLayers=PRK1P&mapBackE=363000&mapBackN=363000&mapBackMpp=160&mapBackSearchTxt=
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 23:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lyme Park. 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/20120226091313/http://www.parksandgardens.ac.uk/component/option,com_parksandgardens/task,site/id,2175/tab,description/Itemid,292/ to http://www.parksandgardens.ac.uk/component/option,com_parksandgardens/task,site/id,2175/tab,description/Itemid,292/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140701055827/http://bowmenoflyme.co.uk/About/Default.aspx to http://www.bowmenoflyme.co.uk/About/Default.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120817104705/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/days-out-and-itineraries/page-1/ to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/days-out-and-itineraries/page-1/
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) 16:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason that the owner (The National Trust) isn't listed in the infobox?
WorcestershireHistorian (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)