Talk:Ham House

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-hamhouse/w-hamhouse-history.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Sitush (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ham House. 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/20120101075730/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-hamhouse.htm to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-hamhouse.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello Ham House friends,
Over this extended lockdown period, a group of National Trust volunteers from Ham House have formed a team dedicated to the goal of getting the Ham House page to FA status! We'd like to build on the great foundations already in place to add more depth to the story of the house, gardens, collections and the women & men who made it their home. We are all long-serving volunteers with decades of experience with the property and its history. This project has the endorsement of the National Trust, who are making reference materials available to the team. We'll do our best to expand this article in alignment with Wikipedia's highest standards - however if you see any points of concern, please post here to share your thoughts. Isaksenk (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, and thank you for that initial disclosure. I see that you (Isaksenk) are already an experienced editor, so this probably doesn't need saying, but please bear in mind WP:NPOV and WP:COI, and try not to introduce content that might be seen as unduly promotional. I certainly have no issue with any of your edits so far. GrindtXX (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Thanks GrindtXX - a valid reminder! To clarify - we are not NT employees - just passionate volunteers who want to flesh out the story of this place. However, if you see anything of concern, please let us know! Isaksenk (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm up for this. Great to hear that NT are prepared to contribute materials. I contributed several edits rebuilding the article following the  mostly based around Pritchard 2007, hence the enduring focus on the successive owners. My thinking was always to use this underlying chronology to put the architectural, functional and decorative features that we see today (as well as those no longer visible) into their historic context, and, if needs be, migrate the biographical detail to related articles (which did not all exist at the time). I still think this is a sensible direction to follow but I'm open to better ideas. One useful task would be to mine the "pre-copyvio-purge" versions for useful content and re-introduce it more appropriately. More immediately the inline URLS and other MOS tidies would help improve quality. Good Luck!! KenBailey (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

text:  Hi KenBailey great to hear from you! We were hoping you'd chime in as we recognise your significant contributions in building this page. We have been studying the structures of some of the pages built for stately homes which have achieve FA status, such as West Wycombe Park, in order to decide how best to focus our efforts. We created a framework which would have major sections for: Architecture, Gardens, Collections, Family History, Later History, Film & TV. Some of these sections would them have subsections which go into greater detail (such as Family history, of course!) We feel, based on our experience of working with the property and knowledge of what's available in primary and secondary sources, that this structure allow for a balanced expansion of the existing page. Appreciate any thoughts/questions you, or anyone else might have on this proposal. Thanks! Isaksenk (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sections all sound sensible to me, but, especially in the case of Ham House, I'd still put the Family History first since, after all, it is the people that primarily shaped the building, collections and gardens and who created the legacy for the Later History, and Film & TV use. Don't lose "Access" either! Introducing the cast first puts everything else into a chronological context that will help the reader's understanding. Looking at the sometimes heated discussion on Talk:West Wycombe Park, its FA status is criticised more than once, so possibly not the ideal model to follow. Others in :Category:FA-Class Historic houses articles that achieved FA status more recently might be preferable, Sandringham House perhaps? -- KenBailey (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Hello HH friends, just a short update on the page progression. I initiated the GA review of the article and have been responding to the feedback from the reviewers in order to bring it to GA standard. As part of the revisions, I have been advised to remove the bullet list of all the movies & TV shows, and adopt a prose format, with high-quality sources. This will result in a shorter list, but will conform better to GA requirements. Please reach out with any questions or comments on the changes. Isaksenk (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello from the Ham House Wikiproject team 

message: Hi all, the table of contents/section headings don't really make sense. Firstly, the "Elizabeth (née Murray: 2nd Countess of Dysart) (1626–1698) and Lionel Tollemache, 3rd Baronet of Helmingham Hall (1624–1669)" desperately needs to be shortened, it distorts the entire table of contents making it very awkward looking. Secondly, the choice of years after names (c.1600–1655 for William Murray, for example), doesn't have to do with the actual time they spent in the house. Why does it matter that Murray was born in 1600 is he only began living in the house in 1626? The article is about the house, not Murray. Giving the titles of the owners in the section headings also seems like far too much information, but that is perhaps the least pressing of these three issues. Aza24 (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've done a bit, but more could & probably should be done. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Any thoughts ? Aza24 (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it’s worth, I think the dates could be removed without much loss. I doubt it would be possible to provide dates indictaing the period they were resident at the house. Unless  objects, I could have a go and people could see what they think? KJP1 (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking: "5.3 Lionel Tollemache, 5th Earl of Dysart (1734–1799)" as an example, really I'd think "5th Earl of Dysart (1734–1799)" the best combination of brevity and useful information, rather than say: "Lionel Tollemache, 5th Earl of Dysart", especially as there are 4 (or is it 5) Lionels. But the dates they held the titles might be better than birth-death dates. Not sure.  Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: John's solution sounds like an improvement—I suspect giving the dates of the title might be unexpected to the readers, so I would prefer the life spans if residency dates are indeed unavailable. KJP1's solution is also certainly an improvement, but I suspect that it may be confusing to give so many names without dates of any kind. Aza24 (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi all - we appreciate the thought you've been giving to this improvement. We do use the titles in the house regularly for the reason that Johnbod mentions - there were a lot of Lionels. I don't have a strong preference on format tbh, but I can provide the needed dates, whether it's lifespan or ownership of the property. I do agree it should be standardised for clarity. Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of contents