Talk:Warwick Castle

message: It currently says in the main article, that the Warwick trebuchet is designed to fire projectiles to a height of 25M. This is quite plainly incorrect. A trebuchet which itself is stated as being 18M tall will fire a projectile on a high trajectory - much higher than 25M. My guess (having watched it firing) would be nearer to 75M if not more. Perhaps someone could work out a proper height.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.170.240.10 (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The trebuchet. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Warwick Castle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1369
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Warwick 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/20131029203943/http://www.middelaldercentret.dk/ommiddelaldercentret/blider.html to http://www.middelaldercentret.dk/ommiddelaldercentret/blider.html
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) 12:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, I want to proposed a new picture for the infobox of Warwick Castle. The image is a rated QI picture showing the whole side of the castle. I understand that the current one being used in the article is FP but I find factors that which I think could do with a better replacement.
Both pictures have good and not-so good factors. The current one has beautiful reflection of the River Avon and luscious green foliage but is quite sun drenched due to it being sunny at the time and it seem the details is more focused at the river and landscape rather then the castle itself. The one I'm proposing I find is more centred and shows more of the castle and nice composition, the factors which might turn users off is the lack of reflection of the River Avon and most of the foliage is less green and blooming.  Another factor is the in-depth comparison of the two shows the proposed one has more details of the castle then the current one since it more in scope. Thoughts? --Vauxford (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the replacement is too dull, and as this is a featured article I restored my long-standing featured picture. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a featured picture, doesn't mean a non FP picture can't be used on a featured article. I did this hefty proposal a month ago but nobody responded so I thought it was safe to do so. It be best to see what others have to say other then the authors of the photos in question. --Vauxford (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to wait to see if there are any other opinions on this. I will just confirm though, that the original picture is not "filtered" as you allege in your most recent edit remark, and the "brightness" is down to natural sunlight, and it is in this light I believe the castle looks at its best. Check out its , and you'll see the verdict was unanimous and with no negative comments. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mean it actually filtered, I mean it looks like it, I don't really know words to describe it right. Sorry if that sounded a tad rude. It nice it was taken during the sunshine but I think it a better view when it was taken when it was overcast. I did plan to get the photo promoted to FP but I held back thinking users wouldn't like it. --Vauxford (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

text: With no-one else getting involved, I've raised an RfC below to discuss this. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Infobox picture proposal  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I have edited the paragraph dealing with the death of Greville. I was suspicious to read that his servant Haywood had been annoyed to have been left "only £8,000 in Greville's will". In 1628 this would have been an enormous figure that would have given a servant a very comfortable standard of living! I have checked the linked source in 'London Old and New' and found the source recounts the incident but makes no mention of any figure; it only states Greville had informed Haywood that he was omitted from mention in the will, which would have been more likely to raise such murderous ire. I have changed the detail accordingly.Cloptonson (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Murder of Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke