Talk:Grosmont Castle

message: There's a bit of worry about the copyright of this article - I notice Castle99uk cites his own website as the origin of the text - but this site also seems to include the same text - any ideas? --Mcginnly | Natter 09:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put a plagiarism tag. I suppose he plagiarized himself. I guess its either plagiarism or original research. CJ DUB 04:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm gonna have go at fixing it. CJ DUB 00:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Original research is actually not allowed by wikipedia. You have to properly cite all the material. 19:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright

message: I think the plan currently used in the article may be copyrighted. It's come from Geograph, but the plan looks professionally produced and at a guess I'd say it's a photograph of an information board on the site. If that is the case, I don't think it's covered by freedom of panorama as it would be a photograph of a 2-D work. I ran into a similar issue with Maiden Castle, Dorset where I thought a photograph of a plan make an excellent illustration, as it does here, but it was deleted because it was under copyright. Nev1 (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm convinced it is still under copyright I'm afraid; it is from the site (complete with the "you are here" marker!) and will be copyright Cadw. I've added a note at Commons. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I bow to others' superior wisdom on this - I assumed that, because it had been uploaded as part of a batch from Geograph, the copyright issues had been cleared - but, if not, take it out by all means.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're looking to take the article to GA, by the way, drop us a line; I can probably draw you a plan given a few days notice. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible the person who uploaded it to geograph didn't realise it would be copyrighted. I've removed the plan but I'm currently looking at some commons compatible images on flickr so might add them to the article. Nev1 (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

text: The most characteristic feature of the castle is the tall chimney, which is best shown in the current infobox image in my view - it also shows the red sandstone colour better.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if the chimney is the most striking feature of the castle or simply the tallest, but if that's what the sources say I suppose that's a good reason to stick with the image. It's not a terribly inspiring picture of the castle, though the others don't really show the reddish tinge. Nev1 (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Plan

message: Hi. Over the next month or so, I'd like to take this article forward to GA status. As part of that work, I'd like to propose using the harnvb template short citation system throughout, backed up by the "cite web" template, with the bibliography using the "cite book" templates, and "cite web" templates as necessary. As an example of this in practice, see Henry I of England. I think that short citations for articles with a large number of citations are easier to read and to edit. This would represent a change to the current style, and would therefore require prior consensus, as per MOS:CITE. 
Comments welcomed! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style... 

message: I see that Grosmont isn't directly mentioned in his article, which seems a bit of an oversight? Appears only once in the title of a book in the Bibliography. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hubert de Burgh, 1st Earl of Kent]] 

message: That figure of £15 really stands out like a sore thumb. I initially missed the information in the note at the end of the sentence, and even on reading it doesn't really bring such a small sum into the right context. It might help if we could state the time period for that income of £200 - per year I would assume. I would also suggest moving that note to immediately after the £15 figure. FactotEm (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: An explanatory footnote has now been added which gives some context to that sum. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  15 Quid?