Talk:Castell Coch

message: Appearences in Movies and Popular Culture
The castle is mentioned in the Target novelisation of the Doctor Who Story The Ark where companion Dodo Chaplet impliesthat she has visited the castle.
The Castle has also been used as a location in many films;
Think we need to add to this if it is to be of real value.  Where it states "many films", can we amplify?  I know of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" (Stephen Weeks, director, 1973) but can't immediately think of any more.  Often thought to have been used in "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" but I think this was actually Peckforton, Cheshire.  Any others?
KJP1 19:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I gather from Castell_Coch_Woodlands_and_Road_Section that the surrounding woodlands are listed as a site of special scientific interest. That is probably noteworthy EdwardLane (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castle Coch's surroundings 

message: The current infobox lists the materials as Carboniferous Sandstone Ashlar, without citing a source. I think it is built of Old Red Sandstone (Devonian, not Carboniferous), based on the colour of the stone and on this being a common local building stone. The listed building citation does not mention the type of stone, nor does Newman in The Building of Wales: Glamorgan. In the absence of a citable reference I will remove this. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Building stone 

message: Dear Lord - we must get some better photos.  What are those benches doing stacked up in the Drawing Room?  Dr. B, get up there with your camera! KJP1 (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  - I'd seen it on the website before, but it wasn't free for use then; congrats to the NLW for releasing it! Could I ask a favour though? The metadata on the image in the Wikicommons says that "this image and data related to the image may be reproduced for non-commercial research and private study purposes", which doesn't marry up with the licensing above it, which allows for any potential use (if you click "expand" on the metadata button near the bottom the details will come up). Although the licensing on the Commons looks correct, this default metadata could cause problems for users in the future, particularly since the image has a secure invisible digital watermark. Is there any possibility of uploading a replacement image with the licensing updated to reflect the donation to the Commons? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  We hadn't thought of the Metadata. The copyright tag is old and actually goes against our latest policy on open access. I have fixed this by basically removing the Exif metadata, of which their was little besides the copyright tag. It's not ideal, but I hope it will suffice for now. We will be looking at changing these tags across our collections in the coming months and years. Jason.nlw (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: We've got repetition on this in both the Reconstruction section and the Other rooms section.  I think I'd leave it in Other rooms and have the Reconstruction section read "An oratory that had originally been built onto the Well Tower was removed before 1891.In other respects the completed castle was left unaltered.[49]". KJP1 (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We probably need to mention their purchase in 2011 though as part of the history section, as its a notable recent event, which means we need some reference to their existence before then for the event to make sense... Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, we've the same story three times - it's also in 20-21st century section. I'll have a look at re-wording. KJP1 (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Chapel stained glass

message: Does anyone have a copy of Measham to hand? The records for it suggest that it was aimed at children (a "juvenile audience") and I was wondering if it was really a high-quality source or not? I'd be concerned if it was a book for youngsters, but the record might not be accurate! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at it now.  Definitely not a childrens' book.  Measham was an assistant Keeper at the Tate and it's not written for children - way too much text. KJP1 (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Terry Measham

message: Have de-emphasized Burges's involvement in the actual decoration.  Matthew Williams's article on the model in Architectural History (2003) says the model "was made to show the intended structure, and may well have been left undecorated for some years. The decoration of (the) bedroom was not undertaken until 1887 and stylistically owes little to (Burges)."  So he can't be held responsible for "The Palace of the Saracen Princess"!  It would be good to quote the article but I don't know how we cite it, as it's behind the JSTOR wall.  KJP1 (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Have put in in, minus url.  KJP1 (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a copy, will work through it in a moment. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Model for Lady B's Bedroom

message: I'm wondering about the use of the term "summer house".  Does it conjure up an image something like this ?  What about if we give the full quote first time round?
:On a related point - I'm not seeing much else that needs doing/adding.  Is it nearly ready for peer review?  KJP1 (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My image of a summer house is a bit broader, and I'm keen that we try to avoid too many quotes, as it is quite a "quote heavy" piece already, but happy to go with any consensus. Perhaps we can link it? I agree - I think it mostly just needs tidying up now - almost there! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: A house for occasional occupation in the summer

message: Williams is specific, but Crook (p341) says Cardiff.  Could this be interpreted broadly as the Cardiff area?  Is it likely that, when in South Wales, at a point when he was working on both buildings, he'd have visited both?  Probably.  Not sure about wording.  KJP1 (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: He'd definitely have visited Cardiff in order to get a carriage up to Castell, both because of the transport links of the periods and, as you say, because he had ongoing projects in both locations. Indeed, some would consider Tongwynlais to be just on the outskirts of Cardiff, so I also buy the "broad" interpretation of the phrase "Cardiff" by Crook. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Burges's death

message: I've been taking a quick look at the way we describe people in the article (e.g. "the historian John Smith", "John Smith", or just "Smith"). I'm going to suggest that to ensure consistency, we introduce with a full name when first used at the section level (e.g. "History", "Architecture" sections) and thereafter in the section just use the surname. That means that we would introduce again if they reappear in a later section, which would be helpful for the reader flicking through it. What do you reckon? Hchc2009 (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds very sensible and helpful.  You ok to do it or do you want me to have a go?  KJP1 (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Protocol for naming people

message: Do we need a note explaining this?  I can find only one other use on Wikipedia, at Threave Castle and it's at least as obscure as "tourelle".  I'll try and put one in.  KJP1 (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I learn that a bretache is also the noseguard on the helmet of a suit of armour.  Should we explain this, or is it clear that the note refers to a bretache in this context.  KJP1 (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the note is probably clear enough; I don't think that it is likely to be confused with the noseguard! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right, but I wanted my first footnote to be irreproachable! KJP1 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

text: They're not obscure in Europe, just unknown as survivors in the UK and only rarely recreated (the two best known are both Bute's). See hoarding (castle) or maybe  brattice for our best hopes at a link. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think hoarding (castle) works very well and will add.  What's the other Bute one you're thinking of?  The, now-disappeared, Cardiff Castle one, or another?  I have a great pair of photos of Cardiff, one showing the bretache on the walls and the other showing the, now equally-defunct, Swiss Bridge. KJP1 (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cardiff Castle.  Even today there's a quantity of hoarding left (although not projecting outwards) that's more than almost any other UK castle. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: bretache

message: Split the sections as thought Architecture was self-standing.  Others may disagree. KJP1 (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Architecture and landscape

message: I love Tripadvisor reviews.  This one, of Cardiff, is particularly good:
:"..the Earl of Bute's lodgings, which in a burst of high camp Victorian hysteria he had done up as Arabian fantasy chambers in the style of Walt Disney." KJP1 (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Tripadvisor

message: Out of interest, why was Burges probably mistaken as to the use of Murder holes?  While he surely constructed  them for fun, Girouard describes their "gleeful" insertion, how was he wrong as to their original use?  On a related point, I find that Bretèche is described on Wikipedia, but with this French spelling.  Would it be better to use that, and its link?  KJP1 (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The late Victorians believed that murder holes were routinely used in medieval warfare to drop boiling water and oil on incoming attackers, which is where Burges drew his opinion, which was therefore accurate by the standards of the day. Modern historical opinion is inclined to be much more cautious about this; there are occasional comments by chroniclers, but only a few, and it seems more likely that murder holes were used to dispense arrows, rocks etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Murder holes]] and other defences

message: I know the article is already quote-heavy, but I wonder if there is space for the above?  I think it very well encapsulates why the castle was really little used, by Bute or afterwards.  KJP1 (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, in my opinion I think there already enough quotes... Hchc2009 (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Why should I hurry over what is my chief pleasure? I have comparatively little pleasure in a thing after it is finished."

message: With some hesitation(!), I wonder whether the building's listed status, and the designation date, should appear in the infobox?  It's the kind of fact that could usefully appear there.  What do others think?  I have actually tried to put it in but can't make it work.  KJP1 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it belongs better in the infobox; the building's legal status isn't prominent in the literature, and I don't think it belongs in the lead for that reason. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine - shall we go for the infobox if Friejtes can do what my techincal powers cannot.  KJP1 (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see he's done it already.  KJP1 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

text: This discussion should be treated as a continuation of Where to mention Listed Building status? above. I support including the listed building status in the infobox, but what is the point of giving the date of listed building designation. Who is this for? Verbcatcher (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is best to see this as a continuation of the earlier discussion.  I think this leads us to consensus that its listing sits best in the infobox.  As to the designation date, I personally think it is helpful; firstly, as a simple fact, secondly, as an indication of when the building's national importance was officially recognized and when it was afforded the legal protections that listed building status gives.  It also has some historic interest as a indication of changing tastes.  In the case of Coch, its listing in 1963 came quite late, 18 years before Burges's "rehabilitation" with the centenary exhibitions at Cardiff and the V&A in 1981. For much of the twentieth century, like most of Burges's work, the Castle would generally have been viewed as a ridiculous sham.  In this regard, the much earlier listing date for The Tower House is interesting.  That said, it is not a deal-breaker for me, and if the consensus is to drop the date, I've very happy that we do so. KJP1 (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Verbcatcher on this one; I'd find it hard to imagine someone flicking through the article, looking at the infobox for the key bits of information, and expecting/needing to find the precise date of the listing. But, like KJP, it's not a dealbreaker for me! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

text: KJP1's discussion of changing attitudes to Victorian architecture and design is interesting, and merits a place in this article if a suitable citation can be found, or in another article such as Victorian architecture. Without this context the listing date is unhelpful. Wikipedia should not include data without context (see WP:RAWDATA). Verbcatcher (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that comment. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that the context for the date of the designation is provided by the fact of the designation itself. The decision was taken to list the building as Grade I and that decision was taken in 1963.  But life's too short.  KJP1 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Listed building status in infobox

message: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Castell Coch --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFAR 

message: Super minor point, but is there a reason it's called Arabian Knights instead of Arabian Nights? Brutannica (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not minor at all.  Shocking error on my part, now corrected.  KJP1 (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, on checking, I see it was a bit of unresolved vandalism.  Thanks for picking it up.  KJP1 (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Arabian Knights''

message: Hello everyone, I just noticed that this category on Commons has 90 new images of Castell Coch. There are some interesting ones, with nice photos of the courtyard and parts of the interior. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New images available 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Castell Coch. 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/20150402175153/http://www.ccgc.gov.uk/landscape--wildlife/protecting-our-landscape/special-landscapes--sites/protected-landscapes-and-sites/sssis/sssi-sites/idoc.ashx?docid=0bbe537d-685f-4287-878c-8d9f9ac718ab&version=-1 to http://www.ccgc.gov.uk/landscape--wildlife/protecting-our-landscape/special-landscapes--sites/protected-landscapes-and-sites/sssis/sssi-sites/idoc.ashx?docid=0bbe537d-685f-4287-878c-8d9f9ac718ab&version=-1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402174006/http://www.ccgc.gov.uk/landscape--wildlife/protecting-our-landscape/special-landscapes--sites/protected-landscapes-and-sites/sssis/sssi-sites/castell-coch-woodlands.aspx to http://www.ccgc.gov.uk/landscape--wildlife/protecting-our-landscape/special-landscapes--sites/protected-landscapes-and-sites/sssis/sssi-sites/castell-coch-woodlands.aspx
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) 01:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Andy, I've BRD and taken back to the last stable version until we have consensus for a change. There's no problem with talking about the Bute family or, indeed, the Butes in the plural; Cardiff Castle's own webpage, for example, talks about "The Butes 1776 - 1947 AD: The lordship was to be held by the Bute family, until 1947, when the Castle was given to the City of Cardiff. The Bute family brought power and prosperity to Cardiff...". Media articles like this note that "Known as the 'Forefathers of Cardiff,' the Bute family invested in the construction of the first docks in Cardiff in 1839. The Butes were responsible for the renovation of Cardiff Castle and not only gave the city’s residents Bute Park, but also Sophia Gardens, and Cathays Park, one of the most impressive civic centres in the world."; the BBC similarly is happy to talk about the Butes and the Bute family. Similarly academic books, like "South Glamorgan, a county history" by Stewart Williams. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The family name is Crichton-Stuart. Bute is a title - there is only one Bute at a time. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not the typical convention in this case - possibly because they changed their family name half way along the dynasty. For a few more example, see Cambridge University Press's Modern Wales: A Concise History by Gareth Elwyn Jones here, or another example here, or John Davies' "Cardiff and the Marquesses of Bute" by University of Wales Press. It's definitely quite normal usage. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Windsors and Mountbattens renamed themselves - but AFAIK, not the Crichton-Stuarts. A claim that they did will require more than a throwaway refernce in some tourist bumph. Of course there are references to "the Bute family", but that doesn't mean they're correct to do so  (and there are of course far more correct ones, to the Crichton-Stuarts). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Referring to "the Butes" seems to go back a long way - the earliest example I've been able to find is late 18th century. As noted above, modern academics, the media etc. all use the phrase; the citation used in this article comes from the Welsh historian John Davies' work on the Marquesses of Bute, one of the main works on the family and published by the University of Wales in 1981; Davies talks about "the Butes" and "the Bute family" extensively (chapter one of his book is entitled "The Bute family", for example). For what it's worth, the Butes themselves also refer to themselves this way today - their official website, here, run on behalf of the 7th Marquess of Bute, is entitled "the Bute Family". Hchc2009 (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's reasonable to refer to "the Butes", especially over a long period when it can refer to several of the marquesses. However it's always a colloquialism; it's a reasonable and recognisable one, but it is not (as is used here) ever "the family name". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Butes...