Talk:Tudor Revival architecture

message: Formatting that encases the framed table of contents in text, in just the way a framed map or image is enclosed within the text, is now available:  in the HTML does the job. 
Blank space opposite the ToC, besides being unsightly and distracting, suggests that there is a major break in the continuity of the text, which may not be the case. Blanks in page layout are voids and they have meanings to the experienced reader. The space betweeen paragraphs marks a brief pause between separate blocks of thought.  A deeper space, in a well-printed text, signifies a more complete shift in thought: note the spaces that separate sub-headings in Wikipedia articles. 
A handful of thoughtless and aggressive Wikipedians revert the "TOCleft" format at will. A particularly aggressive de-formatter is User:Ed g2s
The reader may want to compare versions at the Page history. --Wetman 20:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Distracting blank spaces

message: :Please read this before you move the page. 
Tudorbethan seems to have been moved to Tudor architecture without any discussion (that I can find). I'm moving it back, as the two concepts are far from synonymous. Tudor architecture is a particular style of domestic British architecture of the 16th and early 17th centuries, whereas Tudorbethan refers, as the article states, to a 19th- and 20th-century pastiche of Tudor architechture, which emphasized especially "the simple, rustic and the less impressive aspects of Tudor architecture". So, different century, different style. Bishonen | talk 08:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Now without any further consultation it has been moved to Tudorbethan architecture; The move has been summarised as a minor edit, a page move is not minor, and should be discussed before it occurs. I not that User: Neutrality who carries out these heavy handed moved is not a contributor to this page. Giano | talk 10:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the image and made some alterations to the page. to define more clearly the style. Giano | talk 07:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tudorbethan]] moved to [[Tudor architecture]]; I've moved it back

message: This page since its creation has always been solely concerned with architecture.  The title is in fact misleading, as Tudor style, could be concerned with dress, or in fact anything generating from that era.  I propose that the content here is moved and incorporated at the Tudorbethan  page, which is the more common name for pseudo-Tudor architecture.  This page could then be left a a redirect until some one wishes to write a page about complete Tudor style.  Does anyone have a comment, objection or better idea. Giano | talk 12:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say I haven't come across the expression "Tudorbethan".  Is it an American usage? Deb 21:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No sadly, it's English, and becoming estate agent jargonese. How do you feel about Neo-Tudor Giano | talk 21:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think Neo-Tudor's better.  But it really depends whether it's recognised by the kind of people (don't mean to sound snobbish) who are attracted by that style! Deb 22:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: "Tudorbethan" is modelled on John Betjeman's 1933 coinage "Jacobethan" which he used to describe the mixed revival style that had been called things like "Free English Renaissance". "Tudorbethan" takes it a step further. We do have a serious article on Googie, after all. Whatever is decided, "Tudor style" should redirect to it, until someone finds a unity in the styles of Henry VII and Elizabeth I. --Wetman 22:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't "Tudor style" be a disambiguation page in this case? Deb 22:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea Deb, and .....umm yes that did sound a just a tiny bit snobbish - take it you don't live surrounded by lacquered horse brasses and  "olde worlde" charm, under a roof of luxuriant "plasti-thatch". Giano | talk 07:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, there are one or two genuine Tudor properties near me.  It puts things in perspective. Deb 08:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to disagree with my old friend Wetman,  but I also think Neo-Tudor is better, but in spite of that I think we should stick with Tudorbethan, as it seems daft creating even more pages on the same subject.  You're right Debs real Tudor puts the imitations in their place so it's very hard to write these pages without letting the POV creep in. Giano | talk 13:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quite a number of "Tudorbethan" houses, in fact a whole street of them, in our neck of the wood, every one with a nicely painted-on "half-timbered" look, which covers ordinary brickwork underneath. The owners regularly repaint the "timbers" black every few years or so and the "infills" white. No wonder, architects call it pastiche. Dieter Simon 23:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone actualy like Tudorbethan? Giano | talk 10:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Tudorbethan is the actual term used by the Oxford Dictionary of Architecture for "a style of domestic architecture involving revival of Elizabethan, Jacobean and Tudor architectural elements..." They also carry  entries on Tudor architecture for the actual period style, and one on Tudor Revival, but none on Tudor style. I think we might be justified to keep Tudorbethan. It is a bona fide term, although it uses a critical vocabulary. Dieter Simon 00:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: *The consensus seems to be to retain Tudorbethan make this a disambig page. I've just re-read Tudorbethan, it seems to me to cover the subject quite succinctly, perhaps the images from here could go there, but most of the info here is already there, what little is not can easily be put there.  Concerning the redirect, I think this page should first be moved to Tudor style (architecture) then made a redirect. I'll wait a few days to see if anyone else who contributed to Tudor style has a view and then get on with it. Giano | talk 06:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you here, if there is anything Ican do, let me know. Dieter Simon 23:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've incorporated much of the information here to Tudorbethan.  It reads a little clumsily at the moments so all help welcome!  Tudor style is now moved to Tudor style (architecture) and all are redirects. So if anyone wants to start a mammoth gargantuan page on all aspects of Tudor style they now can. Giano | talk 13:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why has this page been moved yet again, is it now in the "style" of itself. I'm getting very confused here! Giano | talk 07:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I did, and the discussion was centered entirely around use of the terms Tudor vs. Tudorbethan which the move does not affect. Additionally, even before the move the opening sentence of the article began "The Tudorbethan style..." (italics added by me).--Lordkinbote 07:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cultural literacy is never absolute. It's a relative quality. A populist enterprise like Wikipedia is a constant compromise with mediocrity. In general, at Wikipedia the boldest expressions of self-confidence carry the day. --Wetman 12:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move/merge 

message: Notwithstanding discussion about what this article could be called, there seems no rationale for the current fork.--A Y Arktos\talk 01:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont see the point of the "Mock Tudor" article,  Tudorbethan is the correct architectural name. Tudorbethan has all the limited information that is there. I suggest "Mock Tudor" is blanked and made a redirect Giano | talk 17:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I've never heard of Tudorbethan, it's always been known as Mock Tudor to me, and I came to this article from that name. I think it warrants its own article to be honest, it's quite a well known term in England and there is little mention of it here. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was redirected from its own article "Tudorbethan" to her in first place, without the slightest qualms. So, yes, it would have been better off to have its own (original) article. As for your never having heard of Tudorbethan, that surprises me. There are quite a lot of websites out there that are about the term. See  for one, but a bit of Googling would soon put you on the right path to the articles. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Mock Tudor]] 

message: I recently created an article named Irving Jacob Reuter, which involves his estate.  I am no architect, and was wondering if I could get some assistance with it.  Some of the links are there, so you should be able to get a view of the building.  I just wanted to make sure that my reference to Tudorbethan was correct.
Your learned assistance would be appreciated.
Thanks.
7&6=thirteen 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tudorbethan name invoked

message: :The emphasis was on the simple, rustic and the less impressive aspects of Tudor architecture, imitating in this way medieval cottages or country houses. 
I don't understand this sentence. If Tudorbethan is copying Tudor, how is that "in this way" imitating medieval cottages? Is Tudorbethan imitating Tudor buildings which themselves were imitating medieval cottages? Can someone explain? Marnanel (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval cottages 

message: Have moved "Tudor Revival architecture" back to "Tudorbethan architecture" because it was not discussed in the discussion pages of Tudorbethan architecture at all. It is no good discussing a move of the article to be moved in the wrong discussion page if it then cannot be seen in the discussion pages of the article that is to be moved. Please follow the right procedure. Readers cannot guess that a move has been discussed somewhere else. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tudor Revival architecture" moved back to "Tudorbethan architecture" 

message: I have been away for several weeks and so have not been able to take part in the discussion. As for the change back to Tudor Revival, well, you had to do what you felt was right.
I should like to make two points, however, the first one involving my integrity as a long-standing contributor to this article: you bet, Shawn in Montreal, I did change the name back to Tudorbethan architecture in good faith as, apart from the general template (that the change to Tudor Revival had been suggested) there was absolutely no indication that an actual discussion was taking place elsewhere (in the discussion pages of the Cfd). I simply did not know it was in Cfd. This could have been literally  anybody moving the article to a new name as far as I was concerned. It is all very well for editors who normally patrol Cfd to know what is going on but for those who actually concentrate on the article itself it is not obvious. 
I therefore recommend in the strongest possible terms that in future a notice be included in the discussion page of any article in order to acquaint all editors with the fact that the actual discussion itself is taking place somewhere else. 
My second point is, it seems obvious  that the term “Tudor Revival” is really referring to the North American development of the building style. It is quite true what you are saying, Mangoe and others, about there being more sources out there discussing Tudor Revival than there are for “Tudorbethan”. However, looking through the first seven sequences of “Tudor Revival” in the search engine I am using (Yahoo! UK & Ireland) a near hundred percent refer to either North American sources or non-North American sources discussing Tudor Revival in North America. On the other hand, the “Tudorbethan” search consists mainly of UK or non-North American websites, or sites mirroring the Wikipedia article for Tudorbethan.
I therefore think it advisable to create a separate Wikipedia article called something like “Tudorbethan style, other than North American” or similar to that effect. The way the articles read now it appears quite North American-centred.Dieter Simon (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussions relating to Tudorbethan and Tudor Revival styles 

message: As a native English speaker I have always used the term Mock Tudor and had never heard of Tudorbethan until reading the article. A quick wisdom of the masses (google search) returned "mock tudor" 421,000 results and Tudorbethan 29,000 results. Should not the article more reflect the common usage ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unibond (talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mock Tudor or Tudorbethan 

message: The article uses mostly English spelling () but there are a few American spellings here and there (). I suggest we standardise on the former, which I will attend to if others are in agreement. Tim riley talk 08:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously! The "strong connection" bit in WP:ENGVAR clearly applies here, & no doubt the article was originally in BrEn. I wish people would respect WP:CITEVAR too, & not mix styles by using sfn. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t know if I’m still one of the main editors here, but if anything I’ve added still remains, it will be my own brand of European English, which tends to favour English spelling. I wonder if I added the picture of Dalmeny (it is somewhere I’m connected with), but even so, what was I thinking? There are far, far better examples. Giano (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that was me in fact. By all means add add one of your other houses, Giano, but I wanted to get a Tudor palace style example in. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Good! Now done. Tim riley talk 17:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks, Tim. Sorry, Johnbod, the sfn’ing will likely be mine. I really struggle with any other style these days. KJP1 (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Gents all, while I'm here: as Osbert Lancaster's vicar on Wikipedia I have run up a little article on Stockbroker's Tudor. I think it is right as a stand-alone article – with, of course, a link to this one – but if others think differently I will not throw my toys out of the perambulator. Tim riley talk 18:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Tim - it looks great. I shall see what my books have to add. Hope you are keeping well. I can almost envisage a trip to the Big Smoke in the not too distant. KJP1 (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: I noticed the recent activity here and at Stockbroker Tudor and thought I'd share some citations to relevant source material, especially if establishing By-Pass Variegated's notability might be an issue.
By-Pass Variegated get some in-depth attention in the following:
Peter Hall, Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design since 1880, 4th ed. (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2014), pp. 49-89.
:Chapter entitled: "The City of By-Pass Variegated: The Mass Transit Suburb: London, Paris, Berlin, New York, 1900-1940" (chap. 3)
More generally, some recent historical studies of neo-Tudor suburban architecture include:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* .
* 
* .
* .
* .
* .
* .
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
Several of these explicitly discuss By-Pass Variegated (Maudlin 2009, Mowl 1999, Porter 1995 at pp. 321-322, Ryan 2011 and 2015, and Stamp 2010). I have access to the journals and own copies of Jackson's and Ravetz's books; I may be able to access some of the others of they are available online. Hope this might be helpful. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sources 

message: Peter Frederick Robinson -- note that this architect was creating house designs in the Tudor style in circa 1820s-1830s. This was not the Tudor period, so technically Robinson's designs could be Tudor Revivals.  Out-of-print-books (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting. Do you have a source? We could then put something in. KJP1 (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter F Robinson creating Tudor style homes in 1820s