Talk:Chartwell

message: The article seems inconsistent on this point:
:Churchill and his wife Lady Clementine Churchill bought the property in 1922 and retained it until his death in 1965.   
:But later, we say:
:Chartwell was bought by a group of Churchill's friends in 1947, with the Churchills paying a nominal rent ....
I've also discovered that the Australian pianist Eileen Joyce and her partner Christopher Mann purchased 277 acres of land described in the reference  as "Chartwell and Bardogs Farms", in 1957, "from Sir Winston Churchill".   Were these farms part of the overall Chartwell estate, or were they different properties that shared a similar name?  And did they purchase the land directly from Churchill, or from the friends who'd already bought Chartwell from him?   --  JackofOz (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I visited Chartwell today, and I was told that there is a Chartwell farm that borders Chartwell, which was originally owned by Churchill. :Apparently, it is owned by the family who started Churchill Insurance (Martin Long?). I was not told why it was sold off. So, to answer :your question, it was part of the Chartwell estate. I'm not sure where to add it in the article though, and I have no proper evidence :apart from original research and verbal evidence to back this up. (Sorry for replying so late) ∫ A Y™  I edit old style  15:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the even later response. It actually isn't inconsistent - Churchill did buy it in 1922 and retain it until 1965 but in 1946 he sold it to a consortia of friends, with the proviso that the Churchills could continue to live there until their deaths, after which it was to pass to the National Trust. I'm planning to make some improvements to the article, so hope this point, and the issue about the farms, which will be covered in the Estate section, can be made clearer. My apologies for the consequent disruption. KJP1 (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Actually, Gilbert shows me that this isn't quite accurate. The friends raised the cash and gave it to the NT, which used it to buy the house directly from Churchill. Now explained, I hope. 
(talk) 18:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a clear distinction to be drawn in such cases between "ownership" and "possession", but by using "living in" the place as a surrogate for "possession" of it, as now you have, you seem more or less to have done the necessary.   (Unless someone is going to come out with some persuasive evidence that the situation was not as we think, which seems unlikely for such a well researched subject as Chartwell...)   Success Charles01 (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Oddly, there does still seem to be some confusion here. Gilbert states clearly that Churchill sold the house to the NT, but both Soames and Winston S. Churchill say that it was sold to Camrose's consortium who then passed it to the Trust. Which doesn't quite square with Churchill paying rent to the Trust from 1946. It must be documented somewhere but given the secrecy surrounding the deal it may be difficult to uncover. KJP1 (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the legal dox may well remain beyond reach, and speculation doesn't really count as a wiki-source.   But it's not beyond that bounds of possibility that the Camrose consortium (or someone else along the trail of transactions) would have attached a legal covenant to the property requiring that Churchill (and his wife?) be permitted to live there for as long as he (or they?) should live, subject to a rental payment of £X, payable to the legal owner of the property.   Many country properties of this size would come already with covenants on exciting things like footpaths, land use restrictions and /or other folks' drains passing beneath the rose garden. Charles01 (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisiting

message: The article should include more history on the property before the Churchills purchased it. Who originally built the house? When was it originally built? Dr. Dan (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope I've added a little more detail regarding the earlier history. KJP1 (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Backround 

message: No mention of the Chartwell Cat? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-26532986 Seems like something that should be mentioned... 212.250.138.33 (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, rather belatedly. KJP1 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chartwell Cat 

message: There is always a Ginger cat at Chartwell called Jock, has been since Churchills time and the most recent one is still there.. the first is buried at Chartwell by the games field 
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chartwell. 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/20061016033318/http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=410 to http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=410
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320060311/http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/houses_detail.asp?ID=2237 to http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/houses_detail.asp?ID=2237
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I wonder if the above should be mentioned? Thoughts? KJP1 (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Now have, briefly. KJP1 (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sutherland's Portrait of Winston Churchill]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chartwell. 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/20170731185510/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/winston-churchill/11730850/Secret-of-Winston-Churchills-unpopular-Sutherland-portrait-revealed.html to https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/winston-churchill/11730850/Secret-of-Winston-Churchills-unpopular-Sutherland-portrait-revealed.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) 06:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Quoting from the article: "In the 1930s, when Churchill was excluded from political office, Chartwell became the centre of his world."
Forgive my confusion, but is it actually correct to say that "Churchill was excluded from political office" during the 1930s? I am no expert on British politics, government or history, and so I hesitate to make a change to the article; but I understand that Churchill served as the elected MP for Epping for over two decades (1924–1945), including the whole of the 1930s. Would not a phrase along the lines of "excluded from national office" (or "ministerial government" or "the cabinet") be more accurate? Surely being an MP qualifies as holding political office, no?
NicholasNotabene (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: - Apologies for the delayed response but I've only just seen this. I don't actually think that the status of MP does qualify as holding "political office". An officeholder under the Crown is considered to be on the ministerial payroll, e.g. a cabinet minister or a minister of lesser rank down to PPS. A good example of this is Jacob Rees-Mogg's recent statement after the no confidence vote, where he contrasted the number of "office-holders" who voted for the PM, with the number of 'plain' MPs who didn't. Hope this is helpful. KJP1 (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your response. I confess my continued puzzlement, however: Surely MPs are, by definition, elected office-holders — being chosen by voters (over opponent candidates) to represent a constituency in Parliament as a member of the House of Commons, no? And they belong to and represent political parties (governing or opposition), vote on matters of state, pass laws, and have terms of office? I understand they are, moreover, paid a salary for their work, and have been so since before World War I. I would have thought that Mr. Churchill would be more accurately described as being out of ministerial office during the 1930s rather than being out of political office entirely.
NicholasNotabene (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  - I don’t think so. The role of MP just isn’t considered a political “office”, in British parliamentary terms. KJP1 (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand 'office' be used in the sense of referring to holding a position at government level which is represented on the parliamentary front bench, eg party whips, under-secretaries, ministers and secretaries of state of the ministries and departments of state. I would have to have proof that there was on record a deliberate policy on the part of the Prime Ministers (Ramsay MacDonald after forming his National Government coalition, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain pre September 1939) to avoid appointing him to a front bench responsibility before asserting he was excluded.Cloptonson (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you wouldn't, that's just silly! There's nothing wrong with the phrasing - "excluded" just means "kept out", which he was.  And backbench MPs are not officeholders.  Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churchill and "political office" (re Chartwell) 

message: This is to let people know, including the FAC nominator,  that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 29, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments.  If anyone's interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 29, 2019. Thanks!—Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: - The References section now contains 9 error messages that weren't there yesterday as a result of this, "Cite_Web"_errors?. A similar issue affects every other FA I've worked on. I'm not really minded to correct them as, in my view, the change that caused them was ill-advised and should be reversed. That said, it creates a really unprofessional look for TFA. I'd suggest that you pull Chartwell until the issue's resolved. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFA appearance 

message: The opening paragraph is well suited to a particularly romanticised biography, or the script for a tour guide: it is by no means in keeping with WP:TONE  "Formal tone means ... that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner. "
Frankly amazed that it passed FA in this language.  Kevin McE (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You were Bold, I've Reverted, now we can Discuss. KJP1 (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So, trying to be reasonably brief. Chartwell as a piece of architecture isn't that important, yet it's listed Grade I. Its, very brief, HE record makes clear that this is for historical reasons. These are that it was Churchill's house, and that he undertook important actions in it. These were writing, to support his family and life style; composing speeches, to promulgate his views; and talking, to those he would seek to influence, or from whom he sought to gain information. All of these I tried to put into the opening paragraph of the lead, to demonstrate to the reader why the house was "the most important country house in Europe", and to seek to engage them (an FAC criteria), so that they wanted to read on. I appreciate that the style is not one you favour, and that you would prefer what you deem to be a more encyclopedic tone. Fine - very happy to discuss your concerns. And quite willing to revise the article in response. The articles I've most enjoyed working on here have all been collaborations. But this requires, firstly that you're a little more explicit about your concerns. And secondly that we have a discussion in a collegiate and mutually respectful manner. I hope that will be possible. KJP1 (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that Churchill's residency is the essence of its notability, but the article is about the house, not about Churchill. Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: For that very reason it would be impossible and nonsensical to write about the house without writing about Churchill. KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

text: But this is an encyclopaedia, and WP:TONE demands an encyclopaedic style: Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter but should usually match the style used in Featured- and Good-class articles in the same category. Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing examples of the "argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon" which WP:Tone says should be avoided. KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't claim that they were, I didn't want to be accused of editing that text.  The charge is that this breaches the requirement that "English language should be used in a businesslike manner", as drawn attention to in the first post in this topic, and which clearly is not being done in constructions "Chartwell became the centre of his world", "At his dining table, he gathered...",  "in his study, he composed..." are the most egregious examples of failure to apply 'businesslike' language. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

text: The caption on that photo refers to something that cannot be seen in the photo.Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The, cited, caption refers to the view from the house. But I agree that the "that" could confuse so have reworded. KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 'th(e)' is not a word.  WP:CAPTION requires that the caption identify the image.  Changed to comply with this. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

text: "lived there until shortly before his death in January 1965": Is 3 months really "shortly" before he died? Very imprecise language.  Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, in a life of 90 years, three months is a relatively "short" period. KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Shortly before" is imprecise, unencyclopaedic language.  You might think it is relatively short, but an encyclopaedia is not based on judgements of its writers. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ": no it isn't. Just because you state things in a didactic manner does not make them so. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could provide a precise meaning of "shortly" in that case. Kevin McE (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think we can allow readers a modicum of common sense. - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is imprecise.  Do you not think that an encyclopaedia should be written with reasonable precision? Kevin McE (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopaedia does not have to be written in dead prose, it also has to be engaging. "Shortly before" is entirely acceptable to all with a modicum of common sense. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

text: "when Churchill was excluded from political office" He was an MP throughout this time: he had a political role.  Scarcely NPOV: His party lost an election, and when they won power again he wasn't given a cabinet position.  This language makes it sound like some great injustice. This is equivalent to saying that Chris Grayling is "excluded from political office".  Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparison with Chris Grayling is very odd. In the 1930s, Churchill was one of the most prominent politicians of his time, and his party was in power for most of that time. Yet, for nearly 10 years, Baldwin, then Chamberlain, and previously MacDonald, had declined to include him in their cabinets. These were conscious decisions and, as such, "excluded" seems perfectly appropriate.  KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Excluded' implies that he has been denied something that should be a right.  That is not the case here, and to use language that implies it is fails NPOV. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

text: "At his dining table, he gathered those who could assist..." The intro is meant to summarise the main body: I don't see any verified claims in the body of the article that there were gatherings around a dining table.  And even if there were, this is not "using the language in a business like manner": it is a highly romanticised style, not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. In the 1930s Chartwell visitors book are the names of over 700 guests whom Churchill invited. As Jenkins indicates (Cite 22), they enjoyed Churchill's hospitality, including his food and wine, and he invited mainly them for political purposes. And they certainly didn't eat sandwiches on trays. That is all the phrase is summarising, and I cannot remotely see that it can be considered "romanticised". KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not just summarising: it is surmising and assuming, rather than the rather bland reporting of fact that is proper to encyclopaedic style. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

text: "in his study, he composed speeches and wrote books; in his garden, he built walls, constructed lakes and painted."  So he worked and indulged in hobbies: these are the things that anyone, especially a politician with time on his hands because he has not been selected for high office, does in his home/office: it is unremarkable, and the same style issue as above applies. Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: To describe Churchill's activities at Chartwell in the 1930s as "unremarkable hobbies" similar to those that "anyone does in his home/office" indicates a view that is completely at odds with that taken by any historian of whom I am aware who has written about the period. As does the comparison with Chris Grayling, above. KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Painting and gardening are hobbies.  If you think that his gardening efforts substantially changed the grounds, it should be written about in terms of the grounds of the property, as befits an article whose subject is the house. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

text: "Churchill's refuge when he suffered a devastating stroke"  It was his home, and he was convalescing: there is a huge leap between that and it being a "refuge": this type of analogy is not precise encyclopaedic language.  It will be found in biographies, I have no doubt, but biographies have a very different purpose and tone than an encyclopaedic article, especially of that article's subject is not the person in question.  And on what scale was the stroke "devastating"? He returned to work 4 months later, which very many people who have strokes do not.  Again, it gives the impression of all being written to engender respect for Churchill, not to disseminate information about the house. Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The stroke saw him unable to rise or to speak on the night of the De Gasperi dinner, and Churchill's doctor thought it unlikely he would survive the following weekend. He then recuperated for some four months, while remaining the serving PM, and without press comment. That he was able to do so was due to his seclusion at Chartwell, along with the press blackout and the more deferential times. As such, I think refuge, "a place providing shelter from trouble", seems perfectly appropriate. I have changed “devastating” to “debilitating”.  KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Debilitating is better.  I would suggest that "refuge" is far from "businesslike" use of the language: it is loose analogy, and that is not encyclopaedic. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think refuge is supported by the sources I have seen on Chartwell. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these sources written in an encyclopaedic tone, or near-hagiographical? Kevin McE (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you wish to carry on attacking people for their opinion, or would you prefer to adopt a more collegiate approach? They were encyclopaedic in tone. - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very impressed to hear that you have read all these sources.  I think the titles of them alone indicate that they were published with a far from encyclopaedic purpose. Kevin McE (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read what I said properly. I did not say I had "read all these sources". The sources I have read about Churchill (a range of academic, general and popular) support that word. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

text: "dying at his London home, 28, Hyde Park Gate, on 24 January 1965." Nothing at all to do with the house. Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A perfectly reasonable coda for the convenience of the reader. KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If the reader wants a biography of Churchill, there are links available.  This is meany to be about the house. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. The house is relatively unimportant without the Churchill connection, so it's fairly obvious we'd mention Churchill's death in it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all obvious.  There are all thoughts of things that are pertinent to Churchill that have nothing to do with this house.  Such as his death. Kevin McE (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it's a rather common sense approach over something relatively small in the context of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Just because you state things in a didactic manner does not make them so"   Why is it common sense to think that the lead introduction of an article about a building requires the death information of its resident? Kevin McE (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: FFS... Because the 20th C history of the house is intertwined with Churchill's residence there. It's what gives the property it's notability. It's entirely reasonable to have the date of death in there. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

text: "in 1382 the property, then called Well-street, was sold by William-at-Well." In the History section of the article, nothing earlier than 16th century is mentioned: where is the sourcing for this? Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A good spot and I have added a line. KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

text: "in 1836 was auctioned, as a substantial, brick-built manor." Again, unsourced and absent from body of article (and redundant comma after substantial). Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Another good spot attended to.  KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

text: " In 1848, it was purchased " Redundant comma. Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not redundant. It is there for consistency. This article predominately favors including a comma after short introductory clauses. If we don't want that any more, we should removed all such commas not just this one.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a clause.  It is adverbial phrase.  Kevin McE (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

text: "an "imposing" mansion"  Quote marks, but nothing indicating where the quote is lifted from. Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the quotes. KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, it is an unreferenced opinion. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

text: ""the most beautiful and charming" Churchill had ever seen, and the determining factor in his decision to buy the house" Unsourced again, and no purchase of a home is really made on the basis of one determining factor, although a direct quote could allow the assertion that he said it was such a thing. Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is cited later, Gilbert Cite 11. I've no idea whether you, or anyone else, would buy a house based on a single factor, but that Churchill said he did is well documented.  KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case it should be presented as a quote.  The fact that he negotiated the price shows that there were other issues involved. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

text: "when financial constraints forced Churchill to again consider selling Chartwell" Why again? We have not been told of him previously considering sale. Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: He considered selling/letting Chartwell on a number of occasions in the 1920s, but I have removed the "again". KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

text: "on condition that the Churchills retain a life-tenancy" Tense: retained. Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

text: "life-tenancy ...  lease"  Which was it: tenancy or lease? Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to rights. KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

text: "Chartwell has become among the Trust's most popular properties"  It is 128th in the linked list: that is not really one of the most popular. Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You have misread the source. The list covers all main visitor attractions, not just those owned by the NT. KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My error.  Nevertheless, 27th, 31st if NTS included.  Still scarcely "among the most popular", and reflective of an intention to talk up this location rather than simply report facts on it. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

text: "some 232,000 people visited the house in 2016"  Why would an encyclopaedia choose to publish out of date info, when the 2018 numbers are available? Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent available figures are given in Note G. KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why that is thought to justify out of date information. Kevin McE (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you will understand my surprise that an article with this many issues in the intro made FA status.  Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your interest in the article and have actioned some of your suggestions. I shall amend the blurb accordingly. Others we disagree on. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: I would like to draw editors' attention to the talk page guidelines, in particular at Editing others' comments where it says "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. In your own posts you may wish to use the  or  templates to quote others' posts". DuncanHill (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is normal at WP:FAC and seems appropriate here, as the replies are signed individually. Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The answers were not signed individually until after I raised the problem with the editors concerned, when one of them kindly came and clarified the thread. DuncanHill (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Signed interleaving is, I think, the best way of conducting a discussion. The alternative, I find, is somewhat tedious. But signing is essential. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  - My apologies. I didn't intend for my responses to be unhelpful. KJP1 (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page guidelines - "you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent" 

message: I can see that most people here have bigger fish to fry and I will very gladly leave them to it. Just in passing, though, I wondered why, in the lead, we give Churchill's London address as  (mit Komma) rather than  (ohne Komma). I have always thought of the latter as the normal way of doing it although I might perhaps have given my address as  back in 1965. I don't really remember clearly and it's an assumed address anyway, round the corner from the real one ... you can't be too careful nowadays, Putin-Facebook-Huawei blah blah blah ... The form with the comma seems to me to give a strange pause and is not how I would read it; it's also not how the Royal Mail would show it, though I pre-agree that their knowledge of addressing does not necessarily make them into encyclopaedic punctuation experts. See also 10 Downing Street, 221B Baker Street, 7 Eccles Street, 21 DBak Mansions and other important addresses. Two of those are not real. Shhhhhhh. Anyway, that's my 4.8d's worth; YMMV; no-one will die if it is not changed. Fisticuffs not required. Have a pleasant, productive day; best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a recollection that it used to be with a comma once upon a time, but I don't remember the world in black and white, so I may be talking tosh! I think sans comma would be the better version, for what it's worth. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right. Will change. Hope you're keeping well. KJP1 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much for that, and yes I'm fine thanks! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The comma was certainly the norm until the 1960s, as was a comma at the end of each line of the address on an envelope, but happily we have moved on. (In the 1950s I was taught to put a hyphen in "to-day" and "to-morrow", Heaven help us!) One day we might even drag Wikipedia into the late 20th century by getting rid of the unnecessary full stops in W S Gilbert, P G Wodehouse etc. Tim riley talk 12:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor address query 

message: This restores overlinking and hardcoded images to the article. --80.229.221.173 (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking and image sizes 

message: In the first sentence, he is refered to just Winston Churchill. Shouldn't we use his title so it is Sir Winston Churchill.
15 October 2019
:For most of the time he owned Chartwell he was plain Mr. We shouldn't use titles anachronistically. DuncanHill (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we use his Knighthood title