Talk:Cragside

message: I have removed the reference to Cragside containing the tallest tree in England. This was unreferenced, and although it may once have been the case, this article from Countrylife.co.uk lists the 10 tallest trees in Britain - only one of them is in England, and this is at Dunster Woods in Somerset at 60m tall. Feel free to add back if required, but I think the claim should be backed up by a reference or source.J mcquillen (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear to have the tallest Scots Pine. KJP1 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallest tree in England 

message: Given the house has great historical and great architectural/artistic significance, I'd suggest it needs separate sections, first, one on The History, and then one on The Architecture, furnishings, art etc. Are people ok with that? KJP1 (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - sounds absolutely right to me, thanks. DBaK (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-ordering

message: Firstly, huge thanks to  for all the fantastic, painstaking work on the present expansion. It's been very interesting and gratifying to see the article develop. Secondly, are we going for  or ? At the moment it is a 2-2 draw and I feel that the article should be consistent. It appears that KJP1's preference is the "an" one, and as he's doing all the hard work at the moment perhaps that should prevail; speaking as an anonymous IP user who just happens to be passing by I prefer "a" but would not be willing to indulge in fisticuffs over it. I think it's much more important that the article agrees with itself. Best wishes to all 82.34.71.202 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Consistency is all! I shall go for my, arcane and peculiar, "an". But you are very welcome to make the corrections. I need to find sources for the Modern Magician. Is 82.34.71.202 your nom de plume? Very inventive. KJP1 (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done and thanks. Haha, if 82.34.71.202 were my nom de plume then one of its works should certainly be entitled "Addictive behaviour in IT systems and how to fight it (with rather limited success)". I'm on a self-imposed, computer-enforced break and cannot log in for another week and should NOT be here ... ho hum. 82.34.71.202 (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "an hydraulic"? Baulics! If you sound the aspirate in any word beginning with "h" it should be "a", not "an". If you actually say, like my late grandmother, "an 'otel" all bets are off. Tim riley talk  20:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Off to correct them now, sir. KJP1 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hope you don't mind that I popped in and did so. I mean ...  long rambling discussion here omitted  ... yes, I did. Oh and I rather like "baulics" and will try to use it at every opportunity. Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

text: That IP dude is like sooooooooooooo last week. DBaK (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: That pesky H and its preceding indefinite article

message: : Are you still on your Wikibreak? I think I'm done for the moment. I've gone through all the sources I have and think I've extracted everything that's to be extracted. Is it sufficiently comprehensive? At 43K bytes, it's a bit short, in comparison with some others I've done. And at 102 cites, a bit on the light-cite side too. Are there any areas you can see that are obvious by their absence? Having discussed it with Tim Riley, I'm not sure Good Article is necessary. It could go to Peer Review and then on to FAC. Anyway, any thoughts would be much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing my name taken in vain, I drop in to reinforce the view correctly attributed to me that there is no great advantage in stopping off at GAN if you think your revision of an article is potentially FA material. Straight to peer review and then on to the rigours of FAC, I'd say. As to the length, I know nothing of the topic but I don't think brevity is a bar to promotion if you have said all there is usefully to be said on the mattter. Better brevity than padding. Tim riley talk  20:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  - "Better brevity than padding" - something that could, fairly if critically, be said of my figure.  Looking forward to your comments at the PR. Best. KJP1 (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Hello - I am back, as of this morning. I am not really au fait with the whole GA / FA / PR thing but what I can hear the sound of is sensible people proposing something that sounds sensible, so I will agree that it is a jolly good idea. As for the article itself - it's an incredibly impressive transformation and I unreservedly take my hat off to those involved. I will have a very careful look at it but, to be honest, with editors of this calibre having done such a job of work I think it's most unlikely that I will have much to contribute other than occasionally pointing at things and shouting "Look! A squirrel!" - possibly at the same time. One piece of language that was causing me pain a couple of days ago has gone in a more recent edit, and the Hydraulic Riley Ruling has relieved another one about which I was trying to be nice, but hey, comme on dit. It's very pleasing and quite important to me personally to see this very worthwhile article so much improved. Thank you. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really glad that you like it, and I am quite pleased with how it's turned out. But it's nothing less than the house deserves. It has given me a strong desire to go again, it must have been sometime in the 90s that I last went. I'm very grateful your comment on the photo sparked my interest. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, thank you: that's very nice. Yes, you should definitely pop in again. It is as gorgeous as ever but there are some interesting changes/improvements in ancillary but important stuff. This includes "domestic" details like traffic flow, parking and cafe/shop - I think most of that is "new" since the 90s. There is more access to other bits such as the formal garden and better information on the tech stuff; they've moved the children's playground and there's now (or maybe was before?) an alleged Labyrinth up by the Nelly's Moss Lakes. So it's all very fine, and just a bit tweaked to cope with its visitors. DBaK (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Pause for reflection

message: I find this, in the Shooting Box subsection, tricky:  - your mileage may vary, but to me the two "to"s read a little awkwardly. I would usually just fix it (I worked for 14 years for a prof who hated people pointing out problems without offering solutions) but I can't see a very obvious solution shouting and waving at me. For example, I wondered about:  but then someone would be along in five minutes to declare the comma wrong, changing it to  which of course is an entirely different meaning altogether. And so on. I'll keep thinking but if in the meantime someone More Clever With Word Things has a solution, then yes please! DBaK (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to say - do edit at will. I am really not possessive - or try hard not to be! - and, as I've mentioned, I love Wiki-collaborations. KJP1 (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! DBaK (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward sentence? 

message: , As well as a photo, an up-to-date guide would be useful. I've used the 1992, Andrew Saint and others, from the last time I went, and I've an earlier one from the 80s. I've just ordered a 2007, Hugh Dixon (?), from eBay but it would be interesting if you had access to anything more modern. As you say, it may have stuff on the Trust's more recent activities, where the article's currently a bit light. KJP1 (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: - Funnily enough I had ordered the current guidebook from the NT site about an hour ago! I will be delighted to help with this. I had gone and looked through our local books and found a few deficiencies so rectified some of them. Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be excellent. The final para. of Armstrong's Heirs, which is about all we've got on the NT stewardship is thin and could definitely do with some beefing up. The guide is likely also to have some useful stuff for the Technology and Grounds sections. KJP1 (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  - okey doke: watch this space, but please do not hold your breath. I ordered it directly from the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty (aside - what kind of absolute bl**dy idiot would set up an article called that ... ah yes, I remember what kind ...) website as I was unconvinced that Amazon were going to get me the most current edition, but I don't know how fast the NT delivers. I also took the opportunity to snag myself the Farnes, Lindisfarne and Gibside while I was at it. DBaK (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  - well, Dixon's arrived, and is useful. But a more up-to-date version would be better still. Interestingly, he has very different figures to Heald for the two Millais's - Heald says 900 guineas for the pair, Dixon 3,400 for the Jephthah's Daughter alone. We shall have to think how we word that. KJP1 (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  - interesting! (And sorry about my long silence.) I will have a look at my copy (see next edit) and see if I can contribute anything here. DBaK (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

text: - Right, the current book. I hope it is not a disappointment to you (and does not give a problem with referencing, a topic on which I am horribly ignorant) but it is still Dixon. The bibliographical entry for Dixon in the article would do for this too, perhaps with the revision date added - it was revised in 2008, 2011, 2012 and most recently 2017, that fine fine year. More in a mo on the topic of the transfer. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Guidebook

message: I feel we might be heading for trouble (albeit minor and sortable trouble but please don't spoil my drama) with  and their other buddies. My probably annoying two penn'orth (that's 4.8d in old money, kids!) is that we should have no caps on any of them except as required at the starts of sentences and headers an ting. I might feel differently about the Owl suite or rooms - there I think there is perhaps a good case for capitali{s/z}ation there because it's the proper name, or indeed Proper Name, for the thing; that is, anyone can have a drawing room (if you're posh/old enough!) or a dining room, but my house ain't got no Owl room ... or even Owl Room? But what do you think? Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you're right. I like them and almost got them through on Chartwell, despite Tim's saying I never would. But he was proved right in the end. Do go ahead and replace, or I'll pick it up. KJP1 (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Blimey, a dining room just for owls! These artisto's, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. An owl room is where owls are kept, the Owl rooms is a suite of rooms that is named 'Owl'. Similarly, if a pretentious B&B named their bedrooms Buttercup, Daisy and Rose then I would use capitals. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Appreciated. I think we might get away with the Owl suite, but I think Drawing/Dining etc. will have to go. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just done a couple - hope this was OK. DBaK (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Perfect, thanks. Has the up-to-date guidebook arrived yet and does it have anything of use in it? With a little more on the Trust's recent stewardship, I think we're good to go for PR. KJP1 (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see next edit where I shall reveal all. Perhaps disappointingly little. <sigh> DBaK (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitali{s/z}ation 

message: As mentioned above, I now have the current guidebook (very current: last revised in 2017), still by Dixon. It's possibly not that different from what's in the 2007 Dixon already used here, but this is what it says, under the heading "For all to enjoy", about the acquisition by the NT:  So ... does this help? I worry that it does not - please feel free to ask me to check other stuff or whatever I can do that might be useful. DBaK (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: - No, it is a pity Dixon doesn't have much more to say on the NT's efforts, 10 years on from his first guide. But it's still useful to have it, as we have then reviewed the most up-to-date source. I'm not sure it's worth changing the references if there's little more to be added. So, I think it is probably ready for PR. My problem here is that I'm off abroad next week and am not back till the end of the month. I did once do a PR while abroad, but you really need the time to respond quickly to comments, and access to the source books, neither of which I'll have. So, I'd suggest we wait till November. If you're ok with that, would you like it to go as a joint nomination? I think it should, as your comments, and interest, sparked the whole improvement to the article. Let me know what you think. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  - that's inordinately kind of you, thank you. Yes please, I would love to be involved, though I clearly haven't done even a fraction of the work you have here - but I am still honoured. Waiting till November sounds like an excellent idea; in the meantime I will continue to look for anything which might be useful. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Excellent. I'll kick it off when I'm back. In the interim, anything more you could find on its recent history would be very useful. That, and a great photo - launch that balloon! KJP1 (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  NT acquisition 

message: I wonder if other editors have an alternative source for the price of the Millais paintings? Thinking about it, my guess is that Heald has a misprint and that 900 guineas should actually read 9,000. That would mean, using Dixon, that Jephthah cost 3,800 guineas and Chill October 5,200 guineas, 9,000 for the pair. 900 guineas seems extraordinarily cheap, even in 1875. But without a source, that would be OR. KJP1 (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's tricky! I must say that I don't really have the knowledge to comment. I do note that Heald later says that in 1910 the successor sold 102 items at Christie's for £28.5K. These included the Millais paintings along with "two Constables, three Turners, two Leightons ... as well as works by Landseer, Burne-Jones, Bonheur and many others." Looking at that, if the two Millais works had cost £9K then all of that other stuff (not allowing for inflation!) would account for the other £20K. Is that plausible? Or is it too many great painters for £20K? I find that very hard to judge. I will go on looking for other sources though. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is problematic. But they can't both be right, and I tend to think it's Heald who's got it wrong. I don't think it actually matters for PR or FAC as we're accurately reflecting the current sources, but it would be good to know for accuracy. And I wonder what price the musicals king paid for Chill October when he bought it in the 80s! On the PR front, Brian has kindly agreed to review, so with him and Tim we can be sure of a very thorough scrutiny. It would still be good to get a few more inputs however and I'll see who else I might approach. When Brian gets back, and it may be a day or two, would you be ok taking the lead on the responses.  All the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. Yes, interesting stuff ... but if we can go with the possibly wrong 900 then fine - we can keep a look-out for other sources as and when. :) And yes, I will try to mind the shop during the upcoming criticism-storm. I'm flattered you'd leave me in charge as, knowing me better, I would be more worried that I'd return to said shop to find it a heap of rubble. But yes, I will try my (limited) best. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense - you'll do splendidly! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Schrocat has also kindly agreed to review. Those three will be more than sufficient, and we can then trundle on to FAC. Which can be as slow as PR. An aside; do you have a preference for when we go to FAC or is late Nov./early Dec. as good a time as any for you? KJP1 (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Tbh no time before Christmas is that great, because of my job, but I am sure that millions are in the same boat. So if you want to go ahead around then please do and I will do as much as I can. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Johnbod, Very, very helpful. I shall give thought as to how we might work this in. An addition to the footnote may well be the best approach. I suspect the answer is not in Reitlinger, given his dates, but do you have anything that tells us how much Lord Lloyd-Webber paid for Chill October in the 1980s? Many thanks indeed. KJP1 (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Have now woven Reitlinger's prices into the footnote. Many thanks, KJP1 (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think I misread Reitlinger's rather condensed format here, & the "National Museum of Wales" at 1917 was meant only as a note on the present location rather than the buyer then. Apologies! Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

text: First off, I'm delighted you found the article, and particularly the section on Millais's paintings, of interest. And thank you very much for the helpful information. You're surely right that both paintings merit articles. Many editors, including some who have contributed here, have written splendid articles on individual works of art. Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele and The Third of May 1808 are two examples. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that a comment from one editor can spark the interest of another and some productive, collaborative work can result. This was actually the exact genesis of the development of the Cragside article. So it may well be that another editor takes up your suggestion. Have you thought of registering, by the way? There are considerable benefits. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's fine, and thanks. Just a slight note of caution, the middle of an FAC is a risky time to be making alterations, unless in response to FAC comments. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem at all, John. I think we've got to a good place, and one that is informative, and helpful to the reader. I think it is pretty clear that Heald's "900" must be a misprint, but we can leave people to work that out for themselves. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Millais paintings

message: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Cragside --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFAR 

message: What is the reason for hot linking Google Books in the sources + using the ISBN mechanism? GB is a commercial book seller, the idea is to not favor one seller over another (eg. Amazon.com) and instead use the ISBN mechanism to give readers a choice. -- GreenC 21:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thanks for your interest. The reason for linking the source titles is the reason for the article, to give readers information. Google Books does this, as does Worldcat, which is also used. Amazon, which is also linked, does so as well, although its commercial intent is more prevalent and the information it gives is less helpful. Of the thirty-odd books cited, I think only three are available through Google, and Amazon is listed, by Google Books, as the first option for buying those that aren't, so I doubt it is impacting on readers' book buying choices in the way you suggest. When you say "the idea is to not favor one seller over another", can you point me towards the policy this idea derives from? It would be interesting to research it a little more. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There's probably a more detailed guideline somewhere, but the relevant policy snippet is WP:ELNO, points 4 and 15. Personally I don't see a problem with Google Books links where Google has a preview of the relevant section, but otherwise I don't think they add a lot (that's what the linked ISBNs are for). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't link to a preview it's a general link to the "About this book" page. They aren't citation links, but for a bibliography. The ISBN mechanism was designed for this. If we must link to a book record it should be open source or non-profit such as Open Library, but the ISBN takes care of this also. -- GreenC 04:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree it is more helpful where they link to snippets, but I think it still helps the reader even where they don't. It's a quick way for readers to confirm the sources, and find more information about them, rather more easily, in my view, then the ISBN route. Having looked at WP:ELNO, I don't think it falls foul of it and, having used the approach in other FACs, it's never been raised as an issue. And the Cite book template specifically has a URL slot. I appreciate there are differing views so perhaps, like infoboxes or referencing styles, it's a preference issue. KJP1 (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Books links 

message: "The estate provides sanctuary for some of the last red squirrels remaining in Britain.[43]" Yet there are 120,000 in Scotland. What's going on? --John (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: - Sorry for the delay in getting back, have been away. The summary was certainly accurate to the source, which reads as follows: "It is also home to some of the last red squirrels in Britain." I think the point Binney is making is that, compared to their early C.20 position, they have seen a calamitous decline, see . 3.5M to 120-160K is pretty catastrophic. And of these remaining 150,000 odd, the vast majority are in the North, including Cragside, and predominantly Scotland. I've tried a rewording, which I hope works. KJP1 (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squirrel 

message: I wonder what others think of the thumb sizes? Most Featured articles use thumb for horizontal, thumb|upright for vertical ones, and thumb|upright=x to emphasise one or two important or difficult to read ones. By emphasising all, you just emphasise none. --John (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: - Apologies, as above. To me, the issue's not about seeking to emphasise images, one over another, but what is helpful to the reader. For architecture articles, the thumb size can often be just too small to be of much use, in that it doesn't show sufficient detail. Take the image of the Library. As a thumb, it's just too small to give any proper indication of the room's quality, such that it's described as Shaw's best, and one of the best, Victorian rooms. I appreciate others may have a different preference. KJP1 (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a feature of thumbnail images. Users know they can click on it to see the main image. --John (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image sizes 

message: Our sincere thanks to those editors who kept back the vandals during the article's front page outing. And for the copy edits and corrections. There have also been some very helpful substantive suggestions, regarding the identification of Armstrong's foreign visitors, and the validity of his claim to be the first scientist to receive a peerage. In relation to the latter, I'll put in a footnote, as discussed above, which I hope addresses the concern. KJP1 (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add my warmest thanks for the support and for the improvements to the article. And if you haven't been there and you get the opportunity, please go and see it! It really is an extraordinary place. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Almost 38k visited the virtual version, - not bad ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! That's a lot of virtual tea and cakes! :) Thanks Gerda DBaK (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  More to come! For some reason, the mere mentioning below today's TFA will invite estimated 5k more, tomorrow 3k, and some more the last day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Gerda, it's good that people took an interest, and many thanks for your help at Peer review and FAC. KJP1 (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... thanks for someone giving virtual tea to 7k the second day, 3k and 2k the following two days: nice result, even better than predicted! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: TFA

message: The hot room in the private Turkish bath at Cragside, Rothbury
:Not to prolong the debate, but for information, this source, by Malcolm Shifrin, describes it as a "Turkish bath suite" - singular, with "suite" and without the "Victorian" qualifier. KJP1 (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming the bath is accessible on a tour of the house? Flickr, etc. have images but Commons/Geograph appear not to? KJP1 (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember it being on display when I went a couple of years ago, but it might have been (or some of the suite). Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Here Mr Shifrin describes it as only one of two still open to view. Maddeningly, he doesn't say where the other is. That might make a good footnote. KJP1 (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish bath