Talk:West Wycombe Park

message: I've been watching the edits made here, but now I think it is time to intervene, why have the sourced references been removed, and secondly what exactly is the "the italiante house" as mentioned in the lead.  presumably this means Italianate, however. it is wrong to refer to West Wycombe as Italianate, this term refers to 19th century houses in a vague Neo-Renaissance style - is anything the house is more  Neoclassical  Either please add reputable references for these changes or reinstate the original references. Thank you. Giano | talk 21:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: ...don't seem to work - it comes up with 0° 0′ 0″ N, 0° 0′ 0″ E.--A bit iffy 04:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe that's where it is... ? :-P  Bishonen | talk 10:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says "51.643° lat. -0.808° long" for me.  ShadowHalo 10:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too, although personally I don't know why we have to have them anyway, I always find a normal road atlas far more helpful when trying to get there. Giano 10:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I mean when you click on the co-ordinates it comes up with 0° 0′ 0″ N, 0° 0′ 0″ E.--A bit iffy 10:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All better.  The template was using "lat." and "lon." instead of N and W.  ShadowHalo 11:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geographical co-ordinates

message: Ok, does anyone know how to remove the large penis photo from the article; I cannot find it on the edit page.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gronk713 (talk • contribs).
:No idea. Can't find it in the history either. --Belovedfreak 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandal 

message: I got here indirectly, looking for an article on West Wycombe House, and being (at first) unable to find one. The issue I have is the name of the article. West Wycombe Park is the name of just that - the park. The Palladian mansion is West Wycombe House.
Is is known as such by Wycombe district Council, The High Wycombe Society, The West Wycombe Estate website, The Ordnance Survey, The Bucks Free Press newspaper, and everyone I know that has ever mentioned it. The National Trust webpage is entitled "West Wycombe Park" - "Perfectly preserved rococo landscape garden, surrounding a neo-classical mansion", which I hope illustrates my point.
One further point - at the beginning of the article: "Built between 1740 and 1800 as a pleasure palace for the decadent 18th century libertine and dilettante Sir Francis Dashwood....". Dashwood died in 1781, so any building work done in the years between 1782 and 1800 could not have been for his benefit.
This is my first venture into the inner workings of Wikipedia, so I thought I should attempt to get some feedback - test the water as it were. My intention is to improve the accuracy of a comprehensive Wiki article about a building I admire - I have lived in High Wycombe for more than 30 years.
Rambler24 19:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a small alteration to the lead to fix the anomaly that small parts were completed after dashwood's death.  It is the custom in Britain to refer to mansions set within parks as X Park a well known example being the film "Gosford Park" set completely within a mansion which was certainly a house not a park - or even Jane Austen's Mansfield park  The reference books used to write the page all refer to the mansion as West Wycombe Park. There can always be a redirect from West Wycombe House. The article does cover both mansion and park and the estates website  begins "West Wycombe Park is a beautiful stately home and grounds....." clearly indicating the park is the house/home. Odd terminology but that is English for you. The google test gives 250,000 more hits for park than house. Giano 20:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough - I take your point about about the reference works, and while the link from West Wycombe House adequately addresses my failure to find the article first go I'll just have to live with the name as it is. Thank you for changing the date anomaly, I was afraid you might find my comment somewhat pedantic. I'm getting the flavour of this editing business now, and hope to be able to contribute further in the near future. Rambler24 09:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No you are quite welcome, civilized debate on talk pages is always welcome and far better than an abrupt change to the page itself which can lead to edit wars and all that that entails. Otherwise just het stuck in and edit - one small point you don't need to start a new section for your reply, you can just indent by going ":::::" however many times you need to. If you click the edit button you will see what I mean and what I have done. Any problems editing here give me a call on my talk page and I'll try to help. Regards Giano 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Park or House? 

message: Should the article List of garden structures at West Wycombe Park be merged with this?
No, because that page was separated from this article when it became an FA. The separate page for the temples and follies allows for a more detailed appraisal of those buildings without making this page too long and laborious.  Giano  17:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: This article is currently rated as a Featured Article, but a cursory glance through shows that it does not meet the actual criteria for being rated as such. Most problematically, there are a large number of sentences and paragraphs dotted throughout the article that are not in any way cited. I can see that this article was awarded FA status back in November 2006 (almost ten years ago), when Wikipedia's standards for FA were a lot more lax; while it might have passed then, it would not pass now. Unless there are any objections, my suggestion is that this article be considered for Featured article review with the ultimate possibility of de-listing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote most of this and have been keeping a regular eye on it ever since it passed FA; it still looks OK to me. Giano   (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The vast majority of the prose is not referenced, which is the main problem here. Unless that can be rectified then an FAR is inevitable I'm afraid. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

text: That's most interesting! Which book precisely is it that you're not finding the information? I have them all at my fingertips - as obviously do you. What is it that you feel is own research? I always feel it's better for people like you to do the work yourself, you will learn so much. Giano   (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to be facetious Giano, I'm only trying to ensure that the article improves or (if it doesn't) that it is rated accordingly (and doesn't continue to carry an FA rating that it patently doesn't warrant). I don't have the books in question, just as the vast majority of readers of this article will not have the books in question. As it is, the majority of this article consists of statements with no supporting citations. Are we expected to merely assume that this information is contained within the books mentioned in the Referencing section? Are we simply to take your word for it? How can we be sure that some of the information isn't original research if we don't have specific citations? Frankly, I fail to understand why you are reacting in such a negative manner against what is a fairly reasonable suggestion as to how to improve the article, and why you need to be repeatedly uncivil to me since I raised this issue (as you were here and here as well as above). It really doesn't take much to be polite, even if you disagree with me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

text: *If you suspect I have written lies, then you must 'improve' Wikipedia by removing all the unsourced statements. Alternatively, if you don't know what you are talking about, then it's best to remain silent. Giano   (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you enjoy being rude? I've made it quite clear that I am not directly accusing you of intentionally posting untrue information. What I have said, quite clearly, is that here we have an article in which the majority of statements lack citations. That in itself is problematic because it prevents readers from appreciating where specific information comes from, and can lead to the suspicion that some of it might be original research (not necessarily added by you, I must add). Moreover, this article is rated as an FA despite the fact that it does not meet the FA criteria, which stresses the need for in-line citations. My suggestion, therefore, is that either it be improved with the addition of inline citations (if you were able to do so, that would be fantastic), or it be taken to FAN to have its FA status reconsidered. Instead you have simply been deliberately impolite and facetious again and again and offered nothing constructive to the conversation. Now, let's get to the crux of the matter: I don't have access to the resources needed to add the inline citations, but I'm assuming that you might. Are you therefore willing to add in the inline citations? There is no pressure on you if you do not wish to, however, if the citations are not going to be added (by you, me, or anyone else) then the article is going to remain below FA quality and thus really should undergo FAN. I leave it with you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article? 

message: Can someone please check whether Knox says that the west portico is an example of Greek Doric as the columns are Ionic. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  West portico 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on West Wycombe Park. 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/20160304195057/http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/Houses_detail.asp?ID=2093 to http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/houses_detail.asp?ID=2093
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) 10:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I believe this article needs a Featured Article Review for the following reasons:
* The article extensively uses a source called "Dashwood" who is a relative and not wp:independent of the subject
* WP:LEADCITE issues
* The History is split into three different parts, some in the Ethos section, then the Dashwoods section, then post 1943. This is highly confusing.
* The history isn't adequately summarising the article, too much info is lacking about National Trust, the Dashwoods and there is nothing about the slave trade
* There is an unencyclopedic tone in the Dashwoods of Wycombe section 
* Images of other buildings not relevant to the article
::These images of other buildings seem very relevant as they explain very well the building’s unique architecture. Adam Black.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamBlack89 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you still have these concerns in the article? If so, do you want to bring this article to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review