Talk:Belton House

message: The Machine Gun Corps was not trivial neither was its presence at Belton. It is the most significant thing to have happened there -  building the place and the Edward VIII associations included. (RJP 14:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: On the face of it, this is a mis-spelling of Guildford. Do we know that the earl spelled his name this way? See Talk:Earl of Guilford. (RJP 09:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earl of Guilford

message: This section now has the consequences of the First World War before the events of the war. (RJP 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once the page is finished it wil be fine........trust me! Giano | talk 17:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Twentieth century

message: Couldn't the two trivia notes be worked into the most recent history section? Circeus 22:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now done this, the danger, now though, is that everyone who has ever seen the house in an obscure TV commercial adds it to that section then this "trivia" media begins to outweigh relevant more important information.  I suppose it can always be changed if that happens. Giano | talk 06:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not, can you make it bigger? Giano | talk 09:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I replaced the .gif of Leighton's portrait of Lady Belton with this better-quality .jpg :Image:Leighton Brownlow.jpg. - PKM 05:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - great. Giano | talk 06:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's a lovely shot, which captures the mood.  I've visited and it has this feeling.Geeene (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait 

message: Surely Carolean architecture isn't the only vernacular style England has produced since the Tudors?  What about Arts and Crafts style?--Stonemad GB 16:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the phrasing: the only truly vernacular style of architecture that England had produced since the time of the Tudors. More were to follow. [talk to the] HAM 18:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  However - what about Jacobean style?  Was this really less vernacular than Carolean?  And even if one discounts Jacobean, is this really a notable claim?  After all, the Tudor period only ended in 1603, and sixty years is not very long in terms of architectural history.--Stonemad GB 19:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jacobean was based on Italian Renaissance. Giano | talk 19:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was (albeit in a very bastardised and idiosyncratic form), but then Carolean architecture was based on Dutch and French influences.  Is it accurate to describe either as vernacular?--Stonemad GB 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Dunno take it up with Nicolson, Nigel (1965). Great Houses of Britain. Hamlyn Publishing Group. . Page 148. He said it!  Seriously though I think Carolean is subtly different from the French and Dutch architecture of that time and did evolve in Britain. Whereas the Renaissance influences were clearly imported quickly rather than evolved here so were in reality a  pastiche, all that ballustrading for example, the loggias massquerading as porches etc. I see where you are coming from but the problem is here we are not allowed own re-search, and I did not disagree with the statement enough to omit it. Giano | talk 20:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carolean architecture 

message: What does this mean?  "The two cousins in 1676; three years later, the couple inherited ...".  Is 1676 when they moved in? Mdotley 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That occured earlier today when some vandalism eas removed from that particulat spot. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll alter it. Giano | talk 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing verb 

message: Thanks for the attention to this sentence.  Before I changed it, it was: "Belton was designed in the restrained almost Palladian-inspired architecture of the time immediately before the full emergence in England of the ornate Baroque."; I changed it to "Belton was designed in the restrained, almost Palladian-inspired architecture of its time."; it was later changed to "Belton was designed in the restrained, almost Palladian-inspired architecture, popular immediately before the emergence in England of the ornate Baroque".  When I read this sentence originally, I found it very hard to understand; the wording seemed quite unclear.  I thought quite hard about how to best improve it.  I wasn't entirely satisfied by what I changed it to, but I thought it was at least an improvement.  I was willing to remove the "immediately before the emergence in England of the ornate Baroque" phrase because it seemed to be mentioned above, and I couldn't find a way to gramatically incorporate it into the sentence.  Using "popular" is good, but then the first clause: "Belton was designed in the restrained, almost Palladian-inspired architecture" becomes gramatically incomplete.  The "in the restrained" could be changed to "in a restrained", but that might have other problems.  I've made that change, feel free to further edit.  And great thanks to the writer(s) of this article it's an excellent piece of work. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have completely lost me, so long as we have a mention of the Baroque that was succeeding the Palladian is fine, that is important because it helps to bang home why Belton was not up to date when it was built, in fact it was considered old fashioned. Giano | talk 20:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I sometimes get a bit too picky.  I think the current wording is now fine. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Belton was designed" sentence 

message: I tried to find an online index to Country Life; and I found that the magazine sells their indexes for 80 pounds for all of them, together. link. I haven't found another source, yet. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country Life archive 

message: What beautiful pics! Two things: 
* I repositioned some to the west, because on a wider screen, when there is several pics above one that is in a fixed position, they cause a break in the text, which can effectively orphan the subheading from the text it pertains to. I hope the current arrangement is deemed suitable. (I don't know how you get away with sizing things at 300px, when my images are ruthlessly tracked down and reduced to thumbnails and uprights...) But if you are going to have a lengthy caption, then you need a large pic to support it! 
* As soon as I saved, the pics broke themselves into revolting little pixels. I hope that this is a problem of my computer, which is lumbering along at four miles an hour, not something permanent that I have done to the images! 
Amandajm (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed the pieces! I don't like the new arrangement either. setting image sizes is perfectly acceptable, especially in architectural pages. Giano (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely about the setting sizes of images for art an architecture pages. Readers need to see what the writer is describing without having to enlarge anything or go to another screen. still can't solve the other problem!Amandajm (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a concren that my newer picture for the archway had a couple of visitors in it and an older picture was put back in. I have removed them and reinserted my picture which has a higher definition and true horizontals. Generally I would not want to remove people as that's not honest about what is there. However in this instance they were at the focal centre of the picture and I could see it might be distracting.   --Wehha (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I think it better without the people and the former image is less cluttered. so I have reverted you. Giacomo Returned 20:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused. The updated picture does not have any people in it. Do you refresh your browser? My other comments about level of definition and correct horizontals still hold I think. --Wehha (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point of replacing perfectly good pictures with near identical pictures - the only differece is that yours have clouds in the sky - anyway  - whatever - have what pictures you like, I don't see any great difference. I don't understand all this pixelating business. Giacomo Returned 19:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Pics

message: I think someone has been messing with the page.
Could someone please put it back to DrKiernan version 06:54, 24 August 2009.
Thank You Pete  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.9.58 (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The only change is the removal of an external link which we do not intend to restore. Keith D (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As the primary editor of this page, I am not quite folowing? what was wrong with the link to an aerial photo? what am I missing here - and I do miss quite a lot. Someone elighten me..please  Giano  21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: May be a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seelicolnshire and the edits of the IPs in question will enlighten you. Keith D (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

text: *Oh well never mind. Pity, it still seemed like a very nice picture. I wonder if he took it himself.  Giano  08:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Go away before you get us all banned :-(  Giano  10:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messing With it 

message: Is how I feel looking at some of the photos (which are great). Several lean towards the left, with horizontal lines dipping down to the left side of the photos and verticals sloping leftwards too. Please can someone clever edit the photos to restore horizontal horizons etc? it makes me feel queasy looking at them!! Photos I mean are [File:Belton House North Front Giano less crane.jpg], [File:Belton West Giano.jpg] and [File:Belton Garden.jpg]. Theyre fantastic photos, don't get me wrong, just make me feel a little squiffy.86.159.193.163 (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have one leg shorter than the other, and it is very cruel of you to draw attention to it. However, funnily enough, I did once edit them to be level, and then someone re-editied tham as apparently that is against the rules or something - I think it was these pictures maybe another house I did - I forget, but the history is now lost in various uploads to commons by others, so who who knows. I will send for Durova, who understands these things better than I.  Giano  10:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seasick 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Belton House. 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/20110726163500/http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/Houses_hgpm.asp?ID=195 to http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/Houses_hgpm.asp?ID=195
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050320193135/http://homepage.ntlworld.com:80/peter.fairweather/docs/belton.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/peter.fairweather/docs/belton.htm
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) 13:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Belton House. 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/20071207215406/http://afsf.lackland.af.mil/DefChal/2002/dc_2002_fact_rafr.htm to http://afsf.lackland.af.mil/DefChal/2002/dc_2002_fact_rafr.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028222225/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/belton-house/hire-this-venue/ to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/belton-house/hire-this-venue/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://homepage.ntlworld.com/peter.fairweather/docs/belton.htm
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) 23:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Belton House. 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/20080724095841/http://www.architecture.com/WhatsOn/Exhibitions/AtTheVictoriaAndAlbertMuseum/Room128a/2006/SAVE/SAVEBritainsHeritage.aspx to http://www.architecture.com/WhatsOn/Exhibitions/AtTheVictoriaAndAlbertMuseum/Room128a/2006/SAVE/SAVEBritainsHeritage.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) 07:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think the article needs updating. It looks like it hasn't changed much at all in the last 10 years and in particular the events and changes by the national trust aren't mentioned sufficiently. There are also sections which aren't referenced that well. Szzuk (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Belton House hasn’t changed much over the last 300 years. Presumably, you think that is good reason to demolish it or rebuild it. Go and find some truly dreadful page and improve it. Giano   (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to improve the page, and that isn't very helpful, if it doesn't meet the criteria for FA any longer that wouldn't be my decision or fault. For what it is worth I'm a member of the National Trust and know what good work they do. Szzuk (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You being one of several million members of the National Trust is worth very little. This is an article about a building of considerable importance; it is not an advert for the NT, its events or happenings. Neither is it an opportunity for its members to display their limited knowledge or misguided loyalties. What exactly is it that you feel is missing from the page? Giano   (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update article / Featured article review 

message: Here are my comments as a part of the effort to review old FAs that have not been reviewed in a decade or more:
* There has been some coverage of the library in the academic literature over the past decade  
* WP:LEADCITE issues
* Severe need for additional citations or trimming of uncited material
* MOS:BOLD issues
* Sourcing problems
** Anon. The National Trust Belton House 1984
** Moondial at IMDb.
** "ALVA - Association of Leading Visitor Attractions". www.alva.org.uk. Retrieved 27 October 2020.
** Christie's catalogue
** Belton Park Golf Club
** "History of the Royal Air Force Regiment"
** John Harris, English Decorative Ironwork (1960)
** Henry Williamson's Chronicle of Ancient Sunlight
* Mixture of using a date and not in the SfNs
* Footnote 2 provides no page numbers
* Prices are not as of a date
-- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments above. I'm not sure if many of these have been addressed yet. Would you consider the above to cause the the article to be too far from the FA criteria that it would require an FAR? If so, can you indicate below that you are noticing this, and add it to WP:FARGIVEN? Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009]] 

message: Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. The second stage of the project, after an assessment period, is to try to enahnce the pages for some of the Top-10-most-visited properties, of which Belton is one. I see there's been a recent review of recent research and I wondered whether those invested in this page would mind me making some edits based on those suggestions? I hope to start this work shortly, but please do let me know if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be interested in recent events pertaining to this article, namely the opening of a Featured Article Review to address and resolve issues with the article. As part of that process I myself am about to undertake some repairs to the article. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much @Vami IV - the pilot project I've been working on is almost over, so I won't have capacity to add to this article this month. Good luck with your work on it! Lajmmoore (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Trust pilot 

message: * There has been some coverage of the library in the academic literature over the past decade   - personally, I think the small expansion is sufficient for a summary style article on the house. These articles, although interesting, are perhaps a bit too detailed. But others may disagree. KJP1 (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: FAR issues

message: A day (my time) after the beginning of work on this article, I have replaced most of the problem references with better ones and started a redraft aiming to preserve Giano's prose or mimic it to the best of my ability. I have thus far worked from one source - a guidebook from The National Trust published in 1992 - but anticipate introducing more (Pevsner, principally) as the house starts to get built. After that, I anticipate coverage of the house's history having to again rely on the guidebook until the 1990s.The next goal will be the completion of #Early history, which will have one picture instead of its present two. I anticipate that that picture will be the portrait of Alice Brownlow, as she lacks an article and the caption on the image of Clarendon House will be worked into the body prose somewhere—probably #Architecture. Many images will unfortunately have to be cut. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress report, 25 January 2023 

message: Six days (my time) after beginning work to renovate this article (rather fitting considering the subject matter), basically all the issues raised at and before the FAR have been resolved. The rewrite is still in progress and will involve the condensing of a lot of prose, and some expansions. #History is mostly done, but there still remain some holes to plug, especially in the 20th-century (there's a bit of history in #Interiors that I completely overlooked need to remove to #History). I anticipate that #Architecture will change dramatically. My first goal is to eliminate the other guide books from the bibliography and replace them with Tinniswood 1992. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress report, 31 January 2023 

message: The rewrite is more or less complete. The only section that hasn't seen rewriting, rearranging, and reordering wholesale now is #Interiors. It probably needs it, but I am burnt out. In the course of rewriting this article I have noticed a lot of failed verifications and removed or substantiated text as available sources allowed. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress report, 1 February 2023 

message: Could you send me pictures or a scan of Jackson-Stops 1990, pp. 56–58? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, not got that one. KJP1 (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: EBay, however… KJP1 (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

text: I'll ask on RX, then. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Do you have access to Musson 2005? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I do, what do you need? KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you send me images or a scan of every page relevant to Belton House? Searching on Google Books shows pages 124, 130, and 243, but I'm sure there are more. I'm currently working on the architecture section(s). –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Source requests

message: * 
* Possibility
KJP1 (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Richmond Barthé]]