Talk:Lyme Park

message: #Needs expansion and some thought as to sectioning it more.
#References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. (See WP:References, [[WP:V], and WP:CITE for guidance.)
 DDStretch  (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment Report 

message: Is anyone interested in helping me expand this article? I don't particularly mind doing it alone, but different sources that improve the neutrality would be appreciated. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 22:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might like to join the fairly new Cheshire WikiProject and ask on its talk page. I am sure there are some who would be very happy to join forces with you.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: Hi, 
I am suprised it hasn't been mentioned that it was the setting of Darcy's home in the BBC adaptation of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice.
:It's been cut out at some point. Feel free to add it back in. Majorly (o rly?) 19:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It waas edited out on 20:33, February 26, 2007 by User:Majorly. I'll add it back in under a "trivia" section, if that is all right.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently rewriting it all, so it'll probably get moved again at some point. Majorly (o rly?) 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to worry. I saw the message by the anon user, and just thought that I'd put it back in after searching it down. At least its now in a discrete section, so can be moved around fairly easily.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pride and Prejudice]] reference

message: I glanced over the article, and it seems to me that much of the introduction should go into the History section. (I was prompted to look at it in detail because the introduction, before the index appears, seemed over-long.) If no-one else objects, or wishes to do it themselves, I'll turn my attention to it in a day or so.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm open to any improvement. Majorly (o rly?) 19:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok - I don't want to muck up any plans you are currently working through with it, but a lot of the intro is currently historical stuff that is not mentioned again or expanded upon in the History section, so I just thought it would be better placed there. Incidentally, are you using any particular sources for the information? There's a book that looks promising, though I haven't seen inside it yet, called "Historic Parks & Gardens of Cheshire" by Linden Groves . I think it ought to have Lyme Park in it, but I'm not sure.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The book is listed, as well as some websites. You can do whatever you think is best, I haven't got plans as such. Majorly (o rly?) 19:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganisation of the article

message: I have reverted this edit  for obvious reasons. Giano (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not obvious to me at all. The replacement image was a better quality image, and should remain. I am aware of no policy that requires the use of "passport style" images. Mayalld (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, have it how you like it, with a portion missing and at an angle and on a slope. Giano (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. You may like to read Rule of Thirds which explains why the replacement image is superior. Mayalld (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You forget that the point of the image to illustrate the text, which in this case is to demonstrate the similarity of Lyme Park to a North Italian palazzo and refer to the architectural points. The image you prefer does not do that in any way - beautiful as the English lawn and overcast sky may be. It is a holiday type snap, nothing more, it shows little, not even the Palladian symmetricallity. It is of insufficient standard to even decorate a box of cheap chocolates. Giano (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: I have been watching your work at Lyme with admiration, but I just wondered why you thought the style needed amending . I would have thought Palladian was spot on, as in England Italianate and (as far as I know the rest of the world - other than Italy) means a more 19th century style preferably with a belvedere, verandahs, terraces etc. Just a thought. Giano (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments.  I have been struggling (as you have noticed) with describing the architectural style of the house.  I am no expert in architecture so I am relying on the sources which I hope are the most reliable.  Referring to the south front, Images of England says "For a garden front it is magnificent but more Baroque than Palladian" and makes no other reference to Palladian style.  Pevsner says "But his great south front is not a Palladian front".  So I have settled for the National Trust's safer use of "Italianate" - broader but maybe less controversial.  Do you have any better references or sources?  I do not intend to fight over this; really I just want to avoid the attention of pedantic editors (and I thought that the article might be getting near to submission as a GAC - what do you think of that?). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As an editor of Giacomo Leoni and Italianate I don't want to quote myself to prove a point, but I just feel that Lyme is not what is accepted as Italianate architecture, (the term does not mean looking as though it came from Italy at some vague time) if one were to remove that curious 19th century box addition from the top of the pediment, one could say it was almost a "Neoclassical Russian interpretation of Palladianism" but that is confusing the issue so let's not go there. I see where the Baroque commentators are coming from, but I would be happier to see it described as Palladian. Since starting to typed this message I have just looked it up in the National Trust's  Guide 3dt edition (published 1984) and found that  page 156 describes it as "One of the boldest achievements of Palladian architecture in this country"  which it isn't  (in my view either)  there are far bolder. Anyway it is up to you,  you are the one who is writing it, it is just great to see a lacking page being so improved. Regards. Giano (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After my last message I found a booklet produced by the National Trust published in 1975 (I don't have the 1984 guide) which is also very quizzical about whether it is true Palladian or not.  So I've changed the lead in a way that I hope will satisfy most, while being true to the sources. What do you think? I may add a footnote in due course.  Incidentally I'm pleased you are working on the Leoni article - it certainly needs some proper referencing with inline citations.  Good luck! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pevsner's take is that the south front is not Palladian because of the pilasters, but nor is it Italianate.  He tends towards the Baroque, but notes "So Leoni was more original at Lyme Park than one might at first sight have realized."  In other words, classify under unclassifiable.  Mr Stephen (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is the pilasters, they were around for centuries before Baroque and are a classical feature, I think it is more the level roofline and lack of emphasis on the terminating bays that makes him say Baroque. I still think it is Palladian, but more the  "Inigo Jones" early 17th century version that hit England before the Baroque. Leoni was pioneering the second wave of Palladianism in England, so it quite natural that he would refer to the earlier 17th centry form than the later 18th century Palldianism which was still evolving 20 years after Lyme's completion. Giano (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion copied from [[User talk:Peter I. Vardy]]

message: I think this page is vastly improved. There is architectural debate about the south front, so I think the Baroque features need to be defined, e.g., no variation in roof height, no pediments at the end of the range, solid mass etc., as the front lacks the obvious and usual Baroque features, it is important to explain  why "experts" say this is spelt out. You could mention that English Baroque is more subtle, plainer and less obvious than the more exuberant forms found elsewhere in Europe (not a lot of people know that!) Can you give a page number for Pevsner's views (if only because I want to quote him at Giacomo Leoni).  Also, I feel the page could say more about the interior, how far did the clasicising of the house go, we know that Leoni retained may original features such as the Gibbons wood carvings etc. Was the entrance  hall on the upper floor in Tudor times, did the Tudor rooms retain their original use. Is the saloon  at the centre of a Baroque double state-suite as the exterior design implies or is the suggested piano nobile of the south front just for exterior cosmetic reasons - to give the Italian feel? You have said much about the Tudor rooms, but not a lot about the 18th century.  Finally, could the lead image be just a little larger? Just a little more information and I think it is there, it would make a nice short FA, if you felt so inclined. Giano (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, just a quick & part response.  That the wood carings are Gibbons' is not certain either.  But, as a guide once said to me – if not Gibbons, then who?  I think most of the other questions are answerable too.  I'm sure I've got a guidebook here somewhere in this pile of stuff.  Mr Stephen (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I said "attributed".  There is a discussion on this in Waterson (p. 17) saying that "by long family tradition" they were by Gibbons; there is reference in some 1684 correspondence to carved work by Gibbons, but this has not been regarded as conclusive.  The booklet is dated 1975 and there may be something more up to date.  But I think "attributed" is OK for the moment  Do you? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm dredging my memory here, but I think there's something doubtful about that letter.  Possibly it doesn't actually refer to Lyme, or something like that.  Mr Stephen (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a footnote re the discussion about their provenance. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment copied from [[Talk:Lyme Park/GA1]]

message: I noticed a comment in the GA review about the size of the lead image. What the MoS says is that if a thumbnail size is specified it should be at least the size of the maximum that can be set in user preferences, which is 300px. So I've increased the size of the lead image accordingly. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead image size

message: *I think this page is vastly improved. There is architectural debate about the south front, so I think the Baroque features need to be defined, e.g., no variation in roof height, no pediments at the end of the range, solid mass etc., as the front lacks the obvious and usual Baroque features, it is important to explain  why "experts" say this is spelt out. You could mention that English Baroque is more subtle, plainer and less obvious than the more exuberant forms found elsewhere in Europe (not a lot of people know that!) Can you give a page number for Pevsner's views (if only because I want to quote him at Giacomo Leoni).  Also, I feel the page could say more about the interior, how far did the clasicising of the house go, we know that Leoni retained may original features such as the Gibbons wood carvings etc. Was the entrance  hall on the upper floor in Tudor times, did the Tudor rooms retain their original use. Is the saloon  at the centre of a Baroque double state-suite as the exterior design implies or is the suggested piano nobile of the south front just for exterior cosmetic reasons - to give the Italian feel? You have said much about the Tudor rooms, but not a lot about the 18th century.  Finally, could the lead image be just a little larger? Just a little more information and I think it is there, it would make a nice short FA, if you felt so inclined. Giano (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that this is a comment rather than a review; I have copied it to Talk:Lyme Park.  Regarding the comments made, this is a submission for GA, not FA.  I do not have the knowledge or sources to deal with the complex architectural matters raised above.  I think the content is appropriate for GA; future editors can then raise its standard to A class or FA. To answer two specific comments.  Regarding the size of the deal image, I understand that the consensus is that "thumb" images should be left to the default set by the reader.  I should actually prefer the image to be larger; if the reviewer agrees it should be larger, I will be pleased to fix it.  The reference to Pevsner will be found in the References section - I have added the page number of the specific comment "not a Palladian front" to the footnote. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was meant as a review.Giano (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is a review, then it should be assessing whether or not this article meets the good article criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just some suggestions for how it could be improved to meet GA criteria, I assume comprehensive is one of the needs. Please don't worry about it, forget I mentioned it. Giano (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: GA does not demand that an article is comprehensive, that's one of the FA criteria. GA simply demands that an article be broad in its scope and cover the subject's major topics. I'm a bit confused now though. Are you carrying out the GA review of this article or not? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think I will, far too stressful. I'll leave it to you. Giano (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't be reviewing this article either, so I'll move all of this discussion to the talk page, and leave this page ready for the GA review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review comments moved from /GA1 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:South facade of Lyme Park house, 2013.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 29, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-01-29. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:South facade of Lyme Park house, 2013.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lyme 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/20080828214243/http://theheritagetrail.co.uk/stately%20homes/lyme%20park.htm to http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/stately%20homes/lyme%20park.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) 06:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lyme 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/20081228234644/http://www.mastiffassociation.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=73 to http://www.mastiffassociation.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=73
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927162214/http://www.hlf.org.uk/news/Pages/LymeCaxtonMissal.aspx to http://www.hlf.org.uk/news/Pages/LymeCaxtonMissal.aspx
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130420025007/http://www.discovercheshire.co.uk/country-parks.aspx?refnum=CPK022®ion=1&mapCategory=PRK&mapBackLayers=PRK1P&mapBackE=363000&mapBackN=363000&mapBackMpp=160&mapBackSearchTxt= to http://www.discovercheshire.co.uk/country-parks.aspx?refnum=CPK022®ion=1&mapCategory=PRK&mapBackLayers=PRK1P&mapBackE=363000&mapBackN=363000&mapBackMpp=160&mapBackSearchTxt=
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) 23:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Lyme 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/20120226091313/http://www.parksandgardens.ac.uk/component/option,com_parksandgardens/task,site/id,2175/tab,description/Itemid,292/ to http://www.parksandgardens.ac.uk/component/option,com_parksandgardens/task,site/id,2175/tab,description/Itemid,292/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140701055827/http://bowmenoflyme.co.uk/About/Default.aspx to http://www.bowmenoflyme.co.uk/About/Default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120817104705/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/days-out-and-itineraries/page-1/ to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/days-out-and-itineraries/page-1/
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) 16:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Trust pilot 

message: Is there a reason that the owner (The National Trust) isn't listed in the infobox?
WorcestershireHistorian (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owner in infobox?