Talk:Clandon Park House

message: An anon user added this: "Onslow's daughter Gwendolen gifted the house to the National Trust. " at a position where it appears to refer only to the meeting house. I think surely it refers to Clandon Park as a whole rather than just Hinemihi? I will shift it in a day or two if no one has any other views Kahuroa (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The national trust site confirms this so I will change the entry Kahuroa (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gifted by Gwendolyn

message: I've been trying to do a bit of thinking outside the box and waited some time before writing to make sure I got this right.  You can't restore Clandon Park to anything except a 21st century replica of the original.  You can bring in real antique furniture and the like but if you do you repeat the old problem.  Any fire or other disaster will destroy a great deal.  
Since the house has to be a replica how about getting good furniture restorers, carpet restorers and the like to make good replicas of what was there before.  You can give visitors a unique experience, furniture that looks and feels like 18th century or 19th century furniture but where visitors can sit.  Visitors can compare the soft chairs, divans the aristocrats enjoyed with the harder chairs in the servants’ quarters.  Children can go into a replica 18th century or 19th century nursery, sit where children would have sat then and play with replica toys.  (big toys that are not easily stolen).  How about a replica school room where children can find out how children used to learn their lessons?  Perhaps there could be two schoolrooms since 18th century and 19th century education methods were different.  
All this would be cheaper than bringing in real antiques (there could of course be real antiques in a few rooms) and could work with visitors.  I suggest at the very least market research to find out the potential appeal of such a restoration. Veronica Roberts (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a new idea.  The National Trust have already done it in partnership with the BBC.http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/avebury/our-work/projects/  Although in this case the house is original but the dressing is new.  86.153.135.110 (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Not only have you been "thinking outside the box," but you've been thinking outside Wikipedia. Unless we have a reliable source that the National Trust (or anyone else) is considering doing such a thing, all this is just WP:FORUM. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of Clandon Park 

message: Although not marked as such this article appears to be semi protected as I cannot edit it.
In the article lead, the last sentence reads:
:'The house was substantially damaged in a fire in April 2015, which left it "essentially a shell".'
This should be changed to:
:'The house was substantially damaged in a fire in April 2015, which left it "essentially a shell".' (i.e. delete redundant references.)
Reason: The references supporting the statement are already included in the main body of the article.  Since the lead is meant to be a summary of points made in the made part of the article, the repeated referencing is entirely redundant.  86.153.135.110 (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: . There is no rule that citations have to be removed from the lede, but they are certainly not necessary if already in the main body. I agree that in this case they are redundant and so I have removed them. Not sure why this article is still protected. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Clandon Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629101422/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/cymraeg/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-clandonpark/w-clandonpark-maori-house/w-clandonpark-maori-house-4.htm to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/cymraeg/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-clandonpark/w-clandonpark-maori-house/w-clandonpark-maori-house-4.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should the bulk of this article be moved to Clandon House? Firebrace (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! I would support this. Theroadislong (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to make sense. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Mildly, yes.- Adam37 Talk 17:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment about moving the article 

message: While I'm pleased to see the article redirected to a more accurate compromise name, I see we still have the problem of denial that the house (whatever name you choose to give it) is in the park. It is. For example: Historic England list entry for Clandon Park "Gardens and pleasure grounds within a landscaped park" "Clandon House and its surrounding parkland, c 220ha" "PRINCIPAL BUILDING Clandon House (listed grade I) stands in the south-east corner of the park". A substantial number of reliable sources will be needed if the article is going to claim that the house is not in the park. Current ownership has nothing to do with the physical location of the house. The modern Onslow-owned estate extends beyond the park boundaries, and this is not an article about the modern Onslow-owned part of the estate, but about the park and the house standing within it, in split ownership. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Zzzzz. I don't care for the opinion of a user who has been blocked four times in one year, including once for abusing multiple accounts. Such a user is not in a position to lay down the law, especially when they have already failed to be convinced by "a substantial number of reliable sources". Firebrace (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Shame to have got to the stage where I have to remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. I'm not sure why you find it necessary to go out of your way to ignore an incontrovertible fact that's well-supported, that - regardless of ownership - the house is in the park, and instead support the unreferenced assertions of an editor who has an apparent conflict of interest in the matter. Incidentally, more than half of the National Trust's 14 acre landholding at Clandon came to them in 1973, not 1956 Ghughesarch (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the park 

message: re , If you have a problem with the assessment made by English Heritage, take it up with them. Firebrace (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Heritage ''At Risk Register'' 

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) 07:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Trust pilot