Talk:Ham House

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-hamhouse/w-hamhouse-history.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ham House remembered

I remember as a boy playing hooky from school stumping the grounds of Ham house I once did an O level exam Art painting of the south side entrance gardens(aged 15) titled I believed "Looking through an Arch doorway"showed the splendid gardens in full bloom,in fact it helped me achieve an O level grade "A" pass!!!

Many a time I would be jogging pass Ham house,also as a small child riding my bike through Cut throat Ally to Petersham Russell school eventually moving on to Orchard school what great years they were. Lots of Football(Soccer to our American friends) playing with friends Johnny Whittle, Kenny Ball, Guy Elliot,Alan Watson,Tony Varney, Richard Piper just to mention a few ...Katie Flavall my first crush! also to mention Donna McCarthy whose mother took care of my bike while I was at school...

Lived on Buckingham Drive near the school # 8 I think??? since Retired and moved to Tollermache Mews..

I was born in Ham in the house I lived for 24 yrs got married and moved ...that's another story... Now living in the USA...

Anthony Mitchell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.119.127 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 August 2006

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ham 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/20120101075730/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-hamhouse.htm to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-hamhouse.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello from the Ham House Wikiproject team

Hello Ham House friends,

Over this extended lockdown period, a group of National Trust volunteers from Ham House have formed a team dedicated to the goal of getting the Ham House page to FA status! We'd like to build on the great foundations already in place to add more depth to the story of the house, gardens, collections and the women & men who made it their home. We are all long-serving volunteers with decades of experience with the property and its history. This project has the endorsement of the National Trust, who are making reference materials available to the team. We'll do our best to expand this article in alignment with Wikipedia's highest standards - however if you see any points of concern, please post here to share your thoughts. Isaksenk (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

That's great, and thank you for that initial disclosure. I see that you (Isaksenk) are already an experienced editor, so this probably doesn't need saying, but please bear in mind WP:NPOV and WP:COI, and try not to introduce content that might be seen as unduly promotional. I certainly have no issue with any of your edits so far. GrindtXX (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks GrindtXX - a valid reminder! To clarify - we are not NT employees - just passionate volunteers who want to flesh out the story of this place. However, if you see anything of concern, please let us know! Isaksenk (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm up for this. Great to hear that NT are prepared to contribute materials. I contributed several edits rebuilding the article following the 2011 copyvio purge mostly based around Pritchard 2007, hence the enduring focus on the successive owners. My thinking was always to use this underlying chronology to put the architectural, functional and decorative features that we see today (as well as those no longer visible) into their historic context, and, if needs be, migrate the biographical detail to related articles (which did not all exist at the time). I still think this is a sensible direction to follow but I'm open to better ideas. One useful task would be to mine the "pre-copyvio-purge" versions for useful content and re-introduce it more appropriately. More immediately the inline URLS and other MOS tidies would help improve quality. Good Luck!! KenBailey (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi KenBailey great to hear from you! We were hoping you'd chime in as we recognise your significant contributions in building this page. We have been studying the structures of some of the pages built for stately homes which have achieve FA status, such as West Wycombe Park, in order to decide how best to focus our efforts. We created a framework which would have major sections for: Architecture, Gardens, Collections, Family History, Later History, Film & TV. Some of these sections would them have subsections which go into greater detail (such as Family history, of course!) We feel, based on our experience of working with the property and knowledge of what's available in primary and secondary sources, that this structure allow for a balanced expansion of the existing page. Appreciate any thoughts/questions you, or anyone else might have on this proposal. Thanks! Isaksenk (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The sections all sound sensible to me, but, especially in the case of Ham House, I'd still put the Family History first since, after all, it is the people that primarily shaped the building, collections and gardens and who created the legacy for the Later History, and Film & TV use. Don't lose "Access" either! Introducing the cast first puts everything else into a chronological context that will help the reader's understanding. Looking at the sometimes heated discussion on Talk:West Wycombe Park, its FA status is criticised more than once, so possibly not the ideal model to follow. Others in Category:FA-Class Historic houses articles that achieved FA status more recently might be preferable, Sandringham House perhaps? -- KenBailey (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello HH friends, as I'm sure you will have noticed I posted some updates to the Early Family History and William Murray sections this evening. Our team have been reviewing the details for the last few months and have updated and slightly expanded both sections. We had significant debates on certain points, but focused on the documented evidence available at present. If there are any concerns about our updates, please don't hesitate to reach out and I'll be happy to provide clarifications on behalf of the group. We're continuing work on a number of sections, including those which will significantly expand the article by adding details about the interior and collections. Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello HH friends, I wanted to briefly explain the rationale behind the structure of today's edits. You'll note that I've added the Paintings organised by room. This is because we will soon be added more content about each room, including cabinets, ceilings, etc. The Header called Painting will eventually disappear and it will just be a review of the Interior & Collections for each room. We have several persons working on each part, so it was the easiest way to integrate multiple contributions. We hope you all enjoy the expansion of the content, and welcome any comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaksenk (talk • contribs) 13:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello HH friends, just wanted to update you that I've requested a peer review of the article, to identify what's needed to improve both the quality level and rating. We've already received some very helpful comments from an experienced editor, which I'll be focusing on as a next priority. Please follow the conversation on the peer review page, and as ever, share your knowledge and sources as relevant. Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello HH friends, just a short update on the page progression. I initiated the GA review of the article and have been responding to the feedback from the reviewers in order to bring it to GA standard. As part of the revisions, I have been advised to remove the bullet list of all the movies & TV shows, and adopt a prose format, with high-quality sources. This will result in a shorter list, but will conform better to GA requirements. Please reach out with any questions or comments on the changes. Isaksenk (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Table of contents

Hi all, the table of contents/section headings don't really make sense. Firstly, the "Elizabeth (née Murray: 2nd Countess of Dysart) (1626–1698) and Lionel Tollemache, 3rd Baronet of Helmingham Hall (1624–1669)" desperately needs to be shortened, it distorts the entire table of contents making it very awkward looking. Secondly, the choice of years after names (c.1600–1655 for William Murray, for example), doesn't have to do with the actual time they spent in the house. Why does it matter that Murray was born in 1600 is he only began living in the house in 1626? The article is about the house, not Murray. Giving the titles of the owners in the section headings also seems like far too much information, but that is perhaps the least pressing of these three issues. Aza24 (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've done a bit, but more could & probably should be done. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Any thoughts Isaksenk? Aza24 (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I think the dates could be removed without much loss. I doubt it would be possible to provide dates indictaing the period they were resident at the house. Unless Isaksenk objects, I could have a go and people could see what they think? KJP1 (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Taking: "5.3 Lionel Tollemache, 5th Earl of Dysart (1734–1799)" as an example, really I'd think "5th Earl of Dysart (1734–1799)" the best combination of brevity and useful information, rather than say: "Lionel Tollemache, 5th Earl of Dysart", especially as there are 4 (or is it 5) Lionels. But the dates they held the titles might be better than birth-death dates. Not sure. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

John's solution sounds like an improvement—I suspect giving the dates of the title might be unexpected to the readers, so I would prefer the life spans if residency dates are indeed unavailable. KJP1's solution is also certainly an improvement, but I suspect that it may be confusing to give so many names without dates of any kind. Aza24 (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi all - we appreciate the thought you've been giving to this improvement. We do use the titles in the house regularly for the reason that Johnbod mentions - there were a lot of Lionels. I don't have a strong preference on format tbh, but I can provide the needed dates, whether it's lifespan or ownership of the property. I do agree it should be standardised for clarity. Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Isaksenk, Aza24, Johnbod - In preparation for its TFA appearance, I’ve had a go at shortening the titles. I’ve put their dates of “succession” rather than birth, as suggested, and stripped out “of Dysart” etc. where that seems a bit repetitious. I’ve also changed the death date of Lionel, 3rd Baronet, who appears to have gone to his maker in 1669, rather than 1668. I think they work, but if they don’t find favour, just roll back. KJP1 (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)