Talk:Hindlip Hall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I've re edited the article to cut out the lengthy, off-topic history of the Gunpowder Plot that has its own article. I've kept the cut material in this Special Page and will be looking to see if any of it can be salvaged and integrated into the main Gunpowder Plot article.
If anyone opposes this modification, let's talk about it here before just blindly reverting the edit.--Kudpung (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing edits[edit]

Ummm blindly changing edits ... wouldn't dream of it. Always best to discuss large changes with active editors before making large changes. Best to consult .... um .... well at least we've started the idea now. Yes on a quick examination it appears that a start article has been converted into a stub. Hindlip Hall is not important to the Gunpowder Plot .... its the opposite way round. I don't understand the rationale of the last large change/ deletion. Was it discussed elsewhere? Is it normal to take articles that have been through a consensus process and store them on someones sandbox page? This is odd. Victuallers (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there has been a previous discussion about keeping the lengthy history of the Gunpopwder Plot in the article describing Hindlip hall, I didn't find it - unless I have accidentally deleted more than I should have. The stub class is in the new Worcs project template, and the article previously had no parentage and was not assessed. If the article is a member of another project, that project can also place its template, and include an assessment to the relevance of that project. It is quite normal (and recommended) to keep cut stuff, or stuff in progress, somewhere, for example in an editor's special pages. The cut material can be easily seen by doing a version compare in the article history, and can be reworked by anyone here: User:Kudpung/gunpowder (from Hindlip). I found the quantity of material on the Gunpowder Plot to be well out of propoortion with the article about the hall, especially where the Gunpowder Plot has its own article. Duplication of articles, or spreading info around over several articles, is not the purpose of WP pages (if I have understood correctly). Hindlip Hall has of course a history, a long one too, but the Gunpowder Plot is not the history of the hall, but a part of it, and that mention, with a link to the main Gunpowder article, is in it.--Kudpung (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that I was being asked to have a discussion about a major change by you. When you had not done the same. Its not essential to ask before making large changes but its odd to ask others to give your changes more respect than you showed theirs. The gunpowder plot is not linked or even mentioned. The 1603 plot(sic) is mentioned in the lede but not in the article. The article was not a stub as the DYK template indicates. It may be now according to WP Worcestershire. I'm intrigued that you may think that this article duplicates stuff in the gunpowder plot as I can't find anything about this part of Gunpowder plot anywhere else. The article has a saint found inside and it doesnt even get mentioned.

I feel too biased about this. Suggest you or I ask someone at WP Worcester to decide if the lead up to the events of 1606 at Red Hill, Worcester are notable or not. As they are now removed them from this article which records ownership but ignores that one owner weas nearly on the scaffold with these people. Victuallers (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted to the version with more information, per WP:PRESERVE. There is no reason why that information shouldn't be in there. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hindlip Hall. 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:

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) 15:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hindlip Hall. 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:

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) 04:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hindlip_Hall&oldid=1207534497"