Talk:West Wycombe Park

Untitled

I've been watching the edits made here, but now I think it is time to intervene, why have the sourced references been removed, and secondly what exactly is the "the italiante house" as mentioned in the lead. presumably this means Italianate, however. it is wrong to refer to West Wycombe as Italianate, this term refers to 19th century houses in a vague Neo-Renaissance style - is anything the house is more Neoclassical Either please add reputable references for these changes or reinstate the original references. Thank you. Giano | talk 21:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

FA?

Oops I missed that this article had passed FAC and so Ill raise my comments here instead! Basically how did it manage it. Ok the writing is pretty good but those images? It makes it nearly unreadable. There are probably far too many to complement the article property. Ok maybe not too many but certainly badly place. At least one section header is out of alignment and some of the text doesn't flow. A big problem is the captioning which takes up almost as much space as the images!!! (no 3 of the FA requirements are well placed pictures with succinct captions).

Also there are quite few red links that need fixing - with a stub or by finding the right article. Some artist / nobleman names etc. could - if an article is not warranted - have a short section in the footnotes rather than a red link. Stuff like that.

I noticed a few weaselly type words - it doesn't at times read like an encyclopaedia! eg: the finest architects of the time (might be a slight misquote but finest is the word I mean and that's there) could read The top architects or The most respected architects..

Finally those footnotes. It's all very well to say Knox PG XXX but an excerpt or quote would be nice to verify this fact. Or even just a note explaining what Knox says. Normally this wouldn't bother me but historical accuracy is difficult; so definite facts that can be verified from excerpts rather than by buying the book would be nice :D

Just small issues I know but it would be nice to see a FA looking like one ;) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice with this style of referencing that "Knox, Tim (2001). West Wycombe Park. Bromley, Kent.: The National Trust. " is under the "References" section - the footnotes then refer in short to the publications listed in long form in the preceding section.

I'm not sure that finest is weasly - "superlative of fine - Of superior quality" where's the weasiliness? - Your suggestions replace one apt and appropriate word for two which are less so.[1]. Regards --Mcginnly | Natter 12:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, none of what you're saying is justification for an objection on FAC. They are non-actionable and personal interpretation. You can no more tell me that a caption is "succinct" than I can tell you it is not, and what is "too many images" for one is "not enough" for another. The objections over strong language aren't really supportable, given the fact that the work is researched and cited for its claims. As for having seen "better ones not make it," that's back to the old "two wrongs" argument. I cannot see how your comments are really actionable, rather than personal. Geogre 12:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Tmorton166. The FAC was successful because the vast majority of comments supported the article.

On images, the article is quite heavily illustrated - you complain that there are too many images; I think that the number of images is a bonus. The images - and more particular their placement - were queried in the FAC discussion, and the images were moved around a couple of times to help solve some people's problems. Unfortunately, every person seems to have a different browser, screen setup, resolution, visual preference, etc., but please go ahead and make some changes if you think you can see a way to improve the article. This is a wiki, after all. Similarly, if the captions are not succinct enough for you, would you care to suggest which parts should be excised?

On redlinks, redlinks are not a FAC criterion (see WP:WIAFA). Redlinks are one of the benefits of a wiki - they encourage others to contribute material to make the redlink turn blue. Many people think it is more helpful to leave a link red than to create a bunch of one-line stubs which provide a misleading impression of Wikipedia's (lack of) comprehensiveness. Are you really saying that an article on an obscure topic, where Wikipedia omits many related topics that should have articles, should not be featured, however good they are?

On "weaselly" words, I suspect they come from the cited sources - Knox et al. probably use the odd relative or superlative. I'm sure Giano II will resolve any particular concerns that you may have, if you point them our.

On footnotes, the very reason for providing inline citations is to allow a reader to verify the information in the article by reference to the original sources - they are not usually there to include excerpts from the original sources (although it can be effective, particularly if different sources contain different information, or some intepretation of the sources, not directly relevant to the article itself, is required). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hi TMorton thank you for your comments here and here [2]. I note your comments on the FAC page were your first ever contribution to a FAC debate, and as your interests lie in computing and electronics I feel honoured you should have chosen a page mostly by me on a "Neoclassical building" as your first foray into featured articles. However you are probably inexperienced in the ways and means of a page becoming a featured article. Flattering as it is that you think I have only to put pen to paper for any old rubbish to become an FA, sadly that is not the truth. This page was on the FAC page for some time, and was commented on by both editors known and unknown to me. There were objections which were when possible addressed, when such address was impossible the "objector" accepted this with good grace. In fact the FAC process was a pleasant experience for me and an improving one for the article. That you come here now with your rather snide comments and objections, many of which are not actionable is thought provoking - I'm afraid if you want to check the references you will have to buy the book, I'm certainly not breaking copyright by quoting large chunks just for you. The number of red links for an article of this length is negligible. However should you wish to blue the links that would be a bonus for the page indeed. These with your other comments on the alignment etc. convince me you are viewing Wikipedia on a library monitor, which is something I can't rectify for you Giano 15:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's comments... Giano first. Sorry you felt I was snide, the intention was not thus. Rather I am making personal observations that I feel will make the article better. 1) Yes I have participated in FAC stuff before. I was a heavy contributor to the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macedonia (terminology) FAC and made many suggestions there. 2) I know my interests / experience is in computing but I was originally (for about 5 years) planning to be an architect. I especially was interested in classical buildings and found this article quite by accident! Flattering as it is that you think I have only to put pen to paper for any old rubbish to become an FA, sadly that is not the truth actually i resent that comment! It is an excellent article and fairly well written. I enjoyed it and it is deserving of FA status - to a point.

Now the issues I raised. I will concede all but the images are not part of FA guidelines. However I have seen FAC fail due to even a few redlinks! I may have been overly harsh with that comment tbh but I found several links that are (not crucial) important to understanding the piece: fêtes champêtres is interesting, what is it?? Is it a local 'event' or an actual encompassing name! Also service wing, what context is that in? Can another link not be substituted - does it even need to be a link!

Image placement I guess is just a browser problem. The article looks a bit 'enclosed' to me.. Using FF and a 17 inch monitor.

As to the referencing, it's a really bugbear of mine :D sorry!! Basically what I was suggesting was not great chunks of text but something more substantial than a page reference. Eg the first inline ref.. it could say Knox p 62. Suggested in the Journals of John Dashwood written at the time or whatever. It provides a bit of extra context and information. Saying a page reference is (IMO) useful to about 1% of the people reading the page - and they won't need the information anyway! It certainly adds to the article to give the facts context...

Then again I always bitch over references so srroy again! :P

Again weaselly words I will concede. In truth the one 'example' I had was the only one and it was probably unfair on Giano to suggest it!

To sum up. WP:AGF guys :P and yes it is a great article that I, as a pedant and perfectionist, would love to see slight additions and tweaks to make it better. Dont take it to heart Giano!! I'll back out slowly now before any more come to mob :P and go back to my computer magazines. If anyone feels the same /I've convinced them and make the tweaks then great. If not no harm done - it's still a great article. I might have a go at some of those red links though :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 04:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I could mention assuming the assumption of good faith, but I would not want you to feel mobbed.

We ought to have an article on service wing and fête champêtre (a "country/rural feast/festival" - think Marie Antoinette on a picnic, with entertainment laid on - oh look: it is blue now). But I reiterate that redlinks are not a problem for a featured article. I'm sorry if someone else complained about them somewhere else - next time, tell them it is not an issue. Image placement is a browser issue. Hopefully the current arrangement of images meets as many people's set-ups are possible. The footnotes really are there to provide page numbers as inline references, not to provide context. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yay blue links, always good! Im looking at the article on a dsifferent PC now and it looks better :D As to footnotes I still completely disagree but I guess that is a personal thing but I dont see the use of them if you are backing up a fact with non-contextual data. Note 5 IMO is great, exactly right. In the odd case just a page reference is ok BUT consider this: Knox seems to be the main reference for this (at least as far as the footnotes goes). The average reader is not going to own or possibly even have access to this book. In this case context is fairly essential. Then again I was just intrigued by some of the info (just borrowed the book now and it's a good read :)) and wanted in some cases just a little more... As I said I always bitch about references and footnotes.

(PS note the :P after 'mob', didn't mean it in bad faith :D ) Cheers --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Nor have you been mobbed. You got energetic answers because you started by asking how this article managed to get featured; an attack you might consider withdrawing, since you seem to be in full flight from it anyway. Secondly, if you want to change FA referencing practice to a vision of your own, that's fine, but it would make more sense to raise the issue on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates and try to change consensus there, rather than demand that your own system be implemented by an individual article at (what looks like) random. Bishonen | talk 14:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

Tried suggesting the referencing all over before but no-one seems interested... Inherent problem in this community unfortunately. And if we are talking about attacks I don't remember demanding anything - it was merely a suggestion. And one I consider polite. Unfortunately Bishonen you seem to have taken the usual path when I (or other people) raise points over referencing - I honestly still have to hear a convincing explanation over how Knox pgXX is of use! IMO it's better off not there at all :D Still I don't mean that as an attack it just gets me that people respond immediately with the 'stop attacking' comment instead of reasoned discussion. I wont retract my comment about not making FA, I personally wouldn't have voted in favour. (The book is excellent by the way, worth a read). I guess Wetman has the best idea in retrospect. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 04:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Splendid illustrations, I must say. And not a bluelink in sight. I rarely vote for Featured Articles myself: I find they are often an exercise in quibbles. --Wetman 15:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Geographical co-ordinates

...don't seem to work - it comes up with 0° 0′ 0″ N, 0° 0′ 0″ E.--A bit iffy 04:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's where it is... ? :-P Bishonen | talk 10:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC).

It says "51.643° lat. -0.808° long" for me. ShadowHalo 10:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Me too, although personally I don't know why we have to have them anyway, I always find a normal road atlas far more helpful when trying to get there. Giano 10:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean when you click on the co-ordinates it comes up with 0° 0′ 0″ N, 0° 0′ 0″ E.--A bit iffy 10:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

All better. The template was using "lat." and "lon." instead of N and W. ShadowHalo 11:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

vandal

Ok, does anyone know how to remove the large penis photo from the article; I cannot find it on the edit page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gronk713 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 July 2007.

No idea. Can't find it in the history either. --Belovedfreak 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's gone now. Thanks to whomever removed it. Unfortunately, I can't have images like this popping up on my work machines or home machines (around the kids). If the Wikipedia developers can't keep vandalism like this from happening -- especially to articles on the Main Page or linked from the Main Page, there is no way it will survive. There may be a time and place for a very large picture of a Prince Albert piercing, just not here. -- Matt July 3, 11:08 PDT

Infobox

After having added a historic building infobox to the article, it was reverted and the following comment was added to my talk page:

"Please do not force disgustingly horrible and hideously ugly info boxes on pages that do not need or require them. If the info is not in the first few lines of the lead it is not worth knowing. Giano 21:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)"

It might be noted that infoboxes are a standard feature in many Wikipedia articles and that West Wycombe Park fits the criteria for the historic building infobox. So as to avoid edit warring, I shall not re-add the infobox (at least not during any discussion which follows). Editors may have different feeling about a) infoboxes in general or b) historic building infoboxes. However, I submit that in order to avoid an ad hoc approach there should be centralized discussion and that whilst this article fits the criteria for a historic building infobox then it is desirable that one should be applied. Greenshed 22:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I see no justification for deleting the infobox. Seems perfectly suitable to me. DWaterson 22:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Info boxes are not compulsary, there has been much debate, the result being it is a matter if choice for the primary and principle editors of a page, in this case the decision is that the page does not require one. Giano 06:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Giano and I often don't see eye-to-eye, but on this matter we agree: infoboxes are typically ugly, result in an undesirable standardisation of information (often leading to distortions), and sacrifice the opportunity to have a beautiful picture at top-right.

The infobox guidelines, if I remember correctly, recommend a picture top-right, and infoboxes—if used at all—adjacent to the specific sections to which they relate. IMV, and that of many other users, infoboxes should be used with caution. Here, there's a wealth of opportunity to include informative and attractive pictures; please let's hear no more of this infobox-mania. Tony 06:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this quarrel— the user who added the box obviously did it with the best intentions, and put some work into it. But not all changes are by definition improvements, especially not to FAs, which have already been through a lot of discussion and review on WP:FAC. The community elected to make this page an FA the way Giano originally designed it, i.e. without any box. Boxes are in fact not a "standard feature" in the sense that it's appropriate to force them on every page regardless of the opinions of other editors. I believe that's been the consensus of all the centralized box discussions so far. Bishonen | talk 09:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC).

Boxes may be a common feature of many articles, but that does not mean that they are a desirable feature of any article. To determine whether or not there should be the insertion, we require dialog. Before putting in such a large element that moves text about and potentially kicks the alignment of images put in place by the first or dominant author, it's a good idea to broach the subject on the talk page. There is no "must" to having one. In the case of articles going to FA status, it is virtually a lock that the boxes, of any sort, should not be added by any party not significantly involved in the planning. The reason is that FA's have their look and flow carefully constructed and get approved by reviewers in such a form. FA authors who favor boxes plan for them and design around them, and the authors who don't like boxes are going to have their work toward FA confounded by the box. Some people react colorfully and angrily to boxes, some meekly and politely, and some not at all -- thus the glory of the world. Geogre 11:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Park or House?

I got here indirectly, looking for an article on West Wycombe House, and being (at first) unable to find one. The issue I have is the name of the article. West Wycombe Park is the name of just that - the park. The Palladian mansion is West Wycombe House.

Is is known as such by Wycombe district Council, The High Wycombe Society, The West Wycombe Estate website, The Ordnance Survey, The Bucks Free Press newspaper, and everyone I know that has ever mentioned it. The National Trust webpage is entitled "West Wycombe Park" - "Perfectly preserved rococo landscape garden, surrounding a neo-classical mansion", which I hope illustrates my point.

One further point - at the beginning of the article: "Built between 1740 and 1800 as a pleasure palace for the decadent 18th century libertine and dilettante Sir Francis Dashwood....". Dashwood died in 1781, so any building work done in the years between 1782 and 1800 could not have been for his benefit.

This is my first venture into the inner workings of Wikipedia, so I thought I should attempt to get some feedback - test the water as it were. My intention is to improve the accuracy of a comprehensive Wiki article about a building I admire - I have lived in High Wycombe for more than 30 years.

Rambler24 19:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made a small alteration to the lead to fix the anomaly that small parts were completed after dashwood's death. It is the custom in Britain to refer to mansions set within parks as X Park a well known example being the film "Gosford Park" set completely within a mansion which was certainly a house not a park - or even Jane Austen's Mansfield park The reference books used to write the page all refer to the mansion as West Wycombe Park. There can always be a redirect from West Wycombe House. The article does cover both mansion and park and the estates website [3] begins "West Wycombe Park is a beautiful stately home and grounds....." clearly indicating the park is the house/home. Odd terminology but that is English for you. The google test gives 250,000 more hits for park than house. Giano 20:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I take your point about about the reference works, and while the link from West Wycombe House adequately addresses my failure to find the article first go I'll just have to live with the name as it is. Thank you for changing the date anomaly, I was afraid you might find my comment somewhat pedantic. I'm getting the flavour of this editing business now, and hope to be able to contribute further in the near future. Rambler24 09:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No you are quite welcome, civilized debate on talk pages is always welcome and far better than an abrupt change to the page itself which can lead to edit wars and all that that entails. Otherwise just het stuck in and edit - one small point you don't need to start a new section for your reply, you can just indent by going ":::::" however many times you need to. If you click the edit button you will see what I mean and what I have done. Any problems editing here give me a call on my talk page and I'll try to help. Regards Giano 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

Should the article List of garden structures at West Wycombe Park be merged with this? No, because that page was separated from this article when it became an FA. The separate page for the temples and follies allows for a more detailed appraisal of those buildings without making this page too long and laborious.  Giano  17:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Featured Article?

This article is currently rated as a Featured Article, but a cursory glance through shows that it does not meet the actual criteria for being rated as such. Most problematically, there are a large number of sentences and paragraphs dotted throughout the article that are not in any way cited. I can see that this article was awarded FA status back in November 2006 (almost ten years ago), when Wikipedia's standards for FA were a lot more lax; while it might have passed then, it would not pass now. Unless there are any objections, my suggestion is that this article be considered for Featured article review with the ultimate possibility of de-listing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I wrote most of this and have been keeping a regular eye on it ever since it passed FA; it still looks OK to me. Giano (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of the prose is not referenced, which is the main problem here. Unless that can be rectified then an FAR is inevitable I'm afraid. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, as this discussion indicates, I was probably too hasty in taking this to FAN. However I maintain that at present this article is in pretty bad shape, purely because of the chronic lack of in-line citation. I have a lot of experience with getting articles to GA and FA, and frankly I know that if I were taking this article to GAN in its current state, then it simply would not pass, with editors asking "where on earth are all the citations?". I appreciate that a lot of work probably went in to writing this article in the first place and to obtaining a good standard of prose, and I'm not criticising that (conversely I'd commend it!), but the question of citations is a serious one and needs to be dealt with. For all I (or any other reader) knows, all of this un-cited stuff is Original Research and isn't actually obtained from the books included in the "References" section at all. Some of it could be totally made up. Now I'm certainly not actively accusing anyone of fabricating information, but I hope you see my point. Giano, if you still have access to these sources then I would really recommend that use them to incorporate the much needed citations into the article. If not, then I see no other option but for this article to go back to FAN after a sufficient length of time. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

That's most interesting! Which book precisely is it that you're not finding the information? I have them all at my fingertips - as obviously do you. What is it that you feel is own research? I always feel it's better for people like you to do the work yourself, you will learn so much. Giano (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to be facetious Giano, I'm only trying to ensure that the article improves or (if it doesn't) that it is rated accordingly (and doesn't continue to carry an FA rating that it patently doesn't warrant). I don't have the books in question, just as the vast majority of readers of this article will not have the books in question. As it is, the majority of this article consists of statements with no supporting citations. Are we expected to merely assume that this information is contained within the books mentioned in the Referencing section? Are we simply to take your word for it? How can we be sure that some of the information isn't original research if we don't have specific citations? Frankly, I fail to understand why you are reacting in such a negative manner against what is a fairly reasonable suggestion as to how to improve the article, and why you need to be repeatedly uncivil to me since I raised this issue (as you were here and here as well as above). It really doesn't take much to be polite, even if you disagree with me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• If you suspect I have written lies, then you must 'improve' Wikipedia by removing all the unsourced statements. Alternatively, if you don't know what you are talking about, then it's best to remain silent. Giano (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you enjoy being rude? I've made it quite clear that I am not directly accusing you of intentionally posting untrue information. What I have said, quite clearly, is that here we have an article in which the majority of statements lack citations. That in itself is problematic because it prevents readers from appreciating where specific information comes from, and can lead to the suspicion that some of it might be original research (not necessarily added by you, I must add). Moreover, this article is rated as an FA despite the fact that it does not meet the FA criteria, which stresses the need for in-line citations. My suggestion, therefore, is that either it be improved with the addition of inline citations (if you were able to do so, that would be fantastic), or it be taken to FAN to have its FA status reconsidered. Instead you have simply been deliberately impolite and facetious again and again and offered nothing constructive to the conversation. Now, let's get to the crux of the matter: I don't have access to the resources needed to add the inline citations, but I'm assuming that you might. Are you therefore willing to add in the inline citations? There is no pressure on you if you do not wish to, however, if the citations are not going to be added (by you, me, or anyone else) then the article is going to remain below FA quality and thus really should undergo FAN. I leave it with you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Kudos to User:Choess for adding some of the much needed inline citations today! Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

West portico

Can someone please check whether Knox says that the west portico is an example of Greek Doric as the columns are Ionic. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on West Wycombe 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/20160304195057/http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/Houses_detail.asp?ID=2093 to http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/houses_detail.asp?ID=2093

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) 10:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Featured article review

I believe this article needs a Featured Article Review for the following reasons:

• The article extensively uses a source called "Dashwood" who is a relative and not wp:independent of the subject
• WP:LEADCITE issues
• The History is split into three different parts, some in the Ethos section, then the Dashwoods section, then post 1943. This is highly confusing.
• The history isn't adequately summarising the article, too much info is lacking about National Trust, the Dashwoods and there is nothing about the slave trade
• There is an unencyclopedic tone in the Dashwoods of Wycombe section
• Images of other buildings not relevant to the article

These images of other buildings seem very relevant as they explain very well the building’s unique architecture. Adam Black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamBlack89 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Image caption problems
• Dozens of high profile films have been shot at the house, the article doesn't mention any of them, instead it gives a link List of films shot at West Wycombe Park, these need discussing
• There are nine historic garden structures at the house that have been left out of the article and instead put in a list here List of garden structures at West Wycombe Park - these need including.
• Small article size ~ 35kb for a house with a lot of history.

If the article isn't updated I'll be bringing this to FAR in due course. Desertarun (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Desertarun: Do you still have these concerns in the article? If so, do you want to bring this article to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)