![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This start class article has been written in good faith, but has been tagged for improvement. This is in no way intended as a criticism, and should be regarded as flagging of areas that need attention to the
MOS, and encyclopedic prose style, and the addtion of more source references to substantiate the information. Parts of the text have been rewritten and other Worcestershire Wikipedians may be able to help improve this article.
Some additional help may be available in the sources used for this article:
Croome collection (which should also have a mention and a link in the Croome park article.)--
Kudpung (
talk) 11:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I had hoped that placing a few inline tags would have stimulated some response. Nothing has happened however, and it would be a shame if this interesting article that involves a very prominent English architect, and a multi million sponsored project, were to be the subject of a deletion campaign. -- Kudpung ( talk) 11:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Renovation work has taken place on Pirton, so this article is now out of date with regards to it being "sadly in need of urgent repair as it is being ravaged by thick ivy." More info can be found here:- http://www.midlandconservation.com/CaseStudies/Pirton_Castle.htm I would correct the article myself, but I'm fairly new to editing Wiki's and not sure which is the correct way to go about it. Tom ( talk) 11:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place to start this ask for advise etc for this article! I'm a Manager at Croome Park for the National Trust and in my spare time I'm trying to greatly improve the information, facts, content, layout etc and I've made quite a few edits before finding this great talk page. I was mortified to see that Croome's article has had no improvements and it could have been deleted, and lots of the information was incorrect, out of date or not referenced!
I'm working through the article slowly to make it more easy to read and understand and, of course, add factual content and insert references. I hope to eventually get the article lifted from the "Start" and "Low" positions and also make this a "Featured Article" - how good would that be?!
I need help though, as I'm new to all of this! If anyone has any suggestions as to how we can go about making the layout to this (hopefully) extensive article simple yet effective (I'm getting a bit lost in the help topics), that would be great. There's so many different aspects to Croome (history, features, recent history, all the buildings across the estate, all the landscape features and many more) - I don't really know the best way to lay it all out in the body text. I'm so excited to start on making major improvements to this article and I'd love for anyone to help or advise. Thanks ( Amy Forster ( talk) 19:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC))
I have submitted an uncontroversial request to change Croome Park's title to 'Croome'. The National Trust have re-branded the property to take into account the they no longer own/manage just the Park and Garden but the Court as well. The new title appears in the NT member's handbook, NT website, property leaflet, welcome leaflet and onsite. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves for the request, but I welcome a discussion if necessary. This really became obvious to me recently as I was searching for 'Croome' in a search engine, the NT website comes up near the top, but the Wikipedia entry did not. ( Amy Forster ( talk)
Page moved to Croome, Worcestershire. Consensus was to move. However there was no evidence that this is the primary topic so the alternate name proposed was selected as the new name. If there is a better name, it can be renominated, possibly as a speedy. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Croome Park → Croome —
At some of the building listed as being restored had been restored by 2011. Compare English Heritage Buildings at Risk Register 2005 p. 14 (in this extract), Heritage at Risk Register West Midlands 2009 p.78 with Heritage at Risk Register West Midlands 2011 p. 73. So someone needs to go through this article and update it. -- PBS ( talk) 14:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem with Croome, Worcestershire was that the article title read like a place name eg Croome, East Riding of Yorkshire when in fact the local village is called Croome D'Abitot and Wikiepdia has a separate article on that place.
So I have moved the article to "Croome Court" because that is how most of the other similar articles about large Palladian houses with ornamental parks are so named (for example Blenheim Palace, Wilton House and Hagley Hall), and the sources frequently use that name particularly if they are pre-1948 -- before the Coventry family sold the estate. -- PBS ( talk) 19:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
@ user:Mike Peel see WP:CITEVAR. I am reverting the article to the version 18:45, 1 April 2016 Mike Peel. Usually I would just revert the changes to the citation layout and the citations, but you have made too many changes for me to be able to do that easily. You are of course entitled to add improvements providing that they are backed up with reliable source that are formatted using short citations in the body of the text and long citations in the References section. The template {{ reflist}} in a Notes section and the long citations to the sources in the References section is the standard way to format short citations. I appreciate that as you have been editing here for a decade you will ready know all this and I am putting an explanation here per WP:BRD and for editors who read this and do not know about WP:CITEVAR.-- PBS ( talk) 19:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
templates (cs2) in the References section, and short citations in the body of the text. You have been editing here long enough that you ought to be familiar with all the major version of citations. Short and long citations are very common, and there is no reason to change it as you should be able to use the existing style quite easily. For example I have just been editing
Christian views on alcohol and although I think it is very hard to follow the text given the number of full templates inline citations, I did not start to change them just because I find them hard to follow. Instead I will leave a message on the talk page recommending that short citations are implemented. --
PBS (
talk) 20:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I think that PBS is right - CITEVAR is very clear that you shouldn't change the established citation system without first seeking consensus - to stop exactly this sort of issue arising. Looking at the edit history, that's what's occurred between 1st and 5th of April; it's been completely altered from a short to a long citation system (etc.) without discussion, and that shouldn't have happened. Mike - would you be up for starting a new section below, explicitly asking that the citation system be altered (retrospectively)? Hchc2009 ( talk) 07:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Just to throw my hat in, the current version is infinitely better to verify. If we ever have to go back to the old version I'll be instantly tagging it with {{ more footnotes}} to request better inline citations. The new version by @ Mike Peel: is an improvement on the mess that was there previously. Jeni ( talk) 08:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. Following from the above, I'd like to propose that we use citation style 1 in this article, i.e. {{ cite web}} and similar, defined in the end {{ Reflist}} section, with inline ref tags to indicate where the references are used. I think this is more suited to this article than citation style 2 ({{ sfn}} and {{ citation}}) in the case of this article, for the following reasons:
Thoughts? If there is consensus that we should go back to using CS2 rather than using CS1, then I'm willing to spend the time to reformat it accordingly. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 19:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@
User:Jeni your revert of my recent edit was a clear violation of
WP:CITEVAR which starts "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." and continues " If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriaote for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page." So I am going to revert your revert, because there is no consensus on this talk page to alter the style from short citations. --
PBS (
talk) 21:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@
user:Mike Peel you clearly do not know what the difference is between CS1 and CS2 it has nothing to do with using {{
harv}}
templates it is the look of the output of the long citations. The first using {{
cite book}}
which uses the style CS1, the second using {{
Citation}}
which uses CS2, and a third using {{
cite book}}
but with the parameter mode=cs2
The major difference is in the default separator between elements in CS1 it is a full stop and in CS2 it is a comma. So why did you change from one formatted CS2 style to the other (CS1) for the long citaitons?
{{citation needed|date=June 2012}}
with {{fact|date=April 2016}}
makes it look like this is a new request not one that is four years old and that the sentence that is unsupported probably should be deleted.ref={{
harvid}}
-- there no reason to change from using short citations for that reason.-- PBS ( talk) 21:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
(cs2) or vice versa is a clear violation of CITEVAR. Changing from short in-line citations to long in-line citations is another clear violation of CITEVAR, but is not a change in the CS2 to CS1 (and has nothing to do with the mode). --
PBS (
talk) 20:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not fussed about the changes you have made to the short citations. The templates you used to make the text in the References section were designed to be used with <references/>
. It was never intended for the citations in a references section to be made smaller. The names "Notes" and "References" are the standard section names as described in
WP:CITE and
WP:Layout, Bibliography is undesirable for two reasons. Bibliography in biographies is unclear (and while this is not a biography, why use it when other names are available?). There are more than books in the References section, strictly speaking a bibliography contains book not other items so why use a section title that can be misunderstood. The section you called Citations does not contain citations it contains parts of citations, but they are all footnotes, so Notes is a more descriptive name. --
PBS (
talk) 08:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
There seem to be several different stories about what happened with the Dutch royal family during WW2. We've gone from "During the Second World War it housed the Dutch royal family, including Queen Juliana of the Netherlands, who were escaping the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands." (which I referenced to Peck 1996) to "There is, however, no evidence that the family ever stayed at Croome, preferring a London residence" ( this diff] by @ Kings Men) to "However, evidence shows that they stayed two weeks at the most, perhaps because of the noise and fear created by the proximity of Defford Aerodrome. They later emigrated to Canada." ( this diff by @ J Tovey) Does anyone (Kings Men?) have a copy of the Steward ref to check what was actually said there, and if the reference we have in the article now actually agrees with that? Are there better references we could use here that provide more definitive facts / records of stated opinions? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 17:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Croome Court. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
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) 10:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This start class article has been written in good faith, but has been tagged for improvement. This is in no way intended as a criticism, and should be regarded as flagging of areas that need attention to the
MOS, and encyclopedic prose style, and the addtion of more source references to substantiate the information. Parts of the text have been rewritten and other Worcestershire Wikipedians may be able to help improve this article.
Some additional help may be available in the sources used for this article:
Croome collection (which should also have a mention and a link in the Croome park article.)--
Kudpung (
talk) 11:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I had hoped that placing a few inline tags would have stimulated some response. Nothing has happened however, and it would be a shame if this interesting article that involves a very prominent English architect, and a multi million sponsored project, were to be the subject of a deletion campaign. -- Kudpung ( talk) 11:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Renovation work has taken place on Pirton, so this article is now out of date with regards to it being "sadly in need of urgent repair as it is being ravaged by thick ivy." More info can be found here:- http://www.midlandconservation.com/CaseStudies/Pirton_Castle.htm I would correct the article myself, but I'm fairly new to editing Wiki's and not sure which is the correct way to go about it. Tom ( talk) 11:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place to start this ask for advise etc for this article! I'm a Manager at Croome Park for the National Trust and in my spare time I'm trying to greatly improve the information, facts, content, layout etc and I've made quite a few edits before finding this great talk page. I was mortified to see that Croome's article has had no improvements and it could have been deleted, and lots of the information was incorrect, out of date or not referenced!
I'm working through the article slowly to make it more easy to read and understand and, of course, add factual content and insert references. I hope to eventually get the article lifted from the "Start" and "Low" positions and also make this a "Featured Article" - how good would that be?!
I need help though, as I'm new to all of this! If anyone has any suggestions as to how we can go about making the layout to this (hopefully) extensive article simple yet effective (I'm getting a bit lost in the help topics), that would be great. There's so many different aspects to Croome (history, features, recent history, all the buildings across the estate, all the landscape features and many more) - I don't really know the best way to lay it all out in the body text. I'm so excited to start on making major improvements to this article and I'd love for anyone to help or advise. Thanks ( Amy Forster ( talk) 19:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC))
I have submitted an uncontroversial request to change Croome Park's title to 'Croome'. The National Trust have re-branded the property to take into account the they no longer own/manage just the Park and Garden but the Court as well. The new title appears in the NT member's handbook, NT website, property leaflet, welcome leaflet and onsite. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves for the request, but I welcome a discussion if necessary. This really became obvious to me recently as I was searching for 'Croome' in a search engine, the NT website comes up near the top, but the Wikipedia entry did not. ( Amy Forster ( talk)
Page moved to Croome, Worcestershire. Consensus was to move. However there was no evidence that this is the primary topic so the alternate name proposed was selected as the new name. If there is a better name, it can be renominated, possibly as a speedy. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Croome Park → Croome —
At some of the building listed as being restored had been restored by 2011. Compare English Heritage Buildings at Risk Register 2005 p. 14 (in this extract), Heritage at Risk Register West Midlands 2009 p.78 with Heritage at Risk Register West Midlands 2011 p. 73. So someone needs to go through this article and update it. -- PBS ( talk) 14:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem with Croome, Worcestershire was that the article title read like a place name eg Croome, East Riding of Yorkshire when in fact the local village is called Croome D'Abitot and Wikiepdia has a separate article on that place.
So I have moved the article to "Croome Court" because that is how most of the other similar articles about large Palladian houses with ornamental parks are so named (for example Blenheim Palace, Wilton House and Hagley Hall), and the sources frequently use that name particularly if they are pre-1948 -- before the Coventry family sold the estate. -- PBS ( talk) 19:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
@ user:Mike Peel see WP:CITEVAR. I am reverting the article to the version 18:45, 1 April 2016 Mike Peel. Usually I would just revert the changes to the citation layout and the citations, but you have made too many changes for me to be able to do that easily. You are of course entitled to add improvements providing that they are backed up with reliable source that are formatted using short citations in the body of the text and long citations in the References section. The template {{ reflist}} in a Notes section and the long citations to the sources in the References section is the standard way to format short citations. I appreciate that as you have been editing here for a decade you will ready know all this and I am putting an explanation here per WP:BRD and for editors who read this and do not know about WP:CITEVAR.-- PBS ( talk) 19:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
templates (cs2) in the References section, and short citations in the body of the text. You have been editing here long enough that you ought to be familiar with all the major version of citations. Short and long citations are very common, and there is no reason to change it as you should be able to use the existing style quite easily. For example I have just been editing
Christian views on alcohol and although I think it is very hard to follow the text given the number of full templates inline citations, I did not start to change them just because I find them hard to follow. Instead I will leave a message on the talk page recommending that short citations are implemented. --
PBS (
talk) 20:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I think that PBS is right - CITEVAR is very clear that you shouldn't change the established citation system without first seeking consensus - to stop exactly this sort of issue arising. Looking at the edit history, that's what's occurred between 1st and 5th of April; it's been completely altered from a short to a long citation system (etc.) without discussion, and that shouldn't have happened. Mike - would you be up for starting a new section below, explicitly asking that the citation system be altered (retrospectively)? Hchc2009 ( talk) 07:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Just to throw my hat in, the current version is infinitely better to verify. If we ever have to go back to the old version I'll be instantly tagging it with {{ more footnotes}} to request better inline citations. The new version by @ Mike Peel: is an improvement on the mess that was there previously. Jeni ( talk) 08:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. Following from the above, I'd like to propose that we use citation style 1 in this article, i.e. {{ cite web}} and similar, defined in the end {{ Reflist}} section, with inline ref tags to indicate where the references are used. I think this is more suited to this article than citation style 2 ({{ sfn}} and {{ citation}}) in the case of this article, for the following reasons:
Thoughts? If there is consensus that we should go back to using CS2 rather than using CS1, then I'm willing to spend the time to reformat it accordingly. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 19:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@
User:Jeni your revert of my recent edit was a clear violation of
WP:CITEVAR which starts "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." and continues " If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriaote for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page." So I am going to revert your revert, because there is no consensus on this talk page to alter the style from short citations. --
PBS (
talk) 21:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@
user:Mike Peel you clearly do not know what the difference is between CS1 and CS2 it has nothing to do with using {{
harv}}
templates it is the look of the output of the long citations. The first using {{
cite book}}
which uses the style CS1, the second using {{
Citation}}
which uses CS2, and a third using {{
cite book}}
but with the parameter mode=cs2
The major difference is in the default separator between elements in CS1 it is a full stop and in CS2 it is a comma. So why did you change from one formatted CS2 style to the other (CS1) for the long citaitons?
{{citation needed|date=June 2012}}
with {{fact|date=April 2016}}
makes it look like this is a new request not one that is four years old and that the sentence that is unsupported probably should be deleted.ref={{
harvid}}
-- there no reason to change from using short citations for that reason.-- PBS ( talk) 21:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
(cs2) or vice versa is a clear violation of CITEVAR. Changing from short in-line citations to long in-line citations is another clear violation of CITEVAR, but is not a change in the CS2 to CS1 (and has nothing to do with the mode). --
PBS (
talk) 20:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not fussed about the changes you have made to the short citations. The templates you used to make the text in the References section were designed to be used with <references/>
. It was never intended for the citations in a references section to be made smaller. The names "Notes" and "References" are the standard section names as described in
WP:CITE and
WP:Layout, Bibliography is undesirable for two reasons. Bibliography in biographies is unclear (and while this is not a biography, why use it when other names are available?). There are more than books in the References section, strictly speaking a bibliography contains book not other items so why use a section title that can be misunderstood. The section you called Citations does not contain citations it contains parts of citations, but they are all footnotes, so Notes is a more descriptive name. --
PBS (
talk) 08:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
There seem to be several different stories about what happened with the Dutch royal family during WW2. We've gone from "During the Second World War it housed the Dutch royal family, including Queen Juliana of the Netherlands, who were escaping the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands." (which I referenced to Peck 1996) to "There is, however, no evidence that the family ever stayed at Croome, preferring a London residence" ( this diff] by @ Kings Men) to "However, evidence shows that they stayed two weeks at the most, perhaps because of the noise and fear created by the proximity of Defford Aerodrome. They later emigrated to Canada." ( this diff by @ J Tovey) Does anyone (Kings Men?) have a copy of the Steward ref to check what was actually said there, and if the reference we have in the article now actually agrees with that? Are there better references we could use here that provide more definitive facts / records of stated opinions? Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 17:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Croome Court. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
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) 10:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)