Talk:Croome Court

Improve?

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)

@Kudpung: It's been quite a while since you left this comment, but I've just added a section/paragraph about the Croome collection. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Multiple issues

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)

Clearly there are some issues that need to be addressed. However, there are no grounds whatsoever for deleting this article. CiaranG (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Pirton Castle

Renovation work has taken place on Pirton, so this article is now out of date with regards to it being "sadly in need of urgent repair as it is being ravaged by thick ivy."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)

Improving Croome Park article

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Croome's article has had no improvements and it could have been deleted, and lots of the information was incorrect, out of date or not referenced!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))

Adjusting Croome Park's title

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)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 —

• The National Trust have rebranded the property to Croome to take into account they no longer own/manage just the Park, but now also the Court. This officially appears in the current member's handbook, NT website, welcome leaflet, property leaflet and onsite at Croome Amy Forster (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose since it is not clear that this is the primary topic. Move to Croome, Worcestershire
• Agreed! - Amy (Amy Forster (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Repairs

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)

Move to Croome Court

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)

WP:CITEVAR

@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)

I've reverted your revert, as I've significantly reworked the content of the article, and undoing those changes for a technical reason is not on. Rather than going into an edit war, could we talk about the reference style here first? I switched to this style of references as it's the standard way I've used here for a long time for references (see my other article contributions), and as I was checking through everything and re-referencing it it was easier for me to use this style than the existing one. We could go back to the sfn system, if that is the best way forward here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You should not be reverting reverts. You made made bold change they were reverted. We discuss it. "n. Rather than going into an edit war, could we talk about the reference style here first?" yes. There was no need to change the references style which used, {{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)

The change in referencing system wasn't meant as a WP:BOLD change - it was a change of convenience while I reworked the text of the article, and the text (and making sure that the text was referenced) was the focus of my edits. I tend to find that using inline references, with the references given in full at the bottom of an article (rather than including the full reference code inline in the text), is an efficient way of working. I have to confess that I'm not a big fan of the sfn system - it works well when the article is only referencing books where references are scattered across multiple distinct pages, but when there's a mix of web, new and text references it's a lot less efficient. It's also not a particularly common referencing format with the type of articles I've been contributing to over the years. But if there is a reason to keep that system of referencing here, then we could always go back to it (by changing the current version to use that format, *not* by reverting 4 days worth of content contributions) - could you (or others watching this talk page) expand on why you prefer it please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

For someone who has been editing as long as you have. Shame on you for not keeping to the spirit WP:BRD, which is there to specifically stop revert wars. Short citations keep the look of the text when edited similar to that when it is viewed. Now either revert you reverts while we discuss this further (if you are asking question in good faith), or convert the article back to the citation format that was in use before you made your changes -- you must be aware WP:CITEVAR is explicit on this point. BTW you have also changed the long citation style from CS2 to CS1 why? -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 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)

@Hchc2009: OK, I'll follow your suggestion and start that section later this eve (I don't have the time this morning). For now, let me point out that it should be straightforward to convert back to sfn from the current state, as most of the inline references use NameYear (or Name_Date) format, with the main reference at the bottom, so converting to sfn just requires in-place reformatting - not reverting. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I have made that change/refromat the citations without (yet) altering the text. Will you leave the citation style I have left? -- PBS (talk) 21:12, 7 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)

• Mike, Philip, I think it's a shame to see two stalwarts of Wikipedia - and admins to boot - arguing and reverting each other over a 'back-office' function such as the referencing system. WP:CITEVAR is quite clear but content is content and shouldn't be used as a tool to get one's own way. It's as silly as people reverting content over Engvar. IMO, time would be better spent finding references for the parts that are unsourced. It's not as if this article is going to be a GAC anytime soon.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Citation system

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:

1. CS2 works well when you're referencing a number of different pages in books. That isn't the case here: we only have a few books referenced at the moment, and we mostly use websites/booklets/news articles as references. CS1 and its variety of cite templates works better in this case, in my experience.
2. In a number of cases, the references used here are websites where we don't know the original date of publication, or they don't have specifically named authors, both of which CS2 need, but CS1 doesn't. This was resulting in some references being given as 'BBC staff' or 'English Heritage staff', which isn't necessary, and may not be accurate (e.g., if freelancers were used for the article)
3. CS2 is a 'two-click' reference system: you click on the inline ref, you end up at the 'notes' section, and then you click again to get to the actual reference. In contrast, CS1 is 'one-click'. So using CS1 will make the references easier for readers to access as they read the article.
4. The article has never used CS2 uniformly: when they were introduced, there were still several references that were effectively in CS1 style (see [1] refs 1, 2, 10), and references added since then were typically in CS1 style, indicating a general preference for using the CS1 style rather than CS2.

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)

My vote goes for what is there now, not the mess that was there previously. Jeni ^(talk) 20:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm relaxed either way. I prefer the established short citation approach myself, but as Mike's putting the effort into improving the article, I'm happy for that to be changed to the system he feels most comfortable editing with. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I now put I the effort to change them back, also the reason the citations were as they were is because I also put in a lot of effort improving the article back in 2012, and I do not see the change to a list-defined references as an improvement (see below). -- PBS (talk) 21:19, 7 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

1. Taylor, Alan; Smith, John (2009). "Malvern Hills". In Johnston, Tim (ed.). Heritage at Risk Register West Midlands 2009:Register of designated sites at risk in the West Midlands region in 2009. Sites are listed by local planning authority. English Heritage. p. 79.
2. Taylor, Alan; Smith, John (2009), "Malvern Hills", in Johnston, Tim (ed.), Heritage at Risk Register West Midlands 2009:Register of designated sites at risk in the West Midlands region in 2009. Sites are listed by local planning authority, English Heritage, p. 79
3. Taylor, Alan; Smith, John (2009), "Malvern Hills", in Johnston, Tim (ed.), Heritage at Risk Register West Midlands 2009:Register of designated sites at risk in the West Midlands region in 2009. Sites are listed by local planning authority, English Heritage, p. 79

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?

• list-defined references which you introduced are sub optimal because they are nasty and complicated, both for new editors to understand and for experienced editors to maintain. For example does one add a citation to the bottom of the list (although they support text is inserted into the middle of the article), or does one maintain the list in alphabetic order? What does one do to the list when a paragraph is moved from one section down to another? How does one deal with one book that is cited many times with different page numbers pages? etc etc!
• Page numbers granularity lost in inline citations, eg Brooks 2007 was granulated to the page replaced with 56-57.
• Previously citations embedded in the long citations like Brooks were courtesy linked to the page, the change in format style meant that they were linked to the title (which is misleadig).
• Replacement of {{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.
• If you do not like the use of "author=Name staff, then change it to use ref={{harvid}} -- there no reason to change from using short citations for that reason.

-- PBS (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, now I'm a bit confused by your position. Questions/responses are below:

1. With the cite book examples: I don't care which type of separator is used, and that's clearly not what we're arguing about here. So to be clear, what I was referring to as 'CS1' is the version used at [2], while 'CS2' refers to the version used at [3]. If that's not actually CS1 vs CS2, then please accept my apologies for misunderstanding, but the difference in citation systems in those versions is what this discussion is about - not about whether to use a full stop or a comma. (Also, if you look at the PDF then you'll see "Register of designated sites at risk in the West Midlands region in 2009. Sites are listed by local planning authority" isn't part of the title, it's a description of the PDF on the website - so it shouldn't be included in the reference here.)

   You may not care, but a lot of other people do. That is why the mode= parameter was introduced. changing all the citations from using {{cite book}} (cs1) to {{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)

   OK, I could work with {{citation}} templates in <ref> tags, if that would be a compromise here? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

2. List-defined references aren't "nasty and complicated". Perhaps it's because I'm used to using LaTeX along with BibTeX, but I find having brief inline references with the full reference defined at the end of the document is the easiest way to format them (ideally, the references would be in a proper database outside of the page content itself, but that's a problem for the future), and references inline with the text just make that text unusable when editing it. Yes, your style of referencing does that too - but if you delete the line giving the full reference at the bottom of the page, there's no warning that the references have been broken, whereas if you try to do that with the referencing style I was using then the software gives you a big red warning message saying, e.g., "Cite error: The named reference Telegraph_25Mar11 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." - which is very useful for page maintenance.

   Red warnings are given if you use (as I do) User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js see User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

   That's a useful work-around to know about, but it's not something that's built in - so it only works for those that know about it. Mike Peel (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

3. To answer your questions about the list-defined references: the ordering doesn't matter, so you can insert a new reference wherever you want in the list of references (mediawiki then shows them in the references section in the order they are used in the article). I tend to maintain the list in either chronological or alphabetical order, depending on what makes sense for the article, but it's easy enough to reorder them if need be. The case of referencing different page numbers is definitely the strength of your referencing system, however since we're only referencing a couple of pages in the book references used here I think those can just be merged into a page range or series of pages in one reference. (The exception being the Garret ref, where we're using the entire booklet as a ref - but that's a small booklet so I don't think we really need to give page numbers for that, as it's just too fine-grained.)

   You may think it too fine grained, but policy and guidance is clear pages ought to be give if possible. Also just because a Wikipedia page does not contain a reference to multiple pages from one source does not mean it will not in future. So using a citation format that does not easily accommodate such a reference is short cited. As to how easy to reformat them depends a lot on the names given. I have recently edited a page that used ref tags with name=A, name=B etc, it is not uncommon for inexperienced editors to order reference tags forgetting that they may be moved. Using short citations and an alphabetically ordered list is easy for new editors to understand with little explanation. -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

   OK, another compromise here might be to use page numbered refs with the full ref below where that makes sense, but use the references directly in <ref> tags where page numbers don't make sense (e.g., webpages). Would that be OK with you? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

4. The Brooks ref: why does it matter if we reference pages 56 and 57 separately, rather than just giving a page range? And with the link to the book/page: linking to the page means that the link is relatively hidden, as it is a small link at the end of the reference, right next to the big ISBN link. Linking a book from the title makes the existence of that link a lot more obvious, and it's a more natural place where people will look for that link.

   The link is a courtesy link and by that argument why bother to separate out chapterurl and url? Would would you do if the book had a Wikipedia article on the book. To what would you then link as it will throw an error if you include a url to a title with an internal link. Your suggestion can easily lead to inconsistencies, within the list. -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

   If the book had a Wikipedia article (or it's available on Wikisource), then yes that should be the link - and the url moved then to a page/chapter number. But where that's not the case, making the link more clearly visible makes sense to me. But I'm willing to let this one drop, as it's not a big issue. THanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

5. I agree with your point about replacing the citation needed tags with an updated date. The reason I did this was because the next stage of my contributions to this article was going to be looking for references for the rest of the unreferenced material, and either referencing it or removing it or moving it to this talk page for later referencing. E.g., see this edit, where I added a reference to some unreferenced info. I changed the format/date to a single one throughout the document simply to make it easier to search for what still needed references.

   You obviously do not know that AWB (and the bots that use it) automatically replaces "fact" and "cn" with "citation needed". It does this type of change for may maintenance citation temples. -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

   I didn't know that this was just AWB-specific (as opposed to pywikibots). I also didn't think that the new tags I was adding, and the redated tags, would be around long enough for this to be an issue - if we weren't having this debate, the references would have either been sorted out now, or the text moved to this talk page... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

6. I'll look into removing the flawed "Name staff" authorship in the article once we've decided which referencing system to use.

   You say its flawed, I disagree and it is useful to use an author's name else it is difficult to know where to place it in a list sorted by author and placing articles under "Anonymous" is less helpful to the reader. -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

7. Some practical questions about the change you made back to your preferred citation system: Why did you move several references into a 'Further reading' section? It looks like you've replaced them with 'British Listed Buildings' website again, which a) throws up an error message in the references section, and b) is pointless as BLB is essentially a mirror site for the Historic England database records, the main version of which is on Historic England's website. Also, why have some of the 'retrieved' / 'accessed on' dates been removed? And you seem to have added page numbers back for the Garret reference, which are now inaccurate as I've used it as a reference for information that's mentioned elsewhere in that leaflet.

   You can alter them to the others if you wish. I put back the other citation as it was faster when I was reverting the changes, but I used the new one, so it is clear how to link short citations to those that are currently in the Further reading section. Access dates are unnecessary if the book or article carried a date. Access dates are meant for webpages that have no dates (although they often carry them in their meta data even when the date is not displayed visually). See WP:CITEHOW for more details on this. PBS (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

8. I'm not sure how to go about editing the content of this article further until we've settled this discussion... so instead I'll probably spend some time sorting through the photos I took of the place when I visited it last week (which is what got me interested in contributing to this article) and getting them ready to add to the article once this has settled down...

   You do not have a consensus to change from short citation style. Besides you major argument that it was easier for you personally is now over as presumably you do not intend to make another large rearrangement. -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

   OK, but I'm also not sure that there's consensus to stick with the system you're advocating. I see that another reference has been added into the article by a different editor yesterday that doesn't follow your style of referencing, but would with the system I've been advocating. My next planned step for this article would be to focus on expanding the content significantly, and then looking into splitting it out into a series of articles (e.g., having a separate one on the park and its features) - this discussion is preventing me from doing that. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

can I interlace my reply under each of your bullet points? If not please convert them from "*" to "#" so that they are numbered for ease of reference.-- PBS (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I've numbered them too, go for whichever way of replying is easiest for you. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@PBS: I've finished sorting through all of my photos of Croome Court (all now on Commons), so I'd quite like to get back to expanding the content of the article now, but I don't want to do that before we resolve this discussion. Any chance of a reply soon, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I have not had time until now to reply, but I have done so now (see above). -- PBS (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@PBS: Thanks for the reply. I've suggested some compromises above, but if those aren't acceptable then I'm not sure how to proceed - perhaps mediation? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@PBS: As another compromise, I think this is a version that I could live with (see the diff for all changes). I've tried to make minimal changes from your reference setup to tidy it up, redo the reference content fixes I did before, and reformat it so that it looks reasonable. It's far from ideal - the two-click accessibility is still a big downside, and I'm really not a fan of the sfn template - but I think it's workable. I tried to do the two changes I thought might be most controversial at the end - removing meaningless locations in webpage refs, and restructuring the section headers - so that they are more easily revertable if they are controversial. However, I'm hoping that the new version is acceptable to you, and we can just move on. (Although, I would still like to see the two compromises I suggested above implemented, if possible...) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:11, 17 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)

OK. That doesn't particularly make sense to me ('Notes' section should be for text notes, not references, and not using small text in the main reference section isn't that common in the articles I've seen), but I'm not going to argue about this further for now, and will focus back on the content now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that your suggested difference between two types of footnotes may be on the names of the templates. -- Ref tag pairs create footnotes (while in-line bracketed short citations do not)

• What do you call the section if the ref tag pairs are used for a mixture of footnotes some that support citations and some that do not?
• What about quoted text with a bracketed citation in the footnote -- would you place that in the "Notes" section or the "Citations" section?
• If one is using short citations why place those in a "Citations" section" when they are only part of the citation?

It seems to me that all such issues can be sidestepped by simply placing them all in a Notes section.

What is the logic placing an alphabetic list of reliable sources used in what you like to call a "Bibliography" in a smaller font than the list of what may well be unreliable source in an external links section? -- as the size difference emphasises the potentially unreliable sources in the external links section -- PBS (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The stay of the Dutch royal family

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304135128/http://www.friendsofcroomepark.org.uk/No%2022%20Spring%202015.pdf to http://www.friendsofcroomepark.org.uk/No%2022%20Spring%202015.pdf

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).

• 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) 19:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

National Trust pilot

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)