Talk:Elsyng Palace

Merge

The simple reason is that this is part of Forty Hall.

Btw, another thing to be sorted out is the Elsyng palace needs the P capitalised, if that is its name. Simply south (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Support the merge, Forty Hall doesn't seem like it should be able to stand on its own. And I sorted the capitalising the P —αlεx•mullεr 13:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's only part of Forty Hall in the sense that the excavated archaeological remains of the former palace lie within the grounds of Forty Hall - as far as I am aware they don't really have any common history. What is wrong with (as at present) each article mentioning the other in passing? Both obviously need to be expanded beyond the stub stage.

I definitely disagree with the suggestion that Forty Hall does not justify a stand-alone article - or did you mean Elsyng? As noted in the stub Forty Hall is a Grade 1 listed building (a select category that includes the Tower of London and Windsor Castle), not far off 400 years old. Certainly one of the outstanding buildings in Enfield. It also has substantial grounds that include the winding course of a former section of the New River. Pterre (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I meant Elsyng Palace shouldn't be able to stand on its own. In any case, it just strikes me that they're about such similar things (what essentially comes down to two buildings on the same plot of land) that they shouldn't have an article each. Though I do see your point about it being a Grade 1 listed building, Pterre. —αlεx•mullεr 19:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the info from the sources provided, Forty Hall was part of the Elsyng estate (or built on) including the gardens. Maybe reverse? Also, I am not saying that either one are non-notable. I was suggesting it as both were short and part of the same history and once expanded they could be split again. Forty Hall could be part of the Elsyng Palace article. Simply south (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Defer. The apparent confusion in the current discussions about what is actually intended suggests it is too early to judge. Why not get the Forty Hall article to a reasonable state and then it would be easier to decide whether there is sufficient overlap to justify combining the articles, and if so what to call the combined article. Motmit (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. I'm planning to expand Forty Hall quite soon; I hope to get a decent photo on Friday, weather permitting, my only existing ones are against the sun - alternatively there are several fine but rather low res ones on geograph. If there is a merge I vote to make Elsyng a section in the history of Forty Hall rather than vice versa; it does not really make sense to make an extant and (in north London at least) well-known public building a footnote in the history of a long demolished and (outside archaeological circles) long-forgotten one. Pterre (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elsyng Palace. 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/20110726032118/http://www.enfarchsoc.org/elsyng0705.html to http://www.enfarchsoc.org/elsyng0705.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726032219/http://www.enfarchsoc.org/elsyng0704.html to http://www.enfarchsoc.org/elsyng0704.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)