Talk:Usk Castle

Merge from Castle House, Usk

There is no independent existence between these two buildings. When first built, Castle House was the gatehouse of the castle. For the last century, the house has been a private dwelling and the castle a rather unorthodox garden to the house. We should merge, with a redir from Castle House, Usk so that it may be appropriately categorized, should there be any need for this, if their listed building status should perhaps indicate this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As Castle House is part of the castle I think it may as well be treated here. Another factor would be the article on the house isn't that long, so merging here wouldn't unbalance this article. Nev1 (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree. Firstly, the building has notability in its own right, as a Grade I listed building. Whilst the editor who suggested the merge may assert that the house enjoys no independent existance, both British Listed Buildings On-Line and the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales would appear to differ, as they both credit Castle House with fully independent Grade I listings, recorded as separate listings, quite independent of Usk Castle. Secondly, this article was created about 2 hours ago. I would suggest that a little time be given to see what other information may be added by editors more knowledgeable than I. I don't think there's any rush here - unless the editor suggesting the move is a little piqued! KJP1 (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The two listings aren't independent. They have different building IDs per Cadw, but they were granted on the same date and the listings themselves note the connection.

The only real question here is not the structure of the listed building database, but what gives the best structure to encyclopedia article(s). I can't see any use case where a reader would benefit from having two separate articles for coverage of a site with such a shared history. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The two listings are independent, as you acknowledge by noting their separate IDs. Reference Clytha Park and Clytha Castle. Both were also granted on the same date and both are connected. But they remain independent listings, as do those for Usk Castle and Castle House, Usk, however much you assert that they are not. KJP1 (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot depends on how well developed the articles are. As an example the article on the Tower of London is pretty well developed, but there's a separate article on the White Tower (the castle's central keep) as there was a lot more that could be said about it but there just wasn't room in the main article. There's a similar arrangement for Windsor Castle and St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. The story of the two buildings is obviously linked, but is there enough information available to treat them separately?

I don't disagree that the Castle House is notable. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Castle House had its own story to tell because of its use in the 18th and 19th centuries, but I'm wondering if since that article is only about 150 words long if we may as well have the information in this article and save the reader having to switch between the two. In fact as it currently stands there's a gap in the article right where the information about Castle House should go: right after the Civil War is mentioned. Nev1 (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm now edit-conflicting with Nev1 and he makes my point, although we disagree. The editor who suggested the move states that "the only real question here" is whether there should be one article or two. As an aside, the manner in which that editor decides that he will define the terms of the discussion is illuminating. But I immediately referenced Windsor Castle and St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle: two buildings with listings, history, geography and their very walls entwined - and two separate articles. The point regarding the length of the respective articles is very fair - but I would again suggest we see whether the Castle House article can develop, given that it's only existed for a few hours. Heavens, in the time we've spent on this debate, we could have created a new article! KJP1 (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I had not checked the history of the Castle House article and wasn't aware it was only a few hours old. I probably won't be around until Sunday but when I'm next online I'll take a look at the sources I have and see if I can expand this article. Things may become clearer if this article was in better shape. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Having now been taught how to create Re-direct pages, I could fold the Castle House article back in here, whilst retaining its separate Grade I listing, if that's the consensus view. That would ensure Castle House still appears in the Listing: Grade I listed buildings in Wales: Monmouthshire and in the Category:Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire, which was my objective when creating the page initially. That said, I'd still leave it a while to see if other editors can add material to Castle House. How long that should be, I've no idea. KJP1 (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, because as others have said, these buildings have separate listings and are both of the highest importance in their own right. Though the house may have a historic connection to the castle, it is no longer part of the castle (and a in fact a private residence, not a tourist attraction). There is enough to say about the house to warrant a separate article, in my view. After 4 years, shouldn't someone close this merger discussion? Sionk (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Closed. I think the last four years have shown the article stands on its own. Nev1 (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Mines or boilers?

Egg-ended boiler garden fountain

Egg-ended boiler garden gazebo

Andy Dingley - Without wishing to re-open a, best-forgotten, decade-old row, can I query the identification of these as egg-ended boilers? I think they are actually the two Elia naval mines identified by Coflein as dating from World War II and now disarmed and set on plinths as garden ornaments. That said, having looked at images of egg-end boilers, I can see how they may easily be confused. Thoughts? KJP1 (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC) KJP1 (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

No, the mines are maybe a hundred yards away, as gateposts [1]. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, many thanks. So the mines are much smaller. This, [2] does suggest that the garden is filled with all sorts of bric-a-brac, so perhaps two old boilers don't look out of place. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

You've not been? Just don't describe the chicken houses as "rockets". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

No - I lived close by for many years as a lad, but I have no recollection of it being open to visitors then. A pity, as I'd have liked to have seen it. KJP1 (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

References