Talk:Warwick Castle

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Warwick Castle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. A well-written and well-sourced article which excellently covered all aspects of the topic. I conducted a copyedit of the article to address some minor problems and repetition, but in all other respects very nice. Happy to pass.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The trebuchet.

It currently says in the main article, that the Warwick trebuchet is designed to fire projectiles to a height of 25M. This is quite plainly incorrect. A trebuchet which itself is stated as being 18M tall will fire a projectile on a high trajectory - much higher than 25M. My guess (having watched it firing) would be nearer to 75M if not more. Perhaps someone could work out a proper height. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.170.240.10 (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the other statistics about the power of the trebuchet are uncited and inconsistent with the Trebuchet page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.178.127.204 (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

article mixes/confuses lives of two different Sir Fulke Greville's

The section '17th-century country house' mixes/confuses the lives of Sir Fulke Greville (the father) and his son Sir Fulke Greville later the Baron Brooke (the poet).

Sir Fulke (the father) was not given the castle. His son (the poet) was. Both father and son were knights in 1604.

The page for Fulke Greville, 1st Baron Brooke (the poet) is correct.

Reason for confusion: The poet should be referred to by his highest title.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Warwick Castle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1369

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Warwick Castle. 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/20131029203943/http://www.middelaldercentret.dk/ommiddelaldercentret/blider.html to http://www.middelaldercentret.dk/ommiddelaldercentret/blider.html

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) 12:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

New Infobox picture proposal

Proposed image

Current image

Hello, I want to proposed a new picture for the infobox of Warwick Castle. The image is a rated QI picture showing the whole side of the castle. I understand that the current one being used in the article is FP but I find factors that which I think could do with a better replacement.

Both pictures have good and not-so good factors. The current one has beautiful reflection of the River Avon and luscious green foliage but is quite sun drenched due to it being sunny at the time and it seem the details is more focused at the river and landscape rather then the castle itself. The one I'm proposing I find is more centred and shows more of the castle and nice composition, the factors which might turn users off is the lack of reflection of the River Avon and most of the foliage is less green and blooming. Another factor is the in-depth comparison of the two shows the proposed one has more details of the castle then the current one since it more in scope. Thoughts? --Vauxford (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the replacement is too dull, and as this is a featured article I restored my long-standing featured picture. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It might be a featured picture, doesn't mean a non FP picture can't be used on a featured article. I did this hefty proposal a month ago but nobody responded so I thought it was safe to do so. It be best to see what others have to say other then the authors of the photos in question. --Vauxford (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to wait to see if there are any other opinions on this. I will just confirm though, that the original picture is not "filtered" as you allege in your most recent edit remark, and the "brightness" is down to natural sunlight, and it is in this light I believe the castle looks at its best. Check out its FP review, and you'll see the verdict was unanimous and with no negative comments. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

DeFacto I don't mean it actually filtered, I mean it looks like it, I don't really know words to describe it right. Sorry if that sounded a tad rude. It nice it was taken during the sunshine but I think it a better view when it was taken when it was overcast. I did plan to get the photo promoted to FP but I held back thinking users wouldn't like it. --Vauxford (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

With no-one else getting involved, I've raised an RfC below to discuss this. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the lead photo

The consensus is to use c:File:Warwick Castle May 2016.jpg, the original image.

Cunard (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the long-standing lead photo a (featured picture on commons) have been changed? The images are shown and discussed in the section above. (Note that this is a featured article.) -- DeFacto (talk). 17:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I should have added, I am the author of the long-standing original image and Vauxford, the other editor involved in the discussion above, is the author of the image they replaced the original with. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• An RfC on this is overkill, but it is quite effective in getting attention. :-) Personally, I prefer File:Warwick Castle May 2016.jpg, as there was better weather when that photo was taken. But both photos are fantastic - thank you both for uploading them! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Prefer the long-standing image partly because minor preference is given to long-standing, but also because of slightly better framing and brighter aspect. Both photos are excellent, but the newer one has framing that gives intrusive opposite bank docks, and time passage has added intrusive picnic benches, signage, and newer riverside construction below the castle. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• I prefer the 2016 image as it has better framing and the castle looks better in the sunlight. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment It seem people prefer the previous one, I just thought it be a nice change. I am a little bias when it comes to weather since I don't really enjoy it when it sunny. Much prefer when it overcast. But also I don't want to think users are preferring the 2016 one because it FA. The photograph I took was mostly focused on the castle itself rather then the aesthetic of the reflection on the water, the signage and picnic table can't really be helped. --Vauxford (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• (via FRS) - I prefer the original image slightly, but I like both of them and believe that it is simply a matter of preference. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• I prefer the 2016 image because of weather and light.--Never Forget 2701 (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• The older, sunnier shot with less new crap constructed in the foreground. (In real life I prefer overcast/mild; in photos, sunny is better unless it's so bright as to wash out the colors.) --Orange Mike | Talk 12:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• As already mentioned, the difference isn't huge, but since this has reached the point of RfC, I prefer the original picture because of the brightness (and if the stereotype about the English weather is true, I imagine it's much more difficult to get a sunny day over there) and also because in the proposed pictures too many new constructions and additions are visible in the lower side of the picture, distracting from the castle in the background. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

As this has been untouched for 11 days, and the consensus seems clear, I've reinstated the long standing image. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Warwick wax churchill 117.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Murder of Fulke Greville, Lord Brooke

I have edited the paragraph dealing with the death of Greville. I was suspicious to read that his servant Haywood had been annoyed to have been left "only £8,000 in Greville's will". In 1628 this would have been an enormous figure that would have given a servant a very comfortable standard of living! I have checked the linked source in 'London Old and New' and found the source recounts the incident but makes no mention of any figure; it only states Greville had informed Haywood that he was omitted from mention in the will, which would have been more likely to raise such murderous ire. I have changed the detail accordingly.Cloptonson (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)