Talk:Wyndcliffe Court

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture: Historic houses Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Article content[edit]

In response to an email received regarding recent changes to the article, which indicated that the changes were "made at the request of" the owners, I would say, firstly, that their contributions are most welcome. However, they do not have a veto on the article's content, any more than the subject of a biographical article has a veto over that article's content. Secondly, it would be worth reading our guidance on editing with a conflict of interest, which is here, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. The material regarding the court case accurately summarised the case and was sourced to the impeccable BAILLI website. In relation to the images in the Gallery, these can certainly be replaced if they are outdated, but it would be better not to remove them until replacements are available. I'd be pleased to offer further help/guidance as required. Just drop me a line here, or on my Talkpage. KJP1 (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Filming of BBC series[edit]

Wyndcliffe Court was used in 2018 for the filming of the BBC TV series The Victorian House of Arts and Crafts (broadcast in 2019). It's mentioned in this blog, and there's a reference to the filming in this agenda - but we could use a more reliable source. (Incidentally, Wyndcliffe Court is not a "Victorian House"...). Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even "Arts and Crafts" house is dubious for Wyndcliffe, as it's later than most people think and was too late for the involvement of most of the big names of that style. Even Gimson was dead by the time it was finished. Nor were the gardens designed by Gertrude Jekyll, as is often claimed.

Mostly though, the quality of the house depends on what type of rooftiles you're claiming would be adequate for it... Andy Dingley (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering when this would come up. Oddly, the series details don't specify the location, although it clearly is Wyndcliffe. The BBC2 blurb calls it a "late-1800s Victorian Arts & Crafts commune in the Welsh hills" - which is inaccurate in almost every detail! I've put in the Beeb, however, as it's probably better than nothing. Like Ghmrytle, I can't find anything else but two blogs, one with a COI and the other very opinionated. I've also trimmed the details a bit. KJP1 (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never believe anything you see on TV. Who were those "craftspeople" anyway? Had that younger guy, the "woodworker" ever done any woodturning before? Certainly not with a pole lathe! Andy Dingley (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content[edit]

MelStewWales, Tissington - Mel, welcome back to Wikipedia and Tissington, welcome. I thought it might help if I explained a little more about how Wikipedia works. A key point is that nobody owns any article on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Wikipedia works in a collaborative way. Thus, you can't make an arbitrary and unilateral decision that content is "no longer relevant" as Tissington did earlier. That's for the community to decide. If you want something removed, you should make the case for removal here, on the article's Talkpage. Secondly, you need to be careful of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you have an interest in the article subject in real life, e.g. you work for the owners or even if you are the owner, that doesn't give you any more rights over the article than anyone else. Indeed it imposes a particular obligation to edit in a careful and neutral way. If you just remove sourced content because you don't like it, you will likely see another editor put it back, as I will now do. You removed important, sourced details regarding the history of the house, and the recent court case. Both are entirely relevant to the overall history of the house. If you end up Wikipedia:Edit warring over this, rather than having a discussion, you could find your access is restricted. I hope this is helpful and would be pleased to advise further if you have any specific queries. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]