User talk:Lobsterthermidor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

File source problem with File:SapcotesImpalingDinham BamptonChurchDevon.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:SapcotesImpalingDinham BamptonChurchDevon.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's my own work, sections now completed, thanks. But as file now replaced by File:SapcoteImpalingDinhamBamptonChurchDevon.JPG(commons), please delete this old file anyway. Thanks. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC))

John II Hawley (d.1408)[edit]

We can't just add parts to a person's name! Have you seen any sources where this person is call "John II Hawley"? If not, he must be at John Hawley (!dab-phrase!), preferably something like (politician)... Dan BD 20:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

See his HoP biog at Woodger, L.S., biography of John Hawley (d.1408) published in History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1386-1421, ed. J.S. Roskell, L. Clark, C. Rawcliffe., 1993 where he is called "HAWLEY, John I (d.1408) of Dartmouth", which then proceeds to call him the son of "John Hawley of Dartmouth". The former's son is called "John II Hawley" in his own HoP biog at [1]. I don't think the terminology "The Elder" in preference to "I" and "The Younger" in preference to "II" is fixed in stone by any particular source, the main point is to distinguish them all effectively and accurately. On this basis the earliest recorded/prominent John Hawley (i.e. the father of John Hawley (d.1408)) should surely be called "John I", his son John II and his grandson John III? I don't think adding ordinal numbers is akin to adding parts to a person's name, as in the US where living people call themselves e.g. "Henry Ford III". It depends what angle you're looking at them from. The ordinal numbers I used refer to John Hawleys who were important persons in Dartmouth, not more narrowly to John Hawleys who have been MP's, as the History of Parliament article necessarily limits itself to, being only concerned with persons with parliamentary careers. At WP we'd still be interested in a person even if not an MP, thus if John III's son wasn't an MP but was an important landowner in Dartmouth, a wealthy merchant or perhaps Sheriff of Devon, I think we'd call him John IV in his own WP article, and if his son was an MP, we'd have to call him John V, whilst his HoP biog would probably call him John III, being only the third John Hawley to have been an MP. The most important distinguishing feature in the name, whatever ordinal number is used, is the date of death, which resolves any possible confusion, but ordinal numbers remove the need in an article to constantly repeat dates of death, and if clearly defined at the start of the article (i.e. "John II was the son of John I by his wife Mary Smith"), I suggest are useful in this context.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

John II Baring (1730-1816)[edit]

Hi Lobsterthermidor (love the name!)

I was wondering why you moved the page to John II Baring (1730-1816).

So far as I can see, either John Baring (1730-1816) or John II Baring would have been unambiguous, and this appears to be double-disambiguation. Have I missed something? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't really fault your argument, clearly I'm of the belt-and-braces persuasion. Thanks for having restored the deleted text too. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC))
Thanks for being so nice about it :)
There is a case for using the numeric dabs, but if so they should come after the name not in the middle of it. His name was not "John II Baring". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Compound vs. composition[edit]

Hi Lobsterthermidor, You recently added material related to the word compound to the disambiguation page composition. I would suggest that instead that material belongs on the disambiguation page compound, with a see-also link connecting the two. What do you think? Best, JBL (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I had considered that, but concluded that the two (or more) forms, derived from Latin 1st person present & supine, were inextricable (hence why I gave the parts of the Latin verb). For example a composition and compounding as used in Civil War fines, "he paid a composition" and "he compounded", which one would Composition (fine) go in, or in both? Ditto almost every other entry. I think it would be very messy. I did create an additional redirect here as Compounding (disambiguation), which should get any reader to this page. I have just realised too that Compound (disambiguation) also exists. Certainly some form of rationalisation is needed, I would suggest a consolidation into one, allowing use of any form derived from pono, but you may well disagree. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC))
Surely the right form of rationalization is by the corresponding English word, which is both a finer (and therefore easier to navigate) disambiguation, and also corresponds with how people will come to the pages. Composition (fine) should obviously be on the disambiguation page composition. If you believe that a reader might come to the page compound while looking for composition (fine), there is no reason it can't go there, too. (I have just been reading WP:DPAGE, which provides some guidance.) I am going to make the edits I have proposed. --JBL (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe that all the links disambiguated on composition with the word "compound" in their titles already appear in the disambiguation page compound, unless I have missed something. --JBL (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, That seems to make sense.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC))

Devon houses[edit]

Hi, can you add all of your entries to List of country houses in the United Kingdom? Trying to make it as comprehensive as possible so all of your great Devon entries will help! You might also use Category:Country houses in Devon. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't Category:Country houses in Devon be a sub-category of List of country houses in the United Kingdom? Would you still want duplicate entries? I have 2 main problems with your request: firstly that the articles I contribute in this area are intended to be primarily about the estate or manor, not just about the building, which takes various forms over time, sometimes has been demolished. I have had problems in the past with other contributors attempting to convert such contributions into narrow architectural articles, hence my reluctance to categorise them as "houses". There is also the problem of determining what constitutes a "country house", generally quite a grand building, whilst many of my contribs. concern now quite modest farmhouses with grander pasts. I have made use of these cats where obviously appropriate and will try to use them in future. Thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC))


Thank you for this edit. I hope you will not think it churlish of me to point out a couple of things.

You linked to the word delinquent which is a dab page, and while one can link to dab pages the damb bot will tell you that you have done so and like a faithful dog wait for you to throw the stick and fix it. If you do not "fix it" yourself, sooner or later someone else will. I have altered the link to wikt:delinquent which is often a better alternative for words like that.

The second one is that you have added some inline citations to sources that just consist of bare URLs. They look ugly (particularly is someone prints a hard copy) and they are more difficult to fix when they suffer link rot (See WP:CITE#Generally considered helpful).

I was going to fixed them but I thought I could introduce you to this nifty tool and let you have a go.

It is not perfect and if the link to to a google book a better tool to use is:

-- PBS (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Improper page moves[edit]

Hello, I've noticed that you've made several improper page moves. For example you recently moved Compounding to Compounding (pharmaceuticals). However, a primary topic (e.g. compounding) should never be a redirect; it should either be a full article or a disambiguation page, and there is absolutely no reason to have it redirect to a parenthetical title. Graham87 09:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why the pharmaceutical use of the term compounding is deemed the "primary topic". Why is not, for example, its use in the field of finance? To have an article entirely about pharmaceutical matters with the simple title "Compounding" appears to put that usage at the top of the indexing tree, which is surely a matter of judgement. Am I mis-understanding something?(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC))
Consensus for whether a title should or should not be a primary topic should be made at requested moves. What was really weird by Wikipedia standards was having the title "Compounding" redirect to a single use of the term; the title "Compounding" should either contain an actual article or a disambiguation page (I have no opinion about which one), not a redirect. Graham87 15:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're probably right on that, see the discussion above headed Compound vs. composition, where I conceded the point you make.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC))

Merryfield, Ilton & Hoskins, p.422[edit]

Thanks for creating Merryfield, Ilton, but you added a reference to "Hoskins, p.422" without giving further details - could you give the title, publisher, isbn etc?— Rod talk 21:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. I don't generally supply pub & isbn when working from old editions, here 1959, now only available from 2nd hand bookshops, so isbn & pub not relevant in helping reader find it. This book is available in in-print paperback, so that info could be added by someone if they feel inclined. Thanks for your additions too.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC))

Orchard Wyndham, Wyndham holdings & Brean Down[edit]

Hi, I noticed in the list of historic estates you added to Orchard Wyndham a mention of Brean Down - do you have any dates for when they owned it?— Rod talk 10:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No idea, the current WP article makes no mention, but I refer you to my source: National Archives, Family and Estate Details, Wyndham family of Orchard Wyndham, GB/NNAF/F89128 Here. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)). By the way, thanks for having created the article, I hadn't noticed!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC))

Earl of Westmorland[edit]

With this edit (7 March 2012 ) you cited "Debrett's Peerage, 1968" I am having difficulty clearly identifying the book. Please provide some more information. The full title and the location of publication is the minim needed, but in addition editor and the publisher would be help. -- PBS (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Montague-Smith, P.W. (ed.), Debrett's Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage and Companionage, Kelly's Directories Ltd, Kingston-upon-Thames, 1968. Now added to edit cited. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC))

Holnicote Estate[edit]

Thanks for all your work on Holnicote Estate. As each of the references is being reused several times how would you feel about me converting it to Template:Sfn? and I will try to add some more content as well - maybe this could get to GA standard eventually?— Rod talk 11:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input too, esp. the excellent image of the monument, delivered at precisely the right time and place! Thanks for asking, I loathe refs being converted into shortened form from basic text as I frequently reuse sources in different related articles, complete with refs. When these are unintelligible and scrambled, it all has to be re-deciphered and done again in the new article. Very time-consuming and annoying. I can't see the point myself. It makes editing un-user-friendly. Fine for an article which has been totally finished, as a final tidy up, but WP articles tend to remain dynamic. I do tend to try to shorten refs myself, where already quoted in full or stated in sources section, to something like: "Smith, 1996, p.23" which means more than some ref in unintelligible code. That's my personal view of course. So if I have a choice, I'd prefer not, esp as the group of articles are still developing and thus I frequently use same refs. More content great. As for GA status, I'm not a fan. It tends to fossilise articles and involves people often with little interest in the subject itself but with more interest in the minor details, which makes further development difficult. I've seen many GA articles which frankly are pretty poor and could do with a total re-write, which is by then impossible due to the bureaucratic hurdles of GA status. Again, purely my own personal opinion.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC))
OK I'll leave the refs for now, maybe once you have "finished" we can look again as I find sfn & similar make it easier for the reader if a book has been used multiple times, although I accept your comment tha it may make it more difficult for the editor(s). BTW I have access to The British Newspaper Archive though wikipedia library & just did a search for holnicote so have lots more sources for events including the sale of the property etc which I will get around to at some point. GA article can always still be edited (including radically if needed), but I see your point. One of my projects at the moment (well a year or two) is to get all 37 National Trust properties in Somerset to GA (see User:Rodw#Personal to do list (help welcome)) so if there are any others on that list (or the EH ones) you are/might be working on let me know & I will leave them alone.— Rod talk 12:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC) I've made a start on one of your red links Petherton Park - hope this is helpful.— Rod talk 20:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Great, very helpful, thanks. Petherton Park looks like an interesting topic, which I've come across several times, not just due to Acland/Wroth involvement but due to its ancient holders who seem to have held it due to their post as royal foresters of Petherton Park, (i.e. Jollenus Dacus), but that's all I know.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC))
Would you be happy for me to reformat the references on the Holnicote Estate article now?— Rod talk 13:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Still not finished, lots more info needed on mediaeval estate & surviving gateway etc, but you've been patient enough so go ahead if you want. Thanks a lot.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC))
Thanks - making a start. Can I just clarify is "Vivian, Lt.Col. J.L., (Ed.) The Visitation of the County of Devon: Comprising the Heralds' Visitations of 1531, 1564 & 1620, Exeter, 1895, p.554, pedigree of Martyn" The same as this 2012 book which doesn't give Vivian as the author?— Rod talk 17:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Also ref 24 points to this page of Geograph This is user generated content with little or no editorial control (so maybe not RS). Its probably OK to support a claim about the window but doesn't really support everything in the picture caption.— Rod talk 17:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Re Vivian, yes the publication you refer to is the same, but this undated USA photo-reprint (that's all it is) has mangled the publisher details. It's not a new edition. The original was not published by the College of Arms (whose officers did carry out the actual 16th/17th c. visitations), but by the Harleian Society. The ref I usually give for this source which you quote above is taken from the title page of the 1895 Harleian Society book. The photo-reprint (Nabu Public Domain Reprints) did not reproduce the title page, intro, preface etc. and in fact thus omits any mention of Vivian! Re geograph used as source for caption of Lynch Chapel window (date of restoration & patron), good point, have now added the actual source used, quoting from Pevsner, but can't supply the page no. I'm afraid. Thanks for your input.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC))
OK I will try to put the Vivian ref together from what you've given me. My old (1958) copy of Pevsner S&W Somerset (p227) has info on the chapel at Lynch & says the window was renewed in 1885 but doesn't mentionThomas Dyke Acland.— Rod talk 18:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Think I've got the Vivian one - what does (pedigree of Martyn) mean? Isn't that sub section about the Martyns— Rod talk 18:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
PK I think I can help with ref 25. I would cite it to the EHR page where you read it. Looking at that page Pevsner p227 is there but the bit you've quoted is from (their ref 19) BOSSINGTON & WEST LYNCH CONSERVATION AREA CHARACTER APPRAISAL so we can use that as a ref if better.— Rod talk 19:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The Lynch Chapel source is a bit of a mess, my fault. I hope to add an article on the building itself at some point, possibly part of one on Bossington. The stained glass is quite interesting. The framed info-sheet in the porch of the chapel states restoration in 1880's by Sir Thomas Acland. My identification of the correct baronet of this name per life dates, as several were called Thomas. (see Acland Baronets). He was definitely the patron and owner of this chapel. I'd rather use Pevsner as source, seems more solid, than the one, but if your're happy with the latter, fine. Re Vivian, it's basically a list of pedigrees, each family occupying a few pages, in alphabetical order. Martyn refers the reader to the section on that family.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC))
I've used all 3 refs as they all support slightly different bits. I removed (pedigree of Martyn) as the page number is given.— Rod talk 19:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Henry Bourchier, 5th Earl of Bath[edit]

In May this year you added information to Henry Bourchier, 5th Earl of Bath (diff) during which you added short citations to Andriette, and Pevsner. Unfortunately there are no long citations in the References section to give full bibliographic details. Please add a long citations to the References section. -- PBS (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Done, sorry for the oversight.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC))
Thank you for your very quick response, however because you have not put the title in italics, I can not tell if "Newton Abbot" is the location of the publisher, part of the title or a "chapter" in the book. please could you alter the citation to make that clear and then I will take care of formatting it using templates (I a more familiar with the Pevsner citation as I used a sister volume for Westwood House). -- PBS (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Done, hope that's clearer, Newton Abbot is place where published. Westwood House, interesting, hadn't heard of it.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC))
Thanks, no reason why you should have heard of Westwood House (with over 4 million articles to read!). A detail I like, and added to the article, is that the much more famous Chateau Impney may have been built as a two fingered political and social salute between new industrial money and an old aristocratic family. -- PBS (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Hadn't heard of that either, somewhat hideous!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC))

Category:Quantified human groups[edit]

Category:Quantified human groups, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SFB 15:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, have added my comment there.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC))

Merger discussion for Fee tail[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Fee tail, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article does not seem to be about a notable topic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Knight of the Body[edit]

Please see Talk:Esquire of the Body#Knight of the Body -- PBS (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added my remarks on that page.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC))

Battle of Clyst Heath (1455)[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Battle of Clyst Heath (1455), and it appears to include material copied directly from

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Work in public domain, out of copyright, please see Talk:Battle of Clyst Heath (1455).(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC))