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))

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))