Talk:Wythenshawe Hall

Recent fire

The fire needs to be mentioned.78.151.27.61 (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The fire is mentioned, it's just not given the prominence that you'd like. Eric Corbett 19:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The fire is a major issue. It will take at least two years for the hall to be repaired, I am told by an insider. The hall was very nearly totally destroyed; 10 minutes delay to the fire service and the place would have gone. Even as the situation stands: irreplaceable drawings on plaster on the upper floor have been destroyed.78.151.27.61 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree that the English Civil War had a more significant impact on the hall? You're simply pandering to recentism. Eric Corbett 19:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It can all be added if and when it happens. Hearsay is not a reliable source. I agree with its removal. J3Mrs (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

If and when it happens? It happened at 3.30 a.m. on the 15 March. Hearsay? This is fully reported by BBC on its news page. What on earth are you on about?? Wythenshawshank (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The fire did, but everything else is mere speculation and hearsay. Eric Corbett 19:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I was replying to the IP's "I am told by an insider.". Please keep up. J3Mrs (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Quite. And given Manchester City Council's obvious reluctance to spend money on the hall it's even possible that it may never be repaired . Eric Corbett 19:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I have also just removed it as it is already included in the article. Having it under a separate prominent heading is giving it undue weight. To the IP that compared it to Clandon Park - that has two solid paragraphs covering it, not just a few lines. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC) PS: Well, I thought I had but, as usual, the software said my edit was saved but seems to have conflicted. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm with the IP on this. The fire is a major event. It's a paragraph at least, very like a section with a heading, and definitely more than one sentence. Especially if the arson claim has substance. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, well, well Andy, you are full of surprises! Fancy you siding with the other party, when and where Eric is involved. FWIW, support its removal, also. Cassianto^Talk 21:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not with the IP, the claim is just that, a claim. Better to wait until a reliable source is available. J3Mrs (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh come on, I'm always ready to support Eric when he's right, but 7RR is 7RR. Or was He doesn't get to pick and choose when some policies apply to some editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh come on, you had no need to do that, it was obviously someone baiting Eric. I edit conflicted twice but whatever makes you feel important. J3Mrs (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

So when did 7RR become acceptable here? We have that as a policy because unless we all agree not to edit-war, then we have chaos. Whether an editor is "right" or not (and the case for removing this is a good one, I'd be happy with that as an outcome if there is general support for it) we have to stop this level of blatant EW from anyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I've never understood why editors watch others simply to run to the noticeboards. J3Mrs (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

How is another editor supposed to work with Eric when they have to observe 3RR and he doesn't? It makes it impossible to work. A week or so back I had this one, where another editor who's above the rules was using the same approach to 4RR, making it impossible to respond otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Eric is the easiest editor to work with if you are both working to improve the encyclopedia. If you aren't, I suppose he isn't, and that editor clearly wasn't. Just counting edits isn't always productive, and the reverting game is still going on. J3Mrs (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Follow the Sunbeam Tiger link I gave. Eric's idea of "constructive" is frequently at variance to some very constructive editors (even if not so in this case). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I cannot believe that that I have had to boot up my computer at this time of the evening to respond to this. J3Mrs really nails it - those of us who try to improve WP as an encyclopaedia all seem to be confused by this. Really ... what is the actual problem here? WP is not a news service. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus?

There isn't even a clear consensus on this. Instead of edit-warring, why not have a straw poll, with option 'A' - retaining the brief mention and option 'B' adding the specific paragraph? Then go from there. - ^theWOLFchild 22:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I beg to differ - there is a clear consensus among established editors. WP is an encyclopaedia not a news service. SagaciousPhil - Chat 23:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, it appears that in favour of the brief mention is;

1. Eric Corbett
2. J3Mrs
3. SagaciousPhil
4. Cassianto
5. --RexxS (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
6. – SchroCat (talk)
7. Johnuniq

And for the full paragraph;

1. Haldraper
2. Andy Dingley
3. Wythenshawshank
4. 78.151.27.61 (WP:IPHUMAN & WP:DBQ)
5. 91.125.110.180 (ditto)
6. 20.133.0.13 (ditto)
7. Wythy (ditto)
8. Mike Peel

Am I missing anyone? - ^theWOLFchild 01:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, conveniently, yourself. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: & @Bencherlite: - excuse me, but just out of curiosity... what is the "consensus" and "conflict of interest" you guys referred to in your 3RR and RPP comments? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 02:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Count me in for the full paragraph please. (I have added myself to the list.)Wythy (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. Please do it then. The fire needs more than a brief mention: Wythenshawe Hall has almost been lost for good.78.151.27.61 (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean. Are there presently sufficient reliable sources to justify this? I have no doubt that given time these may be forthcoming but surely it's better to wait until full details are available? SagaciousPhil - Chat 00:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

If you think the fire needs more than a brief mention, then please list the sources that you would use to write the extended content from. I've started you off:

1. "Fire destroys roof of historic Wythenshawe Hall in Manchester". BBC News. 15 March 2016.

Found any more yet? --RexxS (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Fire at Wythenshawe Hall in Manchester was 'arson'". BBC News Online. 16 March 2016.
• "Manchester Wythenshaw Hall fire: Arsonists 'lit several blazes'". BBC News Online. 18 March 2016.
• "Wythenshawe Hall fire was deliberately started in numerous places, say police". Manchester Evening News. 18 March 2016.
• "Wythenshawe Hall fire: Police say blaze at Tudor mansion was arson". The Telegraph. 16 March 2016.

Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

A local consensus (if one existed) cannot overrule WP:NOTNEWS. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That's only if NOTNEWS applies to that edit. Have we determined that? - ^theWOLFchild 06:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Umm, a recent news story is what NOTNEWS refers to. Something is not NOTNEWS when a secondary source presents information about the long-term significance of events in relation to the history of the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Aren't many (if not most) of our sources from news organizations? And isn't the impact of this fire going to have some long-term significance? Surely if some more sources were provided, this would satisfy the requirements you laid out? Anyway, I don't have stake here. I didn't edit the page and I didn't vote in the straw poll. If it's decided to go with the brief mention, that's fine with me. I just think that some of the responses to this were unusual and I (politely) wanted to know more... surely there's nothing with that? At the time, there didn't appear to be a clear consensus and I'm not sure what the COI is. And there's allegation of socking, but apparently no SPI and no CU blocks. Accusations of socking are usually taken seriously, no? Nothing I've done warrants any hostility and no one needs to be a dick about this. Let's just all chill. - ^theWOLFchild 11:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a full paragraph on this - things that should be mentioned right now but aren't are probably the time of the fire (which I added before but seems to have been removed); the lack of a sprinkler system; and the possibility that it was arson. Yes, the rest of the article needs expansion (the 'civil war' argument above), so let's do that as well (I was starting to do that, but then the argument about the fire paragraph put me off...). Some additional refs to the one Doug said above: BBC News (different article from above), MEN, Telegraph, and many more. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  I'd say that the whole article needs expanding, the architecture, history but more on the fire simply overwhelms what there is. Anybody willing? J3Mrs (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  You are right J3Mrs, the article needs to be expanded. Then the significance of the fire might be properly judged. I realise it's not as severe as the fire at Clandon Park, but I think the two are comparable. I made my edit in good faith and was then accused of "edit warring". What you say makes a lot of sense. At least you have the decency to be civil. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  As far as I am aware only one editor was not "civil" and that editor is blocked. Pity nobody was very interested before the fire. J3Mrs (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  Why don't you, WolfChild, undertake the restructure of this article? Or, with no pun intended, are you only here to stoke the fire? Cassianto^Talk 14:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  Are you always this angry, Cassianto? Seriously, it must be exhausting... - ^theWOLFchild 19:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  Who's angry? I'm merely asking you if you would be so kind as to undertake the renovations, as per J3Mrs' request. We're all here to improve things at the end of the day, no? Prove that you are also here to better the project rather than being a regular at the dramah boards. I notice Dingley has gone quite since the improvement request was made and his 3rr report was thrown out like the trash that it was. Cassianto^Talk 19:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  Why do I have to "prove" anything? Why don't you prove if you can post just one reply that isn't bitter, hostile and sarcastic? - ^theWOLFchild 21:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  And why don't you enlighten me as to where I have done this in this thread? Cassianto^Talk 21:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  First, why don't you explain to me what the "COI" was? Then explain what the "consensus" was based on? (not sure why this upsets you so much, that's all I'm asking). Then explain this, this and this. Seriously... calm down, already. I'm just asking a couple of simple questions. - ^theWOLFchild 21:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  1. It was not me who brought up the COI; 2. The consensus was, before we were besieged by socks, to omit the fire as NOTNEWS; 3. I was removing your NPA tag which you rudly inserted in the middle of another editor's comment. Now that's all been cleared up, why don't you work collaboratively with Mike in improving the article? Cassianto^Talk 22:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  @Thewolfchild: I'd like you to have a read of WP:TPG, particularly the bit that says "The purpose of an article's talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." It's not here for you to spend time (Personal attack removed) respected contributors, especially when they are making constructive suggestions about restructuring the article. Our article needs a lot more work on all of the sections, and this focus on one small part of its history is undue. Let's put some effort into searching for a broad range of sources. --RexxS (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  Perhaps you should read TPG, and WP:NPA while you're at it. I was simply asking a couple questions about consensus and COI in regard to this article. Issues that others raised, not me. Strange how no one has any answers, only defensive and hostile non-responses. But anyway, all of you have a nice day. - ^theWOLFchild 21:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  Yer, well I've read both of those top-to-bottom lots of times and you're still trolling. "simply asking a couple questions" my arse. You've been told clearly enough that if you want to see changes in the article, go do it yourself. --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

  sigh... I didn't say anything about "content", I asked about "consensus" and "COI"... why is it these words seem to be invisible? Anyways, please... continue showing us how well you know NPA while at the same time posting immature personal attacks. wolf 05:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Cassianto: there is no fire. It's a discussion.78.151.27.61 (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

A discussion? Really? Is "piss off twat-face, you miserable old scunner" your idea of a discussion then? Eric Corbett 14:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Eric is absolutely right. There is no place for such vile insulting language at Wikipedia. I'm sure he would never be rude to another editor in a discussion. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to log in, or is this your preferred modus operandi J3Mrs (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

IPs and logged in users are valid92.28.34.122 (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

When did this become about me 20.133.0.13, "you twat-face, you miserable old scunner"? Eric Corbett 22:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems I was wrong there, about the use of vile insulting language. Sorry to suggest you were right. But it's certainly not about you. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Moving on?

I've made a couple of edits to expand the article a bit, and improve its referencing. Would anyone be interested in continuing to expand it and add references? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk)

Unlikely in the present environment. Eric Corbett 22:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like Mike Peel has made a good start towards clean up & expansion. Along with blocks and page protection, there shouldn't be anymore disruption over the disputed content. There's noting preventing the article improvement from progressing. As for the talk page, I've seen all I need to see, and I'm taking it off my talk page. Hopefully that will quiet the angry, off-topic posts. - ^theWOLFchild 22:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, unlikely I think. But pigs may one day learn how to fly. Eric Corbett 23:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Well done, Mike Peel, for improving the article. Do you think the part about the 2016 fire should state it was arson? This seems simple factual detail. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Well done Mike Peel. Some on here are NOT trying to boost their ego, and you are one of them92.28.34.122 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Last Tatton owner?

The current ref says that Robert Henry Grenville Tatton was the last owner of the hall, but Manchester City Council seems to think it was Peter Tatton - see [1] and [2]. I'm not sure how to deal with this discrepancy in the article, any suggestion? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The current source, "Wythenshawe Hall and the Tatton Family", by Peter Riley, seems perfectly reliable. He has written widely on local history: [3] Why does the council have other ideas? The article on Robert Henry Grenville Tatton, which also uses Riley as its source, does mention Peter either. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)