Talk:Blenheim Palace: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:31, 6 April 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blenheim Palace article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

Blenheim Palace is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 8, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Architecture: Historic houses C‑class Top‑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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Top-importance).

England C‑class Top‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

World Heritage Sites C‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Historic sites C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Citation request removed

I've removed a request for citation from 2012 that was at the end of this sentence: "When Henrietta died, the title passed to Marlborough's grandson Charles Spencer, Earl of Sunderland, whose mother was Marlborough's second daughter Anne." The succession of the Dukes of Marlborough has been pretty well established in the last 300 years and I see no reason to call for a citation on it in an article on Blenheim. ~ Brother William (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree with you more. If someone is unhappy with that and the Marlborough succession, let them take it up with the College of Heralds. These days Wikipedia seems to be full of ridiculous people wanting cites for the blatantly obvious. Giano (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of "Blenheim"

The two pronunciations given were contradictory, so I added IPA and pronunciation respelling for the pronunciation given by the OED. The /ɪm/ ending was already reflected by the article and is the one I would hear locally near the house. I have also heard /əm/ elsewhere, possibly by analogy with places ending -ham. -moogsi^(blah) 20:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image size

The size of the top image's width, takes up over half the article's mainspace widith. Per MOS:IMAGES (yes, I know it's just a manual of style), we should reduce its size. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Life would be so simple if a single set of rules universally applied in all situations. Unfortunately, there is no such nirvana, and common sense is required. The current image is fine. Rather than suggesting the size be changed because the rules say so, please identify an actual problem with this article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image covers over half the width of the article. We're an encylopedia, not a photo album. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with subjective criteria like this, is that one man's (or woman's) photo album is another's well-illustrated article. Add to that that this article is about a palace and that it has to look, well, palatial, you get into conundrums of this type. Size does matter in this case. Palaces have to look big, so do their pictures. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of this page is to demonstrate and describe the architecture and history of the building. That architecture cannot be fully appreciated if readers are prevented from viewing that architecture in the simplest possible way - a detailed image that's easy to see. One wonders what sort of people invent these ridiculous rules, and what sort of people spend their lives trying to enforce them. Giano (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to reduce image's size = keep (500px) status-quo. I hear yas :) GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tenure

I may be wrong, but I believe that the Blenheim estate is unique in some way as to its tenure, possibly through some grant of Queen Anne's, and not ordinary freehold. If any legal expert can explicate this it would add interest to the article. Seadowns (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seadowns - I think you may be referring to Fact 13, here, [1] which is covered in The palace today section, here:

As of October 2016, the Marlboroughs still have to tender a copy of the French royal flag to the Monarch on the anniversary of the Battle of Blenheim as rent for the land that Blenheim Palace stands on.

KJP1 (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Blenheim Palace. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 05:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Monumental Country House"?

Both Chatsworth and Castle Howard (structures of comparable size and national importance) are simply described in the lede as 'Stately Homes'. Any particular reason for this specific description? Hanoi Road (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted - but I would be OK with the previous description if anyone has strong views. Dormskirk (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is describes as monumental because unlike all other “stately” homes it was built literally as a monument as well as a home. I believe this is unique in Britain. It is a designed monument and mausoleum to the 1st Duke and his military glories. The text does explain this. Giano (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair to me. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Building

Proposing to add the infobox building template to the page. It provides a great way of summarising the page in a couple of field. Smithr32 (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this was debated at length, albeit some time ago. I believe the position is broadly - infoboxes aren’t mandated and should be considered on an article-by-article basis. The consensus view here was not to include an IB. I’m not sure if anything has changed since the last discussion. I doubt very much the view of the main editor has, but am pinging him so we can find out, Giano. I appreciate the “Own” position, but believe that the views of the main editor/s should be a factor for consideration. Lastly, I’m aware of the dreadful time-sink these discussions have been, and continue to be, as well as the extraordinary acrimony they generate. Are there really no better ways we could collectively work to improve the encyclopaedia than to re-litigate this topic? I say this as one who has included infoboxes in every FA I’ve contributed to, but I am quite willing to accept that my personal preferences are not universally shared. KJP1 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 14:13, 6 April 2021 edit Smithr32 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 2,587 edits →‎Infobox Building: new section Tag: New topic ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:31, 6 April 2021 edit undo KJP1 (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 72,446 edits →‎Infobox Building: r Next edit →
Line 67:		Line 67:

	Proposing to add the infobox building template to the page. It provides a great way of summarising the page in a couple of field. [[User:Smithr32\|Smithr32]] ([[User talk:Smithr32\|talk]]) 14:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)		Proposing to add the infobox building template to the page. It provides a great way of summarising the page in a couple of field. [[User:Smithr32\|Smithr32]] ([[User talk:Smithr32\|talk]]) 14:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' - this was debated at length, albeit some time ago. I believe the position is broadly - infoboxes aren’t mandated and should be considered on an article-by-article basis. The consensus view here was not to include an IB. I’m not sure if anything has changed since the last discussion. I doubt very much the view of the main editor has, but am pinging him so we can find out, {{U\|Giano}}. I appreciate the “Own” position, but believe that the views of the main editor/s should be a factor for consideration. Lastly, I’m aware of the dreadful time-sink these discussions have been, and continue to be, as well as the extraordinary acrimony they generate. Are there really no better ways we could collectively work to improve the encyclopaedia than to re-litigate this topic? I say this as one who has included infoboxes in every FA I’ve contributed to, but I am quite willing to accept that my personal preferences are not universally shared. [[User:KJP1\|KJP1]] ([[User talk:KJP1\|talk]]) 17:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)