Talk:A la Ronde

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Lowder Jnr[edit]

This magazine (1804?) [1] suggests that the younger John Lowder married Mary, second daughter of Charles D'Oyley of Gloucester. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps too trivial for this article. But it might be nice to know. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An "a" at Octagon?[edit]

Or "o": Octogon? :-o --Helium4 (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC) (two protons)[reply]

Which language would that be? CML? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Trust pilot[edit]

Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 September 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 19:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A La Ronde → A la Ronde – This how it is presented by the owner of the building, National Trust and how it is presented by Historic England in the Grade 1 listing Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose moving Jane and Mary Parminter into A la Ronde as there is considerable overlap between the two articles. @Martinevans123, KJP1, Rupples, and Jack1956: Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem as if the cousins main and perhaps only claim to fame/legacy is A la Ronde so yes a merged article looks a good idea. Rupples (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree A la Ronde is the primary topic, as a Grade I listed building. Looking at the Parminter article as it stands, there really is very little else other than A la Ronde and the Point of View Chapel. They were reasonably well-off; they did a Grand Tour (unusual for females of that date?); they had strong religious views (of a somewhat unusual type?); and they commissioned the house and the chapel. My only reservation is the already heavy imbalance against women in Wikipedia. As non-aristocratic women of their time, it's unusual that they had any independence/presence at all. Would it be worth flagging this proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red to get another perspective? KJP1 (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of Women in Red I think it would be a shame to delete the article as women are already underrepresented on Wikipedia. In addition, I think it has all the necessary requirements for a stand-alone article. Jack1956 (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it a stand-alone article? Their notabilty is due to A la Ronde and A Point in View. I appreciate the point about the lack of representation of women on Wikipedia, but I am not sure keeping such duplication for the sake of it is actually helpful. Possibly the answer is to remove the religious aspect, the chapel and almshouses, from the building article and use it to expand the article on the women. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No strong views. The situation is a bit like Ladies of Llangollen and Plas Newydd, or Anne Lister and Shibden? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I rather like the suggestion of taking the historical material about the women, using that to strengthen the article about them, and focussing the A la Ronde article on the architecture of the house, ideally with a bit of Pevsner. With a Main link back to the Parminters. Should we try that and review the outcomes? KJP1 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can give it a try Murgatroyd49 (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lajmmoore may also have a perspective, and possibly some useful additional sourcing/materials. I've put some possible sources on the Parminter Talkpage. KJP1 (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I learn that they are the first recorded women to have ascended Mont Buet, which definitely warrants a mention. KJP1 (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm convinced, I'll withdraw the merge proposal and look at adjusting the A la Ronde article appropriately. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the discussion, but I'm pleased with the outcome of the discussion. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Surprised this hasn't already been included in their article. Rupples (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is surprising. But something we can now correct. I'm glad we've got a consensus and thanks to Murgatroyd49 for agreeing to pick it up. I'd personally not worry too much about the guidebook edition - I'd be very surprised if the 2022 contains much new that isn't in the 2018. But if Lajmmore can look to get the latest one, any additional info. can be added subsequently. The other thing that Lajmmoore may be able to help with - I understand that one of the Parminters kept a journal of part of their Grand Tour. Was it ever published, even privately? Does A la Ronde hold a copy? A primary source to be sure, but with the potential for some material. KJP1 (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Lydia Inglis one from last year has 8 more pages. I assume a copy would be available from the property. Perhaps the Meller edition has been withdrawn? I was really only asking so that we add consistent page numbers. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can ask about this tomorrow. Lajmmoore (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guidebook[edit]

Which edition of the National Trust guidebook should be used as a main source? My copy by Hugh Meller was revised in 2008. It seems that Murgatroyd49 has a copy revised in 2018. Not sure there will be much difference between them. My copy has 32 pages. Here's a copy of the Meller 1991 edition online. But here's a copy by Lydia Inglis dated 2022. But neither offers any preview. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mine also has 32 pages, Probaby not a lot of difference Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's probably true. Are we meant to always try and use the most recent edition of a work? Perhaps Lajmmoore can offer some advice on that. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely changes woud be updates to the current situation, eg the video camera for the shell gallery, that's a leaflet inserted to my edition but possibly added to the main text in a revision. Mine has the same ISBN as the Meller 1991 (and presumaby also those in between). Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, mine is 978-1-84359-108-5. But I see the Lydia Inglis edition has 978-1-91247-133-1 and has 40 pages. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We use what we've got access to. If someone else has the Inglis edition they can update where appropriate. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123 & @Murgatroyd49 - thanks for tagging me in the discussion, I can ask if I can get access to the Inglis version. It might take a couple of weeks though. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123 & @Murgatroyd49 hello both! I've now got a physical copy of the guidebook Lajmmoore (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any major differences to the earlier edition? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Murgatroyd49 would you be able to email me at lucy.moore@nationaltrust.org.uk - thank you! Lajmmoore (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Murgatroyd49, Martinevans123 - Morning Murgatroyd, and Happy New Year. We're now almost in a position to close Part 1 (pages 1-1000) of the CCI. The only outstanding issue is A la Ronde. We know that the section on the Point-in-View chapel has issues and needs re-doing. My suggestion is that I trim it to the bare minimum - "The Parminters also built a chapel on the estate, named the Point-in-View. It has its own Grade I listing."{{NHLE|num=1164937|desc=The Point in View|grade=I|access-date=19 January 2024}} This will allow us to close up Part 1, and the section here can be rebuilt as and when people have time. Is that approach OK with you? KJP1 (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Many thanks.Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Trust pilot 2[edit]

Hello. I just added a couple of reference requests to indicate to new editors in training where a reference is missing. All part of WP:GLAM/National Trust Lajmmoore (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Hello! As part of this pilot a small and discrete number of images have been released by the National Trust, featuring A la Ronde, some of which are here. Please share your thoughts on the project talk page (see above). Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_la_Ronde&oldid=1207802225"