Jump to content

Talk:Auckland Castle

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Auckland Castle. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Auckland Castle. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Auckland Castle. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article may need update, re: use by the Diocese

[edit]

Is this still correct??

Description Despite the conservation work and its operation as a tourist attraction, the Castle is still a working episcopal palace and part of its Scotland Wing[20] serves as the administrative offices of the Durham Diocesan Board of Finance.[21]

On the Diocese Web site, the Finance person is listed as being located at Cuthbert House, Stonebridge, Durham . However, the Rt Revd Paul Butler, BISHOP OF DURHAM and Revd Canon Denise Dodd are listed as being located at The Bishop Of Durham's Office, Auckland Castle, Bishop Auckland. https://durhamdiocese.org/our-people/ and https://durhamdiocese.org/our-bishops/the-bishops-leadership-team/

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the comment about the board of finance as it is sourced to a deadlink. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Cheers, Peter K Burian (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dormskirk Please note that the citation for the blockquote is not the Castle Listing (Historic England) but the Park Listing web page. Would appreciate your correcting the citation.
Castle: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1196444/
Park: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1000727
Thanks, Peter K Burian (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a tourist attraction now

[edit]

Auckland Castle will re-open on Saturday, 2 November 2019.

Adult: £10 Concessions: £8 (over 60s, full-time students, unwaged) Under 16s: £3 Want to make the most of your visit? The Auckland Pass gives you access to Auckland Castle, Bishop Trevor Gallery, Mining Art Gallery and Auckland Tower. From Sunday, 3 November 2019, entry to the Bishop Trevor Gallery will be included with an Auckland Pass or Auckland Castle ticket. You will not be able to purchase a separate ticket for the gallery. Full details on our Tickets & Times page. https://www.aucklandproject.org/venues/auckland-castle/

https://www.aucklandproject.org/visit/tickets-and-times/

We will have a range of eateries on site, with something for everyone. From homemade cakes and sandwiches, to Spanish inspired dishes. Relax and enjoy a delicious meal with us. Browse our range of unique gifts and souvenirs, many of which are handmade by local artists and craftspeople. https://www.aucklandproject.org/eat-and-shop/

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bek's Chapel excavated

[edit]

Curiously enough I have come across the information on the excavation success of the remains of Bek's splendid chapel by an article cited on the French Google News page. I hope that very soon somebody more competent in the matter will incorporate these interesting developments into the present article... --Terminallyuncool2 (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. Bellowhead678 (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General work and chatting with A.D.Hope

[edit]

Hi @A.D.Hope,

Basically, I am thinking of changing the infobox to a historic building one as this will keep all the information and allow for listings etc. too.

I don't really follow the ruined castle argument. A ruined castle remains noticably a castle. A former bishop's palace... not so much. Even so, there comes the question when to draw the line. Knole is not even "former", and somehow Rose doesn't really strike me as one, even with its relatively recent sale. Even recent sale examples don't really strike one as obvious examples, unless near a cathedral. I think the topic of what to title it is a tough one... A lot of former bishop's palaces also with castle in the name seem to revert to being primarily called "Castle" after sale/change of use: see Rose Castle, Hartlebury Castle. I also don't really know if "bishop's palace" counts as a building type, which is why adding "Former" seemed to make sense if we are to keep the bishop's palace label (the only buildings maintaining that on here as far as I can see are still residences of their (arch)bishops).

Probably a bit early in the day to expect a response, but I have never actually been to Bishop Auckland and do not keep massive tabs on this building, so I am very open to there being a somewhat better reason. (For instance, off the top of my head I'm not even sure when it stopped actually being used by bishops.)

Ultimately, I finish by saying that I hope this isn't a discussion we have to have about any more of the current buildings in the future... Wells has always been mooted as next and that seems a pretty big hit to take. EPEAviator (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^Even non-recent sale... EPEAviator (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is tricky deciding what 'type' a building is, and I'm not sure if the category is even helpful in cases such as this. However, the main factors which sway me toward 'bishop's palace' are:
  • The castle still houses the bishop of Durham's office
  • It is described as a 'bishop's palace' by the Auckland Project, which currently owns the building.
  • The building has a throne room and a prominent chapel, which mark it out as a bishop's palace rather than a 'normal' country house or castle.
A.D.Hope (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A single room or two (I did consider the throne room) does not a building type make, however... a throne room itself is not an architectural difference from, say, a saloon. A prominent chapel is present at plenty of buildings which have either passed into non-ecclesiastical hands and stopped being called a palace, or country houses themselves, so I do not find this distinguishing. Similarly, description by a current owner is not the way to go about things.
I am somewhat convinced by the holding office at the building argument, but not to the extent that it is definitely a palace. As you say, it is tricky to define a category. A broader example ("castle", "country house", "manor house", ... (it is not the last one)) is easier to affix to such a building. I am going to remove the building type thing and it can just be included in the lead, which seems a lot better to convey the nuance. EPEAviator (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have beaten me to it. Great minds think alike. EPEAviator (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only just, and I was actually just coming here to update you. I did think the infobox wasn't quite right, and as you'd mentioned converting it I didn't see any harm in doing so – I hope you don't mind me stealing your idea! Given the new infobox template doesn't have a 'type' parameter that solves our 'bishop's palace' problem, I think. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a massive fan of the current image, EPEAviator; it's fairly low-res by today's standards, quite dark, and not all that well framed. Although the images of the chapel don't show the entire building they are better in photographic terms. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for an aerial image to be honest, but yeah I was just weighing up the whole chapel vs building thing myself.
Re: collapsing. Montacute House has been the standard I've followed, as I previously uncollapsed it and got it reversed by an Editor I respect & has decent experience. I don't really mind either way, and might follow that MOS in future (especially for larger articles where it feels more reasonable than for shorter ones when you could potentially have an infobox physically longer than the article itself). I won't open old wounds in detail, but I wandered unaware into what would seem to be quite an unresolved, passionate, and generally dormant debate about historic building infoboxes (and whether to have them and in what style) last summer. EPEAviator (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons is a wonderful resource, but sometimes it just doesn't quite have the image you're looking for. I do agree that an aerial one would be the best way of showing the site, but here we are.
I had no idea that The Great Historic Building Infobox Debate had happened (and part of me is quite glad). It possibly says something that, besides Montacute, I can't think of another example of a collapsed historic site infobox. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Auckland_Castle&oldid=1195736697"