Talk:Bramshill House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Bramshill House is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 9, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
February 28, 2015 Featured article candidate Promoted
Did You Know
Current status: Featured article

Proposed merge[edit]

Very bad idea. The Police Staff College is an institution (is this the same as or only part of the Central Police Training and Development Authority?) and Bramshill House is an historic house. The college is housed in more than just the house and the house has a history much more extensive than that of the college. Verica Atrebatum 09:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The grade I listed house and the college are both notable in their own right, but for completely different reasons. I will remove the merge notice. Casperonline 13:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reported hauntings[edit]

Bramshill is well known as a reputedly haunted house. The ghosts/hauntings may or may not be 'rubbish'. This is down to your point of view, a disussion which has no place here. Hence the use of 'reported' and 'reputed'. However, the fact that the ghost sitings/hauntings have been reported is itself of note, particularly those with a basis in legend. Although the sitings themselves eventually become part of folklore. The source quoted is not 'questionable' as defined at Wikipedia:Verifiability:
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources."
This aspect of Bramshill should, perhaps, not be given too much emphasis, but a short paragraph, particularly including a link to the Legend of the Mistletoe Bough page, is certainly appropriate and ensures the entry does not become un-encyclopaedic. Without links from its supposed locations, the Mistletoe Bough page would be in danger of beoming orphaned. Walgamanus (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The only way you can use such dubious material is to include qualifying phrases like "some people think", "it has been said" or "Reported" WP:AWT suggests you need rather more than this. You are not dealing in facts but folklore, superstition and rumor. I'm more than happy to see seperate pages about these stories, but such claims do not belong on a factual page about the house unless they are supported by fact. WP:REDFLAG points out that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, it is not POV to say that factual Ghosts are exceptional. Does Ghosts of Hampshire & the Isle of Wight include citations and references for the source of its claims? As for the "Legend of the Mistletoe Bough", once the song became popular in the Victorian era every large old house in the country laid claim to its being the "true" location. If you can find any reference that connects this "legend" to Bramshill which pre-dates the publication of the song then it might be worth including. Mighty Antar (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work[edit]

There's a lot of good happening here and I don't want to interfere and edit, but one of two small nitpicks

  • "The southern facade is unique" What's unique about it? Other than it's not exactly reproduced elsewhere (which you could say about almost any house large or small anywhere) I can think of several other houses of this era which are similar.  Giano  18:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Giano, that's for you to fill in. In all honesty, I wanted to put some meat on the skinny bones of the lede, and did so by grabbing a few phrases from the article. This one is from Pevsner, which I don't have access to so I can't elaborate. I am perfectly happy for that to be tweaked unrecognizably. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Yngvadottir, you added that--do you have access? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Just checked and no, the local university library that I will be pillaging tomorrow doesn't have that volume, so I've interlibrary loaned it from Fresno, which unfortunately means waiting for the postal snail. But the uniqueness came up on Google snippet view. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Can you check the source of this: "was executed by German builders" - I would have thought they would have been Flemish or Dutch - was Germany even invented then?  Giano  17:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Richard Unger in an article in "History Today" refers to German shipbuilders of the C15, as distinct from Dutch shipbuilders. The same source appears to refer to Italian builders leaving hastily after the accession of Elizabeth, but doesn't give a reason. Any idea? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I assume that the Italians were Catholics who prospered under Mary I, but were afraid of persecution under the Protestant Elizabeth I. However the Italian/Renaissance influence began during the reign of the notoriously protestant Henry VIII, so I don't know why they were afraid of the more tolerant Elizabeth I. I would put money on the builders being Dutch of Flemish, but if the reff says German, I suppose German it must remain.  Giano  12:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Giano--"By the end of Mary's reign, in 1558, nearly all the Italians had left England, and the accession of Elizabeth I, who, at first secretly, and after her rupture with Rome openly, shewed her sympathy with the Protestant cause, was the signal for the appearance in England of many foreigners from Germany and Holland.... [some remarks on where Dutch and German workers were active)...Bramshill and Longford Castle are examples of German work in England..." The text distinguishes in the elided passage between Dutch and German artisans, so I don't think the author was, for instance, confused. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Wide Awake[edit]

The source is segment VIII, "Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales", of a serialised book by Rose G. Kingsley: The Children of Westminster Abbey. The entire book is OCLC 65537506. The index listing can be found on page ix at the start of the bound volume of Wide Awake - I searched Rose G. Kingsley. Judging by the OCLC listing, Kingsley should be credited as sole author of the contribution, the others presumably being editors of the periodical. This is a good illustration of the kind of situation that makes me prefer not to use citation templates, but it's clearly a case of contribution within a periodical, the challenge being to get the eventual book's title in there. (And find the possible bound-in second title page with the date of the appropriate segment, but I believe the date preceding that table of contents applies.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Yngvadottir, for your excellent snooping. You know what's funny? Leaf through that magazine, and check out the quiz question on American and English literature. None of your sophomore students could answer a single one of them. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • BTW, if the situation is as you describe, it's easy to shift to the book template if those original page numbers and the title can be found--but as it is, I don't think it's wrong to cite it as (in the words of the MLA) a piece in an edited collection. But I'll leave that to you--we got to hammer out the format anyway. Eric's format (The Coral Island) would be fine with me, though I personally prefer to have notes and a separate bibliography that includes (MLA Works Cited style) all sources, without distinguishing between articles, websites, books, etc. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Heh, you are undoubtedly right - if I still had students '-) I think we are honour-bound to cite the version we can access, particularly since it may have undergone editing ... but I have often needed to say stuff like "the text was edited in translation" and "the 3rd ed. is an unchanged reprint of the 2nd". By the way, yes, the author was Charles Kingsley's daughter. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bramshill House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Beginning first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Review[edit]

I don't think this is going to be difficult. In truth, the article seems to me of Featured Article quality, let alone Good Article, and I shall have no problem in confirming that it meets all the GA criteria. The two black and white Country Life 1923 images might, I suspect, attract flak at FAC, but they're in Commons, which is good enough for me here.

Before I cut the ribbon I offer you a few minor quibbles and queries. None are important enough to affect GA status, but you might like to ponder:

  • General
    • Monarchs: you sometimes pipe their titles (Queen Elizabeth I et al) and sometimes don't (e.g. King Charles I). I think you could follow your own lead ("…the 14-year-old Edward III…) and lose the "King" or "Queen" altogether in most places, though possibly not for the Romanians.
  • Lead
    • "Listing/listed" – move link up to first mention?
  • Modern times
    • Last sentence: WP:CLAIM – it does rather look as though you doubt the Home Office's statement.
  • Exterior
    • "the late art connoisseur" – not clear why Blunt is "the late", being no deader than Lees-Milne, Lucas-Tooth and others. Also not clear why Lucas-Tooth's opinion is notable.
    • "…traditionally attributed to architect John Thorpe …" – Two points here. Without a definite article this is tabloidese ("Premier David Cameron…"). Secondly, it could do with a citation.
    • "Bramshill House is three storeys high …" – Three "and"s in this sentence. Rather too many?
  • South
    • "Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian orders" – blue links wanted?
    • "a florid perforated pediment in strapwork" – I can do "florid" and "perforated" and can take a confident shot at "pediment", but "strapwork" has me hailing the coastguard. A link or footnote would be welcome.
    • "architectural fore-ground" – unusual hyphen.
    • "a three feet three inch high – I get in a tangle with hyphens, and I don't pose as an expert, but they seem lacking here. Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
  • North
    • "widely spaced bays" – ditto.
  • East and west
    • "octagonal in shape" – "in shape" seems unneeded.
    • "supported by columns" – not clear if this is the one or all three.
  • Grounds and garden
    • "The grounds form part …. there are more than 60 words in this sentence, and I got lost mid-way and had to start again. Could you break it up?
    • "The fir trees on the grounds" – "on" seems odd. Perhaps "in"?
  • Legends
    • "An alternative theory – "theory" seems rather a dignified word for a cock-and-bull tale. Perhaps just "story"?

Those are my few quibbles. Nothing to frighten the horses. Over to you. I shan't bother putting the article on hold. – Tim riley (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou for the prompt review, I've addressed your points. Yes, Eric has very high standards for GAs which is a good thing as it often means they're on course for FA! I'm glad I waited on this. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

One or two things remain that I might mildly quibble at if the article comes to FAC, but no question about its GA credentials. Tim riley (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

GA[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

As I suspected, an easy task for the reviewer. Nothing borderline about this article. It gives me much pleasure to promote it. Tim riley (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much Tim. As you say, it still needs a bit of polishing before it's ready for FAC, so we won't be rushing off there. Eric Corbett 17:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it isn't quite ready for FAC yet but clearly has potential, and hopefully Yngva can find some more details over the next few weeks. Thanks for the review Tim!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

EL to the estate agent[edit]

I added an External Link to the estate agent handling the sale, Knight Frank—more specifically, to the page on their website that gives details about the property: Bramshill, Bramshill, Hook, Hampshire, RG27 UK. I was reverted by another IP on the grounds that it was "spam". I put the link back because of the info it has about the property, with lots of photos. When you open the link, you can also download a 40-page pdf brochure that contains a wealth of information about the property. I'd like to hear opinions from other interested parties on whether the EL should stay or go. I will abide by the consensus here. Thanks. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I personally don't have much of a problem with it. It will be hard to argue that such a link for a 25 million-pound mansion is spam--by its very definition, spam should appeal to the masses. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

The flurry of recent edits is something to cheer about, but also presents some issues. Theramin, while we thank you for this edit, you also introduce a lot of unverified material and a ton of bare URLs in place of proper references. I urge contributors to honor what we're trying to do here, which is present properly verified material in a consistent format. Cleanup afterward is possible, but it's a drag. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect the source for much of that is the 40-page brochure, which I couldn't resist downloading. The park also being listed caught my eye, too. Hopefully that can be verified at English Heritage. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
There's a bunch of EH links in there; I templated them yesterday (hope I got them all). BTW, the above link discussion needs to take into account that the Knight Frank link is now also used as a reference. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Is what's being referenced there the brochure? If so, it's not the same thing as the external link. Further to sources, now that I have both Pevsner and Cope right here .... the copy of Pevsner I'm using is the 1967, but reprinted in 1973. Do the dates need to be changed for those references, presumably using origyear? Also the Cope book has no date on it that I can find, so 1883 is someone's inspired guess. Should this be indicated? Also also, User:Tibetan Prayer originally suggested scanning in illustrations from the Cope book. I find 3 photos, 2 façades and one a closer view of the garden terrace, plus several plans and some drawings. I could scan these and upload them with someone's assistance but before I attempt it, would like to be sure it would not violate copyright, since we now have quite a few images, including the Country Life ones which I had assumed were copyrighted. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
1883 is more than an inspired guess.[1] Eric Corbett 21:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, Yng, ask Jmabel or Calliopjen1. It is 1883 the Cope book (I saw it in google books I think)? Easily PD but you may want to check with them. Look forward to seeing your work on this!!Tibetan Prayer 21:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Google Books draws on databases such as OCLC for publication dates, and I've known them to often be wrong - they had the wrong year for the Cox book, for example. I can't find any date actually in the book (although the copy is inscribed April 15th 1883, so we have a terminus ad quem) and the librarian who reported OCLC 7444327 marked it as a guess. What does the British Library say? However, I don't think the exact date is a major point - it's just that the templated citation formats make it one of the 2 points of identification. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The British Library also says 1883.[2] Eric Corbett 21:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd wikilink "English bond" except I don't know where in the Brickwork article it should be linked to. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
What about English bond? Eric Corbett 15:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, done that. I got confused by all the different varieties. The photo of the arcaded opening seems to show some pretty random brickwork. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Photos[edit]

I am hanging back from editing as there are a lot of editors currently doing good thing and I don't like interfering with work in progress; however, the images look very cluttered and, in my view, probably a few want pruning out - for instance; is there a need for two near identical images of the south front (one in lead and one further down)? There's also a third image of that facade in what appears to be a picture of a speed hump at the bottom of the page. Furthermore, the romanticised Victorian images of what may or may not have happened in the 16th century are really not telling us a lot either - these sort of pictures are fine if nothing better is available, but that is not the case here.  Giano  09:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Things have quieted down after further work by the IP, who has sorted out which subordinate façade is which. So I would encourage all of you to dive in again. I have Pevsner and Cope to check stuff if necessary. I don't trust my taste on layout, but had thought myself that one south façade view is superfluous. I may be attempting to upload plans and detail drawings from Cope - I'm not sure the few photos there (all exteriors) would add much. But I suspect the "speed bump" is the top of the high bridge. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
That IP has done a great job. I've been wondering whether the FAC rules allow an IP to be included in the list of nominators. Eric Corbett 21:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Eric. I appreciate your compliment. (No need to put my name on a list, though.) --108.45.72.196 (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I respect your wish for anonymity, don't worry about that. Eric Corbett 22:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
We'll just refer to you as peon 108. Seriously, well done--thanks. What's the status of the GA nomination? Drmies (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The nomination was withdrawn before the GA review started. I've removed the template from this page, so if you delete Talk:Bramshill House/GA1 we can start again. Eric Corbett 22:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Ha, very funny Mr. Eric. I'll put in a request for such deletion. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you know, I'd forgotten all about that. Why don't you ask for your toolkit back? Eric Corbett 00:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to see a few people disgraced first, but it's not likely to happen. So I might as well. Wikipedia is very much like real life as depicted on any Style Council album: it rains and nothing happens. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
"[T]he sight of South Wigston on a wet and foggy Sunday afternoon in November is an experience one is glad to have had. It reaches the rock bottom of English provincial life; and there is something profoundly moving about it"- William George Hoskins. The place (disguised as "Winston Parva") is the subject of "The Established and the Outsiders" by Scotson and Elias- "[They] explain differences in power and rank between two very similar groups - both working class - in a local community studied in the early 1960s. They show how one group monopolised sources of power and used them to exclude and stigmatise members of the other, pinpointing the role of gossip in the process." Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Please do put it up for GA review again; I'm staying out of the way so as not to muck things up for you lot, but let me know if you'd like the plans and/or detail drawings from the Cope book, providing they're legal to use. I know they won't affect the GA review. :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Orientation[edit]

Which sources are we relying on for describing the orientation of the house and its façades?

  • We have labelled the "primary" façade (with the oriel window) as the "southern main entrance side" or the "front (southern) façade", which makes the side with the terrace to the east.
  • Shaw calls the principal façade (the one with the oriel window) the "western elevation",[3] which makes the side with the terrace the southern side.
  • Burke (not currently cited, but useful, perhaps) also describes approaching along an avenue of oaks to the "west front"[4] (also [5], and [6] for a similar account by the same author)
  • English Heritage say the "principal entrance and approach to Bramshill is from the south-west … The drive runs north-eastwards … then follows a parallel course on the north-west side of the axis to run along the north-west side of the forecourt and serve both the principal, south-west entrance to the house ... The principal, south-west front, which rises to three storeys"[7] That makes the terrace side to the southeast.
  • If you look at a map, the house is not oriented east-west or north-south: the long axis is closer to southwest-northeast, with the "main" entrance to the southwest, and the terrace to the southeast. (Incidentally, I think the coordinates quoted in the article are a bit off: they pick out a building in/next to the stable block.)

For the sake of clarity and accuracy, I think we should probably adopt the usage of English Heritage: the main entrance and main front is to the southwest, and the long terrace front is to the southeast. But what do Pevsner and Cope say? -- Theramin (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You took the words right out of my mouth! I agree that we should follow the EH orientations as they are closest to reality, and Cope agrees with them. From the GoogleBook preview: Cope, at the bottom of page 25, calls the principal front the south-western front: "The central compartment of the south western or principal front is constructed of stone (l) and all its ornaments and details are as sharp as they were the day they left the hand of the carver. (1) It is I believe Ketton stone or some stone of similar quality." Between page 30 and 31 is a photo titled "NORTH-WESTERN FRONT" and it's the side with at least 6 gables. (I have no access to Pevsner). --108.45.72.196 (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
What's the function of the Aztec-style truncated pyramid, accessed via a bridge over a moat? It looks like accommodation but why the (partial) moat? The estate agent's website has a distant view of it. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Xanth, it's called Foxley Hall (see page 22 of KnightFrank brochure). It's four floors of offices and training rooms. Why a moat? Is this where I answer: Viaduck? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Who's quacking? Drmies (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Any idea who used Foxley Hall before the Serious Crime Analysis Section moved in in 1998? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Ain't nobody here but us peons, Doc! --108.45.72.196 (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Pevsner uses N, S, E and W, as he usually does; I gave him priority. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
How odd. I wonder why the description changes over time, from west in the older sources, to south in Pevsner's 1967 book, to southwest in the most recent ones.
Well, there is clearly a difference of opinion between the sources, so we need to decide which one to use. So what makes Pevsner a better source than the English Heritage description, last updated in 2004? Admittedly there is a different English Heritage page that uses the same convention as Pevsner (which seems to date from 1952 [8]) but is there anyone, other than those two, and in particular anyone more recent, that calls the main/principal/entrance front the south? Is it original research to rely on a map? -- Theramin (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

William Henry Cope, Bramshill: its history & architecture[edit]

Currently we are linking the version on Google Books, which comes up for me (in the UK, not logged into my Google account—I think I’ve got one somewhere) as ‘No ebook available’. It would seem sensible, perhaps, either to link directly to the pdf at the British Library [9], or to the copy of that which I’ve uploaded to Commons which is at File:Bramshill, its history and architecture (by Sir William H. Cope).pdf . The only real advantage of linking to the version on Commons is that I am not sure how stable the BL url is intended to be, and indeed, I am not entirely sure whether their pdfs are available worldwide (though I imagine they are). Still, I’ve edited the article for now to link to Commons.

Incidentally, if copies of images from the book are wanted, the pdf will not be the best source. Better to go to the catalogue entry, click on ‘I want this’ and then click the button glossed as ‘Digital item; opens in the Library's itemVIEWER (good for images)’. This viewer is rather slow, but presents much higher resolution page images than those stored in the pdf. (At least, it usually does. I haven’t been able to check it with this text as yesterday and today the viewer hasn’t been working at all—at least on my ageing Mac….)

Great work on this article, by the way: congrats to all involved! Ian Spackman (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There is also a (partial?) scan on Wikisource: [10].
I have now, with User:Kobnach's assistance, scanned the photographs, plans, and drawings from the book. Kobnach uploaded the first file File:Bramshill House 14th or 15th Century.jpg and then required me to do the rest myself, so after that one they are my uploads: File:Bramshill House, door from Billiard Room to Pebble Court.jpg, File:Bramshill House, cellars under southern wing.jpg, File:Bramshill House, door from terrace.jpg, File:Bramshill House, first (second) floor plan, 1883.jpg, File:Bramshill House, first (second) floor plan 1883, legend.jpg, File:Bramshill House, ground (first) floor plan, 1883.jpg, File:Bramshill House, ground (first) floor plan, 1883, legend.jpg, File:Bramshill House, ornament over principal entrance.jpg, File:Bramshill House, parapet over cloister porch.jpg, File:Bramshill House, sections of mullions.jpg, File:Bramshill House, vaulting, ancient cellars.jpg, File:Bramshill House, window of former chapel.jpg, File:Bramshill House, garden and terrace front.jpg, File:Bramshill House, northwestern front.jpg, File:Bramshill House, principal front.jpg. The last three are photos; I was able to find the photographer's full name and years active but not a precise deathdate, so I'm nervous about those. Also every one of them needs serious image processing, including rotation and cropping. You may well prefer to use one or other of the pdfs to make new images. And the plans of the two floors need combining with their legends as one file if they are to be used, but the intent was to make new plans based on them. These are all reasons why I uploaded here rather than Commons; say the word and I'll delete any of them. Assuming I am awake, which I soon won't be. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Great job. You're worrying unnecessarily I think. 1883 is definitely public domain. Pity we can't get hold of high quality images, but a couple of these copped certainly help improve it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bramshill House. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bramshill House. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)