User talk:Lobsterthermidor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

File source problem with File:SapcotesImpalingDinham BamptonChurchDevon.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:SapcotesImpalingDinham BamptonChurchDevon.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's my own work, sections now completed, thanks. But as file now replaced by File:SapcoteImpalingDinhamBamptonChurchDevon.JPG(commons), please delete this old file anyway. Thanks. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC))

John II Hawley (d.1408)[edit]

We can't just add parts to a person's name! Have you seen any sources where this person is call "John II Hawley"? If not, he must be at John Hawley (!dab-phrase!), preferably something like (politician)... Dan BD 20:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

See his HoP biog at Woodger, L.S., biography of John Hawley (d.1408) published in History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1386-1421, ed. J.S. Roskell, L. Clark, C. Rawcliffe., 1993 where he is called "HAWLEY, John I (d.1408) of Dartmouth", which then proceeds to call him the son of "John Hawley of Dartmouth". The former's son is called "John II Hawley" in his own HoP biog at [1]. I don't think the terminology "The Elder" in preference to "I" and "The Younger" in preference to "II" is fixed in stone by any particular source, the main point is to distinguish them all effectively and accurately. On this basis the earliest recorded/prominent John Hawley (i.e. the father of John Hawley (d.1408)) should surely be called "John I", his son John II and his grandson John III? I don't think adding ordinal numbers is akin to adding parts to a person's name, as in the US where living people call themselves e.g. "Henry Ford III". It depends what angle you're looking at them from. The ordinal numbers I used refer to John Hawleys who were important persons in Dartmouth, not more narrowly to John Hawleys who have been MP's, as the History of Parliament article necessarily limits itself to, being only concerned with persons with parliamentary careers. At WP we'd still be interested in a person even if not an MP, thus if John III's son wasn't an MP but was an important landowner in Dartmouth, a wealthy merchant or perhaps Sheriff of Devon, I think we'd call him John IV in his own WP article, and if his son was an MP, we'd have to call him John V, whilst his HoP biog would probably call him John III, being only the third John Hawley to have been an MP. The most important distinguishing feature in the name, whatever ordinal number is used, is the date of death, which resolves any possible confusion, but ordinal numbers remove the need in an article to constantly repeat dates of death, and if clearly defined at the start of the article (i.e. "John II was the son of John I by his wife Mary Smith"), I suggest are useful in this context.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

John II Baring (1730-1816)[edit]

Hi Lobsterthermidor (love the name!)

I was wondering why you moved the page to John II Baring (1730-1816).

So far as I can see, either John Baring (1730-1816) or John II Baring would have been unambiguous, and this appears to be double-disambiguation. Have I missed something? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't really fault your argument, clearly I'm of the belt-and-braces persuasion. Thanks for having restored the deleted text too. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC))
Thanks for being so nice about it :)
There is a case for using the numeric dabs, but if so they should come after the name not in the middle of it. His name was not "John II Baring". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Compound vs. composition[edit]

Hi Lobsterthermidor, You recently added material related to the word compound to the disambiguation page composition. I would suggest that instead that material belongs on the disambiguation page compound, with a see-also link connecting the two. What do you think? Best, JBL (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I had considered that, but concluded that the two (or more) forms, derived from Latin 1st person present & supine, were inextricable (hence why I gave the parts of the Latin verb). For example a composition and compounding as used in Civil War fines, "he paid a composition" and "he compounded", which one would Composition (fine) go in, or in both? Ditto almost every other entry. I think it would be very messy. I did create an additional redirect here as Compounding (disambiguation), which should get any reader to this page. I have just realised too that Compound (disambiguation) also exists. Certainly some form of rationalisation is needed, I would suggest a consolidation into one, allowing use of any form derived from pono, but you may well disagree. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC))
Surely the right form of rationalization is by the corresponding English word, which is both a finer (and therefore easier to navigate) disambiguation, and also corresponds with how people will come to the pages. Composition (fine) should obviously be on the disambiguation page composition. If you believe that a reader might come to the page compound while looking for composition (fine), there is no reason it can't go there, too. (I have just been reading WP:DPAGE, which provides some guidance.) I am going to make the edits I have proposed. --JBL (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe that all the links disambiguated on composition with the word "compound" in their titles already appear in the disambiguation page compound, unless I have missed something. --JBL (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, That seems to make sense.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC))

Devon houses[edit]

Hi, can you add all of your entries to List of country houses in the United Kingdom? Trying to make it as comprehensive as possible so all of your great Devon entries will help! You might also use Category:Country houses in Devon. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't Category:Country houses in Devon be a sub-category of List of country houses in the United Kingdom? Would you still want duplicate entries? I have 2 main problems with your request: firstly that the articles I contribute in this area are intended to be primarily about the estate or manor, not just about the building, which takes various forms over time, sometimes has been demolished. I have had problems in the past with other contributors attempting to convert such contributions into narrow architectural articles, hence my reluctance to categorise them as "houses". There is also the problem of determining what constitutes a "country house", generally quite a grand building, whilst many of my contribs. concern now quite modest farmhouses with grander pasts. I have made use of these cats where obviously appropriate and will try to use them in future. Thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC))


Thank you for this edit. I hope you will not think it churlish of me to point out a couple of things.

You linked to the word delinquent which is a dab page, and while one can link to dab pages the damb bot will tell you that you have done so and like a faithful dog wait for you to throw the stick and fix it. If you do not "fix it" yourself, sooner or later someone else will. I have altered the link to wikt:delinquent which is often a better alternative for words like that.

The second one is that you have added some inline citations to sources that just consist of bare URLs. They look ugly (particularly is someone prints a hard copy) and they are more difficult to fix when they suffer link rot (See WP:CITE#Generally considered helpful).

I was going to fixed them but I thought I could introduce you to this nifty tool and let you have a go.

It is not perfect and if the link to to a google book a better tool to use is:

-- PBS (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Improper page moves[edit]

Hello, I've noticed that you've made several improper page moves. For example you recently moved Compounding to Compounding (pharmaceuticals). However, a primary topic (e.g. compounding) should never be a redirect; it should either be a full article or a disambiguation page, and there is absolutely no reason to have it redirect to a parenthetical title. Graham87 09:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why the pharmaceutical use of the term compounding is deemed the "primary topic". Why is not, for example, its use in the field of finance? To have an article entirely about pharmaceutical matters with the simple title "Compounding" appears to put that usage at the top of the indexing tree, which is surely a matter of judgement. Am I mis-understanding something?(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC))
Consensus for whether a title should or should not be a primary topic should be made at requested moves. What was really weird by Wikipedia standards was having the title "Compounding" redirect to a single use of the term; the title "Compounding" should either contain an actual article or a disambiguation page (I have no opinion about which one), not a redirect. Graham87 15:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're probably right on that, see the discussion above headed Compound vs. composition, where I conceded the point you make.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC))

Merryfield, Ilton & Hoskins, p.422[edit]

Thanks for creating Merryfield, Ilton, but you added a reference to "Hoskins, p.422" without giving further details - could you give the title, publisher, isbn etc?— Rod talk 21:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. I don't generally supply pub & isbn when working from old editions, here 1959, now only available from 2nd hand bookshops, so isbn & pub not relevant in helping reader find it. This book is available in in-print paperback, so that info could be added by someone if they feel inclined. Thanks for your additions too.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC))

Orchard Wyndham, Wyndham holdings & Brean Down[edit]

Hi, I noticed in the list of historic estates you added to Orchard Wyndham a mention of Brean Down - do you have any dates for when they owned it?— Rod talk 10:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No idea, the current WP article makes no mention, but I refer you to my source: National Archives, Family and Estate Details, Wyndham family of Orchard Wyndham, GB/NNAF/F89128 Here. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)). By the way, thanks for having created the article, I hadn't noticed!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC))

Earl of Westmorland[edit]

With this edit (7 March 2012 ) you cited "Debrett's Peerage, 1968" I am having difficulty clearly identifying the book. Please provide some more information. The full title and the location of publication is the minim needed, but in addition editor and the publisher would be help. -- PBS (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Montague-Smith, P.W. (ed.), Debrett's Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage and Companionage, Kelly's Directories Ltd, Kingston-upon-Thames, 1968. Now added to edit cited. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC))

Holnicote Estate[edit]

Thanks for all your work on Holnicote Estate. As each of the references is being reused several times how would you feel about me converting it to Template:Sfn? and I will try to add some more content as well - maybe this could get to GA standard eventually?— Rod talk 11:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input too, esp. the excellent image of the monument, delivered at precisely the right time and place! Thanks for asking, I loathe refs being converted into shortened form from basic text as I frequently reuse sources in different related articles, complete with refs. When these are unintelligible and scrambled, it all has to be re-deciphered and done again in the new article. Very time-consuming and annoying. I can't see the point myself. It makes editing un-user-friendly. Fine for an article which has been totally finished, as a final tidy up, but WP articles tend to remain dynamic. I do tend to try to shorten refs myself, where already quoted in full or stated in sources section, to something like: "Smith, 1996, p.23" which means more than some ref in unintelligible code. That's my personal view of course. So if I have a choice, I'd prefer not, esp as the group of articles are still developing and thus I frequently use same refs. More content great. As for GA status, I'm not a fan. It tends to fossilise articles and involves people often with little interest in the subject itself but with more interest in the minor details, which makes further development difficult. I've seen many GA articles which frankly are pretty poor and could do with a total re-write, which is by then impossible due to the bureaucratic hurdles of GA status. Again, purely my own personal opinion.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC))
OK I'll leave the refs for now, maybe once you have "finished" we can look again as I find sfn & similar make it easier for the reader if a book has been used multiple times, although I accept your comment tha it may make it more difficult for the editor(s). BTW I have access to The British Newspaper Archive though wikipedia library & just did a search for holnicote so have lots more sources for events including the sale of the property etc which I will get around to at some point. GA article can always still be edited (including radically if needed), but I see your point. One of my projects at the moment (well a year or two) is to get all 37 National Trust properties in Somerset to GA (see User:Rodw#Personal to do list (help welcome)) so if there are any others on that list (or the EH ones) you are/might be working on let me know & I will leave them alone.— Rod talk 12:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC) I've made a start on one of your red links Petherton Park - hope this is helpful.— Rod talk 20:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Great, very helpful, thanks. Petherton Park looks like an interesting topic, which I've come across several times, not just due to Acland/Wroth involvement but due to its ancient holders who seem to have held it due to their post as royal foresters of Petherton Park, (i.e. Jollenus Dacus), but that's all I know.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC))
Would you be happy for me to reformat the references on the Holnicote Estate article now?— Rod talk 13:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Still not finished, lots more info needed on mediaeval estate & surviving gateway etc, but you've been patient enough so go ahead if you want. Thanks a lot.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC))
Thanks - making a start. Can I just clarify is "Vivian, Lt.Col. J.L., (Ed.) The Visitation of the County of Devon: Comprising the Heralds' Visitations of 1531, 1564 & 1620, Exeter, 1895, p.554, pedigree of Martyn" The same as this 2012 book which doesn't give Vivian as the author?— Rod talk 17:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Also ref 24 points to this page of Geograph This is user generated content with little or no editorial control (so maybe not RS). Its probably OK to support a claim about the window but doesn't really support everything in the picture caption.— Rod talk 17:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Re Vivian, yes the publication you refer to is the same, but this undated USA photo-reprint (that's all it is) has mangled the publisher details. It's not a new edition. The original was not published by the College of Arms (whose officers did carry out the actual 16th/17th c. visitations), but by the Harleian Society. The ref I usually give for this source which you quote above is taken from the title page of the 1895 Harleian Society book. The photo-reprint (Nabu Public Domain Reprints) did not reproduce the title page, intro, preface etc. and in fact thus omits any mention of Vivian! Re geograph used as source for caption of Lynch Chapel window (date of restoration & patron), good point, have now added the actual source used, quoting from Pevsner, but can't supply the page no. I'm afraid. Thanks for your input.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC))
OK I will try to put the Vivian ref together from what you've given me. My old (1958) copy of Pevsner S&W Somerset (p227) has info on the chapel at Lynch & says the window was renewed in 1885 but doesn't mentionThomas Dyke Acland.— Rod talk 18:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Think I've got the Vivian one - what does (pedigree of Martyn) mean? Isn't that sub section about the Martyns— Rod talk 18:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
PK I think I can help with ref 25. I would cite it to the EHR page where you read it. Looking at that page Pevsner p227 is there but the bit you've quoted is from (their ref 19) BOSSINGTON & WEST LYNCH CONSERVATION AREA CHARACTER APPRAISAL so we can use that as a ref if better.— Rod talk 19:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The Lynch Chapel source is a bit of a mess, my fault. I hope to add an article on the building itself at some point, possibly part of one on Bossington. The stained glass is quite interesting. The framed info-sheet in the porch of the chapel states restoration in 1880's by Sir Thomas Acland. My identification of the correct baronet of this name per life dates, as several were called Thomas. (see Acland Baronets). He was definitely the patron and owner of this chapel. I'd rather use Pevsner as source, seems more solid, than the one, but if your're happy with the latter, fine. Re Vivian, it's basically a list of pedigrees, each family occupying a few pages, in alphabetical order. Martyn refers the reader to the section on that family.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC))
I've used all 3 refs as they all support slightly different bits. I removed (pedigree of Martyn) as the page number is given.— Rod talk 19:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Henry Bourchier, 5th Earl of Bath[edit]

In May this year you added information to Henry Bourchier, 5th Earl of Bath (diff) during which you added short citations to Andriette, and Pevsner. Unfortunately there are no long citations in the References section to give full bibliographic details. Please add a long citations to the References section. -- PBS (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Done, sorry for the oversight.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC))
Thank you for your very quick response, however because you have not put the title in italics, I can not tell if "Newton Abbot" is the location of the publisher, part of the title or a "chapter" in the book. please could you alter the citation to make that clear and then I will take care of formatting it using templates (I a more familiar with the Pevsner citation as I used a sister volume for Westwood House). -- PBS (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Done, hope that's clearer, Newton Abbot is place where published. Westwood House, interesting, hadn't heard of it.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC))
Thanks, no reason why you should have heard of Westwood House (with over 4 million articles to read!). A detail I like, and added to the article, is that the much more famous Chateau Impney may have been built as a two fingered political and social salute between new industrial money and an old aristocratic family. -- PBS (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Hadn't heard of that either, somewhat hideous!(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC))

Category:Quantified human groups[edit]

Category:Quantified human groups, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SFB 15:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, have added my comment there.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC))

Merger discussion for Fee tail[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Fee tail, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article does not seem to be about a notable topic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Knight of the Body[edit]

Please see Talk:Esquire of the Body#Knight of the Body -- PBS (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devon Domesday Book tenants-in-chief until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added my remarks on that page.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC))

Battle of Clyst Heath (1455)[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Battle of Clyst Heath (1455), and it appears to include material copied directly from

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Work in public domain, out of copyright, please see Talk:Battle of Clyst Heath (1455).(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC))

Reference errors on 9 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Holnicote Estate again[edit]

As you may have noticed I nominated the Holnicote Estate estate article for GA. Although it has not been reviewed yet I received this message suggesting some changes which would be needed to the article for it to pass. Having looked again at the article I think some of the points are valid, particularly about the family histories, most of which I believe you wrote. I think we need to make clear what the connection of the families listed are to the estate, turn a lot of the bullet lists into prose and improve the referencing. I think this would also involve the removal of some of the images and detail about their coats of arms etc as not being directly relevant to the estate. Perhaps these details could be moved into articles on the specific families (similar to the Acland baronets article) and then linked from the Holnicote article. I wanted to ask you about this before making major revisions.— Rod talk 19:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, of course I'm disappointed that much of the historic interest of this article has been removed or now treated in a relatively superficial manner, with limited scope for expansion. There seems to be a problem with what is meant by an estate: is it the lichen and footpaths or the history of ownership, or both? The Victoria County History model which I follow is concerned purely with the descent. That is an important topic in itself which is often very complex, contains many gaps, and is helped by use of bullet points, sub-sections, etc, to avoid a sort of name-check-spaghetti which confuses the reader. Illustrations of coats of arms, are also useful, as shown in VCH articles, and help show descent from one family to another. I'm not sure there's still room for both aspects in this article, the historical and topographical. I'm tempted to WP:SPLIT the descent element to a new article called perhaps: Descent of manor of Holnicote, where this important topic can be given a focussed treatment. I could attempt to deal with some of the detailed points raised in the post you mentioned above, but probably better to resolve the existential point first.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC))
I understand your feelings as it is difficult if work you have put in is removed (not by me but by another editor). The work on the descent is important, saying you owned the estate and when, but I'm less sure about including relatives who didn't inherit this estate or the coats of arms etc. I would suggest a split but not trying to focus it on the Descent of manor of Holnicote but on each dynasty of important lords etc, this could then bring in the other properties they owned and their roles. The use of too many bullet points etc may conflict with the Manual of Style eg Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Prose versus lists.— Rod talk 14:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, the listing of descent is an important aspect for every significant estate or manor in England, as recognised by VCH and works of many county historians from 17th c to 19th c, especially in cases like Holnicote which are listed in Domesday Book. Indeed many county histories are concerned with little else, i.e. Risdon & Pole for Devonshire and I suspect Collinson for Somerset, which I would guess you are more conversant with than me. This single-minded interest was again taken up in the 19th c by the likes of the Lyson brothers etc., who drew on the 17th c. pioneers in the field and brought the descents up to date. Burke's Landed Gentry completed the task into the 20th c. I just set that out for the record, I'm sure you are familiar with the rationale, and I'm glad you agree that the work on descent is important. I would emphasise something though: it's not just about the people who "owned" the estate, these people and families created the estate and developed it, built and re-built the mansion house, the village houses, mills, etc, and made it into a local power centre, put it on the map. Without these people the "estate" would just be a mass of virgin forest. As the power of gentry families, who ran local government and formed the pool from which local MP's were elected, came from their landholdings, the estate was virtually synonymous with the family name, and is usually given after the name by good biographers, e.g. History of Parliament, which always gives the member's residence in the article title, i.e. "Acland of Killerton". Much of the interest of Holnicote is due to the fact it was a power base of the Aclands, one of the most powerful families in the Westcountry, and this has to be emphasised, else the general reader will not appreciate the true historical role of the estate other than its natural features, of great importance on another level. I think you are aware of this aspect, but it's something that has to be pushed in front of editors who may not have a basic familiarity of the former system of administration of the English counties by local gentry dynasties. If it is important to deal with these families let us say "seated" at the estate as their powerbase, then mere names are of little use to the reader, some background needs to be included, e.g. that the Blackfords came from Dunster. In the case of certain dynasties little is recorded other than who their relatives were, in which case text on such relations seems relevant. Where a lot is known about the actual holder, such info may well be extraneous. The coats of arms apart from being in themselves of much interest to many readers and a notable topic (arms are mentioned and illustrated in so many of the sources, incl. VCH, and appear in the parish church (Selworthy Church) visited by thousands yearly - it's near the tourist hotspots of N. Somerset). They also are useful to liven up often long paragraphs of text where no portrait or other suitable image is available. Coats of arms were taken extremely seriously by owners of such estates, they were the symbol of the family and like a flag of a country were accorded much honour, and certainly have a place in articles on each dynasty. I don't know if your point above about "relatives who didn't inherit this estate" refers to the edit 13:47, 21 May 2015‎ Noswall59 "(→‎Acland: removing portrait of Edward Dyke - he never even owned the estate!)", which is somewhat annoying as he was the lynchpin by which Holnicote came to the Aclands, see Hancock p.173[2]: "Lady Acland thus became a great heiress. Her uncle, John, who is described as of Holnicote Court, esq., died s.p. in the spring, 1732, and the Holnicote estate passed to her" (sic, should be his) "brother Edward, who proved his brother John's will 24th May, 1732. And so, on the death of Edward Dyke (2), the estates both of Holnicote and Pixton passed to her." If anyone's portrait belongs in the article it's Edward Dyke's! Sorry to go on a bit, last point: I don't totally follow what you mean: "I would suggest a split but not trying to focus it on the Descent of manor of Holnicote but on each dynasty of important lords etc, this could then bring in the other properties they owned and their roles." If I understand you correctly you are advocating e.g. a separate article on the Blackford family and another on the Dyke family. I'm not sure I would agree with that, if that's your meaning, the Dykes perhaps were notable per se, but perhaps not the Blackfords, it was their role in the development and descent of Holnicote which makes them notable, and there they are key players, so to divorce them from an article on Holnicote might make the article liable to a non-notability challenge. I do think the chain of descent format is the right one, it's well established by the writers I referred to above, and used by the VCH today. In that regard completeness of the chain of descent is important, as VCH tries to do where records exist. I would like to get on with the WP:SPLIT soon, but I would like to agree with you the correct format, clearly I am advocating a "chain of descent" format, before I proceed. If you could elaborate your point "not trying to focus it on the Descent of manor of Holnicote", that would be helpful. Thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC))
I would agree that descent is important, but perhaps not with the emphasis you (and VCH) give, particularly where text is included which can only bee sen as tangential to the estate itself. In addition I think there is a risk of including material which is difficult to verify particularly their contribution to the estate under discussion particularly as "in the case of certain dynasties little is recorded other than who their relatives were". The coats of arms may be of interest in themselves; however I don't think we have any evidence to claim that thay are "of much interest to many readers" - it is very difficult to find what readers are looking for and often we assume that they have similar interests to ourselves - I am amazed that pop star biographies etc are massively more viewed than nationally and internationally renowned heritage sites. If the particular family and/or their coat of arms are "a notable topic" then it should be possibly to create articles on them, and this is what I meant when I suggested trying to create articles on the dynasty/family, perhaps with specific articles for the most notable individuals in a similar manner to the Acland baronets or you could take the approach of the Feudal barony of Dunster, however I think that may be more difficult if there are several "minor branches" (younger brothers etc). So I would support "a separate article on the Blackford family and another on the Dyke family" but you have a lot more knowledge than I do about whether there are enough sources to support this approach.— Rod talk 19:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
There are so many inaccuracies and errors in the new "drive-by edited" text it is hard to know where to start putting things right - and can I really be bothered? In the haste to obtain the meaningless status of "good article", accuracy and content has been cast aside, by editors who have no real interest in this topic whatsoever. Very depressing. Just think of the reader - who really wants to learn about Holnicote and is served up this kind of superficial garbage.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC))
Hi, Lobsterthermidor. I can understand that you are disappointed about having some of your additions removed. I value your work and the outline of the descent that you gave was helpful in formulating a summary of it. However, this was no simple "drive-by" edit and I am interested about where I have "cast aside" accuracy and transformed the article into "superficial garbage". I researched the descent using works by Hancock, Maxwell Lyte, Chadwyck-Healey, et al. I don't believe that the latter had been used in the article, which was a shame given that he has a fairly scholarly chapter dedicated to Holnicote's manorial history which allowed me to expand upon the early history and include lots of new info on the Steynings. You have elsewhere disputed the Domesday material I added, and I have responded to that on the talk page. You've also talked above about Edward Dyke. As Maxwell Lyte states (p. 442), "Henrietta [Blackford] ... died in 1733 ... The Blackford property in Somerset then passed to her second cousin, Elizabeth daughter of Thomas Dyke of Tetton in the parish of Kingston. This lady, who eventually inherited the large, though scattered, estates of the several branches of the Dyke family, married, in 1745, Sir Thomas Acland". Your source suggests that Edward Dyke inherited it and then it passed to Elizabeth. I've looked in Chadwyck-Healey and found an explanation which clarifies this issue (I've added it to the article). I hold my hands up: I used Maxwell Lyte and it turns out he omitted some details by skimming over the complexities of the inheritance: the outcome was the same, but you are right to stress the importance of the descent. But please remember that you didn't cite your source(s) for the Blackford-Dyke-Acland inheritance, and you didn't really provide a narrative for how the estate was passed on. As a reader with "no real interest in the topic", I found your bullet-pointed list of people rather confusing, as I suspect a lot of other readers might have done. So, I tried to clarify it and when I read Maxwell Lyte's narrative, Dyke's portrait and a lot of the info about the family seemed irrelevant to the article. Now, I am happy to hear any more concerns over "inaccuracies" and "garbage". I would be happy to improve the article if it transpires that I am wrong. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC).
We all make mistakes, myself included, and some of mine were doubtless within this article. That's part of the WP process. What surely goes against the philosophy of WP is to scythe down articles which were carefully researched and sourced and included some real gems of info (to those really interested, who are the true target readership, not just the browser) and very rare images. Why was the portrait of Edward Dyke cast aside so carelessly? I can tell you as someone really interested in Holnicote, when I found this image I was very excited, for good reason. And the fact it still hangs in Dunster Castle is more exciting still. (I don't know whether you are up to speed about his involvement with the Luttrell family of Dunster, if not you might find it of interest) For someone to dispose of the image so thoughtlessly is a prima facie indication of a lack of real interest and understanding of the topic. Likewise the photo of the extremely valuable (I'm not concerned with £sd here) mediaeval stained glass in the stables, photographed by myself at great effort and with much excitement, again chucked out by someone who did not appreciate its value in illustrating the story. Apart from the gatehouse of the old mediaeval mansion house (which needs to be dealt with in the article too, I have photos) the fragment of stained glass is the only survival of the ancient history of the estate. It's almost gold dust. Sometimes contributing to WP can feel like casting pearls before swine. I'm glad to hear you really are interested in the topic. Let me set you this challenge: find out more about Edward Dyke and the role he played in transmitting Holnicote to the Aclands. When you have re-instated his portrait it will be a sign that you have understood. My word "garbage" was perhaps a bit overstated. My point is that it is of no use whatsoever to a reader to say "Holnicote was held by the Staynings family", or "by the xyz family", as a bald statement; is the reader supposed to know who they were, or is this just therefore a meaningless bit of text? We need to embroider a bit so the reader gains an appreciation of who they were, where they came from, why they were important, or if not why not - and why were the coats of arms thrown out? (drawn by myself, again a work of some considerable effort). Heraldry is a highly important topic, and survivals of ancient heraldic imagery as exists in Selworthy Church, almost exclusively concerning holders of Holnicote, are rare and valuable. The church is visited by thousands each year, unusual, many of whom stare incomprehendingly at the monuments, brasses and stained glass, and need this WP article to explain this complex topic. That sort of info is out there, in good sources. If you really do want to improve the article in these regards I will be delighted to work with you, but if what you are aiming at is a suppressed or dumbed-down history which deprives the truly interested reader of valuable information and images, then we're not going to agree.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC))

Hudscott Photographs Commons Media[edit]

Hudscott Photographs

I've been taking photographs for the OS Geograph page and came across the attribution "Lobsterthermidor". Assuming this is you, I would like to use your excellent photos of Hudscott Manor under the Creative Commons licence and would prefer to have your OK first if they are yours.

The photo reference is

keoka 03:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keoka (talkcontribs)

Thanks, yes, please feel free to use them as you wish. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC))


Hi. I noticed that you added a few references of Debrett's Peerage to Creedy, Sandford. Do you still happen to have access to Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage 2015? Regards - NQ (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, would you like me to look something up for you?(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC))
If you could help with this request by Hroðulf over at the Resource Exchange, that would be great. Thanks! - NQ (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)