Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GiacomoReturned (talk | contribs) at 17:45, 12 February 2010 (→Bounty board). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Bounty

	Blenheim Palace is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 8, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Architecture Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. England This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. World Heritage Sites This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Historic sites High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Archaeology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

John Vanbrugh

• A recent User was tempted to chop the Vanbrugh information out of John Vanbrugh and put it here. Reasons why not are at Talk:John Vanbrugh. The entry Blenheim Palace should certainly have a clear capsule version of Vanbrugh's role here, with a link to John Vanbrugh.

• This entry should also have material on the subsequent history of Blenheim Palace, the evolution of the gardens, Consuelo Vanderbilt as Duchess of Marlborough at Blenheim, the water terrace added by Achille Duchêne in the early 20th century, the Marlborough library and its dispersal at auction, the birth of Winston Churchill at Blenheim. There's plenty to add at Blenheim Palace --Wetman 02:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

April 2005 rewrite

It's great that there is so much new information with this rewrite, but please remember we treat to right from a neutral point of view. The current version is perhaps rather too glowing? Pcb21| Pete 09:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where specifically do you feel it's too glowing? Giano | talk 10:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On reflection may be rather harsh taking the article as a whole but compare the new "Blenheim today" section:

"Though the palace is today open to the public, and contains tourist attractions in the grounds, the atmosphere is still that of a mighty country house, which in essence it remains. The Spencer-Churchill family still dine on special occasions in the saloon, around the great silver centrepiece depicting the 1st Duke of Marlborough on horse back, that same piece that Consuelo Vanderbilt, a mere hundred years ago liked to call the "caché mari" (sic) because during dinner it conveniently hid her detested husband, across the table, from her view. The many residents of Blenheim have each left their mark on the palace, today it is as likely to be the set for a film, as a royal house party; yet is still manages to host both. It remains the tribute to the 1st Duke which both his wife and the architect Sir John Vanbrugh envisaged."

with the old "Blenheim today" section

"The current (11th) Duke of Marlborough resides at the Palace for much of the year. His private quarters are situated in the east wing. Much of the rest of the palace is run as a commercial concern with activities including tours of the palace and grounds with a maze, adventure playground, mini-train and gift shops, fishing, bottling of branded mineral water, corporate events and weddings. Concerts and festivals, such as an annual cheese festival, are also staged in the palace and its grounds. Activities are managed by Sodexho Prestige, a division of Sodexho."

I know the latter is a bit boring.... but I do feel that the former version essentially hides the fact that Blenheim today is essentially a big business run by a big business (Sodexho)... and replaces it with a more romantic vision.

Pcb21| Pete 21:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I see where you are coming from, I thought you meant the whole thing was POV. However, anyone can edit a page as you know, it's certainly not my private page. It should be noted though that Blenheim is still a "private residence" (albeit a very grand one where the public can pay to be admitted) and may still be treated as such by the Duke on a whim. Regarding your preference to the latter paragraph the only comments I would make are "Much of the rest of the palace is run as a commercial concern " is a little misleading, as the vast majority of the rooms at Blenheim remain private, the entire upper floors for instance are all in private use, as are also with the exception of the former "arcade rooms" under the library is the lower ground floor, and it is only some of the rooms, already open to the public, which are available for private hire. The grounds are not commercialised in the same heavy way as are those at Woburn Abbey for instance. I did not mention " Sodexho Prestige, a division of Sodexho" as I thought it sounded a little like an advert for them - presumably though they are employed (I don't know) by the Duke anyway. Whatever, the palace is still under the Duke's complete jurisdiction. I wanted the last paragraph to pull together some references from the preceding, I was also conscious of the article's length, so perhaps I pruned it a little too much. Regarding the length, I think all that is there is necessary to the article, and I hope nobody does start to chop it up, but there's not a lot I can do if that happens. Giano | talk 13:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have made certain changes to reflect Pete's comments. (No, I've not mentioned Sodexho, he can do that himself). While writing the changes, I was dumbfounded, horrified and distressed to spot an addition, amongst the elegant prose, inserted by Bishonen which needs to be referenced, as it may confuse the humourless, and students of sanitary appliances and other conoisseurs of baroque objects d'art. Giano | talk 07:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not touching any toilet paper holders. Interesting to understand your perspective on Sodexho - I didn't think of it as an advert - I more thought of it as illuminating the fact that "public" Blenheim (I appreciate your point that a lot of it is private still) is actually a big business managed by a big business (albeit with the Duke having ultimate authority) these days. There was certainly precious little quaint old England involved when I was handing over a fat cheque to hold my wedding there later this year. Pcb21| Pete 08:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You nutcases, I don't know whether to be deeply moved or frankly appalled that you saw the tphs and left them there. I've removed them, sorry for letting 'em sit so long. --Bishonen | talk 10:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have a nice wedding, we could add a paragraph on it. One word of advice: One should remember when dealing with the British aristocracy, they have survived for a very long time, namely because they have no qualms about taking money from the less priviledged! Giano | talk 12:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both of the three

"It is unique in being both family home, mausoleum and national monument." is an incorrect use of "both" because it pertains to three things (not two) but I cannot remember the correct phrase. Please could someone literate fix this? --Theo (Talk) 18:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

"a triunity of" ? probably not, but its fixed anyway Giano | talk 21:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Name of 5th Duke of Marlborough

This article links to the 5th Duke of Marlborough (1766-1840) as Charles, 5th Duke of Marlborough. The article Duke of Marlborough links to the same person as George Spencer-Churchill, 5th Duke of Marlborough. Both are redlinks. Anybody know which is correct/better. -- Chris j wood 1 July 2005 19:15 (UTC) --why not just say "...used both as residence and moseleum, as well as national monument..."67.102.97.176 18:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

completion date

This doesn't make sense to me... Following the Duke's death in 1722, completion of the Palace became the Duchess's driving ambition. Vanbrugh's assistant Hawksmoor was recalled and designed in 1723 the "Arch of Triumph", based on the Arch of Titus, at the entrance to the park from Woodstock. Hawksmoor also completed the interior design of the library, the ceilings of many of the state rooms, and other details in numerous other minor rooms, and various outbuildings. Cutting rates of pay to workmen, and using lower quality materials in unobtrusive places, the Duchess finally completed the great house as a tribute to her late husband in 1722. ... how can both dates be 1722? Also the link to episcopal goes to bishop, surely that should go to episcopal. Madhatter1uk 16:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Both dates can't be correct - the point is now fixed, thanks - "The word episcopal is derived from the Greek επισκοπος epískopos, which literally means "overseer"; the word, however, is used in religious and architectural contexts to refer to a bishop" see Category:Episcopal palaces Giano 21:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Size

I would imagine Blenheim is one of the biggest if not the biggest- is there any data on this anywhere? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen it often claimed, though of course both Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle are probably larger - Stowe too is pretty big - Woburn Abbey prior to the 1950s was a similar size - so it is probably contraverial territory. Giano 13:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I suppose different ones could be larger in different ways- i.e. the amount of ground area covered by the main building, the amount of ground area enclosed by the main building, or the area of floorspace which would be more difficult to calculate I imagine. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want a cited quote: Historic Houses, Castles and gardens - "England's greatest house for England's greatest man" It was an advert for Blenheim though paid for by the then (10th?) Duke - so not exactly unbiased - but was published so you can add if you wish Giano 13:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks- it very often is referred to as the grandest- see this google search. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

add it if you wish by all means - I just think it is a little POV, and I can thinker of grander but again thatis my POV. Giano 14:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Pipe organs

There exists an article entitled The Pipe Organs of Blenheim Palace which has been nominated for speedy deletion (current version permalink). This contains two external links which I will include below for your consideration; I am recovering the article from speedy deletion and converting it to a redirect pointing at this article in case there is interest in composing an article to fulfill the title; I would suggest, however, that a subsection of the "Interior" section in this article be composed rather than creating a separate article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The external links:

• The Long Library Organ: Specification of the Long Library organ on the National Pipe Organ Register
• The Chapel Organ: Specification of the chapel organ on the National Pipe Organ Register

The redirection of this page has been reverted and the article expanded. Is there a 'work in progress' template I could use?--Vox Humana 8' 11:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

$2.5m in 1896 is how much today?

Reference:

There are many different measures of inflation. The link above shows six: CPI, GDP deflator, consumer bundle, unskilled wage inflation, nominal GDP per capita and share of overall GDP. However, it doesn't make sense to measure inflation using CPI when talking about the cost of building a palace, because this cost is largely unrelated to the costs of consumer goods like bread, cars and iPods. However, building a palace is labour-intensive, and so the cost to build a similar palace today will probably scale with average unskilled wages. I calculate this to be $300m in 2007 dollars, which sounds like a sensible price for building such a large-scale building. Using the CPI produces a figure of $63m, which is surely too low. Rhebus (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

looks poor

Presentational wise this article is poor - it looks terrible. Perhaps it's a case of 'too many cooks'. Can someone please sort it out - make it look a bit more proffessional. Cheers. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I expect you are correct, too many cooks etc. You obviously have an eye for these things, or you would not have made the comment. This is a collaborative project, we do not say "Can someone please sort it out - make it look a bit more proffessional," we say: I will sort it out - make it look a bit more proffessional." Giano (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

reverting promotional text

I am going to largely revert the changes made in this edit (and this one) by IP 135.196.211.100 which resolves to mailserver.blenheimpalace.com.

The entire tone of the text is that of a tourist brochure, and they would do well to read WP:COI. Referring to the Duke as "His Grace" is also somewhat biased.

That is not to say that there is nothing of value in the edit, but rather than them putting the onus on the rest of us to sift through it working out what of it should be kept and what discarded, I think it is fairer to revert it and put the onus back onto them to come up with a revised version of their addtions which is more within the spirit of Misplaced Pages.

— Alan 07:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Number of rooms, halls, etc.. ?

Would be interesting to add this kind of information --193.152.158.39 (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Confused

Its construction was originally intended to be a gift to John Churchill, the 1st Duke of Marlborough from a grateful nation in return for military triumph against the French and Bavarians at the Battle of Blenheim. However, it soon became the subject of political infighting, which led to Marlborough's exile, the fall from power of his Duchess', and irreparable damage to the reputation of the architect Sir John Vanbrugh. Designed in the rare, and short-lived, English baroque style, architectural appreciation of the palace is as divided today as it was in the 1720s. It is unique in its combined usage as a family home, mausoleum and national monument. The palace is also notable as the birthplace and ancestral home of Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.

What led to Marlborough's exile? The constrution of the palace? Marlborough's exile had little to do with Blenhiem Palace, and Sarah's demise had nothing to do with it. 16:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead (per MOS) is supposed to summarise the page. If you read on, all will be revealed. Giano (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

WHS infobox

My impression was that all WHS sites were to include the WHS infobox, Template:Infobox World Heritage Site. I included it after coming across the page (as I am visiting it in May) and had the inclusion reverted. Is there any reason why it should not be included?--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your impresion is completely wrong. all the information contained in an info box is clearly printed in the first few lines. There are no hard and fast rules about having info-boxes. The important thing is to have pages well maintained.  Giano  19:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you appear to be mistaken: not all information form the infobox is in the fisrt few lines. What is more, not all of this info is necessary in the intro. The intro is a quick summary of the essence of the article, and detils like "Criteria ii, iv " hardly belong to the intro. Mukadderat (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the lead does not state that the palace is in Europe and North America - does it? And beleive me, what is in the lead does need to be there for the lead to be proportional with the size of the article. Giano  19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't seen too many WHS sites without the infobox, it appears to be rather standard. I don't understand your opposition. I have also recorded a two other instances where you reverted its inclusion . I don't want to be mean but there appears to be a wish to include it yet you revert it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• This exactly my point: the lead does not contain all info from infobox, hence infobox is not redundant. Infoboxes serve for uniformity of some standard basic/technical info. There are no fard and fast rules, but there is tradition to have them in many series of articles. You did not present convincing arguments why infobox is unnecessary in this particular article, and I am inclined to restore it, unless you give something solid to think about. Mukadderat (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not just add that info to the relevant place in the article body? Or do you believe this information is notable enough to require mention in the lead - roughly how many of the article's sources, for instance, make mention of the criteria under which it achieved recognition from UNESCO? Christopher Parham (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I do worry that an infobox like this at the top of the article sends the message that "WHS site" is the primary category into which this place is assigned and the primary group against which it should be compared, when this isn't really the case. People don't hear "Blenheim Palace" and think "Oh, that's the world heritage site!" I think any information in the infobox that can't be accomodated in the lead would fit nicely in the paragraph about its promotion (currently just one sentence). I also don't believe that the fact that other articles include this infobox is especially relevant here; we should evaluate the contribution of this infobox to this particular article. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I see the point now and consider it reasonable. So I looked at some other pages which may face the same objection. Specifically, the pages Vatican City and Tallinn gave me a suggestion: this infobox must be placed not on top, but in the most relevans section. E.g. in Tallinn it is in section "history". In our case I think a good place is section Blenheim Palace#Blenheim today, where WHS is mentioned. Mukadderat (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• There is no need for one of your info-boxes whatsoever. All relevant information is contained clearly in the text. Many, many pages do not have such a box and manage to inform very well. You want to reduce glorious images to the size of postage stamps anf tell people that Blenheim Palace is near North America. It is ridiculous. Nothing more.  Giano  21:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  I am afraid you are confused again. The top image remains unchanged, big. Infoboxes do not have to have any image at all, to be less intrusive. Mukadderat (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue of infoboxes has come up again and again. Here's one example. They should not be forced on articles. Having worked on a couple of WHS articles, the infobox has been generally meaningless. It means nothing to the reader that the site was inscribed in 19xx under criteria xyz. It's not important to understanding the article, and arguably doesn't even belong in the lead. What is important is that the building is a WHS, not the minutia. I often include infoboxes, but only because they usually have maps, which I think is very useful to the reader. I find it condescending that infoboxes provide a summary of information right next to a summary of the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute

There is some conflict regarding the article content. Thus far, there is disagreement about the insertion of an infobox, images content/guidelines and the insertion of content. I have had nearly all my edits reverted or attempted at such, even though they follow WP guidelines or were cited material. My intent is to help improve this article. I would like to avoid excessive conflict so I have requested a third party to help resolve the issues so that we don't have to get into an edit war.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem at all. I am rewriting the page in user space to FA standard, and will paste it here when I have completed.I have never before experienced another editor removing an inuse template and reverting while I am still editing. I don't intend for it to happen again. You are clearly unaware of the rules regarding images and MOS on pages concerning the arts - I know them inside out and have huge experience of them at all levels, especialy in the field of architeture. I have no wish to argue it here and now, so wil continue uninterupted in user space. Giano  00:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no issue, so long as your edits don't entirely rewrite what others write here. It's your choice to edit in your own user space, and nobody really has an issue with this. Indeed, I did this for my rewrite of the USA PATRIOT Act article. However, while you are editing there, other editors are making changes in main article space. If your changes diverge sufficiently, you are probably going to have to come to the talk page to merge in the changes. This will be difficult to do, because you'll need to get consensus, whereas if you'd changed it in main article space then people could see what's being changed while you are working at the article. But nonetheless, if others decide that they want to modify this article in a reasonable way that meets policy guidelines, that is what you'll need to do. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of policy may be faulty. There is no policy which states that infoboxes are necessary, and often they are clumsy blunt tools that repeat information already in the lead. As for images, you should consider that image sizes were forced for a reason. The guidelines for images state "A picture may benefit from a size other than the default... An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels wide, so it can be comfortably displayed next to the text on the smallest monitors in common use". There is nothing which stipulates that the default size must be used, and especially with buildings images should often be larger to allow for more detail. Nev1 (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that is my understanding too, but I think I will continue to work in user space without fear of reversion, half way through.  Giano  00:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The infoxbox is not the issue. Reverting it even thought 3 separate editors inserted it, at various points in time, because you didn't like it is the issue. The same is reflecting in your reverts of content. I will only speak for myself when I say that my edits were in good faith, followed guidelines and increased the level of citation within the article. This may be the first instance where I have actually encountered an editor that demonstrates an owenership mentality over an article. You don't own the article, or it's content. You don't get to decide on your own what it will look like or how it is presents. Case in point in working solo on the article in your own user space, without participation from others.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The title of this section focusses on the article's content, not Giano's behaviour. As Giano is the main contributor to the article, it would have been a good idea to discuss changes to the article with him. This article is not abandoned, the main editor is still around, so it makes sense to enquire about why a particular bit of the article is the way it is. I don't see much discussion here about the content, only some fluff about an infobox. If you want to move the goalposts to comment about Giano's actions, be aware that yours have not been exemplar either. It's a bizarre notion that someone taking care of an article is a bad thing; only on Misplaced Pages would you have WP:OWN. "Ownership" only becomes a problem when it prevents the improvement of an article, that's not what I see here. Nev1 (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a null point. I think me stepping away from the article is the best approach for me on this one. Sorry for having bothered you. --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I think this should be discussed further here. You have ideas for this article and I see that you have expressed an interest in getting this to FA status, which I think is great. Don't get disheartened, disagreements happen all the time on Misplaced Pages and Giano is an experienced editor so I'm sure he can accomodate the ideas of others. I just encourage you to facilitate collaboration by using the talk page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Bounty

I think I'll step away from the article. I'm not interested in a negative experience. 50 bucks to the foundation says you can't get this article to FA by 11 July 2010. If your intent is really to improve the article, consider this me throwing down gauntlet.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you step away. It sounds like you are trying to improve the article - Giano is an exceptional editor, and he does edit in his user space, but that's his choice. It's not the best way of doing things, but I've done something similar on USA PATRIOT Act to get the article sorted out. However, while he may choose to do this, it's his responsibility to merge in his changes in a fair manner that reaches consensus.

Perhaps you could detail your concerns and the changes that you would like in the article? I'm sure we can work that out... Giano I am sure will follow established project policies and won't edit war, and I'm sure you won't either. I'm an uninvolved party on this article, so I can help review. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am not in a competition to win bets by certain dates. I am well known for taking months and months often sometimes years sometime a few days to to bring a page to FA standard and then, when its finished, deciding I can't be bothered to FA it. FA standard, and indeed editing Misplaced Pages, is not about achieving little stars, but about presenting a half decent page, that covers all salient points in an interesting and informative fashion so that hopefully someone not interested in the subject may be tempted to read it; it is not about pokemon card like little boxes, uiformity and conformity. Thank you for your challenge, but I shall work at my own pace and in my own space without reversions and harassment from those I suspect understand the subject less well. I shall return here with the finished product and paste in when completed, as I have done many, many times with new pages - as recently as yesterday. Giano  08:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I don't think this is a competition either. I think collaboration is a pretty good thing and I've always thought that standardized infoboxes are a pretty good thing. Others may not agree, but I'm actually fairly interested in this. I think that there's no harm in some civilized discussion here.

Personally, a uniform and standardized infobox for articles of this nature is not necessarily a bad thing for an encyclopaedia article. It allows an editor to see important facts at a glance in a summarised and easy to read fashion.

Now I understand that you want to work at your own pace, and I think you should be commended for your hard work, but others might like to edit this article also and there is nothing to stop them from doing so. Like I say, if you want to work in your own user space there is nothing wrong with this at all :-) In fact, I'm a huge fan of your work! But their are always drawbacks to this approach, one of which is that on a wiki others may make edits in the main article space. On Misplaced Pages consensus is a policy, so if others have ideas on this article then, as I'm sure you are aware, discussion of the direction of articles is not only appreciated, but its expected. Of course, I know that you have some great work you still want to merge in, so I look forward to your changes as they are very good. However, if others wish to also contribute, I think that it's only fair that they be able to. The basis of Misplaced Pages is collaboration, and is what has made it work so well. To collaborate, you need to discuss changes and at times make compromises. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit away TBSDY, I am delighted to see your sudden interest in the subject. I am planning to expand upon the evolution of this rare/unique form of Baroque, you can save me the job - so get cracking - I'm not stopping you.  Giano  08:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that Giano. For a start, I'm interested in hearing what Labattblueboy's ideas are and I look forward to a reasonable and civil discussion so different ideas can be aired and a great article can be written. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me that Baroque uses a capital B. I have made the necessary corrections to the text. Is this correct? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My most immediate concerns were the lack of citation, peacock terms and flowery text (ex: "minefield of political intrigue"), passive text, liberal use of quotation marks and text within parentheses. Secondary where the lead (as it is not a summary reflection of the article content) and lack of alt text for images. Minor elements included image sizes and left hanging images as sections leads and multiple wiki-links for the same term and the infobox.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Should there be an infobox?

Should there be an infobox on this article?

I think that as there have been a number of editors who think an infobox is a good idea, while others aren't happy with it. Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with infoboxes and I disagree that they detract from the article, however I can understand if others aren't happy with them. However, let's start some debate over whether they are a good idea or not - I think that's pretty fair.

I'm going to start an RFC, as it appears that there is contention on this in this article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 07:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is wise for you to involve yourself TBSDY?  Giano  08:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not? This is an article, are you saying that I can't discuss this here? I think an infobox is a good idea. Do you have an issue if we discuss this a bit further? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am saying TBSDY that you are trolling and stalking my edits. I am saying that your olive branch was soom snapped. I am saying that you are determined to cause trouble. I hope you are not dissapointed, you won't be. You want to join the tag teammg that went on yesterday? - as I said toy want trouble? You can have it. This page needs re0writing and I am going to re-write it.  Giano  08:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoa here! I'm not stalking anything. On the Misplaced Pages:Incivility blocks page you asked for admin input on edit warring. Now I'm not going to make any admin decisions here, but I have added a suggestion which is to allow other editors to contribute to this article also. I don't see this as stalking whatsoever :-) So, I'd prefer it if you could assume some good faith - I'm certainly not going to get in the way of your excellent edits, as I've said a number of times I'm actually a big fan. All I'm saying here is that others can also do some excellent work and as we are a place where we have to collaborate then some discussion should occur and the opinion of others should be taken into account. Is this an unfair comment? If so, why is this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

NO TBSDY you are trolling for trouble. Now get on with your expansion on the subject - no one is stopping you - write away.... Baroque has a capital "B" by the way.  Giano  08:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not, if you want to think this I guess I can't really do much about that. But I certainly think that there are some good ideas from other editors, so I'm interested in hearing what they are. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No you're not, your trolling! You have no interest in this subject whatsoever.  Giano  08:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So, what are the issues with an infobox? Now, I know there is the Template:Infobox World Heritage Site, which sounds like it would be quite appropriate here. I do know that there are a few objections to this, one of which it might be that it skews the article that it's only about WHL site, which is not the article's primary purpose.

I'm not sure I agree with this, the infobox presents a lot of material in an easily accessible way that people can review at a glance. However, there was a pretty reasonable compromise which has been done on such articles as Vatican City, which is to add it further down the article. I think that sounds like a good compromise. What are the objections? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, the WHS (not WHL, it stands for World Heritage Site) is one of the most ineffective around. I discuss its pros and cons above. Exactly what information do think it can provide that belongs at the top of the article? Nev1 (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, you are perfectly correct - WHS, not WHL. Sorry about that. However, I think one of your objections was that it doesn't have a map, but it does seem to have such a thing in the template I'm looking at. It also includes such things as coordinates and it's actually in hCard microformat, which I'd have thought would be useful. As I say, the point has been made that in other articles the infobox was added after the lead, and that sounds pretty reasonable to me, given that the infobox has more to it than you have mentioned. Would that be an issue, and if so, for what reasons? I think that the features I list here are pretty decent and useful! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say the infobox couldn't provide a map, I said I think maps are useful and the biggest redeeming feature of infoboxes. I was the one who instigated the inclusion of the map function, just last month. Maps can be added on their own if necessary. The only relevant place for the infobox would be in a section about the sites current condition and recent history, but even then is still a blunt tool. The text would have to explain the inscription criteria for them to have any meaning. Nev1 (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply anything other than my reasoning as to why I think the infobox is useful. That map feature is really pretty awesome, but it's not really documented, so I've asked for some info on how it works on the template talk page. Could you give me a run down?

What are the main concerns about the inscription? If the infobox is only a summary and the article should explain it further, then is this something we should incorporate into the main article text regardless of whether the infobox is included? Or is this a concern that we would should not include the inscription in the infobox as it is in the main text? I would have thought the inscription would not be something to include in the lead section, but I could be wrong here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the map function is only used on a couple of pages, and I can't remember which ones off the top of my head (it's easiest to see how it's done rather than explain), but from what I remember it's much like most other map functions.

The issue isn't mentiong that Blenheim is a WHS, that obviously belongs in the lead, it's that the information the infobox provides is best done with prose. The point of a good infobox is to provide bites of easy to understand information. There is no chance that the average reader will know what the criteria are so listing i, ii, iv is meaningless; if the infobox forces the reader to navigate away from the article to understand it, it has failed in its purpose. Maps are useful, but can be added standing alone if necessary and quite easily. Nev1 (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, then do you believe that it's an inherent issue with the infobox, and can it be improved in some way? It seems to work pretty well on Vatican City, and I personally found it pretty useful, but that might be because of the nature of the subject and not because of the infobox itself. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If I may ask what did you find it useful for? Much of the information seems either trivially redundant (if you've gotten that far down the article and don't yet know the Vatican is in Europe, you're a lost cause), or meaningless in the context of the Vatican itself (the type and criteria fields). I think the same would apply here. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

For myself, I actually find a neat summary in an infobox quite useful. While the lead section will always have an excellent summary of the article (or at least it should), it may be necessary for details to be left out. After all, the lead should really be either two or three paragraphs long, at a maximum and so it would probably need to leave out the minutae, as you put it. Misplaced Pages as a medium is essentially hypertextual, as we all know, so I don't think many people have an issue clicking on the "Criteria" wikilink to see what sort of criteria was used to select the site. I also see a great deal of value in the information being in the one place, in a microformat - this sounds to me not just useful for Misplaced Pages but also useful for other purposes. These are my main reasons why I think it would be good to use the infobox, but I'm obviously fairly flexible and as I've said before, I don't want to step on any toes if I can help it. I didn't think it would hurt to understand why the infobox can't be here though, especially as a number of editors have tried to add it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 15:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've read the discussion at #WHS infobox above and find the arguments against the infobox more persuasive. Blenheim Palace's status as a WHS is just one aspect the building is notable for, and it's a minor point in the article overall. Aesthetically, the infobox does not fit very well either. It adds nothing in terms of content that could not equally well be housed in a short sentence on the building's WHS status, and the page looks more beautiful without it. --JN466 15:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, that's fair enough. I think that there have been a few reasonable answers to why the infobox should not be included in this article, so I'll go with this. I would like to thank you all for giving me your attention and your courteous and reasoned responses. I have now got a better understanding of the objections, and while I'm still not sure that I totally agree, I think that consensus is pretty clear on this point, so I'm closing the RFC. Thank you once again for your time and patience, I appreciate it :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 17:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

This article says that "Marlborough's wife, the former Sarah Jennings, was by all accounts a cantankerous woman" - but I'm wondering which accounts these are? The article doesn't say, and there isn't a source... - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's an irrelevance and hard to reference fact. If you feel it has nothing to do with Blenheim's story then remove it Ta-Bu. I'm sure you know what you are doing.  Giano  09:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm currently reviewing the article to find any issues, as I think that's a pretty fair way of going about this. I think that as others like yourself are actively working on it that it's only fair that we start off some discussion so I don't step on others toes. I would hate to remove interesting and useful information, but if you don't think you can find a reference for this and you have in-depth knowledge then it might be best to rephrase this. Still, all in good time. I evidently have a bit of research ahead of me! :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you find the relevant Pevsner guide, or failing that at least read the entry for Blenheim at pastscape.org.uk (just search for Blenheim when you go to the website; they usually have decent entries on significant buildings). Nev1 (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, great info :-) I note that Giano has a number of references he's using for the article, so that will also be a good start. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, there are a lot of Blenheims! But I think I found it:

• BLENHEIM PARK
• BLENHEIM PALACE

Got some reading to do now :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Peacock terms and other issues

I notice that the lead section has the words "The truth is...", but is this necessary? This seems to me to be a Misplaced Pages:Peacock term, so I've removed it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 08:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite sure you know all the truth about Blenheim, Ta-Bu, you just keep on going.  Giano  09:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I make no such claims. However, such terms are by and large unnecessary and discouraged. You aren't really addressing the point here though, this really doesn't have anything to do with myself, I am just making some comments are I have removed some unnecessary text from the lead. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Further to this, I've noticed a number of other parts of the text that use peacock terms and unnecessary words a few times in the article. Some examples are:

• "win an arrogant fashion (as was her wont)"
• "It is interesting to note that the palace as a reward was mooted within months of the Battle of Blenheim, at a time when Marlborough was still to further his many victories on behalf of the country."

Now there are a few assertions here that seem to be a point of view, or not backed up by a reference, which is a bit concerning. For instance, we have the following:

"Vanbrugh planned Blenheim in perspective, that is to be best viewed from a distance. As the site covers some seven acres (28,000 m²) this is also a necessity. Close to, and square on, the facades can appear daunting, or weighed down by too much stone and ornamentation."

Who thinks this though? Is this the view of the author of this article, or is it a viewpoint of significant commentators of Blenheim Palace?

Another example is:

"The Duke was to have sat with his back to the great 30-tonne marble bust of his vanquished foe Louis XIV, positioned high above the south portico. Here the defeated King was humiliatingly forced to look down on the great parterre and spoils of his conqueror (rather in the same way as decapitated heads were displayed generations earlier)"

This aside, while amusing, also seems to be a point of view. Is there a major commentator who can back up this opinion?

I also noticed the following:

"This magnificence over creature comfort is heightened as the architect's brief was to create not only a home but also a national monument to reflect the power and civilisation of the nation."

There is no reference to this particular statement. Where did this come from?

Now this article is engagingly written and quite interesting to read, and I think it an excellent example of the sort of prose that could make this an FA article. However, these are a few issues that I think we can correct. How should we go about doing this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ta-Bu I can see that you are a natural in this field, with a deep understanding of the subject, you just remove what you think is false and unrequired - the page will be all the more inteesting and enlightening for it.  Giano 

No, not at all. However, there are a few conventions that are normally followed on articles. I think it fair enough that I make some comments, as I'd like to see this article featured. One of the awesome things about Misplaced Pages is not what you can take from it, but what you can give back to it. In fact, I've found that some of the most interesting articles I've written about I had no idea about before I did some research. For instance, I had no idea about FISA or the statutes, regulations and parts of the U.S. Code around foreign surveillance before I wrote about the USA PATRIOT Act, and I think I did a reasonable job of making some fairly major improvements to this article. Of course, I'm sure an expert could do better, and in fact I would say that even someone who is not an expert to could help with copyediting it. The point is, however, that I learned a lot from researching and writing about that article, so it will be interesting to do the same with this article. I am, of course, willing and happy to bow to your expertise, and I'm hoping you will point out mistakes if I make them :-) Does that sound reasonable?

Now, back to the original point - how can we correct some of these issues? I'm willing to take a stab, but I think it would be great to get some feedback. For instance, what can we do about the following:

The building of the palace was a minefield of political intrigue, with scheming on a Machiavellian scale by Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough.

Though perhaps not as colourful as the language used here, is it fair to characterize the Dutchess in this way? Would it be better to say that "There were many conflicts and politics played a large part in the building of the palace." The article deals with the politics and conflicts quite well in the main article text, so this would really be sufficient. However, I'm aware there may be objections. What are folks thoughts? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 09:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just do some reading on the Duchess, don't ask me. I have never before experienced a content dispute in architecture, this is all very new to me and I'm expecting to learn a lot. In the meantime, I sall just keep working on the re-write while you amuse yourself here. Giano  10:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I intend to :-) Your assistance would be appreciated, but obviously I'm willing to do the hard yards. I would really prefer to work with you, as this is indeed your speciality. As you say, content is king here, so I've got my work cut out for me. I think this is going to be pretty interesting, as I love learning about new things. I don't really envisage that I'll be getting into a dispute with you, why do you say this? I'm happy to collaborate on this article. What concerns do you have if I edit this article? As I work through the article and you work on your content fork, I'll be happy to work with you to merge in your content at a later date. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 10:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In reply to your kind offer for us to work together and merge our work

• In the absence of any interested Admins - here is my reply to you and a few truths. Our content will not be merged because you will still be reading the biographies of the first Duchess. That you even have to ask about her accepted and infamous character displays an ignorance of 18th century history almost as monumental as the woman's palace. Let's just say she was to diplomacy what Lucrezia Borgia was to cookery. Your confessed and acknowledged ignorance makes your editing of this page presumptuous. I also strongly doubt that you even know the meaning of the word Baroque, let alone in its rare and almost unique form employed here. There is a lot more to writing a page than just stringing a few quotes together and making pretty little boxes. You have to know which image exemplifies the most unique points and then explain them in detail, and if you don't really understand that, then you can't bullshit your way through it, unless of course you planning on copy-vio or just rearranging a few words. The there is the nuances of British history, knowing what to include and what to leave out. Then you have to have read literally dozens of often seemingly unconnected biographies so that you have at your fingertips hundreds of little referenced anecdotes to make the page interesting enough to counter what can be, to some, the dull detailed architectural points. You see TSBDY, there is far more to this than reading a couple of reference books and spewing them out. That is why I decline your offer of collaboration, and know that our texts will not be merged and why I accuse you of WP:HOUND. I don't need hoards of Admins here to defend me because your writing, prose and knowledge of this subject is not in the same league as mine and that will speak for itself. This page needs a mega-rewrite and I'm going to give it one, but I am not happy to work with you and there will be no merge of our efforts. I doubt anyone on Misplaced Pages will seriously believe otherwise. Now continue with your games here for as long as it pleases you, or you are banned for vandalism and disruption, which ever comes soonest.  Giano  13:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • OK. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 14:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Bounty board

I don't really see any harm in the bounty box being at the top of the talk page. What are the specific concerns with it? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 15:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed it, because money and incentive to haste for reward is against all the concepts of Misplaced Pages; rather like your bahviour here.  Giano  16:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have re-instated it, its perfectly reasonable for it to be there. Jeni 16:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been place there to cause disruption. A is Ta-Bu's presence on tbis page.  Giano  17:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF, unless you have some proof. I only see one disruptive editor on this page. Jeni 17:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest you visit an optician.  Giano  17:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually visited one on Tuesday, but thanks for the suggestion :) Jeni 17:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I issued the bounty because my end goal is to see this article reach FA. My participation was not effective in bringing about that goal, but I suspect the bounty might be. I do not want it to come across a Machiavellian, but I do want to see this article reach FA by almost any means.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, you don't you were trolling and tag teaming here yesterday. You were reverting me trying to improve the page, even to the extent or removing an "inuse tag" something I have never encountered before. You saw me announce I was going to start a re-write and you were here like a shot. You had no interest in the talk page or discussing the forcing of an info box, all you wanted was to troll and be disruptive and that is all you still want. even the concencus for an info-box is against you.  Giano  17:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• I rather think that is not true. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 17:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh I think it is, then when I took the page off to improve it, away from your trolling reversions, in user space it blew your minds, so suddenly we have bounty and all sorts, you have realsied in spite of all your big words you can't actually write the page yourselves (as all of Misplaced Pages knew), so to save face and irritate me you think you can pay someone else to write it. You make yourself ridiculous Ta-Bu  Giano  17:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, untrue. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 17:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

keep saying it Ta-Bu, you might start to beleive it, but no one else will. You are a troll with an upper case T - and everyone knows it.  Giano  17:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Architecture articles
• Top-importance Architecture articles
• C-Class England-related articles
• Unknown-importance England-related articles
• WikiProject England pages
• C-Class World Heritage Sites articles
• Unknown-importance World Heritage Sites articles
• C-Class Historic sites articles
• High-importance Historic sites articles
• WikiProject Historic sites articles
• C-Class Archaeology articles
• High-importance Archaeology articles