Talk:Castell Coch

Untitled

Appearences in Movies and Popular Culture The castle is mentioned in the Target novelisation of the Doctor Who Story The Ark where companion Dodo Chaplet impliesthat she has visited the castle.

The Castle has also been used as a location in many films;

Think we need to add to this if it is to be of real value. Where it states "many films", can we amplify? I know of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" (Stephen Weeks, director, 1973) but can't immediately think of any more. Often thought to have been used in "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" but I think this was actually Peckforton, Cheshire. Any others?

KJP1 19:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just watched a film called "Siege of the Saxons" in which Castle Coch features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.41.248 (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Castle Coch's surroundings

I gather from Castell_Coch_Woodlands_and_Road_Section that the surrounding woodlands are listed as a site of special scientific interest. That is probably noteworthy EdwardLane (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Building stone

The current infobox lists the materials as Carboniferous Sandstone Ashlar, without citing a source. I think it is built of Old Red Sandstone (Devonian, not Carboniferous), based on the colour of the stone and on this being a common local building stone. The listed building citation does not mention the type of stone, nor does Newman in The Building of Wales: Glamorgan. In the absence of a citable reference I will remove this. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Where to mention Listed Building status?

User KJP1 (talk) has reverted my removal of the Grade I listed building status and the listing date from the lead section with the comment "I think the intro should state it's a Grade I listed building". We also give the listed building status under Architecture.

I feel that while the listed building status should be mentioned it is a relatively mundane and bureaucratic attribute which does not deserve a place in the lead section. It is not necessary to establish the notability of this building. For comparison, Windsor Castle (a featured article) only refers to its listed building status in its Categories.

Even if we keep the Grade I listing status in the lead paragraph, what is the point of giving the date when the building was listed? Who is this for? Verbcatcher (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's usually better to explain why a building has Grade I listed status in the lead, rather than simply noting its legal status. For example, if we explained in the lead that Peter Floud considered the castle to be "one of the greatest Victorian triumphs of architectural composition" (which is part of the reason for its Grade I status) it would tell the reader much more about the property than simply the status, which would then become superfluous. I'd recommend keeping the listed building protection in the architecture paragraph though. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of opening a different can of worms, the Infobox is the place I would hope to find it. It currently uses {{Infobox Military Structure}} which doesn't have any place for that. {{Infobox historic site}} might make more sense, and from a quick look, would seem to cover the information it needs. I agree that as it stands it is very odd in the lead, and that it should be expanded on in the Architecture para. RobinLeicester (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I also favour putting Grade I listed into the Infobox. Infobox Military Structure seems a poor fit for Castell Coch, although it is used for other Welsh castles. We could use Tower of London as a model, which uses Infobox historic site to indicate a Grade I listed building. Does anyone support retaining the date of the listing? Verbcatcher (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Either in the Infobox or the lead would seem quite appropriate. But not, I think, buried at the very end of the article. I don't think that the Grade I listing can properly be considered a "mundane and bureaucratic attribute". It is a recognition, and confirmation, of the building's "exceptional architectural and historical interest". But I absolutely agree it would be better for the lead also to explain why it is exceptional. That was what the descriptive quotations - "the most spectacular example of [Burges's] translation from High Gothic into High Victorian." - it originally contained where intended to do. But those were removed, along with the reference to its listing. KJP1 (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

p.s. As to the date of its listing, there I agree I am just being pedantic! KJP1 (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

For me, the Tower of London article is an example of where I don't think it should have been in the infobox at all (if a building is recognised and protected as a UNESCO World Heritage site, its grade I & II listed status sort of fades into insignificance!) I'd support it being in the infobox and in the lead, but I'm not convinced of the logic of putting it in an infobox but not in the lead; for me, the infobox is about presenting "key facts at a glance", and if its legal status is a key fact, then I think it should be in the lead as well. My preference would be to explain the significance of the architecture with one of the quotes in the lead, and leave its legal status for the main body of the text. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As we do name have unanimity we must try for consensus. I think the consensus is that we add a quote praising the building in the lead section, but do not mention the listing there. We describe the listing in the architecture section. We are further from a consensus on the infobox, so I suggest we leave this as it is. Do we agree that this is the consensus from this discussion?

If this is the consensus then someone needs to move the quote to the lead paragraph. I don't have access to the source for the quote from Peter Floud; someone who does should add it. The author should be named in the main text: see WP:MOSQUOTE. The existing text in the Architecture section on the Grade I listing can stand. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I have access to the Floud quote, and indeed loads of others, which indicate the castle's architectural and historical significance. I shall therefore add them. One point on attribution: I'm not sure I agree with Verbcatcher that this must be given. The full WP:MOSQUOTE states "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text" (my italics). The Floud quote was not a full sentence. Anyway, I shall have a go and people can see what they think. KJP1 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Quotations added. I think the "unrivalled intoxication" conveys the impact of the castle quite well. On the one occasion I persuaded my mother to visit, her only comment was that the building had given her "a splitting headache." KJP1 (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Revisions to the article

Overlooking the wanton destruction of some of my more flowery, Burges-obsessed, prose - although, at some point, I shall weave back in "Together, at Cardiff and at Castell Coch, they would build their magnificent vision of a lost medieval world" - I really like the way it's shaping up. I thought it would help to have a space here where we could raise any issues, rather than spread them across our three talkpages. If everyone's happy with the approach, let's crack on. Best regards, KJP1 (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

We're "Edit-conflicting" all over the bloody place! KJP1 (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Hock, not Coch" as was said of the Marquess's wine.

NB: I'm using my copy of Floud for some of the physical details on the rooms; if the same details are in later guidebooks, pls feel free to replace the references with more up to date ones! Hchc2009 (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Images

@Dr. Blofeld:

Dear Lord - we must get some better photos. What are those benches doing stacked up in the Drawing Room? Dr. B, get up there with your camera! KJP1 (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The National Library of Wales have just added an 1808 oil painting to the article. This might replace the b&W image of a similar date but I didn't want to delete anything without the knowledge of regular editors and contributors to this article. I hope the addition of the new image helps to improve the article. Jason.nlw (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Jason.nlw: - I'd seen it on the website before, but it wasn't free for use then; congrats to the NLW for releasing it! Could I ask a favour though? The metadata on the image in the Wikicommons says that "this image and data related to the image may be reproduced for non-commercial research and private study purposes", which doesn't marry up with the licensing above it, which allows for any potential use (if you click "expand" on the metadata button near the bottom the details will come up). Although the licensing on the Commons looks correct, this default metadata could cause problems for users in the future, particularly since the image has a secure invisible digital watermark. Is there any possibility of uploading a replacement image with the licensing updated to reflect the donation to the Commons? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Hchc2009: We hadn't thought of the Metadata. The copyright tag is old and actually goes against our latest policy on open access. I have fixed this by basically removing the Exif metadata, of which their was little besides the copyright tag. It's not ideal, but I hope it will suffice for now. We will be looking at changing these tags across our collections in the coming months and years. Jason.nlw (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Chapel stained glass

We've got repetition on this in both the Reconstruction section and the Other rooms section. I think I'd leave it in Other rooms and have the Reconstruction section read "An oratory that had originally been built onto the Well Tower was removed before 1891.In other respects the completed castle was left unaltered.[49]". KJP1 (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

We probably need to mention their purchase in 2011 though as part of the history section, as its a notable recent event, which means we need some reference to their existence before then for the event to make sense... Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact, we've the same story three times - it's also in 20-21st century section. I'll have a look at re-wording. KJP1 (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Terry Measham

Does anyone have a copy of Measham to hand? The records for it suggest that it was aimed at children (a "juvenile audience") and I was wondering if it was really a high-quality source or not? I'd be concerned if it was a book for youngsters, but the record might not be accurate! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking at it now. Definitely not a childrens' book. Measham was an assistant Keeper at the Tate and it's not written for children - way too much text. KJP1 (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick thoughts

A couple of things we probably need to work out (minor ones) before the article goes to peer review etc.:

• "the Marquess" or "the marquess", as used as an alternative to Bute's name?

Marquess, as it's Bute.

• "the Gatehouse" or "the gatehouse"? Most of the sources (but not all) prefer "the Hall Block" etc., and I think "the Gatehouse" might also be preferred.

after my furniture capitalization issues at the Tower House, I'd go for the Gatehouse.

• Metrics (x ft, y m etc.) - any preference for imperial or metric first? (either is acceptable, but we should be consistent) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, not a clue.

No expert on MoS but my suggestions above. KJP1 (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Marquess done; I've updated the modern references to the Gatehouse accordingly as well. 17:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Model for Lady B's Bedroom

Have de-emphasized Burges's involvement in the actual decoration. Matthew Williams's article on the model in Architectural History (2003) says the model "was made to show the intended structure, and may well have been left undecorated for some years. The decoration of (the) bedroom was not undertaken until 1887 and stylistically owes little to (Burges)." So he can't be held responsible for "The Palace of the Saracen Princess"! It would be good to quote the article but I don't know how we cite it, as it's behind the JSTOR wall. KJP1 (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Have put in in, minus url. KJP1 (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I've got a copy, will work through it in a moment. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

A house for occasional occupation in the summer

I'm wondering about the use of the term "summer house". Does it conjure up an image something like this [1]? What about if we give the full quote first time round?

On a related point - I'm not seeing much else that needs doing/adding. Is it nearly ready for peer review? KJP1 (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

My image of a summer house is a bit broader, and I'm keen that we try to avoid too many quotes, as it is quite a "quote heavy" piece already, but happy to go with any consensus. Perhaps we can link it? I agree - I think it mostly just needs tidying up now - almost there! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Burges's death

Williams is specific, but Crook (p341) says Cardiff. Could this be interpreted broadly as the Cardiff area? Is it likely that, when in South Wales, at a point when he was working on both buildings, he'd have visited both? Probably. Not sure about wording. KJP1 (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

He'd definitely have visited Cardiff in order to get a carriage up to Castell, both because of the transport links of the periods and, as you say, because he had ongoing projects in both locations. Indeed, some would consider Tongwynlais to be just on the outskirts of Cardiff, so I also buy the "broad" interpretation of the phrase "Cardiff" by Crook. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Protocol for naming people

I've been taking a quick look at the way we describe people in the article (e.g. "the historian John Smith", "John Smith", or just "Smith"). I'm going to suggest that to ensure consistency, we introduce with a full name when first used at the section level (e.g. "History", "Architecture" sections) and thereafter in the section just use the surname. That means that we would introduce again if they reappear in a later section, which would be helpful for the reader flicking through it. What do you reckon? Hchc2009 (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds very sensible and helpful. You ok to do it or do you want me to have a go? KJP1 (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

bretache

Do we need a note explaining this? I can find only one other use on Wikipedia, at Threave Castle and it's at least as obscure as "tourelle". I'll try and put one in. KJP1 (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I learn that a bretache is also the noseguard on the helmet of a suit of armour. Should we explain this, or is it clear that the note refers to a bretache in this context. KJP1 (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the note is probably clear enough; I don't think that it is likely to be confused with the noseguard! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right, but I wanted my first footnote to be irreproachable! KJP1 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

They're not obscure in Europe, just unknown as survivors in the UK and only rarely recreated (the two best known are both Bute's). See hoarding (castle) or maybe brattice for our best hopes at a link. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think hoarding (castle) works very well and will add. What's the other Bute one you're thinking of? The, now-disappeared, Cardiff Castle one, or another? I have a great pair of photos of Cardiff, one showing the bretache on the walls and the other showing the, now equally-defunct, Swiss Bridge. KJP1 (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Cardiff Castle. Even today there's a quantity of hoarding left (although not projecting outwards) that's more than almost any other UK castle. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Architecture and landscape

Split the sections as thought Architecture was self-standing. Others may disagree. KJP1 (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Tripadvisor

I love Tripadvisor reviews. This one, of Cardiff, is particularly good:

"..the Earl of Bute's lodgings, which in a burst of high camp Victorian hysteria he had done up as Arabian fantasy chambers in the style of Walt Disney." KJP1 (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Murder holes and other defences

@Hchc2009: Out of interest, why was Burges probably mistaken as to the use of Murder holes? While he surely constructed them for fun, Girouard describes their "gleeful" insertion, how was he wrong as to their original use? On a related point, I find that Bretèche is described on Wikipedia, but with this French spelling. Would it be better to use that, and its link? KJP1 (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The late Victorians believed that murder holes were routinely used in medieval warfare to drop boiling water and oil on incoming attackers, which is where Burges drew his opinion, which was therefore accurate by the standards of the day. Modern historical opinion is inclined to be much more cautious about this; there are occasional comments by chroniclers, but only a few, and it seems more likely that murder holes were used to dispense arrows, rocks etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"Why should I hurry over what is my chief pleasure? I have comparatively little pleasure in a thing after it is finished."

I know the article is already quote-heavy, but I wonder if there is space for the above? I think it very well encapsulates why the castle was really little used, by Bute or afterwards. KJP1 (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, in my opinion I think there already enough quotes... Hchc2009 (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ready for peer review...?

I've got the references to names consistent now I think and done a final check for duplicate links etc. @KJP1: and @Dr. Blofeld: - does any further work look necessary from your perspectives, or do you reckon it is good to take to review? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to see if you've missed anything later. I added a fair bit earlier but you've developed it so quickly I got caught behind!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've done it. No - it all looks good to go for me. A splendid piece of work. KJP1 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking again, the big things missing are a couple of decent photos of the Drawing Room and Lady B's Bedroom. As the "crowning glories" of the castle, it's a real pity there's nothing better. Like this [2] and [3] KJP1 (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Or this [4] and this [5]. KJP1 (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Dr., you're only round the corner - get up there! KJP1 (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I may be able to get over there in the next week or so, but it would depend on the light being good! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

NB: the Cadw photograph you've linked is freely available for use under the OGL license, btw, which is suitable for use on the Commons... (see http://cadw.wales.gov.uk/copyright/?lang=en for details of the OGL release). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's looking very impressive already. Perhaps myself and We hope can find more info from various news sources before it hits PR. No immediate rush though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Are folks happy if I add the PR notice onto this under our collective names? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine. KJP1 (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you wait a few days Hc, I still want to see if I can find anything further on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem, will do. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

NB: I went over this morning and took some pictures, taking advantage of the spring sunshine. Very nice it was too. I've uploaded a few of them, and will try to get some more of the furniture up on the Commons in the next few days. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! It's years since I've been - I really must get back sometime. Very much looking forward to seeing the photos. Should have plenty of time for the Peer Review - just waiting on the Tower House's FAC, which seems to be stalled for some reason. Plenty of support, no outstanding comments to address but it isn't moving. KJP1 (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well done HC! I'm working on this now. File:Castell Coch - Banqueting Room.JPG upload data says November 2001?? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's ready for PR now. I've looked through about 15 pages of google books and my news sources and think it's pretty comprehensive. Not sure if KJP wants to add anything first.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW Hc, I'm not sure why you removed the reference to it being 6.5 miles north of Cardiff. In many building articles we actually have a small section on location. I think it's important for readers to get an idea. At least there's mention of it in the body though, that's OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No - I'm just messing around - I think it's good to go for PR. One thought - I very much like the quote box from WB's report. Would his other major quote, in the Exterior Section - look better in such a box? I tried it but couldn't centralize it, which it needs to be as it flows in the text. But maybe MOS says no? I shall leave it to others to decide. One other thing, whilst I'm here. Dr. B. you suggested it could go straight from PR to FAC? I think that's a good plan - is that what is intended? And one last thing, where's the bloody Gold Star on the Tower House? KJP1 (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Server takes a while to update with featured star!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that looks much better, and hope Hchc2009 likes it. But should it say "conical roofs" in the plural? KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review now open. HC, how much work do you reckon is needed for Cardiff Castle? I think we can get that up to FA status too, but let's get Castell Coch there first.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Cardiff was in a reasonable state at GA; the prose could no doubt do with sharpening, and I'd be interested to work through the Commission's material on it again, but I don't think it's a huge leap. Definitely let's get Castell sorted first though! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ghosts

Hchc2009 I've encountered an article in the South Wales Echo mentioning ghosts in Castell Coch and Cardiff Castle. For Castell is says " At Castell Coch it's all about the so-called White Lady who died a broken heart after her son drowned in a local pond. Some say there's a buried hoard of treasure here which is zealously protected by three eagles, while an ethereal cavalier walks the castle grounds." Cardiff Castle mention says " There are quite a few spooky goings on at CardiffCastle. A coach is said to be heard when a member of the Hastings family is due to die. At the castle ¦it was heard by John Boyle, the night his cousin the Marquis Hastings died. Other ghosts reporteded to haunt the castle include the second Marques of Bute (who walks through several walls - apparently!), a faceless woman in a long skirt who is known as Sarah, and a 3m tall giant who walks around the park. This pictures was taken outside CardiffCastle around 1904. " Would you accept mentioning it or shall we not bother? I'm not sure the Echo is an expert on ghosts! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd class the Echo as an expert on folklore either...(!) I'll keep an eye out, but it hasn't come up in the better sources so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure anybody has a degree in Welsh ghosts! Perhaps Martinevans123 has one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did. But it turned out to be a phantom. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I bet someone has done at least some post-grad work on it... there's some good research going on out there on medieval, early modern and modern approaches to folklore etc. I haven't read it, but "Welsh Gothic", published in 2013, looks good for example. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

What I've read so far on supernatural South Wales has been utter crap. It's not a subject I take an interest in, although I have a few friends who take it very seriously. The trouble is that when you look at the details of the published works, lots of it just doesn't hang together. Gross geographical errors, anachronisms, just a plain lack of on the ground research. My favourite was the ghost haunting the Old Ferry Inn, Beachley, the ghost of the chap who was burned to death in the pier fire. Except that the pier fire was of the high wooden pier at Black Rock, Portskewett, not the low stone slipway at Beachley.

If you want to talk seriously about this sort of thing though, try the Arthur Machen society. Gwilym Games (a librarian in Swansea) there seems to be one of the more knowledgeable people. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The Dr. knows my prejudices here, from an earlier discussion on Bramshill House, and our issues with Richard Harris's, no-doubt drunken, ravings about spectral occupants of The Tower House nurseries. No hoard ghosts! KJP1 (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Not that I'd want to encourage the Dr., but the Marquess was a noted spiritualist himself [6]. KJP1 (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

CE

Did a drive-by edit which turned out not to be as quick as I expected; what a thorough treatment, thanks all. Keith-264 (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

..and thanks for the copy-edit Keith! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm dubious about the newly introduced idea of the original castle as "controlling Cardiff" (a one horse town, without even the horse at that time, and with a pre-existing motte & bailey) rather than controlling access to the Taff valley.

Also should we state that the castle "occupies a stretch of woodland" without qualifying it that the woodland was only planted after the castle was rebuilt? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not competent to comment on the first issue, so will leave to others. On the second point, interestingly, Newman speculates on this very issue; "Did Burges intend the bases of the drum towers to be visible from far off, or did he envisage the castle rising out of treetops as it does today?" I'll have a look at the wording. KJP1 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC):

One other, tree-related point: the lede says; "Bute reintroduced commercial viticulture into Britain just below the castle and wine production continued..." Should it say; Bute reintroduced commercial viticulture into Britain, planting a vineyard just below the castle and wine production continued ...."? KJP1 (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Much of the woodland was definitely here before the castle was renovated (you can see the trees in the photographs from the renovation, and its mentioned in one of the sources as having grown up in the early 19th century I think). On the viticulture, I think you're right KJP1. On Cardiff, the cited verb is "protect", I've changed accordingly. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Done the vineyard - so I think we're good for PR Hchc2009. KJP1 (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The town of Cardiff may not have been big enough to be worth protecting, but as it was presumably a port it may have been strategically significant. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Listed building status in infobox

With some hesitation(!), I wonder whether the building's listed status, and the designation date, should appear in the infobox? It's the kind of fact that could usefully appear there. What do others think? I have actually tried to put it in but can't make it work. KJP1 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It should appear either in the infobox or lede yup. I've asked Friejtes to look at the infobox.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it belongs better in the infobox; the building's legal status isn't prominent in the literature, and I don't think it belongs in the lead for that reason. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine - shall we go for the infobox if Friejtes can do what my techincal powers cannot. KJP1 (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see he's done it already. KJP1 (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This discussion should be treated as a continuation of Where to mention Listed Building status? above. I support including the listed building status in the infobox, but what is the point of giving the date of listed building designation. Who is this for? Verbcatcher (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is best to see this as a continuation of the earlier discussion. I think this leads us to consensus that its listing sits best in the infobox. As to the designation date, I personally think it is helpful; firstly, as a simple fact, secondly, as an indication of when the building's national importance was officially recognized and when it was afforded the legal protections that listed building status gives. It also has some historic interest as a indication of changing tastes. In the case of Coch, its listing in 1963 came quite late, 18 years before Burges's "rehabilitation" with the centenary exhibitions at Cardiff and the V&A in 1981. For much of the twentieth century, like most of Burges's work, the Castle would generally have been viewed as a ridiculous sham. In this regard, the much earlier listing date for The Tower House is interesting. That said, it is not a deal-breaker for me, and if the consensus is to drop the date, I've very happy that we do so. KJP1 (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Verbcatcher on this one; I'd find it hard to imagine someone flicking through the article, looking at the infobox for the key bits of information, and expecting/needing to find the precise date of the listing. But, like KJP, it's not a dealbreaker for me! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

KJP1's discussion of changing attitudes to Victorian architecture and design is interesting, and merits a place in this article if a suitable citation can be found, or in another article such as Victorian architecture. Without this context the listing date is unhelpful. Wikipedia should not include data without context (see WP:RAWDATA). Verbcatcher (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that comment. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that the context for the date of the designation is provided by the fact of the designation itself. The decision was taken to list the building as Grade I and that decision was taken in 1963. But life's too short. KJP1 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I expected to see the listing date, which is clearly rather late, and I added it in the context of the architectural reappraisal in the 1950s and 1960s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.26 (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Castell Coch --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Arabian Knights

Super minor point, but is there a reason it's called Arabian Knights instead of Arabian Nights? Brutannica (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Not minor at all. Shocking error on my part, now corrected. KJP1 (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, on checking, I see it was a bit of unresolved vandalism. Thanks for picking it up. KJP1 (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

New images available

Hello everyone, I just noticed that this category on Commons has 90 new images of Castell Coch. There are some interesting ones, with nice photos of the courtyard and parts of the interior. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Castell Coch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402175153/http://www.ccgc.gov.uk/landscape--wildlife/protecting-our-landscape/special-landscapes--sites/protected-landscapes-and-sites/sssis/sssi-sites/idoc.ashx?docid=0bbe537d-685f-4287-878c-8d9f9ac718ab&version=-1 to http://www.ccgc.gov.uk/landscape--wildlife/protecting-our-landscape/special-landscapes--sites/protected-landscapes-and-sites/sssis/sssi-sites/idoc.ashx?docid=0bbe537d-685f-4287-878c-8d9f9ac718ab&version=-1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402174006/http://www.ccgc.gov.uk/landscape--wildlife/protecting-our-landscape/special-landscapes--sites/protected-landscapes-and-sites/sssis/sssi-sites/castell-coch-woodlands.aspx to http://www.ccgc.gov.uk/landscape--wildlife/protecting-our-landscape/special-landscapes--sites/protected-landscapes-and-sites/sssis/sssi-sites/castell-coch-woodlands.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The Butes...

Andy, I've BRD and taken back to the last stable version until we have consensus for a change. There's no problem with talking about the Bute family or, indeed, the Butes in the plural; Cardiff Castle's own webpage, for example, talks about "The Butes 1776 - 1947 AD: The lordship was to be held by the Bute family, until 1947, when the Castle was given to the City of Cardiff. The Bute family brought power and prosperity to Cardiff...". Media articles like this note that "Known as the 'Forefathers of Cardiff,' the Bute family invested in the construction of the first docks in Cardiff in 1839. The Butes were responsible for the renovation of Cardiff Castle and not only gave the city’s residents Bute Park, but also Sophia Gardens, and Cathays Park, one of the most impressive civic centres in the world."; the BBC similarly is happy to talk about the Butes and the Bute family. Similarly academic books, like "South Glamorgan, a county history" by Stewart Williams. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The family name is Crichton-Stuart. Bute is a title - there is only one Bute at a time. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not the typical convention in this case - possibly because they changed their family name half way along the dynasty. For a few more example, see Cambridge University Press's Modern Wales: A Concise History by Gareth Elwyn Jones here, or another example here, or John Davies' "Cardiff and the Marquesses of Bute" by University of Wales Press. It's definitely quite normal usage. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The Windsors and Mountbattens renamed themselves - but AFAIK, not the Crichton-Stuarts. A claim that they did will require more than a throwaway refernce in some tourist bumph. Of course there are references to "the Bute family", but that doesn't mean they're correct to do so (and there are of course far more correct ones, to the Crichton-Stuarts). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Referring to "the Butes" seems to go back a long way - the earliest example I've been able to find is late 18th century. As noted above, modern academics, the media etc. all use the phrase; the citation used in this article comes from the Welsh historian John Davies' work on the Marquesses of Bute, one of the main works on the family and published by the University of Wales in 1981; Davies talks about "the Butes" and "the Bute family" extensively (chapter one of his book is entitled "The Bute family", for example). For what it's worth, the Butes themselves also refer to themselves this way today - their official website, here, run on behalf of the 7th Marquess of Bute, is entitled "the Bute Family". Hchc2009 (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It's reasonable to refer to "the Butes", especially over a long period when it can refer to several of the marquesses. However it's always a colloquialism; it's a reasonable and recognisable one, but it is not (as is used here) ever "the family name". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There's not much more I can point you to, Andy; you might not agree with historians, the current Marquess, etc. when they talk about "the Bute family", but it is what the sources use. You'll note that I did suggest changing the phrasing simply to "the Butes", but I was reverted. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Film location

Why is there not a more detailed film location setting, e.g. Dr. Who, Da Vinci's Demons. 2 shows filmed at Castell Coch in 2014 alone. Cltjames (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are written in a Wikipedia:Summary style. They aren’t a repository for every single scrap of information that can be found. None of the main contributors to the article, including myself, thought it necessary to detail every TV show/miniseries/film which may have used the location. Nor did any of the reviewers when the article went through FAC. It’s basically a judgement call. An example of the alternative approach is Nannau, Wales where you’ve added a great deal of extraneous, arguably irrelevant, material. As an aside, the writing there is also poor. Much of the prose is ungrammatical, the tenses are all over the place, and quite a lot of it doesn’t make any sense. Obviously, if there is a consensus to add media details here, then they can go in. My own view is that they are largely irrelevant and don’t form an important part of the building’s history. KJP1 (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Castell Coch may be notable as a location for Doctor Who, but the converse may not necessarily be true. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

As for Nananu I'm fixing the writing for this weekend, and the story in it's entirety is relevant, but like a lot on the internet, only a story in it's entirety only shortened. Besides we're talking about Castell Coch; it's a tourist venue and deserves the recognition of a movie set in south Wales. Also if you really knew Castell Coch, then there would be a mention of bike trails, because the castle is famous for having a bike trail going from the castle to Cardiff bay, and more importantly the surrounding hills are full of easy downhill biking trails. These trails I knew well and I used to enjoy biking the trail in my youth, the trail is renowned, but more importantly the article should mention the downhill section, as it's been a popular spot for cyclists for generations. Perhaps the facts of the area should be better used in this article. Therefore I am propsing a biking section dedicated to the castle's layout in the surrounding hills, and at least a mention of the Robot of Sherwood Dr. Who episode, and Da Vinci if possible. Useful links - trailforks.com, moredirt.com castellcoch.comoutdoorcardiff.com Cltjames(talk) 11:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I know Castell Coch very well. I do not think a section on a 55-mile bike trail which happens to pass the castle would be remotely relevant. KJP1 (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Just look at the trailforks.com site, there are 27 dedicated tracks for downhill biking surrounding castell, it would be a shame to neglect this information as Castell Coch historically is a popular spot for cyclists. Cltjames(talk) 11:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree those bike trails are not really relevant. Those trials might be relevant to Tongwynlais. That article already mentions the Taff Trail cycle route. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

One of the last mentions of the Bute family and Castell Coch is in the cycle path, sustrans.org.uk, a 6.5 mile track from Bute Park Arboretum to the castle. This information has been written in stone to be connected and spoken about after the Bute's departure from Cardiff. I don't see the counter argument sorry, there was something missing in not mentioning filming locations; and now I've found a precious piece of information which is critical to the castle's history. I remember the car park always being full of cars and bikers who use cars to go up the road to the top of the hill to drop off cyclists, they spend all day biking the downhill tracks and the area is famous for this. Without a mention it seems a critical piece of information regarding the use of the grounds is being neglected. Cltjames(talk) 11:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The cycle tracks are "critical to the castle's history"? Seriously?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Not the history of the building of the castle, but it is now a talking point in regard to the day to day use of the castle ground, like focal points, the bike trail is famous.Cltjames(talk) 11:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Lots of “things” happen in the vicinity of the castle. That doesn’t necessarily make them relevant to the castle, let alone “precious and critical”. As Martin indicates, the article on the area, Tongwynlais, already mentions the trails, and could be expanded with the material you have. Alternatively, you could try and write an article specifically on the trails. But this article is about the castle. KJP1 (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Neither the Tongwynlais page or the Taff trail article mentions downhill biking. This is because the downhill sections are on Castell Coch' s grounds, and also the car park is the focal point for the cyclists who use the cafe on site for lunch. So, my on my point was, there is a gap in the article which could be filled with relevant information to the castle grounds and not Tongwynlais. Please, don't haste into this, think about it before making your any decisions. As for lots of things your right, apparently the same woods were a meeting point for homosexual activity, but that is irrelevant to day to day use of the castle grounds and unnecessary for the article. Cltjames (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"Neither the Tongwynlais page or the Taff trail article mentions downhill biking. This is because the downhill sections are on Castell Coch' s grounds..." No, I'd say it's just because no-one has bothered to add that material to one or both of those articles yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

We should should mention the use of the woods for biking and for walking in the Landscape – Site of Special Scientific Interest section, alongside the golf course which we already mention. We should also expand on the use of the castle in film and TV, but not so much as to be overweight. Currently we only say "The castle has also been used as a location for filming." I propose expanding this to:

• In the 20th and 21st centuries the castle has been used as a location for several films and television programmes, including The Black Knight (1954), Sword of the Valiant (1984), The Worst Witch (1998), Wolf Hall (2015) and Doctor Who (several times).[7][8][9]

Verbcatcher (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, I would also recommend an episode of Da Vinci's Demons, castellcoch.com Da Vinci demons filming, but with the Prisoner Of Zenda, there isn't a Wikipedia page about the 1984 tv series, nor authentic references for the castle, but IMDB supports the exterior scenes location guess, which is obvious when you watch the show. Cltjames (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

As you may know, we can't use IMDb as a source, even if the location is obvious in the series itself. I'm not going to object to Verbcatcher's proposal. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

If people consider that the mention of a few minor films and a couple of tv programmes is an improvement, then I can live with Verbcatcher’s suggestion. But I struggle to grasp some people’s priorities. I recall an earlier debate on whether the castle’s Grade I listing was notable, or merely a “mundane and bureaucratic attribute”. Now we are arguing for mention of a film so risible that it scores 30% on Rotten Tomatoes and is generally considered to have sunk the director’s career. Heigh ho. KJP1 (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

You can't blame William Burges! lol. I've got a bit lost as to whether we're discussing bike trails or TV shows. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest this discussion is now closed as I see no chance of a consensus for including more detailed media trivia being achieved.SovalValtos (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC) SovalValtos (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Ermm, three of us just agreed to Verbcatcher’s suggestion? You might want to express a viewpoint? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 - stop mentioning the bloody bike trails, or we’ll end up having to include them too! KJP1 (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I have made changes along the lines that I proposed. We may need to be vigilant in controlling the addition of films and TV shows – I selected a few with reliable sources that give a range of dates and genres. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, great, shame it's only a line. Cltjames (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Consensus rules? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)