Talk:Danson House

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

Untitled[edit]

What do people think about the restoration of Danson House, possibly the last great house in a London Park to be restored with support from English Heritage as their core grant from Government has been cut since 1997?

Does anyone have any pre 1970 reminiscences about Danson, as a wedding venue, during the war, or before the war, as a tearoom, or as a museum?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danson Park / Danson House[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge Danson Park and Danson House as they are independently notable. Klbrain (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me that maybe Danson Park and Danson House should be merged. I have just expanded Danson House with a much more detailed history of the site, there is a lot of crossover with the Danson Park article: history, geography, location, facilities etc. I think together they would make quite a nice article. Does anyone have an opinion on whether they should be merged? If so, should they be merged under the name Danson House or Danson Park? If not, what should the focus of the two articles be, given the large amount of crossover between the subjects? Jdcooper (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I would suggest Danson Park as the article title, as the park contains the house. Paul W (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts also. I'll leave it another 24 hours then if no-one objects I'll do the merge. Jdcooper (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Arguments for and against here but I think keeping the two articles separate is preferable. They have unique notability of their own and combining them would probably do a disservice to both: DP would be heavily weighted with DH info, and DH would be "hidden" in the DP article. Combining the two articles would probably stifle both, which is contrary to the intent of WP. I think the better approach is to have a section in DP headed DH (as is now) with a clear link to the DH article. The DH info in this DP sub-section should then be kept to a summary of what is in the main DH article. This approach is standard with many thousands of wiki articles.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that more or less everything in the DH article also applies to DP. The history of the two are the same, the house and its grounds weren't even distinguished really until 1925. The DH article could switch to talking about the building after that point, but much of the interesting material about the house had already happened by that point (everything except the restoration). Similarly all the history of the estates could feasibly be included in the DP article.. Jdcooper (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, perhaps it would be better to combine the two under DP. I agree with the proposal but would hope that the DP article does not become swamped by DH detail. Perhaps it will be a good opportunity to beef up the DP article with further content about the lake/the garden/the tennis courts/and whatever else. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough I am now swaying the other way! When I do the merge I will have a look to see if I can find more material about the park. Jdcooper (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I came across a relevant comment elsewhere about mergers like this. Basically, in it WP practice to merge unless one of the two topics/persons/places had notability in its own right before the connection with the other. Or, if separate notability has occurred since the connection of the two. In this case DH clearly had notability before the 1925 DP creation and DP has developed notability of its own since 1925. Persons will know about DP without connecting it to DH and persons (fewer, eg historic building buffs) would also think about DH independent of DP. This same reasoning does not apply, for example, to the Red House and its grounds, both of which are and always have been inextricably linked. So, I too am once again rethinking this and am swaying back to my first thought that there should be two articles - DP and DH. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm happy with that rationale. I'll have a go at the Danson Park article now.. Jdcooper (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Crookesmoor, we've already discussed the potential merger of this article with Danson Park previously. My feeling is that the articles as they are now do deal with different topics, and do both have notability in their own right, even if they have a shared history. I think the current state of the articles strikes the right balance. Take a look at the above discussion and if you have any further points to add, please do! Jdcooper (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My views haven't changed: I think we should keep them separate and not merge. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Danson House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Danson_House&oldid=1206877071"