Talk:Red House, Bexleyheath

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture: Historic houses Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Museums Low‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reference format

There was no reference section in this article until I added one with this edit on 27 June 2013. When I did so I chose the referencing system I personally prefer, list-defined references, and added a {{Use list-defined references}} maintenance tag to the page. Midnightblueowl, without discussion of any kind, changed that to a different system on 22 June 2014, despite our very clear guideline at WP:CITEVAR:

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page.

I converted the references back to the established system with this edit, citing that guideline in my edit summary. Midnightblueowl has now again reverted to a different system. Perhaps that editor would care to explain why he/she thinks that WP:CITEVAR does not apply here, and why he/she is edit-warring? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Justlettersandnumbers. First and foremost I must apologise for undertaking actions that have (in effect) constituted edit warring. That was not my intention, but rather a byproduct of the massive expansion of this article that I have begun to undertake. Before I came along, this particular article was in a very sorry state, comprising mainly of information that was simply un-referenced, and the reference section itself had barely anything in it. I have gone to great efforts (and will continue to do so), to bring the whole page up to a far better state and to ensure that it gains GA status. I have been undertaking a similar project of massive improvement over at the William Morris page, as you can see. I certainly will apologise for edit-warring, which is wrong, but in the Wikipedia spirit of co-operation, I'd like to really ask that you cut me a little bit of slack as I undertake the massive improvement to this page that it so desparately needs. I'm using a referencing system that is a lot cleaner and clearer and which will certainly serve the purposes that I have in mind a lot better; it is also the primary referencing system that is employed over at the Morris page, which strongly links thematically to this one. On a personal level, I find it a bit pedantic having to deal with arguments over the referencing system when I could be spending this time in actually improving the quality of the article itself! All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, apology accepted. I appreciate that you are working on the article, agree that it was indeed much in need of that, and don't want to stand in the way of it. However, I'd be grateful if you'd restore the referencing system that was established in it. I see no reason for it to be changed (please note specifically "... to make it match other articles ...") and I happen to disagree (quite strongly, actually) that it is either cleaner or clearer. That is just my personal preference and of course carries no more weight than yours. And yes, I agree about time wasted talking about this; really, when I had once restored the previous format, you could have taken that as definitive. Regards, and thank you for your work here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The templates, i.e. {{sfn}}, {{sfnm}}, and {{efn}} are most preferred in articles that reach GA and FA status. Prhartcom (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Most important example of British architecture"

Claiming this suburban house is "one of the most important examples of nineteenth-century British architecture still extant" is both subjective and patently absurd. I visited today - it's a nice enough but rather ordinary Victorian house, somewhat ugly and spartan with almost no original decoration or furniture, only 1970s reproduction wallpaper. Of the vast array of 19th century British architecture this is a very minor and run-of-the-mill example.Gymnophoria (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on its architectural merits but I agree that the wording in the article was pretty strong. Claims like that need a wp:rs to back them up, which this claim did not have, so removing it is fine by me. I do agree that the inside does look fairly mundane, as does the garden area. I assume this is due to its being used as a private family home for so long. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Red House, Bexleyheath. 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: 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) 10:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Red House (paris)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Red House (paris) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 19#Red House (paris) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]