Talk:Bank Hall

TV mentions

Please do not add every time the hall gets a mention on tv or in the press, it is supposed to be about the hall. Wentworth Castle which appeared in the programmes has a much more balanced approach, ie a single mention. Readers wishing to learn about the hall will get not want to see the constant highlighting of trivia. --J3Mrs (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The program had a massive impact on the restoration project by highlighting it to the nation. It has been mentioned twice 2003 and 2011, so it should be included unless im supposed to make a separate article about the campaign!? JMRH6 (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't even mentioned by name in the ref, it was just a general comment. Adding trivia for the sake of it is reminiscent of a previous pov editor. --J3Mrs (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Reference was reffering to this ... List of Restoration candidates#First Series which is a list of the candidates (stating that all 30 buildings profiles where raised with help of the program) and Bank Hall is one of the buildings! JMRH6 (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:Soap--J3Mrs (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought i best bring this from Talk: Bank Hall to your page. If stating the facts and adding factual information is classed as promoting a topic then I guess half of wikipedia needs to be removed then... I and past editiors you mention have tried to add information that we know well and even provided references for, but cause it mentions two certain words in it and you dont know anything about it, then you think it is trying to promote it... so you remove it... i just wish someone would do this to you! you obviously have a big hang up about something. JMRH6 (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a hang up about neutral, factual articles that are written in simple, comprehensible English with verifiable references. It's hard to remove stuff written like that!--J3Mrs (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That doesnt make sense cause your hang up is anything to mention this place JMRH6 (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There is some material that is relevant, but I think some can be pruned. For instance, while I think the appearance on Restoration is worth mentioning, that it came third perhaps isn't. As it didn't get the final prize, the important thing to draw from Restoration was raising awareness locally of the situation regarding the hall. Therefore, I think the sentence "It was described as a "beautiful and impressive Jacobean country house", and competed with Brackenhill Tower near Carlisle and the Victoria Baths in Manchester coming second" can be removed. I agree with J3Mrs' edits as this source doesn't even mention Bank Hall. It's generic and doesn't really add anything that the Chorley Guardian article couldn't, which had the benefit of being more specific. It felt like the sentence it was used to support was repeated what was said at the start of the paragraph.

While Restoration seems relevant, what is the importance of Restoration Home? Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What I object to most is the addition of gratuitous references to Bank Hall in multiple other articles particularly this edit which is just WP:Soap and adds nothing to the article it's been added to.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely its fair to reference in both articles for a two way link between the articles, for example HTNW mentioned in the Bank Hall article and Bank Hall mentioned in the HTNW article as they are both connected to each other. JMRH6 (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily, the connections may not be equal. For an exhibition to be about Bank Hall may be rare for the building, but what makes it stand out for Pendle Heritage Centre? The centre will have had lots of exhibitions, what make the Bank Hall one notable? I've not been particularly invovled with articles on museums, but common sense says that they can't mention every exhibition they've held otherwise the article would become an interminable list. Although the article has improved slightly, there was a similar issue regarding artists who had performed at the MEN arena which resulted in the article having a long paragraph of people who'd played concerts there ([1]). Nev1 (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There arent as many exhibitions that have been there as to performers at the MEN arena, the Bank Hall displays are still at the pendle heritage centre as they have a strong connection with the Bannastre family and are involved with telling the story of the bannastre family (one branch at Park Hill and antother at Bank Hall), (Park Hill is part of the Pendle Heritage Centre complex) also both buildings are part of the HTNW group which is based at pendle heritage centre. JMRH6 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The centre's own website didn't highlight the connection. The ref you gave said there were exhibitions in 2003 and 2006 so obviously out of date. This article doesn't need a spurious Bank Hall connection.--J3Mrs (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Estate offices

The estate remains part of the Lilford Estates and is managed by a land agent, Acland Bracewell in Tarleton. Is this the case, or is there a separate Lilford Estate office? Very confusing.J3Mrs (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This may interest you on the subject, the Lions were from Atherton Hall and are now by the estate offices at Tarleton. http://www.leigh life.com/index.php?page=wiki&id=leighlife:lions_bridge wikipedia doesnt like the full link for some reason so i have had to add a space in the link I know its only a forum talk page but somebody has done their research! :) JMRH6 (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So the estate is managed by two different agents? The website you mention is not reliable. I am well aware the lions are from the Lion's Bridge at Atherton Hall but am not aware of how you know my interests unless you are a previous "conflict of interest" editor. J3Mrs (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is managed by the same agent but they are the Lilford Estates and the Acland and Bracewell have their office there too. As I said its a forum I know its not a reliable source and I have seen that you have edited the Atherton Hall page before. So thought you would be interested in the Lions. :) JMRH6 (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Im sure I have read somewhere online that they are at Tarleton too but I have seen them with my own eyes so know that they are definately still there, I will see if I can go get a photo this week! JMRH6 (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I understood the whereabouts of the lions is unknown so it needs a ref.J3Mrs (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah ok, well the pic on that forum (i know we cant use that as a ref) shows the lion at the office in Tarleton. I will see if I can find a ref for it! JMRH6 (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Trivia

Once more trivia is being added. Pity.J3Mrs (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Front and back

I had assumed that the main image shows the front of the house. This is described throughout the text as the "south front", has the clock tower and faces the lawn. Two of the other images, however, are captioned "Legh Keck coat of arms above the front porch at Bank Hall" and "Diaper flushwork on a 1608 front elevation". But as far as I cab see, both of these features are situated on the opposite side of the house, facing the woodland, which appears to be the rear. Could anyone clarify? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

St Mary's Church, Tarleton

St Mary's Church, Tarleton lies approximately one kilometre to the south of Bank Hall, just across the River Douglas. It is currently included in the article be means of fifteen words in the single sentence “In 1719 Henrietta Maria Legh donated land on which to build St Mary's Church, Tarleton.” The citation source [2] tells us that “She and her heirs were to have the nomination of the curate, with the approbation of the rector of Croston.” This detail is included at the article for the church. But do other editors feel it is also relevant here? I tried to add it, but another editor swiftly removed it with the edit summary: “Please keep this article focussed on the hall, the information is in the blue linked article.” I then tried to add a note giving the location of the church in relation to the Hall, but this was removed with the edit summary “pointless addition”. As there was never any chapel at the Hall, it seems very likely that the Legh family intended to use St Mary’s as their own “private church” as it was within very easy walking distance from the Hall. Some of the architectural detail at the church seems to support a close connection with the Legh family. I’m sure we don’t wish to duplicate large amounts of material that can be easily accessed by mean of a blue link to the church. But perhaps the connection between the Hall and the church is relevant and should be made clearer, especially in the absense of a separate article for the Legh family. What do other editors think? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That's all the article needs. It wasn't a private church, the whole thing is WP:UNDUE, it drifts away from what the article is supposed to be about and speculation as to the motives of Henrietta Legh is WP:OR. J3Mrs (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is the physical location of the church, in relation to the Hall, "pointless"? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way the Leghs and George Anthony Legh Keck have articles, no doubt all duplicating the same info. Try researching. It is a case I think of WP:POINT. J3Mrs (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

PS at least one editor will agree with you but that doesn't make it right :-) J3Mrs (talk) 10:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is the physical location of the church, in relation to the Hall, "pointless"? At least one other editor might disagree with me but that doesn't make it wrong. George Anthony Legh Keck tells us "Legh Keck attended St Mary's Church, Tarleton where he had box pews for himself and staff." But it nmakes no mention of Henrietta's donation. It also doesn't say where the church was. Do you mean Leghs of Lyme? That doesn't even mention Bank Hall. And the church article itself does not tel us how near it was to Bank Hall. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's pointless, that's all. :-) So they attended church, most of the gentry did, it really isn't necessary to tell us how far they drove in their carriage. I am bewildered as to why every article needs to mention everything, surely that's the point of different articles. Let's keep this article focussed on the hall (lower case). It takes very little for this particular article to drift into trivia. Leave it out.J3Mrs (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Am not convinced by your "argument", I'm afraid. I'm not actually advocating that "every article needs to mention everything" and I wasn't actually suggesting that their church attendance was notable. I see it as a small detail that gives a fuller picture of how the Bank Hall estate developed. One more question - where are they all buried? But even if we knew, perhaps it's also "pointless" including that detail (unless it was actually in the grounds of the house or under the floorboards?) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What has burials got to do with a hall? Why does the church show how the estate developed? The article is linked, I know I linked it, so I don't get what you're on about.J3Mrs (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you don't do you. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Mercifully not and hope I never will become trivially obsessed. :-) J3Mrs (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you linked the church article, yes? [3] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well perhaps I relinked it after you removed it Pointy or what?:-) J3Mrs (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Who was Henrietta Maria?

The article says: "The Fleetwood's daughter, Henrietta Maria, married Thomas Legh of Lyme Park and the estate passed to the Leghs." But what is this source for this claim?

This source [4] tells us that Thomas Legh (b. 1650, son of Richard Legh) married Elizabeth Fleetwood (b. about 1670, only daughter of Thomas Fleetwood of Bank) and had 15 children with her (none of whom were known to have been called Henrietta Maria). One of their children, Peter Legh (1706 - 1792), married Martha Benet 1708-1776) in about 1737, and this source [5] tells us that a Henrietta Maria (d. 1793) was in fact the daughter of Peter and Martha. Henrietta Maria Legh married Robert Vernon Atherton (see Atherton Hall).

So who was the Henrietta Maria who is said to have donated land, in 1719, for the building of St Mary's Church? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Source added. J3Mrs (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the separate source. The confusion is explained by a footnote in that source which says "In other pedigrees called Elizabeth." Otherwise all the names and dates agree. So it seems the later Henrietta was named after her grandmother. Incidentally, the second source there (Farrer and Brownbill) just says "In 1719 Mrs. Legh of Bank gave land for St. Mary's.. ", without a name, although it also says the first curate "W. Charnley (1720) was nominated by Henrietta Maria Legh of Bank." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bank Hall. 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/20140102193723/http://bankhallbretherton.webs.com/history.htm to http://bankhallbretherton.webs.com/history.htm

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) 06:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bank Hall. 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/20110515103649/http://bankhallbretherton.webs.com/bankhalltimeline.htm to http://bankhallbretherton.webs.com/bankhalltimeline.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515103649/http://bankhallbretherton.webs.com/bankhalltimeline.htm to http://bankhallbretherton.webs.com/bankhalltimeline.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515103649/http://bankhallbretherton.webs.com/bankhalltimeline.htm to http://bankhallbretherton.webs.com/bankhalltimeline.htm

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) 15:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)