Talk:Hillersdon House

Resources for further developing article
As well as the country life article here are a couple more articles which could be used to expand this page
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/westcountryproperty/5451363/Hillersdon-House-in-Devon-a-decadent-affair.html
 * http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/houses_detail.asp?ID=7132
 * Two photos http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/102081 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1282709
 * http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-95254-hillersdon-house-cullompton

Requested move 19 March 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No move NHSavage (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hillersdon House → Manor of Hillersdon – Article no longer mostly about the building but the history of the manor NHSavage (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd propose splitting it, keeping the article on the house itself, and moving the older historical material to an article on the manor. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That also works for me, if the consensus is to do this.--NHSavage (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the talk page notice. Not much of the content here is actually about the Manor of Hillersdon. Lobsterthermidor has followed his normal research method of patching together snippets of information about people who may be associated with the place, mostly from sources that are well over a hundred years old. But unless anything has been published about the descent of the Manor of Hillersdon within the last 50 years or so, should Wikipedia be the first place to do so? He's pointed out elsewhere that the Victoria County Histories of other counties cover descents of manors in great depth. Yes, and if we had such a volume for Devon, then to summarise its descents would be acceptable and welcome. But to add descents to Wikipedia without such a source remains problematical to me. It goes right back to something I put to him several years ago: he's being "too clever" for Wikipedia, and should publish his original research elsewhere. Our job as editors is to summarize reliable sources, but Pole (d.1635), Risdon (d.1640), Lysons (1822), et al. are not reliable for our purposes. If we're going to use them at all then our references should be to modern evaluations of what they said - if no such modern sources exist then we should not base our articles on them.
 * What to do here? I'd remove everything not reliably sourced and everything that's not directly relevant, then make a decision based on what we have left. —S MALL  JIM   12:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I ask your advice about this report prepared for the planning applications at Hillersdon (cited but no URL given). It has a reasonable amount on the manor, but also relies a lot on Pole and Vivien. Would this be considered a reliable source? If so, much of the content can be referenced. --NHSavage (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, although not a source of the very best quality, its production has obviously involved much research and I'd say that it's exactly the type of source that we need to use and paraphrase, taking care to reflect its expressions of uncertainty. I think a rewrite based on this document would remove the need for a "Manor of" article, because it integrates the story of the owners with that of the buildings and land, and it also suggests that the manor didn't exist as a separate entity after the 16th century (para 1.9). —S MALL  JIM   20:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will give that a go, it may take a while though. I will close this move request as well.--NHSavage (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removal of all information on history of manor (as opposed to the house)
I was going to try and tidy up the material added about the history of the manor, using more reliable sources. However, this has now all been deleted while I was in the process of tidying it up, so I will leave it alone for now. There is a reasonable amount that could be said using more reliable sources than Risdon, Pole and Vivian, but I have no interest in an edit war, so I will leave it for now. If a consensus can be reached on where this other material should go (if anywhere) I will work on it. --NHSavage (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

In case someone else wants to have a go, here are some useful sources. --NHSavage (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hertford, Henry, A Cullompton Worthy, Devon and Cornwall Notes and Queries, Vol.19, 1936, pp.132-6. (Re Robert Cockram, 1553-1632, Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, and his ancestors)
 * Hertford, Henry, Robert Cockram: a Cullompton Worthy, Devon and Cornwall Notes & Queries, Vol.170(?), 1936, pp.401-2
 * Gray, Todd, William Luccombe and the Iron Oaks of Hillersden in 1796, Devon Documents (ed. T. Gray). Tiverton: Devon & Cornwall Notes & Queries, Special Issue (1996) pp.88-90.

Manor of Hillersdon
Can't see any consensus for deletion of this text, looks like 2:1 in favour? I have therefore created a new article Manor of Hillersdon in accordance with long precedent, in Category:Former manors in Devon.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)