Talk:Red House, Bexleyheath

Reference format
There was no reference section in this article until I added one with. 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. , without discussion of any kind, that to a different system on 22 June 2014, despite our very clear guideline at WP:CITEVAR: I converted the references back to the established system with, citing that guideline in my edit summary. Midnightblueowl has now again. 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The templates, i.e., , and  are most preferred in articles that reach GA and FA status. Prhartcom (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"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)
 * 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)

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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150508140313/http://www.morrissociety.org/publications/JWMS/17.1.AshmoreSuga.pdf to http://www.morrissociety.org/publications/JWMS/17.1.AshmoreSuga.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150508145303/http://www.morrissociety.org/publications/JWMS/17.4.MercerEvans.pdf to http://www.morrissociety.org/publications/JWMS/17.4.MercerEvans.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140726031441/http://www.morrissociety.org/publications/JWMS/16.4.Reviews.Parry.pdf to http://www.morrissociety.org/publications/JWMS/16.4.Reviews.Parry.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304050457/http://www.morrissociety.org/publications/JWMS/SP88.7.4.Watkinson.pdf to http://www.morrissociety.org/publications/JWMS/SP88.7.4.Watkinson.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041026081818/http://www.rebs.demon.co.uk/ to http://www.rebs.demon.co.uk/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"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 Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 19 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)