Talk:That Roundhouse

Images
There are no appropriately licensed images on Flickr for this building. I have a request out with the author of one image, but more would be great. I one I am tracking down is when it was complete. PeterEastern (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea! I am glad to see this article getting some TLC at long last. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of photos, available: 'Asked' means they have been asked but not responded, yes means we can use it, no means they have told us we can not.
 * BritaininPictures in Production03.JPG Asked.
 * The original roundhouse Is this the right building?
 * Wrong building but Beacon has clearly been there
 * Madam Flop has been there too
 * Tony's roundhouse, but it doesn't look right - was it rebuilt at one point? photo by seattlecourban
 * nice photo by julesphoto —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterEastern (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have left a message on the roundhouse guestbook requesting some images directly from Tony.PeterEastern (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Success. Tony has emailed me and allowed us to use any images on www.thatroundhouse.org PeterEastern (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Legal status of land
I have removed this recent sentence:
 * In 2001 Brithdir Mawr was divided into two section with the land around the roundhouse becoming known as Tir Ysbrydol (Spirit Land).

My understanding is that the original farm site of Brithdir Mawr was divided legally into three separate trusts, so that whatever happened to That Roundhouse would not involve the other bits of the project. One is the Spirit Land, one is the land immediately surrouding That Roundhouse, and the third (and biggest?) is the collection of farm buildings and most of the farm land (gardens, meadows, etc.). Please find a source for the division before reinstating anything. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mistake. I took the information from the Brithdir Wawr website but failed to reference it: "Around the same time as this, Emma and Julian decided to divorce which meant that the farm would be divided. Tir Ysbrydol adopted half of the land and woods, the land surrounding the Roundhouse became the Roundhouse Trust and the farm buildings and about 80 acres of pasture and wood remained with the community - all those living in and around the farm yard." Reading it again is it clear that as you say the land was divided into 3 sections not two, but it does appear that originally the land was in one parcel. The main reason to mention it in the article is to encourage press with questions about the roundhouse to contact them directly and not hassle the folk at Brithdir Mawr which is clearly happening given that there is a note on the community homepage saying "Important Note Sept 16th 2008 Are you looking for information about the recent planning decision about the various buildings at The Roundhouse (built by Jane Faith and Tony Wrench) and Tir Ysbrydol (built by Emma Orbach)? If so, you are in the wrong place". I will add a new version of the text with a reference which leaves out the details of the personal reasons for the split. Confusingly 'The Roundhouse Trust' is the name of a different legal entity based in London.PeterEastern (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * However I then notice that it then states that in July 2003 "We do not own the land - this is currently still the property of Mr and Mrs Orbach who have the intention of making the land and buildings over to a trust or company limited by guarantee with strong clauses guaranteeing that the land cannot be sold and must be worked communally and organically for the benefit of the local wildlife and general environment. We are members of the Brithdir Mawr community which farms the land."PeterEastern (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good for you for finding these! Remember that references in mainspace need to be to published sources, and generally that means not the website of the organisation itself. I don't know any more details.  BrainyBabe (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am enjoying the detective story. I agree self-published sources are not ideal, but I suggest that it is better than nothing - does any wikipedia guidance say that they should never be used? I propose that when we have the article into a reasonably complete form that one of us emails the link to Tony and asks him if we have got it about right - he suggested that someone might like to write a book about it all at some point and this is part of the research for anyone who is interested - personally I could see it making a pretty good film! PeterEastern (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Too late for a film, unless you want to recreate the whole building of it! The Wikipeida guidance you are looking for appears here:
 * Source
 * and yes, using their website as a supplement to reliable published sources is OK. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, so that's alright then. Good PeterEastern (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you know?
This article might soon be ready to be submitted to Did you know. Something to be proud of! It is best to submit it quickly, in the next day or two. "DYK is only for articles that have been created, or expanded fivefold or more, within the last 5 days." This is about there. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds fun but I really what a few photos for the article before then... What's the point of an article about such a great project without a photo!. Do you know anyone who has any? I Lets create a list of photo URL's where we have contacted the author below so we can not duplicate our enquiries. I also want a section on media comments, basically a table of date, journal, title, and something about what was covered - it will show the sort of issues that the project has raised. PeterEastern (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it needs a photo, not least because that will definitely take it over the fivefold increase! As soon as you find a suitable one and add it, I suggest you submit the article to DYK. If you wait, it will become too old -- the big increase started on April 12, so that gives you two more days.  I think the press table can wait till later; it is a valuable idea, but not necessary in the way the photo is.  Sorry, I don't know where to get one, except to ask That Roundhouse directly. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, we have images now, however we have missed now the 5 day criteria which is a shame however I did want photos before submitting it. Not to worry. PeterEastern (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You can try submitting it now anyway, with a note explaining why. It isn't only for articles newly created within the last five days, but those massively expanded within that time. I think this fits, and it is your chance to get it on the front page. I am working on something else now, but good luck with this! BrainyBabe (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me know when it is ready for copyedit
I really appreciate all the new material that has been found and added. I have done a coupe of rounds of copyediting and stylistic improvements today, but each gets wiped out by more material being added. Please let me know (with a note on my talkpage) when this phase is done, so that I can go over the article with my blue pencil. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Copy editing very much appreciated - it is not my strong point. Sorry about messing up your previous work but as more material was added it started to get harder and harder to digest and seemed to need a more narrative style with dates and the like being dropped in the process. I do need to add some references but would like to put the legal section to bed pretty soon. I will let you know when I am done as you request. PeterEastern (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, fair enough. When you are ready, leave a note not here but on mytalkpage (which will send me an automatic message). BrainyBabe (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What happened next?
'...it was granted retrospective planning permission in September 2008, with a review in three years." Does anyone know whether it was reviewed, and what has happened since? Tony Holkham (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on That Roundhouse. 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 tag to http://www.pcnpa.org.uk/webSite/applications/dev_plans/LUC%20Low%20Impact%20Final%20Report.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014035133/http://www.tlio.org.uk/pubs/pdfs/ecotrak.pdf to http://www.tlio.org.uk/pubs/pdfs/ecotrak.pdf

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) 13:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)