Talk:William Burges/Archive 1

William Burges (architect)
Hi, I have re-instated the dates for WB's father. maths 101: Alfred was b.1796 & d.1886 e.g. was aged 90 at death, a few years after his son. The dates are off his tombstone, which is Grade-II listed, so it should be reliable ;-) Crook's entry in the DNB also cites his death at 1886. However, his death was registered in the first quarter of 1886 in E. Preston and whoever filed it only gave his age as 84. (Mistakes in Civil registration are not unknown!) Alfred is buried in West Norwood Cemetery in Grave 4,478 at square 34 with his wife (-1855) and his son William. William apparently wanted to be buried in the Cathedral that he had designed at Cork, but there were difficulties and he was buried in the family vault at Norwood. Ephebi 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are searching for his memorial, get a detailed map from the cemetery office. Its set back from the path in an area that's quite full of summer overgrowth at the moment, look for a grey horizontal sarcophagus about a foot tall with a slightly-raised cross carved into a love-heart Ephebi 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the rating on this article as I feel that it currently meets more of the "C class" criteria than those of the "Start class" criteria. Before doing so, I referenced some C-rated articles in the Architecture section to see if this article appeared comparable. In my view, it did in some instances, although not in others. Nevertheless, I appreciate that, as the author of much of the article, my view may very well be biased. I also think it may be too personal and to "Peacocky". As a Burges fanatic, I can believe that he was "the greatest of the Victorian art-architects" but should I say so? Does the article demonstrate why he was better than Street, or Butterfield or Salvin? Perhaps others can decide whether I have over-valued the article and re-rate it accordingly. I would certainly like to improve the article, and its consequential rating, ideally to "B class", and would welcome assistance/advice as to what further is needed to achieve this. I know that one obvious weakness is the lack of references/sources and have now begun work on this.

KJP1 (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * yes Burges was a great architect. But was he the greatest of his kind? That's a matter of opinion, and WP:OR or WP:soapboxing to put across our own WP:POV is not why WP is here. Call me brash, but I must confess to be very fond of the streaky bacon style ;-) However, if you can find some sound source who makes this claim (e.g. a Pevsner) then go ahead, remembering to cite the source. And remember it is not prose or an essay, so we need to be careful to stick with the factual rather than the story. Having said that, I would think the 'C' is comfortable. Ephebi (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Without wishing to be pedantic, according to my dictionary "patrimony" means "property inherited from one's father". How did Burges inherit money from a father who outlived him? Also I was under the impression that Burges was out of his head on opium most of the time - I would have thought that this would be a relevant fact? EricPolymath (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not pedantic at all. The date of Alfred Burges's death has always puzzled me. Mordaunt Crook is clear that Alfred's wealth (£113,000 at his death) "made possible his son's aesthetic lifestyle". I had therefore always assumed he died before William. However, Ephebi corrected me on this (see above). So I can only assume he supported his son throughout the latter's life, or at least until William earned enough to support himself. In which case, you're right that patrimony is probably not the right word and I'll look for another.

Opium
Re. his opium intake, cite away if you can find a reference. That he took opium is almost certain and I think MC is referring to that when he talks of his "luxurious lifestyle". But I can't recall ever seeing it referenced. It would be very interesting if you could find something. But I think "out of his head most of the time" might be a little harsh.

Always great to meet another wikipedian with an interest in WB.

KJP1 (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately my information about WB is rather piecemeal as it seems that just about all the books about him are out of print!

Cadw's guide book to Castel Coch states "Alfred Burges....was a successful engineer who made enough money for his son to have a private income and pursue his chosen career working for pleasure rather than profit."

The National Trust's guide book to Knighthayes Court states "An addiction to opium no doubt fuelled his imagination." The Gothic Revival by Michael J Lewis quotes Burges himself "'Too much opium' William Burges complained to his diary in 1865". Having seen his interiors at Cardiff Castle and Castel Coch I would have thought "off his head" was about right!!!

With regard to the list of major furniture there is information displayed in Knightshayes Court about a wardrobe or cabinet that was lent to the Trust for a while by Jimmy Page for display. Presumably this now resides in the Tower House. EricPolymath (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there isn't much on WB anyway and it is all out of print. Fortunately I got most of what is published years ago, before it became VERY expensive (Mordaunt Crook's book is on Amazon for over £400). I like the idea of something on his personal life, including the drugs, and shall try to work something in shortly. I don't have Michael Lewis's book - do you have a page reference for the diary quote, and publication details of the book? KJP1 (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the price of that book on Amazon! Very frustrating!

The Gothic Revival by Michael J Lewis is, however, still available on Amazon at a reasonable price! It was published in 2002 by Thames & Hudson as part of their "World of Art" series. The quote about opium is on page 150. EricPolymath (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit of digging turns up quite a lot of references to his opium habit (addiction?) although, beyond his own diary entry, they don't seem sourced. But I've put a bit in. KJP1 (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Architectural importance
Using the criteria of WP Architecture Project, Burges certainly meets the 'noteworthy' criteria for 'high' importance - after all, despite having short career he was a prolific designer of high profile projects and, in an age when travel was not easy, he designed internationally! Sionk (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Really appreciate your re-assessment. The "Low Importance" tag always struck me as a bit ridiculous, given his talent and the quality, and importance, of his buildings, but I could never previously get it changed. "High" is very much more suitable. KJP1 (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Summer House, formerly in Bute Park, now at St Fagan's


Does anyone know anything about this? Could it be part of the Swiss Bridge, designed by Burges, which formerly stood in Bute Park? KJP1 (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, yes. .  KJP1 (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

To-do list

 * Intro doesn't need references. One quote might be suitable but I think there are too many quotes and the intro should be more concise/comprehensive with factual information rather than the subjective.
 * Thinned, but now too thin? Some more work. KJP1 (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll expand the intro tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Between us, I think it's getting into the right shape.
 * I think it's about there now. KJP1 (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The book names in the citations of the books already given in the bibliography should all be replaced with the surname of the author. If the author wrote several books then the surname and the year/ or surname name and name of the book.
 * Done.KJP1 (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * See if you can replace several of the citations from books you rely heavily on with other book sources.
 * You've extended the sources significantly.KJP1 (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Bibliography should be filled out with google book links and isbn numbers of the books given that they can be viewed online.
 * Done.KJP1 (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Pevsner Architectural Guides: Glamorgan and Buildings of Wales should be in the bibliography and the page number given in the notes.
 * Done, by you.KJP1 (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * All of the entries in his list of buildings and major pieces of work need sourcing
 * Almost done. Some more work.KJP1 (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now done, I think. KJP1 (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the article needs more biographical information amidst his career and more of a balance. Have you looked through any Oxford Dictionary of Biography sources or anything? I'd like to see more of his buildings covered which are listed at the bottom, even if briefly so we have a more complete biography. So there aren;t any gaps of his major works in continuity in the main body of the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost done? I don't think anything signifcant is left out.  But more on the major works?KJP1 (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Cardiff Castle and Castell Coch (in particular) need more info on actual architecture I think. Cardiff Castle section needs more focus. Excellent work today though BTW!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Added detail on Cardiff, and tried to strip some quotes out whilst resisting the temptation to throw more in. Coch and Fin Barre's remain to be done.  The photos at Cardiff don't look right now.  The positioning doesn't work and they're not exciting enough.  Shall get some more from Commons, which has loads.  On that point, have tried to defend the licencing position of the images of Burges himself but don't know whether it will work.  KJP1 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Added more to Coch and Fin Barre. Sufficient?
 * Now added to Cork, Cardiff, Coch and the Yorkshire churches. I think that covers his main works suitably.  Or a little more on the Tower House and Knightshayes?  KJP1 (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the furniture and metalwork sections could do with covering some of the specific items he made which are mentioned in the Major pieces of furniture and works list. If you google book them you should be able to find plenty on a lot of them,although you probably already have a lot of material on them.
 * Done, I think. KJP1 (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So: The lead is now fairly comprehensive, I think. More is certainly need on the architecture of Cardiff Castle and The Tower House.  More also on his metalwork/jewelery, furniture and stained glass.  The references are broadly ok (?) although one or two need correcting.  Pruning of my POVness, which I keep seeing.  A full copy edit to make the text run smoothly, and some winnowing of the text as part of that.  And those concerns over the copyright permissions re. his images.  And what else?   KJP1 (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some more on St Fin Barre's which, as I read it, I see is awfully brief. KJP1 (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And yes, a few fewer quotes. Re-reading it, I have sometimes crammed rather too many in.
 * Now done. And some quotes stripped out.  KJP1 (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The lead is fine now I think, remember that the lead usually doesn't need any references, only for serious claims. Yes, fewer quotes more architecture/design information on some of them is needed. More architectural info on the Cork cathedral and Cardiff Castle yes. Remaining I'd like to see coverage of the design and styles of individual pieces of furniture and metalwork etc that he made.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Put in details of some of the major pieces. Could add lots more but should I or would they overwhelm? KJP1 (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it. We'll need to cut it later but to have a really comprehensive article we need to decide what or what not to include. Yes the Cardiff Castle images could be better, I thought the same thing!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Images are good now, I think. And I hope the portraits in Commons are covered off.  KJP1 (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Apostrophe. Standardize whether to include the follow-on s, or not (Burges' vs. Burges's).  I noticed it wasn't consistent, so I removed it in the initial paragraphs, but have stopped doing so, as those who wrote the bulk of the content need to make the decision. The style difference may also vary between what's common in UK vs. US. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your editing. I personally prefer "Burges's" but as you've noticed, I'm not consistent.  I suggest Burges's unless there's a strong view the other way.  KJP1 (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Have tried to do a full "Burges'" to "Burges's" review but may have missed some. KJP1 (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also proofed and rectified a rather alarming number of spelling mistakes. (All mine!).  Good to go?  KJP1 (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Colombo Cathedral. Do we have an error here?  Crook doesn't appear to list it as an unexecuted plan, unless I've missed it, and his only mention of the building, on page 179 states that, of two approaches to cathedral design in the Tropics, the permeable and the speluncar (wonderful word!), "R C Carpenter chose the first for Colombo and at Brisbane Burges chose the second."  I don't have the Jan Morris cited.  Can it be clarified and the date for the plan added.  Does this mean the infallible Crook missed it, or is Morris wrong?  KJP1 (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This (http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:13450/n05_058_Andresen.pdf) (unpublished thesis?) mentions Colombo, and appears to quote Crook (without attribution?!) but doesn't say that Burges drew up a plan. KJP1 (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This (http://www.archive.org/stream/englishcathedral00bererich/englishcathedral00bererich_djvu.txt) page 81, by Beresford-Hope appears to suggest R C Carpenter, an architect I don't know, but it's not clear. KJP1 (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Should have checked Wikipedia. Richard Cromwell Carpenter was the designer of Lancing College chapel, no less, but his entry doesn't mention Colombo.  KJP1 (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This mentions Colombo.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Worcester College, Oxford
The incompetently written British Listed Buildings article, cited as ref 129 in the text, is inaccurate. Sherwood and Pevsner (Oxfordshire, Buildings of England series, pp.222-3) say that the college Chapel was completed in 1791 and the interior was designed by James Wyatt. It was redecorated by Burges (not Burgess as in BLB) in 1864; some of Wyatt's designs were retained but "swamped" by Burges's redesign. It was not restored to the original [Wyatt] design in 1967 but remains to this day as Burges left it.

The interior of the Hall was also decorated by Wyatt between 1776 and 1784. It was partly redecorated by Burges in 1877 but restored to Wyatt's designs, probably in 1966-7. That's when the Burges fireplace from the Hall went to Knightshayes. I would not describe the Hall fittings as major decorative works - apart from the fireplace, there was just a lot of Gothicky panelling. The Chapel, however, is very definitely a major decorative work and has stained glass designed by Henry Holiday. The College recently published a book about it (which I haven't seen).

--GuillaumeTell 19:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC) (alumnus of Coll. Vigorn.)
 * Very helpful and informative. Have tweaked the lead to reflect your comments.  Reading the Sherwood/Pevsner now.  Worth a more detailed mention in the article?  His work at Worcester College is one of the few works of Burges I haven't actually seen.  Do you have any more details on the book?  I should like to get it.  KJP1 (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Have added a (small) section on the college. Think it's about right in the overall balance of the article.  KJP1 (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Image Gallery
I think we may struggle with FAC in the future if we keep the existing Image gallery. I have yet to see a WP:FA with such a gallery, and it maybe heavily scrutinised by FA reviewers; particularly as we already have a commons portal to most of the images connected to Burges. I suggest that the gallery images are moved to here rather than keeping the gallery section, if they are not there already. -- Cassianto (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You may very well be right. Others have mentioned Wikipedia guidance that says galleries are frowned upon and that pictures should sit within the text of the article, at appropriate points, as they do here.  Shall we see if others have an alternative view and move the gallery out in a few days if they don't?  KJP1 (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that's a good idea. Personally I dont mind it as I like to see all the different buildings Burges designed without having to re-direct to a different page.  But reviewers at FAC will almost certainly kick it out . The only way the images could be kept in and survive FAC would be to create sub sections and to speak of the buildings individually.  However, at 111,314 bytes we dont really want to increase it anymore.  I'm all for moving it to Burges's Commons Category but see what Dr.Blofeld and Guillaume Tell think. -- Cassianto (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, Cassianto. I've made a few image galleries myself, but not on articles that are ever likely to get to FA.
 * While I'm here, I'd like to put another short sentence in the Worcester Chapel section - Nicholls (who deserves an article, BTW) and Henry Holiday were involved and apparently Harry Ellis Wooldridge was also consulted. (I'm also hoping to get up an article on Provost Daniel, but that's another story.)  I'm away until Thursday, so no need for an instant reply. --GuillaumeTell 11:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, unless Dr B or Tim Riley suggest otherwise, I think we should move the gallery out. I'll do so this weekend.  Re. Nicholls, he certainly does deserve an article, as do a few others of Burges's team.  I've scattered articles on buildings all over the place but only done Axel Haig from the team.  I shall try Nicholls this weekend but think the material may be thin. KJP1 (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the gallery has to go.. The article has plenty of pictures!♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons tag
Would any body have any objections if the commons tag were to be moved from its current position to somewhere else within the article. My gripe is that there seems to be a (large) section of white space caused by its placement here, and it's re-positioning will fill this ugly gap of nothingness in the text. Looking around at random FA's, it appears that the tag is perhaps best suited to the external links section. However, we could retain its current position (kind of) by placing it in the List of Works section just above, if so desired. It can always be moved at FAC if it's scrutinised. Any views? -- Cassianto (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, moved down, we should have an external links section anyway..♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That looks much better. Thanks for that! -- Cassianto (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Raw links
Whilst taking a very quick glance through the refs, I noticed that 191 and 149 are both raw. These will need to be formatted correctly before a possible FAC. Cheers -- <b style="color:#008;">Cassianto</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 21:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Zodiac Settle
Stumbled across this: and this  which has an interesting story behind it. But I see the artile already covers this. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

relected
What is 'relected'? A typo of reselected perhaps? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The impact of the building can be seen in many of Cardiff's inner suburbs, where imitations of Park House and its features can frequently be identified.[133] CADW described it as "perhaps the most important 19th century house in Wales",[134] a position relected in its status as a Grade I listed building."
 * more likely "reflected". Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Artists Rifles
I was attempting to revert or fix the last edit (wherein I assume he is trying to add the article to Category:Artists' Rifles soldiers). I first searched within the article for various keywords (military, service, rifles, fought, etc), but then I found this google result (not a WP:RS I know, but possibly a clue towards one). So I'm leaving a note here, instead of touching the edit. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'll check Crook as, if Burges was in the Artists Rifles, it's inconcievable that Crook won't mention it.  In the meantime, I'll remove the edit as, even if Burges were in the AR, the category's not in the right position.  KJP1 (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ripon Grammar School
The very last reference, W W Wroth, WB's DNB entry, claims Burges as the architect of Ripon Grammar. Crook doesn't agree, indicating that Burges's design "remained unbuilt" (page 223 of the 2013 WBTHVD). Looking at the building, it doesn't look like Burges, unless done on the very, very cheap. Does anyone know who the architect was? Does it have a hint of Frame's Pierhead Building in Cardiff? KJP1 (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The architect was George Corson of Leeds - see --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 16:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Cardiff Castle: who finished the Arab Room?
The current article states: "The Arab Room in the Herbert Tower remains, however, probably the last that Burges completed." AND: "The room was completed by Burges's brother-in-law, Richard Popplewell Pullan." This cannot both be true. I changed this (boldly I admit) assuming Burges completed the plans for the room while it was finished after his death. While I was at it I changed the structure of a sentence that seemed to me overly long as well. This was reverted, along with some vandalism (not mine obviously), by ‎Jianhui67 but the logical impossibility remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ineverheardofhim (talk • contribs) 11:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, a very fair point. And no need to apologise for acting "boldly" - I'm sure there's a wiki policy which advocates just such an approach.  I think the error is the first use of the word "completed" and it should read something like:


 * "The Arab Room in the Herbert Tower remains, however, probably the last on which Burges worked, being completed by Burges's brother-in-law, Richard Popplewell Pullan."


 * What I suggest is that we wait until the dust settles at the end of the day and then I'll have a look at revising it. I hope this is ok.  All the best.  KJP1 (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That is a good suggestion. Perhaps something like: "The Arab Room in the Herbert Tower remains. It is probably the last on which Burges worked, being completed by Burges's brother-in-law, Richard Popplewell Pullan." Since I'm not really sure what "however" is doing in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ineverheardofhim (talk • contribs) 13:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Funny that. My weakness for unnecessary "howevers" caused the excellent Mr Riley much pain at GA Review!  KJP1 (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Have amended to correct the error. Hope it works.  KJP1 (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nicely done, thank you.Ineverheardofhim (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Greek mistakes
The Greek version of "John" is ΙΩΑΝΝΗΣ, so the word ΙΩΑИΣ in the text strikes me as rather Winnie-the-Pooh-esque in its strangeness. The character И does not appear in the Greek alphabet; it is normally found in the Cyrillic script, where it corresponds to the Greek iota. The missing letters could perhaps be a contraction, but I don't see why that would be if the name is "repeated [...] along the ceiling beams". I have no access to images of the inscriptions, so I do not know if the originator of this oddity is the artist or an editor of this otherwise excellent article. Could someone please look into it? Waltham, The Duke of 16:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I shall certainly look into it. The error, if such it is - my Greek is non-existant - certainly isn't Newman's, but it may well be mine.  He writes, "the name John, in Greek letters, painted again and again, forwards and backwards, on the sides of the ceiling beams," but does not provide a translation.   Let me see what I can uncover.  I'm glad you liked the article and appreciate your kind comments.  KJP1 (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Have now found a very clear image on a blog called Prufrock's Dilemma. Easily located in a google search and you can see the name, written both forwards and backwards, on the ceiling beams.  As far as I can see, it looks like the word in the article, certainly it has five characters, rather than seven.  So I'm reasonably confident that the article accurately reflects the reality.  Whether it's accurate Greek, I'm not competent to say.   But the Marquess, as a famous scholar and highly competent linguist with a command of some 19 languages including Greek, certainly was, and it would seem odd that he wouldn't have noticed  the misspelling of his own name in a language he knew.  All rather puzzling.  I shall dig around some more.   KJP1 (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 19 languages? Oh, my. I have a long way to go, then, for I am myself interested in languages, though I have lagged behind in this area and only now am trying, somewhat, to catch up.
 * Thank you for looking into the matter. I have found the image (lovely detailing there), and the name is indeed shortened. The И-looking character is curious, but I wonder if it might not be a stylised H, giving us ΙΩΑ[ΝΝ]ΗΣ with the middle removed. It's a plausible explanation, no? (On the other hand, this uncertainty might be a good reason not to include the Greek in the article at all, on grounds of original research.) Waltham, The Duke of 19:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The ceiling is rather gorgeous, and the photo does do it justice.  Although the inlaid mirrors have always rather surprised me.  More Hugh Hefner than Bute.  But perhaps something else we should thank the ever-joking Burges for - the Marquess was reportedly rather annoyed by the images of monkeys, notoriously lacivious beasts, with which Burges decorated the ceiling of the Marchioness's bedroom at Castell Coch.  I'll leave the Greek in for now, as it seems to reflect the reality, but we can see what others think.  Best regards.  KJP1 (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would guess the "Cyrillic" form is just a bit of decorative affectation, actually. At the same period you find 8 in inscriptions with a flat top, for example. Much the same sort of thing. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Info-box
I note and applaud the recent removal of the box. I agree that the article is the better for losing that unhelpful clutter. Not so sure about the 300px image size, though.  Tim riley  talk    21:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

For a long time this article didn't have an infobox even after it passed FAC, the main contributors to the article decided it looked better without one. Why now it is essential to have one?♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC) I agree with Tim. This was the best thing to happen to the article since its FA promotion. The "information" contained within the box is redundent and repetetive. Lets break it down: That leaves his name. We know who he is so let's not be stupid about things.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   15:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not essential, just that there was one and someone tossed it for no particularly good reason beyond the usual "I hate infoboxes, they are for the unwashed ignorant plebians" argument that drives me to distraction.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  23:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't need his date of birth or death as that can easily be found by moving the eyes to the left.
 * Who cares where he went to school or college?
 * Who cares who his father was?
 * The buildings are also given within the first para of the lede.
 * Yes, and the buildings mentioned in the infobox didn't adequately summarise his work anyway and was highly restrictive.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought of that point. It makes the info-box not only pointless clutter but actively harmful. Blitz it, I say!  Tim riley  talk    18:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disturb the fun. I see that this was a featured article, appeared on the Main page, pleasing to everybody, no? Some day, a feature was reverted, rather boldly. WP.BRD requires discussion and consensus. Do you think you have that? - I don't have to explain again that if a parameter is wrong or misleading, that parameter can be fixed or dropped? - I have been asked to look away. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no discussion to reach a consensus to add the IB, and it passed through the FA procedure without one. Can you show a link to the discussion to include one? - SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The FA procedure is indifferent to infoboxes. I see that this article had a stable infobox from July 2013, shown on TFA day and later, until ... - Your question is quite irrelevant to a consensus in 2015. The normal procedure after a bold edit (like this removal) is to discuss and reach consensus, not to "blitz". But, repeating, I have been asked to look away. In case of doubt: I would like to see the infobox restored, if necessary improved. I am not permitted to make another comment. Enjoy your freedom of speech ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Infoboxes and lead paragraphs are two different things with different purposes. The infobox wars are senseless to me; well over half of all WP articles have one, and many, many biographies do. These are simply a standard design that conveys at a glance information for the casual reader and also useful to the more in-depth reader seeking some quick basics.  (In an area where I seldom edit but have substantial RL expertise, the boxes for statutes, legal cases, Presidents of the United States and other U.S. officeholders benefit much from them ) Of course the information is basic, but that's the point.  What goes into them is certainly something worth discussion (i.e. whether names of parents are relevant, often they are not), but to use a disagreement over parameters as an excuse to throw out a whole infobox is really fallacious reasoning.  I find it really quite stunning that a very small minority of vehement anti-infobox advocates expound these views as if they were a project wide consensus, which they are not. But whatever, my main concern is seeing someone start going through and systematically removing infoboxes based on this sort of reasoning. Fix, don't flush.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  03:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah Gerda and Montana, what an unexpected surprise :-). I think people should just respect the views of the people who sweated it out for weeks on end to get this to FA. I wouldn't go tampering with an infobox in one of the horsie articles you'd put a massive amount of work into Montana. At some point, should infoboxes become controlled by wikidata, which I believed is planned, I'm sure there'll be the option fused or infobox or no infobox. I'm not an anti infobox advocate, but I do believe arts biographies really don't need them. In biographies like this they just look like generic furniture pieces which no information of real value. An infobox should do just that, relay lots of important facts and information. Nothing in the infobox really helps readers, in fact it does the opposite, the coverage of his works was poor and misleading, the notable ones are fully covered in the lede anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And I find it really quite stunning that a very small minority of vehement pro-infobox advocates expound these views as if they were a project wide consensus, which they are not. As for "my main concern is seeing someone start going through and systematically removing infoboxes": if there were any proof that such a thing was happening, there may be a case for looking into it, but I don't think that's the case, unless you can provide some diffs to show it happening? (And Doc, if Wikidata starts controlling things, we're all in trouble: it's the crowning turd of the project, as far as I'm concerned, a feature and function that we could certainly do without!) - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Schro, more than half of all WP articles have infoboxes, I'd call that a project wide consensus, at least by default. if you think infobox advocates are a "small minority" then try removing them from all the biographies of sports figures, popular musicians, and politicians.  I think you would find yourself the minority then.  It is only a narrow group of mostly classical music and a few formal art and literature sorts who have the vehement anti-infobox attitude.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  23:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the measure of the consensus though. The measure of consensus is expressed by the MoS: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". Just to clarify, I didn't say that "infobox advocates are a 'small minority'": I said that they very small minority were the vehement advocates who push for IBs in every article, regardless of whether it is a beneficial thing to do. I would certainly never follow your straw man argument of removing them from the list of people that you provided: to me that is exactly where an IB works extremely well - where it can show (often in tabular form) information that would be a mess in open prose. To be honest, I've not come across anyone who has a "vehement anti-infobox attitude". I've come across people who think they are good when they are used well in the right articles, but that does not hae to be all articles. I'm a big fan of them, and I think of all the articles I've created most have one. Most of those I've helped take through GA have one, and a good percentage of those I've taken through FA have one (including my most recent), but certainly not all by a long stretch. Much of the dumbed down "facts" that IBs contain often mean little without the context, which is what turns a fact into knowledge and understanding, and sadly that is something an IB cannot provide. - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think they're planning on it though, but I assume there would be the chance to suppress them in user preferences. What we really need is something behind the editing window which caters for different readers. An infobox version and a version with simply a nice clean picture so people can choose which version they like.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is idiotic if suppressing infoboxes in user prefs means that we can't get basic chemical information for hydrogen... sigh.... Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)


 * The problem with that is that, like many other people, I am not anti-IB, indeed I'm a big fan of them when they are used properly, but the current trend of unthinkingly forcing a flaming thing into every article is poor. If I suppress the IB, I can't see them in those articles where they need to be, but they will be there to mislead and provide out-of-context dross in articles where they certainly shouldn't be present. I don't disagree with them on aesthetic grounds, but on content grounds: repeating dumbed down "facts" that don't educate readers does no-one any good, so hiding them just isn't an option. - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * A summary in the lede is not "dumbed-down facts", nor is an infobox - content is always up for discussion, remember babies and bathwater.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)
 * Much of what is in most IBs falls into the "dumbed down" category, and often when that is stripped out, leaves stuff that's just too banal to warrant inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I said the same thing to Andy POTW. In some articles, in things like aircraft and ship articles, places, high tech buildings with lots of measurement facts, even footballers etc they're really essential I think and convey information which would be badly represented in the prose. I think they should do just that, not replicate what is stated in the lede, and not cite trivia which the average person will not be looking for just for the sake of it. Most infoboxes in arts biographies just look like padding and pieces of the furniture rather than truly being a useful info box. So there should be option I guess to suppress actual given infoboxes in your preferences like infobox person, architect or whatever on an individual. I really don't get the obsession with them and the notion that every article must have them. Their value really differs greatly from article to article. I'm guessing these people must have certain monitor screens in which these articles somehow look ugly with a bare space on the right.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I so agree that IBs are useful in the right articles. I dabble in politicians and bishops, and occasionally look in at cricketer biogs, and IBs are really helpful in all of them, making key career stats available at a glance. But without implying any ex cathedra authority I am pleased to see that at least two of the FAC coordinators are on record as judging IBs unnecessary for arts biogs.  Tim riley  talk    13:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The point of the infobox I think should be to convey information which would be poorly represented in and formatted in inline prose, so it makes it essential to format them differently to the prose in a fact box. Typically facts and figures which would look unsightly if you tried to incorporate them into the prose. The film infobox, at least when most of the parameters are filled in for instance, when you type out cast and crew with bullet points inline it looks kinda ugly. Better to put them in the box. I'd argue that the film infobox ought to have the options for set designers and all that too. What I disagree with, particularly in arts biographies is that the "facts" essentially duplicate the prose, and when you eliminate what is not duplicated you're essentially left with fluff, in this case his father and university. I think it is annoying to see them in articles where they just look like furniture pieces and padding rather than genuinely helping readers. We're an encyclopedia, a written work website, not imdb, so quite rightly our readers should be expected to read articles, not have eveyrthing delivered to them in infobox formats. There is a case for this, especially in the mobile phone age, and I did actually propose a concise wikipedia 15 months ago in which articles are given severe words limits and the most important facts would be delivered to readers, rather like an encyclopedic dictionary. The infobox then I think should be the means of delivering information to the reader which would bloat or look unsightly in the prose in the lede and provide a decent supplement to what is not covered in the prose, not duplicate it and provide trivia to pad it out for the sake of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I do agree that information not suitable for inline prose is one particularly good use for infoboxes and I appreciate the recognition of some of the things they do well. I go back to look at  the old paper encyclopedia, my dear friends of youth the World Books.  There, most of the major articles had some sort of "infobox" of standardized formatting that summarized material, some of which was only in that little box, other material was covered in detail in the text. Conversely, the old Britannica was often a wall of text.  WP is both - accessible to young and old alike.  So, to me, the WP infobox is something that is similar who what World Book did - recognizing different levels of readers and different levels of reader interest.  Some material will be repeated (birth and death dates, etc...), and it is true that some blind application of infobox parameters can result in fluff -  but that's a content issue, not a "do we have an infobox?" Issue.  However, in the arts (and popular art is also art, with most pop artist biographies containing infoboxes) there are plenty of things that info at a glance helps - time period, type of art/music (i.e. Baroque, Romantic, Modern, etc...), some family info, and so on.  JMO.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  23:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting discussion. Infoboxes are useful in some articles, Hydrogen for example, where readers need to find a lot of data that would make cumbersome prose. And sometimes they want to find the data quickly. In other articles, they are an ugly waste of space and add nothing. This is a case in point. Also, we have to remember that many readers still print hard copies of our articles. Indeed, we have a PDF generator (for want of a better word) that helps them to do this. Infoboxes look even worse when printed, particularly when they contain no valuable information. They turn what could be a professional PDF into an amateurish mess. I think there should be a rule of ten (ten good reasons) for inclusion of infoboxes. Graham Beards (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the point of them is where there is a lot of data which would not look better presented in prose. Arts biographies like Burges generally do not have that data or any real information to provide to supplement what is already given in the prose. Most of our arts biographies have infoboxes which contain no data, and either duplicate the text or add fluff. And as you say Graham, when printed out in PDF make the article look less professional. Look at the Brad Pitt infobox for instance, completely unnecessary. At least the old infobox actor had some useful parameters in it and things like award summaries. An intelligent reader would more likely be looking for "What did he receive an Oscar nom or Golden Globe for" or "what were his highest grossing films" rather than "How many kids does he have?" or the silly "what is Brad Pitt's occupation?"♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They need to fix the pdf output so it prints infoboxes - it used to. (And for things like chemical elements, the infobox is crucial!!)  Hey, someone in India who is maybe 15 would have little clue about Brat Pitt, I mean, what has he done lately?  LOL!
 * Could someone upload a video to YouTube for us? (A Presidential box selfie is optional). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fury was an absolute masterpiece Martin, what do you mean? ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be so contemptuous of younger readers. Those young people that will secure Burges's legacy into the next century and beyond are with us today, reading this article for the very first time on iphones/ipads and other fantastical whatnots. To all above, I thought the infobox looked great and did provide a casual summary of the biography. I've found myself in a rush in the past having to wade through biographies on a tiny screen to find some precinct bit of information, which was sacrificed for the sake of style. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * has been sacrificed for the sake of style, it has been removed because it wasn't fit for purpose. EVERYTHING that was in the IB could be found within the opening paragraph of the lede.  If anything it was a casual summary of the first paragraph of the lead section.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   08:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Subsection
Perhaps we should replace all articles with just infoboxes then as they look so good.. Biographies obviously look better presented in an infobox instead of prose, we could cram the whole thing into one infobox and our child readers will be eternally grateful to us for making it easier to learn from...♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dr. B - I find the above unhelpful. Editors, quite obviously, have differing views as to the utility/value of IBs.  Fine, let's debate that.  But shouting down opposing views isn't in the spirit of what we're all trying to do.  And it's particularly regrettable when the editor you're trying to shout down is the main contributor to the article that you're wanting to take to FAC.  KJP1 (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit my dear KP, "shouting down" was not intended, rather it was intended humorously in a grumpy Basil Fawlty sense as a reply to Kegg's indication that the infobox was a thing of a great beauty which the children will love. As I said, there really should be the option for both preferences, although as SchroCat and Tim both said it is problematic in some aspects.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's get back to writing. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In a way though there is some truth to it as a lot of people do seem to find the information conveyed in infoboxes easier to read in that format and to digest, especially on mobiles. In fact I proposed a concise wikipedia edition a while back to provide the stark basics and highlights of the article here, and on some systems like mobiles, presentations in a box with the raw basic facts I think is a very practical thing to consider. You could argue though that the lede should accomplish that, but we do need to be more flexible I think and improve useability, everybody is different. I just think the value of them differs greatly from article to article. Anyway...♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Subsection 2
Cassianto says above "EVERYTHING that was in the IB could be found within the opening paragraph of the lede" (emphasis in original.

Let's see.

The opening paragraph of the lede was, at the last edit which included the infobox:

"William Burges (2 December 1827 – 20 April 1881) was an English architect and designer. Among the greatest of the Victorian art-architects, he sobught in his work to escape from both nineteenth-century industrialisation and the Neoclassical architectural style and re-establish the architectural and social values of a utopian medieval England. Burges stands within the tradition of the Gothic Revival, his works echoing those of the Pre-Raphaelites and heralding those of the Arts and Crafts movement."


 * The infobox (reproduced here) included three of Burges' significant buildings. They are not within the opening paragraph of the lede.
 * The infobox included Burges' place of death. That is not within the opening paragraph of the lede.
 * The infobox included the fact that Burges was aged 53 at death. That is not within the opening paragraph of the lede.
 * The infobox included the fact that Burges' father was Alfred Burges. Not only is that not within the opening paragraph of the lede; it's not in the lede at all
 * The infobox included the fact that Burges was educated at King's College School. Not only is that not within the opening paragraph of the lede; it's not in the lede at all
 * The only facts from the infobox which are repeated from the opening paragraph of the lede are Burges' name and his dates of birth and death.

Now that the truth of the matter is now clear, I look forward to the long-standing infobox being restored, as there is clearly not consensus for its removal. . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, deep joy. Eight minutes after the deeply-flawed Arbcom lost any fragment of common sense... I wonder if they realise just how much of a clusterfuck of a situation they've made the rest of us have to put up with (probably not – forethought doesn't seem to be a pre-requisite in the decision making process.
 * There was no consensus to include an IB prior to the last community consensus process (the PR/FAC which considered the article complete and excellent (of publishable quality) without one). Not every tedious little factoid has to be in the lead, and its disingenuous to try and pretend that they need to be. (Show me in the MoS that it's a requirement that they have to...) - SchroCat (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said. The idiot box is flawed and no use to anyone.  Who gives a shiny shit where he went to school or wear where he died?   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   22:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps people who are interested in him? Here's something shiny by Burges. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oooh - look: the BBC, where they manage to look professional, grown-up, knowledgeable, etc - and still don't need to use a flaming IB to show the obvious to people! - SchroCat (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's news! (- not an encyclopedia). But apparently they even embed things called "videos", right at the top. Give them a chance, the poor plebs. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And Britannica's (that's an encyclopaedia) stance of "useful in very brief form on some pages, and not on others" is a good one to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah! Pass the Kleenex, someone, I'm getting all nostalgic over "Rule Brittanica". (But you may be right.) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC) .... is that a Welsh not not?
 * We may feel all big and grown up on our fifteenth birthday, but I don't see any need to eschew the thoughts of a 247-year-old encyclopaedia in how to present information: ignoring them entirely doesn't seem to be the best course of action, really. - SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of us aspire to a mental age of 13. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * restore I care "wear he died".
 * (I also care about publishing metadata) Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So let the hidden PERSONDATA inform the metadata, or edit it directly: it's not a difficult thing to do. - SchroCat (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For some it is a difficult thing to do. IBs on articles such as this cater for the moronic, evidenced by the kind of people who are supporting here.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   23:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Climb every mountain, eh Cassie? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC) "... see that exquisite green glass and silver decanter? that's your Mum, that is..."
 * "IBs on articles such as this cater for the moronic, evidenced by the kind of people who are supporting here" - At best that's uncivil and it really says a lot about your attitude to our readers. People come to Wikipedia expecting to find information and infoboxes provide a quick look at pertinent information about the subject. I really don't understand why people are so against them. I tend to think that maybe these people would be happiest using a quill, ink and parchment and I have to wonder why they're editing a digital encyclopaedia. This is the 21st century and it seems ridiculous not to give our readers as much information as we can with the technology that we have available. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 23:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "I tend to think that maybe these people would be happiest using a quill, ink and parchment and I have to wonder why they're editing a digital encyclopaedia" - At best that's uncivil and it really says a lot about your attitude. As above, other online encyclopaedias don't paste them onto every article, so maybe there is something to be said for a little flexibility where these things are concerned? - SchroCat (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice try but no, it's not uncivil. It's merely reflecting on the fact that we have the technology but some just don't want to use it. Wikipedia isn't other online encyclopaedias and there are quite a few of them that do use infoboxes. I even have a paper encyclopaedia here from the 1950s that uses the equivalent of an infobox. I used to write technical manuals in the 1990s that did the same, hence my reference to implements from a time before that. We don't have to use infoboxes everywhere but there is no reason to be so wildly opposed to them. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (Actually, yes, it is uncivil, but don't let that derail your point) As to the rest: "just because we can doesn't mean we should" applies to IBs as much as anything else. Just to clarify, as you've obviously not taken the time to read the thread: I am not "wildly opposed" to IBs - just the reverse, but I do think that a little flexibility over where and when they are applied would probably do some good. - SchroCat (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And oh good, more edit warring: that's constructive. Round of applause all round for descaling the situation, rather than trying to pour petrol on the flames. Excellent work. - SchroCat (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just restored the infobox because the article is better with it. There was no justification for removing the box that had been on the article since well before it was TFA on 2 December 2013. --RexxS (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Better with it" is hogwash Rexx, as well you know (shall I revert because I don't thinks it's better with it?). There was no justification for its inclusion after it passed the community's scrutiny at PR and FAC, but don't let a small thing like the facts get in the way of your edit warring, or your POV pushing. - SchroCat (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry RexxS, and I just reverted you (something which I don't like doing). Your rational of it's "better with it" is a subjective one.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   05:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to remind everyone of WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. The article had an infobox for over a year so that had become the status quo. The removal was bold and it was reverted so the status quo should reign while it's under discussion. Edit-warring over it, is not appropriate. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not as a result of your patronising post above, but off my own back, I have restored the idiot box until a consensus can be reached.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   11:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, be civil. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't followed this article, but am rather appalled by the poor quality of the infobox and by the poor, kneejerk quality of the arguments for it, here. Of the elements in the infobox being proposed: So everything in the infobox is either redundant to immediately upfront introductory text and doesn't help readers, or it appears random and unprofessional, IMHO. It is not a useful presentation of most pertinent facts about Burges, nor does it help the writing of the text (e.g. by providing useful/necessary factual identifiers like historic building designation numbers that are best listed in an infobox so they don't need to be stated in boring sentences in the article). The opening statement of this section seems obfuscating and misleading and ARROGANT speaking of "truth", how ridiculous. Presenting just the picture is clearly better than this. -- do ncr  am  14:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Born = 2 December 1827" is in the first paragraph of the lede
 * "Died= 20 April 1881" is in the first paragraph of the lede
 * "(aged 53)" is stated in the second paragraph of the lede, and is implicit already in the first paragraph
 * "The Tower House, Kensington, London, England", as where he died, is in the second paragraph
 * "Alma mater = King's College School, King's College London"  seems unimportant to me, not worth emphasizing, is not a distinguishing characteristic of William Burges, maybe it is nice for the few readers who are alumni.
 * "Parents = Alfred Burges"  is non-sensical, ungrammatical, unprofessional... absurd to say his father is his parents.
 * "Buildings = "	 appears unprofessional...doesn't convey that the listed ones are his most important, most well-known, or what they are.  (Why not list the Empire State Building?, it is a building too.  Okay I'll assume that they have some association with Burges, but I want to be told what the association/importance is  -- are these the 3 biggest buildings he painted, or what? -- or this seems random)
 * "Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral / Cardiff Castle / The Tower House" seems to imply these are his 3 buildings (incorrect implication of course). Seems random and unprofessional, if the reason why these 3 are selected is not suggested.
 * He was a house painter?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, it is hard for me, too, to resist being sarcastic, sorry about that. It just says "Buildings", not that he designed them or built them or engineered them or landscaped them or painted them like a house-painter or painted them like a watercolour artist would.  Indicating the nature of his association to these buildings is really necessary.  It also does not say these are his most significant buildings, though that might be implied (and the infobox field is actually "significant_buildings =" although only "Buildings" is displayed).  If so, then the buildings listed contradicts the text, which says, instead: "Burges's most notable works are Cardiff Castle, constructed between 1866 and 1928, and Castell Coch (1872–91)".  The infobox is really shoddy work, undermining the otherwise high quality of the article. -- do  ncr  am  15:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, a good argument for adding architect (at least), as his profession, in the box. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

An infobox briefly and compactly summarises the key points of the article. It is redundant to the lead in exactly the same way that the lead is redundant to the rest of the article, yet I don't hear any calls to remove information from the lead because it is redundant. Doncram's wall of text boils down to "I don't like it; I won't improve it; I'll just remove it." If everybody took that sort unconstructive, negative attitude to article building, we'd have no encyclopedia left.

Here's what he misses out from his diatribe above: The other items could profitably be debated to agree their inclusion, exclusion, or improvement. That in itself is not an argument to remove the infobox.
 * "Born = 2 December 1827" is in the same place as other infoboxes: readers expect to be able to find such info at-a-glance. It is a piece of Key-value information that can easily and predictably be read by third-party tools. It also provides a microformat "bday" with a value of "1827-12-02" that is not available from anywhere else in the article.
 * "Died= 20 April 1881" is in the same place as other infoboxes: readers expect to be able to find such info at-a-glance. It is a piece of Key-value information. It provides a microformat "dday deathdate" that is not available from anywhere else in the article.
 * "(aged 53)" is a calculation that readers appreciate. It is in the same place as other infoboxes and readers expect to be able to find such info at-a-glance.
 * His place of death cannot be found in the lead, but the infobox supplies that piece of information in the expected place. It also provides the microformat "deathplace" not available from anywhere else in the article.
 * The fact that he attended KCS, a then newly-founded public school, may be peripheral to understanding his works, but is certainly pertinent to placing him in the social context of his time. I am open to argument that it's not really important enough, but I don't agree that it can be dismissed as easily as Doncram suggests.
 * "Parents = Alfred Burges" is a long way from the "non-sensical [sic], ungrammatical, unprofessional... absurd" rant that Doncram spouts. His father was notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. There is no doubt that that William being a son of Alfred is an important piece of information (and linking) in setting the scene for a study of William. The key-value pair here bears the label "Parents" because there are usually two. In this case his mother's first name is not known. Would Doncram be happier if we added "Mrs Burgess" to make the plural label agree in number with its contents? That is the real nonsense here. There is not a single reader who sees "Parents = Alfred Burges" and doesn't understand that Alfred Burges was his father. It's not a sentence; it's a compact fragment of information and doesn't have to be grammatical, just understandable. It doesn't have to be "professional" either: the last thing I want is paid editors interfering in our best content with their own agenda. I could - with some effort - write a Lua module that removed the 's' from the "Parents" label whenever only one parent was quoted; but is it worth the effort? Doncram makes a trivial argument and it is trivially dismissed.

Doncram is clutching at straws to attempt to denigrate the infobox for reasons we all know - he has been stalking Andy's work for some time and his ill-founded criticism has no credibility here. --RexxS (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Rexx, please concentrate on the content, not the other contributors. It's unhelpful and uncivil to pick on others. Please try not to dismiss other people's arguments as "trivial": again, it's unhelpful and uncivil, and is only going to lead to an escalation of tension.
 * In terms of your other points. PERSONDATA has the Microformats that are needed, and the deeply awful Wikidata already covers the key points that are needed, so your argument for it being needed in that department is redundant. There are some other flaws to your argument that I could go through, but I find the return to IB battles too depressing to continue discussing the flaming things. - SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * SchroCat, you know I value your contributions and opinions highly, whether I agree or disagree with them. I have addressed the substance of Doncram's weak arguments, but feel it important that you understand why Doncram is here. It is merely to continue his harassment of Andy. The inflammatory rhetoric was begun in his remarks above. Are you going to ask him to de-escalate or is that something you reserve only for those you are arguing against?
 * Now let me lay this to bed once and for all: PERSONDATA DOES NOT PROVIDE THE NEEDED MICROFORMATS. I can't be any clearer. I'd be grateful if you check that and when you're satisfied, please strike your error above. --RexxS (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Rexx, my comments about civility and focussing on the content obviously do not apply simply to one "side": they are equally applicable to all. - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the thread has now moved on to other matters, it's a slightly moot point, but I will look into it as soon as you can proved me with a recent RfC that shows a consensus that we must produce microformats for our articles. One of the reasons I delay in looking for more info is that our Persondata page reads:
 * "Persondata is a special set of metadata that can and should be added to biographical articles only. It consists of standardized data fields with basic information about the person (name, short description, birth and death days, and places of birth and death) that, unlike conventional Wikipedia content, can be extracted automatically and processed by cataloging tools and then used for a variety of purposes, such as providing advanced search capabilities, statistical analysis, automated categorization, and birthday lists.
 * Given the obvious confusion here, I'll hold off doing any digging until I know that Microformats must be used in all articles. -SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I should ask you to provide me with a recent RfC that says we mustn't provide microformats in our articles. Just because something isn't compulsory, doesn't mean that it's not an improvement. Microformats are. The WP:Microformats page reads:
 * "A Microformat (sometimes abbreviated μF or uF) is a way of adding simple semantic meaning to human-readable content which is otherwise, from a machine's point of view, just plain text. They allow data items such as events, contact details or locations, on HTML (or XHTML) web pages, to be meaningfully detected and the information in them to be extracted by software, and indexed, searched for, saved or cross-referenced, so that it can be reused or combined. ... they are items of semantic mark up, using just standard (X)HTML with a set of common class-names ..."
 * Persondata does not mark up its data with the common microformat classes; infoboxes do. Infoboxes mark a birthdate as "bday"; Persondata marks it as "persondata-label". Infoboxes mark a date of death as "deathdate"; Persondata marks it as "persondata-label". And so on. In other words, Persondata marks everything as persondata; it doesn't give the microformat key that identifies each individual item, while an infobox does. Now, I'm not saying we're under any compulsion to provide extra information, but you simply can't claim that PERSONDATA has the Microformats that are needed because it's just not true; Persondata has no microformats at all. If you don't believe me, you can examine the html produced by each and see that what I say is true. Will you now strike your mistaken statement, please? --RexxS (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So there is nothing that says we must produce Microformats? If that's the case, then it's something of a strawman to say we need an infobox because we need to produce Microformats. I see it's the version added without discussion still contains dross that is probably best left out, if people would be a bit less possessive about them, and a bit more flexible about what to include: less is more is an excellent rule of thumb that is sadly missing in these endlessly turgid discussions. - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing that says we have to have images in articles either, or references even (apart from in biographies). But adding them usually improves the article and the same is true for microformats. We don't edit because we have to; we edit to improve the article. Surely the strawman is saying that we need to produce microformats? All I'm saying is that - all else being equal - producing microformats is an improvement over not producing microformats. But you've shifted your argument from claiming "PERSONDATA has the Microformats that are needed", so I guess I've made my point.
 * I'm more than happy to discuss what you feel is dross, although you have to concede that there will be visitors who come to articles just to find that piece of dross. Nevertheless, I feel the same as you do about keeping bloat out of infoboxes. I like my infoboxes to resemble Cassius - a lean and hungry look. I'm willing to give way if someone explains that a link to William Burges' notable father is not a key piece of information in understanding William's life and works. If I'm wrong in thinking that a link to the public school he attended isn't particularly important in placing him in a social context, then by all means, leave it out. But we need to have these debates, not end up on tangents about Persondata being just as good as an infobox when it isn't.
 * If somebody removes an infobox with the rationale "far better without it", you're going to get me explaining why it is better with it. On the other hand, if somebody trims out the dross and explains convincingly why it was dross, they'll have my thanks. --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "There's nothing that says we have to have images in articles either, or references even"? I don't know which Wikia you think that's from Rexx, but our second of the WP:FIVEPILLARS is quite clear: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources."} (my emphasis). - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

What can be done to improve the value of the infobox
OK, there seems to be a strong movement here that this infobox of great value to our readers. I respect the views of people who have contributed to Burges topics especially and don't want to look as if I'm trying to force something here. I'd like some input (beyond Andy) on why this box is of vital importance, and if possible I'd like to see a brainstorming of possible ideas that the infobox might include in addition to make it of more value, if it is really better that we have it. As I say, I have no objections to infoboxes were there is real data and facts not given in the prose but I see this as very limited. I'd be more accepting of it if there was some really important facts displayed here about his works and career/background which are not given in the prose and we can find a way to improve the quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think "father" and "school" should both be removed. The buildings as they are in the idiot box above should either be exhaustive or not at all.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   11:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

And then we're left with...♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely!!  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   11:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we should not discuss which building to mention and which not but link to the list of his building. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks patently ridiculous him having one parent. No doubt someone will think it's a "great idea" to have the name left there, regardless of common sense... - SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Are there decent facts about his work partners, contractors, some more elaboration on his building materials and furniture etc which could be added? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not within the restrictive confines of the IB, and not without strippping out the context which provides knowledge and understanding. - SchroCat (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose adding needless factoids for the sake of info box justification. Gerda, nice idea, but I don't think we should be forcing people off the article to find information which can be added here.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   12:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I know, but I'm really struggling on this to see why so many think it's of vital importance. I respect the views of the Burges enthusiasts and co writers on this and want to see an improvement so am at least making an effort to make it more constructive to the reader..♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How about a collapsible box like Peter Sellers?  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   12:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Trying to take the request of this section seriously, and get past sarcasm. I see that the Peter Sellers' infobox, when "Brief summary" is uncollapsed, has fields "Occupation = Actor, comedian and singer" and "Years active = 1948–1980" and "Known for = Character acting and improvisation"  (which includes links to Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record, Character actor and Improvisation articles).  Occupation, Years active, and Known for, fields seem possibly/potentially useful.  List of spouses seems not so useful in summarizing Peter Seller's importance.  Something suggesting what Burges is known for, e.g. perhaps that he was an architect important for introducing some change or something.  Can it be briefly conveyed what an "art-architect" is (as mentioned in text), with useful links?  His most significant buildings could be given, perhaps, but which those are has to be supported in the text, not contradicted by the text.  Note the 3 listed in the existing infobox (if we assume they're his most significant works) contradict the text:  the text states "Burges's most notable works are Cardiff Castle, constructed between 1866 and 1928, and Castell Coch (1872–91)".  And, is there anything that can be reported in the infobox which helps the writing of the text, e.g. reports some technical identifier number so that a boring sentence can be dropped from the text?  -- do  ncr  am  15:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , the Sellers article, if you look through the archives, also had the same laborious discussion. There, it was decided to appease both camps by collapsing the infobox  leaving those interested in the factoids able to click it open and not ruin it for everyone else. It has worked there so there is no reason why it shouldn't work here. For the record I'm still not happy with the contents of the Sellers infobox, and would delete ALL of the parameters that you have given if I had the chance to do so. There is still to much redundent information within Burges's box and I would cap it at his birth and death dates (although this is utterly stupid and we may as well do away with it altogether.  Info boxes are grossly misleading as proved here with his "notable works". Sure, the current three are not the most famous of his buildings but that, I suppose, is subjective and it would only be beneficial to list them ALL in that case.  Either that, or give the visitor the unpleasant task to scan the lead which contains them.    Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   18:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How about "Fans' favorite diary entry: 'Too much opium'" ?  Or "Most-cited quote: 'Too much opium'".  Or most famous quote, or the like.  Actually I am serious, that the quote or something else light/engaging in the infobox could serve a useful purpose of interesting the browsing reader who may be intrigued to actually read the article.  It suggests there's something more in the article worth exploring for, beyond what's in the lede.  Maybe the odd list of many spouses for Peter Sellers sort of serves a similar purpose, suggesting indirectly that his life was messed up and/or colorful.  I am not aware of Featured Articles using such a literary device, but I think it could actually be a legitimate purpose of infoboxes.  It recognizes that many arriving persons are "idiots" who just check the "idiot-box" and pictures, to put it negatively.  Or more positively and respectfully, it recognizes that many arriving persons are potential readers who are not sure if they want to invest the time to read, if some benefit is not suggested by their quick evaluation by scanning top material including the infobox. -- do  ncr  am  16:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no place for folks who think that its visitors are "idiots" just because they don't have the time or ability to read the whole of an article merely to find some simple fact. Don't you realise that the English Wikipedia is read by millions who don't have English as their first language? There are plenty of folks in the world - a lot brighter than you - who would struggle to read a whole article but could pick out key information from an infobox. Are they "idiots"? It's time you found a new hobby, Doncram. --RexxS (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , that is unfair and seems like a personally-directed try to take me out, in some way. I was referencing and responding to someone else's use of the term "idiot-box" further above.  I was responding positively, substantively, with a real try to come up with better fields and purposes to make an infobox worthwhile.  Please consider wp:NPA and please don't make such personally-directed comments about me.  sincerely, -- do  ncr  am  21:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They do not have to read through the article: the germane information is in the lead, and it is provided in context and with nuance, so it may actually lead to people understanding something, rather than just picking up a forgettable stray factoid. - SchroCat (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And those using a mobile phone who only want a single stray factoid, like where Burges died, are they not readers, too? --RexxS (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * RexxS's last comment seems a rather desperate gesture; his hypothetical user might also 'only' want to know the name of Burges's father or where he went to school or what was his height or what was his favourite breakfast, but such imaginary cases are just a form of WP:OR and do not constitute an argument one way or another. If an infobox is necessary at all, the infobox as it stands at the head of this section - minus place of death, father and university - and minus the superfluous 'age at death' which does not need to be spelt out here any more than in the article - seems to me to be more than adequate.--Smerus (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is what we are left with, bloody ridiculous! What on earth is the point?    Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   18:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking at the acres of print and passion expended in the above discussion, which could have generated a hundred interesting stubs, I can only echo Cassianto, "What on earth is the point?" KJP1 (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the mini-box, above, is very similar to the "no box" option, which I've added just below it. OK, it has the subject's name in bold, above the box, rather than unbolded, below it, and it adds birth and death data. Otherwise it's pretty well the same. So, while I am against loading trivial or potentially misleading information into an infobox, I would not die in the barricades if in this case a compromise was agreed to adopt something like the mini-box version. I wouldn't mind if the fact that Burges was an architect was added to the box, and would even countenance a link to his list of works, like we do in some composer articles. That way, the legendary Iphone reader who is evidently now our cynosure can find out who Burges was, what he did and when he did it, without once glancing at the adjoining text. Worth trying? Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly worth trying. Surely you mean on the barricades or at least at? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The infobox at the top of this section provides much of the summary information that readers have come to expect from an encyclopedia: a birth date and place where known; the same for death where applicable; notable parents and children; notable works. It needs occupation to be added, but otherwise it does that job well, in addition to making the same information available as structured data and as microformats for third-parties to re-use. Suggesting that "favourite breakfast" is on a par with the real key data betrays a singular lack of ability to understand what is important. It's cheap to mock the vast number of editors who use Wikipedia to merely answer a trivia question, or find out anything about a subject they previously knew nothing about. But those visitors are just as much the audience we're writing for as the academic who wants a detailed overview and quality references to follow. There's no need to deny the former in a misguided attempt to please the latter. --RexxS (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We can provide for your casual reader by an infobox that states clearly who Burges was, when he lived and what he did, with a link to his achievements. That is the key information about him that infoboxes were originially set up to provide. Thay were not intended to be repositories of general or selected trivia – that tendency is an unfortunate development which diminishes the value of such boxes and is the cause of much of the dissension around this topic.  Stick to essentials: you cannot possibly anticipate what bits of trivia your token visitor might require, and you can't include everything. Insisting on including  a bit of token trivia  merely prolongs the argument  to little purpose – the  notion that there are people out there specifically seeking this kind of information about Burges but who are otherwise uninterested in the article is far-fetched. Why not try the attenuated box for a while, and move on to more productive activity? Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've boldly added Architect as a default, overridable parameter for occupation in infobox architect. Feel free to undo it if you don't like it, but reading this discussion his occupation seems to be one of the rare constants (almost) everyone agrees on should be included. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added the Burges's buildings, as boldly, to the short version, a feature welcome even for a classical composer such as Chopin. For more inspiration, compare Andrea Palladio and Frank Lloyd Wright, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's quite a long list of buildings at Frank Lloyd Wright, isn't it? But I can see why people would find that really useful, instead of having to search the text and jump via the link there. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Gerda, with the greatest respect and admiration, the box recently imposed on the Chopin article is a fatuous, embarrassing excrescence, and makes WP look amateurish. Don't, I beg, try to clone it here.  Tim riley  talk    20:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

For me, as a reader of this article, I think the key information for this infobox would be (not necessarily in this order) his occupation, birth and death dates, years active (if significantly different from above), 2-3 notable buildings and the link to the list (to show that he's known for many more than just the listed ones), and his nationality. I don't personally see much value in his (or indeed most people's) alma mata but I presume from its prevalence on the encyclopaedia that this view is not universal. I really don't see the point in a collapsed infobox as it just makes it more difficult to access without providing any benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The short box would in my view be a reasonable outcome. All the displayed information comes under the heading of "key identification", unalloyed by trivia. My optimistic side believes that this compromise will be broadly acceptable to everyone; my pessimistic side fears it will please no one and the argument will continue ad  infinitum. I won't be joining in, if that be the case. My final word: this form of box is not suggested as a general template. There will be many articles where a lot more key information can rightly be included – I am thinking of sports biographies, cities, countries, etc. But there will equally be instances where the shorter form is much more appropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally speaking I think that having no infobox is the way to go. The birth and death dates are the first thing you read in the lead section so this is just repetetive IMO; "architect" is also a bit pointless too. I can kind of see the point of linking to his buildings list as opposed to giving his most notable ones.  Listing the "notable" ones would only lead to more arguing with some saying that some were more notable than others.  However, I appreciate not everyone thinks the same so I would have to concur with Brian that less is more.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   18:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Or maybe editors might be able to reach consensus, quite politely and reasonably, on which were Burges's most "notable" buildings? Frank gets 14. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt it.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   19:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible typo
There may be a typo here, where we have "throughly" which would be "thoroughly" but I'm unsure as I don't have access to the preface of Pullan's Architectural Designs of W. Burges which is given as ref 245 in the section Legacy and influence. Jodosma (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I am sure you are right. I can't check as my copy of Pullan is currently at the book binders, but the context makes it pretty clear you are correct and I've altered it.KJP1 (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on William Burges. 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/20130705201340/http://www.dovermuseum.co.uk/Dover-History/Medievel-Dover/Medieval-Dover.aspx to http://www.dovermuseum.co.uk/dover-history/medievel-dover/medieval-dover.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519012127/http://www.dover-kent.co.uk/places/maison_dieu.htm to http://www.dover-kent.co.uk/places/maison_dieu.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306101846/http://www.parkhouseclub.com/venue-and-rooms/history.html to http://www.parkhouseclub.com/venue-and-rooms/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130224133614/http://www.visitcardiff.com/latest-news/2011/3/29/burges-stained-glass-panels-return-home-to-coch-a292 to http://www.visitcardiff.com/latest-news/2011/3/29/burges-stained-glass-panels-return-home-to-coch-a292
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503050431/http://www.cecilhigginsartgallery.org/burges/Bed.htm to http://www.cecilhigginsartgallery.org/burges/Bed.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120912183236/http://www.marianskelazne.cz/en/kostely-kaplicky/ to http://www.marianskelazne.cz/en/kostely-kaplicky/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503050141/http://www.cecilhigginsartgallery.org/burges/Wardrobe.htm to http://www.cecilhigginsartgallery.org/burges/Wardrobe.htm

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) 15:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Burges. 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/20120226072701/http://www.cardiffcastle.com/content.asp?nav=7,26&parent_directory_id=1 to http://www.cardiffcastle.com/content.asp?nav=7,26&parent_directory_id=1

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) 23:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)