Talk:Rushton Triangular Lodge

[Untitled]

From pcpcpc's User Page:

Rushton Triangular Lodge

You changed this to the category Historic House - it is not a house; so I have changed it back. Saga City 05:18, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear, I see you describe yourself as a pedant so we may have difficulty agreeing on this one. You are of course correct that Rushden Triangular Lodge is not a country house, but I added it to that category because it is a closely related property and one of the main reasons why people will visit the list of country houses is to find out what heritage properties they might visit. If there is a separate catergory for banqueting houses, I doubt that many people will find it (but of course it can be in that too). It can be explained in the first sentence of the lodge's article that it is not actually a country house, so that any misunderstanding is quickly nipped in the bud.

However, my understanding is that the lodge was built as a banqueting house, a fairly common building type in Tudor times, and one with a practical purpose. I would suggest that this disqualifies it from the status of folly. But this is a matter of opinion, and I wouldn't have any problem with it being included in the "historic house" category, and a "banqueting house" category, and a folly category. I just want the articles on this sort of thing to be accessible. This is only one of hundreds of links to heritage properties and gardens which I have added recently.Philip 11:26, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can you confirm that you are not confusing this building with Lyveden New Bield (same builder same county} which was built as a banqueting house? I'd have no problem with that being described as a house, it's just that Ruston is tinyand smaller than most outbuildings.

Saga City is quite correct, Rushden Triangular Lodge is not a house or dwelling in the strict sense of the word. It probably acquired the name "Lodge" through the mistaken idea it was a hunting Lodge. In reality it is little more than a folly, curiosity or ornament to the landscape. The categories in which it resides already in are quite sufficient for even the most lax searcher to find it. Giano 14:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

merge

should this be mearged with Rushton? FW07 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC) if so shouldnt this page be deleated

Plagiarism issues.

It is quite obvious that this article. has plagiarism issues. On some points, it contains writing style usually found in interviews. 188.73.197.114 (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)