This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at {{TFAR nom/doc}}.
Denbies is a large estate to the northwest of Dorking in Surrey, England. A farmhouse and surrounding land originally owned by John Denby was purchased in 1734 by Jonathan Tyers, the proprietor of Vauxhall Gardens in London, and converted into a weekend retreat. The house he built appears to have been of little architectural significance, but the Gothic garden he developed in the grounds on the theme of death achieved some notoriety. The estate was bought by Lord King of Ockham following Tyers' death in 1767, and the macabre artefacts he had installed, including two stone coffins topped by human skulls, were removed. Joseph Denison, a wealthy banker, purchased the estate in about 1787, and it remained in the Denison family until 1849, when it passed to Thomas Cubitt, a master builder who built a modest version of his Osborne House, in the Italianate style, with almost 100 rooms. The payment of death duties and the difficulty of maintaining a large estate during the Second World War forced the Cubitt family to begin selling packets of land. Cubitt's mansion was abandoned until its demolition in 1953. What remained of the estate was used as Denbies Wine Estate. (Fullarticle...)
Most recent similar article(s): no recent article on the history of an estate, - a chapel 2 Oct, a prison 30 October, but not similar
Reasons for nomination: November - when many remember the dead, seems a good month to run an article which mentions "Gothic garden he developed in the grounds on the theme of death".
Oppose. Whatever the intent, putting this as TFA at a time when one of the principal authors is likely to be blocked just looks like sheer vindictiveness.‑iridescent10:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Sorry if it could be misinterpreted. I like Gerda, you know. I like Phil too, and it looks like they don't want to run it, so, that's that. Hafspajen (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I think you misinterpreted me. Clarifying: I believe that we should show on the Main page (and in articles in general) what is in the interest of our readers, with the interests of editors playing only a secondary role. This is an article written by a woman and a man in collaboration, - another point worth presenting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: The fact that one of the main editors "doesn't want it" is not in itself a sufficient reason for not running an article as TFA. There is no right of veto – that would amount to an unacceptable degree of ownership. If the main editor has substantive reasons, e.g. the article requires substantial updating, is too sensitive a topic, or there is a preferred date, etc, then that's fine, but "don't want the hassle" is a puny reason. While we have TFA on the main page, articles have to be selected, and as far as possible should represent the range of articles in the encyclopaedia. There would be very little hassle with a non-controversial artice like this, and the vandal police can generally be relied on. However, there are other factors. One is that we are somewhat over-represented this year in the "Art and Architecture" category, and I would prefer not to run another unless there was specific date relevance. Another is that it would, I think, be unwise to provoke the difficult situation currently affecting one of the principal editors whose concerns will inevitably be elsewhere for a while. There is no issue of vindictiveness that I can see, but there being no pressing reason why this should run now, I feel it would be prudent to withdraw it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
@Brianboulton: I had deliberately kept my oppose comment extremely short and it was certainly not because I "don't want the hassle". If that had been the case why would I regularly watch articles that are TFA which I have had little or no prior involvement with? SagaciousPhil - Chat09:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Sorry if I misinterpreted you, but no substantive reason was offered beyond your wish, which was expressed in general terms rather than in relation to this article. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose. While I respect the opposing viewpoint, we're really not so short on available FAs that we need to run one against the express wishes of the article author, whatever their rationale. We should encourage editors to work articles up to FA status, not provide disincentives. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)reply
This isn't going to run, for the reasons which I've indicated above. The question of an author's right of veto in the TFA selection process is a general issue, which perhaps should be addressed in a RfC rather than here. There are arguments on both sides. Brianboulton (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)reply
This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at {{TFAR nom/doc}}.
Denbies is a large estate to the northwest of Dorking in Surrey, England. A farmhouse and surrounding land originally owned by John Denby was purchased in 1734 by Jonathan Tyers, the proprietor of Vauxhall Gardens in London, and converted into a weekend retreat. The house he built appears to have been of little architectural significance, but the Gothic garden he developed in the grounds on the theme of death achieved some notoriety. The estate was bought by Lord King of Ockham following Tyers' death in 1767, and the macabre artefacts he had installed, including two stone coffins topped by human skulls, were removed. Joseph Denison, a wealthy banker, purchased the estate in about 1787, and it remained in the Denison family until 1849, when it passed to Thomas Cubitt, a master builder who built a modest version of his Osborne House, in the Italianate style, with almost 100 rooms. The payment of death duties and the difficulty of maintaining a large estate during the Second World War forced the Cubitt family to begin selling packets of land. Cubitt's mansion was abandoned until its demolition in 1953. What remained of the estate was used as Denbies Wine Estate. (Fullarticle...)
Procedural oppose, for exactly the same reason that I oppose FACs where the nominator simply reposts the old FAC without putting effort into resolving the problems. The nomination was rejected by everyone last time, for a variety of reasons. I can't see any on-wiki evidence that there's been an attempt to resolve those issues. In fact, the nominators may or may not have been pinged ... although I can't blame Gerda for this, you normally expect software "features" to work, but sadly, pinging in the middle of a long stretch of text doesn't always work. Gerda, I'll ping the two nominators below, and I think it will work this time ... because I'm doing it in one short paragraph, in one edit, signed. - Dank (push to talk) 21:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Speaking only for myself, I have absolutely no intention of addressing your concerns, whatever they are. I have no interest whatsover in TFA. EricCorbett21:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)reply
The Main reason last time was "putting this as TFA at a time when one of the principal authors is likely to be blocked ..." - which is not valid now;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)reply
You're missing my point, Gerda. I'm not upset with what you did; I get that this is sometimes a subtle point at TFAR. I'm not saying that this article can never be on the Main Page. I'm saying that you nominated an article, it failed for many reasons (not just that one reason), and now you're nominating it again without first putting in an effort to address the problems that led to the nomination failing. In effect, rather than volunteering to do work (the work of accomplishing some kind of meeting of the minds, or at least detente), you're volunteering other people to do the work you want to see done. That's not how Wikipedia works (at least, not the saner parts of it). As I said, I'm opposing for exactly the same reason I would oppose a second similar nomination at FAC ... it's the same principle. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)reply
I will try to understand. Do we agree that nothing is wrong with the article? Do we agree that one main author voted against TFA for it back in October. I am not trying to her change her mind, nor do I wish others to try to change her mind ("volunteering other people to do the work you want to see done"?). The question if that prohibits the article from being shown has been open. The other main author just said that he doesn't care. That is not an oppose, but neutral. - I just run a second FAC, with much more success than the first round, - that may actually have triggered me to try again, and this happened to be the oldest of my failed noms. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Does anyone else interpret Eric's comments above (and in previous TFARs) as saying that he's neutral on the question of whether it runs? - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)reply
.jpg)