Talk:Bruce Castle

Comment

I've stumbled upon this article by following links on the talk pages that I stalk, and I wanted to point out that per MOS, the article needs a longer lead. Otherwise, an impressive piece of work, especially for that of which was significantly expanded and rewritten in one edit. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on your talkpage already but will post here as well for the benefot of others; please don't remove the redlinks I've added. As Lords and MPs, these people are members of a national legislature and automatically notable by Wikipedia standards, so these redlinks are supposed to be there to encourage people to fill them in. – iridescent 01:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Middlesex Regiment Museum

Is it worth mentioning that the Castle was the museum of the Middlesex Regiment, apparently from 1969 [1] to 1992 [2]. I remember visiting it some time in the 1980s. Lozleader (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely; I've added it in. – iridescent 22:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Moat

Recoloured map

Having looked at the early map, I concluded that the person who drew the map and the person who coloured the map were two different people. So I recoloured the map, and my version turns out bearing similarity to Ightham Mote. Note that I accidentally obliterated the rear bridge and put it back in the wrong position. Amandajm (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This picture now ties up with the early engraving. If there was a moat across the front of the house (and the two towers are suggestive that there might have been) then it was already filled in/silted up by the early 1600s. Amandajm (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for a Moat

• The tower goes a long way below the present ground level. It stood in the moat.
• The engraving of about 1700 shows clearly that there was a deep ditch on the left side of the building, where the tower stands. Because of the angle of perspective, one ought to be able to see the ground level around the small extension to the left of the facade. But one cannot. This indicates that the ground level is many feet lower than that of the garden at the front of the house.

This means that there is both archaeological and pictorial evidence to support the presence of a moat.

Amandajm (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

On the original woodblock version of the 1619 map, the area shown in red on the coloured map (which you've shaded in blue) is shown as solid black. That's not to say that Clay couldn't have been using black to indicate water, but it would be inconsistent with his treatment of water elsewhere – see his treatment of the River Moselle and the New River on this section of the same map in its "raw" uncoloured version. It seems more likely that the black shows the southern and western walls (which still stand today).

Don't read too much into the apparent ditch on the 1700 engraving. It's based on an oil painting which currently hangs in the foyer of the castle, and which doesn't show a ditch there; I suspect the shading you're seeing is an artifact of the engraver trying to show the darker undergrowth contrasting with the grass of the formal lawn. Aside from the mention of repairs to a drawbridge in 1742 – which isn't in itself evidence of the building being moated – the only reference to a moat is the "recent levelling" reference of 1911. However, on (for example) the 1876 Ordnance Survey map, there's no sign of any moat or former moat.

Also, there's absolutely no indication that the building was ever fortified; the "Castle" name was a later addition, and through its early history it was referred to as "The Lordship House". Although it's on Ermine Street it would have been a singularly poor point to build a castle; it's in a totally exposed position on the floodplain of the the Moselle, and is only a couple of miles from the far more strategic Muswell Hill and Highgate Hill, which control the Great North Road and hence the approach to London, but were themselves never fortified. That's certainly not to say that there wasn't a moat, but I think that reshading the map to imply that there was one in this period would be too close to original research. – iridescent 16:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

re OR yes of course it's original research. I don't suggest using it. I wanted comments from someone like you that knew about the colouring of the original.

• It the pic, I'm not referring to the shading. I'm referring to perspective which suggests that the land immediately to the viewer's left is very much lower than the garden.
• As for the notion of fortification, I would think that calling the building a castle was a conceit. But the existence of the two octagonal turrety things probably suggested the name, particularly after Hare had added those large pinnacles.
• If the engraving can be trusted at all, the windows indicate that the right hand tower/bay had a stair in it. This does not appear to still be the case, judging by the present windows.
• There were several mentions in the text that suggested that the building really was a castle at some time. I have tried to clear up that problem. However, if there was a moat, then a case for it being a fortified manor would be justified. But if you don't like the mention of fortification, just delete it! I certainly don't want to add anything that appears to be erroneous.

OK, I'll take a look at the map.

Amandajm (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If the octagonal towers you are referring to are the ones on the front façade, they are closer to a folly built as part of the manor house than fortifications, and given their post-medieval date, Bruce Castle was definitely not what academics would call a castle. Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Yes. they are pseudo fortifications, in the same way as some people wanted crenellations that served no purpose at all. I'm not suggesting they were to withstand attack. They were added to look "castle-ish", obviously.

The Map. I just took at look at it. You may know better of course, but to my eye it looks very much as if the coloured pic has been scanned as a black and white image, and then computer-adjusted for contrast and sharpness. Its quite easy to to. I just experimented with the very low res one that I saved and came up with a similar effect. In this case, some colours disappear completely, but red registers as black. That is why the roofs of the houses are all black in the B&W version. I would think that your "original and uncoloured" version is less original than the coloured one.

Amandajm (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case I don't see why you mentioned the octagonal towers as fortifications. Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The uncoloured one is from the original woodcut (if it was a greyscale scan, the coloured areas would be, well, grey). Reproduced in Tudor Tottenham, J. R. Bolitho, Edmonton Hundred Historical Society, London, 1974, if you want chapter-and-verse. – iridescent 18:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

NB - there's another engraving – based on the same painting by Wolridge – here which makes it clearer that the tower is just standing in shady undergrowth, not in water. – iridescent 18:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Lordship House Tottenham B&W.jpg

B&W version.

Tower. Yes,that's interesting. I have not suggested that the engraving represents the tower as standing in water, but that the base of the tower is much lower than the ground level of the forecourt. This different engraved version confirms that fact. The presence of the foliage also explains why the engraver of the version without the foliage was uncertain as to the details of the base of the tower. Thanks for taking the trouble to put this up. Amandajm (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture Is Bolitho (1974) illustrated in colour? Or have the images been rendered suitable for letterpress printing?

I no longer have the program loaded that does it sharply. Note the speckling around some of the boundaries which also occurs on the large B&W map, here and there. If a better image was needed for publication these dots can be easily eliminated. This is not to say that the image, must have come from a coloured one, but that the darkness of the red areas suggests to me that this has been the process.

Amandajm (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Here's the two pics, showing ground level as it would appear if the buildings were not standing at a level several feet below the courtyard. The drop is at least 6 feet. Its total depth can't be assessed.

Interesting

THE MIRROR OF LITERATURE, AMUSEMENT, AND INSTRUCTION. VOL. 13, No. 350.] SATURDAY, JANUARY 3, 1829. [PRICE 2d. [3]

The engraving represents this interesting structure, as it appeared in the year 1686; being copied from a print, after a picture by Wolridge. The original castle was very ancient, as appears by the foundations, and an old brick tower over a deep well, the upper part of which has been used as a dairy. The castle is said to have been built by Earl Waltheof, who, in 1069 married Judith, niece to William the Conqueror, etc

This explains the significance of the tower. Two purposes. Its a well house with "cool room" in the upper part. "Dairy" implies a place where dairy goods were stored, rather than a place where cows were milked. Those lower opening would have created a continual updraft of air, cooled by the well beneath. I'm happy about this. I was going to propose that it was a cool room, but this, of course, constituted OR. Amandajm (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Pure speculation of course... this explains why the "drawbridge" was repaired, and why an arch through the garden wall to give access was necessary. "Drawbridge" is probably a great exaggeration of the form and function of the bridge, but if this building was still the well, and cold storage in the 1820s, then access had to be maintained. Melifont Abbey had a polygonal well house, but it's in ruins.

Also, this image [4] terribly romantic, unreliable and distressingly fudged at the edges though it be, shows far more base to the tower than is now apparent and appears to indicate steep slope falling away from a level lawn. A version that hasn't been fiddled with around the edge would be useful. Amandajm (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting source about the tower being used as a dairy, but that there was no castle in the area is referenced. I think Pegram in 1987 has to take precedence over the 1829 source as she was working from more sources and would probably have been held to higher standards by the historical society who published her work. (The Waltheof referred to in the source is Waltheof, Earl of Northumbria.) Nev1 (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the repeated use of the word "castle" again suggests that there "was" a castle. I suspect that, as with "drawbridge" the word might be being used very loosely, simply because the house was named "castle". How is one to know? I agree that the statement by Pegram "that there was not an actual castle (as in defensive structure)" carries greater weight. On the other hand, this document refers a building of a very early date.

I still want to see the words "at that time" removed, unless we have evidence that there was a castle at some time. I don't think the statement quoted here from the 1820 is strong enough. "as appears by the foundations" is interesting. I wonder precisely which foundations they are referring to.

I am continually reminded of Mr Wemmick and "the Castle" in Great Expectations.

When it comes to the well/dairy, the 1820s source makes it sound as if the tower was still (or at least recently) still in use for these function, so I would tend to include it, perhaps as an alternative to the statement that the use was not known. Amandajm (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"At that time" was removed a couple of days ago as I agree that it's misleading – if you're still seeing it you may need to purge your cache. – iridescent 13:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry! Amandajm (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Amandajm (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

More moaning

I see I've just missed the FAC, but I think things are missing. Firstly a concise account in the lead of what the house consists of today, countings bays for example. The lead photo should have a decent caption explaining, and dating, what it shows. At the moment each front is dealt with seperately in current chronological order, & it wasn't clear to me if there was a central courtyard, and if so, if all the wings or fronts still enclosed it. Some comment on the position of the house as a secondary London/weekend place for most owners is needed. Sackville obviously had Knole; very likely a house properly in town too. Very interesting though. If you want early brick you have to go further east - Oxburgh Hall, by 1482, for example. Someone should do Hadleigh Deanery (1495), which is a well-documented & spectacular early brick building [5]. I think the distinction is usually made between the use of recycled Roman brick & new-made brick. Layer Marney Tower (1520) could do with improvement too. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead could be rewritten to include a description of the house's layout, but that would make it very long, given the peculiar and much-modified design; it seems far more sensible to keep it as a very brief summary, given that it would duplicate the description of the architecture of the house two paragraphs later. I considered a "sketch map" birds-eye plan of the current layout showing the ages of the various sections, but thought it seemed unnecessarily complicated – if you think it warrants it I can certainly add one.

Regarding "the position of the house as a secondary London/weekend place for most owners is needed" – as with many of the "this article should include…" comments, what holds us back is the chronic lack of sources. For the 3rd Baron Coleraine, for example, it is documented that he didn't use the house as a primary residence and hence that's included in the article; for most of the others I can only find sources for their ownership of the house, and not what they used it for. Unless you can find sources for what the other owners used it for, adding it would be OR.

You don't have to go as far east as Oxburgh Hall to find early brick (or as far north as the even earlier Tattershall Castle for that matter); Forty Hall is only a couple of miles from Bruce Castle. I'm carefully not stating that B.C. is the first use of brick in England, but just an early example. "Among the earliest uses of brick as the principal building material for an English house" is a direct – and cited – quote from Pevsner (the introduction to London volume 4, p.11 in the current edition); while Pevsner is occasionally wrong, when it comes to London he's usually correct as it's the area he knew best.

I don't think the distinction between recycled Roman brick and new-made brick is necessary in this instance (although FWIW there is a "locally made red brick" in there somewhere) – while recycled Roman brick was used for occasional bits of building work such as St Albans Cathedral, I can't think of any significant building in Britain where it was used as the primary building material. – iridescent 16:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was only asking for a brief summary; there isn't one at present. A sketch-plan, and more photos, would certainly be a help. For example, what is meant by "The principal facade of the Grade I mansion ..." currently has to be worked out by deduction. That William Compton (courtier) had "his London home, in Thames Street.[2" is refed to the DNB in the article. Dorset House - see Salisbury Court Theatre, is not hard to find, plus of course Knole. Forty Hall is hardly early in this context. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the age- "one of the oldest brick houses". The bricks of parts of the south front and of the "Well tower" (if I may continue to call it that) appear identical in texture, colour and weathering to Oxburgh Hall. The bond is also the same.

Oxburgh Hall, moreover, has the paired stair towers that appear on the South Front, and similar little Gothicky arcade. The simplicity of the arches of the "well tower" (which don't look Tudor) might be on account of it being a simple and vernacular brick structure, rather than a significant house. (Just a suggestion). Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"one of the oldest surviving English brick houses." jumped out at me, too, reading this now for the first time: here I see that I'm not the only one. Ockwells Manoralso comes immediately to mind, and I would be cautious about saying even of a fifteenth-century house that it were "one of the oldest surviving English brick houses". Why retain this dubious statement, without a supportive footnote? What information does it actually impart? --Wetman (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The "one of the oldest brick houses" bit is given in multiple sources (including Pevsner, who in his North London stamping grounds is generally the most authoritative source). It's not being claimed that it's the oldest brick house by any stretch – Forty Hall, just up the road, predates it, as does for instance Tattershall Castle – but that it's one of the few surviving brick buildings from this period. – iridescent 16:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

My turn to moan

Gripe 1. I found a cited reference that tells us that the round tower was over a well, and served as a "dairy" (ie for storing dairy products). Hiwever, this sentence remains: The purpose of the tower is unknown, but speculation suggests it might have been a dovecote.

Gripe 2. I pointed out that all the features of the church were represented on the map of the early 17th c. Yet the statement wich occurred in the refence that neither the church nor the house was depicted accurately was allowed to remain. The fact is that although the proportions of the church building are undoubtedly at fault, the nature of the structure, and the position of its parts in relation to each other are accurately represented.

Given the accuracy of the depiction of the church, how can we then decide that a house, the rear of which we have never seen, is inaccurately represented? In fact, that little drawing on the map presents us with the best possible evidence of how the north side of the building appeared. It indicates that there was a tower on the north eastern corner of the building, which suggests that perhaps, in the early 1600s, the house looked rather more castly than it does today. Anyhow, I removed that statement.

Amandajm (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Ok folks, the infobox has been added twice and removed twice so it's time to discuss it here (once by myself). Let's remember the article was promoted without an infobox, so it is acceptable. There are pros and cons with infoboxes – a map is certainly handy – but in a case where the history of the structure is so complex, is it adding anything to the article? Stating in the infobox that Bruce Castle was built in is misleading as it was remodelled several times over a long period. In general I'm in favour of adding infoboxes, however I feel that in this case the information has to be over simplified to comply with the fields. Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I was about to remove that infobox myself, but you beat me to it; it adds nothing in this case. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It was discussed at the FAC, with what appeared to be unanimous consent that it was unnecessary. I've never seen "Infoboxes are encouraged in articles, so if there's one that fits, it should be added" anywhere, and it's certainly not from the MOS; there are certain situations where infoboxes are useful, but for a subject like this, where virtually every field is open to dispute and needs a clarificatory statement, it's worse than pointless, it's outright misleading. – iridescent 18:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the infobox discussed in the FAC was a different infobox than this one, so saying you removed the infobox "again" kind of threw me off, since this was the first time I've added it. {{Infobox Historic Site}} (under the scope of WP:HSITES) is meant to promote historic sites throughout the world, and this castle's Grade I listing places it in our scope. I actually remember reading the infobox claim somewhere in some MOS page, but I don't have it off-hand. I'll look it up and get back to you if I can find it.

About the "built" parameter being misleading, I don't agree. The building was originally built in the 16th century, even if it has been remodelled several times. Many houses/buildings have been remodelled extensively through their history, but that doesn't change their construction date at all. I think the map adds a lot to the article, giving readers a visual representation of where the castle is located, instead of making them click on wikilinks to UK geography.

I'm still in favor of adding the infobox to the article for the above reasons, as well as the increased visibility of its Grade I listing with a color. I won't add it back because of 3RR, but I surely don't agree that it is "worse than pointless" and "outright misleading." --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This infobox is, if anything, worse than the "House" infobox, as it's far too inflexible (since we'll presumably never have an article on an individual house that's not of historic interest, the creation of a "rival" infobox seems like pointless content-forking, too). This building has three or four different architectural styles dating from multiple periods, plus a detached tower in yet another style from yet another period. The single listing entry in the infobox is misleading, as while the building was listed in 1949 the boundary walls were only listed in 1974 (separately), making for a total of three different listings at two different grading levels. Listing it as "16th century" is misleading without a lengthy clarificatory statement; there is no confirmed century of construction for this house, let alone a date (and evidence of mediaeval foundations, making any "initial construction date" meaningless), and as mentioned above substantial rebuilding renders any "construction date" very misleading since you're ascribing a 15th or 16th-century date to what is effectively a much later building. You can certainly look for that "infoboxes should be added" guideline, but I'm pretty sure you won't find it. – iridescent 18:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey dude.. no one's being hostile here except you. Don't be a bitch about it. This infobox doesn't only cover houses. It covers anything from ships to natural landforms to monuments and many other things. There's no "rivalry" here.

I swear I read that infobox claim somewhere but can't find it now, so maybe WP policy has changed. I'm not saying infoboxes must be included, but it's generally a good idea. Yes, the castle does have multiple architectural styles from multiple periods, so that's why an overview of all the styles is given in the infobox. The infobox is just an overview and doesn't have to explain everything to the T; the entire section dedicated to architecture explains the styles in more detail. The same can be said for the date. The building was first built in the location during the 16th century. Subsequent construction is explained in the article.

About the different listing dates, they are explained in the article as well. The castle as a whole was listed in 1949, but individual sections were listed later. The most encompassing designation covering the whole castle is the Grade I designation, so it takes precedence in a sense. If it's really that important, the different IoE numbers could be included in the infobox with parenthetical identification, like so (I left out the links for example purposes):

Reference #: 201424 (Castle)

201422 (Southern Wall)

201328 (Western Wall)

The same thing could be done with the listing dates.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

About the least interesting information about any building is the date & log number of its listing. There will nearly always be a better infobox template than this, if we must have infoboxes - which we mustn't. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If I can put my tuppence in, I loathe info-boxes! (most info boxes). Take a look at the new(ish) info box for cathedrals which allows you to add the name of everyone down to the vintner, the baker, the candlestick maker.

In checking out the deleted box, I noticed that the building was described, in part, as "Gothic Revival" and the inserter claimed all the info came from the text. So I looked, and there it said that the three-storey school wing is Gothic Revival in style. I didn't delete this, but I don't think that it is a very good way to describe it. It is a very standard government building which nods slightly in the direction of the Gothic in the pitch of its roof and its projecting eaves. I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as architecturally "Gothic Revival" which conjours the expectation of something more. If it was in Australia it would be tagged "Federation". That covers a multitude. Amandajm (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I stumbled across this while looking up the first organist of St Andrew's Cathedral Sydney. Amandajm (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC) How stupid! I forgot to leave the link! can't remember where it was now! Amandajm (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you upload it or was it someone else? Nev1 (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Home to Richard Sackville?

The lead currently says that Bruce Castle was home to Richard Sackville, whereas the text simply says that he owned it. Is there a source that says he lived there? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking for a suitable reference. Sackville certainly owned the manor - but I can't find any ref for his residence. I took the liberty of moving the image, so it didn't 'leak' so much between sections, and noted it was in the Iveagh Bequest at Kenwood. I also made some corrections at Sackwille! Kbthompson (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

His main residence was Knole House. Neither Bruce Castle nor Lordship House appear in the index to his wife's diaries. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sackville didn't live there; as the article itself (correctly) states, he owned the house but leased it to Thomas Peniston. – iridescent 18:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bruce Castle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091213034849/http://www.haringey.gov.uk:80/index/news_and_events/latest_news/deed_tottenham.htm to http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/news_and_events/latest_news/deed_tottenham.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bruce Castle. 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/20090609235609/http://infomotions.com:80/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/1/0/8/3/10838/10838.htm to http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/1/0/8/3/10838/10838.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bruce Castle. 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/20070401173545/http://www.search.revolutionaryplayers.org.uk/content/files/88/83/366.doc to http://www.search.revolutionaryplayers.org.uk/content/files/88/83/366.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100424043036/http://www.haringey.gov.uk/leisure/brucecastlemuseum.htm to http://www.haringey.gov.uk/leisure/brucecastlemuseum.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100424043036/http://www.haringey.gov.uk/leisure/brucecastlemuseum.htm to http://www.haringey.gov.uk/leisure/brucecastlemuseum.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)