User talk:Amandajm/archive4

Leonardo's science etc

I just reverted your edits and I am leaving this message to explain why. In many articles quotations conatin information that is being used by the editor to enlarge upon the subject eg:

Vasari says of Leonardo "not only was he esteemed during his lifetime, but his reputation endured....."

This is a very different sort of quotation to:

Shakespeare wrote:

"To be, or not to be. That is the question.

Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune......"

In the article about Leonardo's science and inventions, the quotations which have been set apart as cquotes fall into the "to be or not to be" category, not into the "Leonardo was esteemed during his lifetime" category. They are quotations from Leonardo's own journals that indicate how his mind was working. They are not part of the informative discussion of his achievements. Once you remove the cquote marks, the reader the reader then has to make sense of the several disjointed passages which don't flow immediately from the sentence above, or the sentence below.

When you make changes like this, you need to read thoroughly what the article is saying and understand why that format has been chosen. If you don't do this, then later editors tend to presume that what you have done is fine, because it complies with some reasonable standard. The effect, however, is very destructive to the article, however untintentionally so, because it makes nonsense out of clarity. Amandajm (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am reverting your reversion. I had read the article before I did my edit, and these are not pullquotes. Also, the cquote template generates TABLE tags instead of BLOCKQUOTE tags, which is semantically wrong. Shinobu (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Unification of England

Hi Amandajm. I'm not sure why you are wanting to include points about the unification of England in the Romanesque page. England was unified in 878 under Alfred the Great. It's not true to say that the Norman conquest 200 years later had any serious part in that, and certainly not to do it in an article on architecture rather than, say, Norman conquest. What point are you trying to make by including such proposals? Fig (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Nav Box

I am working on a new Nav Box for the Anglican Communion and would like it to be comprehensive. Please review "Category:Top-importance Anglicanism articles" for inclusion. All comments are welcome. Does so on the project page. -- Secisek (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Golliwog

Actually, now you mention it, no, the song doesn't have anything to do with the golliwog per se. The song is about being made to feel alien or foreign, and that you don't have to be black to be persecuted (but it helps) in the light of the late 1970s racial tension that there was in the UK. The use of the word 'wog' in the title was mainly to attract attention, which is largely what The Stranglers were trying to do at that time. So there's no real connection with the golliwog doll as such, just the 'wog' term in its racist context. In that case, I guess it has no place in the golliwog article, which didn't strike me until you mentioned it! Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not already at wog, but there doesn't seem to be an obvious place to put it. In any case, it can be deleted from golliwog, I think. Cheers :o) Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Christ Carrying the Cross

Hi Amanda. You might be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christ Carrying the Cross (Leonardo da Vinci) Ham 20:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

People from Tuscany

Do you think that everybody knows province of Florence or Lucca is in Tuscany? i'm not sure and this category was very very poor Category:People_from_Tuscany and missing a lot of "VIP" like Leonardo da Vinci etc. (if i wrong fix it) by Assianir (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Leonardo?

Thanks for letting me know. I'll read up on the discussion in a bit.

Although, it's actually still Saturday. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ciao!!

Ciao! Are you here with us? Come va la vita? Just here to bore you again with request for help... my last additions in our art field are Carrara Cathedral and Basilica of Bisarcio. Many hugs and have fun. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ciao cara... Thanks for the nice words. I also wish you to have fun with those fireworks. You have right to celebrate as Australia is a wonderful country. However, at least you don't have nice stuff as Santa Maria del Regno (my next upcoming additions)!! Joking. Thanks and good works. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Near my new house in Turin is a church (Santa Rita) in similar style, if not even more flourishing (of course it's also fake Gothic). I'd like to shoot some pictures if having the occasion. Ciao! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wallacia, New South Wales

Amandajm Wallacia has been classified as a suburb of Sydney and we have created standard intros for all Sydney suburbs as part of Sydney Project. Additional information can be added to the article but we'd like to keep the intros standardised please. If you disagree with the format, can you please discuss it on the article's talk page, before making drastic changes and please provide references for required changes. Thanks. J Bar (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

reply

I replied on my talk page. (as I did to your comments a few days ago). --Merbabu (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the history of your lost page - at least I think this is what you are looking for. Note the first edit on 4 June 2008. Also, your second edit of 3 June 2007 seems to have shortened the article from 48K to 12K. --Merbabu (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

PS., and then here the remaining article was redirected. --Merbabu (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you approve of this? At one stage I hated galleries, but I can see a benefit for them for such a visual subject as architecture, but not like this one - it seriously needs some decent explanatory captions (which don't have to be overally short IMO). --Merbabu (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

One way to get that gallery under control, is to accept it has merit in a reduced form, based on notability. The way to assert this notability is to provide captions explaining the pic. Those pics that aren't notable don't get captions (or if they do get captions, it will be clear they are not notable), and then it should be clear which pics should go and which shouldn't. Ie, notability must be demonstrated on the page. If it's just another small town gothic cathedral, the requirement for a caption will soon make it obvious it's just another one. maybe that might work. --Merbabu (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah - while I can't be 100% sure as I'm not familiar with the article, it doesn't appear to have been deleted. Sure, it was whittled away and then redirected, but the history shows it is still there. Perhaps you're having a computer/connection issue and it will be clearer tomorrow, or on another machine. --Merbabu (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Leonardo who-can-fail

I'm glad we agree on the concept of making a note that not all L's contributions were "correct" or incredibly "predictive" (this is akin to a phenomenon, whose name I forget, of publishing only successful results in drug trials, which of course skew the info).

First of all thanks for your encouragement, but I am most definitely not a medical scholar (although I took a course in Grad school on the history of medical representation). A zillion years ago I was proficient in Ren and Med musicology, and happen to have a Leo fix. The case of Leo's (non) contributions to music is fascinating--how can he be the Ren. Man w/o having that essentail Ren. skill under his belt?; and I have an interest in neuroanatomy and, particularly, on the history of perspective (a topic also lacking in Wiki).

It's a bitch finding on the net new images of Leo; the best site I found so far in general is http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/eGallery/maker.asp?maker=12196, the collection at Windsor, complete with detailed zoom-ins.

Best, Rob Shlishke (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. I preview all the time; I guess I had two foulups going on at the same time, and fixed only one. Admonition accepted of course.

Shame on me!

What a shame! I didn't notice that...!!! What are your programs lately? As for me, I've in mind to make separate articles for all genres of Italian Romanesque, starting as translations from Italian articles. What do you think? Anyway I hav to wait for a free weekend, and thus, perhaps, not next one... Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, perfect! Wish you to have fun with your cathedrals. As you notice, I tend to get aside from too large articles... For example I had begun History of Rome (meaning the city), but I wrote thoroughly only parts. Now I am in Turin I also miss the books on Rome I have there. Let's see. I'll try to start my Romanesque project if this weekend I won't go to Milan. Zao and thanks much for help! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ciao Nonna! Maybe do you refer to that list of monuments in Belgrade? But I've added a very nice footer where one can list all (s)he likes of Belgrade landmarks! I think the article is tidy now... it seems few care of style here, they add images ruthlessly whatever the result is. Returning to us, my last addition is [[Pavia Cathedral]: nothing special, but it made me remember something I had forgotten, the sad crumble of the Civic Tower annexed to it some 20 years ago. I read some articles all around, and it seemed that many had complained it was crumbling, but politicians closed their eyes (while pockets are always open), so that was the result. Sob! There's a project to rebuild it anyway. Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Holbein double miniature

Amanda, the double miniature image has gone a bit funny; could you have another look? (Don't want to just revert, as I'd be interested to see what you intended.) There used to just be one Brandon there, but another user came along and wanted the pair.

Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Image formatting and Leonardo

Hi Amanda, thanks for your message. Last supper is now big but it's better than before, as the start of the 'Paintings of the 1500s' section was getting massively squeezed and looking bad. There's still squeeze between the vitruvian man and a page from L's journal. There is also a guideline at MOS:IMAGES "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower)", 'Anatomical study' was a left-aligned image directly below a subsection-level heading ===, it's easier just to let it default to the right. There is also a guideline, "As a rule, images should not be forced to a fixed size (i.e., one that overrides the default). Where it is appropriate to force size, images should generally be no more than 550 pixels wide", there are 4 forced image sizes currently in article and last supper is at 600, don't think they're all necessary so recommend reducing, even if captions extend slightly. Someone'll probably come along soon and change it all again anyway! Tom B (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand about having large images for art articles particuarly when that's the main part of the article e.g an article on a painting. I like having large images but upload time can be lengthy for some people and big images on one screen can mean they're huge on another. Understand what you mean about having to flick to commons. Sometimes there can be lots of large pictures in one article with a small trickle of the "main body" of the text wending its way through! As Leonardo is a biography article and his work is important enough that individual pieces often have large articles of their own, there is some justification for restraining the use of lots of large images, even if do say so myself. I live in London and it rained here massively last night, you sound like an English person but in a hot country, Tom B (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Amanda, I am a layout artist which is why i'm able to provide evidence on people's talk pages, understand that people have different size screens and have improved the layout of the article. It's not a good idea to attack other people's competency, especially when they are competent, please don't. Baptism and adoration are important pictures which is why they have their own articles, with larger versions of the pictures. This is a biography article. People have different size screens and configure their systems differently Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images e.g. because they have disabilities. You say, "This pic needs to be as large as the space on a wide shallow screen will allow." It doesn't, people have different screen sizes. You say you get sick of having to revert edits, please understand that other people also get annoyed when their good work is reverted because other people forget everyone is different, have different preferences and have different size screens. Tom B (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a Wikiquette alert at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Amandajm, Tom B (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

hello, re: your message, i have improved the article which would suggest other people know something about formatting, there isn't any need to be rude [1]. Articles render differently on lots of different screen types and sizes. Forcing screen image sizes can create problems and needs to be justified beyond one individual's preferences, i don't think you've sufficiently justified it. Do you think you are flexible? Unfortunately i haven't got time to discuss now but will hopefully try to get the message across/discuss again at some point. Tom B (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Les Demoiselles d'Avignon

Amanda, I'm trying to put together a team to work this up to FA, if you are interested. I want to work on the Arnolfini Portrait at the same time, though I guess that will be the more difficult article. Ceoil (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Architecture

No worries, glad to help. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Classicism

I recently tried to update classicalism. I will submit that classicalism is more than just ancient greek theatre, and would suggest that the page be re-edited to encompass ancient greek, roman ,eygptian theatre etc. However Classicalism IS NOT the playwright movent rebelling against the romantic period in the 17th century.

You argue 'This is the case because 'neo' and 'ism' imply the same thing'. If this is the case then why is there both a classicalism page and a neo-classicalism page?

I study literature at university and have been taught by univeristy professors that authors such as Racine are NEO-classical authors. Classicalism to implies to be refering to ancient times, although 'ism' may imply modern connotations, it is used to describe a movement of a particular era.

The word 'neo' as I understand it refers to making something anew. Forexample in neo-classicalism in theatre this is taking the 'classic' plays of e.g. Euripides' Hippolytus , and making them anew making e.g Racine's Phaedre.

In a consensus Lehman perspective if someone refers to a 'classic' period it has connotations of an ancient time i.e BCE. If I am being taught wrongly by University professors I would be suprised as althogh I am not attending a great university I am studying a good university and they would not 'dumb down' to sudents at the college nor present us with wrong information. This is because my course intructs me to write achedemic essays which, if presenting a good point elequently enough may be published at any given time. Although you may argue this may never happen to me, people on my course have already been told they should apply for publications (These students are being told the same information as me).

Theultimatequestion (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you very much for the nicely worded Barnstar. I appreciate it. Regards -- Ianblair23 (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Cathedrals

Ouch! Fortunately it's not a hugely pressing matter, it can be tweaked anytime you have a spare moment (and your PC is behaving!). Good luck, Antienne (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, researching this is proving to be very head-scratching - I too wish that whoever wrote that detail into the article had sourced it... I can't find anything of use from a quick index search in books I own, and Google results have been largely irrelevent. Here is the only thing I found (although it is about a chapter in Germany): [2] The highlighted instance of "provost" is the area that refers to one being in control of the cathedral. I presume the one they are referring to is Naumburg Cathedral. It's a shame I couldn't find anything more relevent, but I figure that anything more international would be better to include than Wells. Antienne (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Clayton and Bell

Hello, Amandajm. You have new messages at Afluegel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi! Here is a site that might have some interest to you, since it explains historical reasons (with detail and multimedia!) for building one of the remarkable late gothic cathedrals in western Europe: [3]. I hope you are not still bored with me for my insistence on Portuguese ghotic architecture last year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.167.31 (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I was happy to include a good picture of a fine example of Portuguese Gothic in the article. I want to reiterate that the building is not a cathedral. It's a monastry. For some reason there does not seem to be any attention given to it in the otherwise excellent article that you directed me to.

I am pleased to see that the main article on Portuguese architecture is very much improved. Amandajm (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! The site I had directed to you takes more care with the event it seft than with subsequent developments, but, maybe in the future that lack will be corrected. I thought that you would like to know more about historical reasons for construction of this particular building. You are totally right, Batalha Monastery was not and is not a cathedral (like a bishop residence!), nevertheless, is still a striking gothic architectural achievement and wellworths a reference in a dedicated website. I'm sorry for some incorrect form of english sentences, but I not have much formal schooling in english, I learned a bit for my self with my college books, which are mostly engineering manuals from US. As you can imagine is not the best way to learn casual writing english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.7.183 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello again! You really need to get a name and sign your contributions. Even if you English is not very good, you can contribute valuable info, that someones else can then correct for English expression. The advantage of having a name is that people can leave you messages more easily. Amandajm (talk) 06:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: St. Peter's

Aaagh… I feel stupid. I'm sorry about messing up the article. I do often look at article histories, and revert a lot of vandalism that way– I just didn't this time. I didn't think of that as being a necessary step before every edit, but I suppose the number of vandals these days makes it so. Blast them.

I edited the sentence not only because it was wordy, but confused me as to what it was trying to say. Your change makes it much clearer. (That "is to be" still strikes me as a little strange, but I won't meddle any further.) A. Parrot (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Norman Birkett

Thank you for your edits to this article. Please try and THINK before writing your edit summaries about the EFFECT caps have on what people perceive as your TONE. It prevents the summary coming off as INCREDIBLY PATRONISING. In addition there is NO NEED to redo the IMAGES; if you'd looked at the FAC or MANUAL OF STYLE you'd see that the image of Ramsay MacDonald is MEANT TO BE LIKE THAT. Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

responded on Ironholds talk page. Amandajm (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see what you mean. Sorry if I was a bit terse, by the way; I've had a bad day (although that really shouldn't excuse it). May I suggest you bring it up at the FAC? Otherwise I'll get shouted at for having it one way by person X, and by person Y if I change it to something else, and so on. Thanks for the copyediting, by the way :). Ironholds (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What?

I'm guessing you were referring to my correction of the typo spacial->spatial? A simple search for the word is all I used; no need for paranoia. I have no knowledge of you as a Wikipedia editor or otherwise. Fences and windows (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I misread what you wrote as sarcasm. My bad. I go typo-hunting sometimes, it's the curse of a professional editor. Fences and windows (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"I wonder if life would be easier if I took it more seriously?". I doubt it; I take life far too seriously. I leave all regional spelling variants alone unless they are inconsistent; I'm a Brit, so I'm well used to being told I'm spelling things incorrectly by Americans. I was once told that "spelt" (the variant of spelled, not the grain) was wrong. Grr. Fences and windows (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Camperdown Cemetery

On March 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Camperdown Cemetery, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cemeteries

My pleasure. Thanks for the article; it was a great read, and I quite enjoyed it. Nicely illustrated, too. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 05:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

St Augustine Gospels

Many thanks Amanda! Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Glass task force

Hi, I realized that you are interested in stained glass. Therefore, I would like to inform you about the upcoming task force glass at WP:GLASS. Please feel free to contribute and to become a member. I think the glass task force still needs to be linked to the visual arts project Visual arts. Thank you. -- Afluegel (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Basilica of St Denis

I am very happy to see this article at a sensible title again - it has been something of a football ove the last few years. Well moved. By "deafening silence" I meant only that I was starting to worry that you'd forgotten to watch your nomination and gone to do something more interesting! I don't agree with some of your final comments on the naming of things - but I am sure I will have a chance to say why on some other more appropriate occasion. In the meantime I look forward very much to your improvements to St. Denis'. HeartofaDog (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

New categories

I just created the new categories you suggested:

• New: Category:Stained glass artists and manufacturers (deleted: Stained glass artists)
• New: Category:Stained glass artists and manufacturers of the United States (deleted: Stained glass artists of the United States)
• New: Category:Irish stained glass artists and manufacturers (deleted: Irish stained glass artists)
• New: Category:French stained glass artists and manufacturers
• New: Category:German stained glass artists and manufacturers
• New: Category:Australian stained glass artists and manufacturers

There are still no articles yet in the French, German, and Australian categories. If possible, please help in finding the appropriate articles. - Thank you... Afluegel (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re. capitalisation

Hi Amanda

I am just trying to follow wikipedia guidelines to achieve a uniform format. It may be local practice in the cathedral to always use capitals for job titles but it is not standard English, or in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters). Titles are capitalised when applied to an individual but not when used generically, i.e. the Prime Minister, but a list of prime ministers. I hope this clears up this point.--Charles (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Caterina

I'm in Qld right now, visiting friends. It's a place called Mt Samson. Five-acre blocks, SUVs, suburban project houses on steroids. More grass than a golf course. Tomoro I go to Hervey Bay, for more of the same, then to Canberra. Just got back from Cambodia, visiting tribal areas up near the VN border - govt guarantees them their land, puts in a road, rich Khmers come and take it off them. Lots of SUVs up there, too, you'd be surprised, but the roads are appalling - all except the one from Phnom Penh to the Lao border, which is 4 lanes of top-quality blacktop paid for by China. The Chinese plan to truck crude oil from the coast up to southern China through Cambo and Lao, thus avoiding the sea route round VN, which is where the US navy lurks. Murky brew, international politics. Poor bloody tribals are right in the middle.

As for Caterina, well, ok, so I'll be outnumbered. You know me, gracious to a fault - I'll just surrender to the majority, as ever. Encyclopedia-by-democracy, a strange concept. PiCo (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No computer access till Wednesday - this is just a brief moment of communicability snatched from the jaws of silence. See you at Len's place. PiCo (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Comment

In your comment on my talk page you used the phrase "just pray that". It is obvious from my user page that I am an atheist. I could consider the use of words with religious connotations offensive. I don't. Why? Because it is such a minor thing. The phrase which got you so upset was nowhere near as offensive as you seem inclined to suggest. Get over it and move on. And you may suggest that I mind my own business - I'll just ignore it. I will continue to post when and where I want, as long as it is within the rules of course.

We all have something to complain about. Move on. Alan16 ^talk 02:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: this relates to my objection to being told not to "get my panties in a twist" which I found unnecessarily sexist. Amandajm (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be smart or offensive with the atheist comment, I was just trying to use it as a suitable comparison showing that we could both get upset about small details which I think neither of us should as it wastes too much time. You have every right to object, I just thought that on this occasion it wasn't necessary to call that comment sexist. I think it would have been easier to let it go as just an off-the-cuff unintended remark. Also, my school is appalling. Really. It's dreadful. But that is a side issue. You also reminded me that I need to update my user page as I wrote it when I was in one of those sarcastic moods - not a good thing.

I shall leave your comments on my page. As a reminder to myself, and a warning to others about how daft I can be sometimes. Also, it hardly looks out of place in amongst the proposed deletion templates and the make-ups with other users. If I were you though, I'd delete this from yours - it only distracts the obvious good work that you have done. With sincerity, Thanks - from a sometimes (unintentionally) rude, often stupid, and always long-winded, Alan16 ^talk 04:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks! Phg (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

B-class article

Good question, actually. My reasoning, such as it was, is follows:

• Right now there are a number of projects which have a specific review criteria required for A-Class rating. Christianity is not one of them. The projects which do have them require, I think, a 2-0 minimum requirement for an article to be assessed an A. I cannot, on my own, grant such a level, so I don't. In all honesty, it never occurs to me to assess an article A-Class on my own unless the article in question is one which I myself already know to be complete. I think about the only one I have unilaterally declared an A is Pope Soter, and that only because I myself looked to see if there was anything I could add to it, and found there wasn't. So, basically, B is the highest grade I as an individual feel free to give out in most cases. That is however my own opinion. Other people can do what they wish. Certainly, you could change the assessment yourself, or request reassessment, or for that matter eliminate the banners completely. I can only do what I feel comfortable, given my own situation, to do. Maybe not the answer you wanted, but the best answer I can give. John Carter (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Primarily Christianity, although I'm trying to add assessments to the others if they're low or absent. John Carter (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Castle

Sorry, but I've reverted your changes to Bruce Castle; if you're going to make wholesale changes like this, please discuss them either on the talkpage or the FAC. You're adding your own original research (the building is in a totally non-strategic location and there's no suggestion from any source that it was ever fortified; the "Castle" name was an attempt by Hare to link the building to the Bruce family with no suggestion that it referred to actual fortifications); by reshuffling the images you're breaking the left-right alternation, and also putting images directly below headers in direct violation of WP:MOSIMAGE; you're removing significant images (the "toilet block" image you're removing for no apparent reason, for example, is significant in illustrating that parts of the house were remodelled in Art Deco styles); by moving the footnotes into the body text you're causing a lengthy divergence into the history of mapmaking techniques in the 17th century which is virtually irrelevant to readers; and you're ascribing certainty (that Hare built the central tower, for example) to speculations, without providing sources.

This certainly isn't me trying to WP:OWN the article, and by all means make changes if you can provide sources – but because the history of the building is so uncertain, Giano and I have left the architectural history intentionally vague and limited to material which can be reliably sourced. If you want to suggest or make changes, at this point probably the best place to do so is to raise issues at the FAC discussion itself where all those involved will see them. – iridescent 16:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Addressed the problems on the FAC page, which is what I undoubtedly should have done in the first place.

• Reminder to self- Don't rush in! Amandajm (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Amanda

The human condition indeed. A quick look at my talk page shows you that I've been making as many friends as you! :-] Mainly from getting into this mess. Thanks for the update, and I hope all is well both on and off of here. Alan16 ^talk 16:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea that very school is notable seems a bit odd to me, because some are clearly more notable (and genuinely notable) than others (which aren't really notable at all). But I think that for now I'll avoid the topic of schools - it gets painful repeatedly banging your head against a wall. Alan16 ^talk 07:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

British architecture

Hi. I appreciate your comments on my talk page re Gothic architecture, and I appreciate the length & depth to which you pursued this discussion. Those are terribly neglected points that you pointed out. Cheers Dogru144 (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Leonardo's burial place

This is an answer to your request for references on Leonardo's original burial place.
I found this link on Google books [4]. The text in light blue is a letter from Mr. Robert, who was architect of the castle (I should guess he was in charge of the restoration works there) at the time (1874). It details the sequence of events leading to the discovery of the remains that lay now in the chapel Saint-Hubert, as an answer to an article that had appeared earlier that year in a paper called Petit moniteur universel talking about the recent (in quotes in the original text) discovery of Leonardo's original grave. In short, it says 1) that the discovery had been done a few years back (Mr. Robert does not state exactly when, but the text further down dates it back to 1863); 2) that the discovery consisted of bones and fragments of a tombstone, with a partial incription (again later in the text, that appears as LEO ... INC ... / EO ... DUS VINC ...); 3) that from the exam of the bones, it was deducted that they should belong to Leonardo; 4) that a statue of Leonardo was erected at the place where the remains were found (it is still there); and, 5) that it was only in 1874 that they were moved to the current location inside Saint-Hubert's chappel. In the following page there is a copy of the text (in light blue again) appearing in the registry of the Collegiale de Saint-Florentin to mark the burial of Leonardo.
I am new to this "Wikipedia talk" thing, so I am hoping this is what you were looking for. I am just back from a visit to the castles in the area (visited Amboise last Friday) and that made me look into the article. I had the remarks from the guide about the original burial place still in mind, which triggered my original entry in the talk page.
Jcgdelgado (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Early facade of Bruce Castle ground level.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Early facade of Bruce Castle ground level.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Bruce Castle 2 soil level.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bruce Castle 2 soil level.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Amandajm. You have new messages at Equendil's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

St. Peter's Basilica

Hello!

Thanks for your courteous message. I apologize if my edit summary was maybe a bit too vague to explain the reason for me deleting that sentence. I deleted the sentence that states "Contrary to popular misconception, while St. Peter's is the most famous of Rome's many churches, it is not a cathedral" because a sentence that states "Contrary to popular misconception, Saint Peter's is not a cathedral" appears again in the lead section. I understand that the lead needs to contain important information contained elsewhere in the article but it's repeated again verbatim in the same section. Although a further explanation is most definitely warranted in an appropriate section within the main body of the article, a repetition without further context, in my opinion, serves no purpose in explaining to the reader anything new about the subject at hand.

If you disagree with this, please do let me know. Maybe we need to ask for a third opinion on this.

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

An Inspector calls

Hi, Be aware of Talk:Sistine Chapel ceiling/GA1. Have a drink or whatever, & take some deep breaths before responding there, I'd suggest.

On the carpets/widescreen point, I'm sure you're right but not evidently having as big a screen as you, its hard to visualize the effect - I didn't do the main placement. We're also being told to bear in mind mobile-phone users. #*###**! I'm not aware of any decent tutorial page that shows the results of particular layout choices on different screens and at different preference settings, with screen-shots. It would be a useful thing to have. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Leonardo da Vinci

Hi Amandajm. I have fixed Least for Last in the my: article. At you disposal. Best regards, --Lucien leGrey (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

St Peter

You put on St Peter history "Otherwise "major" is merely a descriptive adjective and "basilica" indicates the architecture, not status." I am not 100 % sure but I thing it is not correct IMHO. Strictly speaking, having minor basilica being redirected to basilica in Wikipedia is not correct as "minor basilica" means more for the Roman Catholic church than "small church". They are linked to the Pope. Typical attributes of a basilica, the tintinnabulum, the small processional bell, and the Umbraculum, the sunscreen in the form of a parasol in yellow and red silk, are often displayed next to the high altar. Patriarchal basilica is more than "very old church". I do agree nonetheless that "major" basilica is often (incorrectly?) used as opposition to "minor".

The "hierarchy" of the churches for RC church should look like: Papal Basilica, (Metropolitan and then Suffragan) Cathedral, Minor Basilica, Parish church, Oratory, Chapel (National Shrine is not an official ranking to my humble opinion). I want to create an article for that but I am still looking for good sources ...

Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

GA delist warning

Please respond at Talk:Sistine_Chapel_ceiling/GA1#GA_Reassessment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I take your response under advisement. Basically, the point I have issue with is what I refer to as the holy trinity WP editorial efforts: WP:ATT, WP:V, and WP:RS. WP is a tertiary resource. There was a time when subject matter experts were free to summarize their thoughts in what was considered "Brilliant Prose". Now WP holds true to its role as a teriary source in which secondary sources are summarized (just like any other encyclopedia). We require that the reader be able to WP:ATT important facts to WP:V secondary sources. Thus, older methods of contribution where subject experts just espouse their thoughts are discourage unless they are summaring their thoughts that are Verirfyable from a primary/secondary publication of their own. You as the most widely cited resource on a subject is now a negative for WP unless you are summarizing your own publications. Please help us bring WP up to current inline standards of verifyability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi. Sincerly, i am usually against the 'super-human' concept, and this is includes Leonardo as well (but not Superman).So, that documentary was full of free interpretations on 'how' Leonardo invenctions could works. While his genius is obvious, without a proper engine (that he have no intevented) stuff like his tank could be only described as 'nice tecnical essays'. Simply they did not worked in the reality, and i think, if i was Leonardo, buch better take away the mechanisms and put inside the 'tank' two bulls with 'proper' hp-power to move the beast. After all, the famous siege mobile towers were 'a lot' more sofisthied than Leonardo's tank, just think to Tiro's siege (IV cent BC). The bycicle, you say? Well, if Leonardo invented bycicle, then he had to apply it to his tank: legs gives much more power than arms! But you may be sure, in Tuscany (and non only) nobody bothered to realize how that draw was patently different by Leonardo's style. And watching the Leonardo's invention in BBC doc i realize how is easy overrating even a genious (and let the public to believe it). I'd suggest the next article: Leonardo's overrating by modern mass-media. Or : Leonardo's failures (he even thinked Moon being 5.000 kms from Hearth, as example). Just to balance the sight of a genius , frankly victim of the 'real' genius: Dan Brown...--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

St Mary's Cathedral Choir on 'presently'

There is no plan to wreck the boys choir I know of (well no intentional one anyway!)- and there are now three choirs I know of singing in the Cathedral- two of which are mixed. On the whole, I think my language is accurate - though I wouldn't die in a ditch over it. I am a journalist by profession and I did weigh it up. "Now" would work just as well I think. The Cathedral Choir was founded by a woman director, and in various periods was mixed gender, then boys and men under the Benedictines, then mixed again until 1955 when it was reformed and made boys and men again. I would need to research further to find public records of exactly how long it was mixed. I (a male) was in the choir from 1981-87, and I base my use of 'presently' on the historical data- and also on the interview given on ABC radio (public record - and referenced by me on the page at the bottom) by the recently retired choirmaster David Russell. I have provided some references for the historical data I added (Delaney etc). Do you think it needs more academic referencing?

I liked your work on the Cathedral page by the way.

Njamesdebien

I see how you have changed it to make it work. You have now made me look at the text even more carefully, and I have a query. The choir is described as a an "English" style choir, and I am not at all convinced it should be. Its main collegial equivalents would be European: Regensburger Domchor, Wurzburger Domchor, Notre Dame de Paris etc etc. It is by no means simply an English style - an neither is its repertoire. I would be inclined to think it is simply a boys choir (if an adjective is required then it is "Australian"), but I would rather just delete the word English altogether. I know there is an argument because the choir was founded under the auspices of the English Benedictines (who I love)- but the traditional of male choirs of boys and men was (and is) found right through the Catholic church.

Njamesdebien

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Boulton

Thanks for your contributions. Do you think you are minded towards leaving comments and/or taking a position at the FAC?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. What is funny is that my father was very much into model steam engines (he had several custom made for him) but I could care less about them. And yet here I am writing an article in which steam engines play a major part!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Undid revision

File:Giotto - Scrovegni - -36- - Lamentation (The Mourning of Christ).jpg

Haha I couldn't accept an undo without a retributive undo. Undos make me weep and gnash my teeth like Giotto's angels. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Mahmoudiya Mosque

Hi Amandajm, I replied to your concerns on the article talk page. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhh, I see now. Thanks for the clarification and correction! --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bridport

I hadn't known of its existence, but it sounds good. Fay Weldon is patron or something. The short story judge is looking for "a beginning, a middle and an end, not necessarily in that order" (well!). Anyway. I do believe you have a chance. If you don't get the big one, don't take it personal - there can be only one winner, and the non-winners aren't necessarily losers. You're good, girl.

As for the Caravaggio article, I haven't the energy to tackle it. Looked over the books on C in Kinky-canoe, the big Sydney bookshop, t'other day - so many. I really can't be the one to bring all that to Wikipedia, where it'll be swept away from me by time and other hands. Life is too short. But we do have some good arts eds on Wiki. PiCo (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Chiaravalle

Ciao! How are you? I am back to Italy after my first wrong attempt to marriage in Syria (I'll retry later! Bureaucracy there would deserve an article here by itself! ;))... but maybe you're more interested in my latest art additions here, Chiaravalle Abbey and Valvisciolo Abbey. Thanks for help and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Cathedrals

I read your edit summary that said that it was "important to note early that in English the term is often aapplied to a large church." and the removal of my word "mistakenly", replacing it with "by analogy".

I find this problematic, particularly in the article that is not about architecture but about function. When a large church is referred to as a cathedral, it is almost always done erroneously, and it doesn't really happen all that often.

Within England a big church is not often mistakenly called a cathedral by anyone who knows anything about churches, because of all the thousands of parish churches in England there are few that could possibly be mistaken for cathedrals. It is a characteristic of English ecclesiastical architecture that the cathedrals tend to be enormous and that parish churches are very much smaller and simpler, so that the one could hardly be mistaken for the other, unless through ignorance. The only exceptions to this are the remaining handful of intact but non-cathedral abbey churches, of which one, Westminster Abbey, served for a time as a cathedral.

The error occurs primarily with English speakers referring to buildings in Europe that are well-known and are mistakenly thought of as cathedrals, in particular St Mark's Venice (often mistakenly called St Mark's Cathedral) and St Peter's Basilica, which people (not surprisingly) presume is the pope's cathedral. In the case of St Mark's, the tourist might well ask "Well, if it isn't the cathedral, where is the cathedral of Venice, then?" It is characteristic of Italy that the major pilgrimages/tourist churches are not cathedrals. It is not simply the size that fools English speaking tourists into thinking these churches are cathedrals. It is also their apparent status.

One of the few examples that I can think of where there is clearly an analogous (rather than an erroneous) calling of a church a cathedral is at Tideswell where the church is proudly called "the Cathedral of the Peak" and has been given the name not in error but deliberately on account of the beauty of its architecture. This sort of use of the term is uncommon, which is why Tideswell comes immediately to mind.

The Shorter Oxford gives the first meaning as the principal church of a diocese, seat of the bishop. - Amandajm (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of words to get around the point that you're ignoring the other meaning listed directly below that. I get your point, but it's a disservice to other readers to impose it on them at the expense of their understanding of how the language is actually used. [See above for an example of a non-native speaker you gave the run-around to re: St. Peters, when it's perfectly well a cathedral in native spoken English.] -LlywelynII (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit: And it should be said it's lovely that you're a pedant (the world needs more of us :)) and kind enough to write to those you're editing. Again, though, we should be aiming to be as informative and unbiased as possible. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not about bias. In the article about architecture, your edit remains. Whatismore, as the writer of that article, I am perfectly well aware that there is little to distinguish some very large churches from cathedrals. For that reason a number of those "cathedral type" buildings are included in the article, with an explanation to that effect. Their exact function is not particularly important within that context.

However, in the article which is most specifically about the function of a cathedral, it is hardly appropriate to inform the public that an erroneous use of the word is an equally valid use, regardless of how frequently that error may be made by people that don't understand the difference. This is an encyclopedia. Amandajm (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't an erroneous use. It's passed into common, accepted usage. Furthermore, even if it were erroneous, note should be taken of it.

It is an encyclopedia, and your work should aim at enlightenment, not obfuscation or POV-pushing. The article should start with the meaning of the term under discussion & quickly address other meanings, especially if they are confusing to the uninitiated.

Honestly, I'm not involved enough to fight about it all night. I've brought your POV to your attention; you don't acknowledge it; meh. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Actually, I figured out why I cared in the first place. It's that the article is headed Cathedral. If you want to move it to Cathedral (Catholic) and use a disambig on the original page, your point would be entirely valid. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What to do about street addresses of residences in architectural lists?

What is best practice when constructing a list of an architect's work for publication on a wikipage and this list ought to include many private residences designed by the architect. Obviously there is no problem with public buildings. One manner of presentation that I tried in the past, on another website, was to give a residence its historical name and then cite only the block of a particular street on which it stands. For example: T. Hoyt Gamble House, 100 block of West Ormsby Avenue, Louisville KY Would this be too much information, or unnecessary information? Thank you for any direction you can offer. Chroniclerk (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Somerset Towers

Hi, Amanda -- Sorry to take so long to get back to you. I've been away. That would be great if you could work on the "list" page -- List of towers in Somerset or, as I envisioned it, the "Tour of Somerset Towers."

As you can maybe tell... by the end of the main Somerset Towers page, I was ultimately persuaded that the Poyntz-Wright classification is mediocre at best but possibly complete rubbish. I hasten to point out that I am NOT an architecture expert in any way. Maybe it is because my background is in biology that I was convinced by the argument that the tower arch is a much more conservative element in the construction and thus evolution of towers than the arrangement of decoration like windows and parapets. Since P-W based his classification of "generations" on superficial features, it may actually be indicative of nothing of importance - not the builders or the time the towers were built or anything else.

Given that, we have a whole slew of pictures and information about the churches with basically no organizing priciple for the list other than P-W's "generations." I suppose it could be done geographically. But the dates are too dodgy to use those... I guess I just got sort of stuck on how best to organize the information and left it in the mess you found it.

I think I would have to agree with all the folks who edited the main Somerset Towers page in saying that all the details in the list page shouldn't go back with the main page. As it is, the main page is pretty long, but IMHO tells a cogent bit about the towers and how people have thought about them over time. I would like to think that it leaves the whole subject open as a challenge some passionate young architectural history team to come here and study the towers. What a fantastic subject they would be for a thesis! Heck, I'd offer our vacant trailer ("caravan" in the UK parlance) as housing for a student working on that... Anyway, good luck! Celia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celiakozlowski (talk • contribs) 18:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

An Túr Gloine

Hi, Amandajm. I just created An Túr Gloine. Slightly more than a stub, but a very minimal article. Since you've written extensively on stained glass, particularly British and Irish stained glass (1811–1918), I thought you would probably want to help develop it, or at least put it on your watchlist. Since I did most of my research (all of it online) under "An Túr Gloine", and not "Tower of Glass," I may be mistaken in thinking that one of the challenges of creating this article is that it lacks a good overview in published sources. It's certainly a book-worthy topic, but I didn't even find an entire chapter of a book devoted to it; it has to be gathered from work on Sarah Purser and others. Some enterprising grad student should seize on it. The article needs a good section on the working relations of the studio's associates and its/their artistic development. Its place in Irish revivalism in the arts needs to be explored, as does its relation to the literary scene (a nod to which I've given). The cathedral in Loughrea is a good focal point; it currently doesn't have its own article, but Jack Yeats was one of the artists from other media to work on it. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. My interest was sparked by a recent visit to Dublin for family reasons. I did have a couple of days for sightseeing, and picked up a pamphlet on St. Ann's Church, Dawson Street, which mentioned An Túr Gloine. I didn't have time to investigate till I arrived home (in the U.S. Midwest), so I missed a rare opportunity to gather on-site info and take photos that could be used on Wikipedia. Next time ... . Cynwolfe (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Walter Horn

Don't mean to bug you, but the other article I mentioned as potentially of interest to you is Walter Horn, if you'd care to look over it. Not confident about my knowledge of medieval architecture, and the footnotes are an absolute disaster. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Long time no talk...

These days I'm spending equal time between YouTube and WP; find something there, cross-check it here, and try to add whatever's missing. Found this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSoGJQkKDYk&feature=quicklist&playnext=9&playnext_from=QL just now and thought of you. Hope the winter is treating you more kindly than our summer right now. Cheers, Shir-El too 19:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Cathedral of Saint-Lô

Hi Amanda, nice work on Memchu. I remember you are rather up on your Cathedrals. I notice the Cathedral of Saint-Lô mentioned, and nicely illustrated in Ruskin's The Seven Lamps of Architecture is a red link. The Saint-Lô article mentions a medieval gothic "Notre Dame" cathedral that was about the only thing in the town to (nearly) survive the war, and must be the same one, but I can't find a definite source to tie the two references together. Any ideas? --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Medieval art

Chartres cathedral

Amanda, are these guys likely to be the real McCoy, or repro, do you know? I'm adding pics, & sodding refs, to a monster expansion of Medieval art. still plenty to go in, but do have a look. How are you? Johnbod (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Stained glass artist

Hi - this deletion was a kneejerk reaction because he had just created (a very minimal) Marcos Luis Jerman. My edit summary was incorrect. With the different variations of his name, he's hard to google, and I speedied him at first. I did find some mentions, then withdrew the speedy and put on a "notability" tag. Since then he's done some work on the article, but English is not his first language and he's probably new to Wikipedia. I don't want to adopt him and admittedly don't know much about the subject matter, so I won't be editing the article. Today it's up for AFD in case you want to take a look. Regards, CliffC (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia works in mysterious ways, it turns out he's notable because he competed in the 1976 and 1980 Winter Olympics (WP:ATHLETE). --CliffC (talk) 02:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

L'Opéra of the Palace of Versailles - revisions undertaken

I've made some progress on this article and addressed several of your concerns as listed in the Talk page.

In view of the fact that the original editor of this piece reverted almost everything that I had done (sub-heads, proper refs, etc.), I'd appreciate some support if he comes back and tries to revert it all.... I think that we both agree that the article needed major work - so I have made a start. Viva-Verdi (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)