Talk:Buckingham Palace: Difference between revisions
Peter Ormond (talk | contribs) |
Peter Ormond (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
::Majority of the users say that the Palace has a long history and therefore inappropriate to sum up in an infobox. Then why does [[Windsor Castle]], whose history goes back to the 11th century, have an infobox? You cannot pick and choose. [[User:Peter Ormond|Peter Ormond]] ([[User talk:Peter Ormond|talk]]) 06:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC) |
::Majority of the users say that the Palace has a long history and therefore inappropriate to sum up in an infobox. Then why does [[Windsor Castle]], whose history goes back to the 11th century, have an infobox? You cannot pick and choose. [[User:Peter Ormond|Peter Ormond]] ([[User talk:Peter Ormond|talk]]) 06:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::I don't know what you mean by ''You''. What happens at this article is determined by the consensus of the community. Per [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles|the guideline]], "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If you wish to change the community's guidelines, you will need to raise your changes at the relevant guideline. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 07:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC) |
:::I don't know what you mean by ''You''. What happens at this article is determined by the consensus of the community. Per [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Using infoboxes in articles|the guideline]], "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If you wish to change the community's guidelines, you will need to raise your changes at the relevant guideline. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 07:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC) |
||
::::Thank you for your response and that ''You'' in the end didn't stand for you. I was saying in general that one should not pick and choose. Anyways, my apologies for not using the more correct sentence |
::::Thank you for your response and that ''You'' in the end didn't stand for you. I was saying in general that one should not pick and choose. Anyways, my apologies for not using the more correct sentence in the first place. Regards. [[User:Peter Ormond|Peter Ormond]] ([[User talk:Peter Ormond|talk]]) 07:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:56, 5 June 2021
![]() | Buckingham Palace is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 21, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Template:Vital article Template:Pl-sa Template:WP1.0 |
Condition and state of the Palace (building work and the like)
Forgive me if I'm wrong - I've searched the archives for the Talk page and I don't think I've found any other discussion on the topic - but it seems to me that maybe a small subheaded section on the condition of the Palace, and the required building work needed to restore it at various times, should be fitting.
I know it's mentioned under the heading "21st century", but in case anyone's unfamiliar, it's long been known that Buckingham Palace as a building is in great need of repair, and also well-known that these issues go back a lot further than the roughly 2016-ish mention at the bottom of "21st century" at the minute. I feel it could be expanded upon further, simply put. I don't actively have the time to WP:BEBOLD and put it in myself, I'm too busy rewriting (and crying over) the state of the articles currently setting up camp on my Watchlist. Any thoughts to the topic would be welcome; thanks! --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Updating
I don’t understand the images in this article; it seems odd to feature three images of U.S. Presidents. Obama in the 20th century makes some sense, but two images of Obama, along with one of Nixon, doesn’t when there are so many images to offer and why the focus on US. Also, two ex-US Presidents one over the other isn’t optimal for “court dress”. Giano might you be willing to find some better images of the actual palace, and rationalize this overuse of US people? There is contemplation of running this TFA for the Queen’s 95th. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- That is unfortunate, I agree, but it could be worse, they could be pictures of Donald Trump, so look on the bright side. The real problem is that unlike in the Land of the Free, Buckingham Palace is not the People’s Palace, so the only way to get a free interior image is to have an American president in it. It’s a pity Meghan didn’t raise this serious problem in her interview as that would have been more useful. The only solution is be to photo-shop il presidente out. I seriously can’t think of any other way of getting photos taken within living memory. Giano (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- None of these could be more useful? So odd to celebrate the Queen’s 95th on Wikipedia with ... US presidents! Even less so on the heels of the Meghan and Oprah show. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- No, sadly those photos are not within living memory, and mostly pre-date the accession of Edward VII who did away with all those Victorian interior decor schemes. I wonder if one of the presidents could be shopped into a torchiere with a plant pot on top? Would anyone spot the difference? Poor Meghan, if only she’s spoken to me first, I could have told her poor Archie as a great grandson of the sovereign wouldn’t be a prince. I wonder though if any Americans who saw the interview realised though it’s entirely her and Harry’s decision that he’s not Earl of Dunbarton or Baron Kilkeel. The Queen gave them extra titles for their son and grandson when they married. Poor Meghan so much to learn. Giano (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't watch, but I imagine it was well choreographed theatre with two entertainers who are neighbors running the show! OK, we are stuck with Nixon and Obama I guess :) Is the rest of the article well enough tuned up to run TFA in April ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I doubt it, the page is unstable because it’s tweeked By passers-by so often, and the FA rules change every five minutes. Probably best if it lost the star, then it can be easily kept to a decent standard and probably broken up into a category of rooms like Winter Palace. That way all the trivia people add can be kept in context or subtly “lost”, rather than the page growing into the long, dull amble it is at the moment. Giano (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- That sounds TFA ready :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- What does TFA mean, all these acronyms, one can’t keep track. Anyway, I’m currently unable to edit mainspace as I’ve said I won’t until the ridiculous morons currently calling themselves an Arbcom, stop persecuting RexxS and he resumes editing. It’s a real nuisance, but hopefully he’ll return. Giano (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Bish says he’s gone, and it is not wise to disagree with Bish! TFA = Today’s featured article, the one that runs on the mainpage so every vandal can hit it. This article is requested at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending, and the scheduler asked people to look it over to make sure we won’t incur the wrath of the people who hang out at WP:ERRORS and put up a fuss if they don’t like something. If it gets scheduled, there will be a notice here on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- If this year has taught me anything, it’s to stop worrying about pedants and concentrate on things that really matter. Sadly, finding refs for the colour of the Queen Mother’s hat in 1942 etc, no longer cut the mustard for me. I’m not sure they ever did, but I’m sure you know what I mean. Giano (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Bish says he’s gone, and it is not wise to disagree with Bish! TFA = Today’s featured article, the one that runs on the mainpage so every vandal can hit it. This article is requested at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending, and the scheduler asked people to look it over to make sure we won’t incur the wrath of the people who hang out at WP:ERRORS and put up a fuss if they don’t like something. If it gets scheduled, there will be a notice here on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- What does TFA mean, all these acronyms, one can’t keep track. Anyway, I’m currently unable to edit mainspace as I’ve said I won’t until the ridiculous morons currently calling themselves an Arbcom, stop persecuting RexxS and he resumes editing. It’s a real nuisance, but hopefully he’ll return. Giano (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- That sounds TFA ready :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I doubt it, the page is unstable because it’s tweeked By passers-by so often, and the FA rules change every five minutes. Probably best if it lost the star, then it can be easily kept to a decent standard and probably broken up into a category of rooms like Winter Palace. That way all the trivia people add can be kept in context or subtly “lost”, rather than the page growing into the long, dull amble it is at the moment. Giano (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't watch, but I imagine it was well choreographed theatre with two entertainers who are neighbors running the show! OK, we are stuck with Nixon and Obama I guess :) Is the rest of the article well enough tuned up to run TFA in April ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- No, sadly those photos are not within living memory, and mostly pre-date the accession of Edward VII who did away with all those Victorian interior decor schemes. I wonder if one of the presidents could be shopped into a torchiere with a plant pot on top? Would anyone spot the difference? Poor Meghan, if only she’s spoken to me first, I could have told her poor Archie as a great grandson of the sovereign wouldn’t be a prince. I wonder though if any Americans who saw the interview realised though it’s entirely her and Harry’s decision that he’s not Earl of Dunbarton or Baron Kilkeel. The Queen gave them extra titles for their son and grandson when they married. Poor Meghan so much to learn. Giano (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- None of these could be more useful? So odd to celebrate the Queen’s 95th on Wikipedia with ... US presidents! Even less so on the heels of the Meghan and Oprah show. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- That is unfortunate, I agree, but it could be worse, they could be pictures of Donald Trump, so look on the bright side. The real problem is that unlike in the Land of the Free, Buckingham Palace is not the People’s Palace, so the only way to get a free interior image is to have an American president in it. It’s a pity Meghan didn’t raise this serious problem in her interview as that would have been more useful. The only solution is be to photo-shop il presidente out. I seriously can’t think of any other way of getting photos taken within living memory. Giano (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Article structure
I was asked to read through this article because of a possible TFA run in April. My major concern is the article's structure: The History section makes sense, but then the article places "Home of the Monarch" in a new section, and discusses the Interior design of the building and ceremonies that take place at the location, then returns to 20th and 21st-century history. I suggest reformatting the article into clearer sections. Here's one suggested formatting, with subsections placed in brackets: Lede, History (Pre-1624, First houses on site, The Queen's House and palace, principal royal residence/Queen Victoria's reign, 1900-1939, WWII, Queen Elizabeth's reign), Layout (Exterior, Interior), Court ceremonies, Former ceremonial at the Palace, Legacy. This will help organise the article and allow readers to easily find information.
I will also note that the "Site" section needs citations at the end of the first and third paragraph. Please ping me if you want me to continue looking at the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I will have a go at this at the weekend. The structure – history, then rooms / banquets / gardens and back to history again – has always jarred. Firebrace (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- I was just looking through its history, and you have to go way back to 2005 to find a sensible structure, but it was full of uncited weasel words and fairly unencyclopedic then. I can say that because I wrote it from a stub and that’s the way we wrote then. However, it has been so fiddled with over the last 16 years that I think it needs fresh blood and fresh thoughts. I would support it being deleted and rethought from scratch, but that’s not likely to happen. I did a better 3D plan somewhere, lost in userspace somewhere, you are welcome to use/edit it and I’m happy to opine or advise - if asked, but otherwise, I think somebody new needs to write it. If you must put an infobox in, just make sure you get the architectural styles right and the architects, and please no “clients.” Happy editing. Giano (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720, Firebrace, and Giano: Is there any realistic chance of this being in a good enough state to run at WP:TFA in April? I can wait for a couple of days before scheduling, but if it's a non-starter, I'll list something else. Thanks for looking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- The article is not going to be as you would like it in the next couple of days. Firebrace (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- User:Jimfbleak, I think this is really highlighting one of Wikipedia’s most serious problems. From looking at the history of this page, there are probably just two people on Wikipedia who properly understand this building, Firebrace and myself, and even we two haven’t always completely agreed. I feel I have contributed all I know on the subject, so that leaves Firebrace, more or less blackmailed into scribbling away to make a page into something people who know sweet FA about it want to see. It’s architecturally such an appalling building, none of our best architectural editors, Johnbod, Wetman etc are going to want to waste hours on it. So it’s either Firebrace jumps to your tune or the page is overwritten by those with insufficient knowledge. bearing in mind, this is one of the projects most important and viewed pages, I suggest you go quietly in your way and come back in a couple of years. Giano (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Jimfbleak the (newish) editor who put this article on the pending TFA requests page hardly edits, and had never edited this article, if that helps with your decision. I don’t see anything so far off in this article that readers or ERRORS watchers are likely to complain about, but it’s not my neck on the line if ERRORS people find something to complain about. And considering the top viewed articles this week, you may be walking yourself into a landmine anyway :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am willing to review the article to ensure it meets FA criteria, but I will not be actively improving the article because I have no expertise and little interest in this topic. If two of the article's authors (Firebrace and Giano) say it's not ready, then it's not ready. Z1720 (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- The article is not going to be as you would like it in the next couple of days. Firebrace (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720, Firebrace, Giano, and SandyGeorgia:. I'm not sure what "jumping to my tune" means. I looked at this article as a potential TFA, but could see that it (at least) needed updating, so I asked the question. I think the responses suggest that this isn't the time, so I'll leave it alone,thanks for looking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- You know very well what “jumping to a tune means.” If you can see it needs updating, then update it, your as much an editor here as anyone else. I’d be more than interested to see what’s changed. When the current restoration project is completed, then it will have changed, if only the electric wiring. Otherwise, I don’t think it’s altered much since Hitler dropped a bomb in it, and even that failed to bring about any architectural improvements or change of ownership. Even the timing of lunch didn’t alter that day! However, I look forward to seeing your updating. Giano (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720, Firebrace, Giano, and SandyGeorgia:. I'm not sure what "jumping to my tune" means. I looked at this article as a potential TFA, but could see that it (at least) needed updating, so I asked the question. I think the responses suggest that this isn't the time, so I'll leave it alone,thanks for looking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Infobox
Why doesn't this article have an infobox, like the other royal residences, like Windsor Castle? Peter Ormond (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- See Talk:Buckingham Palace/Archive 3#RfC about infobox. DrKay (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Majority of the users say that the Palace has a long history and therefore inappropriate to sum up in an infobox. Then why does Windsor Castle, whose history goes back to the 11th century, have an infobox? You cannot pick and choose. Peter Ormond (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by You. What happens at this article is determined by the consensus of the community. Per the guideline, "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If you wish to change the community's guidelines, you will need to raise your changes at the relevant guideline. DrKay (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response and that You in the end didn't stand for you. I was saying in general that one should not pick and choose. Anyways, my apologies for not using the more correct sentence in the first place. Regards. Peter Ormond (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by You. What happens at this article is determined by the consensus of the community. Per the guideline, "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If you wish to change the community's guidelines, you will need to raise your changes at the relevant guideline. DrKay (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Majority of the users say that the Palace has a long history and therefore inappropriate to sum up in an infobox. Then why does Windsor Castle, whose history goes back to the 11th century, have an infobox? You cannot pick and choose. Peter Ormond (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)