Template:Pl-sa Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

1. This is an excellent article. I do feel it is a little long and unwieldly, though, and there is some subjective writing. Should I clean some of this up?

2. There is a short article called Buckingham Palace Gardens which should be merged with this, I feel. However, the Buckingham Palace Gardens article should be shortened (much of its material belongs in [[Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II], Party at the Palace and Prom at the Palace. I will propose this.

But such merger cannot take place till this article is a little shorter itself. I think the Gardens article belongs in here.

Comments, please? -- FClef 21:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the intro paragraph: Buckingham palace is the unofficial London residence of the British monarch. From the second paragraph: Buckingham Palace finally became the official royal palace of the British monarch on the accession of Queen Victoria in 1837. Is it the official Royal residence, or not? User:Blaxthos 21 April 2006

Vandalism. RV. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you have any information about a girl getting her head stuck in the bars of buckingham palace about 30 years ago or so (give or take a year or two). I got stuck there as a little girl and wondered if there is any information posted anywhere with pictures?

This needs methion of security problems and the 2003 "Party". Plus cerimonies carried out at Buck House. Rich Farmbrough 09:21, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding editorial changes of Emperor to Tsar, both titles and Czar are equally correct. Giano 15:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I AM DOING A SOCIAL STUDY PROJECT ON BUCKINGHAM PALACE AND WONDERING IF YOU COULD HELP ME OUT WITH SOME RESOURCES, ANYTHING WOULD HELP, I AM IN THE 6 GRADE SO PLEASE MAKE IT EASY FOR ME.

You have made a good start by looking here for information on Buckingham Palace. Wikipedia is a resource, and finding resources is part of the lesson you are learning. That's why we will not do your project for you (especially making it "easy" for you) but we are glad to give you encouragement. --StanZegel 05:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have the definitive book on the palace "Buckingham Palace" by John Harris, Geoffrey de Bellaigue and Oliver Miller. Published by Viking Press INC, New York 1968. Library of Congress catalogue card no: 62-23206. That covers all aspects of the history of the site, construction, design, works of art and paintings. Try and obtain a copy from your local library or perhaps cheaply on Amazon. If that's no help email the palace itself and arrange for them to send you a copy of their smaller guide book, I think its about £7.50. If you leave a message on my talk page, I will check a fact out for you; but I don't have the time (or inclination) to write the study for you. Giano 08:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is an important British subject. I would like to bring it up to featured article standard, even if its not featured, but it desperatly needs photographs of the interior, and the garden front that are not copyright - abybody have any? Anybody have any old palace debutante photographs, or anything connected with court life in the palace? Also any suggestions or help in improving the page welcome. I think information should be confined strictly though to the palace as a building, its own history and its function as a royal palace Giano 08:49, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've added the throne room pic which I obtained, with permission, from www.destination-uk.com, which doesn't mention crown copyright. However, if ALL interior pics of the palace are crown copyright then I guess it would need removing. Craigy 04:26, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

...whether there are already articles (I had a brief look and didn't see any) on the various staff at the palace and castle, eg: Fendersmith, Timekeeper, and so on. Exploding Boy 20:13, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

There's articles on the Lord Chamberlain and the Master of the Horse but there are others which would be good to see - I'm sure there used to be a Yeoman of the Cobwebs or something like that? ♪ Craigy ♫ 03:26, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Exploding Boy 21:23, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I would be glad to help in this effort, but I have to admit that I do not have much knowledge about these positions. -- Emsworth 21:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah me neither. But if we can come up with some way to organize them I think that would help. Perhaps we could start with a list, but what to call it? Probably it would be best to have some kind of generic thing rather than focusing on Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle... Exploding Boy 22:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've just added to a table to Master of the Household if that's worth looking at? Craigy (talk) 18:52, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The list would have to be called HM The Queen's household - just one of the useless things I know, but "HM" will be a problem in certain quarters as will capitalizing "T" The and "Q" in Queen. I know nothing other of the subject, and its not my field. So count me out. Giano | talk 21:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, don't you certain quarters me, it's the capital T, that's all. Craigy's table looks very good, but it's indoor staff only, I guess? No Keeper of the Queen's Swans and such. Bishonen | talk 00:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No fear Bishonen, I'm onto it ;-) It's just the Keeper of the Swan's is part of the Lord Chamberlain's office. Craigy (talk) 17:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

There was an anecdote in the article which was based on the belief that ministers were unpaid in the 1920s. This is quite wrong, as they have always been paid. Historically MPs were not paid, but salaries were introduced in 1911 [1]. Ministers used to be better paid than they are now. I can't find confirmation of MacDonald's salary as Prime Minister, but I don't think it changed for centuries. If I recall correctly from reading his biography, Pitt the Younger's basic salary was £10,000 a year (though substantial extras were still available at that time), and that was also Churchill's salary in 1944 [2]. Going back further than Pitt, ministers made vast fortunes out of their offices (see Duke of Chandos, as well as most of the leading Tudor courtiers). Inflation and changing attitudes to corruption eroded the income of ministers in relative terms, but £10,000 a year in the 1920s was still double what the Prime Minister earns now adjusted for inflation, and maybe eight or ten times what he earns now relative to average incomes. Cabinet ministers were also paid thousands a year. If the anecdote is not entirely apocryphal, it must relate to some Labour MPs who were not ministers, or other Labour Party or trade union officials. If the anecdote is to be restored, it needs a thorough rewrite, and references. Honbicot 04:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• According to Twentieth Century British Political Facts 1900-2000 the Prime Minister's salary was £5,000 per year from 1831, increasing to £10,000 in 1937 and £14,000 in 1965. Secretaries of State got £5,000 from 1831 to 1965, increasing to £8,500 in 1965. After that the changes became much more rapid. --Gary J 18:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a better version of the 1710 picture. It would be nice to have a picture of the rear facade of the current palace. CalJW 13:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions De Palais De Buckingham De ==? == je fais un projet sur le palais de Buckingham, mais je ne sais pas les dimensions de lui. Svp aide! Merci � l'avance.

It should be noted that the depication of the South Wing on the plan of the Principal Floor is wildly inaccurate, to the extent of entirely missing out the Ball Supper Room. Comment not signed by GKL

• Which is why the plan was uploaded with the definition "Unscaled and simplified room plan of Buckingham Palace". The object is to present the shape, layout and placement of those rooms of the palace, mentioned in the article. It is not an exact and precise plan of the palace and does not claim to be. There are whole areas of the plan where no rooms at all are shown, this is because in those areas are minor rooms of no interest to the article, as is The Ball Supper Room. Please feel free to ammend plan and page with any information you have. Giano | talk 20:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Ball Supper Room is one of the largest State Rooms in the Palace and is used an awful lot more frequently than the Green Drawing or Throne Rooms, and so is most definitely not a 'minor room of no interest to the article'. GKL

• This is a free to edit encyclopedia, you are welcome to make any additions and edits you think will improve the article. Giano | talk 22:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a significant repetition of text which I have deleted. There was also a howler about most American presidents having stayed in the Belgian Suite. Oh really? Andrew Jackson? U.S. Grant? Theodore Roosevelt? Herbert Hoover? Franklin Roosevelt? Harry Truman? John F. Kennedy? Lyndon Johnson? Well, who? George W.Bush. Surely George W. Bush is not "most American presidents." The trouble with articles like this one -- or any biographical articles on kings and queens -- is that it's so easy to allow the Women's Weekly brigade to co-opt the discussion and fill it up with silliness. Masalai 08:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my name is Andrea Crociani, I'm a visual artist currently doing an MA in Fine Art at Saint Martins College, in London. I'm doing an art project about Buckingham Palace and I need the plans of the building. Anyone can help? Giano on this page wrote about the book "Buckingham Palace" by John Harris, Geoffrey de Bellaigue and Oliver Miller. Does it contain any plans? Other titles? Thank you.

Yes it does - many plans but they all very antiquated and out of date. - they do not show the Blore wing at all. The plan on the article here is something based on those, and others given in the "BP" official guide book of 2000. GKL has intimated he knows where the plans here are incorrect, so I suggest you leave a message in his talk page. In the current political climate you are unlikely to find a very detailed modern plan of BP anywhere. If I can help further please leave me a message on my talk page Giano | talk 19:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be something wrong with this sentence: "Following the last major extension in 1850, the palace consisted (as it does today) of 19 state rooms, 52 principal bedrooms, 188 staff bedrooms, 92 offices, and 78 bathrooms." It is next to impossible that the number of bathrooms with that high in the 19th century, or that it hasn't increased since 1850. It is also very unlikely that the staff accommodation hasn't been rearranged, probably by decreasing the number of bedrooms and making some self contained flats. Without a source I can only guess, but the form, "The palace reached its present dimensions in 1850. In the early 21 century [? source needed] it has 19 state rooms, 52 principal bedrooms, 188 staff bedrooms, 92 offices, and 78 bathrooms" sounds more believable. Honbicot 09:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I expect you are right on that. I have amended and sourced with a footnote [3], to remove any ambiguity. Giano | talk 14:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that the 19 state rooms is the but that hasn't changed. Rich Farmbrough. 23:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a difference of opinion between myself and User: Arpingstone [4] of which photograph should be in the lead. this one Image:Buckingham.palace.london.arp.jpg taken by Apingstone, which shows the palace at an angle, or this one Image:Buckingham Palace, London, England, 24Jan04.jpg which has been on the page for some time and shows the full front straight on, and to my mind shows the architectural symmetry and scheme of the Victoria memorial. My view is that the latter is the most suitable image for the lead; but being wikipedia we have to, quite rightly, have a consensus, we also have to bear in mind this is a very high profile, much edited, page and a featured article, which is why I view the traditional full on picture as the correct one - So any comments? Giano | talk 08:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the original head-on image (which, I accept is not entirely level, but it is pretty close, shows the formal architectural symmetry much better, and I like the moody sky) rather than the view from off to one side (which does not show the Victoria Memorial, has a perspective that slopes off alarmingly to the right, and has more intrusive foreground clutter). I very nearly reverted myself, but wanted to see what others thought too before doing so. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think of the angle of the building so much, but I prefer the pic with the Victoria memorial because it's more attractive as a design element on the page, IMHO. It draws the reader in to greater interest, with the almost unearthly look of the memorial itself and the subtle pastels of the sky. The "sloping" exists but is a nothing issue, I agree with ALoan there. From the history and the FAC discussion, it looks like it was Giano that designed and illustrated the page as a whole, and I'd like to congratulate him on his sure eye and taste. That's not to say no images can be changed, of course, but I'd need a good reason to want to mess with the arrangement as it is. Frutti di Mare 11:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I've just uploaded a non-sloping version of the image. Worldtraveller 12:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you upload it to the page, I can't see it on your recent edits - I tried to do it myself but it came out pixelated! Thanks a lot Giano | talk 12:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did the upload on commons so it's not visible in my contributions here. Caching issues mean the new image might not show up in the article immediately but I purged the cached version of the page so it should be there now. Here's links to the old and new version on the commons: old, new. Now I look at it the rotated version needs sharpening - I'll see what I can do. Worldtraveller 15:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the reversion to a sloping, grainy, slightly off-focus pic if that's what the majority want. I'm very surprised that the writers above want a poor quality pic at the article's start. However, having contributed about 2000 pics to articles, I can afford to lose on this one! (By the way, the comment "The "sloping" exists but is a nothing issue" comment is wrong. Sloping pics are not a non-issue, they make the pic look very amateur) - Adrian Pingstone 13:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Delighted to meet you too, Arpingstone, what a nice guy. Frutti di Mare 15:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Frutti, silly comments like yours have no place here. Let's talk like adults. I'm not sure what you were trying to say about me but luckily "what a nice guy" is entirely accurate. Seriously, my comments about the picture are totally sincere. I do truly believe the pic is too poor in quality for a lead but, like I said, I'm not going to cry in a corner if the poorer one remains. Incidentally, my opinion would be identical even if I had not taken the pic - Adrian Pingstone 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was trying to say your post was notably ungracious, Adrian, sorry it wasn't clear. Especially your implications that everybody else who has chimed in is an idiot (or "silly", perhaps?). Everybody — except you — actively "want[s] a poor quality pic", makes comments that are simply "wrong", and so on. Maybe I caught you at a bad moment. I'll take your word for it that you're a nice guy deep down. Frutti di Mare 20:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, the technical aspects of the other image are better (less sloping, although as noted above, there are hardly two parallel lines in it due to perspective; sharper; better focus); however, the composition is not as good, and that, surely, is more important for an illustration? The technical defects are much less apparent with the small thumbnail in the article than on the full-blown version, by the way.

Now, if you have the time and inclination to take a non-sloping, sharp, focussed face-on image of the palace, like the original but better, then be my guest! -- ALoan (Talk) 13:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is saying "Arpingstone's" photograph is of inferior quality to the one preferred, and I think it does him little credit to publicly criticise another photographer's work. Especially as that Uploader has probably uploaded with the intention of helping the project, and I for one am glad that he did. It appears that so far the contributing editors opinion is that the shot of the palace in the original photograph suits that article better. It may well be in the future that another photograph will be better still. At the PX size required for the page there is little difference in quality between the two anyway. I think the important thing here is to agree, be civil, and above all keep the page stable. This debate can continue for an indefinite period, I am just keen to keep the page stable and at a high standard. Is that the revised image there now? to be honest I never noticed the slope - perhaps I have a lop-sided head! Giano | talk 17:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, how can I comment on a photo unless I say why I don't like it! Was I supposed merely to say "I don't like it" and leave it at that. Immediately someone would have said to me that I must give my reasons! In any case higher up in this discussion I've twice said that the other image can be used and I'll kick up no more fuss. It's unreasonable to say I should not publicly criticise another photographers work, how do I non-publicly criticise and yet everyone can read my writings? My part in this discussion ends here so over and out from Adrian - Adrian Pingstone 17:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Buckingham Palace beeing the largest working Royal Palace in the world. I believe the Stockholm Palace is a bit larger. --Dahlis 14:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Stockholm Palace is humungeous, but I'm not sure about the "working", since the royal family doesn't live there any more. They moved out to Drottningholm Palace some years ago. I do see from Stockholm Palace that it still counts as the "official residence", but, well, I would hesitate to call it "working" in the sense that BP is. Bishonen | talk 13:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

According to the official site, the opening hours are "Subject to change in conjunction with H.M. The King´s official duties", which would suggest it is still being used. Also found this link which claims "With 608 rooms, the Stockholm Royal Palace is the biggest palace in the world still used by a head of state - King Carl XVI Gustav", although I'm not sure how reliable that source is. jacoplane 10:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put in that it was the biggest in the World still working. I've forgotten which of the references it was in, I'll look it up and then inline cite it - then we can also mention that Stockholm makes the same claim. Giano | talk 12:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has Buckingham Palace ever had air conditioning installed? Davez621 11:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read this but I don't know if it's been implemented yet. Craigy (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buckingham Palace is the official London residence of the British monarch (or sovereign). The Queen is also the monarch of the Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Fiji etc etc etc. Yet no mention of the fact that is the official London residence of their monarchs. British-centric article. The opening line should disqualify it from being a featured article. --210.86.74.82 03:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen, as sovereign of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. has official residences as monarch of those countries in those countries (in Canada, it is Rideau Hall). Contrary to your assertion, it would in fact be anglocentric to claim that the Canadian Queen has an official residence in the UK, in her capacity as Queen of Canada. Fishhead64 05:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buckingham Palace has served as the official London residence of Britain's sovereigns since 1837. From the official site; you may want to have a word with them. --Dhartung | Talk 05:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just vandalism or is there a reason all of this article is now a stub? Where is the info? There is only one sentence.

Oh, it was vandalism. Silly me.

Resolved

How many rooms are there in the Palace? Also, I'm wondering if some other stats could be added to the article? --Sumple (Talk) 11:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not always an easy question to answer, even for the larger rooms - see the room tallies section above. But when does a large closet become a room; is a void a room; when does a room with an arch or central columns become two interconnecting rooms? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It says somewhere how many rooms there are - I remember putting it in. Has some vandal removed it? Giano | talk 12:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No! It is still there: "The last major extension to the palace was in 1850. In 1999 it was stated [2] the palace contained 19 state rooms, 52 principal bedrooms, 188 staff bedrooms, 92 offices, and 78 bathrooms" Giano | talk 12:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. see it now. It's... a little hard to find... --Sumple (Talk) 23:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a giant haunted mansion or a prison. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.64.134.36 (talk • contribs) .

I don't know about that, but the pre-1913 facade was much nicer than the current one. Charles 22:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a wonderful article - informative, well-written and engaging. Congratulations to all who worked on it to bring it to FA. Tony Fox 20:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I had added a new lead image and was promptly reverted and directed to the talk page, I feel it is time to bring up that ol' issue. We have two or perhaps three candidate images, if Adrian's previous image is considered. My argument is this, and I happen to agree with Adrian previously, in that the current lead image is not straight, sharp or detailed. Some argued previously that the lead image had the benefit of being front-facing and showing the facade, but I'm not sure this is the most important thing. It makes it look extremely messy, particularly since a significant proportion of the building is obscured, particularly the guards and the sense of scale affording by the guards. It does have a slightly more interesting sky, which I admit does work in its favour. My image does not include the facade, but it is extremely high resolution (14 megapixels and downsampled from ~30-40 megapixels), is straight, perspective corrected and shows only Buckingham Palace without distraction from the crowds and the fence. Lets face it, the Palace itself is the focus of this article. Open for discussion. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On pure first impression, I'd go with Image:Buckingham Palace, London, England, 24Jan04.jpg. Better angle and puts the palace in perspective with its surroundings. DJR (Talk) 11:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer the current one (Image:Buckingham Palace, London, England, 24Jan04.jpg) too. However, as you say, Image:Buckingham Palace - May 2006.jpg, gives a nice unobstructed view of the front elevation, with the guards adding a sense of scale - we should add it somewhere (perhaps replacing Image:Buckingham.palace.london.arp.jpg?), but not in the lead. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer Image:Buckingham Palace - May 2006.jpg. There are no distractions and it gives a good sense of the mass of the palace. Charles 16:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • This one from commons is quite good too... -- ALoan (Talk) 14:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I much prefer Image:Buckingham Palace, London, England, 24Jan04.jpg, it's beautiful in colour and well-composed, and decorates the page as well as illustrates it. Diliff's point about losing the scale afforded by the guards is well taken, but I don't agree with the other objections to this pic. A part of the building being obscured by the memorial doesn't matter, IMO, since the building is so symmetrical: we "see", from what's on the other side, what the obscured portion looks like. Image:Buckingham Palace - May 2006.jpg is a good picture too, and would work better than either of the (truly messy) remaining two. However, "extremely high resolution" is a non-argument as far as the appearance on this page goes. All those theoretically available pixels won't make it look any better, when it's displayed this small. Bishonen | talk 17:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

In a way, the foreground clutter in the other two is the point: the first shows how close pedestrians and traffic can approach; the second illustrates the relationship between gardens, memorial, gates and palace reasonably well, I think. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead image needs to be the most easily recognised and iconic view, which is the full on "big house at the end of The Mall" i.e. Image:Buckingham Palace, London, England, 24Jan04.jpg. We already have at the bottom of the page the angled view - why do we need another at a similar migraine inducing angle? Giano | talk 18:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]