|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Pugin was commissioned to decorate the drawing room in Eastnor castle in 1849, just 2 years after finishing the work on the H of Parliament. This is a picture of the room, it is said to be the most complete interior after the H of Parliament???
I would like to look at adding a section to the article about Eastnor, maybe even seeing if i can get some more photos.
The Eastnor web site can be seen here Pugin and Eastnor
Do you think this is a good idea..or maybe better to await more info before adding?
- Add it, add it - I think the more illustrative this article on Pugin is, the better. Kunchan 11:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Collieman 18:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Puzzled by this line in the article
on which he built for himself a quaint fifteenth-century house, St. Marie's Grange.
Can not see how in the 19th century you can build a fifteenth century house....you could renovate a 15th C house but not build one.
Collieman 07:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Collieman, there is just one little word left out! He built himeself a quaint fifteenth century style house. What else would he build? This is Pugin, after all.
--Amandajm 13:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Whoops....i see how it reads now. makes sense , thank you Collieman 12:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like ot see a better image of the Houses of Parliament - and one including the clock tower that houses Big Ben. I think Pugin's works aught to be illustrated as much as possible. Anyone have a free image?Kunchan 11:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- How about this image?
I have added a link to a sample of illustration by J.Nash-A.Pugin. The link is located in the section EARLY YEARS. After some consideration, I'm not sure whether this is correct, as Augustus Charles Pugin might be the correct co-author instead. May please anyone sort this out? thank you. Lebowski CZ —Preceding comment was added at 14:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Pugin 1.jpg
Image:Pugin 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
- I posted the two images in question - though not quite sure why I posted the cover. But I am no longer interested in convincing a robot that it's okay to use them, so will post it here and if the keepers of the article want them, or different ones, or whatever, than they can figure it out. The folio that they are scanned from was published in 1927 and does not claim to be copyrighted. By that time Pugin's drawings were 75 (or whatever) years old and probably copyright free. Perhaps using the cover was a bad idea, but it is in a section of the article discussing publication, but I think the drawings are an asset to the article. perhaps I should just let the delitionists have at these and then post others with a more carefully picked copyright (or lack there-of) tag. Any ideas? Carptrash (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
POV and peacock terms
This entire article is written in an unencyclopaedic way and barely includes any sources: it is blatantly biased throughout. I'll try and re-write as much as I can but this article really is a disaster. SaintCyprian Talk 08:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree.. some hard work here, but phrases like "In knowledge of medieval architecture and in his insight into its spirit and form, he stood above all his contemporaries. As a draughtsman, he was without a rival." have no place here. Besides, what about Webb, or Viollet-le-Duc, or Morris?
this whole section is completely ridiculous and below any encyclopaedic standard AND SHOULD BE REMOVED:
In knowledge of medieval architecture and in his insight into its spirit and form, he stood above all his contemporaries. As a draughtsman, he was without a rival. The success of his career is to be sought not so much in the buildings he erected, which, being mostly for the Catholic body, were nearly always shorn of their chief splendour by the poverty of his patrons. He invented now new forms of design, though he freely used the old; his instinct led him to art as such, but to the Gothic embodiment of art, which seemed to him the only true form of Christian architecture. He lacked the patience and breadth of the truly great mind, yet he may justly claim to rank as the architectural genius of the century. His unquestioned merit is the restoration of architecture in England and the revival of the forms of medieval England, which since his day have covered the land.
First, could the person/people who contributed the above please sign his/her/their contributions by putting four tildes (the ~ symbol above the hash sign on the RH side of my keyboard) at the end or clicking the "signature" icon at the top of the editing box. Thanks.
Anyway, may I point out the the passage quoted - and quite likely some (/most/all?) of the rest of the article - is lifted in toto from the New Advent Catholic encyclopaedia. It looks as if it was first published in 1911, so (I assume) it isn't a copyvio. I agree that the tone is inappropriate. --GuillaumeTell 17:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)