This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
A fact from Neo-Byzantine architecture in the Russian Empire appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 18 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 1423 times (disclaimer)(check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
Russo-Byzantine redirects to this page, yet the lead states replacing the Russo-Byzantine style of Konstantin Thon. Can someone explain my confusion? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, until yesterday, Russo-Byzantine redirected to Konstantin Thon. A user then changed it. I have corrected that. Cheers, Constantine✍ 14:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The term "Russo-Byzantine" was used in 1830s-1840s specifically to describe the style of Thon (and some late works of Stasov Sr. that preceded Thon). Thon's art has little common with true Byzantine prototypes, but nevertheless the name persisted and was clearly set aside from "true Byzantine". Then there was Crimean war, construction halted for a decade, and at the same time the "real" neo-Byzantine architecture picked up (initially on paper, but with a substantial impact). By the end of 1860s the label of "Byzantine style" was disassociated from Thon's art and instead became a name for neo-Byzantine revival; the name "Russo-Byzantine" fell out of use. Domestic 20th century sources (i.e. восьмитомник Власова ) use the term Russo-Byzantine in its original sense, however, it has little use outside of professional literature (replaced by pseudo-russian in popular sources). NVO (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
There is one objection. The table is there to illustrate a paragraph of destruction and preservation (and some backup re. geography claims). It is a means to bypass OR - instead of calculating bogus percentages, let the readers decide on their own. Once the list is moved elsewhere, the paragraph on destruction should either cite OR numbers (unacceptable) or be removed at all... then the list itself becomes unnecessary. Deletion? probably, but not a move. NVO (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I see no big problem there. Instead of saying "see table below" say "see this article." In both cases the reader would have to mouse-click to see the content: either the "show" link as it is now or the separate article link as proposed. Definitely do not delete -- I think it is a valuable collection of information. Renata (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)