Talk:John Vanbrugh

Inappropriate use of the ROLLBACK tool, by user GiacomoReturned

[1] = Inappropriate use of the ROLLBACK tool, by user GiacomoReturned. Please discuss on the talk page, and do not misuse the rollback tool. -- Cirt (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Stop trolling Cirt. If you want to hit Bishonen do so openly and honestly. Either be honest or bugger off.  Giano  22:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to. Let us please keep the discussion focused to the inappropriate action in question. -- Cirt (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: [2]. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed

[3] - I tagged some spots where citations and pages numbers for cites are needed. These were removed with no explanation. Perhaps we could discuss here how to further improve this page. -- Cirt (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added some more citations. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Lede

The lede/intro of this article is a bit too short. It fails WP:LEAD. With respect to both the size and scope of the rest of the article, it does not adequately summarize the entire articles contents and fails to function as a standalone overview. The lede should be expanded upon. -- Cirt (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of this article infuses the POV of the article-writer and/or individual Wikipedians, without attributing this to secondary sources. One among multiple possible examples is:

• Taken in this context, though he has sometimes been viewed as an odd or unqualified appointee to the College of Arms, it is not surprising, given the social expectations of his day, that by descent his credentials for his offices there were sound..

This inappropriate style of tone should be removed. -- Cirt (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers

Page numbers for cites where the author's name is cited are missing in multiple key places. In order more fully satisfy WP:V, page numbers should be provided for all cites. -- Cirt (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of citation neededs

Why were these reverted? And the edit summary was also insulting, why was this done? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Leads don't have to be cited - as you should know - the other facts are common knowledge - which you should also know.  Giano  21:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD Lead's can be cited, and the rest of the information most certainly isn't common knowledge. This article is in FAR specifically over its total lack of citations so clearly more citations are going to need to be added, does this really have to go to dispute resolution? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear so. If you really feel such obvious things need citing and wish the page to look like a sudoku game then it will not take you 3 minutes to find references. I certainly have no intention of citing Vanbrugh was a dramtist and architect when a monumental page follows which proves it. For instance the placing of cite tags here is a joke: Sir John Vanbrugh (Template:Pron-en; 24 January 1664? – 26 March 1726) was an English architect and dramatist, perhaps best known as the designer of Blenheim Palace and Castle Howard. Oh please, do get real.  Giano  21:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE does not require citations, although it allows them. It does, however, ask editors to establish a consensus on the necessity of a citation. I frankly doubt that you will find any consensus for needing a citation in the lead for his dates of birth and death, or for his occupations, when the rest of the article explains in detail the summary in the lead. --RexxS (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

At the time of the edits by Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs), the lede failed WP:LEADCITE, as the info was not backed up later in the article. -- Cirt (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I originally took the {{cn}} to challenge the "English architect and dramatist" part (where the tag was placed), and I think you'll agree that the article did back that up. I do see, though, that others may have taken it to refer to the dates of birth and death, and fully agree that those were in need of sourcing at the time. Hopefully that is now resolved. I have been promised a loan of a copy of Downes sometime in the near future and perhaps that will help to verify some of the other challenged material. --RexxS (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nod, thanks for agreeing that at the time of the tags added, the article did indeed noticeably fail WP:LEADCITE. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Specific dates of birth and death?

[4] -- Does this cite verify the specific dates of birth and death for this individual? -- Cirt (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The cite only verified the years of birth/death, not the specific dates. Removed, per [5]. -- Cirt (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It is utterly unhelpful to remove verifiable material only one day after a request for citation was added. It took all of 10 seconds to find the Britannica online article giving his dates of baptism and death. I think we can rest assured that other quality sources will confirm those, should you feel Britannica is not a reliable source. I've added the information and reference in the appropriate sections. Perhaps you would be good enough to restore the accurate summary in the lead? --RexxS (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, feel free to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's how this works

If somebody makes an edit and you don't agree with it, take it to the talk. And take it to the talk before you revert them for the third time. And don't revert them whilst you're discussing the disagreement. And stop reverting over silly things. Play ball, or find yourself blocked. Our readers don't want you using our articles to play fisticuffs; that's what the talk page is for. Though, fwiw, this is laughable—

• Sir John Vanbrugh (Template:Pron-en; 24 January 1664? – 26 March 1726) was an English architect and dramatist, perhaps best known as the designer of Blenheim Palace and Castle Howard.

My talk page is always open if you lot are having problems. AGK 02:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I shall not be editing John Vanbrugh again - ever. If people doubt facts that are so very obvious they can be verified in less time than it takes to add a cite tag - then they are not the sort of person with whom I would wish to jointly edit a page.  Giano  06:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

@AGK, other articles I've been involved in, such as iPad are actually sourced with inline citations that carefully, and Sex Pistols which was on the front page yesterday has 233 inline citations, which you can only get to by citing things quite carefully. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• iPad (whatever that is) and Sex Pistols! I rest my case!  Giano  08:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sex Pistols was on the front page yesterday, I think that is likely to make it a good example of a high quality FA... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 25, 2005!  Giano  18:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss the Sex Pistols article, but if you feel the need to make a contrast, then ok. There are three references in the lead – the first is clearly redundant as their induction into the R&R Hall of Fame is well-documented elsewhere in the article; I hope you can see that the article would stand perfectly well without it. The other two references source direct quotations and that is normally expected to be an exception to the redundancy guideline. I simply don't find Sex Pistols a compelling case for introducing citations into the lead of John Vanbrugh. --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please stop bickering and do something constructive. AGK 19:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like the opportunity, but I had not realised John Vanbrugh was an iPad using Sex Pistol, so I really cannot comment.  Giano  19:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Sex pistols"? Ewww. "Love guns", please. ¶ What a mess this article has suddenly become. -- Hoary (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Links to architect and dramatist

These should be re-linked somewhere else in the article, as they are now not linked to at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. Not being linked to at all doesn't necessarily mean a concept should be linked: it's not the case that every word is supposed to be wikilinked somewhere in an article. Please check out Wikipedia:Linking. I quote: "Provide links that aid navigation and understanding, but avoid cluttering the page with obvious, redundant and useless links" ("architect" and "dramatist" would be examples of the obvious, the redundant, and the useless). Avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia. Too much blue only makes it harder for the reader to identify and follow those links which are likely to be of value. Feel free to re-link the words if you feel strongly about them; it's not a major issue; but I don't think it's a good idea. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC).

You make a good point, I initially thought that some people might want to have them, but to be honest they are pretty obvious :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding 90 day/5 thread auto-archiving to the talk page

Its getting rather long, so anyone object? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If anyone doesn't want auto-archiving can they discuss it here? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a point discussing it? - you and jeni sem to have decided for your autocratic selves.  Giano  13:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything here over 3 months old that you feel needs to be on this page? This doesn't need to be another battle; archiving old threads is common practise. Per WP:AATP "It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers." We shouldn't need a debate to use common sense. 90 days is quite a long time, by which point most discussions have reached their conclusion or ground to a halt and are unlikely to be revived. The discussions are of course still easily available through archives. If you think 90 days is too short, it can of course be changed to something such as 6 months. Nev1 (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to go to 6 months if that's what people want. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Its now set to 180 days, as it can more easily be reduced if necessary. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding ref-improve tag to: List of architectural works

Given that these are facts they should probably all be sourced anyone object to the addition of a {{ref-improve-section}} tag? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, the article contains hundreds of factual assertions. If you believe that only factual assertions that could be doubted by somebody well educated in architectural history (or the theatre, or whatever) need be specifically sourced, then few flags are probably needed; but it's not obvious that you are particularly well qualified to judge which these are. (And certainly I am not at all qualified to judge.) On the other hand if you believe that specific sourcing is needed for the assertion of any fact that WP can't expect its Gameboy/Ipod-addled average readers to know, then you can add hundreds of {{cn}} flags and so forth. But how would they help the article or its readers? -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The rash of [citation needed] tags are totally unhelpful. Sure, WP:V requires that assertions are verifiable, and there should be some indication in the text of where the various facts can be verified. However, the article would appear absurd if there were a reference next to each assertion. My suggestion would be to either improve the article, or ask for improvements on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

@Hoary, Wikipedia's supposed to be aimed at a general audience per WP:AUDIENCE. @John, given they've dramatically improved the number of inline citations in the article from 5 to 20 I think they've been very helpful and the article wouldn't be "obsurd" if there was a citation for every point - that's how most of the encyclopaedia is written these days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's supposed to be aimed at a general audience per WP:AUDIENCE. And therefore? -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to source stuff inline so its possible for lay- people to verify it without looking through a small library of books? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The information is either verifiable or it's not. It doesn't matter who verifies the information, as long as it can be verified by someone. Any other system would dramatically bias the encyclopedia against older subjects and overly promote recent topics simply because they are much more easily accessed through the web. See WP:RECENTISM for a discussion of some of the problems caused by easy access to modern topics. In this case, the highest quality sources are the books listed. We would be very ill-advised if we were to discard such high quality sources simply because they require some effort to find. For a similar consideration concerning subscription sources, see WP:PAYWALL. This is NOT "the encyclopedia that anyone can verify". --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I retract the word lay from my argument, you are quite right that book sources are perfectly acceptable, at least with a page reference anyone with access to a decent University library should be able to verify something fairly quickly - without being a subject expert. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I do agree it's sometimes difficult to get hold of book sources. I have a request in at my local uni library for the Downes book, which I'd like to use to fulfil the need for page references, but sadly there's no sign of it yet. It should shed considerable light on Vanbrugh's early life and background at the very least. It might be worth inviting reviewers to indicate any other concerns they can see (apart from inline citations), as those could be worked on as well. Personally, I would prefer a fuller lead section, but I'm not sure if others would agree? --RexxS (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if perhaps we should ban the use books as references completely and only use online references - it would save so much trouble in the long run.  Giano  20:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Web sources do have advantages as they are easier to verify and to find in the first place, but really that sounds like a bad idea as books have a lot to offer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah some books do, but on the whole web pages are easier to find and books go out of date and become obscure and their authors die - the net is the future most books now are only sold 2nd hand in Oxfam shops - I think they have had their day. Wikipedia is a forward thiking modern place, it should set the trend and ban books completely.  Giano  21:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well we'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It might just be that Giacomo was not entirely serious. --RexxS (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly :), but I wanted to make my position clear and not have an extended discussion on the topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hoary (talk · contribs) has done a damn good job with sourcing this section. I've added citation needed's to the remaining few so that hopefully they can be sourced as well - if sources can't be found for them I suggest we remove them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've found sources for a few more and removed the rest so  Done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The legacy section

I was going through the article to check for superfluous citation needed's and I noticed that the last three paragraphs of this section aren't particularly well written. Can they be improved? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What, there's a templated tag for superfluous citation needed?--Wetman (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed them from the article as they need lots of sources and aren't well written. For posterity they are below: -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The last three paragraphs of the legacy section

He also had the unusual skill, for an architect, of delivering the goods that his clients required. His reputation has suffered because of his famed disagreements with the Duchess of Marlborough, yet, one must remember his original client was the British Nation, not the Duchess and the nation wanted a monument and celebration of victory, and that is what Vanbrugh gave the nation.

His influence on successive architects is incalculable. Nicholas Hawksmoor, Vanbrugh's friend and collaborator on so many projects continued to design many London churches for ten years after Vanbrugh's death. Vanbrugh's pupil and cousin the architect Edward Lovett Pearce rose to become one of Ireland's greatest architects. His influence in Yorkshire can also be seen in the work of the amateur architect William Wakefield who designed several buildings in the county that show Vanbrugh's influence.

Vanbrugh is remembered throughout Britain, by inns, street names, a university college (York) and schools named in his honour, but one only has to wander through London, or the English country-side dotted with their innumerable country houses, to see the ever present influence of his architecture.

So that's to be the designated ending is it: "With the completion of Castle Howard English baroque came into fashion overnight. It had brought together the isolated and varied instances of monumental design, by, among others, Inigo Jones and Christopher Wren. Vanbrugh thought of masses, volume and perspective in a way that his predecessors had not."

Well that sems a very odd ending to me? It's dreadful - please wrap the page up properly or put it back how it was. Better to lose FA status than have a page looking as though it was writen by an ignorant anateur.  Giacomo  19:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia's a work in progress, so I'm happy to improve the ending further. To be honest the current ending is neutral in tone so I don't think its actually that bad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"remembered throughout Britain":

• Vanbrugh college, York University
• The Vanbrugh, Greenwich
• Vanbrugh Road, Liverpool L4
• Vanbrugh Road, Ealing W4 1JB
• Vanbrugh Road, Eggborough DN14 0LW
• Vanbrugh Court, Wolverhampton WV6 7TB
• Vanbrugh Park, London SE3

Probably a lot more; probably OR, but hope it helps anyway. --RexxS (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand he doesn't even feature on 100 Greatest Britons. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Best to nominate for deletion then.  Giacomo  21:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source to back the comment up would be fine... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Apart from you, is anyone bothered. You have taken a half decent page and made it banal. It may still be a FA, but it's now...well ...lacklustre. Congratulations - the whole point of writing these pages is as far as possible to make people want to read them, relate to them and think, Oh that's interesting. The constraints now placed upon editors make this near impossible - you Eraserhead compound it - your wrting and "improvements" remind me of the school history books and text books written diring the 1950s. No one wonder the young of today prefer computer games.  Giacomo  21:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"remembered throughout Britain" is a popularity contest point, I found a major popularity contest of historical figures. Vanbrugh isn't on the list - therefore it needs sourcing. And its not just me, its all the other people making the same point on the featured article review.

Besides adding some more inline citations shouldn't affect the quality of the writing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I amsure they al know far more about the subject than me, so you just carry on.  Giacomo  21:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand he doesn't even feature on 100 Greatest Britons. Starring such people as Enoch Powell, Robbie Williams, and Boy George. Number two, Brunel, was rather great, I think; but the previous Mrs Windsor at 3 and one of the world's great pioneers in the mass-murderer of noncombatants at 1 ... the question is of whether the voters were insane, stupid, or both. -- Hoary (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

^^ Undoubtably 'both' :p. But seriously even given the noise and taking it with a pinch of salt I'd expect him to make the top 100 for such a strong claim of popularity to be plausible without a reliable source to back it up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that Vanbrugh College, University of York, making a claim about itself (i.e. "It is named after Sir John Vanbrugh (1664-1726), the celebrated architect and dramatist ...") was a reliable source per WP:RS ("Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves"). The other stuff is obviously just examples to demonstrate that the assertion is true - I know it's not a source and we'd somebody reliable to publish that. You do make an important point about 100 Greatest Britons, though. A popularity contest leaves itself open to various forms of bias, notably recentism. After all, that same poll considered Princess Di a greater Briton than Darwin, Shakespeare and Newton, as well as placing John Lennon above Nelson (Lennon has an airport named after him; poor Horatio only has half a wrestling hold to his name). John Churchill didn't even make the list. Fame is a fickle food indeed. --RexxS (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised. Well, not when you see that neither Robin Hood or Richard the Lionheart are on there (Richard wasn't particularly nice, but he is well known and given Enoch Powell was included I don't see why he wasn't). The source is just awful. Nev1 (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Vanbrugh is remembered throughout Britain,[citation needed] by inns, street names, a university college (York) and schools named in his honour, -- well of course he's not remembered by the kind of birdbrain who'd canonize Mrs Windsor or seek Deep Meaning in "Karma Chameleon". Suggestion: remove the comma: Vanbrugh is remembered throughout Britain by at least one inn,(The Vanbrugh, Greenwich) street names,[list] a university college (Vanbrugh college, York University) and schools[citation needed] named in his honour,. Nuff said? -- Hoary (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

But Nev, as an ancient dinosaur, I remember King Richard well. I can say, without fear of contradiction, that he was renowned for being particularly nice to lots of little boys. --RexxS (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The article also suggests that he was a cad and a bounder. No popularity problems so far, but he preferred to live outside Britain (which I thought was OK only if you were Sean Connery) and only spoke foreign languages. Tsk tsk. (Connery isn't on that list. For that matter, neither is Clement Freud.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

@Hoary, your version is nice, I've been bold and added it to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• "nice"!!!! Have you never heard if the list of forbiden words?  Giacomo  20:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So a unilateral decision to restore the old text seems to have been made. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh I wouldn't call it unilateral. It simply seems nobody is particularly bothered if this article remains with a bauble on the top of it if the cost is such appaling mutilation. I mean, good grief - should we be citing a pub called the "Vanbrugh" to have to prove the statement. Ludicrous. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The original text in the section was poorly written and overly positive and had to go or be improved, and no-one seemed to care enough to improve it or discuss it.

On the article as a whole by 'appaling mutilation' you mean adding a whole bunch of 'citation needed's' to the article - while they may have 'disfigured' it they have bought an order of magnitude improvement in the number of inline citations from 4-5 to 45 which is a definite success. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wiki:AssumeGoodFaith to the contrary notwithstanding, I question Eraserhead1's motivation in so persistently disassembling an article where she has made no contributory edits. Has Eraserhead1 actually made any contribution to any Wikipedia article on an architect? Has Eraserhead1 shown any interest or curiosity in any article that relates in any way to John Vanbrugh? Why are we to suppose that Eraserhead1's quibbles are supported by competence? What is the actual motivation here of an editor with a record that looks like this? My willing suspension of disbelief is growing thin. I imagine that the merest question will elicit furious charges of attacking an editor, being incivil and the rest. I merely doubt. --Wetman (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added quite a few sources to this article... And why is it a crime to have diverse interests and to edit different articles on different topics? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell us why a citation is needed for 'wandering through London' here? Naturally as a keen editor of Vanbrugh, you are aware of his involvement in the Greenwich Hospital? And presumably, as a well travelled individual you are aware that Greenwich is in London? And you have read the section relating to paving the streets, So for what, exactly, are you seeking to ellicit further edification? --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Greenwich Hospital is only a single building so I was hoping for something that showed his architecture affected the style of buildings in more of the city than that - which is what the statement implies.

On your other point given that the streets in London are tarmaced now like every other major city in the world, you can't tell just by wandering through London that he was responsible for originally suggesting paving the streets. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So have you read the list of selected architectural works in the article? - there's quite a few in London, and his collaboration and influence on Hawksmoor's who went on to design numerous London Churches, and the Trio of Wren, Hawksmoor and Vanbrugh's means nothing to you in relation to the narrative of the English Baroque? --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

From the list of works its not particularly extensive, most of them have been demolished or completely rebuilt. The only surviving ones are the Orangery at Kensington Palace, the Greenwich Hospital, the state rooms at Hampton court and the Ordnance Board Building, Woolwich - given the size of London that isn't actually that many. If you want to claim he influenced other people who did build lots of other buildings in London that's fine if it is backed up with a reliable source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If in the Christopher Wren article you were to make the claim it would have more merit as he built St Pauls Cathedral among others, but this isn't the article on Christopher Wren. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Hawksmoor and Vanbrugh. Collectively and apart, they define the first great line of British architectural development in the 18th century, an approach clearly eclectic in its methods..........If Hawksmoor's eclecticism, as manifest in his idiosyncratic choice of sources, presages, tendencies that generally become evident in the "revolutionary" architecture of the late eighteenth century, Vanbrugh's theater of effects provides an outlet for nascent picturesque sensibilities. Both men in their outlook stand far apart from developments on the continent" (Malgrave 2005, p.47) ie. The influence is nationally manifest therefore "walking the streets of london or through the countryside" is a rather nice simple way of saying it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, then feel free to add that source to the article tomorrow once it has been unlocked - the Bath source is a bit rubbish and that looks like it covers both points. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's an excellent book I can't recommend highly enough and at [£28] they're practically giving it away. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, Joop -- whether walking the streets of London or through the "countryside" (much of it subtopia or exurbia), you are far more likely to be surrounded by mediocrity or much, much worse. As we've known for decades. (This week's recommendation.) There's fine stuff by Vanbrugh and others, but percentagewise it's unimpressive. Which is not to denigrate it at all. Now, it could be that Malgrave goes on to say something to the effect that the such-and-such of Vanbrugh was a major tributary to a lasting tradition of "architecture" (i.e. thought-out architecture, not unimaginatively done just for the money) in Britain: I don't know; I don't (yet) have a copy of the book. -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Good link Hoary, I shall make some time for those little snippets. Malgrave in the bit I've quoted is doing precisely that, I think. He later, (p.115) references Vanrugh in relation to the Battle of the styles, so Malgrave has it that he was nationally influential in the consciousness of British architects, rather than being the Wimpey of 18th century architecture. Ideas are often just as important in architecture as actual buildings. (Glass Chain The mile high skyscraper etc.) --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll toss a copy of Malgrave into my "basket" at a well known international book monopolist (as this is usually far cheaper than any alternative), thereby doing my bit to encourage subtopia and cause inner-city death. Oh dear I really must investigate an ethical but economical alternative to Amazon. Meanwhile ... there's actually a short book of an exhibition, Inspired by Soane; I wonder if there's anything akin to this for Vanbrugh. Not a rhetorical question: I actually do wonder. There are a lot of books on Vanbrugh the architect; I'd guess that some write about this. -- Hoary (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the page I just mentioned tangentially mentions Soane, "The rennaissance style was utilized on occasion in the work of cockerel who in 1839 succeeded Wilkins and Soane as the professor of architecture at the royal academy. cckerell's lectures delivered in 1841 to 1856 reflect Soanes catholic tastes over those of Wilkins and were appreciative of the artistic unity achieved during the rennaissance and of its interpretation by such later architects as inigo jones, christopher wren and vanbrugh." Ideas you see? The mediocretisation of domestic architecture is much more connected with the democratisation of construction than anything to do with the mainstream architectural narrative in my view. Until the second world war, building, largely was in the hands of the wealthy who were oh-so-keen to prove their credentials as patrons of the arts - even the victorian and georgian spec builders at least paid heed to mainstream architectural discourse or applied the patterns books of decent architects. That link is long gone now and has much to do with protecting shareholder dividends and a market that will accept and buy any old crap as long as the price is right. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought that swathes of suburbia had been mindlessly tudorbethanized as early as the 1920s. -- Hoary (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the requirement to incorporate the car within a market that sells conservative and traditional facades to middle management executives with mondeos and wide screen TVs. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd thought that the Mondeos were for salesmen ("reps"); when in Britain (which seemingly has nothing besides EFL textbooks, whisky, and repackaged tea to sell in quantity to the rest of the world) I'm puzzled by the number of 4WDs and BMWs. -- Hoary (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this for a brief period due to the edit warring. Discuss or go for a walk, folks. Risker (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that it can be unprotected, thanks to the sudden efflorescence of sweetness and light shortly above. Though perhaps we should all plonk down the 28 quid and get the book first. (Me, I'm frustrated by the lack of time I have available for going through the -- tangential but good -- sources that are already available to me.) Hoary (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection lifted. Risker (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just to be clear: I am very disturbed, on looking at the history of this article, to see edits being undone as quickly as they are being done. This is absolutely not the way that featured material is improved. Eraserhead1, please comment on the talk page rather than reverting edits when material is being added or referenced. Other editors, please do read the comments on the talk page and respond to them. The talk pages are where the disagreements need to be hammered out, not the article. I will continue to be vigilant on this page as much as possible, and will not hesitate to reinstate the protection if I see a repeat of last night's editing behaviour. Eraserhead1, you particularly need to take this to heart. Risker (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Which edits in particular are you talking about? I rolled my own edit back, I changed a reference to a more detailed one given on that page, and I reverted an edit from Giano as he agreed that it was OK on his talk page. While there was a heated discussion (which was bad - and I'm sorry for my part in that) I don't understand what I actually did to the article itself that was unacceptable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Section on Cibber's Love's Last Shift

Isn't this rather long as its not hugely important to the article? Wouldn't it be better if it was summarised as a paragraph? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No.  Giacomo  15:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you give some reasoning? Mine is that it is fairly important, but as it isn't by Varnburgh it doesn't deserve as much content as his other plays. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

PS removing some of this content which isn't particularly well focused means that other content can be added in its place without making the article too long, for example more content on the other buildings he built could be added. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• What on earth are you talking about "that other content can be added in its place without making the article too long" I won't even bother responding to that. What is it about this page that make you feel the need to display your complete lack of education and understanding of the subject? When you say "which isn't particularly well focused" you merely prove how tiresome and detremental to the subject you are. All the editors of this page have agreed we would rather it looose its FA status than be ground into the ground by someone like you. Is that quite clear enough for you? I hope so.  Giacomo  21:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The main thing I've done is add sources, I don't see why anyone would object to that... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You keep asking questions here. When you don't like the reply, you ask another. That is very tiresome. You keep saying is "this" too long? The answer is "No". What part of "No" do you have a problem understanding? Do we have to debate about English literature, the editor who wrote that section has a geat understandig of the subject, and that is transparent - now please go off and read "Janet and John" or whatever it is you do best.  Giacomo  22:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the first section I've bought up for removal/refactoring specifically. The first was a referencing issue with the List of Architectural works (which has been resolved with everything sourced thanks to Hoary) and the second was to highlight a section for improvement, which sadly wasn't forthcoming. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Now back on topic, it still isn't clear why 4 paragraphs are needed on another playwrights play and why this couldn't be condensed per WP:SUMMARY with the rest of the content in that article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• because "Erasehead" the page is comprensive, it explains facets not readily known or available. It is a comprehensive page, it was the intention that the reader would leave thinking "I understand the subject." Now really Eraserhead, it's time to drop this.  Giacomo  22:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Eraserhead1: There is probably very little in any article that is "hugely important". Wikipedia will not be improved by trimming this article. By contrast, clicking Random page a few times will show many pages that do need attention. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

FAR closed as default keep

Information brought to you by Bishonen.

The FAR/FARC of John Vanbrugh has been closed by SandyGeorgia because of abuse, see Wikipedia:Featured article review/John Vanbrugh/archive1. Specifically, the citation style has been changed without consensus; the article has not been improved during the FAR, but rather damaged; and my own request for more time because of health issues, which was endorsed by delegate Dana boomer, has been ignored. Here is the wording of SandyGeorgia's close:

• "Close as Default Keep, allow three months for repair, then initiate a new review if warranted. FAR should not deteriorate into a forum where articles are damaged and policy is flaunted, when the main contributor has asked for time. Wiki won't break if three months is allowed, and this FAR has already been open too long."

Bishonen | talk 21:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC).

It doesn't look closed to me, that's SandyGeorgia's personal view... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

PS If people want the citation style switched back to parenthesis style, I'll do so sometime this week. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sandy is one of the FA delegates and has the authority to close reviews, as she has done. It takes time for the bot run to archive it, but it is indeed closed. Nev1 (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)