This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I suspect it is a sock of the above. Who has been editing and adding "inside information" I did question him about this some time ago and ask if he was supposed to be doing it [1], he now seems to want to remove it all. I have removed it for him [2] it was all unreferenced and should have been, so it is not really harming the page. Hopefully we won't be seeing anymore of him - if he wants it oversighted (removed from the history) he had better leave a request here and then email his reasons (which I can imagine relate to his future employment, the Royal household take a dim view of the staff "talking" about even trivial stuff like this) to the appropriate person. Giano (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
you are correct and i was informed taht information must be removed by an assistent to the master of the household.it is indeed fine to talk of state rooms and official rooms in the palace but to talk and mention private facts about the queens personal rooms is indeed against the rules.even though certain books have mentioned and clips from documentrys shown.however this is only snipets and to write full information is wrong.i was advised to remove what i had added which was done with no harm intent simply i thought it would provide a insight to the private rooms not seen at the palace.sorry for any trouble and im glad its removed.the rest of the page has been looked over by staff of the master of the household to see the type of info on here and it all is above board bar certain bits which have now been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyknowles2007 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello - I notice all the changes you have made there. Many of the links you have added are unnecessary or inappropriate. I am going to revert you at this point because otherwise it will take me a good hour or two to check each individual link and edit it. I am also going to copy this to the talk page of the article, where your messages about your edits should go (as opposed to the talk pages of individual editors) - after all, this is a collaborative effort and many of the pages you seem to have an interest in are watchlisted or edited by many people. Thanks. Risker (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Copies of messages to Messrs. Tony1 & Risker Re: same matter (Buckingham Palace)
Tony1 user talk page
Hi;
I don't want to start an edit war here, if you don't like some of the links, or you are just not a links person, feel free to revise them; as regards the quality of the copy, with respect, please try reading a comparison of the FULL text of the two versions before you revert. Most of the changes I made were small ones, to correct egregious errors, or bad grammar, or bad/clumsy form. I made no revisions to the substantive content of the text & did not consider it necessary to start an entry on the talk page seeking approval for such minor work. The article as a whole really isn't very good in present form, it's jumbled & run-on & repetitive. If you'd like to engage in further discussion on the matter, friendly I hope, I am available. :)
--Lx 121 (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI[3]. I have reverted the edits and requested they be discussed on the talk page of the article instead of talk pages of individual editors. Best, Risker (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I would be quite happy to discuss substantive issues regards the editing of this article here, however in this matter niether you, nor your friend who previously reverted my work, has provided any substantive issues to discuss.Lx 121 (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Risker user talk page:
Hi; as I said to your friend, I really don't want to get into an editing war on this, but I felt his reasoning was invalid & he clearly, from his comments, had not examined my work in detail.
I'll try & keep this concise, & stick to WP, rather than an involved debate: you haven't cited any WP policy re the appropriateness of the links; you have admitted that you can't be bothered checking or considering them on their merits individually and are just going to revert because you feel like it, which is certainly a violation of WP as well as common courtesy; & you are clearly entering the discussion merely to back up your friend, adding nothing of substance to the matter, simply spreading around the use of the "undo" function a bit, which is questionable behavior under relevant WP @ best.
I will also note that the changes in question are purely a matter of copy-editing & do not in any way alter the information content of the article; the article in question has much room for improvement & if I were to make a full effort on it, there is a great deal of repetitive content that could be cut.
Also, you might want to check the quality & relevance of some of the links in the version you two keep reverting it to, before you question my choices.
I don't mean this to seem unfriendly, but I don't enjoy how you & your friend are treating me, & I feel your behavior is at best not in the spirit of true wiki-courtesy.
If you would like to discuss the matter further, I am available —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lx 121 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
minor typo fixes Lx 121 (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
They're not "minor typo fixes" or "copy edits", they are major changes. And your insults to Risker (your half-hearted denials of not wanting to "seem unfriendly" notwithstanding) are completely unacceptable. -- BellwetherBC 01:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
First the reference to minor typo fixes was in regards to my posting here & not to the article. perhaps you could clarify your definition of wholesale changes? also, to be clear the user tony1 reverted my edit, without providing any substantive reason for doing so; when i left a reasonably friendly note on his talk page seeking to discuss the matter, his only response was to bring in his friend Risker, who also offered no substantive reasons for reverting the article, simply repeated his friends position & added that he couldnt even be bothered to check the relevance of the links in question, so he was simply going to wipe out my work. to me, that seems a rather rude thing to do, as well as a violation of WP in a number of ways.
I will assume that you were adding this information without having had the opportunity to read my response below, where I outline specific concerns with several of the links you added, and have provided you with links to some relevant policies and sections of the Manual of style. This article is on the watchlist of a large number of Wikipedians, and it should come as no surprise that several experienced editors will all have the same concerns. Please do not impute any collusion here, as I have not discussed this with either Tony 1 or Bellweather, other than to leave a message for Tony1 that I had responded to you. Risker (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Revisions to article
I have now made repeated attempts to make small corrections/improvements to this article.
I seem to have run into a small clique of wiki editors who seem to find this objectionable but have offered no concrete criticisms, or any relevant WP; simply "this is my article, don't mess with it"
I will offer one example below of the sort of thing in this article that i felt needed improving:
Victoria Memorial was created by the sculptor Sir Thomas Brock in 1911 and erected in front of the main gates at Buckingham Palace on a surround was constructed by the architect Sir Aston Webb.
The above is the full, exact text of the caption on one of the pictures.
The Victoria Memorial was created by sculptor Sir Thomas Brock in 1911 and erected in front of the main gates at Buckingham Palace on a surround constructed by architect Sir Aston Webb.
The captions on some of the pictures are a bit overlong & one is rather obtusely worded, but I didn't want to cause offense, so i thought i'd settle for just fixing the copy.
The other "wholesale changes" I made involved adding links to such relevant items as Queen elizabeth II & the royal family, & all the links added were comparable in relevance to the subject matter to the links already pre-existing.
It doesn't seem to be very useful or productive to continue in this matter, but perhaps it would be useful to have some clarification on the relevant points?
- :Thank you for bringing this to the talk page of the article, Lx 121. If you had made only a handful of changes to the article, I would gladly have reviewed them individually; however, you made dozens and dozens, and the first few links I did check were not appropriate so there was clearly already a problem. This is not a wiki-courtesy issue, this is a wiki-quality issue. This article has already gone through a very rigorous featured article nomination review and has been found to meet all Manual of style criteria, including internal link criteria. Please read this section in particular. As a featured article, there should be very few red links; you added two. None of the links should go to disambiguation pages; I counted at least two in the first 15 or so links. Individual words should only have one internal link, usually the first time the word occurs in the text. Linking to individual years is not particularly helpful if the event being linked to that year is not significant - for example, publication of a book. Many of the links you are adding are low value and have little significance in the context of the article. I don't really have much problem with the grammatical and flow edits you have made; it is the excessive and inappropriate linking that is at issue here. When I complete the other task I have before me, I will be happy to review the image captions, which I agree can probably be improved.
I would be honoured but somewhat presumptuous to consider Tony1 my friend; I think we may have edited the same article only once before. Nonetheless, he is one of Wikipedia's truly expert editors, and is extremely knowledgeable about the Manual of style. Perhaps you might find some benefit in reading his input at the Featured Article nomination page, where his contributions are highly valued and have proved to be of great assistance to many editors working to develop articles meeting the highest quality standards at Wikipedia. We aren't a little clique; there are quite a few editors here who have an affinity for our best quality articles, and thus our paths will cross from time to time. I hope this more in-depth explanation will help you to understand why you are being reverted. Best, Risker (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
All red links had been removed from the article in my last (reverted) revision. If you'd care to name the links leading to disambiguation pages I shall be quite happy to fix them & it was my intention to go thru the whole article & examine the issue of repetetive linking & relevance/usefulness of the links. With respect to the writing; this may have been a feature article on wikipedia 2 years ago, it is not worthy of that distinction now. Minor grammatical/typographical flaws aside, there is a great deal of unnecessary repetition & the ordering of the material is somewhat jumbled. If I were to hand this in to a professional publication it would not pass without heavy copy-editing. I am not trying to be hurtful in saying this, it is simply the truth. I do this kind of work professionally & I know of what I speak on the matter. I feel the article could be a great deal better than it is, as a matter of writing style as well as content. I'm not intending to revise the whole thing & I was being careful not to step on people's toes here; I made no revisions to the substance of the text & did not delete any material, the sum total of my work was to fix copy in a few places & add links, which as I stated, I was in the process of weeding thru for relevance & usefulness, before I started to get repeatedly "reverted".Lx 121 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Photos
I just wanted to conduct a straw poll on opinions as to the length & style of the photo captions:
there are a few of them that are on the point of being excessively long, the lead picture of the east front for example, do we need to have the background/history of its construction included here, when it's mentioned in detail within the body of the article?
there are a few that are also quite short; possibly we should consider a consistency of style?
Also the subject matter of some shots is a bit repetitive; we have 3 different shots focusing to some degree on the victoria memorial... & there is a decent supply of other material sitting unused in wmcommons
Lx 121 (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm starting this as an intended place for a general discussion on the ordering & repetition of material in the buckingham palace article.
Not counting the intro (which has become a bit run-on), or the photo captions, there is a some repetition & much jumbling of the order & subject of the material; particularly in the lower part of the page, where it jumps around between the history, architecture, & activities of the monarch & court, repeatedly.
I'm not trying to impose a solution to this, but I do think there is much room for improvement here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lx 121 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I would encourage you to take your "concerns" to the FA folks that decided this article was in such great shape that it deserved featured article status. And please stop making wholesale changes to a featured article without anything resembling consensus. -- BellwetherBC 03:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my talk page, Lx; I, too, am concerned at some of the changes you're making, although at a cursory look, some are OK. I'll return when I have time to review them. Tony(talk) 06:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid Lx most of your changes semed to involve massive overlinking, we have to credit the reader with some intelligence. I have also made a some changes to the layout which seem to have crept in over the last few months. Pictures of unspecified size in a page like this tend to distort the text. I removed yet another image of the Victoria Memorial, there is a limit to how many images of the same thing can be interesting. I've also made some other changes inline with the MOS. Please remeber this page is frequently edited and vandalised, it is almost impossible at time to keep it stable, as a result since its FA it has been FARCd which resulted in yet another re-write, the last re-write involved removing most of the extrenuous information which had crept in since the FA. Maintaining FA status is always an uphill battle, on this page even more so. Giano (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Where should "Buckingham Palace" be cross-linked & etc, on wikipedia?
Just a thought, but shouldn't this article be more closely tied to London & U.K. (& etc.) groupings on wikipedia (portals, categories, templates, etc)?
Surely there should be a box for the london portal, among other (possible) things...
As a famous and well known building Buckingham Palace is probably in a class of its own. If it had a box for everything possible, it would just be a page of distracting boxes. It is in God knows how many categories and is amply cross linked already. Giano (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Pullease, Lx, why degrade a beautiful article with an infoblot? Does the whole world have to be slotted into inflexible categories? Tony(talk) 11:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Info Box
Does anyone else agree that an info box would be benefical here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.19.104 (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
See the consensus in the section above; the answer is no. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't have much use for infoboxes except on technical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, so far you have had at least four people revert your insertion of an infobox. If I'd been online five minutes ago, it would have been five people. There are divergent opinions on the value of infoboxes, but they are less offensive in performing arts and sports articles than they do in architecture or other more traditional encylopedia subjects. The nature of the subject does not lend itself well to a standardised, templated box; the one you are adding contains four pieces of information, all of which are in the first four sentences of the article. Infoboxes tend to be visually distracting, and sometimes downright unappealing. In articles such as this, with many images, they can interfere with the structure of the page. Very few feature articles have infoboxes because they are well enough written and carefully enough designed not to benefit from them. Risker (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
My view is the opposite... I think infoboxes often add a lot, especially if someone has arrived at an article for a quick hit of information before moving on, rather than a leisurely and enjoyable read. So I tend to favor them. But that said, if this article managed to make it to FA without one, and if the regular editors, who helped get it there, think that this particular article doesn't need one, I'd tend to support that view. ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that a lot of people seem to like them. My experience with them has been mainly on the popular culture articles that I watch, where vandals find them easy pickings for disparaging remarks about the subject, or good-faith editors decide to add information there but not to the body of the article. In one case, I've had a running battle with various editors who keep changing someone's date of birth (based on old publicity flyers) in the infobox, right beside the correct information in the article. What kind of impression does that make on the average reader of the article? Worse yet, another article on a celebrity that I watched for a while had vandals regularly changing the career section from "celebrity" to "slut". After a ton of reverts, they got smarter, and made an edit in the body of the article to obscure the "slut" addition, and at one point it stayed there for 36 hours. To me, they are an attractive nuisance in most cases. Risker (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The Buck stopped here. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I've said it before: boxes create a rival to the article. Boxes say, effectively, "this is what you really need to know." Since I regard the function of an encyclopedia as continuing to expand contexts of a term, boxes are opposite of that. I understand when there is material that cannot work in prose (familia, genus, species, length to proboscis, number of cytokines, etc.) that can work there, but I can't see any way that things that not only work in prose, but which require explanation, amplification, and expression in prose, in a box. Therefore, insects can benefit from tabular data, which is what a "box" is, but an article on a building, a work of great art, or, most of all, a life should not have them under any circumstances.
Now, I rather think we shouldn't be hosting articles on every single, every song, and every record made by every band, that we shouldn't have every episode of every TV show on every network in every nation, as I think those are ephemera. In the case of ephemera, the tabular data may indeed be all that people want. If so, the box is good and the article is not. Geogre (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
What in heck is the problem with having a summary box in an article? They do not "create a rival" to the article, they are a brief, bullet point summary of salient facts. Infoboxes actually form one step in your "continuing expansion" series: title > infobox > lead section > full article. Each forms an expansion in detail over the last, and makes a subject easier and quicker to access. Infoboxes provide a condensed repository of discrete facts. Pyrope 18:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
All the information is in the lead. It is not necessary to have a pokemon type card with a reduced image to re-iterate that.Giano (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a reference work, not just an entertaining read. If someone arrives at a page just wanting basic information it should be possible for them to get that in a uniform, easily understandable, quickly accessed form. Deriding it as "Pokemon type" is not a satisfactory reason to avoid an infobox. You reasoning seems entirely subjective and not based on anything more than "I don't like it". As for the reduced picture, that says more about the quality of that image than it does about the infobox format. Perhaps it is time to find an image that doesn't have large parts of Buck House obscured behind the Victoria memorial? Pyrope 19:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but your argument sounds more like "I like it". An infobox will not add value to this article. It will discourage people from reading the article. It is not possible to design the infobox to contain the information all readers would want to know, because different readers will be looking for different information. Not once have I found an infobox useful, except in highly technical or scientific articles. Certainly they make little sense in topic areas where the differences are broad. And I say that as someone who has done some pretty heavy editing in articles with userboxes. Risker (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I have given you good reasons for my point of view; hardly "I like it". So you want to force people into reading the whole thing? And how will adding an infobox not add value? Please elaborate on that conundrum. I suspect that the reason that you haven't found infoboxes useful is down to the way that you use Wikipedia. Are you really so insular that you can't see that many people use this site as a quick reference for essential (and I use that term in its literal form) data? Different readers will certainly be looking for different information, that is absolutely certain, but what do you suppose the numbers of people looking for answers to questions such as "how old" or "who designed" or "where is" are, in comparison to those asking questions such as "how has the decor of the ballroom changed over the years" or "where does the lake get its water from"? If you come to this article wanting as detailed, well-researched guide to the history of Buckingham Palace then you are going to read the whole article. On the other hand, if all you want is the above information, why should you be forced to? Pyrope 19:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Essentially, "salient information" is not value neutral. That's a valuative term, and it's "salient" according to someone. It's an editorial decision made by someone who is in competition. The salient facts are in the article, and pulling them out is a sign of hostility toward the whole. It does compete. It says, "This is all you need in an instant." Common facts like dimensions are found in almanacs, not discursive articles. Geogre (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you telling me that build dates and architect information is on a par with details of how many garden parties there are a year? Come on. Also, by your reasoning we should do away with lead sections as well. What is to stop someone from just reading the lead and then walking away? Let those who want to read a discursive article read the discursive article, and those just looking for brief information can find it in an infobox. Why can't the two coexist? Pyrope 19:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Because it is your opinion that people want to know the build dates and the architects, and that they are the most important facts from this article; and that they find those the most important facts for all related articles. That isn't necessarily the case though; you have no evidence on which to base that judgment. And what happens when the "English important building" infobox is competing with the "UNESCO historic building" infobox and the "Royal residences of the United Kingdom" infobox and the general "Architecture-related article" infobox? Do you know there have been wheel wars about that?
Infoboxes are useful for series of articles that are very complex (e.g., very technical ones), or for series of articles that are largely identical in format, with specific key information such as genera and scientific classsification (e.g., the series on fungi). They may be useful for specific types of arts-related articles, but seem to be subject to changes that create contradictions with the articles themselves. Just today, I removed a statement about a musician's performance genre that was completely unsupported and clearly the subjective view of the adding editor; it was in the infobox but not the article - the first thing a reader would see, and we had unsupported information. No, I would prefer to get rid of infoboxes in most cases. Risker (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Go on then, what else would you put on the same level as the build date and architects? I never suggested that infobox contents were free of subjectivity, but they are no more or less subjective than those contained within an article's lead section. Infoboxes are currently undergoing a process of coalescence for exactly the multiple applicability problems you identify, but that is not a reason to avoid them all together. No article needs more than one infobox carrying the same information, the trick at the moment is picking the most appropriate one. Also, arguing against infoboxes because they "seem to be subject to changes that create contradictions with the articles" is daft. That is an argument about content, not format. If factual errors appear anywhere within an article they should be removed. Just because you happened to see one in an infobox isn't an argument against infoboxes per se. Pyrope 20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's the bottom line: It's a featured article. It is a featured article, in part, because of its layout. You have a large number of individuals heavily involved in the featured article process saying that infoboxes are unhelpful at best, and detracting from the quality of the article at worst. A userbox does not help. If you put it in you are going against the wide consensus on this page, and you will probably be reverted by any number of people. Risker (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ever consider that it might have achieved FA in spite of not having an infobox? Probably not. So this is what it comes down to, does it? No convincing reason that can't be rebutted, just the personal preference of a cabal of editors who have taken ownership. Pathetic. Pyrope 00:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, heavens. "A cabal of editors" is otherwise known as consensus. The idea that boxes are requisites for any standing is beneath comment, but, yes, there is a consensus that no box be used. That's how we work at Wikipedia. Geogre (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
No, what you have here is a vote. One for, three against. A consensus is an understanding built through debate, not a simple majority. So far I have given you quite a few good reasons for including a box. All I have had back are either easily countered or are entirely spurious logic. I never suggested that a box is a quality requirement, so don't go getting on your high horse about that, but the idea that this article has achieved FA and so can't possibly be improved is equally fatuous. Pyrope 01:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course it's not a vote. The fact is, without a disinfobox it was a Featured Article. The box is intrusive. "Fatuous" and "spurious" are my favorite words, but they're just insults here: let's keep the talk collegial, even if the actions are not. It is axiomatic that people with content contribute content. List-makers expand lists into categories, to see their list in blue at the top of every page. SAnd s many disinfobox makers are pigeonhole-people, averse to text, that one tends to be doubtful. Perhaps a disinfobox is being politely declined here. How can we make this clear to this User? --Wetman (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This user has a name. Hello, I'm over here. So now you have a soundbite catchphrase, yet it still rings hollow for lack of logical support. Disinformation is disinformation wherever it sits, why do you consider infoboxes a special case? Following your line of logic we should do away with infoboxes. So then what happens if the disinformation appears in the lead section? Well, get rid of that too. Now then, what about disinformation in the main text... Fatuous and spurious are two descriptive words, deployed here in their true and apposite meanings. Ironically many of my contributions are actually in expanding stubs into longer, discursive articles. I am certainly not a "pigeonholer". If you wish to criticise a fellow editor's use of language you really ought to moderate your own. Without an infobox this article made it through the FAC process, certainly, but might its passage have been eased had it had one? Who knows. Arguing "it didn't have one when it passed FAC so therefore it should never have one" is spurious logic at its best. In what way is a box intrusive? On another of your points, you can't "decline" an infobox, as this implies that you have ownership of the article, and I count at least three other editors who have expressed a preference for an infobox, so it isn't just me. Please, I'll say it again, give me a good reason. Pyrope 04:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The main reason I don't want a box here, is that like most other large buildings of this kind, it was not built by one person employing one architect during one period, to explain these things properly without misleading ambiguity text is the only option. We have all seen those great infoboxes occupying half the page, and still not complete. There is no point to them. They just make the page cluttered and ugly. On a page concerning chemicals with properties, medications or even mathematics there may well be a place for them, but there is not here. To have, or not to have an info box has been tactfully and unoficially left to the principle authors of a page for a long time, rather than force the issue. This has worked well. Obviously an info box os not wanted here. However, there is nothing to stop you writing a page and having it exactly how you want it. Now why not consider expanding this page, become its priciple author and have as many boxes as you like on it? It is on desperate need of expansion, and information is readlily available to do so, I will even give you some pointers and help - how about that? Giano (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, now those are well-explained and thoughtful reasons. All I have been after from the start. I don't happen to agree with many of them, but at least I can see where you are coming from now. The first thing I have to take issue with is your advice about becoming "principal author". I am and have been "principal author" on a great many pages, but I would never presume to revert a well-formatted, factually correct, good faith edit from another editor, just on the basis of my own personal preference. You do not own editorial rights to any page you edit, no matter how much of its content you have contributed. As for discrete data such as those you cite for chemical properties, these do exist for buildings. The box I created for this page included location information (including a map) and the start an finish dates, none of which are particularly controversial. I also included the four principal building architects, who are again not a controversial aspect of Buck House's history. Your comment that an infobox may not be "complete" betrays, I think, a fundamental misunderstanding of the role and purpose of an infobox in an article like this. They are not designed to be a comprehensive summary of the page contents, but are an easily accessed, quick, and uniformly formatted resource for those people who are just looking for basic information; those "how old", "where", "who" questions I mentioned above. Dogmatically stating that "there is not a place for them here" is blinkered. Are you saying that absolutely everyone who comes upon this page wants to sit down and read a discursive article just to get an overview? You appear to be trying to place limits on what Wikipedia can do. As is now canonical, this is not an electronic version of a paper encyclopedia, and can include both aspects of more detailed historical exegeses, as well as the more "Who's Who" style bulleted summary. These sit alongside each other on the one page. I really don't see how a neatly formated infobox with thoughtfully chosen colourscheme can be considered any more ugly than the hotch-potch of different picture sizes and overlong captions that this page already labours under, but I hear no campaign on your part to trim some of these. I personally don't like those aspects at all, but I'm not arrogant enough to blindly delete captions that someone has clearly put a lot of time and thought into, without first discussing it here. Pyrope 15:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
No, but you are arrogant to enough to make a major alteration to a featured article ignoring the views expressed on the talk page. Perhaps, before wasting your time in future it would be a good idea to consider those views.Giano (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
And you check the talk page of every article that you add innocuous material to, do you? This was hardly a major alteration, just a fairly common feature than many many many other FAs possess. And as I said before, just because this is FA does not mean that it can't be improved. If you want to play king of the hill then I suggest you go away and set up your own web page, you are clearly uneasy with the idea of sharing. Take your toys and play elsewhere. Pyrope 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Pyrope, there is no call for this behaviour. You have received comment from a significant number of editors, and several other editors have commented previously on exactly the same issue. It seems to me that you are insisting on having your own way over the consensus of editors who have expressed an opinion here. It may come as a shock to you, but not everyone likes prescribed userboxes. I looked at it once again, just a moment ago, both logged in and logged out, and your proposal is pretty poor. The photo is shrunk too small. The map is, well...it's really not useful, failing to give sufficient information to the reader to do anything with it. It's not a country-sized map, and it's not a local map, it's just a red dot in a sea of grey that is itself insufficiently defined. The userbox does not tell us the single most important thing about this building: that it is the London residence of the British monarchy. It does, however, tell us its coordinates - a generally useless tidbit of information; I cannot think of an education system in the world that teaches GPS coordinates rather than latitude and longitude. Nothing in the userbox tells us why this building warrants inclusion in the encyclopedia. It cannot be considered essential information. Now, I seem to recall another editor recently coming by and working on the captions for photos, and it doesn't look like those changes were reverted, so don't think this is an aversion to change; it's an aversion to rote change that provides no added value to the article. Risker (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is it only now that you have decided to start coming up with well-structured reasons? You have finally answered my question about what you would have included alongside dates and architects, thank you. You could have done this a while back though. I was also disappointed by the map type used, but rather than seeing it as a reason for deleting the box I looked on it as an opportunity to improve the map! Unfortunately I got bogged down in this charade. Similarly, as I mentioned earlier, the image size says much more about the poor quality of that image than it does about the box format, although the size could do with being notched up to at least match the box parameters. Again, an argument about the image, not the box. Contrary to your apparent impression, I have not been commenting here out of a desire to "get my own way". I will admit that the response from many of the incumbents has got under my skin, but solely for the rather Violet Elizabeth Bott tone that many have adopted in metaphorically shouting "no, no, no" without any supporting justification. I also greatly dislike it when editors try an shout down other editors by invoking that sacred cow of "consensus", without actually entering into debate when that consensus is tested. I will say one final time, that a properly formatted and relevant infobox can be a great addition to an article. It would be far more productive for you people to use your experience and knowledge to help build a good one than just bawl at anyone (and again... I'm not the first) who suggests adding one here. Pyrope 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Pyrope, I am going to put this in nice Canadian terms for you. You're talking like the guy who tries to sell people a freezerload of beef. Some people are quite happy with the deal, but others look at it and say no thanks. But you keep hounding, so finally we start telling you what is wrong with the deal...too much ground chuck, no chicken, I don't want stewing beef at all, where are the steaks, no rib roasts, where am I going to put a freezer that won't force me to rearrange all the rest of the furniture, what do you mean I should take down my great-aunt's portrait to make room, this will cost me more than if I go grocery shopping every week, and so on. By your own admission, you are trying to force into a feature article an infobox that is unsatisfactory. No sale. Please listen. Risker (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This aint Loblaws fella. Customers who don't like a deal just walk away. Editors who disagree discuss. Please stop with the cruddy analogies. That, I supopose, has been why I continued this. It really is no skin off my nose whether this article has an infobox or not. What riled me was the smug and uncommunicative attitude of many of you (yes, I include you) in just turning your noses up without reason. Wikipedia is built on discussion, you simply can't expect to get away with saying no without giving a reason. Pyrope 18:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, you have no idea how difficult it is to maintain a featured article at featured article standards, particularly an article as popular as this one. Everybody and their brother wants to put their own unique twist on it, without any eye to the value of their addition or whether or not it fits within the standards or improves the article. You aren't the first, and you won't be the last. You have clearly agreed that your edit was substandard. Giano's off building an entire category of articles, and I am returning to my other responsibilities developing evidence for Arbcom now. And what will you be up to? You've already turned down the help of one of the top feature article writers to develop a page to the highest standards. Risker (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
What has that got to do with it? Apparently it's not obvious, as I have indeed been (and still am) involved in the maintaining a number of FA, including some with genuinely controversial topics, not just petty bickering over formatting. Once again you resort to smug "we're better than you so be quiet" arguments. I added, in good faith, what I considered to be a helpful addition. It was reverted with only "consensus" given as a reason. When I checked out that "consensus" I found a phantom; merely a vote majority with no reasons. I asked for reasons for the reversion and was given nothing worthwhile. Indeed your reasons just a couple of posts ago were the first which actually made sense. The rest were all pathetic whinging about not liking infoboxes, not comments that the infobox format I had chosen was inappropriate. As far as desperate non sequiturs go they were up there with the worst. I asked direct questions and yet none of you answered. What am I supposed to make of that? Am I a crawling worm, beneath your mighty, Arbcom-sanctioned glare? Heaven help Arbcom if dogmatic decree is to be the approach you take. I haven't turned down Giano's help, I never had any intention of writing about a palace. Perhaps he would like to expand Cooper Car Company? It's a proper mess and no mistake. I'm sure that I could show him how. What will I do? Same as I usually do probably. Write about motor racing history and try to prick the pomposity of editors who think they own Wikipedia. Frankly, every single one of you who has commented above has seriously disappointed me. I usually assume that long-serving editors are able to string a logical justification together and not just cluster in a huddle and shout "no". Pyrope 19:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you know, you could have written a page and a half with the words you have expanded here. Here is page dying for your attentions, no nasty people will disagree with you, you can do exactly as you please - go forth and expand! Giano (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Still with the childish comment. Can you really not muster logic Giano? If your objections stand here, why wouldn't they stand on that article? And if you don't mind me adding an infobox there, why not here? Rather than being patronising and dismissive, put your brain in gear. Pyrope 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I will will point out to you that I have written this page once to get it to FA standard, and then following several hundred edits of trivia, errors, vandalisms etc. all just slipped in which we somehow missed, had to re-write it again to get it off "Featured article removal." Do not presume to come here telling me what makes and does not make a featured article! This is a very important page for the Brits and Wikipedia. When I first came across it was the stubbiest of stubs [4]. Now, it is one of the most high profile Wikipedia pages there is, it is vandalised repeatedly most days. That it is stable enough to even be a FA is an achievement and credit to those people you are attacking here. True, no one owns this page, but there are an awful lot of people making sure it remains at something approaching an acceptable standard. Your edit did not meet that criteria. Giano (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Bully for you. It still doesn't allow you to delete good faith edits without justification. Which you did not give. Even once. As an expat Brit (and one born and brought up in London, at that) I am fully aware of Buckingham Palace's place in the grand scheme of British things. Please point to the edit where I tell you how to make a featured article... In the same vein, please don't be so arrogant as to think that just because you have got this article to FA that you know all there is to be know. That's the joy of Wikipedia: no one person is infalliable, but the combination usually has all bases covered. If you had stated your reasons for the deletion at the first opportunity then the above would never have happened. It was this lack of communication that I criticised (not attacked... are you really so thin-skinned?) the other contributors to this "debate" over. Pyrope 19:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It's that time again, folks
Do not feed the trolls. I do not mean to call anyone a troll -- not even the trolls would I call "trolls" -- but the philosophy referred to by "do not feed the trolls" is probably best obeyed here. Do not feed disputes. Pyrope has his or her opinion. So long as no edit wars erupt, there is no sense in carrying things further. No box, no worries. The consensus of editors has been established, and those editors have explained themselves to the dissenting voice. More than that is mere reiteration and heat without light. Geogre (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Having read the above dispute, I am more than depressed about the patronising, dismissive tone shown towards someone who tried to improve an article. I don't know enough about this article to comment on the quality of his edit, but the responses to his request for clarification were nothing short of bullying, particularly with regard to referring to him as if he were not present. The "everything's okay now, the troll has gone" comment above is equally depressing. The whole argument against the infobox smacked of ownership, self-importance and pomoposity on the part of a group of editors who, while having clearly dedicated a lot of time and effort to the article, feel that editors outside that group are inferior and not deserving of civil treatment. Personally I hope that I encounter none of you during my own editing activity. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Capitalisation
I've spotted and corrected a couple but there are probably more occurences on the page, but it is worth pointing out to future editors that "The Queen" is always the correct form when referring to HM The Queen, and not "the Queen" as was used in places. If anybody doubts this then look at sites like the official site of the British Monarchy. Kate Phizackerley (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
There was a huge debate somewhere on this very subject (somewhere) when the page was re-written, and expanded, a few years ago - the decision was "the Queen" - I don't have strong views either way, but I suppose the argument is, this is an international project, and that the world has quite a few Queens, none of whom take precedence over each other enough to become "The Queen." I dunno, and it doesn't seem hugely important so change what you like. Giano (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Giano here. While it is correct within the Commonwealth Realms to refer to HM as The Queen, it is not globally correct, and therefore should follow simple grammar; uncapitalised 't', capital Q.PrinceOfCanada (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see how those apply. The (British) English spelling would apply for words like 'honour', and The Queen would apply if Wikipedia were a British-only institution. In fact, the Styles & Titles page refers only to the noun (Queen) not the article (the). It would be correct to refer to Charles as The Prince of Wales; Wales doesn't exist anywhere else. But I'm sure both Margarethe II and Beatrix would take some exception to Her Madge being 'The' Queen ;)
Joking aside, I think (as I said above) that Giano's point stands. The capitalisation is a matter of precedence, and while EIIR takes precedence within her own realms, she doesn't (this is a broad generalization) take precedence worldwide. I'll be reverting the changes, as I really don't think that what you cited applies.PrinceOfCanada (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The respective Queens can use 'The Queen' on their own pages! I think it is pretty clear on a page about Buckingham Palace to whom one is referring! --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well yes it's clear, but I think you're sort of missing my point.PrinceOfCanada (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with PrinceOfCanada and Giano on this one; there are too many queens, even queens who have been resident in this particular building, to refer to just one as "The" Queen. The article is about the building, not the person. Risker (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Good plan. I'll hold off on any edits until we reach consensus there. Sound good to you? PrinceOfCanada (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
(<--unindent) I saw your last post and have gone through and made the article consistent. It should be noted that "The" Queen was referring to at least three different Queens over time and thus becomes confusing to the reader. I also note that there are brief mentions of royalty of other countries throughout the article. There are a few examples of '"The" Queen' that remain capitalized - words at the beginning of a sentence, primarily; I think I have made the rest of them consistent. Risker (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, consistency was one of my main concerns. However I have now noticed that the consitency problem reaches throughout all monarchy articles and have thus started the above stated discussion. --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Leaving the palace
I have been one the primary authors of this page for a long time now [5], and been one of those maintaining it to FA standards. Others often have various ideas on how to improve it with which I don't agree. I think it is now time for both me and the page to move on. The amount of alterations and vandalism it receives make it near unstable, but I know others are watching it. When it is nominated for FAR next time, perhaps some fresh blood will revitalise it. Anyway, it is now off my watch list. Giano (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Photo gallery of interior shots
A gallery of very beautiful interior shots was added today; however, it appears that these photographs are copyright violations (I've already found one on the web, and expect to find more). I've asked a Commons admin to assist in sorting this out, as all these photos are at Commons, but in the interim I've removed the gallery here. This should not be considered a rebuke of the Wikipedia editor who added the gallery, as it appears the photos have been mislabeled at Commons and there would be no reason for him or her to directly question the status of the photos. Risker (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
They're from the Official Souvenir Guide (which I have in front of me)! I twigged immediately because I worked with these photos all last summer... Tsk, the cheek. DBD 23:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, I'm afraid that is all my fault! The have been at Royal Collection for ages now, and then yesterday I re-read the Buckingham Palace article and noticed they were abscent...so I just added them all! Oops, I am so sorry! Regards, --Cameron (T|C) 11:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No problems, Cameron; I only caught it because I recognised one of the photos myself. The tags on the photos at Commons were incorrect, and there is no reason you would have known this was a problem. I've asked a couple of Commons admins to review all of the images uploaded by that editor, as there are quite a few other copyright violations in his gallery too. Risker (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks and well done on your recent Rfa = )...--Cameron (T|C) 11:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Infobox proposal
I've been musing on infoboxes in general. Divisive little blighters aren't they. Here's a compromise proposal - create a subpage to hold statistical information, that way the pro-prosers get their free flowing prose and can arrange pretty images to illustrate the text. The 'hard facters' get a whole page of their own to put whatever statistics, dates, dimensions, coordinates, timelines, etc.etc. in a wholely unadultered 'hard fact' page. What do we think? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting idea - I'm not at all opposed to it, though a more informative link name than "Statistics" should be given on the main article, methinks. Also, the infobox in the subpage could be expanded to 100% width; it looks odd all cluttered to one side right now. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
We think it would probably be best to get some consensus on the matter first. Infoboxes serve a useful purpose, and basic good web design/layout calls for as few clicks as possible to get to the information someone wants. The 'divisiveness' caused by the infobox has been gone since April; the page has been relatively stable as-is for four months. Bottom line with including an infobox on the page: everyone can find what they need. Creating a subpage is a major change that as far as I can tell is implemented nowhere else on WP except for user pages. Reverting now. Prince of Canada t | c 22:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that I find the sans-infobox style more aesthetically pleasing where the lead section has been appropriately treated for prose and pictures. On the other hand, the infobox does have some at-a-glance information for the more visually-oriented. What would happen if the infobox appeared to the right of the TOC, below the article lead (or lede, for you purists)? The TOC usually admits of some extra space to the right and the infobox pushes prose to the left. Perhaps a happy compromise? Franamax (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) Actually, scrap that idea, along with the last twenty minutes of my life :) I can jockey the TOC and infobox side-by-each but only with a table, in this case the infobox is longer than the TOC and messes up the main body of text. Oh well, it was a good idea while it lasted! Franamax (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
@Prince, wikipedia's innovations have always had to start somewhere, so I'm not too worried about precedents - if you want one have a look at this and this. We are encouraged to be BOLD and IAR. The principle of using subpages for individual articles is a good one - a prose page for discussion and analysis, perhaps a subpage for timelines, another for a gallery, another for statistics. We could be more comprehensive with such a system. Prose editors, whose concerns are often about writing compelling narratives and what to include or not, would not be working against those that want to include 'hard fact' information that is often difficult or unwieldy to weave into good writing. Magazine articles frequently do this - The Architects' Journal for instance, will usually give a critique of a building and then follow with 'data' pages including elemental build cost information etc. that wouldn't have any place in the article unless such data was exceptional. You're right, we'd need to balance the gain from such richness and depth to our articles, with navigational ease; but my opinion is the benefits outway the extra click.--Joopercoopers (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, see that's where we differ. I don't see the prose and infobox as working at cross-purposes; they complement each other. The box provides 50K foot view of the information with some basic statistics; the body of the article expands. Sidebars with such information are common in newspaper, magazine, and encyclopedia articles around the world. That's all the infobox is, and it serves a useful purpose.
While it's true that we should be bold, it is also true that we must bear in mind the needs of those who are not privy to these discussions--the average, every day reader. To make such a substantial change to single article (the subpage) would render this article less easily navigable, and therefore less useful, to the average reader as it would not be following established WP practice. If you feel so strongly that subpages are the way to go, it would make more sense to do so on a global scale in order to ensure a bare minimum of consistency. Yes, yes, consistency is not an aim here. That's not entirely true; we need a certain amount of consistency in navigation so that readers may find the information they are looking for without having to learn a new set of navigation at every page. Not sure where that discussion should begin--probably the Village Pump. Prince of Canada t | c 22:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Or, we could start here as a working example for discussion at village pump. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
How does a description of a 'design team' that includes William Winde, John Nash, Edward Blore, Aston Webb help the general reader - seems downright misleading to me. These people weren't concurrent members of a team. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
'Design Team' is readily fixed; something like Parts of the building designed successively by before their names would clarify. You're not really refuting any of the other points I made, so I'll assume you agree with them. Prince of Canada t | c 23:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying we need to fix the infobox to remedy the error, not I agree with everything you've said. Put simply, I don't agree that having a small, and by necessity, arbitrary infobox is appropriate on every page of wikipedia. But for those articles where statistics are important, general readers can access a subpage where they know they can get all sorts of statistics which will be more comprehensive - that page could provide a summary perhaps of the most interesting bits of the stats. There are two issues here and I don't want to conflate them. 1. there are problematic issues with this infobox here on this article eg. are we saying, currently a repetition of coordinate data say just a few pixels from the same information a few pixels away, is helping the general reader? We are misleading him about the design team etc. 2. We have a lead for summarising the article and I'm not convinced that in this case, on this page (or on historic architecture pages in general) that infoboxes add much, but what would be valuable is a separate and comprehensive suite of pages that can be flexible in their approach. Prince, I'm rather long in the tooth on wikpedia to respond well to silly debating tactics like that or your rather petulent attitude to a good faith proposal - If you'd rather not discuss it as such, then your opinion has been noted. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
But not, apparently, too long in the WP tooth to avoid insults? Your first issue is handled by removing the coordinate data from the top of the page and leaving it in the infobox (or vice versa), and I already addressed how to deal with the design team. Yes, the lead summarises the article, but it is not easy to see at a glance, e.g., which design eras it belongs to. The infobox does that. Using a separate set of pages, to me, flies somewhat against the point of an encyclopedia; if the subpages are that important, then a separate article entirely should logically be created. In this case, and with all historical architecture pages, I don't agree with that logic. And again.. this is something that should be discussed at a much more global level. The Wikiproject Architecture page would seem to be the logical place. Doing otherwise would completely invalidate one of your points, namely clarity and navigability. Prince of Canada t | c 00:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Prince, I find your "if the subpages are that important, then a seperate article [...] should be created..." argument to be fallacious. What, pray tell, is the point of an separate prose article dealing specifically with the most fundamental and superficial aspects of Buckhingham Palace? Such an article would only contradict the aim you've been flaunting this entire discussion; that is, to provide the information in a plain format without the reader having to scan through paragraphs of prose. It has nothing to do with importance, though even if it did, I would object to your argument on the grounds that the very point of subpages is destroyed entirely if information distinct or important enough to have a subpage should have a separate encyclopedic page instead. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
@Nousernames, Yes, the infobox probably wouldn't be a box anymore, it could expand to be a specific page type where conventions would probably establish themselves - separate reference section, data under conventional headings etc. but this could be tailored for each building, rather than the rather uncomfortable 'one size fits all' problem that the boxes have now.--Joopercoopers (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This was argued before and consensus (April 2008) was reached - no info box. I see the info box was added in June against consensus and without any new discussion, so why is it there? - Epousesquecido (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no clue, but I personally would rather see either no infobox or the compromise that Joopercoopers suggests; preferrably the latter. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Concur with no infobox. Every time someone puts one in, it is full of incorrect or improperly organised information, it ruins the lead photo, and bottom line it does more harm than good. There is no evidence that the information placed in infoboxes is the kind of "fast facts" that readers find useful. As to the comment above respecting sidebars: they are never at the beginning of the article, are usually very limited in scope and size, and are interwoven throughout. Sidebars actually make more sense to me than infoboxes. I've seen them effectively used to include quotes in articles with few images (e.g., To Kill a Mockingbird), but would be very hesitant to use them in an image-rich article such as this one. The additional subpages do have a certain attraction to them, and I could see them as being quite useful within the architecture category, amongst others. Several architectural articles I've read in the past six months have been negatively affected, I think, by infoboxes (unimportant or incorrectly summarised info, makes the lead image too small, adversely affects the layout of the lead, etc.). Risker (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
A vital statistics page sounds like an excellent idea, to me. so long as it does not have misleading rubbish like architects divided by centuries referred to as a "design team" - it could be linked to from the right corner of the proper page, rather like the co-ordinates are on some pages. Though, I stll don't understand whu people cannot just read the lead. While the info box on this page was a particularly nasty and misleading example of the species, on almost all pages they are diverting, intrusive and damaging to the layout. However if the primary authors are particularly devoted to them, say on a scientific page, then I suppose they are OK. Giano (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Unlike my highly esteemed colleague, I happen to LIKE infoboxes as a general rule. And, back in April, I argued in favour of infoboxes on this very article's talk page. But the consensus then was clear, that the article should not have one. One was added in June without discussion. That seems a violation of consensus to me. Now consensus can change but in order for one to say it changed, there has to be evidence that it has! No discussion == no evidence of change in consensus. That something wasn't reverted right away is not evidence that consensus changed. Therefore, despite my still feeling that the article should have an infobox, it's clear to me that until discussion here shows that consensus HAS changed, it should not have an infobox. Darn it. ++Lar: t/c 11:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd be interested to hear why you like infoboxes as a general rule Lar - would you elaborate? Personally I think it comes down to appropriateness - they work for the taxonomy of plants, because there is already an underlying system of classification in which plants can sit. Similarly with chemical elements, etc. but art subjects are much more unique and resistant to the classification impulse, and as a result, the 'what to include' must always be rather arbitrary and I think has generally been proven to be rather unsatisfactory. But my argument here wasn't really about whether to have an infobox or not, but that as a reference resource, we could be offering different types of information in different formats than the single prose article model we currently use. We already have 'list of' articles, the idea was that we might offer a fuller service in a more harmonious fashion than at present. Currently such things as 'timelines' rarely fit well in the prose pages, they mess up layouts. Annotated galleries are avoided or tacked on at the end of articles as a sop to 'include' all images, but we might perhaps have a nicely designed bar across the top of articles, or even get the developers to add further 'tabs' which could include specific supplements/appendices to the main encyclopedic text. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure. We are building an encyclopedia... which is primarily for the reader. Not for us. The material should be organised in such a way that the largest fraction of readers find it useful. People come to articles for various reasons. Sometimes they come for an indepth study. In that case they are going to read the lede, get the general idea, and then read every word and pore over every image. But in other cases, they are coming to an article (perhaps by following a link from another article) merely to get the high points. Infoboxes give a consistently formatted distillation of information in an easy to digest format that the lede, being prose, does not. I am sympathetic to the issue that infoboxes can get out of step with the article body. It's a real problem. But primarily, that's an editor convenience problem... editors need to keep the body and the box in step! It's not a reason not to have infoboxes. I think in general buildings should have infoboxes, which should contain basically the same sorts of information for all buildings (for consistency and easy recognition by the readership), just as ships should, or people should, or companies should, and so forth. Not everyone comes to every article to read every word. THIS building, by consensus, should not and does not have one, unless consensus changes. ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If we have standardised infoboxes that can be used on articles like Windsor Castle etc also, I'm pro infobox...if not let's leave it be. --Cameron* 13:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is the arts, and architecture in particular is not standard. Whereas a ship is built somehwere at a certain time, and is launched and serves a certain purpose - a chemical or element has certain detailed properties - a building often develops over ceturies, in various styles has multiple uses and owners, and a history which is a part of it's value and interest, if all these things are just listed with no explanation they become just a confusing meaningless mass, that serves no purpose other than to confuse. For instance take Windsor Castle where would you start, the info box would have to be as big as the article itself, to be of any real use. Giano (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Uniformity is not an inherent virtue. The point of an infobox is as providing "information-at-a-glance" so that the non-reader can get a reassuring sense of having "got the gist of it" anyway, no doubt a pleasing feeling. Infoboxes compete with the encyclopedia: a sense of this parallel universe is provided by editors who have not provided text but support an infobox anyway.--Wetman (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a few problems with Lar thesis here too.
. We are encouraged to believe we must make all our articles the most useful for the most readers. The trouble is that the most important notable facts about buildings are given in the lead but infoboxes do not lend themselves to adaptation from article to article which may have different importances. The dimensions of buildings are rarely of particular importance, unless it is the largest, tallest, widest or employing a specific philosophic/spiritual/academic dimensional system etc. but most are averagely tall and wide, and so the infobox is conveying information which is only of value to the extreme cases. Sometimes such information is impossible to determine anyway - what is the height of the Paris Opera House? 17 Storeys (total)?, 10 above ground? 7 below ground, so why should that information be more important than something else? Whether it is or not will be specific to the building. The assumption is that people come to articles and just want to know specific things that might be served by the infobox. While it makes sense to list the atomic number of an element in an easy concise way, how we determine the consistent information for buildings is difficult to see.
. I don't blame Lar - he's a systems 'architect' (I've contacted the ARB about protecting the name) :-) This isn't a dig Lar I respect you greatly, but I imagine in your world of computers, elegant solutions are preferred over inelegant ones, but ultimately any solution will do as long as it works and consistency has a value in computer systems. But WP is not really a computer system, its somewhere between a print resource and a database to the general reader. My concern is less that people have a consistent familiar layout, even if the information gained is of little value, than they get good information. It took me 25 seconds to read the lead of this article - if I'm skim reading for specific information I usually just press CTRL+F and type in a key word and I'm usually bang at it, with all the surrounding context and caviats - which is more useful for the researcher than an isolated fact. So they don't really work.
War of the infoboxes - I just reverted another addition of the Taj Mahal's UNESCO box. see here. It offers practically no information of any use to the general reader, other than perhaps its inscription date. Who has decided that this infobox should go here rather than the architecture one? What's more important? Why? Of course neither box will get at the most important aspects of the Taj Mahal and so the idea that "Infoboxes give a consistently formatted distillation of information in an easier to digest format that the lede" just doesn't work - we can't design them to say the most important thing about the Taj is its symbol of a love story, its construction as imperial propaganda, its exquisite craftsmanship and it being widely regarded as the most beautiful building in the world; in the same boxed format as Buckingham palace where our concerns are less about beauty and more about history and the Great Pyramid of Giza (which has a 'worlds historic tallest buildings' infobox!). So what actually happens is we get different infoboxes to deal with these differences and so the argument that they are a consistently formatted distillation of information again falls down, because many pages have different infoboxes which major on different importances. The only really adequate way of summarising the notable facts is in the prose lead section with it's inherent flexibility, but concisely laid out information regarding a buildings dimensions, construction history, timelines and image galleries would be useful for those that seek it. I think I'll crib something of what I mean together and offer it by way of example. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I should say oppose at the head so that the comments can be referred to quickly. As Giano said, to have a uniform appearance, there has to be uniformity about the thing itself. Barring that, there has to be a nearly universally accepted taxonomy. Bugs differ from each other, but the Linnean system puts each in its place on the Great chain of being. There is no such uniformity to architecture. Virtually anything a person can say is common is excepted somewhere (incl. "there is a roof" or "there is a floor" or "there are walls"). ¶Additionally, architecture always has a purpose, and defining characteristics by purpose will shatter defining by formal element. E.g. this is a palace. A palace is a different from a warehouse. A palace's form is determined by its purpose, as is a commercial building's. So, style? Purpose? Era? You can come up with a box designed to find the like and dislike on any of these, and there can be either a giant regurgitation or a fight over which box. ¶Finally, though, any addition to an article should add usefulness. We can say "usefulness" is along the lines of either additional information or access to information. People in favor of boxes argue this last, but it's dubious. When the prose explains all of the elements that would be in a box, the first possibility (additional information) is gone, and the prose usually makes the information available in the lede or first body. Therefore, there is no significant usefulness bonus. So, a potential design/content war over the box, no clear way to determine the contents of the box, and no substantial addition to usefulness: therefore, no box. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Specifying image sizes
We've just had a bit of a back and forth about image size specification... let me put my view here that for this article, structured the way it is, I think having specific image sizes is appropriate. I am aware that there is a general guideline that says we should not do so... and generally I tend to agree. But this article needs specific sizes (and different ones for different images) to meet the layout needs of the article. Therefore the specific sizes should be left, in my view. Discuss the values of particular images if you think they are not right. But I think the article flows very well using the sizes now in place. Guidelines are not ironclad laws. ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
default image sizes, screenshot by Lar"proper" image sizes, screenshot by Lar
I see no reason why this article is so different from any other to require special treatment. As far as I can tell, the justification is low res quality particularly for architecture, well to me, none of the larger thumbs are any better in that respect than default size, and the current larger version would not stop me from doing the natural thing and choosing for myself whether to take the effort to one click an image, rather than be satisfied at looking at a 250/300 thumb. The way the current version [6] is laid out on my screen, some of the text is in the Garden/Mew/Mall section compressed into a less than two inch wide column between two images, and in other places there is barely a full sentence before the text switches from left to right due to the images dominating the screen. Some of the captions are overlong too, for a start is it realy necessary to repeat the name Buckingham Palace in every pic? MickMacNee (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Please do not exaggerate, MickMacNee. The words "Buckingham Palace" appear in nine of the 16 images. As to long captions, they are explaining important elements within the images involved, or variations from the images depicted to the present day. The captions are part of the "story", so to speak.
I have reverted the images to the format initially intended by the primary editor, so that we are discussing the setup that he prefers; if you would be so kind, would you please consider commenting on the images as they are set up now? Thanks. Risker (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I apologise for not having examined every single caption before making such an exageration. And I am well aware of the purpose of captions, but they do nothing to tell me a story if I am just irritated that I can't read the main story because in part due to the length of image captions. As for the new version, all you did was to swap left for right for one pair, which does nothing to remove the two inch column of text. And without wishing to get into a tedious MOS discussion, it just simply looks wrong to have a {further} section tag displaced to the side of an image, if this was an intentional effect. MickMacNee (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I've noted below regarding the Garden/Mews section images. Other than that.. perhaps multiple mentions of 'Buckingham Palace' across captions could simply be 'the palace'? (noting: I don't have an issue with the captions saying BP; just offering a suggestion). I'd also agree that (apart from the piano nobile image, which would be useless if made any smaller) we should remove image sizing from the thumbs. Prince of Canada t | c 00:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
And even that is after I replaced and removed several images, before that it was even more of a mess. Giano (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Much better (except lead images should not be thumbed). I seriously don't know what extra information is supposed to be being gained for every reader by forced upsizing, for example the west facad image, which for me looks like two inches wide unforced compared to less then three inches wide forced. I see very little visual improvement in looking at the thumb without clicking it to full size, yet I see harm being done to the article as a whole. And the thumbs in my prefered size show that at the minimum the state ballroom and monument caption stories are overlong and belong in main text. MickMacNee (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it's instructive to compare two screen shots I took (at right)... one uses fixed width, and the other uses the sizes that the principal article author chose. Let's face it, Queen Vic's picture, love her dearly or not, should not be anywhere near the same size as the palace, the article subject. Guess what, sometimes using default sizes is... wrong. It messes up the artistry of the article. ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about that part of the article (bar lead images should not be defaulted). I think that's a pretty poor example to justify the general forced upsizing of images. MickMacNee (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, I think it's an excellent example. Even if the lead was not defaulted, the second image of the queen would be too big. (that's why I included it...) Defaults do not only hinder making things bigger for good reason, they also hinder making things smaller for good reason. When you have as many edits on this article as Giano does, perhaps then you'd be qualified to choose sizes. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I have not objected to forcing images smaller, that has nothing to do with anything I've said, read my comments again. And I couldn't give two hoots as to how many edits you think I need to be able comment here or have an opinion about how the article looks. That is quite frankly an insulting and egotistical comment to make. MickMacNee (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This thread started with my saying, in essence, "some articles should not be required to conform to the guideline". Your first reply was, in essence "I see no reason for that". Reasons were given, and you've gradually been backpedaling, giving in on one image or another, which is good, but it misses the main point. My point stands. This article is one of the articles that should not have to slavishly comply with a guideline. Period. I gave an example of where larger is wrong, and an example of where smaller is wrong. I trust the judgment of the person who wrote the bulk of this article about what the right sizes ought to be more than I trust the judgment of a random editor who doesn't have many edits on it. That includes both me and you, so if I'm insulting you with that comment, I am also insulting myself. Nevertheless no insult was intended, and if you took one anyway, I apologize. Now can we get back to the meat of this discussion? I'll repeat my assertion, this article is one that should not be forced to comply to image size guidelines. Agree or disagree? ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
You brought up the lead image, which is not supposed to be forced, you brought up a portrait image whose forcing or lack of is causing none of the issues in the article I mentioned, and you swapped two images around which did nothing to address the concerns raised. Unlike yourself, I happen to think a 'random editor' (another quite insulting and pointed term) is quite well placed to judge an article with the quality of uinbiased and uninvested first impressions. I hate to think what you think of the article review volunteers if you don't trust people who've never worked on a particular article before giving comment. I hope you also don't come into regular contact with any new editors either, you are unlikely to make them want to stay to gain your 'trust' so that they are allowed to contribute to your encyclopoedia. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying that the lead photo should be defaulted. Well, I'm not anyway; the lead should be 300px per MOS. I think the discussion is about the rest of the article. I don't feel particularly strongly one way or the other, but in an ideal world I'd say the panorama should be removed (Risker mentioned this to me; it makes sense) as it can't be shown at a reasonable size without disrupting the article; the piano nobile image is fine as-is; the RF on the balcony should be as-is; the rest apart from the lead should be defaulted. Prince of Canada t | c 02:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This wasn't just about the lead, it was also about the second. See my response to MickMacNee. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem with this page is it is unstable, too many people, who know nothing of the subject, are trying to stick in their favourites shots and stories. Pictures are there to illustrate a point, that point has to be re-enforced by a caption, or the picture may just as well not be there, which is incidentally the case for many pictures in the article at present. Furthermore, I am sick of having to keep replacing the lead image - this is an architectural page, people want to see what the place looks like, one does not have a passport photograph of someone sideways on, peeking through their hair winking at the camera. Giano (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Garden/Royal Mews
Hi Risker. I understand why you made the reversion to that version of the section. My concerns are:
per WP:ACCESS, images directly under === - level headings should be right-aligned
per WP:ACCESS, images must come after {{main}} (or similar) links
per MOS, images should 'face' the article
The first image needs to be moved below {{details}}|Buckingham Palace Garden to satisfy 1; reversing the placement and orientation of the two images satisfies 2 and 3. Prince of Canada t | c 00:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
New lead image
A new image of the palace has become available on commons. See Image:Buckingham Palace -London-18Aug2008.jpg. I suggest that it is used as the lead image. It has far better resolution than the current image, and for me, it is more pleasing, partly because of the flowers and green lawns in the foreground. Snowman (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's a nice picture, but it does not show the architecture of the palace as well was the present image. The present image is far from brilliant, but it is factual. Giano (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the new picture taken August 2008 has far better resolution than the old image taken in January 2004. The new image shows the architecture in fantastic detail, being taken with an excellent modern camera. On clicking on the new image and then clicking again to see the full size image, the palace is shown in incredible detail. The new image is 3,872 × 2,592 pixels and the old image is 795 × 447 pixels. The new image shows that some windows are many separate panels and even some of the stonework is shown, but non of this is visible in the old image. I can not understand your claim that the old picture shows the architecture better than the picture taken with a modern camera. Snowman (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Conflicted by a troll being removed. No I agree it is far better, but it can't be seen at the size the picture is displayes ion the page, can it nor be sort of cropped and made bigger or something like that? Giano (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Please do not WP:Personal attack. I am not a troll. This article does seem to be owned by Giano, making rational discussion appear useless, as I have found in the past. Whatever he says is the way the article will be. Removing my talk page remarks now regarding Snowman's image rather proves my point. Giano, you can always prove me wrong by allowing free discussion here, without name calling. You could also try out Snowman's suggestions and allow modification of the page to get a consensus from a greater range of editors. Further, you have no need to remove my remarks, call me a troll, and have Bishonen post on my user page. I don't think that my opinion expressed here should be seen by you as so threatening that such extreme measures need be employed. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong Matisse, just check the history. Giano (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Any better? Yomanganitalk 18:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
How about this; I think more on the left and right of the Palace will orientate the reader better. The green and flowers in the foreground make the picture much better. There is no need for this image to be restricted like the former image. Presenting a cropped version View with more on either side of the palace, and foreground with lawns and flowers, and many tourists .. I have left in some of of the structures on either side of the palace so that people can see what is there. Snowman (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
[7]I just added this version here, and it lools OK; I think whichever version shows the most architectural detail is best, but whatever let Matisse decide, she has contributed so much to the page. Giano (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, lets have a consensus on how cropped the new image should be. I prefer the one with the flowers and grass. It also shows the many tourists walking about, and the buildings on either side of the palace. Snowman (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I am sure an architect would be interested in the setting and immediate surrounds of the palace. I found the image on flickr and I am very grateful to the flickr photographer. I have tried out the one with the green in the foreground in a "show preview" and it looks very nice. Snowman (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Comparing the two, I have decided to save the one with the immediate surrounds. The architecture can still be seen on viewing the incredibly detailed full size image. What do you all think? Snowman (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the one with the surroundings. I think the new high definition picture should supersede the old 2004 image. Perhaps a little straightening could be done to the image? Judging by the palace, it's tilted to the right hand side a little at the moment. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer the current image. Yikes, did a republican say that? GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have looked at the new image carefully. The Palace is viewed slightly obliquely, and the parallax effect explains why the right (the viewers right) looks slightly lower when compared to the top of the image. The verticals on the Palace are as vertical as you can get it. I think that any rotations of the image might make it look unnatural. Snowman (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the original photo, the one with the surroundings doesn't look as regal. - Epousesquecido (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Map
There is a map you may want to include in the article. -- FlutefluteTalkContributions 17:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Royal website
That well known silver surfer, HRH has relaunched her website. This may mean that some references no longer link - this is not a problem where the date has been recorded, the original article can be retrieved from the Internet Time Machine - but any where it wasn't recorded then perhaps it is time to check that the links still work. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
"Left" images
From WP:MOS "...Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two..." Therefore all left images below the sections should either be on the right hand side or the left-aligned image should be shifted down a paragraph or two. Seth Whales (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Quote at the end of the article
The article says ``Webb's famous facade which has been described as looking "like everybody's idea of a palace" ; I had a bit of a search and couldn't find a source for this. Where does it come from? Throwawayhack (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Robinson, John Martin (1999). Buckingham Palace. Published by The Royal Collection, St. James's Palace, London ISBN1-902163-36-2. Page 9.n Giano (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that reference; I appreciate it. I'm not completely happy with using what looks like their official tourist guide as a reference, but never mind. Throwawayhack (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
