User talk:Mcginnly/Archive1

Your request for assistance

"I'm looking to try and link the 40 odd pages now part of [United Kingdom Planning Law] to the rest of UK law and so from there to the Law wiki project. Apart for a few existing articles there's not much about the subject - how do I get some more people involved? This is the first thing I've done for WIkipedia and I could really do with someoone who's got some experience to have a look at what I've written and advise on what articles might be able to merged - what should stay separated for future expansion etc.etc. Many thanks"

Probably the best way to get attention for this is to post it on the Village Pump in the appropriate category. A lot of people check the Village Pump routinely for interesting new projects and ideas, and this is almost certainly the best way to publicize your interest. If you can get a few people together, you might also want to start a WikiProject.

If there's anything else I can do to help, please let me know. Thanks for editing Wikipedia! Kelly Martin (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme - session data

I keep getting the following message when I try and save edits:- "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still doesn't work, try logging out and logging back in." Logging in and out doesn't seem to help. Also, sometimes when clicking 'edit this page', the text that is displayed, is that of a previous edit. Can you help?

First problem: (I get this sometimes too) Try clearing your browser's cache: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), IE: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5.

Second problem: seeing the previous version could be a server sync problem I have heard others complain about recently, but make sure that in Special:Preferences, in the Misc section that "Disable page caching" is ticked.--Commander Keane 23:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom Planning Law

Hi Mcginnly, sure i'll help as i go along. Generally, if i need to find somthing out, i come here, if its not here when i find it out i put it here :p I'm rtpi etc, i guess references are quite easy, odpm etc. How sad are we... Bjrobinson 14:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your request;
I'll certainly take a look at these articles - I don't know too much about the subject, but I can certainly do some proof reading etc.
I can suggest one thing - which you might find useful on talk pages, for example - if you want to link to a category on a page, (and avoid including the page in that category), write this:
[[:Category:United Kingdom Planning Law]]
and you'll get this:
Category:United Kingdom Planning Law
Hope that's useful! --David Edgar 11:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! yes - many thanks - been wondering about that one. --Mcginnly 12:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the comment you left. I'm certainly happy to help where I can. I'm not actually a qualified town planner myself, so I'm no expert on the intricacies of the system, but I have a reasonable basic overview which I've gleaned from working in the industry. I suspect many of the articles will probably remain quite dry and summary-like - there's only so many ways you can sex up town planning with nice photos, etc. ;) DWaterson 17:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make an additional comment, that in general you should avoid copying text directly from other sources into wikipedia articles.
For example, looking at Core Strategy, I found the first sentence at [1] and the second paragraph at [2], both of which are copyrighted pages.
Not infringing copyrights is one of the key policies of Wikipedia.
Additionally, copied text often doesn't make sense when taken out of context - for example with the "Ordnance Survey based proposals map referred to below" in the second paragraph, which only makes sense on the original page. --David Edgar 18:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited Core Strategy is this now more acceptable? I've also added 'Aspects of this article have been reproduced from the Act which is subject to Crown copyright protection which allows it to be reproduced free of charge provided that it is reproduced accurately and that the source and copyright status of the material is made evident to users. ' to the bottom of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as this was compiled largely from copy pasting the Acts summary. --Mcginnly 10:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Core Strategy is looking somewhat better. But I think it still needs a bit of work... When I look at it, I see some jargon-filled phrases like "spatial vision and strategic objectives of the planning framework" and "May need to be expressed as criteria based policies." and have no idea what these might mean...

I added a bit of context (i.e. specify UK planning law); some of the other pages would also benefit from more contextual information. --David Edgar 16:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:2 Church Street Malpas.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:2 Church Street Malpas.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Hetar 09:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IoE

We do not want a separate article for every listed building! Your content is OK but please merge articles as I have suggested.

Note also a subtle change needed to IoE links to make them work for people who are not logged in to IoE. IoE is a total pain in the arse - they have this obsessive registration mechanism and insist on people being logged in. I have a whole web page: http://www.rhaworth.myby.co.uk/coalwine/ioe_list.htm?RT that has ceased to work properly because they have changed things at their end! -- RHaworth 18:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you not into watching pages yet, I have replied to yours at user talk:RHaworth. -- RHaworth 08:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK planning categories

I can see the logic of what you suggest, though it's not an area I'm all that up on. As far as permanent categories are concerned, where size isn't a particular issue, there's no real reason not to have both; for stubs, the more inclusive one might well be preferable, if there's not enough for both. You could just go ahead and create the new category and find things to populate it; or else you might want to put in a request to rename and rescope at WP:CFD, if that's the way you want to go. That also has the merit that someone would do the recategorisation, if necessary, likely by bot. (Recategorisation of the stubs is obviously easy in that respect.) Hope that helps. Alai 20:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Brereton - 6th or 7th son?

That's a good question. I will put my source info on Talk:William Brereton (groom) -- Op. Deo 08:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Barnston monument, fandon2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Barnston monument, fandon2.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 23:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Deconstructivism

Hey there - I've added a bit to the discussion on deconstructivism and agree it's under-represented perhaps we can collaborate --Mcginnly 14:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll help. Much of your essay (reprinted on Talk:Deconstructivism) could be useful on the article page. One thing I notice right away is that the quotes and references need to be wikified. That would be a good first step, to start a references section or bibliography; then move text, and write or rewrite. DVD+ R/W
- Hi Mcginnly, I think an excellent point you've made is the distinction between deconstructivism and philosophy; and deconstructivism and constructivism. I can see these as becoming the two major sections of the article. DVD+ R/W 01:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to help in terms of edit or polish or re-write, but I feel woefully underqualified to write on the topic! Flattering to be asked, though! If I can help under those terms, then roust me via my talk page. --Shannonr 01:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article

Congratulations to you too. DVD+ R/W 14:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm tardy in replying to your April request, but I see things went well regardless. While I'm flattered you asked, I'm not really qualified to Peer Review this subject. Thanks for thinking of me, tho! --Vanwall 00:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's next?

Hi Mcginnly, the deconstructivism article seems to be in good shape. I think the collaboration went well. Can you think of any other articles that you'd like to work on? We can return to deconstructivism of course but two I have in mind are contemporary architecture and architecture theory. What do you think? DVD+ R/W 03:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought is that we can send deconstructivism to WP:PR now or at some later point for feedback from others. DVD+ R/W 03:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating deconstructivism for peer review, going directly to Wikipedia:Featured articles seems a little presumptuous. Like any page on wikipedia, you can edit WP:ARCH. I encourage you especially to nominate and vote on Portal:Architecture/Selected article candidates, and Portal:Architecture/Selected picture candidates. I nominated deconstructivism for selected article this morning. DVD+ R/W 18:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated deconstructivism for featured article. Don't forget to vote here. DVD+ R/W 19:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on Deconstructivism, apology accepted

My apologies for language and attitude a bit over the top. I'm having trouble making time for serious review, but for now I am generally satisfied and happy that the Deconstructivism page got attention. It seems like this style and its impacts will be with us for a while, so there will be ongoing opportunities to hone the content.

It occurs to me that elements of the Liebeskind Freedom Tower design have flirted with deconstructivism and this has significance. Maybe having a page of examples that can be used as reference would be a good way to balance the discussions there, as a basic explanation of the failed Pittsburgh Technology Center plans would make pretty much the same point I was trying to make in the Criticism section. -- M0llusk 19:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:St._chads.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:St._chads.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statutory Instruments

Hi. I notice that you have previously created articles based on content of one or more of the Statutory Instrument pages. In February 2006 a proposal was made to delete the List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996 page. The debate about the delete proposal ended with no consensus. This is just to let you know that I have started a discussion on how to go forward from here. I am currently trying to define what the problems with the page are so that we can try to find a fix for them that stops short of outright deletion. Whilst the debate was originally about the list for one year, I think whatever is decided in the discussion will affect the lists for all years. If you wish to take part in the discussion, the new debate can be found here. Thank you. Road Wizard 12:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for implementing so much of the comments from peer review. I have been out of town. I am back now and will try to expand more tomorrow. DVD+ R/W 05:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expressionist architecture

Hi Mcginnly, I just started an entry for expressionist architecture. Maybe we can collaborate on it? DVD+ R/W 05:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've done some searching in the German Wikipedia and there's a few articles written up in there that aren't in the English. Rather than re-invent the wheel it seems sensible to get them translated somehow. check out Der Sturm (Zeitschrift) (Which I think means magazine with my schoolboy German). We mention this publication in the timeline but it doesn't come up in the english wiki. Is there a formal process to get stuff translated or (heaven forbid) do we have to do it ourselves? --Mcginnly 21:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can put up a request at WP:PNT, I usually translate enough myself to make a very brief stub, and add a link to the other language Wikipedia page. Der sturm is one we need another is probably Arbeitsrat für Kunst (work coucil for art). At PNT, they usually deal with pages that are in another language on the English wikipedia, but you might be able to get some one to help translate there, without cut & pasting the whole thing onto en:. DVD+ R/W 22:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

Much praise for the timeline so far. Do you see it expanding into sections and full paragraphs making the bulk of the article chronological? or is it intended to remain as a timeline after sections are created and filled in? DVD+ R/W 22:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... not sure really. On balance, the movement was such a flash in the pan, that a timeline of developments makes sense in understanding why it was so short lived. What do you think? Maybe if we fill out the timeline and see how it starts to look and defer the decision until then? --Mcginnly 23:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any ideas for section titles? Though we don't need to implement them now, we should think of how the sections of the article will emerge. A good example for us to follow is the FA Sicilian Baroque which is a chronological article with sections for early middle and late. Another option is to write sections based on topics, which is sort of what we did with deconstrcuctivism. I think that a chronological format is clearer in many ways than a subject based format, and is helped by having a timeline, which we now have. But if we write a chronological article, and a have a timeline, the timeline would need to become less promnient to not become redundant. DVD+ R/W 23:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We may also end up with a hybrid of a chronological and subject oriented article, with an extensive timeline. Whether the timeline is mostly for an outline of a chronological article or not, I like it. Timelines are uncommon in articles, but I think we can only benefit from it. One section I am thinking of adding is one on materials, maybe entitled expression of materials, what do you think? DVD+ R/W 00:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Luckhardt

I was going to {{db-bio}} this article but I figured an {{expand}} will do, surely you're going to expand further on it than six words? :P Jachin 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piet Kramer

Just updated the trans, sentence you were wondering about was as you thought. A few changes. Did notice however that the dutch article is 'verbatim' from the linked website....(copyvio?)Bridesmill 15:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Grossesschauspielhaus.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Grossesschauspielhaus.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various thanks

All your work on expressionist architecture and its peripheral pages is outstanding. I think there is a featured article in there someday, but not yet; it needs expanding, another two sections, a peer review, and it has no notes yet. Thanks especially for uploading the Gropius monument and Grosses Schauspielhaus images. Also thanks for contributing so much to the portal. DVD+ R/W 23:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC) I also think deconstructivism is almost ready for featured article nomination. It could use a little expansion, but it might be ready. What do you think? DVD+ R/W 23:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your gracious thanks (slightly embarassed). It's fair to say I've had enough now of translating the German wiki. Love that image of The monument - It's in Jencks modern movements in architecture - I was really surprised to find Gropius doing something so expressionistic, his modernist stuff is so clinical in comparison - it's got some real Hadid qualities to it as well I think. To business:-

Deconstructivism - It's pretty close I agree. It's has an inherent problem in that it's not a dead subject and has yet to run it's course, so any investigation of 'legacy' etc. is pretty difficult at the moment. Perhaps we could add a timeline? I think featured article nomination would be a good idea if not least to receive some additional criticism and get some more eyes looking at the subject, I feel I've got a bit too close to it now to be super-critical about it.
Expressionism - Too be honest I'm still waiting on a book from amazon (Promised now in early June) so I've been a bit lame about writing prose in the article, congrats to you on that one). The timeline was constructed from 3-4 books which I'll spend the next week or so citing. I like the way it's progressing though. I suggest we keep chucking stuff into it the way we have been, as thoughts arise, and then in a week or so perhaps we should crit each others paragraphs and then form a consensus as to 'editorial thrust' which it's probably a bit lacking in. eg. what are the most tell-tale features of the style, what is it's place in architectural history, how is it still relevant etc.etc.--Mcginnly 00:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, more images we could use are Mies' Friedrichstrasse office building projects. Or one of them, they are probably PD. DVD+ R/W 00:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you take on another German-English translation article? Hans Scharoun-- I could only think of a stub, but the de: has a lengthier article. You did very well on the others. DVD+ R/W 02:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Hans Scharoun article is coming along well, your translations skills are very impressive. I nominated Deconstructivism for featured status, by the way...If it doesn't make it, we can always take the review, make the changes and reapply. DVD+ R/W 19:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture Portal - Featured Portal

Hi, I've been thinking about my wikipedia experience in general recently. It might be my misaprehension, but it seems there aren't enough people writing about architecture. I can't accept that in a entire global community there are only 2 people prepared to spend some time sorting out articles on really important aspects of architectural history. What the subject really needs greater exposure. To this end, once we've finished deconstructivism and expressionist architecture how would you feel about sorting out the WP:ARCH portal to get it to featured portal status? A quick review of the criteria suggests it's not far off. Probably the timeline needs some work and a few other bits. Is there a Portal peer review process we might be able to go through now? --Mcginnly 10:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a portal peer review. Your right that it needs more exposure, I am not sure how to get that though. Other than nominating and rotating the selected portals regularly, I try to add to the portal when I can think of things but I am not really sure whay to do I just play it by ear. Yesterday I changed the featured picture list to thumbnails, and I need to know how it looks on other browsers and to other users. Take a look and tell me what you think? I left a message on the portal talk page on Portal talk:Architecture. DVD+ R/W 18:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

What do you need help with? Kits umiti

I'm not sure how to find them, but you can look for the category for the Userboxes and look at the bottom of the page and it might say "Users that are intreasted in ____" I hope that helped, sorry I don't know much about user boxes. Kits umiti

Search Template:User architecture, then click on What links here. DVD+ R/W

Thanks

Hi Mcginnly. I just wanted to let you know that you're doing a great job on UK planning and architecture. I was quite surprised to see how much detail we have on this subject, and much of it seems to be due to you. Please keep up the good work! --Heron 21:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Scharoun

About the sentence:

Alsbald gerät er zwischen die politischen Stühle der sich abzeichnenden Teilung der Stadt.

It's using a metaphor: zwischen die Stühle geraten is "to land (or fall) between the chairs": an embarrassing downfall when one finds no support!

"Immediately he fell between the political chairs of the division of the city."

To substitute a less colorful English metaphor of somewhat similar meaning: "Immediately he found himself in a political no-man's land of the division of the city."

That still leaves out the sich abzeichnenden: the Teilung of the city was "indicating itself" or "marking itself out". More generally, revealing itself or becoming visible.

"Immediately he found himself in a political no-man's land as the division of the city was becoming apparent."

Of course there are other options: I hope this is useful! Chonak 05:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This translation, as did the others, turned out great. I found another, Dominikus Zimmermann if you are interested. DVD+ R/W 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Hans still needs some work, so it's a little early to declare victory and move on. I fixed some items, but see the Talk page. Chonak 23:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing PNA:Architecture

You can edit PNA:Architecture if you want, but since everything but "To be manually checked" is autogenerated, your changs will be lost on the next edit. A more effective move would be to point the problems out to User:Beland, who runs the updater bot, and ask for a fine-tuning of the categories checked. Alba 17:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme - bot

Does anyone have a Bot that could add {{Template:Architecture}} to the talk page of each article in Category:Architecture and other related categories (Listed on Portal:Architecture).--Mcginnly 15:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use {{helpme}} on your talk page, so it only takes one edit to reply :-)

The friendly folks over at Wikipedia:Bot requests will help you out - ask there.--Commander Keane 15:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture

Hi, We've got some articles on this Wikiproject in the PNA list that don't belong to architecture at all. For instance Vehicle, Blanco galindo (Geography), The Deaf Club, I understand your bot updates this list automatically, so there's no point me removing them manually. Is there anything you can do to tweak the process?--Mcginnly 18:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I can do to improve things, but I can at least tell you why those articles are there. Blanco galindo is in Category:Streets and roads, which is in Category:Buildings and structures, which is listed on Portal:Architecture. The Deaf Club is in Category:Music venues, which is also in Category:Buildings and structures. Vehicle is in Category:Transportation, which is in Category:Urban studies and planning, which is listed on the portal. It should probably be moved to Category:Vehicles, which would move it out of the "architecture" radius. It seems to me that buildings are squarely within the realm of architecture. I wouldn't think of urban studies and planning to be entirely within architecture, but there it is on the portal. I guess really architecture is a subset of urban planning, and that's why it's there. Not looking into subcategories would tighten the focus, but it would also drop a lot of articles that definitely are related to architecture. Actually, if you would like, you can remove the portal from the "Portals" section of Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Architecture and instead explicitly list the categories that you think the bot should look in, keeping in mind that it will include subcategories. When we do this, we usually put a link to the portal above the bulleted list; this should keep Pearle from following the link. -- Beland 01:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry, I missed the voting for the revised policy because I have had major problems with my internet connection lately, but I will be sure to participate in future polls. The results were to my liking anyways :). --WhiteRhino 17:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Merton Rule

The Merton Rule is up for deletion, you may wish to comment or not, just thought i'd tell you! Bjrobinson 10:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Contracts Tribunal

I note that you rolled back my bot edit to this article. If surety bond is not the correct link, then what kind of bond is being referred to? Surely not a psychological bond? If you believe you know what was intended, then please be so kind as to correct the link yourself, but you ought not leave it in its current condition. --Russ Blau (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

helpme

I've altered the Template:User WP Architecture template to list users in the category Category:WikiProject Architecture Participants. Unfortunately although it's inclusion in a page, correctly adds the category to the category list at the bottom of the page, users are not being automatically updated on the category page. Any ideas how to fix this?--Mcginnly 12:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal solution seems to be not to waste time on user based templates and categories. However, if in the event you come across this situation in the real-encyclopedia, the solution is to substitute in the template to the category page (using {{subst:TemplateName}}). Then save. Then edit the category page and remove the category. Another solution is not to place the category containing template on the category page. Try to keep {{helpme}} for building the encyclopedia.--Commander Keane 12:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Architecture

Um, yes, I'm interested to contribute. Where do I sign? :O) -Hierophant 11:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Thanks for the message, I have not done a huge amount of work on new articles on wikipedia, what would be involved? I would like to help but not sure how much help I can be! Hope you get back to me. Dubud 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite; I'd love to participate, but only after I finish my masters sometime in July or August :-) See you all then --Blahm 14:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the invitation. Yes, I'm interested in participating, however, I'm at present caught up with personal work. Well, I think I'll be able to join later. Hope you don't mind. =) Advanced 18:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Architecture looks very good, and also well done on getting more people to sign up. Keep up the good work. Let me know more about the Planning portal, have you started the page yet? I am willing to help with anything I can. DVD+ R/W 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder

Remember to place tag {{Architecture SI}} into the Image: discussion page or tag {{Architecture SA}} on the article's talk page, when nominating at Portal:Architecture/Selected article candidates and Portal:Architecture/Selected picture candidates. This helps notify users of nomination and can bring more comments and feedback to the forum. DVD+ R/W 22:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Another reminder here, of the same thing again. Leaving these tags informs the article's writers about the nomination, a courtesy to them, and also helps encourage discussion and further contributions. DVD+ R/W 22:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject:Urban studies and planning

It does seem bare at the moment. We might be able to find more support and input from the people at WP:CITY. Do you have a link to the planning portal? DVD+ R/W 23:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No - I wasn't aware there was a planning portal - If you find one please let me know.--Mcginnly 23:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you said you were making one, well, if not we could always make one. DVD+ R/W 23:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I'd like to cut out large chunks that seem irrelevant and archive them (at Wikipedia:WikiProject:Urban studies and planning/Archive1). Does that seem okay? My idea of how to lay out a WikiProject can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject International development - I was trying to do something a little different, to get people in and make it easy for them to find a way to contribute. Not sure how effective it is... but anyway, see what you think, and copy and/or modify anything as you see fit. --Singkong2005 ^{(t - c - WPID)} 15:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DVD+R/W's RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which ended with the result of (74/0/0). If there is anything I can help with feel free to ask. Also, if there is anything I am doing wrong, please point that out as well. I look forward to working with you in the future.

Highest regards, DVD+ R/W 02:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Bok269

Thank you for your invitation. I'd love to join. The only catch is I really don't know much about the subject;I've only completed my first year of Architectural Drawing at my High School. However, I'd love to contribute as best I can. Bok269 21:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I look forward to contributing. Bok269 00:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic revival

I didn't mean to sound as snappy as I probably did yesterday - it was a bad day wikipedia-wise for me. Sorry if it came over that way. I hadn't heard Ruskin's view in V Gothic - fascinating. If you have time this one [3] to compare with this one [4] would be good - no hurry though, we taking this project slowly but thoroughly. Thanks for the help. Giano | talk 19:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Cuypers

I just took the liberty of completing the translation, hope you don't mind. Fnorp 14:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep the children, but I'll try to translate that page as well. Fnorp 07:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I deleted a few parts that were impossible for me to translate but will try to restore the information later. Fnorp 11:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk page

"… move all of the nowiki (copypaste) content out of {{Infobox Modern building}} into the talk page? "

Moved the important instructions and examples out of the template into the talk page after seeing it done this way in a few templates (see: Template:Doctl), and after reading the article about "transclusion" and WP:SUBST. Really like your work on the Portal:Architecture, selected articles and the wikiproject page especially, including the templates. Can I help with collaborating on some articles that you're working on? –User-multi error: "dogears" is not a valid project or language code (help). 04:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Amsterdam School: would be interested in the topic, might even have some photos of those great brick buildings in the area to the north of the main train station (…like the Het Schip image). —User-multi error: "dogears" is not a valid project or language code (help).23:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Georgian

I've responded to your comment on the FAC page. I have to go out now for a few hours, so if you post again I am not ignoring you - just not there! Regards Giano | talk 13:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]