Talk:St Mark's Campanile/Archive 1

Translation
I've translated a good bit of content from the Italian article, but I've deliberately not included the "Curiosities" section. The result could stand some proofreading. &mdash;Ryan McDaniel 20:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Photograph of collapse
I've never seen the picture before, any more info about it, like who the photographer was? Surely it would have been impossible to capture motion like that then, and although it does look rather impressive, the white surrounding the top gives it away quite easily at least to modern eyes. Did it really fool people? --130.88.161.173 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's Have an Article and a Category on the topic of Reconstructed Building or Replica Building
I think we should have an article and a category on the topic of reconstructed builldings or replica buildings, like this campanile. German Wikipedia has it and it counts almost 60 very interesting examples. Robert Schediwy, at present in Piestany, struggling with a Slovak keyboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.18.234 (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am now back home so I can strengthen my argument and add some links that may convince you. Have e.g. a look at Yongdingmen, House of the Blackheads, Iberian Gate and Chapel, Cathedral of Christ the Saviour (Moscow), Dresden Frauenkirche and Semperoper. All these landmark buildings are in fact new but also replicas of older buildings that have been destroyed by historical and natural catastrophies.

I may actually try to write at least a short stub on that topic right now. Robert Schediwy (Vienna) 84.112.54.160 (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC), corrected 84.112.54.160 (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC) P.S.: I have formulated my stub under User Talk:Gryffindor. Whoever wants please pick it up there 84.112.54.160 (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Listing?
I recently saw a piece on the CBC that talked about the tower listing some 7 centimeters off center, due to poor foundation (apparently, this same problem was what caused the original tower to fall). The piece also talked about several other Venice towers with the same problem brought on by the rising sea. Some mention of this should be made in the article.Rickremember (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The base of San Marco Campanile is currently cordoned off, as they have been injecting the foundations (with resin concrete ?) for circa 2 years now to stop sinking. If all goes well, it will be unveiled in 2012 August. Allegedly a titanium reinforcing belt has been put around the bottom of the tower some years ago, so it will not fall apart. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St Mark's Campanile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910215101/http://www.dahp.wa.gov/gis/pdfs/228.pdf to http://www.dahp.wa.gov/gis/pdfs/228.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Coordinates in Infobox
Hello, I saw your recent edit to the article on St Mark's campanile and wanted to ask if repeating the coordinates in the infobox is really necessary. They're already at the top of the page. For me, the infobox should give just the pertinent information at a glance (without having to click further). Repeating the coordinates seems to unnecessarily clutter the infobox IMO.Venicescapes (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any set guideline on use of co-ordinates and different projects may follow individual approaches. In football ground articles, the tendency seems to be top right and not in the infobox; but I have seen both top right and infobox used by other projects – railway stations for one. Personally, I prefer top right only. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there is policy on this. I did it because I was trying to clean up the code at the bottom of the page. --evrik (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I see that you cleaned up the Commons category and thank you. The coordinates template at the bottom of the page was generating the coordinates that appear at the top of the page. Moving the template into the info box caused it to generate the coordinates twice and very close together. Since it wasn't necessarily your intention to add the coordinates to the infobox, I moved the template back to the bottom of the page. The coordinates now appear once at the top. I hope this is okay.


 * On another note, thank you for reviewing the DYK.Venicescapes (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo
Jean-Pol GRANDMONT, you recently added one of your photographs to the article which is largely repetitious of the photo already in the infobox. Also, as inserted, it is pushing other images out of alignment.Venicescapes (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes, Thank you for your kind message. If you can arrange the item, so that this photograph can fit into it. That would be nice, as it shows the current campanile from an angle not yet shown in the article. Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC) Jean-Pol GRANDMONT, I moved it. It's a little cluttered, but it can work.Venicescapes (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Venicescapes,

Thank you for your help. Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Venicescapes,

As you are the initiator of many English Wikipedia articles on Venice and I have photographed Venice a lot, you may be interested in knowing the image files that I have already uploaded and will continue to insert in Common's dealing with different subjects on this city (landscape, art, architecture, painting ...). https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:August_2014_in_Venice

With your help and agreement I could insert new images or replace images that do not have the required qualities. Thank you in advance for the answer you will give me. Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Jean-Pol GRANDMONT, thank you for asking. I'd be happy to share any thoughts about substituting or adding images. Your photographs are excellent and much better than many that exist in Wikimedia. I certainly understand your desire to share them. But I would urge caution. Photographs should be integrated into the article, and too many images can create a cluttered effect. The image use policy is here. Consider also that articles that have reached FA and GA status have had an image review. So changing or adding images has the potential to be problematic. On another note, you need to add all of the appropriate licenses to your photographs. They need a US PD tag and, since Italy doesn't have freedom of panorama, the images of 3D works should include explicit PD tags.Venicescapes (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Image in Infobox
Elizium23, JWilz12345 (Talk), Ellywa , Czar, and FunkMonk, Hello, can someone please explain what is going on with the following image: File:Campanile of St. Mark's Basilica - remote view.jpg?

My understanding is that it was decided to delete the image since it was uploaded by a globally blocked sockpuppet (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Campanile_of_St._Mark%27s_Basilica_-_remote_view.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Orlando_Paride). Now it has once again been uploaded and changed on St Mark's Campanile from an IP address. Regardless, the previous image was arguably better and was specifically indicated by the DYK reviewer.Venicescapes (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Venicescapes If you think it was better take it off, I don't understand why you have to ask permission. Anyway, it was decided not to delete it, simple as that. Anyway, I don't think it was better.I do it quietly it's simple.Greetings.--5.171.191.194 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My earlier message may have been poorly worded and unclear. I would like to understand policy and practice. On 14 July 2021, CommonsDelinker changed the photo on this page, following the conclusion of the discussions to ban the sockpuppet and delete his/her images. The edit description was “Replacing before closing a Commons deletion request”. However, the CommonsDelinker edit was reverted (IP address, presumably the user) and then quickly reverted again. From my reading of the discussion, the consensus was that the user’s photos (the individual was banned) were to be deleted, beginning with the worst quality and maintaining only those for which there were no suitable substitutes (which is not the case with St Mark’s campanile). This was mid-2021. Recently (20 January 2022) the deletion request page for this particular photo was amended with a message that the photo could be kept, and it was promptly changed on this page (23 January) from yet another IP address. Again, my desire is to understand policy and practice. I was not involved in any of the aforementioned discussions, and I am unclear as to why the question has arisen again given the consensus to delete the user's images.Venicescapes (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Venicescapes It is simply not considered a worse image than the previous one, other than that it certainly is not. However, it has been removed. Find peace. Greetings.--5.171.46.93 (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Venicescapes, I did not see harm in keeping the image of the Campanile in the last DR, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Campanile_of_St._Mark%27s_Basilica_-_remote_view.jpg, but indeed versions with larger resolution have been available in an earlier - deleted version. If you do not like this image in the infobox, there are several others of high quality available in c:Category:Campanile of St. Mark's Basilica - remote view, like File:0 Venise, gondolier naviguant sur le Grand Canal et campanile de St-Marc 2.JPG, with a gondolier and the inevitable tourists, or File:Campanile di San Marco (Venice).JPG with the Columns of San Marco and San Todaro. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ellywa Thank you for getting back to me. The image currently on the page is fine (it was recommended at the time of the DYK review). The other image is less vibrant, and – more importantly – the loggia at the base of the bell tower is covered with scaffolding.Venicescapes (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Venicescapes Yes, but the loggia in the other one is practically black and the definition is micro. However ok. Greetings.--5.170.245.201 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Venicescapes; sorry for the long delay in reply! Anyway, the situation is, yes, a WP:LTA globally-locked, banned user who's been a prolific uploader of high-quality photographs. The FoP status of those images has been debated and their legality depends upon the laws of the land of origin. But yes, because of their abusive behavior the decision has been made to delete/replace their work (cf. our policy on WP:DENY and WP:DNFTT. Unfortunately, this user is still perpetually vigilant and watches all Wikimedia projects across multiple languages, as well as Wikidata and Commons, and so this user, on various ever-changing IP addresses, swoops in to defend his work and force it to be included in as many articles as is humanly possible. The user exhibits edit-warring behavior and is deft at evading range-based blocks. Enforcement is also difficult given the broad cross-wiki nature of his behavior. So in essence, this banned user will have his way with us, while making a mockery of our policies and administrative efforts. It's a shame because I will be the first to admire and respect the technical quality of the camera work that this user is contributed, and if the body of work is indeed his original work, this photographer could afford to sell his services and fund his pro equipment with the proceeds, but has chosen to give it away freely to the world via Creative Commons. It's really a shame that he's behaving this way, but I believe that if we have principles and ethics here on Wikipedia, our community should agree to soundly reject any and all contributions from clearly disruptive users (cf. WP:NONAZIS.) Elizium23 (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)