Talk:Wisconsin State Capitol

Height of Capitol
There seems to be some confusion as to the height of the building compared to the height of other buildings around Wisconsin and the U.S. The current Wisconsin State Capitol is 284.4 feet tall. This makes it 16 feet, 2 inches taller than the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. when both buildings are measured from a uniform point(the point used here is from ground floor rotunda to top of statue.) Traditionally the U.S. Capitol has been measured from the bottom of the east portico, which is their basement level, providing much of the confusion. It has previously been stated that certain buildings outside of Milwaukee are taller than the Capitol, such as the First Dudley Tower in Wausau (239.5 feet); however given the Capitol's height of 284.4 feet this statement is false. I am not aware of any specific buildings taller than the Capitol outside of Milwaukee, although they may exist.

Night shot image?
I'd like to change the image for the night shot of the capitol to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madison-Capitol-Night.jpg The current image is pretty old. I took the image I'd like to use, and naturally approve of using it.

I removed this part of a sentence

 * "the tallest dome in the northern hemisphere, and is"

because it is not true. The article had just stated, for example, that the building was a few feet shorter than the US Capitol. There are lots of taller domes in the northern hemisphere, and probably none in the southern one. Carptrash 16:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC) xxccxc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.227.253.7 (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC) kmjmjlkmmmmmkmmnnbgftxwhywbwyj.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.227.253.7 (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Some info on the Dome can be found here. Wisconsin State Capitol dome.
It does apear to be the largest granite dome in the U.S. --Ic0n0 03:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitol view preservation
The latest photo, File:Capitol-tragedy600.jpg, purports to illustrate a violation of the capitol view preservation law. However, it appears to be no higher than the building on the right edge of the picture. What buildings are those? If the new building really needed permission to be built “too high,” then there must have been news stories about it. I would expect it to have been mentioned as setting a precedent in some of the articles about Archipelago Village. --Rob Kennedy 02:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The photographer, Jeff Dean, tells me that he was told it's the Dane County Courthouse, which seems right. The courthouse's address is 215 S. Hamilton St., and its construction time frame seems to match. The building opened January 9 of this year. I cannot find any references in ProQuest mentioning the height of the courthouse, but ProQuest keeps record of both the Capital Times and the Wisconsin State Journal. I found one reference from 2002 in the Badger Herald stating that the design was "at the maximum building height allowed by city ordinance."


 * Based on this information, the building seems legit to me. I'm therefore removing the photo from this article. Besides that, the caption and the name of the photo are biased and don't belong here. --Rob Kennedy 18:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the photo is still there, but it seems to me, as much as i [opinion] dislike the new building both as a visual reality and as an idea, i would not be surprised if it's top were no higher than the bottom on the dome columns given that the photo seems to have been taken from a very low angle, compared with the top of the new structure and the dome. But the photo seems rto be hanging in there.  Carptrash 19:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Earlier today, I only had enough time to remove the photo or explain my actions, but not both. I figured it’s better to explain and then delay the deletion than to do it and then make people wait to find out why. Done now. Thanks for watching out. --Rob Kennedy 22:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I just email the Information Person at the Courthouse and asked about the height of the building. We'll see. Or not. Carptrash 20:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand about time crunches and also completely agree that in wikipedia [and probably elsewhere too] "Talk first - Act second" is a good policy. I'm working on a sculpture of the building section that i hope to have out in a few days.  Carptrash 23:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

--- ''I said, "The building may be in technical compliance with the ordinance, but from the angle across the lake the view of the capitol is seriously compromised." I did not say if violated the ordinance, not did I "purport(s) to illustrate a violation of the capitol view preservation law..". Moreover, my caption said, "2003-2006: The view of the State Capitol as polluted by development." I stand by that statement as visually self evident.

''But guys, if you don't care for my visual editorial and enjoy editing others, fine. But please do not put words in my mouth.

''FYI - I also placed photos in the John Kennedy and John Kerry pages in case you would like to question or delete them, too. And for even greater possible enjoyment, you could delete entire pages I authored, including BMW R1200RT and BMW MOA. User:Jeff dean 16 October 2006


 * By juxtaposing those photos, naming the file the way you did, and applying the captions you applied, you advanced a position on a topic. It’s your point of view — your “visual editorial” — but your calling something pollution doesn’t make it so. Your editorial is not welcome here — nobody’s editorials are. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
 * Your caption made a claim of fact — that pollution had occured, and that the cause of that so-called pollution was development. Those are two unsourced statements. Who, besides you, has called it pollution, publically? And what authority on pollution has included in the causes the construction of that building?
 * You mentioned that you sent the picture to a local news outlet and that someone was interested in following up on it with a story. Terrific. After that story gets published, feel free to add something about it to the article.


 * When did I put words in your mouth? When you added that photo, you also added the following text:
 * "Unfortunately, as can be seen in the photo to the left, in a few short years, the capitol view preservation law has been overrun by developers."
 * To me, that very clearly says the law was not followed. That’s yet another unsourced claim of fact. It’s also more editorializing: “unfortunately,” “short” years.


 * I assure you that whatever changes I’ve made regarding your photos have not been personal. I even told you that a month ago, and at the same time I complimented your work. My opinion of your photography skills has not changed. But you have described yourself as new here, so please take this opportunity to learn more about what’s appropriate content for Wikipedia and what the appropriate way to present that content is.


 * Actually, I did notice your BMW MOA article a few weeks ago via the “Random article” link, and I was tempted to edit it, but I refrained for fear you would think I was just following you around. The truth is that I do enjoy editing others. I’ve doing it off and on for 10 years.


 * If you think I’m out of line, then maybe something at Resolving disputes may be helpful. If you want to pursue one of the avenues on that page, I’ll cooperate however I can. --Rob Kennedy 04:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

--- Only two comments:

(1) It's nearly impossible to settle disagreements by, in effect, e-mail. I terminate attempts.

(2) A recommendation: perhaps for us both.

I know when this photo was taken. I was there. 17 October 2006
 * I just emailed the architect's office asking for the info that we're looking for. This is my way of trying to settle this dispute by e-mail. Jeff, I don't think/feel that anyone here is out to wipe your mark off the face of wikipedia the way that his successors tried to remove traces of Akhenaten.  No one doubts that you took the pictures previously posted here and no one is disputing that the view of the Capitol is greatly compromised by the court house.  However, in this case, there is a law in effect and the issue is whether or not the courthouse is too high.  Someone described the United States as being a donkey ridden by a lawyer and this is opinion another example of that.  Pollution is not defined by esthetics but rather by a mathematical formula. Carptrash 15:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
I removed the comment about the Winter Solstice sign. Whether the submitter thinks it violates the Establishment Clause, the fact remains that it does not. While the Freedom from Religion Foundation was barred from posting a large banner decrying the union of church and state, they are permitted by state regulation to post a sign of reasonable size. Considering the Christmas and Nativity imagery, as well as Hannukah decorations, that occupies the Capitol rotunda every year, a secular sign cannot be construed as establishment.Thebookpolice 20:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Fire Photo
It should be noted that the photo of the Capitol fire (visible at http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/whi/feature/smoke/ and http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/whi/fullimage.asp?id=23250) was taken in the United States in 1904, and as such is in the public domain. I'm not in a position to do so myself, but we may want to consider adding it. -- 76.201.159.67 (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Major reorganization
I am about to apply a major reorganization edit and I am just giving a heads up to anyone watching the article. I made the edits on a wide screen computer where (IMO) the layout looks improved. I after I apply the edit, I am going to switch over to a computer with a 4:3 monitor to see how this looks. If it looks decent over there, I'll finish the clean up on that computer. If it looks terrible, I'll deep six the edit myself. Basically what I'm saying is, give me a few minutes before you revert any edits. I'll post an update when I have finished and, thanks for your patience! Daniel J Simanek (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looked it over on a 4:3 monitor, and (IMO) it looks pretty good, with no major glitches or eyesores. I don't think its the best layout this thing could have, but I do think its a big improvement. Does any one have comments or feedback on the changes? Daniel J Simanek (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think it looked better before. There was a consistency and cleanness of line. Now it just looks hodge podge. -- Sift  &amp;  Winnow  22:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. The problem I had with previous layout was that the pictures were just mashed on the right side of the page with out any consideration to sections they broke into or the order. They were just kinda there. I was trying to mix the right and left justifications so that the images would seem like they were actually part of the article (layout-wise that is), but I can see your point about the hodge podginess. Do you have any ideas on how to address that with out just reverting the pictures to a mash up on the right hand side?  Also, do you have any thoughts on what I did to the section headers?  Daniel J Simanek (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't there any information or photos of the inside of the dome?
It seems to me that the painting on the inside of the dome is one of the most memorable things about the capitol and it's not even mentioned. And why no photograph? Also, is the building open to the public for tours or anything? Does anything noteworthy happen on the lawn of the building throughout the year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.180.53 (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a photo of Resources of Wisconsin taken by me at the commons here. I've never added it to the article because there isn't room for it as the article currently is and I don't know enough about the interior to write a section on it. —Jeremy (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be so blunt, but what is the red spot in the middle of the painting? I don't see it in other pictures of the dome (i.e. - not as well done as yours with framing and lighting and such; just an example). Daniel J Simanek (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure. I think that they had recently restored the mural when I visited. I assumed that it was something to do with that. It should be relatively easy to erase with photoshop if it's a problem. —Jeremy (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I figured it was something that was just "there." Its still a great picture though. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ת

שרקשעא

What happened to the fourth capitol?
The lede states that the current building is the fifth building to serve as territorial or state capitol. But only four buildings are described. The article explicitly states that the third capitol burned in 1904, and then talks about the construction of the current, supposedly fifth, building. I'm guessing the fourth capitol was used between 1904 and 1917. The article really ought to say something about this fourth building. Earendur (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)