User talk:Dogears/Archive 3

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Architecture SA and SI image
Hi Dogears. Need help picking a new image for these templates. See User_talk:Mcginnly and User_talk:DVD R W for previous discussion. Any ideas on what to do? DVD+ R/W 18:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Architecture
Hi there Dogears - sorry I haven't replied in so long - I've been considering the 3 week rotation proposal - normally I'd just say "of course" but what was concerning me is that I spend quite a bit of time updating the portal and wikiproject with all the WP:FAC WP:FPC WP:PR WP:GA WP:FA bits and it eats into my time quite a bit. The FAC, PR and FPC needs to be looked at every other day (that said I've been pretty slack on it since getting back from barcelona) so my proposal is:- perhaps you guys would consider lending a hand keeping those bits up to date and I'll rotate on the 3rd week. How does that sound? --Mcginnly | Natter 13:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What a cool toolbar! DVD+ R/W 18:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ooooo yeah! So when do i do my first rotation? --Mcginnly | Natter 01:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Mcginnly I rotated it last night. You were taking too long :-P We need to move to every 5 days at some point. DVD+ R/W 23:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to rotate it this weekend but you beat me to it! Dogears 23:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Driehaus Prize
I see you have redirected Driehaus Prize to Richard Driehaus. What is the text at Driehaus Prize so i can create a section with that title and include what ever text into the main article? Thanks

One for your list
All Saints, Margaret Street. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Trade2tradewell 11:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, sent that belated email. Thank you for excellent recommendations. —Dogears 00:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Donkey shins for NRHP help
Much appreciation for adding the list template tags to so many pages. I was going to do them all myself, but then, that's what a Project's for, to share the love. :)

Like your format tweak of the project page, too. I was going for pictures from the four corners of the 50, and the center, which is near Mount Rushmore. 'S'all good. -Ebyabe 20:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Current bits and bobs
Looks like I missed the rotation again - to eradicate future confusion - I've made a roster - User:Mcginnly/Sandbox/Portal rotation roster. Hope this is ok. Take care. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The roster is great to help keep track, thanks! I've been changing it on Saturday or Sunday, to allow for flexibility during busy weekends. An will atend to it this weekend (not yet "done", current rotation done by DVD last week) —Dogears 15:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have said the idea wasn't to be a straightjacket rota - just a guide so I'll stop missing it, they'll be some weekends when I'm offline altogether, I'll just do it early or (more likely) late. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Question
Hi Dogears,

Could you just confirm for ma that the image you uploaded here Image:Villa Chiericati portico ceiling.jpg is in fact the Villa Chiericati and not the Palazzo Chiericati, I just have a feeling it could be the latter and not the villa - I'm probably wrong though. Regards Giano 15:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ciao Giano, yes, you are correct. 3 photos have the wrong name and actually refer to the Palazzo, across the street from the Teatro Olimpico.
 * Thanks for the correction, and the edit to the Palladian Villas of the Veneto article. Can you move the content of your edit from the caption into the article? This is important information for the article (helpful to me, certainly) and the caption is getting very long. If you are editing the Palazzo Chiericati, I will upload more images of the beautiful plaster ceiling ornaments of cherubs found in the rooms of the art gallery upstairs (and give them the correct name too ;). See: User:Dogears/*Image_gallery A presto —Dogears (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not planning anymore Palladian edits at the moment, I just wrote a quick stub Villa Chiericati because I saw someone spotted a friend of mine made the same easy error as you - so I was just clarifying, which is how I came to spot your foto on commons while I was looking for a foto of the villa, I know the Palladio's Villas and buildings very well in RL, so my eye is quickly  trained to spot a wrong attribution. Regards Giano 16:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Palais Strousberg
Would you mind having a read of Palais Strousberg it could do with a fresh pair of eyes. Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * yeah we're booked into the novatel in Greenwich for friday/saturday night - I'll email you today with mobile phone no's and possible times and locations to meet. Perhaps in true cold war style we'll be buying black orchids at the florist in victoria station......see ya. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I made her Famous. :-) Mcginnly | Natter 10:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Meetup/NYC
Have you seen this? You should go if you can. DVD+ R/W 04:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks interesting. Just wish there was a little meetup with you all in London. Someone has to mind the shop and all. Best regards, —Dogears 05:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Architecture Portal
Hi there, I think the template would benefit from an assessment bit. I've been thinking about a "signpost" type newsletter for a while now, but don't want to be left to run it. Maybe we could set one up - use it to suggest setting up the assessment department and appeal for someone to maintain the newsletter/bulletin thing. Thinking about the images - I think we could perhaps categorise them somehow (by use perhaps - eg. all the churches, all the city panoramas, all the ancient greek stuff) and then use the section on the portal page to link to the subcategories in much the same way as the "categories" section does now. BTW, unusually DVD and I don't seem to agree on Talk:Expressionist architecture. I was wondering if you might pop your head around the door and see if you'd like to comment. cheers --Mcginnly | Natter 12:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC) I've been wanting to comment about adding the WikiProject assessment things too, sorry I waited until after you started. Was it supposed to be cleared first with the WikiProject Council? or the Version 1.0 Editorial Team? I dunno. I know I don't want to do this right now, but most WikiProjects do so you can get away with it probably because they do. You might be able to get a bot to do the really automatic ones like stubs. Another thing I also see WikiProjects do is assess the importance of articles in addition to the class. Are you going to share any info about your trip to London? Best, DVD+ R/W 06:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like a substantial debate is going on about this. I've also seen many references to different styles of arch. called "Expressionist", The one bit that stuck in my head is that expressionist arch. plays with the plastic nature of architecture - it must have been the book about Erich Mendelsohn nad references to the Amsterdam School. I'll print out the info and find some good sources to hopefully settle the debate.  It is a slippery topic, with much semantics to fight against.  I will implement the assessment as part of your existing  template and add the documentation to the Project page.  Do you mind if I put the topics box further down the page on the Portal? It's rather huge (especially as it opens in the "show" state now, and just a bit loosely organized, not quite succinct enough or representative of the whole of architecture....? Opinions? --Dogears 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put a bot request in for the stubs at Bot_requests --Mcginnly | Natter 12:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just dove in without contacting the related Councils and Teams. Thank you for doing that. Do you think we should add importance to the template? We'll have to decide how to assess building and structure articles, and marginal architectural topics like bricks, tools and related professions, for example. There are about 4700 unassessed articles with the Architecture template already on the talk page. —Dogears 13:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I think we should assess importance as well - we need to encourage a notability criteria debate anyway for AfD - If we establish an 'importance' policy this can feed into that debate. DVD what's your view on the featured images section on the portal - i've suggested categorising them and making a subpage which the portal can link to (we can still use the best images as navigators for the categories)--Mcginnly | Natter 13:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This template WPCHINA has a hidden assessment area (in which we could put both class and importance), or we can just append importance to the bottom (visible). … After only 4 days in London there was not enought time to document anything (but enough time to get pissed). I'll try to see if I can add to the Old Vic article or some of the other tourist locations that we visited. … As for the signpost newsletter - that could be full-time job. Better to spend valuable time on core projects and just writing articles. … As for the upkeep of assessment, the template has been sprinkled around and doesn't require much more effort to add it to new articles and just include the assessment bits. … The importance or notability policy is an important issue and can be incorporated in the viable but mothballed Arch. Manual of Style --Dogears 20:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

{{#ifeq:|yes| }}{{#switch:B|Stub|stub={{#ifeq:|yes|{{Stubclass
 * assessment=Wikipedia:WikiProject China/Assessment
 * project=Wikipedia:WikiProject China|WikiProject China
 * template=WPCHINA
 * category=Automatically assessed China-related articles
 * remove='s auto=yes parameter}}}}}}

Czech cubist architecture
Whilst stumbling around looking for expressionist references, I found this article which you might find interesting - it's about a subject i've never come across before. --Mcginnly | Natter 20:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find the article - what's the title? (Prague is a great city.) --Dogears 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, here's the link --Mcginnly | Natter 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

WPARCH bulletin
So I bit the bullet:- looks like it could do with a format/beautification but I feel I've been lucky to get the information formatted in lines let alone good webdesign - please improve the look. Content comments requested too before we roll it out to the project participant talk pages. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Or maybe we should just link, by bot to something like:- WikiProject Novels/Outreach/Newsletter December 2006 --Mcginnly | Natter 00:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just given all the timeline categories a NA rating - can you point me to an example of the architecture tag with the importance listed?--Mcginnly | Natter 15:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So I see, fantastic work, as usual. See: Talk:The Dakota. NA may also be appropriate for the timeline articles/categories too, rather than making a new class=T. — Dogears (talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I created a shortcut to assessment so we can tag the edit summaries as "assessed per WP:ARCHA". --Mcginnly | Natter 17:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Meetup NYC
Hey, just wanted to say hi and thank you for coming to the WikiMeetup in NYC this past weekend. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 04:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern architecture
I nearly reverted this but then stopped when I remembered something about Loos likening ornament to a tatooed man (a 1900's shortcut for criminality) - It's quite possible he also said all art is erotic - what's your take on it? --Mcginnly | Natter 13:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Could not find the source of the quote, which needs to be cited in any case, but did find this related link. Personally, I think the quote about Ornament is more pithy and more germane to the section and the article. Suprised that you're communicating as there was no response to my previous request for comments on article assessment (and the portal wasn't updated). I appologise if moving the architecute topics box was cause for discontent. --Dogears 19:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh shit - I missed the portal rotation again - sorry man. No moving the topics box is fine, still haven't got round to pruning it yet. I agree with you on the ornament is crime thing, I'll revert it. What comments on article assessment, it seems to be going swimmingly. I'm in the process of creating draft notability policy for architecture at WP:ARCHN, please add, subtract or comment as you see fit. BTW I started a framework for importance criteria for article assessment which i've now moved the WP:ARCHA talk page - I need to mull it over a bit I think but if you're feeling inspired, dive in there mate. fond regards to you both. --Mcginnly | Natter 19:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I deleted the structure for importance from the WP:ARCHA talk page - because you'd already done the job on the ARCHA page itself. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:CAT
Please consult our guidelines for categorization and avoid double categorization in the future. Thanks, Ghirla  -трёп-  17:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Renaissance architecture
Hi Dogears! You recenntlly did an assesment of this article, at a point when a major revision was underway. Now that I have finished fixing the references,, getting rid on non-working links, putting in the Bibliography etc, would you mind hhaving another look and making suggestions as to what more is needed. It's a bit on the long side, buut that it hhard to avoid with a very broad topic.

The article has been criticised for its emphasis on Italian Renaissance Architecture. I don't see how it can be otherwise - the style was defined annd flourishhed in Italy for 100-200 yyears before its implications were fully grasped elswhere.

So I have cut the details for other countries to a few short paragraphs each, with a direct to a main article, where one existed. For several countries I have transferred a wad of information and created a new main article. In mmoost case, I'm not the right person to extend it. I knoow very little about Eastern Europe before the Barooque period, for example, and after that my knowledge is only piecemmeal. I have also tried to fill in the gaps - neither Germany nor the Netherlands had a section in Renaissance architecture, which I have created.

Looking at different articles about the Art of differnt countries or the Renaissance in different countries makes you realise there's a lot to be done. There is also a lot of common misunderstandings - statements llike "This is the oldest church in the Philippines". With a little reading you discover that it's the oldest parish but it's actually the third on the site and that there are several buildings which are considerably older, Malate Church, for example.

Please excuse mmy duubblle letters. I don't seem to be abble to adjust this stupid thing.

All the bbest in what you do --Amandajm 23:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

IRT City Hall station in popular culture
I noticed you cut most of the information regarding City Hall station into a new article, IRT City Hall station in popular culture. This doesn't seem necessary; the amount of information moved was not nearly enough to merit its own article, and it had previously fit quite nicely into the main City Hall article. This just creates another link to click on. —Larry V (talk &#124; contribs) 07:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Article assessment
In the article assessment page we currently say:- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Architecture articles - Only used for articles that have successfuly passed through the A-Class review) The A class review link is broken - but I wonder if we should just refer to WP:ARCHPR and get the nominators to specifically request an A-class review. That way it doesn't feel like assessment is some exclusive club/authority and the community gets more of a say. What do you think. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Re all the building and structure articles - the task seems daunting and I held off asking the bot guys to add the arch tag to all of them because we'd have years of sifting through articles about Aunt Mables shed. It's a tricky one. On WP:ARCHN I suggest that building isn't necessarily architecture and I think we need to apply that discrimination to the buildings there. How we go about sifting through all the building articles with some kind of automation, I don't know yet - do you know anyone good to pose the question to?--Mcginnly | Natter 01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen while trolling the big, general categories of FA-class, etc. is that A-class is for articles that used to be FA but fell from grace, amist talk pages filled with heated debate. I thought that anyone can nominate any appropriate article for pier review and it's not necessary to ask for A-class treatment, becasue the greater wiki editing community is a tough lot and any article would be lucky to ge a GA at the first go. Not many articles that I run across have references that will satisfy major scrutiny, which means fact checking and tracking down citations. But I think it's ok that reviewers get the impression that GA A and FA are not really theirs to decide when assessing. The "class" does no have to do with exclusive club/authority but completeness of the information (see:  Talk:Michigan State Capitol) – unlike the relative judgement of importance, which does get "personal".
 * Buildings and structures importance:
 * I believe architects should remain the Top focus, no buildings at all, except the 20 or so wonders of the world at present. Top rating reserved for only three hundred or so architects in all history who were important in their own culture, plus major styles and county "gateway" articles that introduce many places. High-importance for the five or ten most important building in any country, or buildings older than 1000 years +/-, and articles about general building types and less notable architects. So maybe thats about 3000 High-importance articles total? Mid-importance, for perhaps the lesser significant of Frank Lloyd Wrights 800+ total buildings, etc, etc. After that, Low is simply an honorable mention. There's no need to rate every building by every architect. Maybe just a handful of the most significant, What do you think? As for bots, someone in the Project 1.0 assessment team may be good to check in with. I talked to User_talk:Oleg_Alexandrov. Adding the template to all the building stubs? May be better to just pick them out by hand, to reduct the numbers. Thousands of articles in a category become less useful to the greater WikiProject asessments and to us. —Dogears 05:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry christmas and a happy new year
Seasons greetings - hope you have had a good one - I was unable to move to the computer yesterday such was the weight of turkey ballast trimming my stomach. I've nominated the portal for featured status and it seems to be getting ok reviews so far. Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Architecture. cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 01:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)