Other than random acts of vandalism I've not had much feedback on Kenzo Tange on peer review since your initial feedback. Is it to a standard where I could nominate it as a GA anyway? Thanks for your review of the Athens Charter, I have since expanded the Influence section and added some Criticism and Trivia. Finally, going back to Antonin Raymond, do you think it will need much work to get it to FAC status? Should I consider getting a peer review on the Biography project? Thanks.Kenchikuben (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While we appreciate your help on formatting, please do not change all the featured stars from gold to silver (especially without any discussion). All of these unilateral and non-discussed changes are (and will be) reverted and you may be blocked in the future for further violations. Consider this as a stern warning. OhanaUnitedTalk page22:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It affects the featured portals process yet you did not leave a message on ANY page of the process. And when has featured contents ever use silver stars? Last time I checked all featured processes use the same star. It seems contradictory when you change the colour of the star while categorizing it as "improving" it. OhanaUnitedTalk page02:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missunderstanding something. I wasn't proposing or changing the colour of the featured portal star as displayed on portal pages. I was proposing a change of the way featured portals are represented on the contents page from bold italic to a star symbol. The proposed change is open for discussion since January. As this was a different situation than other uses of the star (i.e. location and size) I assumed the best symbol for this purpose could be used, but I accept that there might be an established colour-symbolism and have nothing against the consistent use of colour. However I can't understand your assumption of bad faith and violent attitude. --Elekhh (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OhanaUnited: I've looked at a couple of diffs, and it seems the edits in question were both in mid-June. eg. More importantly, Elekhh changed the formatting from bold, to instead use a star (of admittedly a non-standard color). I'd suggest these circumstances warrant a friendly note ("Hi, we use gold stars to denote featured content, not silver. I've updated them now. Thanks!") instead of a stern warning. Unless I'm missing something recent, or somehow confrontational?!? HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I haven't said anything against that. But calling my edits on the Portals Contents page as "unilateral", "undiscussed", "reckless" and implying incompetence and bad faith, topped up with a "stern warning" of blocking.... what do you think of that? An admin ignoring all the evidence about his missinterpretations and refusing to engage in a WP:CIVIL dialogue? Anyway, I do not wish to continue this debate, since no prospect of a constructive approach from OhanaUnited is emerging. However I will retain my oppinion that this was way off what is expected from an admin. --Elekhh (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to thank you for rating the Infrastructure article.
The article is part of WikiProjects Urban studies and Planning, but I would like to add it to the Engineering and Economics WikiProjects. I'm not sure how to do this. Do I simply add the "Engineering" and "Economics" templates to the talk page and everything else is done automatically? AlexPlante (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AlexPlante! Yes, when adding a WikiProject Template to the article's talk page the article will be automatically categorized. If the class has been already assessed, you can add the same class rating for all WikiProjects since the quality scale is identical. The importance rating can best be assessed by active members of each WikiProject. Given that this is likely to be an important article for those projects as well, you could notify the WikiProjects of the addition and/or request an assessment. Elekhh (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your choice. However, after the ANI discussion, I would be very surprised if OU reacted in the same way if your paths crossed again in future after you made an edit with which he profoundly disagreed. I will leave a note for OU at the same time as I leave this for you. I think it would be best for all parties to leave this behind them and move on, even if not entirely happy with the way things have gone. Regards, and happy editing. BencherliteTalk06:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Elekhh. I'm interested in getting Wolff Schoemaker on T:DYK because it could be an excellent candidate with appropriate revision. Would you be able to find referenced information for his personal life? There are probably Dutch and Indonesian books about him, but I don't know a single word of either language, and there isn't much information on the web. --Apollo1758 (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I already saw the image that we could use. Right now, I was about to do some copy editing, and the article could use some more information about what he did after becoming professor. The information on the Dutch wiki seems interesting, but it'll need to be cited appropriately to qualify for DYK. I'll do more editing later because it's getting late over here in New Jersey. --Apollo1758 (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Elekhh, thanks for your message. I was careful to follow every step, don't think I missed anything out. Also, I didn't see anything anywhere that said if one has contributed to the process that they shouldn't close it. Could you direct me to this if it is written somewhere? Sorry for closing a bit hastily, I do admit I didn't realise we closed from the bottom up. I only closed the one in question because it seemed pretty obvious that it would pass, and it did have the 4 supports necessary, although I know that's pushing it a bit :). Anyway, thanks for your message, very helpful. Let me know more if you can! -- bydand•talk01:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah crap, sorry. I'm trying to do 3 things at once! Getting confused. I'll do them in a few minutes, or if you'd like, you can do them and I'll check your contributions to see how. -- bydand•talk01:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On August 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wakatobi National Park, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On August 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wolff Schoemaker, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Nice article and beautiful pictures Elekhh. In the Maluku and Paupua section there are two maps, one on top of the other. I'm clueless in how to change the layout. Driftwood87 (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elekhh. I've have enjoyed having a quick look at this article. It is an interesting topic. But could I suggest that you go through the article one more time please, focusing on spelling, grammar and other copyediting -- particularly with the first paragraph in the history section. Then I will be in a much better position to do a review of the article. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks good! I was interested to read that geothermal power "produces around 1,200 MW from six geothermal fields in Java, North Sumatra and North Sulawesi". I guess as the article expands, more fields, outside Java, will be discussed. I was also wondering about direct geothermal heat production, as opposed to electricity production, and whether that was happening in Indonesia. Johnfos (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Elekhh - some time since we've been in touch.
I just wanted to let you know that I've substanially expanded a couple of articles on Danish culture (one includes architecture) and thought you might be interested in having a look at them. Perhaps one or the other could be submitted for DYK? — or we might even consider working towards GA on them. What do you think? Any advice? - Ipigott (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How nice to see you back with such valuable articles! I think Danish Golden Age is perfect for DYK and Skagen Painters should become GA :). I'm very busy atm and will be on wikibreak most of September, but will try my best to give a hand over the next days. Thanks for revieweing Geothermal power in Indonesia! --Elekhh (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind encouragement. It might be good to submit Danish Golden Age for DYK before your break, leaving work on the GA for the Skagen Painters until you get back. For the DYK, I could suggest "... that the 19th-century Danish Golden Age did not just cover painting but a range of other cultural developments in architecture, sculpture, music and literature?" And maybe the photo of the Cathedral Church in Copenhagen (combining architecture and sculpture) would be suitable for inclusion? - Ipigott (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Valued pictures
Hey i think you should close some valued pictures canidates. Theres alot over 7 day old. I asked you beacuse i saw you closed alot with Idloveone and i thought only you two can close them. Spongie555 (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Torii
Hi. I saw the "C" you awarded my article Torii. Considering that the criteria for C assessment are:
Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues.
what would it be that I missed in terms of content? Where are the big gaps, I wonder that make it "not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study"? It took me a month to write the article. It would be nice if all those who assess other people's work spent on an article more than the time it takes to write a "C".Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Urashimataro! Very nice and highly valuable article, that's why I instantly raised the class rating from stub/start to C. Appologies for not providing a detailed feedback, and not being generous enough. Indeed the distinction between the class ratings is not consistently applied across the 3.3 million Wiki articles, and you might have seen lower quality articles rated B. When I assess an article I'm using the detailed criteria for B class, and consider C="fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class", in this case in combination with "B6: The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way." By a quick read I found that the structure and illustration of the Torii styles section was confusing, as it first shows the diagrams of all types and subtypes in one long row, then come the two sub-sections of prose, followed by once again the two types illustrated. This is three times repeating the same structure (i.e. 1,2,1,2,1,2). For me it would be clearer to have: Family 1 - diagrams - illustrations, Family 2 - diagrams - illustrations. However other reviewers might have other oppinion and are free to change the class rating. Two of the references (Torii no katachi and Torii Meisho) are leading now to dead links, and will need to be fixed. While the history and form of the torii is well detailed, I would like to know more about the spatial context in which the Torii are used (relationship to other elements of the shrine) and when and how are rows of tori used like at Fushimi Inari-taisha. The article is very good and I would strongly encourage you to bring it to GA status, which is really just a small step away. --Elekhh (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made almost all the changes you proposed: they made sense. About "the spatial context in which the Torii are used (relationship to other elements of the shrine) and when and how are rows of tori used like at Fushimi Inari-taisha", I honestly think the article says all there is to be said. A torii is put at the entrance of a shrine and donated torii at Fushimi are laid along paths, as they should being torii. In any case, these are trifles, hardly the stuff that justifies the following lines.
Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues.
A slap in the face. I am sure you didn't mean it that way, but that's sure how it feels. Which brings us to the message I would like you to convey to the assessment community.
Criticism is precious. Your comments made my article unquestionably better. But one-letter assessments are not welcome. Not only is the assessment system manifestly broken, as most articles are never assessed and, if they are, only once and never again. (Outdated stub assessments are legion. I have written 160 articles. The last time one was assessed was in January.) Not only is trying to assess an article with a single letter manifestly absurd: reasons must be given. (How would you have felt if at school you were told you hadn't done a good job, without being told where exactly you failed?) Not only one often wonders if the assessor is qualified to rate an article he knows nothing about.
The system is actually counterproductive because it discourages editors without helping them in any way. In my opinion the whole assessment deal is ready to be put out to pasture but, if you people really have to assess, you should take at the very least the trouble to check the six boxes provided, something nobody ever does.Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Frank (Urashima Tarō). I understand your frustation regarding the lack of quick and consistent assessments, and I confirm that my edit was not meant as a "slap in the face" by any means. Please note that I am mainly a contributor not an "assessment person". Also important to be aware of WP:OWN and thus you should not take a class rating too personally. Nor should you take it as a school mark - we are all equal here. While I agree with some of the shortcommings of the assessment system you highlighted, in numerous occasions I found that it works very well as an encouragement for editors. You are welcome to assess any article I contributed to. --Elekhh (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies
Hi, Elekhh. I would like to apologize for my inability to express opinions in a civilized way. You behaved like a gentleman and I didn't. I am genuinely sorry for having been so aggressive, and I hope you will feel free to edit any article I am involved in without fear of unpleasant repercussions.Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries and appreciate your note. I came across the Torii article following the newly implemented WikiProject Architecture page view statistics, where it was ranked top 500 with over 17,000 views in August. You might see me around in particular by architecture related articles. Btw, there is an article on Kenzo Tange up for GAN you might be interested in. --Elekhh (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I watch all pages I modify so, when I couldn't find your talk page in my watchlist, I thought you hadn't replied and felt it strange. Today I remember our little brush and wondered whether the Wiki software had misfired, and found out that indeed it has: you had replied right away. This is not the first time it happens to me.
I have finally finished writing the articles for the Template:Buddhist temples in Japan. Now I will take a break, then start improving the articles.
Theres some nominations with 3 votes for supporting and no oppose should we close some of those?. I know it needs 4 votes to be promoted but these just need one more vote and they have no opposes. Im just asking. Spongie555 (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Galactic Traveller. As far I've seen Emporis is pretty widely accepted on Wikipedia as a fairly reliable source for building data, i.e. about as reliable as other sources which are used as RS. There is a relevant discussion here. However, Emporis alone does not confer notability. Looking to the kind of articles you mention, I share your concern regarding the use of non-RS and advertisement websites, but ultimately is always hard to know for sure if the building is indeed not notable, or just the article is poorly sourced... As I'm not expert on either India nor skyscrapers, maybe you can get better advice from WikiProject Skyscrapers. --Elekhh (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Architecture for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indonesian national park
Hi Elekhh, many thanks for your contribution to Indonesian page, especially the completion of the Indonesian National Parks links, which I just saw today, very great! I will 'elevate' each of those articles with few pictures and extra bits of information, so that the entire set will look more 'established'. Thanks!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rochelimit (talk • contribs) 30 September 2010
Hello again Elekhh, Glad to see you're back and hope you had a good break. There's another article I've just been working on that could be a candidate for DYK. It's Bock (Luxembourg) about the development of the Luxembourg defences around the site of the old castle. Take a look and let me know what you think. For example: "...that the Bock (Luxembourg), which led to the development of Luxembourg City, was acquired by Count Siegfied in 963 as a point from which he could defend his many properties?" or simply "...that the Bock promontory was the focus of Luxembourg's fortifications for over 900 years?" - Ipigott (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting and well developing article, but unfortunately the DYK nomination deadline of 5 days since creation passed... I think a location map would be useful, maybe based on a historic map, or an English version of this sketch? --Elekhh (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Your wording is fine. Hope you submitted the article for DYK in the meantime. I looked at both of the images you mention on Flikr while I was writing the article but thought the one I already had was better. Of course, I could always create a gallery. - Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I submitted and it already got a tick. I did not nominate any image as at DYK size none appeared to have much chance to be impressive. I also asked Cayambe, a passionate Luxembourg photographer, for help, but had no QI in his collection, and reported that the square is covered by scaffolding atm... --Elekhh (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. And there are two lists (historic and geographic) which cry to be consolidated into one sortable table. --Elekhh (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you seem to be interested both in Indonesia and in culture in general, I thought I should bring this new article to your attention. Kristen Feilberg turns out to be a very interesting pioneering Danish photographer who took the earliest photographs of the Batak people in Sumatra. Researching the article was particularly difficult as Feilberg sometimes used the name Christen, sometimes Kristen and signed his photos both CF and K. Feilberg. In addition, much of the information about him is in Dutch and the best collection of his work is with the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam. Although a book has recently been published about his life by his Danish nephew Lars, I have not yet been able to get a copy and, surprisingly, there are no library copies in Denmark. Strange to say, although I know he died in Singapore in 1919, I have been unable to find the exact date of his death. Maybe you know of others who could contribute? Could also be a candidate for DYK. - Ipigott (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am interested... and happy to be flat out at the moment :). Arsonal did considerable work on Kassian Cephas, but seems to be inactive since August... hopefully be back soon. The Tropenmuseum recently donated to Commons 45K+ images, mostly from the Dutch East Indies, but these are far from being sorted out yet... I could find 80+ images by Kristen Feilberg, mostly from the 1870 Sumatra expedition. Definitely worth a DYK, and I think the Dayak women image has the best chance of success ;). Would be good however to have it mentioned in the article that he visited Borneo too. --Elekhh (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have put in a line on Borneo simply based on the photo - cannot find any better sources at this stage. Yes, I know about the photos in Commons from the Tropenmuseum but as far as I can see, up to now there are only two by Feilberg while there are 99 in the Tropenmuseum collection. If you say they have donated over 45,000 to Commons, then there must be more on the way. Do you know who is processing them for Commons? If so, it would be useful if the name of the photographer could also be added to the categories. I added Feilberg to one and I see you have just done the same for the other. - Ipigott (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eureka! I have just found all the photos from the Tropenmuseum by Feilberg in Commons. Unfortunately they are not so categorised. The only way to find them is to do a search on "Feilberg" as they all have "K. Feilberg" as the author/photographer. Is there any way to automate the correct categorisation (cat = Kristen Feilberg) or will this have to be done manually? I could have a go at doing a few of the more interesting ones myself so that they come up in connection with the article. - Ipigott (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See you've already done it. Thanks. Quick work. I can now provide a link to Commons from the article - if you have not already done so! - Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The categorization could have been done indeed by a bot operator, but I thought I just go through manually... I am unsure about the hook, here a first attempt: ...that 19th century Danish photographer Kristen Feilberg captured images as far beyond his country as Borneo(pictured), Sumatra and Singapore? -Elekhh (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "...that from the late 1860s, Danish photographer Kristen Feilberg captured many of the earliest images of the landscapes and peoples of Borneo(pictured), Sumatra and Singapore?" And on the categorization, thanks for your valiant effort. I am also pleased to see that you are also arguing in favour of listing the more than one million articles for the French and German WPs. To me, accuracy seems to be the main criterion here. I was surprised to see how quickly my earlier suggestion on this was turned down by some of the big boys. Let's hope they see reason now. - Ipigott (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Spongie555, very humbling to receive this brand new barnstar! And thanks for bringing fresh optimism to the project. --Elekhh (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I start to feel like an old general, buried in barnstars ;( but delighted in the same time :) - much appreciated. It is great wiki-writing with you. --Elekhh (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Ljubljana Central Market
On 14 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ljubljana Central Market, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello again. I seem to be keeping you busy these days. I have more or less completed work on a new article about Rødkilde Højskole, one of Denmark's first folk high schools. (FHS). It turned out to have a very interesting history and a rather uncommon architectural background. I became interested in the FHS movement in connection with my expansion of the article on Solvang, California and discovered that coverage of the FHS in Denmark, where they originated, was very poor. Unfortunately the photos of Rødkilde are not too good. The lighting is difficult at this time of the year. But they give a pretty good idea of what it looks like. - Ipigott (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are very productive these days! I think the lead image is nice enough. How about: ... that the Danish folk high school Rødkilde Højskole (pictured) was inspired both by the English boarding schools and by the French approach to education? Btw Cayambe had a first go for the Place d'Armes, and while not perfect yet, is better than some of the other images in the article. --Elekhh (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well all the FHS were inspired by the same general background. How about "...that the Danish folk high school Rødkilde Højskole (pictured) owes its existence to the dowry of a Norwegian bride who did not live to see it open?" I was glad to see the relatively high interest in Kristen Feilberg, especially as the article came low on the list and was without a picture. Thanks again for all your help. - Ipigott (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 17 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lore Lindu National Park, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
How much do the Nuetrals count for? IF neutrals count as support this image can be promoted beacuse it will have 4 votes for original(i guess since no preference). Also someone did tell me before about archiving my page but it hasnt been slow for me so its works for me. Spongie555 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so the origianl that was restored will be promoted. And ill look into archiving my talk page. Spongie555 (talk)
Valued Picture nomination of File:Sumatran Rhinoceros Way Kambas 2008.jpg
Thanks again for your help on this one. Unfortunately it got virtually no hits as someone moved it to a new title just before the DYK came up! I've left a message on his talk page, suggesting he should put it back where it belongs. I'm not good at reverting moves myself. While I'm here, can I ask you whether you are interested in music? I've been doing quite a bit of work on the Carl Nielsen article and would appreciate some advice on how to go about further improvements. Have a look. I'm sure you will have some suggestions. - Ipigott (talk) 08:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice, and pleasant to read while listening to his music. I find it quite comprehensive, but I am not a specialist, otherwise I would rate it B, well underway for GA. The external links section is a bit too long, would be worth trimming if possible. On the other hand would be good to have more imagery. I found this website with interesting imagery (as child, with wife, relaxed pose), but the resolution is low and would need research regarding each photograph to check whether any is PD. --Elekhh (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transport Integration Act references
Hi Elekhh
Sorry If I've annoyed you adding those links to the Transport Integration Act. I'm completely new to editing here so I dont really know the etiquette yet. I think the Act is highly relevant to the article. The Act is basically a pro sustainable transport statute, a radical thing in this part of the world (Australia), a radical thing worldwide as far as I can tell.
Why do you think the things are best deleted? I'm keen to have a chat about it. Accordingly, I think the references to the article for the Act and the external website are pertinent.
Hi Elekhh, Have stopped the modern & contemporary [Cat:Architecture] adds, while it is clarified by editor group. Apologize for not addressing your concerns earlier. Not ignoring, but trying to clarify thoughts. Will be brief for here. Was using Category:Modernist architecture in very broad way, as a post 'Classical and regional vernacular Revivalisms & Victoriana' and post early 20th century to present category. Defining "Modernist" in an encompassing manner - the way Romanesque, Renaissance, Baroque, and Neoclassical each hold many subtly diverse to quite loosely related styles.
Got my undergraduate degree when Modern architecture was in sole reign, and so am aware of 'can of worms' - from Chicago school to Federal Modernism - let alone all the "contemporary but not modern" styles since. Will read editors' discussions, and share more later. Was not trying to impose 'my taste' but allow some wonderful project's articles be less obtuse to find. Will wait for consensus clarity here-on. Thanks for your patience.---best---Look2See1t a l k →22:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm afraid there's no room this week, at this late stage. Let us think about how to frame it and whether it's suitable in another edition. We don't actually mention Good Articles, I have to say. Tony(talk)13:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just written a short article on Roman Villa Borg and have had some doubts about categorisation. The problem is that while the villa has been reconstructed as authentically as possible, it appears from the literature that quite a bit of guesswork was involved and some additions, e.g. the tavern, were certainly not part of the original complex. I have not studied the matter in depth but a quick search shows that there are several other reconstructed Roman buildings such as Arbeia, Saalburg, de:Römisches Freilichtmuseum Hechingen-Stein, the museum at Augusta Raurica and the baths at Segedunum - just to mention those in Wikipedia. Do you think a separate category for these would be useful, e.g. Category:Reconstructed ancient Roman buildings? I don't want to confuse the issue but I did not really find the existing categories very useful. - Ipigott (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it is a large enough topic for its own category. There is already a general category on Wiki Category:Rebuilt buildings and structures and one on Commons Category:Reconstruction (architecture), with a subcategory named Category:Reconstructions of Roman sites, which could be replicated here. I think is no need for the "ancient" in conjunction with Roman. The commons name including "sites" might be too broad, as it can include a wide range of archaeological reconstructions, so maybe "Category:Reconstructed Roman buildings" could be more specific and useful?
Hello again. I have just written a short article on Luxembourg's Photothèque and have been trying unsuccessfully to add the rather nice photo from lb:Fotothéik vun der Stad Lëtzebuerg. Although it is marked as a jpg file and is also under Creative Commons, when I try to transfer it to my computer it seems to be in another format which I cannot upload into Wikimedia Commons. As you seem to be an expert in digital photos, I thought perhaps you could help. Thanks in advance. - Ipigott (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see this has already been sorted out - so no need to bother. Thanks too for your help with Roman Villa Borg. It got over 3,000 views. If you also want to do a DYK on the Photothèque, be my guest. - Ipigott (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I asked the author to upload it directly. I searched for an image to illustrate the collection of the photothèque in the article but wasn't successful so far. Maybe you know of any Luxembourg photographer who died before 1940 and who's originals are hold in the photothèque (and thus are now PD). Anyway, the DYK could be "... that the Photothèque(pictured) in Luxembourg houses photographs of the city taken as early as 1855." --Elekhh (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the Luxembourgers in general and in particular the Photothèque are paranoid about copyright. The Photothèque does everything possible to prevent you copying the images, even though many are over 100 years old. You can find some good examples here which I would have transferred to Commons if I knew how to copy them. You can find a shot of the old fair here and I finally uploaded this one into Commons. Unfortunately it is not correctly described in the site where I found it. It is ascribed to Charles Brandebourg. There was a Pierre Brandebourg and a Charles Bernhoeft but no Charles Brandebourg. Personally I guess it is Bernhoeft's work because his large collection is in the Photothèque but if so the date is wrong. So I'm not quite sure whether it should be included in the Photothèque article. I also found two rather nice old photos I included in the Charles Bernhoeft article but I am not too sure they are from the Photothèque. What do you think? Your DYK question is fine. Thanks again for your help. - Ipigott (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've now been to the Photothèque myself and can confirm that the Brasserie Clausen image is indeed an early work by Pierre Brandebourg. I have included it in the article. You might be interested to know that they have experimented with digitisation with THREE separate firms, none of which lived up to their expectations. So they are still living in the ice age! - Ipigott (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That I call research! The images in the PDF you linked to are rather low resolution, but if any of them can be used in an article I can help uploading. The image you uploaded seems to be the best for the article given its age. --Elekhh (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually very much appreciate having a copy of "„De Bock”um 1867 (unbekannter Photograph), Sammlung B. Wolff". I'll soon be doing an article on Photography in Luxembourg where I would like to include it. I could also use it for Bock (Luxembourg). You might find better resolution here. You have to flip through the pages (backwards I think) and then double click for high resolution. Thanks in advance. - Ipigott (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the Alt DYK hook to reflect the latest version of article (four million not two million photographs). Hope I have done this in the right way. - Ipigott (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've given this an introduction for context and an encyclopaedic title. You might care to look over it. Some of the section headings around Wilcock.j's content might not be the best choices. Uncle G (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse my efforts to help late 20th century and contemporary architecture. No one else had made it a priority ever. There was no response by anyone else to your discussion post months ago. No action for the many wonderful articles-projects in the "post-classic modernism" four and a half decades orphan zone. My effort was an educated good faith start to get the process moving, knowing it would definitely need minor tune-ups by others, and most likely a few major remodelings, which would tend to be easier for most of the other editors than a cold start.
Please drop the "personal taste" - "don't know architecture" agendas, this was just a first start on the post '65 architecture articles that have primarily been abandoned to homelessness since wikipedia began. Instead of posting column inches of criticism and a legal case of locked links, please try peaceful discussion and constructive collaboration. With no disrespect, I may never entirely read your large declarative post on my talk page, in my world concerns the probable upset is not worth it. My efforts had no authoritarian intentions, just good will and good faith in getting the ball rolling. Neither you nor I are the designated expert here, and the position does not exist in wiki-editing. Please, if it is important to you, try a different way of communicating so I may listen, learn, and help.---Look2See1t a l k →04:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for kind note with helpful information, I will study it. Been mulling over a proper message for days to write you, a bit late tonight to express it well, so briefly for now: I'm so sorry for my message above. Thank you for your ongoing efforts to help correct understanding. I'm stepping back to observe and learn while you and others hone an "after modernism" approach-system, however much time that needs. Thanks again—Look2See1t a l k →07:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help with this one. I share your confusion about the number of documents (photographs?) in the Photothèque. I have a feeling there may be an element of guesswork, especially when the same person gives different figures. Anyway, the true figure is probably somewhere between 2 and 4 million. Pity they can't keep their own website up to date! Maybe I'll drop them an email. - Ipigott (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, meant to ask you above about Grundtvig's Church, have removed its 2 cats, sorry to be a bother. Removed all the [Cat:Mod] tagged "non-mod" articles I put in there over last months. Moved "true-mods" to country sub-cat. when available, including a new Dutch one, to simplify main cat. page. Will continue "non-mod" exorcisms within [Cat:Mod in Countries] next.—thanks for patience—Look2See1t a l k →02:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW
Thanks for your help at the Indonesian project/portal - it slowly (the project) is becoming a vast soccer table (and no hiatus when it comes to watching the warned editors continue as if there is no tommorrow) - so your efforts are much appreciated - cheers SatuSuro23:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nah - there is a certain level of assertiveness which always bites back - wikipedia is littered holes from the absence of people who move on after particularly severe issues - one has to be more observor like/ ahhh people and projects come and go - patience and diligence in the face of the storms and etc - its a complicated issue SatuSuro10:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping you could take another look at Vanna Venturi House again. In particular, I had some problems with the design section, e.g. how should I document sentences about aesthetics. I'm not an architect so the vocabulary might be a bit off. Also, have I taken the sections on Mom and Neighborhood too far? On the positive side, the owner is almost twisting my arm to take photos in the spring or summer, to get the house in a more attractive setting; although the owner is understandably reluctant to let me photograph the interior. What type of changes do you think would be necessary to take the article to GA? Smallbones (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
