Talk:Neo-Byzantine architecture in the Russian Empire

From the deleted userspace sandbox talk

You put the article of NeoByzantine Architecture on your user page?

• yes, it needs a couple of weeks before release. NVO (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, well then well done. <---- (Naive)

Done. It's in the mainspace as Neo-Byzantine architecture in the Russian Empire NVO (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Neo-Byzantine versus Russo-Byzantine

Russo-Byzantine redirects to this page, yet the lead states replacing the Russo-Byzantine style of Konstantin Thon. Can someone explain my confusion? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, until yesterday, Russo-Byzantine redirected to Konstantin Thon. A user then changed it. I have corrected that. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The term "Russo-Byzantine" was used in 1830s-1840s specifically to describe the style of Thon (and some late works of Stasov Sr. that preceded Thon). Thon's art has little common with true Byzantine prototypes, but nevertheless the name persisted and was clearly set aside from "true Byzantine". Then there was Crimean war, construction halted for a decade, and at the same time the "real" neo-Byzantine architecture picked up (initially on paper, but with a substantial impact). By the end of 1860s the label of "Byzantine style" was disassociated from Thon's art and instead became a name for neo-Byzantine revival; the name "Russo-Byzantine" fell out of use. Domestic 20th century sources (i.e. восьмитомник Власова [1]) use the term Russo-Byzantine in its original sense, however, it has little use outside of professional literature (replaced by pseudo-russian in popular sources). NVO (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving the list out

I would strongly suggest to move the two tables listing the churches to a separate article like List of neo-Byzantine churches in the Russian Empire. The tables make a=the article too big & too hard to edit and navigate. Renata (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There is one objection. The table is there to illustrate a paragraph of destruction and preservation (and some backup re. geography claims). It is a means to bypass OR - instead of calculating bogus percentages, let the readers decide on their own. Once the list is moved elsewhere, the paragraph on destruction should either cite OR numbers (unacceptable) or be removed at all... then the list itself becomes unnecessary. Deletion? probably, but not a move. NVO (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no big problem there. Instead of saying "see table below" say "see this article." In both cases the reader would have to mouse-click to see the content: either the "show" link as it is now or the separate article link as proposed. Definitely do not delete -- I think it is a valuable collection of information. Renata (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Neo-Byzantine architecture in the Russian Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091028084735/http://www.skypalace.org:80/europe/slavic/east_slavic/russia/neo-byzantine.shtml to http://www.skypalace.org/europe/slavic/east_slavic/russia/neo-byzantine.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)