Architon

Hello Architon, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! B1atv 15:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Holkham Hall

Hi Architon, I have removed your lists of sculptures and furnishings from the Holkham Hall page and created a new page from them here List of the contents of Holkham Hall where they can be added to in full without risk of overbalancing the main page itself. As an FA the page has to meet certain criteria, one of which is not too have excessive lists. I have linked to the new page from the see also section on the main page and credited you with the work in the initial edit summary. I hope this is acceptable to you. Regards Giano 13:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There are also some comments on Talk:Holkham Hall. Perhaps you would like to contribute to the discussion? -- !! ?? 15:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The title List of the contents of Holkham Hall can be changed if you like, it was just a working title I dreamt up - you just press the move page button and type in whatever you want to call it - any problems give me a shout. Giano 19:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Windows at Canons/Great Witley?

hello, i'm trying to find out who painted the original designs for the windows originally at Canons, now installed in Great Witley - they're frequently attributed to Sleter or Sebastiano Ricci. Can you please tell me where the reference of the attribution of these windows to Sleter can be found? thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stainedglassinfo (talk • contribs) 23:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC) According to Edward Croft-Murrays Decorative Painting in England 1537-1837 volume 2 page 277 a Venetian by the name of Francesco Sleter designed the windows in 1719 and they were actually painted by one Joshua Price, apparently the original sketches were sold in the Canons sale of 1747, where they were wrongly attributed to Sebastiano Ricci.

William Burges

The architectural works gallery you've added looks absolutely great. Really improves the article. KJP1 (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you again for this. It really is a fabulous addition to the article. I'm now hoping to improve the rating and I know the gallery will really help. Don't suppose you have any pictures of his furniture? Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Leonard Stokes/Southport

Well spotted. Peridon (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert Smirke

Hello Architon. You seem not to have liked my changes to this article. Obviously a lot of them are a matter of taste; I thought they made things clearer, but I won't change them back. But the use of blockquotes is made clear in the Manual of Style

For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics. (See Quotations below.) This means that (1) a quotation is not italicized inside quotation marks or a block quote just because it is a quotation, and (2) italics are no substitute for proper quotation formatting.

Ruskinmonkey (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to people improving my work, what I do object to is the random deletion of important facts from articles I have edited. Facts that I have spent a lot of time researching.

I'm sorry about this: I made a stupid mistake and I'm highly embarrassed. I've just realised that after making this edit [1] which still I think was a good one - I somehow contrived to save this old version [2]] thus removing your good work (not to mention mine). Apologies for wasting your time.Ruskinmonkey (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Charles Barry

Greetings, Architon. I have taken note of your expansion of Barry's article, and, seeing the degree of repetition in the References section, I think both you and the article would benefit from a separate bibliography section, which would save space, make things clearer for readers and perhaps save you some time copying. I'd also advise to drastically cut back on images; the galleries need not be quite so extensive (there's Commons for that), and sandwiching text between two images (and more so between two columns of images) is generally a thing to be avoided. Text ought to be allowed to breathe and, in any case, most of these buildings have articles of their own. It is pictures of Barry and his life that ought to have priority, although I recognise these are hard to come by.

I hope this doesn't come across as critical; I have an interest in Barry, and I am pleased that someone cares enough to do this work. After all, no one owns Wikipedia's articles and I could simply apply the above suggestions myself, but it seems to me that you are better-placed to decide how best to improve the article with this advice in mind, should you decide to accept it. Waltham, The Duke of 20:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit worried that the Palace of Westminster section is too large? but there is far more detail I would like to add, there is more technical detail, like the use of central heating, mechanical ventilation, gas lighting, water and sewerage systems etc that could be covered. I am trying to introduce the idea of his brilliance in laying out the plans of buildings. The Palace is arguably the first great modern building, Barry was not afraid to use the latest in building technology and construction, plus I could go into greater detail about the numerous problems and pressures that he dealt with during the 26 years he was involved in the building, and it is likely he died due to the stress he endured. But does this belong in this article or the Palace of Westminster?. As far as I am concerned Barry was the first great Victorian architect and sadly neglected in modern literature q.v. A.W.N. Pugin amongst the greatest decorative designers but in my opinion only an OK architect, but then he was a master of propaganda for medieval architecture. I am also aware of my over fondness for illustrations, but given that architecture is a visual art, and a picture is worth a thousand words I do like them! How do you describe an individual architect's style? I personally believe that being able to see multiple examples of an architects work on a page gives a feel for this. Have toyed with the idea of a separate section on his garden designs, though as far as I know always worked on the associated country house so may be not. If you do think the illustrations over done do feel free to remove/move them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Architon (talk • contribs) 16:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that technical detail is exactly what you shouldn't add to the Westminster section; there is already too much of it. Every section and every paragraph of this article ought to focus on Barry and what he did in his life, because readers (rightly) expect to find a biography here rather than an extensive guide through his buildings. A brief (a couple of sentences long) description of each building's style and salient features ought to suffice in most cases, and perhaps a little more for some defining projects; the rest of the respective sections ought to deal with particular challenges Barry faced, contributions he made to architecture through his designs and methods, how his decisions influenced his style and career, etc. To return to the Palace of Westminster, describing Barry's relationship with Pugin and Reid is a good thing; describing the precise layout of the Palace and details of the Victoria Tower flagstaff is a bad thing. You also fail to mention Barry's struggles with the Treasury, Parliament and successive First Commissioners of Works, which all caused him so much frustration. In general, I believe that one ought not to take it for granted that a person interested in an architect would also be interested in his buildings; those who are can always read the articles dedicated to those buildings. (Some of Wikipedia's best articles are biographies of architects; I suggest reading a few for ideas on how to better organise and develop your article.)

In this sense, much of what is now in the Barry article is indeed more suitable for the Palace article, and a lot of this is already there. Here I might mention that the Palace is my pet project, and that it is my aim to return it to FA status, as well as write a series of daughter articles providing more detail on certain aspects of the building and its construction. Unfortunately, my perfectionism and procrastination, combined with a chronic distractedness and lack of time, have paralysed the project. I still hope to make some progress in August, but I really wish I could say with more confidence that I can complement your efforts and chronicle the story of this beautiful building in the proper place, leaving you free to work on the architect's tale.

Regarding the illustrations, I may prune them on Sunday if I find the time; my schedule is rather unstable these days. Expect a radical reduction, which will be based on one basic principle: the use of representative images. It is both impossible and undesirable to illustrate all of Barry's buildings, and it is rarely useful to provide more than one image of any single building. I understand that the reader must be able to see the architect's style, and that images are indispensable in this task, but analyses and opinions from reliable sources can contribute at least as much in this respect. There are surprisingly few things that images alone can explain better than text.

PS: I have indented your comment (with the addition of a colon at the beginning) so that it can stand out from mine, and I have added an {{unsigned}} template so that its author and time can be seen. Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) at the end, so that this information can be added automatically; all talk pages are public, so it is important that future readers can properly understand the discussions held here. Waltham, The Duke of 23:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: I've finally got to do that image cull... As you can see, I have removed most of the images, so that the text can have room to breath; this means I've had to make choices on which to keep. If you have different priorities about the images (e.g. important buildings are missing or the existing range is not representative enough) you are perfectly free to make changes, of course (this is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, after all). My advice, however, would be to replace images rather than add to them; there may still be too many of them, at least in the middle parts of the article. The last sections are completely lacking in images, so if you have trouble finding relevant images, these sections could perhaps serve as a place to add a couple of other building photographs. (That said, it would be ideal if you could find some pictures about Barry as a person rather than only as an architect.) The right side of the list of major project is an obvious location, while other sections may require a thematic connection between the text and the pictured building for best results.

Perhaps I was a bit too strict in removing all the galleries. On the other hand, if the images are selected carefully enough, I don't believe they are necessary; as I've said, there is also Commons. Wikipedia:Galleries may be a useful read in this case—see also the section on image queuing. On another note, it is important to provide interesting captions to those images which are kept in the article, so that they can be connected to the narrative. There are always those which require little more than the identification of the subject (some portraits, for example), but many readers look at the images first, so it is nice to use captions to draw readers into the article.

Finally, there is something else to keep in mind: Barry was a British architect, so British English ought to be used in the article. It doesn't mean you have to write in this dialect, but it does mean that the spelling and perhaps some vocabulary will be changed to conform with British English at some point. As a matter of fact, I may do it myself one day, along with a good copy-edit. Waltham, The Duke of 17:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Input requested for Christopher Wren

Christopher Wren has been nominated for GA status and I'm the reviewer. I want to hear from major contributors to the article before I do a complete review, so please offer an opinion at the GA review page here. AstroCog (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Wren GA Nomination

I have nominated Christopher Wren for GA status. As you're one of the main editors, would you be willing to help improve the article to meet GA requirements? Thanks, GoldRock23^{(talk - my page - contribs)} 15:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Charles Barry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Paschal Lamb

John Nash (architect) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Surveyor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. When you recently edited John Nash (architect), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Victorian and Cardigan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. When you recently edited John Soane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bath (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

John Soane

Hi Architon! Following your request at WikiProject Architecture Assessments Department, I had a quick look at the John Soane article. I see you did a lot of very good work in improving it, using reliable sources, so I lifted the rating to C-class. I think with a bit of cleanup work will be already B. Here some suggestions.

• referencing clutter: There is no need to reference each sentence separately if all sentences in a paragraph are based on the same source. Also no need to create a separate reference for each page. If the source is a book, you can provide separate referencing for each chapter or sub-chapter indicating the range of pages. A third trick is, that if you use the same reference in multiple occasions, than is best to use the "ref name" function (see explanation at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once). As an example with this edit I massively reduced the nr of references, while still the source of each sentence can be tracked.
• keep the article as compact as possible. For instance for the Sir John Soane's Museum a shorter summary would be better, as there is already a separate article. Maybe some of the info can be simply transferred to the other article.
• MOS: for book titles use italic face
• copy-editing: some of the prose could be improved and there is too much use of long sentences and brackets. Once you addressed the previous points, I suggest asking for help at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests
• edit history: also important for facilitating collaboration between editors on Wikipedia is to have a clear edit history. Please provide an edit summary to your edits, and avoid saving each tiny change separately. You can make multiple edits in one go, and use the preview button to check if it is all in order prior to saving. To avoid spelling errors, is a good thing to use a browser spell-checker. Once you go through these, the article will be probably at B level. At that stage I suggest you submit it for peer review, and following from there nominate it for GA. Hope this is of help, and if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask. Cheers. --ELEKHH^T 11:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Stowe House

Hi Architon. I notice that you (with 1088+ edits) are the principal contributor to this article, which looks in pretty good shape. I was wondering if you have considered taking it to WP:GAN ? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Adam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Masquerade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Architon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Architon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Architon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Architon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Architecture of Liverpool, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Duncan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Architecture of Liverpool, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Cunningham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lady Lever Art Gallery, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Frederick Walker and Arthur Hughes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Architecture of Liverpool, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temperance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Waterhouse

I admire your work with Alfred Waterhouse very much, thank you for your meticulous research and referencing! I've taken the liberty of consolidating references to standard format after the first mention, so it's easier to edit and a bit less bulky, byte-wise. You really don't have to reference each sentence - a page range at the end of a paragraph would be fine. Acroterion (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Waterhouse 2

Hello! I don't want to butt into your amazing work there so I hope you don't mind if I comment briefly here. I just wondered:

• You probably know that you've got Hutton Hall in Yorkshire (1864). which isn't a sentence yet;
• We do have an article, Hutton Hall (Guisborough) which is the stubbiest of stubs. It does though, mention Pease, the railway station built for the hall, and has the NHLE template; worth a link I guess?
• It doesn't mention me and my brother and friends trespassing in its very exciting grounds, nor that I knew a Lady Pease about a million years ago - I was very young and she was very not. She had a lovely dog called Toby.
• I also wondered if you were planning to mention the Waterhouse Building at Guisborough Grammar School? It is rather a long time (ahem) since I have seen it close up but I remember thinking it was a rather fine thing.

I'm shutting up now, but thank you for all that you do, and please keep up the good work! Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Your wish is my command! I have made the amendments as suggested

That's lovely! Thank you so much. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)