Jump to content

Talk:Blenheim Palace/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2


WHS infobox

My impression was that all WHS sites were to include the WHS infobox, Template:Infobox World Heritage Site. I included it after coming across the page (as I am visiting it in May) and had the inclusion reverted. Is there any reason why it should not be included?--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your impresion is completely wrong. all the information contained in an info box is clearly printed in the first few lines. There are no hard and fast rules about having info-boxes. The important thing is to have pages well maintained.  Giano  19:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you appear to be mistaken: not all information form the infobox is in the fisrt few lines. What is more, not all of this info is necessary in the intro. The intro is a quick summary of the essence of the article, and detils like "Criteria ii, iv " hardly belong to the intro. Mukadderat (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
No, the lead does not state that the palace is in Europe and North America - does it? And beleive me, what is in the lead does need to be there for the lead to be proportional with the size of the article. Giano  19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen too many WHS sites without the infobox, it appears to be rather standard. I don't understand your opposition. I have also recorded a two other instances where you reverted its inclusion[1] [2]. I don't want to be mean but there appears to be a wish to include it yet you revert it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This exactly my point: the lead does not contain all info from infobox, hence infobox is not redundant. Infoboxes serve for uniformity of some standard basic/technical info. There are no fard and fast rules, but there is tradition to have them in many series of articles. You did not present convincing arguments why infobox is unnecessary in this particular article, and I am inclined to restore it, unless you give something solid to think about. Mukadderat (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Why not just add that info to the relevant place in the article body? Or do you believe this information is notable enough to require mention in the lead - roughly how many of the article's sources, for instance, make mention of the criteria under which it achieved recognition from UNESCO? Christopher Parham (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I do worry that an infobox like this at the top of the article sends the message that "WHS site" is the primary category into which this place is assigned and the primary group against which it should be compared, when this isn't really the case. People don't hear "Blenheim Palace" and think "Oh, that's the world heritage site!" I think any information in the infobox that can't be accomodated in the lead would fit nicely in the paragraph about its promotion (currently just one sentence). I also don't believe that the fact that other articles include this infobox is especially relevant here; we should evaluate the contribution of this infobox to this particular article. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I see the point now and consider it reasonable. So I looked at some other pages which may face the same objection. Specifically, the pages Vatican City and Tallinn gave me a suggestion: this infobox must be placed not on top, but in the most relevans section. E.g. in Tallinn it is in section "history". In our case I think a good place is section Blenheim Palace#Blenheim today, where WHS is mentioned. Mukadderat (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no need for one of your info-boxes whatsoever. All relevant information is contained clearly in the text. Many, many pages do not have such a box and manage to inform very well. You want to reduce glorious images to the size of postage stamps anf tell people that Blenheim Palace is near North America. It is ridiculous. Nothing more.  Giano  21:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    I am afraid you are confused again. The top image remains unchanged, big. Infoboxes do not have to have any image at all, to be less intrusive. Mukadderat (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The issue of infoboxes has come up again and again. Here's one example. They should not be forced on articles. Having worked on a couple of WHS articles, the infobox has been generally meaningless. It means nothing to the reader that the site was inscribed in 19xx under criteria xyz. It's not important to understanding the article, and arguably doesn't even belong in the lead. What is important is that the building is a WHS, not the minutia. I often include infoboxes, but only because they usually have maps, which I think is very useful to the reader. I find it condescending that infoboxes provide a summary of information right next to a summary of the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute

There is some conflict regarding the article content. Thus far, there is disagreement about the insertion of an infobox, images content/guidelines and the insertion of content. I have had nearly all my edits reverted or attempted at such, even though they follow WP guidelines or were cited material. My intent is to help improve this article. I would like to avoid excessive conflict so I have requested a third party to help resolve the issues so that we don't have to get into an edit war.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem at all. I am rewriting the page in user space to FA standard, and will paste it here when I have completed.I have never before experienced another editor removing an inuse template and reverting while I am still editing. I don't intend for it to happen again. You are clearly unaware of the rules regarding images and MOS on pages concerning the arts - I know them inside out and have huge experience of them at all levels, especialy in the field of architeture. I have no wish to argue it here and now, so wil continue uninterupted in user space. Giano  00:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no issue, so long as your edits don't entirely rewrite what others write here. It's your choice to edit in your own user space, and nobody really has an issue with this. Indeed, I did this for my rewrite of the USA PATRIOT Act article. However, while you are editing there, other editors are making changes in main article space. If your changes diverge sufficiently, you are probably going to have to come to the talk page to merge in the changes. This will be difficult to do, because you'll need to get consensus, whereas if you'd changed it in main article space then people could see what's being changed while you are working at the article. But nonetheless, if others decide that they want to modify this article in a reasonable way that meets policy guidelines, that is what you'll need to do. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Your understanding of policy may be faulty. There is no policy which states that infoboxes are necessary, and often they are clumsy blunt tools that repeat information already in the lead. As for images, you should consider that image sizes were forced for a reason. The guidelines for images state "A picture may benefit from a size other than the default... An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels wide, so it can be comfortably displayed next to the text on the smallest monitors in common use". There is nothing which stipulates that the default size must be used, and especially with buildings images should often be larger to allow for more detail. Nev1 (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, that is my understanding too, but I think I will continue to work in user space without fear of reversion, half way through.  Giano  00:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The infoxbox is not the issue. Reverting it even thought 3 separate editors inserted it, at various points in time, because you didn't like it is the issue. The same is reflecting in your reverts of content. I will only speak for myself when I say that my edits were in good faith, followed guidelines and increased the level of citation within the article. This may be the first instance where I have actually encountered an editor that demonstrates an owenership mentality over an article. You don't own the article, or it's content. You don't get to decide on your own what it will look like or how it is presents. Case in point in working solo on the article in your own user space, without participation from others.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The title of this section focusses on the article's content, not Giano's behaviour. As Giano is the main contributor to the article, it would have been a good idea to discuss changes to the article with him. This article is not abandoned, the main editor is still around, so it makes sense to enquire about why a particular bit of the article is the way it is. I don't see much discussion here about the content, only some fluff about an infobox. If you want to move the goalposts to comment about Giano's actions, be aware that yours have not been exemplar either. It's a bizarre notion that someone taking care of an article is a bad thing; only on Wikipedia would you have WP:OWN. "Ownership" only becomes a problem when it prevents the improvement of an article, that's not what I see here. Nev1 (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
It's a null point. I think me stepping away from the article is the best approach for me on this one. Sorry for having bothered you. --Labattblueboy (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I think this should be discussed further here. You have ideas for this article and I see that you have expressed an interest in getting this to FA status, which I think is great. Don't get disheartened, disagreements happen all the time on Wikipedia and Giano is an experienced editor so I'm sure he can accomodate the ideas of others. I just encourage you to facilitate collaboration by using the talk page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Your recent Third Opinion request has been removed from the list of active disputes:
Reason: This dispute does not qualify for a Third Opinion because more than two editors — Labattblueboy / GiacomoReturned aka Giano / Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) / Nev1 / Jayen466 aka JN466 / Jeni — are involved in, or have expressed opinions in the dispute. Once a third editor has weighed in, a Third Opinion is no longer available (and, indeed, has already been given). —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Bounty

I think I'll step away from the article. I'm not interested in a negative experience. 50 bucks to the foundation says you can't get this article to FA by 11 July 2010. If your intent is really to improve the article, consider this me throwing down gauntlet.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you step away. It sounds like you are trying to improve the article - Giano is an exceptional editor, and he does edit in his user space, but that's his choice. It's not the best way of doing things, but I've done something similar on USA PATRIOT Act to get the article sorted out. However, while he may choose to do this, it's his responsibility to merge in his changes in a fair manner that reaches consensus.
Perhaps you could detail your concerns and the changes that you would like in the article? I'm sure we can work that out... Giano I am sure will follow established project policies and won't edit war, and I'm sure you won't either. I'm an uninvolved party on this article, so I can help review. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I am not in a competition to win bets by certain dates. I am well known for taking months and months often sometimes years sometime a few days to to bring a page to FA standard and then, when its finished, deciding I can't be bothered to FA it. FA standard, and indeed editing Wikipedia, is not about achieving little stars, but about presenting a half decent page, that covers all salient points in an interesting and informative fashion so that hopefully someone not interested in the subject may be tempted to read it; it is not about pokemon card like little boxes, uiformity and conformity. Thank you for your challenge, but I shall work at my own pace and in my own space without reversions and harassment from those I suspect understand the subject less well. I shall return here with the finished product and paste in when completed, as I have done many, many times with new pages - as recently as yesterday. Giano  08:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course, I don't think this is a competition either. I think collaboration is a pretty good thing and I've always thought that standardized infoboxes are a pretty good thing. Others may not agree, but I'm actually fairly interested in this. I think that there's no harm in some civilized discussion here.
Personally, a uniform and standardized infobox for articles of this nature is not necessarily a bad thing for an encyclopaedia article. It allows an editor to see important facts at a glance in a summarised and easy to read fashion.
Now I understand that you want to work at your own pace, and I think you should be commended for your hard work, but others might like to edit this article also and there is nothing to stop them from doing so. Like I say, if you want to work in your own user space there is nothing wrong with this at all :-) In fact, I'm a huge fan of your work! But their are always drawbacks to this approach, one of which is that on a wiki others may make edits in the main article space. On Wikipedia consensus is a policy, so if others have ideas on this article then, as I'm sure you are aware, discussion of the direction of articles is not only appreciated, but its expected. Of course, I know that you have some great work you still want to merge in, so I look forward to your changes as they are very good. However, if others wish to also contribute, I think that it's only fair that they be able to. The basis of Wikipedia is collaboration, and is what has made it work so well. To collaborate, you need to discuss changes and at times make compromises. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Edit away TBSDY, I am delighted to see your sudden interest in the subject. I am planning to expand upon the evolution of this rare/unique form of Baroque, you can save me the job - so get cracking - I'm not stopping you.  Giano  08:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that Giano. For a start, I'm interested in hearing what Labattblueboy's ideas are and I look forward to a reasonable and civil discussion so different ideas can be aired and a great article can be written. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me that Baroque uses a capital B. I have made the necessary corrections to the text. Is this correct? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
My most immediate concerns were the lack of citation, peacock terms and flowery text (ex: "minefield of political intrigue"), passive text, liberal use of quotation marks and text within parentheses. Secondary where the lead (as it is not a summary reflection of the article content) and lack of alt text for images. Minor elements included image sizes and left hanging images as sections leads and multiple wiki-links for the same term and the infobox.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, these are all quite reasonable concerns, and shouldn't be that hard to correct. I'm certainly going to do some research on this article, but we may as well start cleaning up the article as best we can. I'm sure we can make more improvements as we go.
Perhaps we should start with the peacock terms. Should we list them out and then see if we can rephase? If that sounds like a good way to go, let's start off a new talk page section and list the sentences and paragraphs that we are concerned about and then see what we can do. This would give everyone a chance to see what we propose doing and participate in the process. Would that be an acceptable way forward?
Alternatively, if this is too much like hard work then we can make the changes in the article itself and then have others review the changes as they are made. If there are any concerns someone could either make further modifications, or they could note the concerns on the talk page here and we could hash out the best way of fixing the problem. What do folks think of this alternate proposal? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The principal issue is by far the level of citation, which is almost non-existent. IMO, this is likely to be where collaborative work is most possible. All the secondary and minor elements are best left until the citation level is addressed. I am not certain if I want to be directly involoved in the editing but I will certainly help in assembly a list of resources and sources.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? did you just say: "I am not certain if I want to be directly involoved in the editing"? Not involved in the editing? I'm shocked...you were so keen last night - constantly reverting me, removing "inuse" et al, surely, you are not expecting poor Ta-Bu to undertake this all on his own? No wonder you are offering to pay someone. That really is rather cruel. The whole of Wikipedia expecting the page to rise like the phoenix and you say "I am not certain if I want to be directly involoved in the editing". Poor old Tar-BU. I think that really is a little mean of you.  Giano  20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I think at the present time, limiting myself to a support function is the most appropriate way to contribute. Your behaviour has made me apprehensive of contributing significantly and I am not interested in any further edits disputes or conflicts, so a support role seems most appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
That's fair enough Labattblueboy, there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, I value any assistance you can give me - I'm no expert in the field myself, merely an enthusiastic editor. Your contributions here are appreciated! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I think you are far too modest - how can you say "limiting myself to a support function" that sounds like some form of surgical undergarment for a man with a strangulated testicle, I'm sure you are better than that? Last night, you knew how to re-write this page, you were reverting me and lecturing me on the MOS, so please thousands are watching with bated breath, you have encouraged TSBDY to new heights of aspiration, you have even mentioned this on ANI - you are to be congratulated. So please no false reticence. You surely don't imagine this is going to rest here - we are all so exited the new page the Renaissance of Blenheim - don't disappoint us - er.....you and TSBDY do know the difference between Renaissance and Baroque don't you?  Giano  23:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. As you say, sourcing is really the key here I suspect. Would you be willing to make suggestions on the talk page? I would be happy to try to incorporate them. I will also be on the lookout for sources, for this I'll need to see if the NSW State Library has material on the subject. I'm sure they do, given this site is world heritage listed and it's British history, which Australia has links to. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This inane "bounty" thing is POINT-y, clutters the talkpage, and seems pretty self-aggrandizing. As such, do not readd that goofy template to the top of this talkpage. If Labattblueboy wants to put his promise to pay on some kind of list in his userpage, fine. But making "bets" against the future of this article is just odd, and putting a template announcing that "bet" at the top of the talkpage isn't acceptable. Scottaka UnitAnode 13:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
cough
50 bucks says you can't… is specifically targeting Giano with a playground taunt; this is entirely inappropriate (as is throwing down gauntlet;). The whole bounty concept seems poor, but I don't really know its history as I've not encountered it until now. If someone wants to give the foundation some money, they should do it. This, however, seems more about insulting an editor who is well known and who quite likely has no interest in where that $50 lands. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Should there be an infobox?

Should there be an infobox on this article?

I think that as there have been a number of editors who think an infobox is a good idea, while others aren't happy with it. Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with infoboxes and I disagree that they detract from the article, however I can understand if others aren't happy with them. However, let's start some debate over whether they are a good idea or not - I think that's pretty fair.

I'm going to start an RFC, as it appears that there is contention on this in this article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is wise for you to involve yourself TBSDY?  Giano  08:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Why not? This is an article, are you saying that I can't discuss this here? I think an infobox is a good idea. Do you have an issue if we discuss this a bit further? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I am saying TBSDY that you are trolling and stalking my edits. I am saying that your olive branch was soom snapped. I am saying that you are determined to cause trouble. I hope you are not dissapointed, you won't be. You want to join the tag teammg that went on yesterday? - as I said toy want trouble? You can have it. This page needs re0writing and I am going to re-write it.  Giano  08:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Whoa here! I'm not stalking anything. On the Wikipedia:Incivility blocks page you asked for admin input on edit warring. Now I'm not going to make any admin decisions here, but I have added a suggestion which is to allow other editors to contribute to this article also. I don't see this as stalking whatsoever :-) So, I'd prefer it if you could assume some good faith - I'm certainly not going to get in the way of your excellent edits, as I've said a number of times I'm actually a big fan. All I'm saying here is that others can also do some excellent work and as we are a place where we have to collaborate then some discussion should occur and the opinion of others should be taken into account. Is this an unfair comment? If so, why is this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
NO TBSDY you are trolling for trouble. Now get on with your expansion on the subject - no one is stopping you - write away.... Baroque has a capital "B" by the way.  Giano  08:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm not, if you want to think this I guess I can't really do much about that. But I certainly think that there are some good ideas from other editors, so I'm interested in hearing what they are. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
No you're not, your trolling! You have no interest in this subject whatsoever.  Giano  08:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
So, what are the issues with an infobox? Now, I know there is the Template:Infobox World Heritage Site, which sounds like it would be quite appropriate here. I do know that there are a few objections to this, one of which it might be that it skews the article that it's only about WHL site, which is not the article's primary purpose.
I'm not sure I agree with this, the infobox presents a lot of material in an easily accessible way that people can review at a glance. However, there was a pretty reasonable compromise which has been done on such articles as Vatican City, which is to add it further down the article. I think that sounds like a good compromise. What are the objections? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, the WHS (not WHL, it stands for World Heritage Site) is one of the most ineffective around. I discuss its pros and cons above. Exactly what information do think it can provide that belongs at the top of the article? Nev1 (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, you are perfectly correct - WHS, not WHL. Sorry about that. However, I think one of your objections was that it doesn't have a map, but it does seem to have such a thing in the template I'm looking at. It also includes such things as coordinates and it's actually in hCard microformat, which I'd have thought would be useful. As I say, the point has been made that in other articles the infobox was added after the lead, and that sounds pretty reasonable to me, given that the infobox has more to it than you have mentioned. Would that be an issue, and if so, for what reasons? I think that the features I list here are pretty decent and useful! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say the infobox couldn't provide a map, I said I think maps are useful and the biggest redeeming feature of infoboxes. I was the one who instigated the inclusion of the map function, just last month. Maps can be added on their own if necessary. The only relevant place for the infobox would be in a section about the sites current condition and recent history, but even then is still a blunt tool. The text would have to explain the inscription criteria for them to have any meaning. Nev1 (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply anything other than my reasoning as to why I think the infobox is useful. That map feature is really pretty awesome, but it's not really documented, so I've asked for some info on how it works on the template talk page. Could you give me a run down?
What are the main concerns about the inscription? If the infobox is only a summary and the article should explain it further, then is this something we should incorporate into the main article text regardless of whether the infobox is included? Or is this a concern that we would should not include the inscription in the infobox as it is in the main text? I would have thought the inscription would not be something to include in the lead section, but I could be wrong here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the map function is only used on a couple of pages, and I can't remember which ones off the top of my head (it's easiest to see how it's done rather than explain), but from what I remember it's much like most other map functions.

The issue isn't mentiong that Blenheim is a WHS, that obviously belongs in the lead, it's that the information the infobox provides is best done with prose. The point of a good infobox is to provide bites of easy to understand information. There is no chance that the average reader will know what the criteria are so listing i, ii, iv is meaningless; if the infobox forces the reader to navigate away from the article to understand it, it has failed in its purpose. Maps are useful, but can be added standing alone if necessary and quite easily. Nev1 (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, then do you believe that it's an inherent issue with the infobox, and can it be improved in some way? It seems to work pretty well on Vatican City, and I personally found it pretty useful, but that might be because of the nature of the subject and not because of the infobox itself. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
If I may ask what did you find it useful for? Much of the information seems either trivially redundant (if you've gotten that far down the article and don't yet know the Vatican is in Europe, you're a lost cause), or meaningless in the context of the Vatican itself (the type and criteria fields). I think the same would apply here. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
For myself, I actually find a neat summary in an infobox quite useful. While the lead section will always have an excellent summary of the article (or at least it should), it may be necessary for details to be left out. After all, the lead should really be either two or three paragraphs long, at a maximum and so it would probably need to leave out the minutae, as you put it. Wikipedia as a medium is essentially hypertextual, as we all know, so I don't think many people have an issue clicking on the "Criteria" wikilink to see what sort of criteria was used to select the site. I also see a great deal of value in the information being in the one place, in a microformat - this sounds to me not just useful for Wikipedia but also useful for other purposes. These are my main reasons why I think it would be good to use the infobox, but I'm obviously fairly flexible and as I've said before, I don't want to step on any toes if I can help it. I didn't think it would hurt to understand why the infobox can't be here though, especially as a number of editors have tried to add it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I've read the discussion at #WHS infobox above and find the arguments against the infobox more persuasive. Blenheim Palace's status as a WHS is just one aspect the building is notable for, and it's a minor point in the article overall. Aesthetically, the infobox does not fit very well either. It adds nothing in terms of content that could not equally well be housed in a short sentence on the building's WHS status, and the page looks more beautiful without it. --JN466 15:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, that's fair enough. I think that there have been a few reasonable answers to why the infobox should not be included in this article, so I'll go with this. I would like to thank you all for giving me your attention and your courteous and reasoned responses. I have now got a better understanding of the objections, and while I'm still not sure that I totally agree, I think that consensus is pretty clear on this point, so I'm closing the RFC. Thank you once again for your time and patience, I appreciate it :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Infoboxes, except in very rare situations (some MilHist articles come to mind, but even there, some are awful) should be shot on sight. Answer: no. They usually repeat info in the article and add little. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No, per Sandy, they almost never add anything that article text doesn't illuminate more clearly. Scottaka UnitAnode 16:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm generally in favor of things like standardized templates for infoboxes, but I don't see them as appropriate for all articles. A lot of articles (but by no means all) that sport an infobox could be snipped at just the infobox; such articles are probably on the wrong website. This article, obviously, is on a highly encyclopaedic subject, and I think the best interests of the project are served by not inordinately distracting the primary author, Giano, from going about his business of moving this article along. Giano seems uninterested in one for this article, and he has a draft going in his userspace which renders most of this dialogue moot. The courteous thing to do would be defer to his approach and to not flood this talk page with 'helpful' tangents. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 17:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

This article says that "Marlborough's wife, the former Sarah Jennings, was by all accounts a cantankerous woman" - but I'm wondering which accounts these are? The article doesn't say, and there isn't a source... - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's an irrelevance and hard to reference fact. If you feel it has nothing to do with Blenheim's story then remove it Ta-Bu. I'm sure you know what you are doing.  Giano  09:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm currently reviewing the article to find any issues, as I think that's a pretty fair way of going about this. I think that as others like yourself are actively working on it that it's only fair that we start off some discussion so I don't step on others toes. I would hate to remove interesting and useful information, but if you don't think you can find a reference for this and you have in-depth knowledge then it might be best to rephrase this. Still, all in good time. I evidently have a bit of research ahead of me! :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you find the relevant Pevsner guide, or failing that at least read the entry for Blenheim at pastscape.org.uk (just search for Blenheim when you go to the website; they usually have decent entries on significant buildings). Nev1 (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, great info :-) I note that Giano has a number of references he's using for the article, so that will also be a good start. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, there are a lot of Blenheims! But I think I found it:
Got some reading to do now :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Peacock terms and other issues

I notice that the lead section has the words "The truth is...", but is this necessary? This seems to me to be a Wikipedia:Peacock term, so I've removed it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite sure you know all the truth about Blenheim, Ta-Bu, you just keep on going.  Giano  09:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I make no such claims. However, such terms are by and large unnecessary and discouraged. You aren't really addressing the point here though, this really doesn't have anything to do with myself, I am just making some comments are I have removed some unnecessary text from the lead. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Further to this, I've noticed a number of other parts of the text that use peacock terms and unnecessary words a few times in the article. Some examples are:

  • "win an arrogant fashion (as was her wont)"
  • "It is interesting to note that the palace as a reward was mooted within months of the Battle of Blenheim, at a time when Marlborough was still to further his many victories on behalf of the country."

Now there are a few assertions here that seem to be a point of view, or not backed up by a reference, which is a bit concerning. For instance, we have the following:

"Vanbrugh planned Blenheim in perspective, that is to be best viewed from a distance. As the site covers some seven acres (28,000 m²) this is also a necessity. Close to, and square on, the facades can appear daunting, or weighed down by too much stone and ornamentation."

Who thinks this though? Is this the view of the author of this article, or is it a viewpoint of significant commentators of Blenheim Palace?

Another example is:

"The Duke was to have sat with his back to the great 30-tonne marble bust of his vanquished foe Louis XIV, positioned high above the south portico. Here the defeated King was humiliatingly forced to look down on the great parterre and spoils of his conqueror (rather in the same way as decapitated heads were displayed generations earlier)"

This aside, while amusing, also seems to be a point of view. Is there a major commentator who can back up this opinion?

I also noticed the following:

"This magnificence over creature comfort is heightened as the architect's brief was to create not only a home but also a national monument to reflect the power and civilisation of the nation."

There is no reference to this particular statement. Where did this come from?

Now this article is engagingly written and quite interesting to read, and I think it an excellent example of the sort of prose that could make this an FA article. However, these are a few issues that I think we can correct. How should we go about doing this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Ta-Bu I can see that you are a natural in this field, with a deep understanding of the subject, you just remove what you think is false and unrequired - the page will be all the more inteesting and enlightening for it.  Giano 
No, not at all. However, there are a few conventions that are normally followed on articles. I think it fair enough that I make some comments, as I'd like to see this article featured. One of the awesome things about Wikipedia is not what you can take from it, but what you can give back to it. In fact, I've found that some of the most interesting articles I've written about I had no idea about before I did some research. For instance, I had no idea about FISA or the statutes, regulations and parts of the U.S. Code around foreign surveillance before I wrote about the USA PATRIOT Act, and I think I did a reasonable job of making some fairly major improvements to this article. Of course, I'm sure an expert could do better, and in fact I would say that even someone who is not an expert to could help with copyediting it. The point is, however, that I learned a lot from researching and writing about that article, so it will be interesting to do the same with this article. I am, of course, willing and happy to bow to your expertise, and I'm hoping you will point out mistakes if I make them :-) Does that sound reasonable?
Now, back to the original point - how can we correct some of these issues? I'm willing to take a stab, but I think it would be great to get some feedback. For instance, what can we do about the following:
The building of the palace was a minefield of political intrigue, with scheming on a Machiavellian scale by Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough.
Though perhaps not as colourful as the language used here, is it fair to characterize the Dutchess in this way? Would it be better to say that "There were many conflicts and politics played a large part in the building of the palace." The article deals with the politics and conflicts quite well in the main article text, so this would really be sufficient. However, I'm aware there may be objections. What are folks thoughts? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Just do some reading on the Duchess, don't ask me. I have never before experienced a content dispute in architecture, this is all very new to me and I'm expecting to learn a lot. In the meantime, I sall just keep working on the re-write while you amuse yourself here. Giano  10:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I intend to :-) Your assistance would be appreciated, but obviously I'm willing to do the hard yards. I would really prefer to work with you, as this is indeed your speciality. As you say, content is king here, so I've got my work cut out for me. I think this is going to be pretty interesting, as I love learning about new things. I don't really envisage that I'll be getting into a dispute with you, why do you say this? I'm happy to collaborate on this article. What concerns do you have if I edit this article? As I work through the article and you work on your content fork, I'll be happy to work with you to merge in your content at a later date. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In reply to your kind offer for us to work together and merge our work

  • In the absence of any interested Admins - here is my reply to you and a few truths. Our content will not be merged because you will still be reading the biographies of the first Duchess. That you even have to ask about her accepted and infamous character displays an ignorance of 18th century history almost as monumental as the woman's palace. Let's just say she was to diplomacy what Lucrezia Borgia was to cookery. Your confessed and acknowledged ignorance makes your editing of this page presumptuous. I also strongly doubt that you even know the meaning of the word Baroque, let alone in its rare and almost unique form employed here. There is a lot more to writing a page than just stringing a few quotes together and making pretty little boxes. You have to know which image exemplifies the most unique points and then explain them in detail, and if you don't really understand that, then you can't bullshit your way through it, unless of course you planning on copy-vio or just rearranging a few words. The there is the nuances of British history, knowing what to include and what to leave out. Then you have to have read literally dozens of often seemingly unconnected biographies so that you have at your fingertips hundreds of little referenced anecdotes to make the page interesting enough to counter what can be, to some, the dull detailed architectural points. You see TSBDY, there is far more to this than reading a couple of reference books and spewing them out. That is why I decline your offer of collaboration, and know that our texts will not be merged and why I accuse you of WP:HOUND. I don't need hoards of Admins here to defend me because your writing, prose and knowledge of this subject is not in the same league as mine and that will speak for itself. This page needs a mega-rewrite and I'm going to give it one, but I am not happy to work with you and there will be no merge of our efforts. I doubt anyone on Wikipedia will seriously believe otherwise. Now continue with your games here for as long as it pleases you, or you are banned for vandalism and disruption, which ever comes soonest.  Giano  13:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Bounty board

I don't really see any harm in the bounty box being at the top of the talk page. What are the specific concerns with it? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed it, because money and incentive to haste for reward is against all the concepts of Wikipedia; rather like your bahviour here.  Giano  16:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I have re-instated it, its perfectly reasonable for it to be there. Jeni (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
It has been place there to cause disruption. A is Ta-Bu's presence on tbis page.  Giano  17:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:AGF, unless you have some proof. I only see one disruptive editor on this page. Jeni (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Then I suggest you visit an optician.  Giano  17:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually visited one on Tuesday, but thanks for the suggestion :) Jeni (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I issued the bounty because my end goal is to see this article reach FA. My participation was not effective in bringing about that goal, but I suspect the bounty might be. I do not want it to come across a Machiavellian, but I do want to see this article reach FA by almost any means.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No, you don't you were trolling and tag teaming here yesterday. You were reverting me trying to improve the page, even to the extent or removing an "inuse tag" something I have never encountered before. You saw me announce I was going to start a re-write and you were here like a shot. You had no interest in the talk page or discussing the forcing of an info box, all you wanted was to troll and be disruptive and that is all you still want. even the concencus for an info-box is against you.  Giano  17:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh I think it is, then when I took the page off to improve it, away from your trolling reversions, in user space it blew your minds, so suddenly we have bounty and all sorts, you have realsied in spite of all your big words you can't actually write the page yourselves (as all of Wikipedia knew), so to save face and irritate me you think you can pay someone else to write it. You make yourself ridiculous Ta-Bu  Giano  17:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, untrue. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
keep saying it Ta-Bu, you might start to beleive it, but no one else will. You are a troll with an upper case T - and everyone knows it.  Giano  17:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I notice that this bounty has been removed again. This seems a bit disruptive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Give it a rest TBSDY, everyone's tired of you now.  Giano  14:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know why the template is being removed, if someone could enlighten me. I'm new here, so there's no way I could have an ulterior motive. Please explain the situation to me, as if I didn't knwo what the hell was going on, cause I don't. Equazcion (talk) 14:51, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

See above, where Labatt basically states outright that the "bounty" is little more than his "bet" against Giano having the skill to get this to FA before some random date Labatt had chosen. Scottaka UnitAnode 15:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
What is the issue here? Giano does not need to take up that "bet" (which only pays out the foundation). The offer as I understand it is still open to others. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with "clutter", but more an assertion that the editor is engaged in disruption to prove a point. I can't see how this is the case, there is no disruption to be had by offering a bounty. If there is, can you give an explanation of how it has stopped anyone editing this article, or even discussing it? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't see that as a reason to remove the template. If Labatt is sincere in eventually making good on his promise to donate 50 bucks if the article reaches FA, who cares what his agenda is? Why remove the template? Equazcion (talk) 15:20, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
  • I've readded it, but collapsed, to remove the cluttery aspect of it, and with a message that doesn't mention the user offering the bounty, unless someone actually clicks to show it. Scottaka UnitAnode 15:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see any reason to hide it. There's relatively little header clutter on this page, and I see no reason to hide the name of the editor who made the offer. Why has this been done? Equazcion (talk) 15:28, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
      • Because not hiding it puts a goofy looking pirate at the top of a page where serious people are supposed to be discussing the article. Keeping the name under the collapse also removes any potential that someone might be self-aggrandizing by offering it. I've compromised here. I'm not going any further than this. There's not going to be a weird pirate cluttering the top of this talkpage for the next 6 months. Scottaka UnitAnode 15:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
        • If you have a problem with the image in the template, you should discuss that at the template talk page. Someone's possible agenda, again, doesn't factor into this. If an editor feels special having his name in the template, I see no reason why we should care. The final decision isn't yours, and I'll be un-hiding it if you choose to discontinue this discussion. Equazcion (talk) 15:34, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
          • I mean this with no disrespect, but now that it has been readded in a collapse box, it makes the talk page look cluttered. This is because the bounty board box was specifically designed to be a particular and standardized talk page style and size, and the collapsebox was designed to hide footer templates and talk page messages. I hope I'm not the only one who finds this a little ironic, given that one of the original stated reasons was the bounty box made the page "look cluttered". - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that Equazcion has now struck a good compromise. The pirate is no longer the first image on the talk page, the appropriate template is being used and the page no longer looks cluttered. The bounty still stands. For the record I think it's disgusting that this has now been readded by the editor who reverted it out, because that editor accused the original party of severe disruption (WP:POINT). I would hope that they provide an apology to the one they have unnecessarily slurred. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's rather the opposite of disgusting. An editor who held a firm position has listened to discussion and chosen to compromise instead. That's called progress, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks Unitanode. Equazcion (talk) 15:56, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, I won't continue to discuss this issue here. However, allow me to state for the record that the bounty box was removed because:
  • The editor was self-aggrandizing,
  • The editor was being disruptive in some way to make a point,
  • The template made the page look cluttered.
The template was readded by two entirely independent parties, myself and User:Jeni, yet Unitanode removed it twice and did not go to the talk page until asked to, and only then after he had reverted.
All of the original reasons given have now proven to be false. This is my final word on this matter on this talk page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you have indeed continued discussing this issue here, attempting to get the final word in where the argument was effectively over. Thanks for that, I just hope that doesn't inflame the situation again. If you'd like to do us all a favor, you can remove the comment above now. The final word usually isn't. Equazcion (talk) 16:05, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
BTW, you're getting just a taste of what disagreeing with Tbsdy can cause. This type of exchange is exactly why I've asked him not to post at my talkpage anymore. It's a request he often ignores. Scottaka UnitAnode 16:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources

So to really understand this, I think I need a list of sources. The article has the following, but I'm sure that there are more relevant sources that would be useful. Giano has hinted that there are some biographies that it would be good to read, I may need to look at the key characters and find what material is out there.

The book list is currently:

  • Cropplestone, Trewin (1963). World Architecture. London: Hamlyn. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Dal Lago, Adalbert (1966). Ville Antiche. Milan: Fratelli Fabbri Editori. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Downes, Kerry (1987). Sir John Vanbrugh: A Biography. London: Sidgwick & Jackson. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Downes, Kerry (1979). Hawksmoor. London: Thames & Hudson. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Girouard, Mark (1978). Life in the English Country House. New Haven: Yale University Press. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Green, David (1982). Blenheim Palace. Oxford: Alden Press. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Halliday, E. E. (1967). Cultural History of England. London: Thames & Hudson. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Harlin, Robert (1969). Historic Houses. London: Condé Nast Publications. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Pevsner, Nikolaus (1974). The Buildings of England: Oxfordshire. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. pp. 459–475. ISBN 0 14 071045 0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Turner, Roger (2nd ed. 1999). Capability Brown and the Eighteenth century English Landscape. Chichester: Phillimore. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Vanderbilt, Arthur II (1989). Fortune's Children: The fall of the house of Vanderbilt. London: Michael Joseph. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Watkin, David (1979). English Architecture. London: Thames & Hudson. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Additional
  • Spencer-Churchill, Henrietta (2005). Blenheim And the Churchill Family: A Personal Portrait. London: Rizzoli. ISBN 0847827402. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Fowler, Marian (1991). Blenheim: Biography of a Palace. London: Penguin. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Lyon, Sarah (May 2007). "Balancing Values of Outstanding Universality with Conservation and Management at Three United Kingdom Cultural World Heritage Sites". Journal of Heritage Tourism. 2 (1): 53–63.
  • UNESCO website http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/425/. The advisory committee documents are posted online and would make a good resource.
  • Rogal, Samuel (December 1974). "John Vanbrugh and the Blenheim Palace Controversy". Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. 33 (44): 293–303.

Can anyone add to this? Certainly this is probably a good start to my research. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

added a couple --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Nice! This is going to take me a bit of time to get this material from the library (didn't get much sleep last night as babies awake), but I don't think there's any real rush, though of course it would be nice for the WMF to get your bounty :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A compromise

I understand that Giano has forbidden me to edit this article, which actually I rather feel inclined to ignore. Giano does not have any particular ownership of this article.

He is currently doing a complete rewrite. In the rewrite as it stands, it looks to me like he still uses peacock terms and does not use appropriate references. I'm sure these are things he will correct later on. So therefore, as this article looks like it is progressing then I am proposing that I still research this article, and when the new article becomes ready then I will review and make any further improvements. I don't think that can be seen as unfair. In fact, I'm compromising quite a bit here, because I actually wouldn't mind making an attempt to make changes to this article.

However, I notice that he has made a number of personal attacks against myself and others. I believe that he should cease this at once, as this is not appropriate on Wikipedia. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You should take NW's advice from ANI and find a different article to edit. All you're doing here is stirring up drama. Scott aka UnitAnode 17:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, he suggested another area to edit so that we don't get into conflict. He also stated that it is fine for me to edit this article. I am proposing a compromise here, and in fact when Giano finally merges his material into this article I will indeed be copyediting the article and will pore over it with a fine tooth comb to ensure that the article is robust and worthy of submitting to FAC. I think that's fair. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd encourage you to leave Giano alone. He's proven multiple times that he doesn't need your brand of "pooring" (I assume you meant "pore", but forgot to copyedit yourself) to get an article to FA. All your participation will do is stir up drama. Scott aka UnitAnode 17:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I seem to recall that you removed a template from this article and started reverting... some perspective, please. Thank you for informing me of my typo in my comments, I have corrected. I tend not to be concerned about copy-editing discussion threads, but perhaps that's just me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Now, everyone can see your baiting, as you lay it bare here. Scott aka UnitAnode 17:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Tbsdy, I suggest that before adding more comments on this talk page you should spend some time actually reading about the subject on which you claim you want to edit. Come back, after some extensive reading, when you actually have some value to add. - Josette (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Josette, I think that is a capital idea. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying you'll "poor over it with a fine tooth comb" once the editor you're fighting with adds their material doesn't help anyone do anything, Tb. It's just irrelevant cock measuring. You're of course free to make edits where you see a need. Don't announce beforehand how diligently you plan to check for errors in your opponent's work. That's just inflammatory. Equazcion (talk) 17:32, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed Giano's work so far, and in fact I watch him with interest. The issues that I have raised with peacock terms and lack of referencing is still apparent. I don't think it unfair to correct issues after the merge. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You shouldn't be "watching him with interest". That's the root of the problem, and nearly every outside opinion expressed has been in favor of you leaving him alone. Equazcion (talk) 17:44, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Not at all actually. Giano chooses to edit main articles in his user space, and there are a lot of people who are interested in his article. There is no harm in watching what he's doing. I have always said I am a fan of Giano's work, and nothing has changed my view. I believe there are issues with an overuse of peacock terms, but overall his writing is engaging and that is why he is such a fine article writer. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You have a funny way of showing your appreciation. If his writing is so engaging, you shouldn't need to announce how you plan to go through it "with a fine tooth comb". Regardless of how much you now say you like his work, the consensus is that you're an inflammatory presence at this article, and that you need to leave it alone for a while. Equazcion (talk) 18:39, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a "fine tooth comb" was not the correct phrase. I was merely referring to the unbelievably strict standards of the FAC process, which I've commented on the Signpost intimidate the crap out of me. To be clearer, I would read the article and note any areas that need better referencing and changes to the text to satisfy writing standards. Of course, I'm not perfect, but I would like to do this to get this article to FA status. It was submitted once, but failed, so it would be great to have this as an FA. This is such an interesting topic of intrigue and politics that it's truly worthy of the main page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You're not listening. Consensus is that you should not be working on this article, and yet, you keep telling us the particulars of what you plan on doing to it. What exactly is not computing with you? The decision was made. Consensus is how things are done here. Everyone agrees, except you. You alone. You think you should still be here, and you seem to have decided to stay, against consensus. What's the problem here? How can I clarify things for you? Please let me know. Equazcion (talk) 18:47, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
So you say. However, as I haven't done anything untoward, I don't think there is any harm in me editing on this article. There has been no edit warring from me, I have not added any unsourced information and I have provided what I feel are some reasonable suggestion for how to improve the current revision. Do you have any specific concerns about the way that I have edited this talk page or the main article? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not up to you. People who have decisions standing against them often say "but I don't think I did anything wrong so I won't listen", and stubbornly plod along against consensus. Surely you've heard that one before. What do we do with people like that? You tell me, Tb. You're an administrator. Equazcion (talk) 18:53, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy, you've been told by multiple editors that it would be best to leave Giano alone. Please do so and disengage. Scott aka UnitAnode 17:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

cough
Tbsdy should listen, methinks. This is all pretty obvious and unbecoming. Jack Merridew 17:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tbsdy, this to me sounds like an ultimatum, not a compromise offer. Given all the unproductive ANI threads and bad blood between you and Giano, I think you should disengage from trying to edit this article for some time, until things cool off a little more. Working with cooler heads is always much more productive than working with steam coming off our ears and under such a charged environment. To give an architecture-related example, working on this talkpage feels like working under a scaffold on a construction site where the things on the scaffold are loose and ready to fall on the construction workers' heads. This is no working environment. It is a health hazard. Giano has already disengaged by taking his edits to his userspace. I think you should try to do the same for a while. Dr.K. λogosπraxis

No, not at all. I am merely saying that I would like to get this to FA status. If there are corrections to be made, I would like to make them. In particular, I would like to help to improve referencing and would also like to refactor or correct peacock terms, as these tend to hide a point of view. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I think at this point it's clear, and irrelevant, what you plan to do specifically with the article. Everyone is simply saying that you shouldn't do it. Edit other articles for a while instead. Equazcion (talk) 18:18, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
I don't feel that I'm particularly angry, incidentally. I have been fairly cool under fire so far, and I have had some fairly terrible accusations made against me. I have been accused of trolling, of bad faith editing, of not discussing issues with editors, of being unable to contribute to this article because of alleged incompetence, of disruptive editing and of baiting. I don't believe I have done any of these things. I have not said any insulting thing on this talk page, instead I have noted a few areas of concern, I've asked for references so I can do research and I've tried to assist a distressed editor who was being harassed by Giano. I believe I have done this with civility and respect for all parties. I was invited to this article by Giano, and this is where my interest was piqued. I have now agreed to a compromise in an attempt to mollify various parties. This compromise allows me to continue editing at a later date, in a productive and non-disruptive fashion. Is there any reason why you feel that this is unreasonable?
As for unproductive threads on ANI - I note that the bounty template has been readded now after some edit warring from Unitanode and Giano. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
There's clearly going to have to be an interaction ban to get this guy to leave Giano alone. As for the bounty template, would you let it go? I fucking replaced it as a compromise with Equ, not because of your incessant bitching. Scottaka UnitAnode 18:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What you've said amounts to a threat, or at least, a show of immovable staunchness; anything but a compromise. Everyone generally feels they're being reasonable, so you thinking that about yourself is, similarly, not relevant, as you're not an objective observer of yourself. There's a point -- generally when every single person who comments is telling you so -- that you need to listen and say "I don't agree but since so many people think this, I'll just take their advice". You're being unreasonable, Tb, and no one agrees with you. There's a time to acquiesce. Equazcion (talk) 18:30, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Really? I rather think I was the one who was threatened - Giano very clearly said that if I attempt to edit this article I will be blocked as a vandal. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
That's not the point. Don't pigeonhole. Everyone thinks you're wrong. Everyone thinks you need to give it a rest. Why are you still here? Equazcion (talk) 18:33, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm rather losing track of this thread. You just said that I am threatening Giano, but then I mentioned he had threatened me, but for some reason this isn't the point. I'm a bit confused. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You're not confused, you're just cherrypicking the parts of people's arguments that are easiest for you to respond to. Your "compromise" sounds rather like a threat, but that's beside the point. Consensus is that you should keep away from the article. We're all aware of what you want to do to it, and that you disagree with consensus, but that wouldn't seem to matter. Consensus is consensus. Equazcion (talk) 18:58, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Oh, but I am! Could you tell me which bits of the argument I haven't addressed? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes -- The fact that consensus is for you to refrain from editing this article for a while, yet that you continue to announce your plans to do just the opposite? Please do address that. Equazcion (talk) 19:14, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Really. Jack Merridew 18:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, really. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I saw that. There's an I didn't hear that running through all this; see below. You should drop the stick, like yesterday. Jack Merridew 19:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why you think that (whoever you are - you've signed a timestamp and not your username). I rather think I've taken on board what has been said to me, but evidently I'm missing something. I asked above as to what I've done wrong in particular, but so far nobody has given me any specifics. That includes on WP:AN, incidentally, where the thread was archived and hidden as it wasn't actionable. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Well that's disingenuous; ya, I typed an extra tilde — *you* are an experienced user who can be assumed to know how to see who replied; and, of, course, it was clear from the indenting and timing. I've fixed teh sig.
The thread below and whatever will follow clearly shows that you are not listening. You need to stop trying to stage a Giano-incident, to not poke the bear. You know this and feigning confusion is uncool. How about you just agree to drop all your Giano-concerns for an indefinite (but considerable) period? Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed article ban and interaction ban of Tbsdy

moved to WP:AN. Scottaka UnitAnode 19:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Based upon Tbsdy's above behavior and commentary both here and across several other pages, I propose that Tbsdy be banned from editing this article and interaction-banned from Giano. Clearly, from his commentary above, nothing else will get him to disengage. Scottaka UnitAnode 18:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


If the community so decides, so will it be. However, as I have now asked on WP:AN/I, I have a few questions about procedure:

  1. Will this be formally recognized by the majority of administrators?
  2. Wouldn't this be better to be held on WP:AN/I? and
  3. Is this being advertised in appropriate areas so that a wide cross-section of the Wikipedia community can comment so that this is as fair as possible?
  4. How long will this ban poll be running for?

I would appreciate some feedback on these points. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd support moving the poll to ANI if necessary. Let's see what the response is to your new thread there first though, Tb. Equazcion (talk) 19:19, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)
  • ANI is a dramapit, and I categorically reject any attempt to drag this proposal to it. The article/interaction ban is narrow, and is best decided in the forum to which it applies. Scottaka UnitAnode 19:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • What, so you thought that you'd start a ban topic in on an article talk page? There is a reason why we don't do this you know - talk pages are not for user conduct issues, they are to discuss the article. Already the thread above has devolved into an all out attack on myself, by a wide range of editors who don't like me for one reason or another. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 19:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
      Yeah, it's everyone else's fault, Tbsdy. When everyone is telling you something, perhaps you should listen. Scottaka UnitAnode 19:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I hope you don't mind, but I got rid of the poll structure. It's really not necessary and encourages factionalism. Tbsdy, my advice to you from the ANI thread still stands. NW (Talk) 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(I haven't read most of the comments above, so I can't opinionate on the actual dispute) Please, please, pretty please, move it to AN and not to ANI. Lately most huge ban discussions have been moved to AN, with excellent results: less drama, thread doesn't get archived at mid-discussion when nobody comments for 24 hours, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead image edit

Hi, in support of the article improvement drive I've uploaded a new edit of the lead image. Feel free to revert if appropriate. This edit returns to the original photograph's color balance and corrects for perspective distortion, with slightly more of the palace at far left and without a distracting foreground object. Have edited the contrast to bring out shadow details in the masonry. A sky that looms a little bit seems more impressive than one that is merely overcast. Here's hoping the page editors like it and best wishes achieving FA. Durova412 19:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The colors are less HDR now, but I suppose probably more realistic this way. I like the other changes, nice work. Equazcion (talk) 19:13, 15 Feb 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blenheim_Palace/Archive_2&oldid=1142436174"