Talk:Marble House

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Rhode Island Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Rhode Island portal This article is supported by WikiProject Rhode Island (assessed as Low-importance).

MArble House (band)

There is a band called marble house so this page needs to be disambiguation page and 2 more pages need to be created. i dont know how to do it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.245.73 (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The Marble House in Newport is by far more notable. The others can be listed at Marble House (disambiguation). Charles 04:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marble House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090812040007/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1143737094&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=1143737094&ResourceType=Building

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the lede image be changed?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The !vote tally is: 4 1/3 !votes for image 1, 1/2 !vote for image 2 and 15 1/6 !votes for image 3 (1-3-2 !vote counted as 2/3—1/3—0). Moreover, the arguments on image #3 quality and positioning are convincing and have been entertained by the majority of posters here. There is therefore consensus to change the lead image to image 3 (File:Marble House, Newport RI.jpg). Since the infobox already contains image #3 at the time of closure, no actions have to be made.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Image #1 (current lede image)

Image #2 (suggested replacement)

Should the lede image be changed from Image #1 to Image #2? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Notification of individual editors is to be avoided per WP:CANVASSING. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

No - The current lede image shows the full front facade of the mansion, presenting this primary architectural aspect to the reader. In contrast, the suggested replacement is shot from the side at an oblique angle, which necessarily foreshortens the building and does not give a true sense of its size or its architecture. It serves neither the reader nor the mansion well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No The full front-view of the building is most appropriate for the lead. The other one, according to the caption in the galley (where it is currently), is the rear facade. Schazjmd (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No The appropriate image is the current image of the formal front, not the rear, informal terrace, obscured by an awning. Acroterion (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Yes Image 1 is of poor quality. It should be changed to image 2 or another image like File:Marble House, Newport RI.jpg Filetime (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support image 3 as best view and highest resolution. $ɱ$ (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support image 3 as the best compromise between perspective and quality — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support image 3 as the best available. Edwardx (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support image 3. I don't see that the direct front view is always necessarily the best? In fact, the off-center view of #3 gives a better sense of how the front portico extends forward, and thus "resembles the White House" as mentioned in the lede as a distinguishing feature of the mansion. Also, no offense intended here, but Beyond My Ken ... you would be well-served to get a better camera. You're doing a lot of work and spending your valuable time and that camera is letting you down every time. - Kzirkel (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support image 3. The 3/4 view is normally superior. Additionally, in the current photo, there are no leaves on the trees and the shrubbery looks dead. Image 3 has nice green trees and pink lawn flowers. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support image 3 The view of the image is better and has a good resolution. Sea Ane (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No or Image 3 Per many comments above, the front or otherwise most characteristic part of the house should be shown, though I do agree that Image 3 is aesthetically nicer. Arathald (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support image 3 The image has a better resolution and gives a better view of the front and its surrounding . BristolTreeHouse (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image 3 - Well framed, high quality photo which depicts the facade of the building, combining the advantages of the first two options. PraiseVivec (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1 - 3 - 2 ((sbb)) 1 gives a better overall sense of the building IMO but is a bit 'flat', 3 has better detail when you 'expand' it, but slightly distorts wall angles beacause of the effect of the lens and 'crops' the building. The back of the building (2) would be a strange thing to show unless it was especially noted for that, but is a clear crisp image. Pincrete (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, The front view is well captured. Idealigic (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support image 3 yeah, I think this pic is better. YOu can see the side of the building Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support image 3, showing the frontal view in detail with a better resolution. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support image 3 I like the look of it.Thelostone41 (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support image 3 It has the best parts of 1 by being the formal front showing the mentioned resemblance to the White House - and of 2 by being a 3/4 view. Plus the benefit of the foliage is in bloom. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support image 3 image #2 is not great because that white canopy obscure the building and does not look good.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support image 3 - ticks all the boxes, in my view. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Acroterion and Schazjmd: See this option, which provides the same facade of the house, but is not of such poor technical quality. Filetime (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image #3: Marble House, Newport RI
@Kzirkel: Pinging Ken given his robust contributions to related subjects. Filetime (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typical of Filetime to CANVASS other editors despite being warned against it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the WP:CANVASSING page, shall we? The page explicitly permits the notification of "editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article." Ken has uploaded thousands of files, the vast majority of which are photographs of Rhode Island. Not to mention his thousands of edits to pages directly related to Rhode Island. If thousands of images and edits don't meet the threshold for "substantial edits," I'd like to know how many do? Should I wait for hundreds of thousands? Millions? Please let me know. Filetime (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not automatically canvassing to ping someone to a discussion -- only if you do so because you think that person will vote a certain way. That said, the appearance of canvassing can matter, too, and in this case it's ultimately unnecessary because I'm fairly sure Kzirkel watches the WikiProject Rhode Island page (as do I), and a neutral notice there should make it unnecessary to ping. In other words, I think it's unlikely Filetime's done anything wrong in this regard, but if it's not ultimately necessary, there's no need to further inflame these threads (which already run rather hot). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.