Talk:Prince's Palace of Monaco

Jan Breughel

Giano, we've got links for Jan Brueghel the Elder (1568-1625) and Jan Brueghel the Younger (1601-1678) - any idea which one hang in the palace? --Joopercoopers 18:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

At this stag enot a clue! but I have just found we have Luca Cambiasi which was not the name I would have used for him, but it is amazing he is here! Giano 19:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The Grimaldis

You use the plural form "the Grimaldi", but all your English-speaking sources that I've clicked on say "the Grimaldis". The name itself being "Grimaldi", I would have thought that "the Grimaldis" is probably correct. The look and sound of it is inferior, I know... but wouldn't you say that that's how English forms such plurals? Bishonen | talk 18:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

No I would not! One does not say The Medicis does one? One says The Medici. They are The Grimaldi, not a bunch of yobs living on a concrete estate in deepest middle England. See also usage here Medici. Giano 18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Flickr

Giano, I don't know whether you know about Flickr or not, but theres a bunch of creative commons licensed images here some better and some worse than the article which you might find useful - particularly, perhaps a replacement here for the statue photo (there's a bonus sentry, all in white) and this one is surely a better shot of the Baroque gate? I'm happy to do the uploading/downloading if you think any will be of use. --Joopercoopers 21:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This one's a better composed image of Fontainbleau staircase, but the light's poor. --Joopercoopers 21:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha! but not half as bad as This one!--Joopercoopers 21:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Poor girl, I know how she feels, can we use these flickr images? I've not seen them or heard of them before, the Fontainebleau one would be goog - Regarding the Monaco ones I prefer the ones we already have, as I keep meaning to put in a little about the scalopped wall behind the statue - that is important as not many people may know what a scalloped crenelation is Giano 21:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that you can use any of the images that are licensed under "creative commons" - for the creative commons by attribution licenses you have to give credit for the image - which could be done by footnote I'd have thought. --Joopercoopers 01:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok here's Fontainbleau and the gate-

thumb|350px

File:Monaco Royal Palace Gate.jpg

I had a look at the Flickr copyright status, it is not quite as straight forward as it seems [1] I don't want to make the page dependent on thir images (there were two I would have liked) and than find them abruptly removed. Do I decided not to use them. Giano 11:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the link you provide relates to yahoo's general copyright policy - the images that users upload to flickr are given a license by the user - so the fontainbleau image has this copyright status - I'm absolutely positive as long as the image has a creative commons license, we can use it on wikipedia as long as we abide by the restrictions - non-commercial is fine (we are), by attribution - just credit the author in a footnote. Commons even has a 'uploaded from Flickr' option these days when you go to upload something. --Joopercoopers 12:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you have a look here Image:Palazzo Monac.jpg I don't think the licensing looks rifght at all Giano 13:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The licensing was pretty much there. The thing to do is from the search screen here - click on the image you want ie here from this screen you can do 2 things a. click on the licensing to find out what restrictions might be there - lots of the images on Flickr are copyrighted but you can search for all the creative commons licensed ones if you wish. b. click on the "all sizes" to download better resolution versions of the photos. I've tweaked image's notes a little. If you upload these images to the commons first - I'm pretty sure there's options in the licensing screen that says things like Flickr CC-BY 2.0 (creative commmons by attribution version 2) Hope that helps. --Joopercoopers 16:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That particular image is (as of when I checked) licensed CC-BY-ND which means.... BY: "attribution required" (OK) and ND: "No derivative works allowed" (not OK... we have to allow derivative works). So unfortunately we can't use it here. But there are lots of Flickr images that can be used. The things to avoid include ND and NC: "non commercial". There is an active effort to find good Flickr images and bring them over to Commons. Sometimes a note to the uploader of the original image, telling them that their image would be featured in Wikipedia, is enough to convince them to change their license... see for example Canoe livery... the Lake Louise image is from Flickr, I asked the Flickr user to relicense, and they did. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks for that Lar I've been labouring under a misaprehension. Why do we have to allow derivative works? --Joopercoopers 16:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't hold me to this. I don't actually KNOW why we do, just that we do. But basically, we only want freely licensed works. That includes, for example, the freedom to crop a picture to make it display better or to use an area of it for a particular detail, or to embed it in an article. (that's right, the article is a "derivative work" of the picture!)... See Commons:Derivative works and Derivative work and Commons:Flickr images and Commons:Template:Flickrreview. If there are specific images on Flickr that you would like to use, but are unsure about, ask any admin on Commons for help (I am an admin on Commons and would be glad to help... within reason :) ). I strongly encourage all images (other than fair use ones) to find a home on Commons rather than here specifically, as that way all WMF projects can benefit from them. Also, if you do take an image from Flickr, it's a very nice touch to leave the information on the image as a comment so the original Flickr user knows, as was done here ... that will encourage other Flickr users to share. This may be a bit off topic for this particular talk page, feel free to refactor as needed. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, I understand none of this - which is the illegal image - Fontainebleau staircase or the sideways on shot of the main facade - hopefully it is the staircase as I can replave that one easily? Oh and Lar, thanks for the comments below, if I can get somebody who is not particularly interested in buildings to read to the end, I note Louis II is quite close to the end! then I must be doing somethng right!Giano 18:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What are the image names? Image:Palazzo Monac.jpg has a problem, it's licensed with "no derivative works" which won't work on Commons. Even here, you need to assert Fair Use, unfortunately, or it may be deletion-bait. Better to get the image relicensed. If you really need it, I'd advise sending "anti-Zim" a nice message via Flickr (like the one I sent the Lake Louise picturetaker here) and maybe they would consider changing the license. I can help you do that if you want but you're better at asking nicely than I am... (I find that the user answers maybe 1/3 of the time, the other 2/3 I get nothing) If you meant other ones, let me know their names, ok? ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No I've changed the image, Pity because it demonstrated better than the new one the palace as a series of neo-renaissance wings and blocks of varying architectural merit. I shan't ask for permission. I once has a nice lady who alllowed me all the picture I wanted from her site called (never mind what it was called) then one day someone from the image police arrived at Blenheim Palace and said one picture of a detailed architectural motif was an embarassment to Wikipedia - she (understandably) took the hump, and my source was instantly ended. Pity, but I vowed then never to ask favours of non-editors again, too embarassing. Giano 22:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Numbering of Images

Regarding this edit: [2]. This is a long page and it benefits from having the images formatted and easily referred to as each image has been chosen to illustrate specific points, as the page is long it is impossible to place all images close to the relevant text, hence annotating them allows them to be easily and clearly referred to. Giano 14:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

and even if they could be placed somewhere close to where they are referred too, due to the nature of web pages, someone viewing on a different screen resolution, or with different browser settings would not be guranteed to see the same result. David Underdown 14:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point - I hadn't thought of that, Giano 14:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And my beloved plan is referred to throughout! --Joopercoopers 15:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I only just noticed that refs to your magnificent, amazing and totally talented plan had too been removed! Giano 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't fishing - but thanks very much! --Joopercoopers 17:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I know you weren't it is just an excellent plan. Giano 19:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Now it looks better, thanks. I've just reduced the size of some images, and removed two people pictures (if one is interested in their faces, just needs to click on their link). Bye and good work. --Attilios 12:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should reinstate the portraits - presenting a variety of images helps to enliven building articles. We should have overviews of the site, the facades, plans, interesting details and, because architecture does not exist in an artistic vacuum, the odd portrait of a building's patrons. --Joopercoopers 12:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with JC above. I think perhaps Attilios is looking at this on a different resolution computer. Failing that I am at a loss to understand his reasoning. Anything that encourages people and makes more interesting to read an architecture page is good. It is not just bicks and mortar that make a building but also the people who breathed life into it, and give gave it its charactor, and peculiarities. Without people architecture is just bricks and dates most of which are meaningless to many people. One has to show a building's soul to fully describe it meaningfully. Giano 13:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

1. People. Usually, encyclopedia articles about somebody or something does not contain images of other people, if not for strict reasons. We have internal links for that. I think you're adopting too much a magazine approach here, instead than one of an encyclopedia; 2. The issue on images is that too large ones oblige people with not high speed connection to wait hours before seeing them, also, with resolution less than 17 (I've 17, so not my problem) they'll invade all the screen with unpleasant visual effects. --Attilios 14:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Attilios, I am truly sorry that you do not like this page. You have said here [3] "the article on Monaco Palace is, frankly, horrendous. There's no care for image placement, size and whatever. Also the presence of photographs of people is silly, and avoided in most articles here" - It would have been easy to write a page merely saying: The Prince's Palace of Monaco is a building which was once a castle it evolved into a palace of indifferent architecture of no great merit and was lived in by some rich princes and their wives. End of story. I preferred to make it a little more interesting.

I have written many pages in this style and have never received these complaints before. Some of them have even recently become FAs all using this format, which is within the manual of style. It seems to me you are at the moment picking on anything and everything I write, not just on this page but elsewhere as well. I am unsure why. I am not wikipedia's best editor by a long shot, but I am far from its worst. When I found this page it looked like this [4] I consider the present version to be an improvement. Wikipedia has over a million pages many of which would benefeit from your views and edits. I am interested to know what it is about my edits that attract you so much during this last week. I am happy to receive constructive criticism, this page was written in user space with other respected editors chiming in with much help and criticism. I'm sure it can stil be improved upon. However, I feel your criticism is destructive to the page. Giano 15:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I was asked for my opinion on this article and I have to say that for historic/architecture articles such as this, where the history of the work is intertwined with the history of those that caused the work to happen, the images of selected people enhance the article greatly, tying the people, the changes, and the times together... Consider, for example, the image of Louis II... to me it really conveys his somewhat detached nature and that he came to Monaco from elsewhere, as well as conveying the sense of his era (the glasses, the elaborate decorations on his uniform and so forth all evoke late Victorian early Edwardian to me). I'd hate to see these "people images" removed. HTH. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Attilios if you have a problem with me lets go to RFA or RFC just set it up. I would love to know what I have done to upset you so. I've just seen this revert [5] of your edit here[6] (which I somehow missed) . I wrote from those references I know what I used, that is why I made then references. Please do not try to destroy the creditability of this page for your own ends. I'm sure this was an error on your part but I cannot spot every edit to every page I have ever written (especially when described as "typo" so please don't harm pages just to get at me. Giano 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I am from Monaco. This the best page I have seen on wikipedia. I have been watching it for long time since it little page. I find it very interesting and easy to follow. I like numbers on pages very good idea. Yves.

• Thanks Yves - Glad you like it, have you thought about contributing to Monte Carlo it could do with some local knowledge - any knowledge in fact - a page crying out to be edited and improved. Giano 18:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

A nice article, Giano! Spotted a few things that need tidying up and/or correcting. Not sure what you intended, so I'm noting them here for you to handle:

• The caption to illustration 4 says "see illustaration 4". Did you mean "see illustration 5"?

Fixed

• The Decline of Grimaldi power has "need some refs for all this" in bold. Is it possible to move this to your talk page or this talk page, rather than leave it in the article?

No that was a memeo to me - left by accident after I found the ref.

• I wonder if it is possible to insert footnote-type links to enable people to jump to illustrations and then back to the relevant text? Could be difficult to do.

You can try - too technical for me!

• You refer to illustration 21 at some point, when there is no illustration 21.

Fixed - there was once an illustration 21!

• Jules Cardinal Mazarin doesn't mention any Grimaldi connection - do you have more details for this article and that one?

No, someone will have to check the peerage - It does explain the connection (roughly) in the text. I don't want to go to off sunject. I will ref the info from where I found it. (actually it was reffed!)

• Finally, the last section has a reference to sentries and a "see illustration 20", when that illustration is of the Prince, not a sentry!

Fixed

Hope that all helps. Carcharoth 15:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - and complement. Giano 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You are quick to follow this up! Just one more point - I think you misunderstood or missed my illustration 4/5 comment. I was actually referring to the caption for illustration 4: "Illustration 4: The Princely Palace in 1890 shows clearly a blend of classical facades and medieval fortifications. Due to the modern development of Monte Carlo and growth of flora this view of the palace is not possible today (see illustration 4)." - the "see illustration 4" bit obviously makes no sense. Carcharoth 16:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I could not see the wood for the trees there! Now fixed. Giano 19:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What droll humour! :-) Carcharoth 00:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I thought it as rather witty too! Giano 07:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Prince v prince

Prince can be both a title and a job description. For simplicity, I've been using Prince when it's followed by the incumbent's name and prince when it's not. Does anyone disagree with this? (Incidentally, David, I didn't undo your changes maliciously: I hit this with a blaze of intensity and simply overlooked your edits. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 14:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Titles is what I've been going by, King of France, Prince of Monaco are titles in their own right so should be fully capitalised, the prince, the French king shouldn't be. David Underdown 14:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I know about titles thanks :) They can be either capitalised (if used as titles) or not (if used generically): it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. I'd prefer the later because it looks less Ruritanian. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 15:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The only ones I changed were defintiely ones that seemed to fall into the case of "The formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun". This is the style used even by The Guardian, and they generally avoid use capitals as much as possible from the way I read their style guide. Particularly with the title of prince, I see a difference between "prince of Monaco", you could have several of these at once, as it seems that sons of the ruling prince are also styled prince, and "Prince of Monaco", definitely the ruling prince. David Underdown 16:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Point entirely taken. The text now reflects the following examples, which seemed apposite, from the Guardian Style Guide (I may have missed some):

First mention Buckingham Palace, the palace on second mention

First mention Prince of Wales, the prince on second mention

Other styles I've followed are from WP:MOS, particularly date ranges for years. I've also linked some red links. The remaining issues MOS-wise are multi-citing refs; and there are whole paragraphs with no inline cites at all, which need looking at. (I can do this tomorrow.)--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 14:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If there are paragraphs with no online cites that is because hey contain no contraverisal facts. Giano 15:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No use asking me about grammar at all. Giano 15:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Too modest :) You use it naturally very well :) --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 14:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Giano, there's no reference for Monégasque in the ref section even though it's cited. Could you add it please? --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 15:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed [7] albeit with a mistakenly pasted edit summary. Giano 15:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Was that actually what you meant to do? It looks like you've revert to an older version of the text. losing many of Roger's chagnes today. David Underdown 16:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bugger! No it was not what I meant to do ar all, I can only applolagise, I just went back to an earlier version to see if the web site had originally been listed, seeing it wasn't, I went off to look for it in another tab, when I came back with it, I just added it, I must have forgotten I had an outdated version on the screen, I'm sure it did not say "you are editing an old version" but I suppose it must have done and I didn't notice. I can only appolagise. Is it OK now? Giano 15:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't clear about that either so I've reverted to a previous version (embarrassingly only getting it right on the three attempt) to preserve the MOs stuff and added in much of what may have been changes. So the current is composite. Oh, and I've added stuff about the court of honour. If I've broken anything in the process, please fix.--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 14:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and no illustration 20 either. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 15:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, reference to "illustration 20" was left in by mistake after someone deleted it because it was "fair use" and apparently not allowed on this page :-( Giano 15:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, annoying. I've removed the ref for consistency. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 14:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the ISBN for Great Palaces is missing a digit. 600 01682 X. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 17:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so - i have the book right here beside me, that is the corretc number. Giano 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cracked, BSNs (9 digits) became ISBNs in 1974, adding a leading zero creates a valid ISBN for older books (fixed in article). David Underdown 18:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You learn something new etc :) --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Incidentally, I noticed yesterday that there are two sources with the same name:

• Edwards, Anne (1992). The Grimaldis of Monaco. William Morrow & Co. ISBN 978-0688088378.
• The Grimaldis of Monaco published by Worldroots.com. Retrieved 06 February 2007

In the absence of page nos, I assume the inline citations refer to the website but perhaps this could be clarified?--ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No they are two quite seperate works both with the same name. The Edwards book is listed because it is the source for the "Royal Scribe site" - this is already mentioned in the footnotes. The other work is a website the address and link of which is given. I have added its author so there is no doubt the two are quite different works. Giano 08:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations?

This is a fine featured article with regard to topic and content. However, there are entire paragraphs and sections without citations! I'm not advocating the style of providing 4 different references for every sentence, but much remains to be done to ensure that the claims made in this article are verifiable. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I also noted a recurring pattern of unencyclopedic diction, peacock terms, or even mildly POV words that should be stripped and reworked:

"its long and often dramatic history", "During the .. to the palace in 1956", "the most notable room... the most remarkable room...", "Genoa was important...", "...to have a home reflecting their power and prestige.", "Architecturally this was an exciting period...", "...palace suitable for a prince.", "The lure of Versailles was greater...", "...so spectacularly enhanced", "...thus was keen..." , "revolution was afoot...", "this was only the beginning", "further humiliations were heaped...", "at a stroke", "glory of the palace", "stronger and more stable state of repair...", "continues to play a central role in the lives..."

The article also tends to veer off into discussions of personal drama or political intrigue of the (admittedly colorful) actors surrounding the history of the structure. Much of this may be more appropriate for the History of Monaco rather than an article about a building in Monaco. Combined with the absence of citations for swaths of the article, I'm surprised that this sub-brilliant prose passed FAC. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Only contaversial facts or little known facts need cites. There is also more to a building than bricks and mortar, it's history, and causes of it's history are just as important. Neither does have a page have to be written in pompouse formal language. Giano (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:TONE: "Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone."

I'm not saying that the article should be reduced to a treatise on different architectural styles among its wings, but all too often the introduction of an actor is followed by biographical details that are tangential to illuminating the history of the building. I think these are often the source of the overly decadent tone that I criticized earlier.

I'm not going to be an dick and throw up fact tags, but there are dozens of statements that fall under your "little-known" interpretation of WP:V but otherwise warrant a citation. I'm sure the vast majority of them could be taken care of by Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once for any the referenced books below. Madcoverboy (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations are, indeed, for statements likely to be challenged. The citation to "tone" doesn't look to have much force, and it certainly doesn't have any specificity, because a formal tone is a matter of interpretation. If there were sections about the awesomeness of the powerup at level five or something, we'd have a problem, but I suspect "peacock terms" is a matter of individual interpretation. I know you're not trying to be a dick, but let's go softly during main page madness. Your cited examples of informal language do not seem to me to be particularly problematic, but there is always a chance to improve. When the klieg lights are off, try some copy editing to tighten words. I'd leave the "citation" thing be, though. It's too vexatious and too often the habitus of the dicks. Geogre (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"This view of the palace is not possible today"

Due to the modern development of Monte Carlo and growth of flora this view of the palace is not possible today.

This is unclear. The view is possible, surely; you just have to put a camera there and take a picture. It will merely look different. Could someone who knows what is meant by this caption change it from "this view of the palace is not possible" to something that's actually correct? Perhaps the castle would be entirely obscured by trees, or by buildings - I don't know the answer but someone must. Tempshill (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the castle would be entirely obscured by trees, or by buildings - would that mean that this view of the castle is indeed no longer possible? --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Now reads:"Due to the modern development of Monte Carlo and growth of flora this uncluttered view of the palace is obscured today." Giano (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fire at Palace - 03/06/2008

3rd June 2008 noon - Fire at Palace [8]. Removed here from article. Needs to be properly integrated. Looks like it was a small fire, but may be of interest, or may later be commented on. Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

All that fuss about a word?

Please, "ironically" warriors, calm yourselves. (In the lead, "Ironically, when the fortifications were relaxed, the palace was seized...." has led to an edit war.) 1. No, it doesn't need a citation. That idea is simply silly. 2. Yes, we can let the reader decide if it's irony, and we can point out that it's irony. There is no compelling reason to say or not say it. 3. The original author who wrote 98% of the page put the word in, worked the page to FA standard, and the page was promoted to an FA. In the case of a "tie," there is no reason to favor a change over the status quo, and the status quo wins because the page is still maintained by the expert editor who wrote it. Therefore, people, just relax. Don't go off on wars over a word. Situational irony and dramatic irony are the most wiggly concepts in English verbiage, or among them, and if "rain on your wedding day" can be a top 40 US and UK hit as "ironic," then something a good deal closer to true dramatic irony can certainly stand in a Wikipedia page. Geogre (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "fact" and it's unnecessary. It's a subjective opinion and if you want it in, cite it. Yworo (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's not a word which is encyclopedic in the way it's being used here. Did you know that Wikipedia uses that word more than 100 times as frequently as it's used in Encyclopedia Brittanica? That ought to tell you something. The question is, why should we be telling the reader how to subjectively consider the facts? If it's obviously ironic, then the word is unnecessary and redundant. The reader will immediately identify it as such without being told. If it's not obvious, then it's the subjective opinion of an editor rather than an established fact, and would then require citation as so-and-so's opinion. Yworo (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, I have to reply to that. What a foolish argument! First, perhaps Brittanica needs to change. There is no conclusion that can be drawn from a usage comparison at all, and only a fool, and I mean that literally and lexically, would do something like count frequency and draw a conclusion. Secondly, "ironic" can be a fact. The idea that, somehow, Thomas Spratt's prose guide is going to come from the grave, filled with figurative language, and ban figurative language, is self-consuming nonsense. Anyone with an ounce of awareness can demonstrate how thoroughly bias and subjectivity exists in a Brittanica account, and how the skin rash one gets in contact with non-empirical language is also an interpretation. Empiricism and logical positivism are bubbles. More to the point, the idea that we achieve objectivity by avoiding words that refer to interpretive states is ludicrous. I am sorry, but yours is a very strained understanding of "encyclopedic" and not even archaic as illusory. Geogre (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Simply, because it breathes some life into prose. As Geogre said, this is a Featured article, vetted by the community in part, for it's prose which was judged to be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Is there any evidence this consensus has changed other than by your assertion and rigorous interpretation of the criteria? Of course it doesn't need a citation - yours is not a reasonable challenge and the word is hardly a controversy, despite your best efforts. --Joopercoopers (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Do what you want, but you might read MOS:OPED which specifically lists the word as discouraged. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the style guideline - apparently being enforced here like the law. One would presume the purpose of the guideline is to improve our articles? Given this is already an FA, surely we must conclude that the spirit has been observed, if not the letter? But thanks for your attention. --Joopercoopers (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It still just might be an improvement to remove it. Yworo (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It might - but 3 people have now reverted you - what's your bet on that? This is a large project with millions of articles - surely there are more glaring problems than this "maybe" problem?--Joopercoopers (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ironic is justified because as the text explains for geographic and political reasons the palace required fortification long after other palaces did not, yet the moment it belatedly caught up with the times and relaxed its fortifications it was taken for the first time. That is irony - very ironic in fact. The lead does not need to be referenced, and it is silly arguements like this over the obvious that make me glad I no longer try to write FAs. Giano (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I just edited "ironically" away without looking here first; I had no idea it had been a contentious word. The basic problem with it isn't that it's unencyclopedic, but that it applies only in the Alanis Morrissette sense. That is, when a dynasty sees the necessity for fortifications that have become unfashionable elsewhere, and that insight is justified by the consequences of "relaxing" those fortifications, this is merely the consequence to be expected and not ironic in the least. I won't particularly care if it gets reverted, mind.

I am removing those silly "Illustration n" notations in the captions, which must make image maintenance on this page a minor nightmare, as well as the dire HTML remark warning against an infobox. If one is appropriate it should be added, and a single editor doesn't get to dictate terms. (Or not about "illustration". I see why it's there. They're not necessary, but I don't feel like doing the work that's really needed. 192.91.171.36 (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If you read the text, you would find out why the numbered annotations are there. The whole point of the page is to inform and explain in the easiest possible way. Contrary, to your assertion, I have not found the page at all difficult to maintain over the last few years. Have you considered logging in and opening an account yourself - or perhaps you already have one?  Giano  09:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't logged on since 2007, and I'm not about to get involved in the morass that is the world of serious Wikipedia editing just to make a minor tweak to what is frankly a really weirdly written article. 68.170.190.61 (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC) (different IP address but same guy as above)

Issues with the article related to Featured Article status...

Can I raise a few concerns with the article in its current state?

• Some sections (e.g. Princely Palace, Grimaldi fortress, Fortress to palace, 19th century) have very few citations, with large blocks of text unreferenced.
• Some of the web sources don't look like high quality sources; link rot has effected others.

I don't have the necessary sources to help with this, but if it's to retain its current FA status, it does need some loving attention. Can anyone help? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like any major revisions to this article are going to be fiercely opposed by Giano, who seems to take a proprietary interest in it. He's on record further up that he thinks citations are a waste of time; he seems not to understand the policy. And even if Geogre believes that tone is in the eye of the beholder, it's very clear that the main author here is not a native English speaker. 192.91.173.34 (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Silly boy; I'm not playing games with you - who are obviously a sock far too frightened to put you money where your mouth is.  Giano  08:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with a lot of the concerns here:

• The introduction does not match the prose of similar articles. Similarly the structure of the article seems off and could probably be restructured. For example, the first section could start with "Grimaldi Fortress" to put the article in line with having historical topics be placed near the beginning, with "Princely Palace" integrated or moved closer towards the end.
• The notes/citations are mixed and should be separated to match similar articles. I would concur with previous concerns that the "illustration x" format does not match typical article norms and could probably be rewritten without much encyclopedic loss.
• There are several sentences that require citations, as mentioned above. Several of these sentences read as original research or personal opinion.
• A lot of the contents of this article seem to discuss tangential topics that don't seem necessary for an increased understanding of the Palace. While the Grimaldi family and Monaco are closely tied to this palace, sometimes I feel there are sections, such as in the Absentee landlords, that can be shortened without losing knowledge on the Palace.

Keep in mind, much of this article still has a lot of useful encyclopedic knowledge and at its core is informative, but there are so many style issues here that I feel like it is worth a revisit, which could be fixed with some effort. Given that FA status was granted over a decade ago, I think it is worth updating the article (at its core, a good article) to match editorial standards. Zanibas (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Prince's Palace of Monaco. 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/20111202193604/http://www.palais.mc/monaco/palais-princier/english/the-institution/the-prince-s-palace-of-monaco/the-prince-s-palace-of-monaco.373.html to http://www.palais.mc/monaco/palais-princier/english/the-institution/the-prince-s-palace-of-monaco/the-prince-s-palace-of-monaco.373.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071124162024/http://www.gouv.mc/devwww/wwwnew.nsf/1909%24/aaa646e2319b4f09c125706d002f4adcgb?OpenDocument&6Gb to http://www.gouv.mc/devwww/wwwnew.nsf/1909%24/aaa646e2319b4f09c125706d002f4adcgb?OpenDocument&6Gb
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldroots.com/cgi-bin/gasteldb?%40I21400%40

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) 16:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prince's Palace of Monaco. 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 {{dead link}} tag to https://books.google.com/books?id=uLN9bMlaXdsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Once+Upon+a+Time.+Taraborrelli&sig=J7VEyLser2iJP-BT7tzJTRRbDhQ
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071124162024/http://www.gouv.mc/devwww/wwwnew.nsf/1909$/aaa646e2319b4f09c125706d002f4adcgb?OpenDocument&6Gb to http://www.gouv.mc/devwww/wwwnew.nsf/1909$/aaa646e2319b4f09c125706d002f4adcgb?OpenDocument&6Gb

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) 11:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Why no infobox?

Isn't it something useful? --Renek78 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it’s not useful. When the history and evolution of a building is as complicated as this one an info box can only confuse or trivialise. Much better to read the lead paragraph which will, hopefully, summarise more accurately or at least hint of the prolonged evolution and mish-mash of styles and patrons. Giano (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thanks. --Renek78 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Francois Grimaldi "Malizia", Monaco - panoramio.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

URFA

As part of an effort to review old FAs, I'm checking to see whether this article continues to meet the featured article criteria. At the moment, the answer appears to be no. The fundamental problem is that there are numerous paragraphs of uncited text: many have no footnotes altogether, while others have notes that don't reference sources. Some of the sources that do exist appear unreliable, and non-neutral statements of opinion (like "Architecturally this was an exciting period..." and "The most remarkable room in the suite is...") don't help. If these issues are not resolved, the article may be taken to WP:FAR, where editors will determine whether to delist it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)