User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2010/January

Thann portal

Well, here it says that the tympana indeed show 150 scenes with 500 figures, but i think the writer mixed it up with the archivolts. There is no way the tympana alone can show so many scenes, while the triple row of (extremely densely sculpted) archivolts certainly can. I think it is tympana = 23 scenes, archivolts = +/- 120 scenes, life-size statues around = +/- 10 scenes. The portal is 18 meters high and 8 meters wide, which is quite astonishing given that the church, although very ornate, is rather small. Cheers, --RCS (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy now :-)? (will be expanded). --RCS (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Minor Barnstar
		Thank you, Amandajm, for your attention to detail. Your efforts to improve the oft-overlooked lead section of many featured article candidates has made the articles much more appealing. Karanacs (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed while reading through FAC today that you've helped quite a few of the current candidates to improve their introductory sentences. This is a piece of the article that is usually given little notice, and I was so pleased to see that someone is actually paying attention to it!! I hope we see you at FAC for a long time :) Karanacs (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Darwin: "concluded" vs "realised"

As requested, I've left another message on the talk page, supporting the change. Not sure that it will have any effect though! As a relatively new editor, I find the NPOV requirement on Wikipedia to be "more honoured in the breach than the observance".

I have found it difficult to write neutrally (years of being a University lecturer have instilled a more didactic frame of mind!), but fully accept the desirability of doing so. Unfortunately, my experience is that when I ask genuine questions on talk pages in the hope of gaining a better understanding of this issue, the responses are more often hostile than informative. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As I expected, I see that the change has been reverted. Sigh... I don't think one word is worth arguing about, given the massive POV issues elsewhere. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

St. Jerome

Yes, I effectively replaced the image of St. Jérome for 2 right reasons. 1. colors are more faithful to the painting - 2. picture have higher resolution. Have a nice day OxxO 11:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

St. Peter's Basilica

OK, it doesn't matter, theses add-ons were only propositions :-). Thanks for your explanation, anyway. --Myrabella (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Chichester Cathedral Choir

The Cathedral Choir sings 8 sevices a week - evensong on every day except wednesday, + eucharist and mattins on Sunday. Thursday evensong is men's voices and Friday is unaccompanied. Wednesday is the choir dumb day, so the choir don't sing, but sometimes there are visiting choirs from schools/churches is the area —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnd177 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Look, I didn't realise that chopping of info totally was a form of total vandalism (Renaissance architecture). Yes, possibly I should have discussed it more. I apologise for the inconeveniencies. Also, I know what you mean by not copying and pasting info, but also understand that firstly it was not all copy and pasted and second of all, don't you think it's a bit odd that Italy, the homeland of renaissance architecture doesn't even have a seperate page? I mean, France has far less an influence in Renaissance architecture, but it does have a page. So, it seems a bit strange. Since I don't know incredible amounts on Italian renaissance architecture, I know most of it was copypasted, but couldn't you improve it so it's even longer and not copypasted. And anyway, how do you redirect? Reply as soon as possible.--Theologiae (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Facade

I've no particular preference myself, I just wanted the article to be consistent. I'll go and remove the cedillas later. William Avery (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Italian architecture?

Since, presumably, you know a lot on Italian architecture, I was wondering whether it would be appropriate to start a "Italian architecture" page, since all the page is now is a category page. Surely Italian architecture is amongst the most influential in the world, and it's odd that it doesn't even have an article on it! Reply as soon as possible--Theologiae (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)