User talk:Amandajm/Archives/2010/June

Articles for deletion nomination of Gallery of Sistine Chapel ceiling

I have nominated Gallery of Sistine Chapel ceiling, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Sistine Chapel ceiling (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —fetch·comms 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Chester Cathedral

Good call on the Cathedra - I thought the link was useful, but stand corrected :-)

re. the plan - which two names specifically?

Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've noodled about with some tweaks - let me know if, in doing so, I've fixed whatever problem you had. Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is strange Amanda, I can't see what you mean. No. 1 and No. 11 look ok on the plan and they are displaying like all the other labels in the legend. Are you using an antique browser? --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've tried another fix - let me know what browser you are using and I might be able to make progress without asking you "is it ok now?" after every change I make :-) kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Dah! Just noticed the monk's parlour is missing - this was used as the song school before the new additions, which should be added to the plan as well. How should it be numbered in your system? --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'll do it - I'm redrawing it anyway based on this [1] which includes dating information regarding the various bits of the structure. I'm hoping to got the song school plan from Chester City planning department to trace over and include. Might take a while though, it's all rather detailed and hardly any of it is properly square. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - how can you tell it's 15th Century? I think the Dean's chair is the better photo for now, so I'm happy to go with that. From memory the panel behind the figure on the side of the bench is very interesting as well - almost like a tree of life. Good story btw and not one I'd heard, but then ecclesiastical architecture isn't exactly my speciality. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually Pevsner singles this one out as the Tree of Jesse but notes that the miserichords are where the juice is at. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The Dean's chair figure is superbly carved isn't it? I've often wondered about him, but don't have the experience or knowledge to surmise much about him. With limited knowledge of medieval costume, I wonder if the Hat and Hose imply he is secular rather than clerical. His hands look like they should be holding a staff, I'd say shepherd if his boots weren't so fine. What do you think? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh! he does have a staff - here's a good picture of the whole thing. [2] and some more good images here --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Aren't these from Hiatt - and isn't Hiatt public domain? We could use these if we so wished.......--Joopercoopers (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking again, he has a staff and his eyes closed - is he a beggar? But so well dressed - asleep at evensong! --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The lost art of simplicity

Hi, sorry if the word simple in Denial of Peter bruised your ego, it was not intended and came directly from the source. As did the word partners in that sentence I think. In any case, these few wording issues should not be taken seriously. For the record, I think simplicity can be nice anyway. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

referring to a smart, observant and determined female as a "simple maid" offends the intelligence, not the "ego"!

Amandajm (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

starry night color correction

Hi, you may not know the process by which I did the color adjustment. It was rather objective. I found a tourist snapshot of starry night along side a person visiting the painting. She was wearing a suit which contained grey and red. I used the grey in her clothing to set the white balance of the whole image, that the original grey was neutral was confirmed by what that adjustment also did to the wall colors. Then I matched by eye the color balance of the commons image to the color balance achieved in my other image. So, the final image should match the way the painting looked a few years ago. No effort was made to "improve" or restore it beyond that. Beyond that, I don't really care what you do with it. de Bivort 01:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The other version you posted looks fine. replace mine as far as I am concerned. de Bivort 14:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sagrada Familia and Cologne Cathedral

Hi, I made that edit (that you later removed) to the Cologne Cathedral article, adding the relevant trivia fact that Sagrada Familia is building to be higher. Why should wikipedia readers be deprived of any relevant information regarding spire height (even planned) of major Cathedrals that are competing? And why is it unheard of to make such comparisons and provide such information in such articles? I mean there's all kinds of wikipedia articles offering information on planned or under construction projects vis-a-vis the project presented in the particular article. I know that when reading that particular section of the article I wanted to know where Sagrada Familia was standing and I am sure, many more. When it comes to size and records, Sagrada Familia is not just another cathedral. Thanks! Lonwolve (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, based on what you say, isn't "For four years, 1880-84, it was the tallest structure in the world, until the completion of the Washington Monument." a piece of trivia that does not belong in the introduction? I mean surely the fact that a world famous cathedral is building to be taller is more interesting than this old, long forgotten record. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonwolve (talk • contribs) 05:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I get your point now. I did a quick look-see and I noticed that many such wikipedia articles avoid mentioning plans, intentions, etc. in the intros and only stick to what has happened up to the last time the article was edited. I did notice some of them were offering such trivia as mine, and using future tenses, in later article sections. However, I also did notice a couple of articles that muddy the waters a bit; see for instance Great_Berlin_Wheel and American_Commerce_Center. Both of these articles make comparisons in the future tense based on announced plans, in the article intro; indeed they are both about announced or under-construction buildings themselves but still, I believe, they do introduce significant doubt into your proposed crystal-clear criterion. What do you think? Does wikipedia have any guidelines regarding these issues or is what you propose a de-facto convention adhered to by seasoned wikipedians? By the way, why are you responding on my talk page? I thought this convo started on yours. Or is this another etiquette thing that I don't know about? Lonwolve (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Bougearueau (or whatever)

"The look of hatred on the face of one of the girls that he frequently used as a model is extraordinary. As far as I know, no one has ever seriously written about this. (Amandajm (talk))" Maybe you should - could get it published in Burlington Magazine :). Wonder who the girl was? PiCo (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC) You'll be hated only by the Boojeroh Fan Club - admittedly quite a large organisation. But I meant you should do it as a serious paper - have you thought about it? PiCo (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking, I'm thinking!....I thought his name was Bugger-oh ... well, mabbe not....

Some absolute dimwit has got onto WikiCommons and "digitally restored" Botticellis, Leonardos and Michelangelos, saving his digital restorations over the top of the original files, some of which were very good indeed. I'm going to take my brother, who is invalid, to the pub for dinner, then return to another hour or so on WikiCommons sorting out this dumbclut's well-meaning vandalism. Amandajm (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Eavesdropping on the above, I'm very late to the Bougearueau discussion, but wish to add my support. Hope you're well. Cheers, JNW (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Romanesque architecture

Thank you for the beautiful picture Daniel. I enjoyed seeing it. But I had to take it out of that article, because it isn't Romanesque architecture. Romanesque is the style that came about after the fall of the Roman empire, when the principles that governed the style had been forgotten, but some of the structural principals were retained. A distinct style evolved over a period of time and can be seen right across Europe. There was then a Revival in the 19th century.

But your church is much too refined to be Romanesque Revival. It is Classical Revival and is based either on the style of Ancient Rome, or the revival of the classical style which began in the Renaissance with Brunelleschi and continued on, with Palladio, Michelangelo into the 17th century with Christopher Wren, Inigo Jones and so on. In England, the Classical style prevailed, but in Europe they went all out for Baroque (which is much fancier, with more curves and carvings) and it was Baroque architecture that was carried to South America for churches, while the Classical style was carried to North America. That lovely church of your has beautifully proportioned pilasters attached to the walls. It has Classical proportions. I can't see any Baroque details there, so I am going to presume that it is Classical in style, like a church built in England in the 17th or 18th century. Amandajm (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I am not an expert in this field, however there is an on-site sign put by the government (official source) that says that it is Romanesque. Check it out here: http://picturevillage.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/old-ruins-in-cartago-daniel-vargas06.jpg . The English translation is bad. "architectura de clara influencia románica" translates to "architecture of a clear Romanesque influence". There are more pictures here: http://picturevillage.wordpress.com/2010/05/30/the-ruins-las-ruinas-cartago-costa-rica/ and info. in the article: Santiago Apóstol Parish Ruins. Additionally, the Ministry of Culture's website states the same (románica): http://www.mcjdcr.go.cr/patrimonio/centro%20de%20investigacion%20y%20conservacion%20del%20patrimonio%20cultural/inmuebles%20declarados%20patrimonio%20historico/cartago/cartago01/oriental/ruinas%20_parroq_santiago.html What do you think? I don't know who is wrong because as I said I am not an expert, however I find it "weird" that several official sources be wrong and that they haven't been changed in the past years... Daniel32708 (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Parts of this are Romanesque revival, like the capitals in the first photo with the board, but in the main it is neo-classical. Johnbod (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Amandajm just replied in my talk page. The problem here is a language problem. "Románica" in Spanish is not the same as "Romana" (Roman). For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanesque_architecture has the Spanish version: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquitectura_rom%C3%A1nica (Románica). Additionally, there are many government sources claiming it to be Románica...not Roman. So my question is: What is it? I totally understand Amanda's explanation, and then Johnbod who claims is Romanesque revival-neoclassical, but then again the other sources are government-published sources and claim it to be Románica (Romanesque). Someone has to be wrong (Wikipedia's translation, Amanda, the government, Johnbod, etc)...Daniel32708 (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)