Hello and welcome to the wikiproject - here's the bulletin - if you don't like it just delete it from your talk page, otherwise, it automatically updates. Please give me or one of the other project members a shout if you need any help. Kind regards --Mcginnly | Natter 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles related to architecture over the past two weeks are listed automatically by AlexNewArtBot.
This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.
Uhm.. maybe you should talk to the uploader, see [1] I don't know anything about the image. I just asked the uploader to reduce the size, per WP:FAIR. — Indon (reply) — 15:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, I'll do that. --Joopercoopers 15:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your message. However, i do not have any comment to offer as I am not interested in the issue. --Bhadani 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not oppossed to inclusion of discussion of Oak - as I've just said. I just don't think it should be legitimised by the way it's included. It's part of the history of interpretation of the building, just as the theories about Geronimo Veroneo are. Paul B 23:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Image:Mughal painting2.jpg
That's because the concerned image is a "touched-up" one and is not released in Public Domain. --Incman|वार्ता 01:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taj Mahal
Okay, the page has been semi-protected for now. Tell me whenever you feel protection can be lifted. Nishkid64 20:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taj Mahal Improvement Plan
It occurs to me that the best way forward to move the article to FA status is another peer review. The previous peer review brought out peers mainly from Wikiproject:India. Since its inclusion in WikiProject Architecture, it has not had peer review. Frankly many of the original peer review comments reflected the POV of the editors. It's my experience that most of Wikiproject India editors are bright, enthusiastic, industrious high-schoolers from India, with limited experience. Many have been influenced by the Hindutva movement -- maybe not embracing it, but clearly it impacts their judgement. I think that many of their comments reflect their enthusiasm and natural understandable biases that do not particularly see the relevance of a design-based article, and imagine (without basis) that a much more wonderful article might be written.
I think the architecture articles that have reached FA status are a better benchmark for the Taj Mahal article. A peer review where WikiProject Architecture editors provided feedback would, I think, drive more quality into the process.
As for the failed FA: there were FOUR (4) total comments. WTF. 2 of the 4 were "me-too's". This is NOT a relevant sample, IMO. I was FAR more discouraged by the lack of comments than by their content.
Since you appear to have some standing in WikiProject Architecture, may I suggest that you invite a new peer review, and see what you can do about drumming up comments from that group. I will work with you to adapt the article to support useful PR comments. Then another FA attempt should have a better chance at success.
It is relevant to note that translations of the article are reaching FA status in various non-english versions of the WP. --Nemonoman 15:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You raise some good points here. Wikipedia is a collobarative project in its conception. In my view however, the best articles are written in the early stages by maybe just one or two editor who add the content and then get some others in their private 'editors circle' to copyedit for prose, punctuation, spelling etc (Paul said he'd help out with this). That way you get a more singular 'voice' to the article and its easier to present a thesis rather than trying to accomodate every man and his dog's ideas from the off. For the Taj I'd like to think about what the general reader might already know about the building and then write an article which discusses to what extent what they already know, is born out by scholastic opinion.
I don't really see the point of taking the article to WP:ARCHPR right now. The reason is, I think that the process is useful for getting ideas for what to add to the article and picking out the technical aspects of why the article doesn't conform to process, after the main editors have got the article to a quality they are happy with.
I'm flattered you think I have some standing at WP:ARCH but the reality is, it's quite a quiet wikiproject - there's probably me and 2 or 3 others that really contribute there. That said, I've been at wikipedia for nearly a year now and I've crossed paths with quite a few architecture editors that aren't part of the project, and in my opinion, are excellent editors. So my suggestion is that you and I peer review the article now against the FA criteria. We'll get it peer reviewed when we're both really happy with the article and then take it to FAC
The other thing is, whilst dialogue is good between editors, it can become an end in itself - time spent in discussion on talk pages is time not editing future FA candidates, but having clear direction is good too. So I'll start our review here - User:Joopercoopers/Taj Mahal/Review.
This is kind of what I was trying to say last night but I was rather tired, it was quite a stressful day yesterday. High schoolers in india aren't the only problem we have on wikipedia.
As a total outsider, I have made the rearrangement I suggested earlier, making one section more concise, and moving some text to the article on Oak.DGG 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lahauri
I'm really sorry this has taken so long - I've been very tied up lately with teaching and job interviews, and the passage is crammed full of horribly elaborate court titles. I should have a decent version available in a day or two, but one thing I can definitely say: Manzil does not mean a mansion in Persian - it means a halting-place or caravanserai (see here). Given that the passage in question then goes on to describe the construction of the Taj in some detail, you have to wonder at the motives of a scholar who could translate it this way - and the whole "Tejomahalya" Shiva Temple flim-flam? How do they explain that I wonder. Sikandarji 16:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taj Mahal
RFCs usually aren't closed; in most cases, after some time, it becomes clear where the discussion is headed, and/or a good compromise is worked out. From policy, since most people appear to favor removal of this particular statement, the burden is on those who wish to retain it to provide a suitable source. I would suggest, if there are any eminent scientists or historians who make the claim, to add a short statement somewhere in the "history of" section. If a bunch of well-meaning but non-expert people on the internet make the claim, well, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Polling really doesn't help much on such an issue. I can refer you to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. HTH! >Radiant< 10:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taj Mahal
I have unprotected the page. Thanks for letting me know. Nishkid64 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, we'll see how it goes......--Joopercoopers 02:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Issue de table
Well, the feast is over for this time, and off we go into a period of intellectual fast. But mayhaps will we meet again some day to make more medieval merry! My regards to you for your comments at the nomination.
Thanks for the revert, I seem to have a new friend, I have explained on is page why I anotated the images in that fashion - hopefully that is an end to it. Giano 14:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way it is now, the article is frankly horrendous. No other well done articles in Wikipedia look like that mess. I can sustain that original way of referring in-text to images, but absolutely not the way they are placed (not to speak about the messy variation of sizes), and all those images of people: these are justified in a magazine article, not in an encyclopedical one. Bye. --Attilios 16:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ram Bagh
Can you verify your Aurangzeb story? In 1621 he was 3 years old. Nur Jahan was the wife of Jahangir. --Nemonoman 01:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might have misread it - I'll check tonight. --Joopercoopers 09:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taj Mahal
How about we put it under the pics? I was trying to do that.
DEEP IMPACT 09:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the 'see also' section will be fine. regards --Joopercoopers 11:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your Taj article prototype
Where does this stand? I think it shows a lot of excellent research, and I hope you'll soon start the process of using the prototype to improve the current article. Let me know if you need any encouragement! --Nemonoman 18:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm super busy in real life right now - big job and deadline for 12th may - I'll look at it with fresh eyes when I get back, and when it's ready we'll ask a friendly admin to history merge it. regards --Joopercoopers 11:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taj Mahal
Hey, the version in your userspace([2]) is far better than what currently exists. Infact, it's a shame that readers still read the current article and not yours. I strongly suggest you replace the main article with yours.
BTW, thanks for pointing me as to which article I should be improving. It did save me some time.Vice regent 18:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got caught in an edit conflict when someone added a new template, so cut and pasted, then had to move it; the signature got lost in the cutting anfd pasting. Paul B 11:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - you also just deleted a 'delete' vote - lol. Cup o' tea for you I think.... :-) --Joopercoopers 11:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spellings
I've started looking for allusions to or representation of the Taj Mahal in literature by women. I was wondering, how was "Taj Mahal" spelled in the eighteenth and nineteenth century in English? Are there variant spellings? Since I do a lot of database searching when I begin something like this, it would help if I knew all of the spellings (Taj Mahal came up with 0 hits). Also, what would be all the names that India would go by during that period? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 13:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Macleod's introduction (second citation, pdf) has some names: Marianne North (made a sketch of the Taj); Claxton sisters went to India; Charlotte Canning. It also discusses the role of women in Victorian tourism and travel writing. Might be helpful.
Let me know if this list is helping. Awadewit | talk 16:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for additional pictures of Taj Mahal
I can provide some of the pictures you want, but would prefer to discuss this via email. Did you get my recent emails to you?
William Donelson
Dept of copyediting, plus citations in leads
Did I neglect to repond to your note on my talk page? Sorry. On the second issue, Sandy's good on that. I take a fairly liberal approach in the lead; often it's hard to get across the big picture by fully referencing the way you do in the body of the text. Tony 12:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the information being added into the Shah Jahan and Mumtaz Mahal articles - but I don't want it removing from the 'origins' article as a certain amount of description of the loss Jahan felt for Mumtaz, his (and her) interest in building, and the general mechanics of imperial moghul life are necessary to understand the context in which the building was constructed. --Joopercoopers 12:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel that Taj Mahal in its present form need references, but not a complete revamp.
The Taj article has the right pics in the right places where the elements of the Taj are discussed. So think about merging your referenced info from Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal in the Taj article. Also the Origins article discussing the complex elements that have already been discussed in the Taj article. So it can be repetative. A short background can be added in the Taj article about the emperor and his empress, the two souls buried with a link to their resp articles.
If you permit, I will start using the Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal info and incoporate in the Taj article. But i think that you do so and get the due credit.
With due respect, can we discuss this on Taj Mahal talk page, so we get the opinion of other users.--Redtigerxyz 13:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that we should discuss this on the talk page. I insist. You initiate on the talk page. Its better than i or any other user initiates the discussion.
I will wait for a week for you to initiate a discussion on Taj talk page. Happy editing--Redtigerxyz 14:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted other users to know about Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal by starting a Discussion on the Taj talk page and forming an "Consensus" about the issue i had. Maybe other users may or may not agree with me.--Redtigerxyz 14:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taj Discussion Archive Box
was a good idea!--Nemonoman 01:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
clickable map
Hi. Re the clickable map, I think it's just fine, and only marginally gimmicky, but I'd very much like to see labels on the map image itself. Let me know if you need a hand.--Nemonoman 16:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smile
Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
CBOTB FAC
I appreciate the assistance. I have wrestled with the article for some time. Feel free to remove any unsourced information (e.g., tallest art-deco).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Popping a note in here for Joopercoopers to say I've replied on my talk page, and thanks for removing those timestamps I mentioned. I'll try and look for older picture at some point. Tony, if you are reading this, congratulations on a fine article. Oh, and I've made a long comment on the statues pics at the FAC, which you might both be interested in. Carcharoth 10:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CBOTB FAC
This one was quite a team effort. I thank you for your help. You may want to post this on your user page:
Honestly, this would not have gotten promoted without you and whoever else got involved while I was travelling and the nomination got restarted. This is a shared effort.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vkhutemas fac
Hey Jooper, I'm going to be out of town for a week beginning tomorrow morning. I will have internet access but only limited access. I was wondering if you could help keep an eye on the Vkhutemas fac for me. I don't foresee much out of the ordinary that you will have to do as it seems pretty quiet there, but just in case, and in case you are interested it would be very much appreciated. Regards, D. Recorder 01:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE:FAC
Thanks for the head's up. I'll re-read the tweak, and switch to more appropriate verbiage. Later :) --Esprit15d 14:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Cap in Hand" asking for pix
Joopers
I would be happy to provide pix for the Taj page, but have found many items submitted in the past to be deleted or abused with spam or vandalism.
I am not keen on Wikipedia any more because anyone can Vandalize the page easily.
Until some control, e.g. a board of trustees, is put in charge of the page, I am not inclined to waste my time.
Sorry.
You can contact me via
wd -atSign- armchair-travel <dot> com
Plurals
You may know the answer to this - What is the excepted plural of apse in English? apses does not sound correct. Giano 09:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Apses is correct. --Joopercoopers 09:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are the Englander, but it sound to me the Latino that it is one of those words like sheep, fish and penis. Giano 09:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An award
A Kremlin star for the Vkhutemas fac
Awarded to Joopercoopers for various edits and attention to the article Vkhutemas while it was a featured article candidate. D. Recorder 21:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Mughal_painting2.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
