Talk:John Vanbrugh/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Architectural contribution

Vanbrugh did not create the English Baroque style - earlier buildings by Wren are considered English Baroque (see e.g. Kerry Downes, English Baroque Architecture, London, Zwemmer, 1966) - though one could argue that he took it to a new level. I also think you've downplayed Hawksmoor's role in the design of Castle Howard and Blenheim Palace, which these days are considered collaborative works by the two architects (see e.g. Vaughan Hart, Nicholas Hawksmoor: Rebuilding Ancient Wonders, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2002). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spandrels (talk • contribs) 00:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations

The opening paragraph is way too "prosey" for an encyclopedia entry. Come on, the "dreaded Bastille", no citations or anything anywhere? 24.86.144.101 (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm planning a pretty complete re-write about Vanbrugh's plays, which will focus on his original comedies The Relapse and The Provoked Wife and more or less ignore all those redlinked other plays, which are mere adaptations and translations anyway. Also a big-ass cleanup of the EB prose on Vanbrugh's life and architecture, but without so much new input from me, since the comedies are my main interest. Any objections or thoughts out there? I would love to have somebody to discuss Vanbrugh with. --Bishonen 19:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'.....as Voltaire said, if the rooms had only been as wide as the walls were thick, the chateau would have been convenient enough.': Was Voltaire referring to Blenheim when he made this quote, because if he was, he had obviosly never been there; and if he wasn't then it needs to be taken out. Vanbrugh was not the world's greatest architect, but he wasn't as bad as this page makes him! Giano 17:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tried to present a more balanced picture of Vanbrugh (at least as architect of Blenheim) and provide a clearer account of his friction with the Duchess of Marlborough. Removed Voltaire quote as it is less than helpful! Giano 19:52, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ha! If Voltaire was commenting on Blenheim, he was just being a jerk, because Blenheim was recognized in its own day as a marvel. While Vanbrugh's other buildings were loved, Blenheim Palance was regarded by contemporaries as a true showpiece of the realm. It was one of those places they took foreigners to impress them. The commission alone tells you what people thought of Vanbrugh as an architect: the commemoration of that battle was a huge deal, for Blenheim was the most famous battle of the day, next to perhaps Agincourt. Bad architect? Hardly. As a gentleman, Vanbrugh's about the last guy who upheld the old cavalier dream of an intelligent man being able to do any art with "application." Geogre 13:42, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, criticism of Blenheim was divided along party lines, Geogre. Giano has a crapload of sour Tory comments, and I have some too, we may make a quote section with stuff like the minnows fancying themselves whales when they approached the famous bridge (Pope). "It looks like a great college with a church in the middle". I just got a very complicated edit conflict, that I had to give up on, from getting held up forever by the server, trying to edit the article. :-( --Bishonen 16:05, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't know Vanbrugh was such a Whig. I would have thought that being hated by Sarah Churchill would have endeared him somewhat. Also, Howard was a friend to Pope. These things seemed to change year by year. Phillips was a friend/enemy; Cibber was a friend/enemy; Rich was a villain/producer of Gay's. All those comments have to be read politically (and many of Johnson's, too, but that's an aside). Geogre 21:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, wait. That's not such an aside. Voltaire visited England with whom? Ah, yes. Samuel Johnson, the Whig hater (and the generally previous generation not liker and the rake hater). Well, not conclusive, but a thing. Geogre 22:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Voltaire:"A witty saying proves nothing." In this case so very true! Giano 12:33, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Subtitles

The subtitles for the separate plays introduced by User:ALoan were problematic in that they pulled the paragraph about Jeremy Collier and the change in audience taste in under the heading of The Provoked Wife, where it doesn't belong. I have now padded the paragraph slightly and given it its own subtitle, but I'm not sure it's the best thing to do. Having all these short sections with individual titles looks choppy and breaks flow. At the same time, the more easily the reader can find stuff from looking at the TOC, the better, of course. --Bishonen 13:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonably elegant solution, but I'd suggest changing the Plays section title to Theatre and inserting a short intro paragraph (JV wrote two plays.... type of thing) before the first subheading. The article as a whole is looking really good now. Filiocht 13:14, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Playwright is much better that theatre. Filiocht 13:40, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the thumbs-up, Filiocht. Since User:ALoan hasn't so far discussed any of his changes on this page, I don't think I'll be quite as conscientious as above in the future about possible changes of mine to his edits, either. But of course I won't do anything drastic without taking it to this page first, as I'm sure ALoan won't either.--Bishonen 23:27, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Linking to 1911 EB articles

A lot, I mean a lot, of the 17th-18th century terms, and especially names, that are linked in the article lead to not merely weak articles, but to actually worse-than-nothing articles, especially in the field of Restoration comedy, the form that Vanbrugh wrote. This includes big, important figures like William Congreve and William Wycherley, important plays, major topics ...lots of very central stuff. Many or most of those articles are 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica text dumps. I realize it may sound very extreme to call 1911 articles "worse than nothing": isn't a little information always better than none? Well, I think not in this case, because:

The information is degenerated, it's actively wrong. Stories and "traditions" about 17th-18th century literary figures, none too reliable to begin with, morphed into worse in the 19th century as they passed back and forth between books that were all summarizing or rewriting each other — literary biographers couldn't even dream of having the kind of access to original sources that modern scholars have. These traditions are what we find in the 1911 EB. (With minor figures like Vanbrugh, we still find them in today's EB, as I discovered when I was writing the Early life section! If you thought I was rude there about the modern EB and DNB Vanbrugh articles, I wasn't, I was incredibly restrained.)
Restoration comedy is about sex. The 1911 EB is Victorian, and is indignant about sexy literature. The 1911 is a really bad place for a modern reader to seek a literary historical perspective on Restoration comedy. I honestly think he/she will be more ignorant after reading it than before.

I still think it's right to link to all existing articles in the text of John Vanbrugh. Wikipedia is dynamic, and bad articles are being improved all the time. I'm rewriting the 1911 Restoration drama articles as fast as I can myself, but I haven't been here very long, I don't have that much time, and few other Wikipedians seem to be working in late 17th and 18th century literature. There's Geogre, who writes great articles, and... well, there's Geogre, I haven't actually seen any traces of anyone else. I could have missed them, but whenever I look around at articles on the drama, thaat I take the most interest in, nobody seems to have touched those articles since they were created, as either stubs or 1911 text or a combination. Well, touched them substantively, I mean. They get categories and wikilinks, but the text stays the same.

My point is that there is some good information on Restoration comedy and related topics on Wikipedia, but at present it's terribly hard to find it from following wikilinks in the John Vanbrugh text. I hope that will change, but I'd like also to give the reader some help now. I do understand that a "See also" section is not the right way, I'm trying to think of something else. You have a lot of editing experience, if you have any ideas for alternatives I hope you'll share them. If I called the section something completely different, do you think it might be OK to put the links side by side in one line, rather than having them add scrolling length the way they do?--Bishonen 00:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC). (Sorry for the screed.)

Dealing with edit conflicts

I only popped in for a split second, thought about putting the flag on and could not be bothered, I was only editing it by section perhaps you were doing the same and that's why we were lucky. (any way why didn't you put the flag on? Giano 13:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who is David? Giano

David Remahl, a young Swedish programmer who kindly explained to me how to display images with or without frames, etc. It's all on his Talk page in case you're interested. He'd done a little programmer's edit in John Vanbrugh today, as Chmod007, coding the dashes in the reference list. My edit line was just for taunting him by pointing out I'd removed the dashes anyway. :-) (I was following the Wikipedia house style for book references — that kind of editing is more transcendently unimportant than I can even express, but by vocational accident I know to do it and it hardly takes any time, so why not.)

Well, I think I might be more stressed with the flag than without, you know, I don't want to use it any more. I'll just use a text editor and pop in and out as fast as I can.

Edit conflicts wouldn't even matter as long as we're not editing the same section. How about we keep each other posted on this page? I'm on "Playwright" with all its headings, I'll post here when I'd like to move on. Are there any sections below that you definitely think you're done with for today? Oh, and if I try to put years on "my" headings, will you do the same for Architecture and following? Just so we can see a) if it's possible (I mean, for instance, what years did the audience taste change?) and b) how it would look? And let me know your thoughts about it, I do agree that readers need help if they're not goinig to get lost in amongst all V's different activities. --Bishonen 13:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Refactoring page

Now that John Vanbrugh is about to get Featured article status after a great reception on WP:FAC, I'm refactoring this page, because I'm tired of seeing the misleading notice about an original "failed nomination". The earlier nomination was of an experimental draft page and was withdrawn by the authors as soon as they became aware of it, after about five hours. That's not what's normally understood by a failed nomination. (Please see previous page versions in History, e. g. 30 October 2004, if you want to read the removed section!)--Bishonen 00:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FAC now?

At least in my opinion, this article is a strong FA nomination. If the hard working authors agree, simply indicate it, and I'll nominate the article. I know that I, at least, can see nothing to add. Geogre 04:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, and congratulations to its authors. I have been through, copyedited a little, and added some wikilinks (I hope I have not stepped on any toes this time). This is an absolute tour de force and must be Featured asap. I will nominate it now. My only caveat it that it is a trifle too good at 45k, but it is difficult to know what to separate out. Could some of the information on the plays be moved to their own articles? - -- ALoan (Talk) 13:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think to reduce it would be a pity, as it is intended to be a fully comprehensive as possible, like the architecture the plays are discussed in their relationship to each other, and their relevanvce to each stage of Vanbrugh's carreer. Thanks for the copy edit, but there seems to be a large void in the Blenheim section, where I think the pictures are now too small especially the monumental gate which now appears a trifle less monumental and squat. Giano 14:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but I expect it as an objection, so it is best to be prepared. I don't see the void - the images should all line up, the same size. I suppose one could be made larger and put at the top of that section, but they may end up crashing into each other in a nasty mess, and left aligning looks ugly to me. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:59, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, ALoan, there's no void on my screen, either, and I understand that images can cause all sorts of nasty surprises, especially if an image novice like myself should try to mess with them. I think it's a great pity that the Blenheim images have to come out so small, though. Especially, I was wondering if you see any safe and practicable way of having the facade of Blenheim not line up with the others, so it could be a bit bigger, and still placed in a neat and not-ugly way? It's the only pic that remotely represents the whole big palace, which is stated repeatedly in the article to be Vanbrugh's most famous achievement. And with the wide, low shape the image is, lining it up with the others makes it the size of a small postage stamp. It's smaller than its own caption. If you can figure a way of allowing it to be, say, the size of the Castle Howard image (which seems to be about what the original Blenheim Palace Terrace.jpg can aspire to), it would be great.--Bishonen 16:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've had another go - is this better? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou Aloan, that is very much better. I will settle for that Giano 22:09, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the subject of the pictures, one thing I'm doing now for the Jonathan Wild article is using the image description to actually put in some notes. I'm not recommending anything, but it is one way to make things shorter: you can say, "see the enlarged image for more details" and then use the image page to make salient points. Like I said, that's not a recommendation, just a possibility. I see little to improve in the article and no seams at which anything can be cut. Geogre 03:22, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Sources"?

I just noticed that the heading of the "References" section has been changed to "Sources". According to Wikipedia:Guide to layout, part of the Manual of style, a section called "References", with the contents this one has, is supposed to be one of the "standardized appendices". Could the user who made the change please explain why they think "Sources" is a better heading? (It's not quite a synonym, sources are a subset of references.) Btw, it's a good idea to mention changes made, either in the edit field or on this page, especially small but significant changes like this, so others are made aware of them. It would also be preferable not to have to dig through what is by now a daunting History to find who made a change.--Bishonen 02:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ibsen

Somebody changed my "such severity was in fact rarely to be seen on the English stage before Ibsen" in the Legacy section to "before the influence of Ibsen". I can understand if the original sounded a little unexpected, with Ibsen being a Norwegian playwright, but it was actually intended and correct. It was the plays of Ibsen himself, not of English Ibsen followers, that created a great sensation on the, yes, English stage, and made English theatrical history in the nineteenth century. I have changed it back. I was thinking of Ibsen's A Doll's House — maybe I should put that title in, but it seems a little overweening — it would puff up Vanbrugh's "A Journey to London" beyond its deserts.--Bishonen 16:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reasons not to move information to Blenheim Palace

Since this article is about the man, and there is an article about the palace, it seems to me that the details about the palace need to be moved/blended into Blenheim Palace. This article's plenty long enough with all that. Elf | Talk 02:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since the man is also an architect, and Blenheim Palace is an example of his architecture, there is useful context here, in the form of a major architect's career. Its present length doesn't really strain adult attention spans that much. It would be easy enough for anyone to break this article into numerous bitty bits without thinking about the information very much. The entry Blenheim Palace should certainly have a clear capsule version of Vanbrugh's role there, with a link here. That entry should also have material on the subsequent history of Blenheim Palace, the evolution of the gardens, Consuelo Vanderbilt as Duchess of Marlborough at Blenheim, the water terrace added by Achille Duchêne in the early 20th century, the Marlborough library and its dispersal at auction, the birth of Winston Churchill at Blenheim. There's plenty to add at Blenheim Palace without dismantling this outstanding entry. However, it will take a little work to Google some basics. But I've given you a start. Let me copy this into Talk:Blenheim Palace too. --Wetman 02:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Elf. I appreciate the interest you take in improving the article. For a perspective on the particular issue of keeping it intact versus splitting off information to subarticles, you might like to look at the discussion that took place when John Vanbrugh was a Featured article candidate in November. Here is the vote, and here the resulting discussion on the FAC talk page. As you'll see, I was originally fairly resigned to making at least a good-faith attempt to split off the individual play discussions. But when I realized only one person wanted that done while everybody else seemed to think it would be wanton destruction of an outstanding article, well, I changed my mind. The whole length issue is interesting, though. I'm glad you raised it on this page, especially because I think the links I've posted here may be of interest to other readers, too.--Bishonen | (Talk) 08:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Even in Biology there are lumpers and splitters ;>) --Wetman 14:57, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The above editors are completely correct - the information concerning Blenheim Palace should definitely remain here. There is room for a great deal of improvement at Blenheim Palace, however, the information here is relevant to how Vanbrugh developed an architectural concept and style. Blenheim was a midway point in this concept, if Blenheim goes then one is left with Castle Howard the beginning and Seaton Delaval Hall at the conclusion - two houses both in Vanbrugh's form of baroque - diversely different but with no link showing development. Further Blenheim information here also covers Vanbrugh's relationship with his client and is relevant to Vanbrugh on a personal level. There is no information here on the interiors or furnishings or subsequent landscaping at Blenheim, or the belle epoque transformation of the Blenheim state rooms into a pastiche of Versailles. There are also a wide spectrum of characters who have inhabited the palace who led interesting lives, all this will hopefully appear one day at Blenheim. Giano 08:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copyedits

Hi, MisfitToys, thanks for helpful copyediting—though I changed "18th century" etc. back to "18th-century", because that's the correct spelling when used attributively, as in "18th-century" literature—please check it out, you'll see that it's only in the attributive position that the page uses the hyphen. I also took out the "earlier" that you inserted in "Kerry Downes has shown in his well-researched modern biography (1987) that even the Encyclopædia Britannica and the Dictionary of National Biography repeat 18th- and 19th-century traditions which were originally offered as guesses but have hardened into "fact" in the process of being passed on. This accounts for several discrepancies between these earlier authorities and the following narrative etc", because it's a misunderstanding—I meant to say that it accounts for, ahem, cough, this article being more reliable than those in the EB and DNB, since they're based on outdated information while this is based on current research. I. e., I was talking about the current, latest editions of EB and DNB. I thought it needed saying (politely) that it's Wikipedia that's right and the EB that's wrong— otherwise maybe a reader will notice the quite striking discrepancies and go "See, Wikipedia's unreliable, they say differently from the EB." Scholars are aware that EB articles on minor 18th-century (hyphen) figures haven't been updated, other than stylistically, since the late 19th century (see? No hyphen that time!), but to the ordinary reader, EB is just the touchstone of reliability by which everything else is judged. Anyway. I'm glad you put in "earlier", because it made me realise I'd failed to make my meaning clear. I've reformulated it now. I do appreciate your help. Bishonen | Talk 23:02, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation on the usage; I'll revert any others I changed. Glad to be of help in other respects. MisfitToys 23:09, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

EB & DNB bashing?

First, this seems to be an excellent article — good work, whoever was responsible. However, I'm unsure about the following passages: "Kerry Downes has shown in his well-researched modern biography (1987) that even the Encyclopædia Britannica and the Dictionary of National Biography repeat 18th- and 19th-century traditions which were originally offered as guesses but have hardened into "fact" in the process of being passed on. This accounts for several discrepancies between the entries in these encyclopædias and the following narrative, which is based on the findings of Downes (1987) and McCormick (1991)." and "stated as fact in the Dictionary of National Biography)." and "See also the caution in Early life, above, about the basis of both these articles in traditional rather than scholarly sources."

To me, this feels very near to gloating about the failings of other reference works, which would (of course) be quite unseemly. It's great, of course, that Wikipedia puts these lesser works to shame, but we don't need to emphasise this within articles. Even more than that, it just seems a little off-topic. When a reader is looking for a concise summary of John Vanbrugh's life and work, it seems quite irrelevant to launch straight away into a discussion — not of Vanbrugh's early life — but into criticism of errors in rival works! I suggest we stick to the facts as they are now established; any discussion of discrepancies in other biographies should be, in my opinion, removed, or at least placed in a footnote, or kept confined to the "Sources" section.

Out of curiosity, the Dictionary of National Biography has recently been revised; do the errors persist in this version?

These are just my thoughts on what is otherwise a top-notch article. Good stuff! — Matt Crypto 00:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, I don't suppose someone could add an entry to Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia? — Matt Crypto 00:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please see my reasoning in the entry I posted yesterday, just above this! Frankly, if there's no discussion up front in the article of sources and the way they're used here vs. in other reference works, I think we're quite likely to see people "correcting" chronology etc. in this article to conform with EB. (We should remove the gloating once everybody knows Wikipedia is the best, of course...! :-)) About the revised DNB: I'm afraid they do persist, as far as I know, unless there's been some radical (rather than cosmetic) revision very recently indeed. (I have online access to the EB, where the errrors certainly do persist, but not to the DNB, so I cant' check it right now.) Anyway, if they're looking for a really concise summary, I guess the body of the article is, well ... it's quite a full article. For those really after concise, the lead section is your man, I guess. I appreciate the input, though, and the compliment (Giano and I authored it), got to catch a train—I'll think about what you said. Bishonen | Talk 06:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The (major) update of the DNB that I have in mind — the ODNB — was released on 23 September 2004, so "recently" yet not "very recently". And yes, I really should have noticed the above comment, sorry about that. Further, you're right, "concise" is relative! If I've understood you correctly, the reasoning is that we're preempting editors who might try to "correct" the article based on known-to-be erroneous sources? I think we could achieve the same thing by scattering "comments" within the wikicode at critical points, warning editors to think twice. Something like

<!-- NOTE! If you're correcting this fact based on the EB or ODB, please see the talk page -- these sources are known to contain inaccuracies on this topic -->

. The reasoning is that if something's primarily aimed at an editor, it really belongs either as a comment or on the Talk: page, not integrated within the article text. — Matt Crypto 11:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"you do not own the article"

It's been quite a while since we saw such an aggressive little edit summary but it looks as though the vacation we've been granted is over. We hope this is not the start of a vindictive little control campaign. With 719,384 articles to work on, there must be something to do that's not confrontational. Cluttering articles with "info" boxes that contain no fresh information seems to lack a certain desirable freshness and originality. --Wetman 00:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Lovely. This is a standardised infobox that we will be using on almost all bios. I am going to readd it and start asking others who've used it whether they think it is "dreadful". I mentioned that he doesn't own the article because of the aggressive message on my talk page. I also want to point out that the information that it contains is actually quite spread out in the article, and it gives a good summary of the info. Besides, it's not a dreadful little box. It doesn't take up much more space than the original image did. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

(User:Ta bu shi da yu has contacted nine like-minded Wikipedians to throw their weight around at this Talkpage on this subject. See that User's recent contributions for an idea of what to expect. --Wetman 03:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC))

The infobox is awful and shouldn't be used on any pages at all. Jooler 06:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have. There is nothing wrong with doing this. I have asked people both opposed to the infobox and those who like it. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ta bu, I notice some people denounce the new infobox as an ugly waste of space on Template talk:Infobox Biography, among them User:PRiis, a great contributor of many featured biographies. No, it doesn't take up much more space than the original thumb of Kneller's portrait, but that's at the expense of making the image much smaller and surrounding it with a lot of whitespace. What's the advantage, seriously? The image is lovely, it's very expressive. An excellent scan of one of Kneller's best portraits. All right, so it's an infobox, I still can't believe it's mandatory. And I can't believe you're edit warring to reinsert it. Please be careful of the 3RR. Yes, Giano wrote an angry message on your page, but only after you'd been goading him on several fronts. Please stop. Please compare this page. I hope, and believe, that you don't want another excellent contributor to leave. Bishonen | talk 07:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not goad him. My adding his FA article to FARC had nothing to do with the man... I didn't even know it was his article when I added it. I was concerned about the style, that is all. As for the oh-so-terrible and personal way I attacked him by adding a standardised infobox to a bio page - oh the humanity! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Could I just point out I have not left, merely later today going to somewhere call the USA, which I am reliably informed does have internet access, but I may not have access to it! The info box looks vile, I cannot be any more explicit. Other subjects are best discussed in the correct place for them; but they will have to wait for further input from me, until I return to civilization (as we know it);-) Giano | talk 07:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ta bu, I expected you to respond better to me, but whatever. Please note that it's not your insertion of the box I'm criticizing, it's your edit warring to keep it. Bishonen | talk 07:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu has deleted his userpages. I've reported it here. Bishonen | talk 07:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I prefer without the InfoBox, but either way it's not worth edit warring over :( — Matt Crypto 08:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

TBSDY suggested that I weigh in on the infobox debate, so here I am. I've looked at both no-infobox and infobox versions of the article. I'm slightly pro-infobox simply on the grounds that it presents birth and death locations which are otherwise buried in the text. IMO, this outweighs the disadvantage of the slightly smaller portrait - if someone wants to see it in all its glory, they can just click it anyway. --Jacj 16:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally I dislike the edit box considerabley. But then i voted to delete the template recently on WP:TFD. I think it adds nothing to the articel, and significantly detracts. I also objct to "This is a standardised infobox that we will be using on almost all bios" -- Many people object to its existince and use in many palces , and ther has not been anythign like a consensus to make this a standard. DES ^(talk) 18:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic, please give a rationale for your edit

Neto, I think your picking up the infobox edit war where Ta bu shi da yu left off was the direct cause of the article getting protected. Your only input on the subject so far has been the single word "infobox" in the edit summary. IMO both Ta bu and you reverted against consensus. If "infobox" is all you have to say about it, I guess the article will stay protected for a good long time. :-( Bishonen | talk 01:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

What a very good idea. We can easily enter any changes we'd make right here at the Talk page. --Wetman 03:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

My input was in the creation of Template:Infobox Biography for the express purpose of presenting biographical information in the same way on every article. Much like how every state article, every country article, and heck even every constellation article is, consistency of presentation is the larger goal. -- Netoholic @ 16:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

(And even the history of the creation of the template is one of edit wars, I see.) Neto, do please stop reinserting the box against consensus on this page. Many people dislike it intensely; Jacj, above, is "slightly pro.infobox", that's the extent of the enthusiasm for the box, besides yourself. There was significant opposition to it on Template talk:Infobox Biography too--well, insofar as anything is significant where there's so little overall interest. It's indeed a pity that most editors, including myself, don't realize what templates are being proposed, or how they'll look, until the boxes start turning up on their favorite pages, but it's just a fact of life. Now that people are starting to see the box around the biography articles, they hate it. Please don't revert again. Bishonen | talk 18:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

People are free to propose changes to the template stylistically. That is a separate discussion than whether some sort of box belongs. With the current plain image frame, a box already exists. This template enhances that so as to provide important biographical information in a consistent manner. As an aside, I have found that when editors find it necessary to procalim that someone is acting "against consensus" that there is often no true consensus at all. I'm sorry if I find that an empty argument. -- Netoholic @ 23:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not think this template enhances at all, it merely repeats information easily obtained from the text. It is ugly, it is overpowering, it is unnecessary. It in no way improves the article. It spoils any page it is on aesthetically. Perhaps more so than pages of a scientific nature, it is important that pages on the arts and architecture etc. are aesthetically pleasing. otherwise we may as well all give up and make each page just a list of dates and facts adorned by a few tables. Giano | talk 07:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"Find it necessary to proclaim"...? I'm sorry you find it necessary to speak dismissively to me when I appeal to you in good faith, Netoholic. The infobox has been nominated on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Bishonen | talk 00:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

I have unprotected this page. No discussion has happened at all in the 10 days it has been protected. Please do not start the edit war again, or I'll be back. :( --Phroziac ^(talk) 14:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

How can one discuss on a protected page. Please explain less than 100 words. Giano | talk 18:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Protecting an article page does not keep the talk page from being edited. Talk pages are rarely protected. -- Norvy (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm unprotecting again for the same reason as before: no discussion. If there is a resumption of the edit war I will find another way to stop it. I don't think either of the warring parties would like that. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 15:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"Either" of the parties? This is not one on one. It is one against community. The one does not get to determine what the community wants.

Please Netoholic stop this edit waring. It is quite clear that those who have created this page and many more prefer it without the template. Thank you Giano | talk 15:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- "those who have created this page" do not have any rights or priority when it comes to this decision. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles - "Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia" -- Netoholic @ 06:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

:::Quite right Netoholic; but as I said "..and many more". Your views on improving it are noted, but equally please note that untill the "template info box" becomes mandatory it is not wanted here. Thank you for taking an interest in this page, and if you wish to edit I'm sure there are many facets of the page which could be considerably expanded. Best wishes Giano | talk 08:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have replied specifically to Netoholic on his talk page. Bishonen | talk 09:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

:::There is a huge gap between ownership and editorial control. Like everyone else, I agree that the people who put effort into an article do not own it, but at the same time it would be insane to say that they have to bend to the wishes of every random person who wanders onto the article and craps on it. It is a matter of fact that the frequent editors of an article are afforded a higher degree of editorial control, and it should not be any different... and when you are trying to edit against the will of not only the regular editors but against many others from elseware in the community, you just succeed in making a nuisance of yourself. --Gmaxwell 13:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This is the most useless edit war ever! The infobox is more or less standard on these articles - plus I think it looks better here. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Considering that almost half of the particapants on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Infobox_Biography would like to see it deleted I don't think you'll get anywhere with this argument. The template is nearly useless, and as such it is terribly ugly. It would have not gone anywhere if not for a few editors bent on leaving their thumb print on these articles... lets hope next time they decide to put their effort into pushing something which is more useful. --Gmaxwell 13:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's "standard?" You mean that it has been inserted in 300 of 15,000 biographies makes it "standard?" Wow. I knew math wasn't my subject, but this seems a bit like magical thinking. Geogre 15:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If this edit war starts again and is missed by User talk:Phroziac, I'll protect the page. Please try to work out a consensus, preferrably not by polling. Meanwhile, just leave things as they are. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Netoholic is a disgrace. He is constantly warring with other editors. Why has he not been banned yet? Jooler 22:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Would you fine people please stop edit warring over this? For want of a better expression, it's lame. It's only a box, for goodness sake! There are more important things... I know it's not the politically-correct thing, but even a poll would be better than having this page protected every other day. — Matt Crypto 23:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Support for keeping the infobox. Although it seems the regular editors of the article disagree.... perhaps we could come to a comprimise somehow? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The box is stupid, cartoonish, and destructive, but the point here is that no one has the right to keep going to 3RR to insert it. Enumerate the advantages of redundancy here, and exclude "consistency," please, because you'll first need to make all subjects of biography consistent before you can make their lives consistent so that you can consistently jam in a box that half the legitimate voters on TFD want actually deleted, not merely unused. Otherwise, one person inserting it over and over and over and over and over and, when unblocked, over again, while five to six people keep removing it is disruption of Wikipedia. Let Netoholic go find one of those lovely 1911 text dumps and then go find a photo, extract the information, and insert this box-of-destiny, but don't take an article that has already been approved as already exhibiting the best of Wikipedia and try to mangle it to make his childish and churlish point. Geogre 15:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

To think this article was once a 1911 text dump. Now if one reads this page from top to bottom, one realises it is Wikipedia that is becoming the dump. How can things change so much for the worse in one year. The top of the page is two editors (yeah I'm one) discussing how to improve it, Geogre offers help and advice - the perfect wikipedia world. The page then becomes an FA - goes on the front page - all is wonderful. Then along come two editors, never been near the page before, for reasons no one fully understands the begin edit warring, and forcing an unmandatory object on the page, no further content, no expansion just a great ugly box; and those who bought the page up from nothing are forced to defend it - then accused of acting as though they own the page - we don't own it we just care about it. This page reads like a prophecy for Wikipedia and what a sad place it is becoming. Giano | talk 16:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

As a contributor to the Welsh Wikipedia, where a template identical to Biography Infobox exists on most of the biography pages (or the more developed ones at any rate), I appreciate that such a template can bring consistency to bio pages. However, there is a difference between a Wikipedia in a minority language, where articles are normally uneven hotchpotches and at best only cover the most rudimentary facts about their topic, and this exhaustive article that probably surpasses anything that any other encyclopaedia has to offer. As far as I can see, 'standard' templates like the one Neolithic, sorry, Netoholic is bent on imposing are just crutches for pages that otherwise offer hardly any information, and the John Vanbrugh article is well beyond that stage. See some sense, Netoholic – on other, less developed pages your template would probably work but on this page it's just an eyesore that contributes nothing. – Ham 20:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Infobox wars

As an "outsider" to the whole edit-war over the infobox on this particular page, I'll put in my own two cents... I generally like the concept of infoboxes as a way of getting some consistency in the articles of a particular type. I created the infobox for top-level domains, for instance, and I was one of the main people putting infoboxes on all the articles on popes (though I didn't actually create that particular infobox). I've also put the infobox for games on several game articles. Thus, I'll speak out in favor of adding the biography infobox here, though I have no intention of getting into an edit war by actually doing it if it's against the view of many others. *Dan T.* 17:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

In-line Citations...

This article is a truly wonderful narrative of the man's life, but is there any way that someone could have in-line citations put in. I wasn't involved in the artcicle at all, but I know that today FACs need to have inline references, or they don't make the cut. I count to in line references and one note in this article. Thoughts?--dave-- 20:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Dave, thanks for your concern, and I'm really glad you liked the page. It was a collaboration between Giano and me--long time ago now--our first big article effort. I have a big old soft spot for it. It's quite a coincidence that you should bring up the issue of its inline cites right now, because that was just discussed, with some drama, on the Featured articles with citation problems page. Users Marskell and Sandy, the spearheads of WP:FAR, seem to have ended up deciding John Vanbrugh was adequately referenced, and taking it off the "citation problems" list. It does have some more inline citing than you mention, just not in the specific form that you were perhaps looking for--please compare my argument here. The discussion was wound up on my talkpage, where Marskell mentions he has taken the page off the "problems" list. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 22:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

Thank for the note, Bishonen. Glad to see that the issue has been tackled before...and so recently. I had not noticed the parenthetical documentation in my brief reading of the text. Have a great day. Blessings.--dave-- 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification, I don't consider myself a "spearhead" at WP:FAR (more of a "clerk"), although I am a regular reviewer there, and I help keep track of the lists. I was traveling in the midst of the discussion, and did not review this article. Sandy 23:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Main page

This article clearly needs inline cites, so why was it allowed for the Main Page? What a joke. LuciferMorgan 13:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

(1) In-house only

(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

(4) Typos and misunderstood coding

(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

(5) Edit-mode clutter

(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

(6) Limited application

(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

- Agree entirely, and congratulations on your work to reduce clutter, Tony. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC).

Bias in Introduction

This sentence from the introductory paragraph seems inappropriately biased and laudatory for an encyclopedia article: "His architectural work was as bold and daring as his early political activism and marriage-themed plays, and jarred conservative opinions on the subject." This implies that Vanbrugh's views were in line with what would now be considered "liberal" attitudes toward women and gender relations, which is at the very least debatable, given some of the content of his plays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.176.186 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Just noticed the guide to pronouncing his name and it seems, well, a little odd. Surely it should be Van-bra, with a short a (i.e., not Van-brahhh), rather than Van-brew?

DionysosProteus 14:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

An IPA pronunciation is required. — 217.46.147.13 (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of the ROLLBACK tool, by user GiacomoReturned

[1] = Inappropriate use of the ROLLBACK tool, by user GiacomoReturned. Please discuss on the talk page, and do not misuse the rollback tool. -- Cirt (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop trolling Cirt. If you want to hit Bishonen do so openly and honestly. Either be honest or bugger off. Giano 22:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to. Let us please keep the discussion focused to the inappropriate action in question. -- Cirt (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: [2]. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Lede

The lede/intro of this article is a bit too short. It fails WP:LEAD. With respect to both the size and scope of the rest of the article, it does not adequately summarize the entire articles contents and fails to function as a standalone overview. The lede should be expanded upon. -- Cirt (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of this article infuses the POV of the article-writer and/or individual Wikipedians, without attributing this to secondary sources. One among multiple possible examples is:

Taken in this context, though he has sometimes been viewed as an odd or unqualified appointee to the College of Arms, it is not surprising, given the social expectations of his day, that by descent his credentials for his offices there were sound..

This inappropriate style of tone should be removed. -- Cirt (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers

Page numbers for cites where the author's name is cited are missing in multiple key places. In order more fully satisfy WP:V, page numbers should be provided for all cites. -- Cirt (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of citation neededs

Why were these reverted? And the edit summary was also insulting, why was this done? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Leads don't have to be cited - as you should know - the other facts are common knowledge - which you should also know. Giano 21:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD Lead's can be cited, and the rest of the information most certainly isn't common knowledge. This article is in FAR specifically over its total lack of citations so clearly more citations are going to need to be added, does this really have to go to dispute resolution? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear so. If you really feel such obvious things need citing and wish the page to look like a sudoku game then it will not take you 3 minutes to find references. I certainly have no intention of citing Vanbrugh was a dramtist and architect when a monumental page follows which proves it. For instance the placing of cite tags here is a joke: Sir John Vanbrugh (pronounced /ˈvænbrə/; 24 January 1664? – 26 March 1726) was an English architect and dramatist,^{[citation needed]} perhaps best known as the designer of Blenheim Palace and Castle Howard.^{[citation needed]} Oh please, do get real. Giano 21:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE does not require citations, although it allows them. It does, however, ask editors to establish a consensus on the necessity of a citation. I frankly doubt that you will find any consensus for needing a citation in the lead for his dates of birth and death, or for his occupations, when the rest of the article explains in detail the summary in the lead. --RexxS (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

At the time of the edits by Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs), the lede failed WP:LEADCITE, as the info was not backed up later in the article. -- Cirt (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I originally took the {{cn}} to challenge the "English architect and dramatist" part (where the tag was placed), and I think you'll agree that the article did back that up. I do see, though, that others may have taken it to refer to the dates of birth and death, and fully agree that those were in need of sourcing at the time. Hopefully that is now resolved. I have been promised a loan of a copy of Downes sometime in the near future and perhaps that will help to verify some of the other challenged material. --RexxS (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nod, thanks for agreeing that at the time of the tags added, the article did indeed noticeably fail WP:LEADCITE. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Specific dates of birth and death?

[3] -- Does this cite verify the specific dates of birth and death for this individual? -- Cirt (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The cite only verified the years of birth/death, not the specific dates. Removed, per [4]. -- Cirt (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It is utterly unhelpful to remove verifiable material only one day after a request for citation was added. It took all of 10 seconds to find the Britannica online article giving his dates of baptism and death. I think we can rest assured that other quality sources will confirm those, should you feel Britannica is not a reliable source. I've added the information and reference in the appropriate sections. Perhaps you would be good enough to restore the accurate summary in the lead? --RexxS (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, feel free to do so. -- Cirt (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed

[5] - I tagged some spots where citations and pages numbers for cites are needed. These were removed with no explanation. Perhaps we could discuss here how to further improve this page. -- Cirt (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added some more citations. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's how this works

If somebody makes an edit and you don't agree with it, take it to the talk. And take it to the talk before you revert them for the third time. And don't revert them whilst you're discussing the disagreement. And stop reverting over silly things. Play ball, or find yourself blocked. Our readers don't want you using our articles to play fisticuffs; that's what the talk page is for. Though, fwiw, this is laughable—

Sir John Vanbrugh (pronounced /ˈvænbrə/; 24 January 1664? – 26 March 1726) was an English architect and dramatist,^{[citation needed]} perhaps best known as the designer of Blenheim Palace and Castle Howard.^{[citation needed]}

My talk page is always open if you lot are having problems. AGK 02:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I shall not be editing John Vanbrugh again - ever. If people doubt facts that are so very obvious they can be verified in less time than it takes to add a cite tag - then they are not the sort of person with whom I would wish to jointly edit a page. Giano 06:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

@AGK, other articles I've been involved in, such as iPad are actually sourced with inline citations that carefully, and Sex Pistols which was on the front page yesterday has 233 inline citations, which you can only get to by citing things quite carefully. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

iPad (whatever that is) and Sex Pistols! I rest my case! Giano 08:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sex Pistols was on the front page yesterday, I think that is likely to make it a good example of a high quality FA... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 25, 2005! Giano 18:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss the Sex Pistols article, but if you feel the need to make a contrast, then ok. There are three references in the lead – the first is clearly redundant as their induction into the R&R Hall of Fame is well-documented elsewhere in the article; I hope you can see that the article would stand perfectly well without it. The other two references source direct quotations and that is normally expected to be an exception to the redundancy guideline. I simply don't find Sex Pistols a compelling case for introducing citations into the lead of John Vanbrugh. --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop bickering and do something constructive. AGK 19:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like the opportunity, but I had not realised John Vanbrugh was an iPad using Sex Pistol, so I really cannot comment. Giano 19:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Sex pistols"? Ewww. "Love guns", please. ¶ What a mess this article has suddenly become. -- Hoary (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Links to architect and dramatist

These should be re-linked somewhere else in the article, as they are now not linked to at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. Not being linked to at all doesn't necessarily mean a concept should be linked: it's not the case that every word is supposed to be wikilinked somewhere in an article. Please check out Wikipedia:Linking. I quote: "Provide links that aid navigation and understanding, but avoid cluttering the page with obvious, redundant and useless links" ("architect" and "dramatist" would be examples of the obvious, the redundant, and the useless). Avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia. Too much blue only makes it harder for the reader to identify and follow those links which are likely to be of value. Feel free to re-link the words if you feel strongly about them; it's not a major issue; but I don't think it's a good idea. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC).

You make a good point, I initially thought that some people might want to have them, but to be honest they are pretty obvious :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding 90 day/5 thread auto-archiving to the talk page

Its getting rather long, so anyone object? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If anyone doesn't want auto-archiving can they discuss it here? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a point discussing it? - you and jeni sem to have decided for your autocratic selves. Giano 13:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything here over 3 months old that you feel needs to be on this page? This doesn't need to be another battle; archiving old threads is common practise. Per WP:AATP "It is customary to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when that page becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers." We shouldn't need a debate to use common sense. 90 days is quite a long time, by which point most discussions have reached their conclusion or ground to a halt and are unlikely to be revived. The discussions are of course still easily available through archives. If you think 90 days is too short, it can of course be changed to something such as 6 months. Nev1 (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to go to 6 months if that's what people want. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Its now set to 180 days, as it can more easily be reduced if necessary. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding ref-improve tag to: List of architectural works

Given that these are facts they should probably all be sourced anyone object to the addition of a {{ref-improve-section}} tag? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, the article contains hundreds of factual assertions. If you believe that only factual assertions that could be doubted by somebody well educated in architectural history (or the theatre, or whatever) need be specifically sourced, then few flags are probably needed; but it's not obvious that you are particularly well qualified to judge which these are. (And certainly I am not at all qualified to judge.) On the other hand if you believe that specific sourcing is needed for the assertion of any fact that WP can't expect its Gameboy/Ipod-addled average readers to know, then you can add hundreds of {{cn}} flags and so forth. But how would they help the article or its readers? -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The rash of [citation needed] tags are totally unhelpful. Sure, WP:V requires that assertions are verifiable, and there should be some indication in the text of where the various facts can be verified. However, the article would appear absurd if there were a reference next to each assertion. My suggestion would be to either improve the article, or ask for improvements on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

@Hoary, Wikipedia's supposed to be aimed at a general audience per WP:AUDIENCE. @John, given they've dramatically improved the number of inline citations in the article from 5 to 20 I think they've been very helpful and the article wouldn't be "obsurd" if there was a citation for every point - that's how most of the encyclopaedia is written these days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's supposed to be aimed at a general audience per WP:AUDIENCE. And therefore? -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to source stuff inline so its possible for ~~lay-~~ people to verify it without looking through a small library of books? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The information is either verifiable or it's not. It doesn't matter who verifies the information, as long as it can be verified by someone. Any other system would dramatically bias the encyclopedia against older subjects and overly promote recent topics simply because they are much more easily accessed through the web. See WP:RECENTISM for a discussion of some of the problems caused by easy access to modern topics. In this case, the highest quality sources are the books listed. We would be very ill-advised if we were to discard such high quality sources simply because they require some effort to find. For a similar consideration concerning subscription sources, see WP:PAYWALL. This is NOT "the encyclopedia that anyone can verify". --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I retract the word lay from my argument, you are quite right that book sources are perfectly acceptable, at least with a page reference anyone with access to a decent University library should be able to verify something fairly quickly - without being a subject expert. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I do agree it's sometimes difficult to get hold of book sources. I have a request in at my local uni library for the Downes book, which I'd like to use to fulfil the need for page references, but sadly there's no sign of it yet. It should shed considerable light on Vanbrugh's early life and background at the very least. It might be worth inviting reviewers to indicate any other concerns they can see (apart from inline citations), as those could be worked on as well. Personally, I would prefer a fuller lead section, but I'm not sure if others would agree? --RexxS (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if perhaps we should ban the use books as references completely and only use online references - it would save so much trouble in the long run. Giano 20:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Web sources do have advantages as they are easier to verify and to find in the first place, but really that sounds like a bad idea as books have a lot to offer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah some books do, but on the whole web pages are easier to find and books go out of date and become obscure and their authors die - the net is the future most books now are only sold 2nd hand in Oxfam shops - I think they have had their day. Wikipedia is a forward thiking modern place, it should set the trend and ban books completely. Giano 21:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well we'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It might just be that Giacomo was not entirely serious. --RexxS (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly :), but I wanted to make my position clear and not have an extended discussion on the topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hoary (talk · contribs) has done a damn good job with sourcing this section. I've added citation needed's to the remaining few so that hopefully they can be sourced as well - if sources can't be found for them I suggest we remove them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've found sources for a few more and removed the rest so

Done. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The legacy section

I was going through the article to check for superfluous citation needed's and I noticed that the last three paragraphs of this section aren't particularly well written. Can they be improved? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What, there's a templated tag for superfluous citation needed?--Wetman (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed them from the article as they need lots of sources and aren't well written. For posterity they are below: -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The last three paragraphs of the legacy section

He also had the unusual skill, for an architect, of delivering the goods that his clients required.^{[citation needed]} His reputation has suffered because of his famed disagreements with the Duchess of Marlborough, yet, one must remember his original client was the British Nation, not the Duchess and the nation wanted a monument and celebration of victory, and that is what Vanbrugh gave the nation.

His influence on successive architects is incalculable.^{[citation needed]} Nicholas Hawksmoor, Vanbrugh's friend and collaborator on so many projects continued to design many London churches for ten years after Vanbrugh's death. Vanbrugh's pupil and cousin the architect Edward Lovett Pearce rose to become one of Ireland's greatest architects. His influence in Yorkshire can also be seen in the work of the amateur architect William Wakefield who designed several buildings in the county that show Vanbrugh's influence.

Vanbrugh is remembered throughout Britain,^{[citation needed]} by inns, street names, a university college (York) and schools named in his honour, but one only has to wander through London, or the English country-side dotted with their innumerable country houses, to see the ever present influence of his architecture.^{[citation needed]}

So that's to be the designated ending is it: "With the completion of Castle Howard English baroque came into fashion overnight. It had brought together the isolated and varied instances of monumental design, by, among others, Inigo Jones and Christopher Wren. Vanbrugh thought of masses, volume and perspective in a way that his predecessors had not."

Well that sems a very odd ending to me? It's dreadful - please wrap the page up properly or put it back how it was. Better to lose FA status than have a page looking as though it was writen by an ignorant anateur. Giacomo 19:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia's a work in progress, so I'm happy to improve the ending further. To be honest the current ending is neutral in tone so I don't think its actually that bad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"remembered throughout Britain":

Vanbrugh college, York University
The Vanbrugh, Greenwich
Vanbrugh Road, Liverpool L4
Vanbrugh Road, Ealing W4 1JB
Vanbrugh Road, Eggborough DN14 0LW
Vanbrugh Court, Wolverhampton WV6 7TB
Vanbrugh Park, London SE3

Probably a lot more; probably OR, but hope it helps anyway. --RexxS (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand he doesn't even feature on 100 Greatest Britons. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Best to nominate for deletion then. Giacomo 21:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source to back the comment up would be fine... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Apart from you, is anyone bothered. You have taken a half decent page and made it banal. It may still be a FA, but it's now...well ...lacklustre. Congratulations - the whole point of writing these pages is as far as possible to make people want to read them, relate to them and think, Oh that's interesting. The constraints now placed upon editors make this near impossible - you Eraserhead compound it - your wrting and "improvements" remind me of the school history books and text books written diring the 1950s. No one wonder the young of today prefer computer games. Giacomo 21:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"remembered throughout Britain" is a popularity contest point, I found a major popularity contest of historical figures. Vanbrugh isn't on the list - therefore it needs sourcing. And its not just me, its all the other people making the same point on the featured article review.

Besides adding some more inline citations shouldn't affect the quality of the writing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I amsure they al know far more about the subject than me, so you just carry on. Giacomo 21:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand he doesn't even feature on 100 Greatest Britons. Starring such people as Enoch Powell, Robbie Williams, and Boy George. Number two, Brunel, was rather great, I think; but the previous Mrs Windsor at 3 and one of the world's great pioneers in the mass-murderer of noncombatants at 1 ... the question is of whether the voters were insane, stupid, or both. -- Hoary (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

^^ Undoubtably 'both' :p. But seriously even given the noise and taking it with a pinch of salt I'd expect him to make the top 100 for such a strong claim of popularity to be plausible without a reliable source to back it up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that Vanbrugh College, University of York, making a claim about itself (i.e. "It is named after Sir John Vanbrugh (1664-1726), the celebrated architect and dramatist ...") was a reliable source per WP:RS ("Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves"). The other stuff is obviously just examples to demonstrate that the assertion is true - I know it's not a source and we'd somebody reliable to publish that. You do make an important point about 100 Greatest Britons, though. A popularity contest leaves itself open to various forms of bias, notably recentism. After all, that same poll considered Princess Di a greater Briton than Darwin, Shakespeare and Newton, as well as placing John Lennon above Nelson (Lennon has an airport named after him; poor Horatio only has half a wrestling hold to his name). John Churchill didn't even make the list. Fame is a fickle food indeed. --RexxS (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised. Well, not when you see that neither Robin Hood or Richard the Lionheart are on there (Richard wasn't particularly nice, but he is well known and given Enoch Powell was included I don't see why he wasn't). The source is just awful. Nev1 (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Vanbrugh is remembered throughout Britain,[citation needed] by inns, street names, a university college (York) and schools named in his honour, -- well of course he's not remembered by the kind of birdbrain who'd canonize Mrs Windsor or seek Deep Meaning in "Karma Chameleon". Suggestion: remove the comma: Vanbrugh is remembered throughout Britain by at least one inn,(The Vanbrugh, Greenwich) street names,[list] a university college (Vanbrugh college, York University) and schools[citation needed] named in his honour,. Nuff said? -- Hoary (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

But Nev, as an ancient dinosaur, I remember King Richard well. I can say, without fear of contradiction, that he was renowned for being particularly nice to lots of little boys. --RexxS (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The article also suggests that he was a cad and a bounder. No popularity problems so far, but he preferred to live outside Britain (which I thought was OK only if you were Sean Connery) and only spoke foreign languages. Tsk tsk. (Connery isn't on that list. For that matter, neither is Clement Freud.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

@Hoary, your version is nice, I've been bold and added it to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"nice"!!!! Have you never heard if the list of forbiden words? Giacomo 20:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So a unilateral decision to restore the old text seems to have been made. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh I wouldn't call it unilateral. It simply seems nobody is particularly bothered if this article remains with a bauble on the top of it if the cost is such appaling mutilation. I mean, good grief - should we be citing a pub called the "Vanbrugh" to have to prove the statement. Ludicrous. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The original text in the section was poorly written and overly positive and had to go or be improved, and no-one seemed to care enough to improve it or discuss it.

On the article as a whole by 'appaling mutilation' you mean adding a whole bunch of 'citation needed's' to the article - while they may have 'disfigured' it they have bought an order of magnitude improvement in the number of inline citations from 4-5 to 45 which is a definite success. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiWikiWeb:AssumeGoodFaith to the contrary notwithstanding, I question Eraserhead1's motivation in so persistently disassembling an article where she has made no contributory edits. Has Eraserhead1 actually made any contribution to any Wikipedia article on an architect? Has Eraserhead1 shown any interest or curiosity in any article that relates in any way to John Vanbrugh? Why are we to suppose that Eraserhead1's quibbles are supported by competence? What is the actual motivation here of an editor with a record that looks like this? My willing suspension of disbelief is growing thin. I imagine that the merest question will elicit furious charges of attacking an editor, being incivil and the rest. I merely doubt. --Wetman (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added quite a few sources to this article... And why is it a crime to have diverse interests and to edit different articles on different topics? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell us why a citation is needed for 'wandering through London' here? Naturally as a keen editor of Vanbrugh, you are aware of his involvement in the Greenwich Hospital? And presumably, as a well travelled individual you are aware that Greenwich is in London? And you have read the section relating to paving the streets, So for what, exactly, are you seeking to ellicit further edification? --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Greenwich Hospital is only a single building so I was hoping for something that showed his architecture affected the style of buildings in more of the city than that - which is what the statement implies.

On your other point given that the streets in London are tarmaced now like every other major city in the world, you can't tell just by wandering through London that he was responsible for originally suggesting paving the streets. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So have you read the list of selected architectural works in the article? - there's quite a few in London, and his collaboration and influence on Hawksmoor's who went on to design numerous London Churches, and the Trio of Wren, Hawksmoor and Vanbrugh's means nothing to you in relation to the narrative of the English Baroque? --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

From the list of works its not particularly extensive, most of them have been demolished or completely rebuilt. The only surviving ones are the Orangery at Kensington Palace, the Greenwich Hospital, the state rooms at Hampton court and the Ordnance Board Building, Woolwich - given the size of London that isn't actually that many. If you want to claim he influenced other people who did build lots of other buildings in London that's fine if it is backed up with a reliable source. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If in the Christopher Wren article you were to make the claim it would have more merit as he built St Pauls Cathedral among others, but this isn't the article on Christopher Wren. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Hawksmoor and Vanbrugh. Collectively and apart, they define the first great line of British architectural development in the 18th century, an approach clearly eclectic in its methods..........If Hawksmoor's eclecticism, as manifest in his idiosyncratic choice of sources, presages, tendencies that generally become evident in the "revolutionary" architecture of the late eighteenth century, Vanbrugh's theater of effects provides an outlet for nascent picturesque sensibilities. Both men in their outlook stand far apart from developments on the continent" (Malgrave 2005, p.47) ie. The influence is nationally manifest therefore "walking the streets of london or through the countryside" is a rather nice simple way of saying it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, then feel free to add that source to the article tomorrow once it has been unlocked - the Bath source is a bit rubbish and that looks like it covers both points. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's an excellent book I can't recommend highly enough and at [£28] they're practically giving it away. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, Joop -- whether walking the streets of London or through the "countryside" (much of it subtopia or exurbia), you are far more likely to be surrounded by mediocrity or much, much worse. As we've known for decades. (This week's recommendation.) There's fine stuff by Vanbrugh and others, but percentagewise it's unimpressive. Which is not to denigrate it at all. Now, it could be that Malgrave goes on to say something to the effect that the such-and-such of Vanbrugh was a major tributary to a lasting tradition of "architecture" (i.e. thought-out architecture, not unimaginatively done just for the money) in Britain: I don't know; I don't (yet) have a copy of the book. -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Good link Hoary, I shall make some time for those little snippets. Malgrave in the bit I've quoted is doing precisely that, I think. He later, (p.115) references Vanrugh in relation to the Battle of the styles, so Malgrave has it that he was nationally influential in the consciousness of British architects, rather than being the Wimpey of 18th century architecture. Ideas are often just as important in architecture as actual buildings. (Glass Chain The mile high skyscraper etc.) --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll toss a copy of Malgrave into my "basket" at a well known international book monopolist (as this is usually far cheaper than any alternative), thereby doing my bit to encourage subtopia and cause inner-city death. Oh dear I really must investigate an ethical but economical alternative to Amazon. Meanwhile ... there's actually a short book of an exhibition, Inspired by Soane; I wonder if there's anything akin to this for Vanbrugh. Not a rhetorical question: I actually do wonder. There are a lot of books on Vanbrugh the architect; I'd guess that some write about this. -- Hoary (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the page I just mentioned tangentially mentions Soane, "The rennaissance style was utilized on occasion in the work of cockerel who in 1839 succeeded Wilkins and Soane as the professor of architecture at the royal academy. cckerell's lectures delivered in 1841 to 1856 reflect Soanes catholic tastes over those of Wilkins and were appreciative of the artistic unity achieved during the rennaissance and of its interpretation by such later architects as inigo jones, christopher wren and vanbrugh." Ideas you see? The mediocretisation of domestic architecture is much more connected with the democratisation of construction than anything to do with the mainstream architectural narrative in my view. Until the second world war, building, largely was in the hands of the wealthy who were oh-so-keen to prove their credentials as patrons of the arts - even the victorian and georgian spec builders at least paid heed to mainstream architectural discourse or applied the patterns books of decent architects. That link is long gone now and has much to do with protecting shareholder dividends and a market that will accept and buy any old crap as long as the price is right. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought that swathes of suburbia had been mindlessly tudorbethanized as early as the 1920s. -- Hoary (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the requirement to incorporate the car within a market that sells conservative and traditional facades to middle management executives with mondeos and wide screen TVs. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd thought that the Mondeos were for salesmen ("reps"); when in Britain (which seemingly has nothing besides EFL textbooks, whisky, and repackaged tea to sell in quantity to the rest of the world) I'm puzzled by the number of 4WDs and BMWs. -- Hoary (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this for a brief period due to the edit warring. Discuss or go for a walk, folks. Risker (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that it can be unprotected, thanks to the sudden efflorescence of sweetness and light shortly above. Though perhaps we should all plonk down the 28 quid and get the book first. (Me, I'm frustrated by the lack of time I have available for going through the -- tangential but good -- sources that are already available to me.) Hoary (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection lifted. Risker (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I am very disturbed, on looking at the history of this article, to see edits being undone as quickly as they are being done. This is absolutely not the way that featured material is improved. Eraserhead1, please comment on the talk page rather than reverting edits when material is being added or referenced. Other editors, please do read the comments on the talk page and respond to them. The talk pages are where the disagreements need to be hammered out, not the article. I will continue to be vigilant on this page as much as possible, and will not hesitate to reinstate the protection if I see a repeat of last night's editing behaviour. Eraserhead1, you particularly need to take this to heart. Risker (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Which edits in particular are you talking about? I rolled my own edit back, I changed a reference to a more detailed one given on that page, and I reverted an edit from Giano as he agreed that it was OK on his talk page. While there was a heated discussion (which was bad - and I'm sorry for my part in that) I don't understand what I actually did to the article itself that was unacceptable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Section on Cibber's Love's Last Shift

Isn't this rather long as its not hugely important to the article? Wouldn't it be better if it was summarised as a paragraph? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Giacomo 15:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you give some reasoning? Mine is that it is fairly important, but as it isn't by Varnburgh it doesn't deserve as much content as his other plays. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

PS removing some of this content which isn't particularly well focused means that other content can be added in its place without making the article too long, for example more content on the other buildings he built could be added. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about "that other content can be added in its place without making the article too long" I won't even bother responding to that. What is it about this page that make you feel the need to display your complete lack of education and understanding of the subject? When you say "which isn't particularly well focused" you merely prove how tiresome and detremental to the subject you are. All the editors of this page have agreed we would rather it looose its FA status than be ground into the ground by someone like you. Is that quite clear enough for you? I hope so. Giacomo 21:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The main thing I've done is add sources, I don't see why anyone would object to that... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You keep asking questions here. When you don't like the reply, you ask another. That is very tiresome. You keep saying is "this" too long? The answer is "No". What part of "No" do you have a problem understanding? Do we have to debate about English literature, the editor who wrote that section has a geat understandig of the subject, and that is transparent - now please go off and read "Janet and John" or whatever it is you do best. Giacomo 22:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the first section I've bought up for removal/refactoring specifically. The first was a referencing issue with the List of Architectural works (which has been resolved with everything sourced thanks to Hoary) and the second was to highlight a section for improvement, which sadly wasn't forthcoming. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Now back on topic, it still isn't clear why 4 paragraphs are needed on another playwrights play and why this couldn't be condensed per WP:SUMMARY with the rest of the content in that article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

because "Erasehead" the page is comprensive, it explains facets not readily known or available. It is a comprehensive page, it was the intention that the reader would leave thinking "I understand the subject." Now really Eraserhead, it's time to drop this. Giacomo 22:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Eraserhead1: There is probably very little in any article that is "hugely important". Wikipedia will not be improved by trimming this article. By contrast, clicking Random page a few times will show many pages that do need attention. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

FAR closed as default keep

Information brought to you by Bishonen.

The FAR/FARC of John Vanbrugh has been closed by SandyGeorgia because of abuse, see Wikipedia:Featured article review/John Vanbrugh/archive1. Specifically, the citation style has been changed without consensus; the article has not been improved during the FAR, but rather damaged; and my own request for more time because of health issues, which was endorsed by delegate Dana boomer, has been ignored. Here is the wording of SandyGeorgia's close:

"Close as Default Keep, allow three months for repair, then initiate a new review if warranted. FAR should not deteriorate into a forum where articles are damaged and policy is flaunted, when the main contributor has asked for time. Wiki won't break if three months is allowed, and this FAR has already been open too long."

Bishonen | talk 21:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC).

It doesn't look closed to me, that's SandyGeorgia's personal view... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

PS If people want the citation style switched back to parenthesis style, I'll do so sometime this week. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

For me, I very much prefer the "short note" system. It's described here, and its advantages specified. In my opinion it's the most convenient system by far when the notes are numerous, as they are in featured articles nowadays. Bishonen | talk 22:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC).

Sandy is one of the FA delegates and has the authority to close reviews, as she has done. It takes time for the bot run to archive it, but it is indeed closed. Nev1 (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

She's not on the list... The featured article director, Raul654, or his delegates YellowMonkey and Dana boomer -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

@Bish, from Sandy herself: "Clue in and read the page instructions; I don't close FARs, and I am well within my bounds as an editor to enter a declaration here." so it isn't closed I'm afraid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Then perhaps you should graciously insist on having Dana boomer (originally Sandy's delegate) make Sandy's declaration official. I'd be very surprised if there was any problem with that. Bishonen | talk 22:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC).

Y'all are confused; I don't close FARs, but I can enter a declaration. End of story (I hope). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation and its style

This was indeed a pleasing article in late April compared with the state that it's in now.

There's a lot of talk in the mercifully suspended FAR about an unwonted change in citation style. I wonder what really happened. Here (from early May) was my own first, very minor contribution to this article. I thereby increased the number of notes from 12 to 14. I did so because sourcing (via one method or another) was clearly warranted, because notes were already used (as they had been even before this FAR started), and because notes could be used to add this information more neatly than could any alternative I could think of.

The main impact I've had on this article is in the transformation from this entirely unsourced list of architectural works to this sourced one. This change accounts for one third or more of the number of footnotes added since April; so if footnotes per se irritate you, direct your barbs at me. Indeed, most of the additional sourcing here seems otiose: if an item is bluelinked to an article that clearly and sourcedly says that the work is in whole or in part by Vanbrugh, this is all we need -- it's only the redlinks that should need to be sourced. On the other hand footnotes that are hardly needed here also seem harmless: as this is anyway a mere list, footnotes can hardly be said to impair its readability.

I wonder where the article should go from here, and, more locally, what should be done about the sourcing of the list of architectural works -- whether the footnotes for works with articles should be retained, converted, or deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh god, converting those sources to Parenthesis would be horrible :(.

That said having the citations for facts is standard practice and if you don't have them you risk someone adding something incorrect to the list. I deleted 3-4 entries after I'd also had a go at sourcing the List of architectural works and they all seemed to be pretty dubious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I deleted 3-4 entries: I don't understand. Do you mean that you deleted three or four items from the list of architectural works? Please elaborate. -- Hoary (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I meant I deleted 3-4 entries from the list of architectural works, sorry if I wasn't clear :o. Here's the diff if you're interested. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. Somebody who, unlike me, has access to (for example) a copy of the Pevsner guide to those areas of Britain can look them up. ¶ What else have you cut from this article? -- Hoary (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough on the revert for now. The only other thing I've removed from the article is the final 3 paragraphs of the legacy section mentioned in the section above (of which one has been readded). Other than that my only non-sourcing changes have been adding a couple of sentences on the Duchess and Nicolas Hawksmoor and that Blenhiem is now a world heritage site (though the latter could do with some grammar improvements). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Of note I've removed all the citation needed's that were added in May/June not for direct quotations and where it would be confusing for them to be removed (i.e. they are between sources but aren't sourced by the given source). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Diffs of all Eraserhead1's edits

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

FYI:

Why is this of interest? Can't we just move on? --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, hatted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Relatives

What is the family connection referred to in the portion of the article headed Early life and background?

"The picture of a well-connected youth is reinforced by the fact that Vanbrugh in January 1686 took up an officer's commission in his distant relative the Earl of Huntingdon's foot regiment"

I can find no blood or marriage link between them. Eddaido (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe its worth another trip down to the library, AFAIR it was backed up in the book I read on the subject before. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

References

Regarding this edit [6] When writing this page, these references were used. When people were bleeting that facts were not referenced, all they had to do was read the listed references. Funny old world isn't it? Giacomo 07:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is a rum old world, yes. I don't think that I was among the bleaters, but anyway I might point out that my library would have no more than one among those books. (The one would be Cibber's, but I'd find the prospect of reading it unalluring.) ¶ The demand that every bloody little assertion must be unambiguously linked to a precise (and reliable) source truly is a pain in the bum. No, meeting it is a pain in the head, the fingers and the fingers, as well perhaps as the oft-invoked bum. This afternoon I myself am experiencing this very pain in all of these parts of me other than the last-mentioned. Wikipedia is indeed a cruel mistress. But we already knew all that. -- Hoary (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't mind sourcing stuff - I don't find it too bad :). But it is what WP:CITE says so <shrug>. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:John Vanbrugh/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations --plange 21:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This article looks wretched

It has a long list of pics down the left, at least as I view it (with an unmodified "skin", under Epiphany).

I read

=== Playwright ===
{| class="floatright"
|-
| [[File:Colley Cibber.jpg|thumb|u

blah blah. Is the syntax correct here? This collection isn't being floated. ("Floatright" is explained here.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine (and on the right hand side) to me. I've updated the syntax to use Template:Stack which will hopefully look better. If its still an issue can you tell us which browser you are using? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Voltaire quote

As quote should be explicitly sourced does anyone have a source for Voltaire's quote on Blenheim Palace: "a great mass of stone with neither charm nor taste". I had a quick Google and couldn't find anything (other than this page and obvious ripoffs) either on the main search or on Google Books/Scholar. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A source appears to have been found by an IP editor. Brilliant :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Gallery

Is it just me or does the gallery need a trim? We can't post photos of all Vanbrugh's works - it'd take up too much room. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Enough is enough! I have moved the list and gallery [7] to a page of their own, List of works by John Vanbrugh. When writing this page a great deal of care, time and concern was dedicated to getting the balance of the page to be measured - how much or little to write on each of his works to explain his architectural concepts without detracting and becoming repetitious of the individual pages already dedicated to many of his works (eg: Blenheim Palace). These great long list and galleries distort from the integrity the page and serve no purpose and I note they now seem to be appearing on other architectural pages too. We have links and categories to assist the more interested readers - huge galleries and lists are not necessary - lists have traditionally always had pages of their own. Giacomo 11:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)