Talk:Demerara window

Dubious tag

FloridaArmy, You are using the {{Dubious}} tag incorrectly. Surely you're not meaning to say that the Demerara window was NOT used in 18th and 19th century buildings. Secondly, this is from the cited source.

If you're wanting to add that it is used in 20th century buildings, you need to add a source. Otherwise, it is the definition of original research, which is not allowed. New content needs to be cited. And, you absolutely cannot add content that does not come from the cited source - as I mentioned in the edit summary.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Three things, it's not the best source. I am sure that we can find a better source than a personal site that has what is said to be a reprint of a newspaper article. It would be better to find something that says that it was standard / usual to use these windows in the 20th century. And, you inserted the citation in a way that it also looks like the source says that the windows were used in 18th and 19th centuries... you need to add in the article that said that.

I'll look for a better source. In the meantime, have you read WP:RS - and know to looks for magazines, news, books, etc. - better sources?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to find a better source. Obviously it is improper to state a time period for this window design that excludes the very mansions where they were built into that caused you to create this article in the first place (after misusing the phrase Demerara windows with a link to a location). Let's please be accurate firdt and foremost. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I am seeing that they were used primarily until the late 19th century. I am not finding that they were used often after that. Since I am not finding a good architectural source, maybe I'll use the source from Magnificent Seven Houses.

This might be hard to handle, it was for me initially: Wikipedia articles must be based upon information that can be verified with reliable sources. Just because you "know" something to be right, doesn't mean it can make it into the encyclopedia. Again, that's original research. You do have a good point about the MMS mansions, which was created in the early 20th century.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Well if you can't verify the info you added to Magnificent Seven Houses it should be removed. There certainly have been a lot of problems there and here. Now you've removed what the windows are from the article completely. The jointed top of the shutter that allows them to be propped open on a slant is what makes them Demerara windows. Honestly, it gets frustrating after a while correcring your mistakes only to be reverted. We don't knowingly incorporate false or misleading information in articles. Maybe you're confused because you had the wrong century written in Magnificent Seven Hoises? FloridaArmy (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I just reverted your edits because you are again changing the meaning of a sentence and look to be again adding content that is not from the cited source, beside 20th century. If this kind of editing continues, I am going to post a warning message on your user talk page. Please, please re: WP:V, WP:RS, and don't add content that is not from cited sources.

We got to a better place by the end of the day yesterday, I hope that happens again where we work well together.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You're going to warn me for correcting your article and your removing tags before addressing the issue? Classic. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked and sanctioned for improperly editing articles, often regarding sourcing. I have been rewriting your articles and starting in on drafts because of these issues. Then, I mentioned the issue here. How much more of a warning do you need?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Also see the post at User_talk:FloridaArmy#Edit_warring_report.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Jointed vs. hinged

I am not looking to get into a conversation, FloridaArmy, but per your edit summary -- I did an exact copy and paste from your original edit.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A hinge is a moveable join. Is there an issue? I'm thrilled we finally got to inclusing one of the essential features of the subject. It should really be in the first sentence but at least it's in there now. Why was it so hard to get there??????? FloridaArmy (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Already discussed why your edits were reverted in a block. Not wanting to reopen the discussion of why I reverted your comments, again to the point that you are 1) not listening and 2) don't like the back-and-forth.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

In other words, I am done, here, too. If you want the last word here, too, go for it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way the image you added to illustrate your article on Demerara windows was built in 1913. That's the 20th century. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

We could do with using better sources than news items etc. This is a start, coming as it does from an academic publisher. This would definitely be good if only I could see it in full view, as also would be this.

BTW, I am surprised to see mention of the centuries in the manner that we state. Yes, an architectural style originates at some point but thereafter can be used at any time, eg: in a retro design. It probably would be correct to say that each style has a heyday but it is the style that defines things, not the century. I am also surprised to see that this type of window was used in buildings of the Colonial style but was itself in the Georgian style. I'm no architect but it feels a little wrong. - Sitush (talk) 07:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Sitush.

1. I personally don't see what's wrong with newspaper articles, but agree that architectural books are better. Deb added content from your first source. The other 2 are snippets, so I am not sure what you want me to do with them.
2. They were used primarily in the 18th and 19th century before air conditioning. I can add that bit. --  Done I added "primarily" and already had the bit about before air conditioning.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
3. I don't know what to say about the styles, that's what I got from the source. I'm not sure what you're saying... remove it? Isn't that cherrypicking?–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC) --  Done I updated the wording, which is a little clearer, it was specific to the use of 12 panes. It's more of a close paraphrasing issue, but it also is clearer.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That's the problem with me trying to explain things when my head is mussed up. I'll get back to you but the gist is I think it may need rephrasing. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, added an update for #2.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC) And #3.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Floors

British usage for floor numbering goes ground floor, first floor, second floor etc. US usage goes first floor, second floor, third floor etc. This style of window originated in British Guyana and every source I am seeing indicates a primarily British colonial usage. So, when we say "first floor" in the article, are we using British English (as we should, per WP:MOSTIES) or US English? We are going to have to clarify this somehow. - Sitush (talk) 07:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Good point, I was using what was in the source. Perhaps I could add your comment as a note.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I think I came up with an easy solution. I changed above the first floor to upper floors. Does that work for both British and U.S. English?–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, sorry. That's the problem - "first" is ambiguous and thus "upper" might be wrong. I suspect you are right with the change but cannot verify with certainty. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you think about it later. I am happy with however you'd like to handle it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wood

I cannot see the Stabroek News source - it returns a 404 error - but I really find it hard to believe that pine was a more stable wood for construction in Guyana, which has an abundance of native tropical hardwoods. I would also be surprised if it was more resistant to native insect species.

Pine is relatively cheap and easy to work compared to many hardwoods, and also fast-growing, but the latter would have gained little consideration in the 18C/19C whereas I am fairly sure that using pine in Guyana would have meant importing it at some considerable cost cf using native species, thus outweighing the cheapness and ease of working that might otherwise apply.

Yes, the above is original research but I am genuinely wary of the source that I cannot see. - Sitush (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

If it's a newspapers.com source, I could try to save this as a clip. I have never done that, but then there would be a link you could see. Let me see what I can do. If I had this off-line, you wouldn't be able to see this either. After all our experience, do you really think I would take content that wasn't from a cited source?

There was also more explanation of what the issue was with native woods, I can see what that was.

Perhaps a search on Demerara window and wood will provide more information.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I am querying the source reliability, not your paraphrasing of it. It just seems odd to me, as someone who has worked a lot with wood over the years and indeed has a house that is entirely of wood construction. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, let me check out the clip option + searching on wood and see what comes up. I'll also see what it said about the native woods and why they were a problem.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it wasn't from newpapers.com. I am not sure why you cannot see it. Here are some sentences about the wood: "Greenheart, the wood of Guyana, though excellent for piles and fishing rods is difficult to work with hand tools until the skill is acquired. Probably for this reason as well as the absence of good mills, pitchpine and white pine or American board were imported."... "White pine and the ease with which it can be worked was no doubt the basis for another treatment of the gallery walls."... "The internal partitions as well as external walls of many traditional buildings were boarded up with white pine and clad in wallaba shingle. This formed an excellent thermal insulation while giving a pleasant texture to the wall but fear of it harbouring insects has very much reduced its popularity.

Specifically about the windows and coolers: "Pine, in this case pitch pine, was also admirably suited to the construction of louvred timber shutters, sash windows and coolers as this timber showed much less movement in the hot and humid conditions than native timbers."

(I can hear you already that this is not good from a copyright perspective, but it seems like a simple solution and it's not too much info that is copied over and quoted.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Not worried about copyright. Greenheart is rock hard, IIRC, and the quotes do explain my key point re: importation. I still surprised re: movement but what the heck. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I am not finding anything else about wood. I found one book that mentioned the issue with greenheart and the use of pine, but it's snippet view and I cannot quite see the whole context. There's a ellipsis (...) between the demerara window and the mention of the wood. I wouldn't think that would be a good source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)