Talk:Architecture of Aylesbury
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Buckinghamshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] User talk:Francs2000
I would like to record that this article was originally written in user space with much help from User:Francs2000 in addition to taking most of the photographs especially for this page, gave a lot of advice and help. Giano 18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you got a friendly admin to delete/move/merge from the old page location to the new page location then all of francs2000's edits should be fully recognised in the page history. To be honest that's what you should have done to start with - move the page across rather than copy and paste. -- 86.134.203.147 03:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Most of it is Giano's work, so I think he is entitled to decide how to move from user space to article space (usually, understandably, he does not want people to see the birth pangs of his articles). In this case, unusually, here was a degree of outside help, so it makes sense to merge the histories, as I see has been done already. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Local architects/builders
'A local architect would then be employed to recreate it, within limited financial restraints. Sometimes the patron would merely draw an image of what he required and a builder would then interpret the requirements to the best of his often limited ability.' Fantastic summary. Have you seen what the Bastard Brothers did at Blandford Forum after the disastrous fire in the 1730s? Here were local architect/builders with great ability. They deserve an article - I remember reading they were also longcase clockmakers too. I love the idea of some stuffy vicar telling his wife 'I'm just going to wind the Bastard clock, my dear'. Anyway, I don't have the knowledge to write such an article - any takers? By the way, I should have said - this is a splendid article - informative and well-illustrated. Congratulations to all involved. 86.133.214.44 08:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I did say "often" limited not "always" for every provincial building of the exceptional Bastard's ability I can show you a hundrd showing limited ability. Of course you can write a page on the Bastards - start off with googling themm and Blandford, record your reference sites at the bottom of the page and then just write an essay in your own words - give ma call if you want some further help or advice. Thanks for the complements - this is another page I have never got arownd to finishing - so if you want to practice have a go here. Giano 09:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- There you are Bastard brothers, there's a start - off you go. Giano 10:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Problematic
I am going through and cleaning up the article. There are a number of personal reflections which I am uncertain have been simply copied uncredited from sources or interjected by the primary authors. The article is currently problematic and I have tagged it as such. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Don't be malicious. The tag is unwarranted, and lead paragraphs are always summary style. Please read up on leads, summary style, and the FAC requirements. Additionally, tagging because you, as a single reader, think there should be more references is ultimately disruptive behavior. You may not feel that there are enough citations, but that's not the same thing as saying that there are not enough citations: work by consensus and community, not private assessment. Geogre (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- This is the text I have removed:
-
- The architecture contained in many of the country's great cities is well recorded and documented, as is that of the numerous great country houses. Frequently the work is by one of England's more notable architects - Christopher Wren, John Vanbrugh, Robert Adam, William Kent or even Quinlan Terry. What is less well known is the local almost vernacular architecture in the market towns, often inspired by the work of the great master architects or the general architectural style popular at the time. England had a middle class long before many other European countries, these bourgeois merchants would often return from a visit to one of the cities, or having seen a glimpse of one of the great country houses then require a replica of what they had seen. A local architect would then be employed to recreate it, within limited financial restraints. Sometimes the patron would merely draw an image of what he required and a builder would then interpret the requirements to the best of his often limited ability.
-
- This recreation and interpretation of a certain style was not confined to private houses, but to civic architecture too: an illustrious architect added to civic pride; and when an architect was too expensive for the civic coffers, for a fraction of the price he would judge a competition between local architects, for the privilege of designing a town hall or church. This is exactly what happened in Aylesbury. John Vanbrugh judged two sets of plans for the County Hall (now Aylesbury Crown Court). Thus for ever Vanbrugh's name was remembered in association with the building, the local architect almost forgotten, and civic pride maintained.
-
- It is this provincial, often unappreciated and unnoticed architecture, by nationally unknown architects still being produced today which continues to give many English market towns their unique atmosphere and character, the architecture of Aylesbury demonstrates this admirably from the 11th century to the 21st century. 1000 years of provincial architecture in one town little known outside of Britain.
This is speculation upon the general trend in architecture in England. This might be appropriate for a general article Architectural trends in English small towns, though I am unclear on how it is appropriate for the intro on the architecture of this particular town - nor am I sure where the ideas are from. Are the ideas those of the article's creators, or do they reflect the sum of human knowledge that Wikipedia seeks to record? If the former, they need to be removed. If the later, they need to be sourced, and then placed in the appropriate article - clearly not this one!
It is clear from the third paragraph that the intention of the essay is to use Aylesbury as an example of the creator's theory (either the Wiki editor or the uncredited author) on the development of provincial English architecture. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I support the changes being made to this article. The article seems to be about 20% smaller than it was previously and while the commenter in the next section perhaps is being a bit unkind, he or she has a point. I think the article flowed better and was more informative before the recent changes you made, SilkTork. I also agree with Geogre about the lead. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
As the person who contributed all the images for this article I certainly do not support all the changes that have been made, or the comments that have been made on this page and in hidden sections of the article itself. Unfortunately I handed in my user-status of this website years ago, and Giano is otherwise indisposed at the moment and cannot therefore defend his edits. I would like to see discussion before any further changes whatsoever are made to the article, and I believe a lot of the original content can and should be restored as was. -- 86.141.124.221 (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC) (formerly User:Francs2000)
[edit] What happened?
What happened here? I was just about to show a friend an example of how wikipedia articles can reach the same standards in writing as does, say, the Britannica. For said purpose I tend to use this article as one of my favourite examples, a true gem, drawing a surprising amount of erudition and information out of a fairly obscure topic, beatifully written, well illustrated and logically structured. But lo and behold, it's been replaced with something rather drab. Sic transit gloria Vikipaediae. athinaios (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- All this page was attempting to do was place some pleasing but rather mundane typical English architecture within an historical perspective and explain how it came to be and why. None of the removed information was in the least controversial, in need of a cite or ever likely to be disputed. I won't revert but it is all rather sad because the page is now meaningless and may as well be deleted as non-notable, for truly there is not one building mentioned that can realistically be called notable or worthy of inclusion in an architectural text-book. In fact I suspect this is the most comprehensive and detailed account of the architecture of Aylesbury of all eras one will find anywhere, and now it is a meaningless list. Giano (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Even though people may have felt they personally liked the article the way it was, Wiki is not the place to get it published. There is a lot of interest in local history and these days self-publishing is not expensive and is easy to do. There are also a number of publishers who specialise in local history. The original article would not have trouble getting published! If people feel that editors should be allowed to create such articles on Wiki then they need to work to get the policy changed. My own view is that the current policy is the right one. Wiki should reflect the sum of human knowledge, and it should do that in a trustworthy and reliable manner. The knowledge should be attributable to a reliable source. Without that attribution we can be accused of making it up. As well written as this essay was, it didn't belong on Wiki under the current guidelines because of lack of appropriate attribution. It weakens the reputation of Wiki when we have such articles. I don't think experts in a field should be driven away from Wiki, especially when they also write with ease; I think they should be encouraged to stay, and also encouraged to do the extra bit of work in citing their sources. And where they don't have the sources they should do the difficult thing and keep their personal views out of the article. A talent like Giano's should be encouraged, but it should also be pointed out where that talent is banging hard aginst policy. I don't think I've made any friends here with my views, but I hope that people can see that I have no ill intent, and that we are just not in agreement on this issue. Regards to all. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 03:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Original research" is a red herring in this case. There's nothing out of the common mainstream in the article. In reducing the text to a pedestrian manner more to one editor's liking, information has been lost, and Wikipedia has been slightly eroded as a result. This is not wholesome and constructive editing: it seems self-indulgent and thoughtless, not an example of User:SilkTork at his best, working within his field of competence. Eventually we'll have to return to the version of 9 December 2007 and start supplying references to the statements, to bolster the text from dismantling in the future. Tiresome work for the grown-ups. In the meantime, the introductory material of Howard Colvin, A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects (3rd. ed. 1995) would make a good introduction to the subject here for anyone who has never read anything about English architecture, and for whom any statement might sound "original". --Wetman (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
