User talk:Brosi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Brosi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  DVD+ R/W 01:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Art Psychology

Hi, I just want to let you know that I've posted a comment/question re the term "Art Psychology" on the Talk:Psychology page. It occurs to me that you may not have put that Psychology article on your watchlist (seeing as you hadn't responded to the other editor's suggestion re merging the section). In any event, I will be looking for your reply to my question. Regards, Cgingold 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello again! In your reply on the Talk:Psychology page you asked about changing the name of the Art psychology page that you recently created to "Psychology of art". As a matter of fact, there is a whole page that explains exactly how to go about doing that: Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page. I've never renamed a page myself, but it looks pretty straightforward -- good luck with it. Cgingold 11:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] have a look at this....

hey Brosi, User:DVD R W/亀甲墓 it isn't rock-cut, or is it? haven't understood how they make them yet, as I've been taking it slowly, but will soon. regards, 01:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Brosi, you've got me into this rock cut stuff. Do you consider Bandelier National Monument, or a kiva to be rock cut? Also take a look at the Toraja tombs especially [1]. Sorry that I said I would translate that one article but haven't gotten around to it yet. DVD+ R/W 14:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychology of art and Trauma and the Arts

These two entries which only you have worked on read like essays and seem to be comprised of original research, which is not allowed. While I could maybe see Trauma and the arts survive under a name like Trauma in art (in which it would present specific examples and trends explicitly stated from sources) the Psychology of Art article seems to be entirely made up of original research. Original research on Wikipedia includes writing essays to reach new conclusions not originally supported in the references presented. --Wafulz 19:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psychology of art

I didn't observe that there were any new conclusions whatsoever in this article. It reads like a definition and a history, and cites its sources, as it should. However, it did read like an essay. It doesn't annymoore. I've fixed that! Please take a look, add dates to the first psychologist that you have referred to, because it locates the subject timewise. You also need to cite his major written work. The books that I have dropped into the Bibliogaphy all requiere ISBNs

all the best! --Amandajm 11:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rock cut architecture

Thanks for improving this article. --Nemonoman 15:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Brosi, I have posted some comments to the talk page of Rock cut architecture about some issues that need to be addressed. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Renaissance architecture

two things:-

  • When making a change, the term "minor" isn't applied to changes to wording. Changes in the History of an article that are marked m are things of no substantial importance eg. spelling, typos, a to an, putting in a space where one is missing, etc. If you add a sentence or change a sentence, it isn't a minor change.
  • Can you please check after you've made a change to a sentence to make sure that you haven't left half a sentence hanging in mid air, which is what happened with your last change.
  • Your addition to the historiography was pertinent. Your change to the other sentence was an improvement.
  • Your removal of every date and ISBN, if it was you who did it, and not someone else at your computer, was highly inappropriate.
  • HTF am I supposed to get the dates back and the ISBNs bback, without also reverting your contributions? I'spose I can do a copy and paste, but I'm really rather annoyed.

--Amandajm 08:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hi Brosi!

What about the number? Are you saying that you didn't remove every single date and every single ISBN number from that article? I'll have to check it out more thoroughly and see if I can see when it was done. --Amandajm 13:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Architectural history

Brosi, would you mind taking a look at the discussion page of that article? I've suggested that the present page should be divided into two, one dealing with the subject of Architectural History (two caps.) and the other dealing with History of Architecture which currently redirects to Architectural history. There are seperate pages for Art History and History of Art.

--Amandajm 08:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Art/Architectural History

The Art History page has changed a fair bit in the few weeks or so. It has been carefully rewritten to emphasise the study of Art as History ie. The use of artworks as historical documents. I don't know how ggeneral or widesppread it is to deal with "Art History" in this manner.

In the case of Architectural History, yes, I think what I had in mind was what one would call a History of Architectural History:- looking at the written records of architecture, the appreciation or contemppt of difference writers of different periods towards various architectural styles. It would make an interesting article.

A writer's description of a building ccan affect your view of it forever. Pevsner describes the subtlties of the little domed church of St Stephen, Walbrook, built by Christopher Wren. Although it is a small space with a large dome, it is not a centrally planned building. Its spaces are divided into a nave, aisles, transept and chancel, intersected by the dome in a way which is incredibly clever. Recently, the interior furnishings were rearranged in such a way that it is now "Church in the round" and it works very effectively. But Wren's subtle composition has been destroyed in the new arrangement. Pity! However, if I hhad never read Pevsner I probably wouldn't miss it!. --Amandajm 10:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nearly Headless Nick. Not sure I know what you are talking about. Is this for real or your X-Mass joke?
To be sure you know Brosi, that wasn't Nick but someone impersonating him. The account User:Rampelstinskin has been blocked indefinately for doing this and issuing false warnings. You can remove it if you want. Best, DVD+ R/W 04:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
That's good. I am getting a taste I guess of the dark side of Wikipedia.

[edit] Wikiproject architecture

Hey there - I wondered if you might be interested in receiving the architecture wikiproject bulletin - If you're not then just delete the code {{WikiProject Architecture Bulletin}} from your talk page. Cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - sounds great!


WikiProject Architecture Bulletin   v • d • e 
Announcements - please add your Project announcements   v • d • e 
  1. One Bayfront Plaza promoted to GA on 3 October 2007. Rai-me 23:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. List of tallest buildings in San Francisco promoted to FL on 11 October 2007. Rai-me 19:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Buildings and architecture of Bristol promoted to FA on 23 October 2007. — Rod talk 09:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. List of tallest buildings in Dallas promoted to FL on 8 November 2007. Rai-me 03:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. List of tallest buildings in Detroit promoted to FL on 8 December 2007. Rai-me 07:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. List of tallest buildings in Dubai promoted to FL on 21 December 2007. Cheers. Trance addict 19:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. List of tallest buildings in Cleveland promoted to FL on 7 January 2007. Rai-me 00:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. List of tallest buildings in Tulsa promoted to FL on 7 January 2007. Rai-me 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. 5th Avenue Theatre promoted to GA on 20 January 2008.--Skotywa (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. List of tallest buildings and structures in Manchester promoted to FL on 19 February 2008. Cheers. Trance addict 02:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
New article announcements - add new architecture article to list



Archives

This month's collaboration is Johannes Itten.

Johannes Itten, this month's collaboration
Featured article and Featured list candidates
Feature picture candidates
Articles at Peer Review
Pettit Memorial Chapel - Dean Castle - Smederevo fortress - Somerset Towers - Bath Stone - Leo J. Ryan Federal Building - Architects (Registration) Acts, 1931 to 1938 - Cannons (house)
New participants (add me)
Mattisse, Nonza, Merbabu
This template will be updated monthly. If you would rather not receive this bulletin, just delete it from your talk page.

[edit] Cathedral architecture of Western Europe

Brosi,

You made a few little useful additions to the above page, and in doing this, you deleted every date and every ISBN.

This is the second time that this has happened. Does your computer run a program to cause this problem, or what? Because if you are doing it intentionally, it is vandalism.

Would you mind going back to that article and checking the alterations that you have mmade- it was the alteration pertaining to "basilica" as a law court as well as a meeting place. If you compare your edit with my previous,, you will see that all the dates and ISBNs disappeared at that point.

I have reverted the article to that pprevious state and incorporated your edits; a liittle changed.

Why is this numerical thing hhappening? It really is a nusisance!

Hope your Christmas went well! --Amandajm 13:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is definitely not intentional. I will go to the page and see. What could be doing this? Are there some computer experts to help me? Thanks for helping me out on this, I hope it has not happened on other pages. Let me check out the pages first.Brosi 23:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually it seems they were being taken out before me "Smackbot"?? How can I diagnose when the edits (number removals )were made?

No you are right, I was with my first edit, I think. I recall that when I saved my chagnes, the save didn;t work, so I went back to the article page and then back again to the edit page and tried it again,. That worked. Maybe in going back and forth?? I will watch for it next time and see. Sorry for all your trouble. and appreciate your patience.Brosi 14:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Amandajm, I was editing a page and saved it, and noticed that all the dates disappeared.BOOM. It is something in my computer. I put the dates back in of course. but also emailed Wikipedia for Help. I will not do any saving until I get their responce.
Hi Brosi!

Thanks for your message! I'm so glad that you sorted out the problem... now you can go ahead and edit without the fear that someone might get very cross!

Well, now Christmas is over, I will do some more writing and put up a few more photos. Ciao! --Amandajm 13:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [2]

Brosi, you can edit portals as you would like. That intro statement is at Portal:Architecture/Intro, maybe the part you want to modify is "This holds true to this day" of "This holds true to this day – as music is a play of pitches/tones with silences (modulation in sound), architecture is a play of solids with voids, geometry with proportion." - the last sentence of the first paragraph. I agree that the first part of that sentence is arguable (maybe more of other ideas attributed to Vitruvius than those) and you should adjust it. The second sentence seems to paraphrase a statement by Le Corbusier as a conclusion to a statement about Vitruvius, hmmm maybe not definitive either but still interesting to me. Re-write it if you want. Best, DVD+ R/W 18:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Renaissance architecture

Oh very good! I Particularly the paragraph on Theory. It is an excellent addition.

Now, about those bits that you "fleshed out" .... I have been considering moving the lengthy discussion of Italian Renaissance architects to a new page Italian Renaissance architecture or Architecture of the Italian Renaissance... Anyway, there have been well-intentioned complaints that Italy is given more space than all the other countries put together (sigh!) so, since the article is very long, and you have now written an excellent summary of Italian Ren. Arch., it's probablyy the time to do it. Only, not right now this minute because it's 3.00 am and I've got lots of noisy visitors tomorrow.

Ciao!

By the way- you need to reference everything, otherwise you are accused of putting up "original material" so even if you've lectured in the subject for the last 40 years, you have to quote someone else who supports you, OK?

--Amandajm 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I agree, but the page needs to be assessed at the top level. If you put it forward as a "featured article" and the person that assesses it is pedantic and nit-picking, they want every single paragraph in-line referenced which is ridiculous and not strictly in line with wiki policy. I tried to explain to two of these guys that there is a difference between saying "an Edam cheese is round and covered with red wax" and saying "grilled cheese on toast causes migraines". But they seemed unable to tell the difference.

I've thought again about cutting that long article down. Perhaps it would be best to leave it and just concentrate on making the articles about the individual Italian architects and/or individual buildings as thorough as possible.

--Amandajm 13:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] English

Brosi, you may not agree precisely with my way of defiming things, but my English is excellent and my use of it highly considered.

Suddenly I see things which read clearly being changed into verbose paragraphs that will be very hard for a student without background knowledge to decipher. I am goinng to work through some of what you have written.

If you don't like the definition of the three phases oof the Renaissance, then rather than including your reasons in the text of the article, you nneed to turn it into a reference at the bottom, and leave the sentence clear. Or else put your blurb into the Historiography, which can be skipped by anyone wanting simpler info. You are bbusy making this article more complex. Let uus nnot do that.

--Amandajm 09:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a such rude nnasty person! Now I am going to gently rewrite on or two little things into better English! The term 14th century is used three times in one sentence..... there must be a better way!

--Amandajm 09:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Hi Brosi!

A couple of things about "Wikipedia Style"

  • Try to avoid "is seen as", "are thought of as", "are seen by some" and all related expressions. When in doubt, do a direct quote and cite it. Or a footnote saying, some think this, some think that.
  • Dates. Only put in the really relevant ones. So- In the history listing the names and bbuildings of different architects, they hhave their dates (or should have, unless they've disappeared again), because one nneeds the dates to make the necessary comparisons. Buildings have dates, because of the nature of the article. The books in the Historiography need dates because its really relevant, but the individual historians don't need dates, because the article is not about the historians. If one wants more about the historian, one clicks on their name and goes to their page.

If some of your info seems to have disappeared, you'll find it in the footnotes.

I think the article is really looking good.

I shoved the Influences thing around. It's a bit problematic because-

  • the text was written so that each paragraph developed out of the next. If the order is changed too much, one either has to repeat material or lose the context and the flow.
  • the pics, which need to fit or else be removed, but I think they add something. It's hard making the pics and the text sit together tidily.

cheers! --Amandajm 11:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brosi!

Yeah! I'm quite pleased with the way its coming together. But I wish hadn't trodden on people's toes too starrt with! (buggger this computer! I'vvve changed keyybooarrds and it still does itt!) About Russian Renaissance, I know nothing. There is a personn called Ghirlandaio who iis Ruussian and has a interest in architecture and might be useful in that department, if you can work with him. Another current architectural initiative is what Attilios is doing- translating Italian architectural articles about particular buildings into English, which I rework into more correct English and add a few poinnts here and there. Recently done Certosa di Pavia and Basilica of Sant'Antonio. Impossible to add references....

Anyway, I don't know where you find your name. I've only jjust joined up mmysellf. There is also a list oof people to assess articles with only a few names on it. When you are a bbit more familiar with the style conventions you should put your name on that list as well.

If you have a little cruise around the Featured articles you'll see that the expectations seem to vvary, depending upon who rates the article. Some of the articles that have been featured are really quite messy but contain lots of good innfo. Others have been featured with very few references listed and no inline referencing at alll. On the other hhand, an article might be assessed bby someone who knows little about the subject and for whom any information is new information, and for who pedantry is a way of life, so that if you say "the church of St Barnabas is Victorian Gothic" they want documentary evidence to prove it. A phhoto of the building and date of 1866 is noot sufficient. Consequently, the llikelihood of a really compprehhansive article on a mmajjor subjject ggetting a top rating is not high. However, Italian Renaissance has one of those little stars in the corner.... so ....

I'm still debating with myself as to whether to split off the Italian Renaissance architecture or not.

Thhe summary of Phases seems to cover the Italian section pretty well not and mmention the most significant names. The problem with dividing the article, which is continuing to increase in length, is deciding what part of the recent additions should go, and what should stay.

  • the "Influences" only pertain to the beginning of the Renaissance in Italy and should probably go and be replaced with a very briief summary, inclluding aspects of brooader Europe.
  • The "Characteristics" should stay.

How about we chop it up, see how it loooks and, if it doesn't workk, put it all backk again?

Keep up the good work!

I'm currently having a fiddle with a couple of other pages as well. Rose window. For light relief I write about draught horses, working dogs and poisonous spiders. I've got a photo on Clydesdale (breed) which I'm really pleased with, despite the fact that the horse (the young bay) is a biit thinner than the Americans like them. We have been suffering acute drought for five years, there's been no grass and Clydies eat a small mountain of food every day. LLuckily there has been a llittle rain this summer. Its raining gentlly this morning and there are five young currawongs sitting on my wet path and singing their hearts out.

Seeya --Amandajm 00:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Hi Brosi!

Where are you! McGinnly has just been kind enough to upgrade the Renaissance architecture page to an A. Thanks for your great contributions to it. Your Historiography and Theory was just the thing! How about we don't chop it up, after all.... --Amandajm 16:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Brunelleschi

With regards the Pazzi Chapel, regardless who actually got it constructed, it would take a lot to convince me that the entire interior arrangement is not Brunelleschi's design. (I don't mean he did the details oof the rondels, for example, but just that he planned their exact location).

It seems to me that he is further experimenting with the elements and rules that he himself has constructed:- He decides upon a mathematical/architectural formula ie "This is the module" and then he experiments to discover what effect the rigid application of a rule is going to have. And when he meets something that is awkward he doesn't do what a Gothic architect would do, adjust the elements to solved the problem. He simply forges ahead, letting the "rule" that he has established dictate the form. It results in things that no Gothic medieval would have done eg. having pilasters spaced in such a way that there is no room for a complete pilaster so 1/8 of the pilaster has turned the corner and is at 90%. (no, what happens is something different...) Because of all the little apsidal chapels at Spirito, on the exterior, on the four inward-corners where the nave/chancel and transept meet, there are two windows that obey the formular of all the others to the letter and therefore intercept each other and the liittle shields that are above each window touch each other at 90% also. This would have been unthinkably ugly to a medieval architect who would have happily custom-designed something to fit the space elegantly.

(Yes But, you may say....there just hhappen to bbe windows that are the exact reverse, outwards not inwards, at Sant'Antonio's, Padua, Gothic of course, and they also exist in Venice... well, of course they would...except in Venice it would be done for the vista.)

What Brunelleschi does is downright weird and I don't doubt that he knew it. What Michelozzo did, on the other hand, is much mmore flexible. Michelozzo would have made the little adjustments that Brunellschi simply refused to make. You look at Michelozzo happily and think "That's lovely, isn't it!" You look at Brunelleschi in the same way as you look at Escher and think "Right! I see what he's done and what it inevitably leads to."

The big problem with all this is that if I write aboout Brunelleschi I don't know who to quote on the subject. I only have one little book that's specific to Brunelleschi. My view of his work comes from conversations that I had in Florence in 1981. Most writers of general architectural history see only the most obvious things and ignore the things that are rather jarring because the only way to explain them is to follow Brunelleschi's logic. Other architects used Brunelleschi to create harmony, But brunellleschi wasn't interested in harmony- that was mmedieval stuff.. He just set architectural elements on a collision course and stood by to watch them crash like the Gremlin at the traffic lights.

So Michelangelo comes along at Lorenzo's and says "OK, B. says these are the rules for columns and walls and windows; well, I'll construct several rooms:- a wallish room, a windowish room and a columnar room and we'll jam one inside the other." They dont actually fit because they are all the same dimension... Brunelleschi would have looked at the vestibule and laughed his head off. he would have understood why the pilasters are tapered and how the consoles ended up being shoved down where they are. It was the force of brutally ramming one room inside the other. However, now that it is done, you wouldn't want to change anything because its all so delicately balanced that its likely to crash in on you if you so much as flick a light switch. Not a place to loiter!

I have no doubt that M. had experienced the Pazzi Chapel where if you stand in the centre, the beastly building does this tug-of-war thing with you. What's more, there is no way that you would go into the chancel if you could avoid it. And even kneeling at the steps for Communion would make you anxious that some Pazzi might come at you from behind and stab you in the neck.

--Amandajm 00:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


I haven't had the advantage of reading either Battisti or Saalman. I'd be interested. We have to go with the written sources on wiki, so just keep up the good work.

--Amandajm 07:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Micky-Baby

Just re-did Sistine Chapel ceiling. Gotta fix that poem; it's still not all there! Anyway, I was going to write about the restoration, but decided to make it a separate article, not too long. OK! But my latest info only goes up to 1986, when the lunettes were finished and the ceiling underway. I spose that there is more recent info on the web, but not in English, unless you have access to JSTOR, which I haven't! My Italian is very limited. I know how to order a foccaccia and how to purchase two tickets to Bologna and how to persuade the curator at a Palazzo to take us on a private tour of the upper floor, but that's about it!

Good luck with Palladio! Take a look at the facade of St Agostino in Rome. It's getting there. There is an entirely different solution to the problem of integrating the aisles and the nave to the one which Alberti employed at Santa Maria Novelly and which ultimately became the "standard" in Roman Baroque etc.

It is very interesting to speculate what Brunelleschi might have done with a facade. Also that other Alberti church, the name of which escapes me, with the undercroft and stairs.... Ah! dinner has just arrived! spicy pork, lemongrass chicken and sated something-or-other! Yum! Yum! --Amandajm 08:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Amand - I'd speak to User:Giano if you need italian advice from someone architecturally literate. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alberti and the rest!

Just took a look at the Ren Arch. Yeah! It's great! but don't over do it, or we'll have complaints that its all and only about Italy!

San Sebastiano is exactly the place I was thinking about. I've seen it, but I'm sure I've never been inside it. And do you know, I'd forgotten what that place at Pienza looked like! It's fantastic. Those big plinths are like Palladio, who uses them to adjust the levels of his overlaid facades. And the way that those little columns frame and sit inside the arches on two levels remind me of just one thing- Petra! Though the Roman buildings at Petra are really Roman "Baroque". Anyway, the suggestion that Alberti was involved at Pienza looks very likely to me.

I'm just in the middle of sorting out the references of another article. I'll have a little language check of what you've written and make sure it all flows smoothly, when I've finished this other bloody thing which i keep messing up! It's nearly 2 am here! Maybe I should retire.

--Amandajm 15:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaissance Classicism

Yes, it really is rather ghastly!

I think that the process that has taken place here is that a student (Invictus) put up a course essay bback in 2001. Other people have expanded it a biit, but its still pretty awful!

The reason that itt appears in someother oline encyclopedia or article is that a number of different webbsites lift mmaterial from Wiki all the time.

The page on St. Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney for exammple, has been linked to or copied to various pages about Sydney and also to the cathedral website. A great wad of info that I wrote about stained glass now appears somewhere else as well.

What happens with an article like that is that someone who knows something about the subject does a substantial rewrite. That is what I did (against a certain amount of opposition) at the Renaissance architecture page, because, although several of the contributors were very knowledgeable, particularly about certain areas, like English Renaissance architecture, no-one had actually got the thing together in a cohesive form. It's a very important article, obviously, and it has to be as good as we can make it, because it's likely to be used by a lot of students.

Well, I've been doing another little project for light entertainment Tiffany glass. The info was spread out over about five or six superfluous articles which were alll labelled as "stubs". Put them togther, and one has an article on the various types of glass developed by Tiffany. I don't quite know why people do that sort of thing- break info up into tiny little mouthfuls, instead of making a meal of it! Problem with articles like that is that it's impossible to cite the sources, if the original contributor is someone who makes the stuff rather than reads about it.

You should look at the articles on Honey bee. Every possible aspect of the honey bee has its own page! One of the problems on wiki is the policy of "no original research". On one hannd, they want experts to write about their subjject. One the other hand, people with enormous technical knowledge and sometimes considerable skill at writing what they kknow, may hhave fifty years of experience and no booklearning in their subject whatsoever. It means that "Boffins" are discouraged.

See ya! --Amandajm 23:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Aaaaargh!

Naughty Brosi! You've done it again!

No, not the ISBNs this time...... the references!

  • Instead of having a list of references a mile long, there is a way of making all your references to a particular book appear as abcdefgBanister Fletcher.
  • But if someone deletes the template, it's stuffed.
  • So the rule is if you find the following code in front of a reference, you never never delete it, or people send you rude insulting messages!
  • At the first reference you put:- leftarrow ref name= BF rightarrow Banister Fletcher leftarrow/rightarrow thus [1]
  • Then for every subsequent reference to that source you paste:- leftarrow ref name= BF /rightarrow thus [1]

If you have a look at the bottom of Renaissance Architecture, you see it works well, mostly..... however, if you forget the / when you cut and paste, you stuff up all the reference below it, and spend 20 minutes trying to work out what you did to make that happen. Every time you add a reference, or change one, it pays to check to make sure it actually happened as intended.

What bbetween my inefficiency and the fact that this stupid thing drops in double letters, double bbrackets and various other things.... I spend a lot of time wondering where I went wrong!

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b Banister Fletcher


So isn't that just neat!

--Amandajm 05:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reversions

I notice that in the middle of your work on the article, someone by the name of Tyson Moore came along and reverted what you did, only seconds after you had done it.

If you use the "inuse template" when you are working on something, it generally, but not always means that people don't fiddle unto you've finished. {{inuse}}

All the best! --Amandajm 05:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yoo Hoo! Brosi!

Leonardo neeeds you! It's been in shambles, with more about his sexlife than his paintings. I'm currently trying to restore the balance. I've rewritten the intro (politely incorporating aeverything that was already there) and written about his early life and training with Verroccio.

But it nneeds an intro that states briefly the Background to Florence in the second half of the quatrocento. And I don't know anyone who would do it better than you.

I've divided it into sections, politics, religion, philosophy ... but they are only proposals. It's just sitting there waiting for you. I'll do the bit that says Painting, unless you want to fight me for it.

Hoo Roo! (like Ciao only different...)

--Amandajm 08:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What an amazing place

I'd love to go to Ethiopia. We have a World Vision child there. --Amandajm 15:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Moaning bloody Lisa

I've just tried to reoorganiise as you suggested. The little problem is that She hhas bbeen written into the text as an exampl. It isn't merelly a description of the painting but a discussion of

  • sfumatoo
  • landscape bbackgground

which willl have too bbe ootherwise iincorporated into the first pparagraph.

The second problem is, there is noo room for the ppicture, lower down. The pics are already alternate, and if you put a rightside pic on the left side, it looks dreadful. most paintings tend not to bbe full frontal and blinking Monna has to go onn the right. so it's squeezy.

Glad thhat you are going to do the centrally planned churches- I was just thinking about doing it. OK, we now also have Leonardo da Vinci - scientist and inventor.

It can bbe frustrating writing on wiki. You gget it all together and someone enthusiastic remebers someinteresting info, and includes stuff that needs citation without reference. Or slaps a Merge! banner on an article that you have just started and which is going to easily grow to 50 kilobbyytes.

Blloww the blinkking dubbydups! You can kkeeps them all! I hope your travels went well! --Amandajm 23:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lisa again

I just took another look at thhe section and at the changes that I was trying to incorporate and didn't do it. The reason being that the section commences with a statement to the effect that Leonardo's painting fascinates ppeople, and this meanns the Mona Lisa in particular. I don't think that you can write this phenomenon out of the out of the article. It's not "just another painting".

In fact, now that the "Vitruvian Man" has gone over to the other page as the fronticepiencce, Mona Lisa ought to be the fronticce piece to this article. Way to Go! That solves the problem!

--Amandajm 23:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Architecture

Hi Brosi! are you still here? haven't heard from you for ages. Architecture has been earmarked for publication, I believe, and it needed cleaning up, so I cleaned it up. It's not my sort of article really... not enough specifics. It does a good line in describing how the role of architect changed along the way.

1/2 the article is totally lacking in references because, what happened was that some nice person moved the page a couple of years ago (I think). It means that there is no indication who wrote the longish History section in the first place, so I can't contact them to ask what book they used. That part is well written an consistent. I just added a bbit here and there. someone had jammed in a section on Islamic architecture at a point that interrupted the flow of meaning (of course) and included the sort of details that are not included anywhere else, so I pruned it and gave a bit of balance to it by mentioning that the Orient had architecture as well. Gave a brunelleschi a bit of prominence in place of that plate with the orders on it, because, basically, the article is about the practice of architecture rather than styles.

If you could take a look, and if, in particular, you know, or could add some references to the section that doesn't have any, it would be really good. --Amandajm 12:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Brosi!

I'm glad you are back! Have you been studying? I hope your life has been going well! I have missed your enthusiasm.

I have worked on Gothic architecture, Romanesque architecture, Italian Renaissance painting (which didn't exist) and I have just recently greatly expanded Edmund Blacket who is an Australian Gothic Revival architect.

I will take a look at Alberti.

My computer is playing up and running very slowly, so everything takes ages! I think I need a new one.

Amandajm 07:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Architecture

It reads as if someone has copied it straight from a kids encyclopedia. It really needs and overhaul. Why don't you make it your little project? Did you notice the pics that have been selected for the Renaissance? It really doesn't help anyone and it could be very useful.

Amandajm 09:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pre-colonial drawing of Benin City

It's actually a 1891 sketch of the view of Benin City in its contemporary state, just preceding British conquest. Please see: H. Ling Roth, Great Benin, Barnes and Noble reprint. 1968., for reference.Taharqa 01:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem!Taharqa 17:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Greetings from the 'Gong!" (a miner's cottage c.1940, decorated for Christmas 2007)
"Greetings from the 'Gong!" (a miner's cottage c.1940, decorated for Christmas 2007)

‎

[edit] Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

From Amandajm (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Shinto Temple"

Contrary to your edit way back in 2006, Japanese Jinja are NOT called "Shinto temples". In fact, what the article said before you edited it was that "A Shintoist temple is called a jinja, or in English a shrine, as opposed to temples (-tera, -dera) as in Buddhism." That is the actual situation.

Bathrobe (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Sometimes it's hard to figure out when a change occurred. I sometimes suspect (in fact I know) that history pages are "rewritten", e.g., when editors change their names, after serious bouts of sockpuppet activity, etc.
Bathrobe (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)