Talk:List of palaces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
List	This article has been rated as list-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

The Summer Palace is not from Brazil, its from China and another one in Russia.

The entry on Germany is not quite correct. There is another term in German, "Pfalz", one meaning of which is the residences of the traveling kings of Germany (who doubled up as Emperors of the HRE frequently). Since Germany had no capital, the King traveled to reside on location where 'needed'. The "palace" in Aachen is one such "Pfalz", special because it was the traditional coronation palace for every King. Today, a lot of these palaces are called "Kaiserpfalz", but this is a more modern expression which overlooks that the king was only emperor when crowned as such by the pope through most of the Middle-Ages, and that the Emperor would frequently have his son elected king before he himself was dead to ensure family succession. Thus, "Königspfalz" would be a more fitting expression (and here in Dortmund, the location is referred to as the "Königshof", i.e. royal court. Unsure how much of this would be suitable to be included in the list vs. the main article on "palace", which is a bit short on this issue as well.OliverH

[edit] Rideau Hall and Nova Scotia Government House

These are palaces? Do we have citations for that? If not remove them; if so keep them and their images. GoodDay 19:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Palace: "In English a palace is the home of a head of state or other high-ranking public figure." So, technically, yes, Rideau Hall and NS Gov't House are palaces. --G2bambino 19:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically, but not official? GoodDay 19:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that matters. A good number of buildings listed on here may not be "officially" dubbed a palace (the White House for example) but they fit the definition of one. --G2bambino 19:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well in that case 'keep it' (including the RH image). PS- Sure be nice to see citations for all those 'questionable' palaces, though. GoodDay 19:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PS- Reviewd LonewolfBC's complaints, about the Rideau Hall image. Is their a Wikipedia rule/policy that bans images from lists? If not, there's no reason to object. GoodDay 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pic of Rideau Hall

I erased the Rideau Hall image because it does not fit and is not needed, not on the basis that images are not allowed. I think that is clear enough from my edit-summaries: "pic doesn't fit & this is only a list" and "nuke pic b/c it overflows country's section & this is only a list". However, to explain at greater length, because the Canadian section of this list is short, the Hall's image over-spills it into the section below, even distorting the text there. This is visually illogical and esthetically displeasing, making the image's inclusion somewhat detrimental. Because this is only a list, images are needless here. They're okay as visual filler for otherwise blank space to the right of the listed items, but there is no real need for them in a list (as against an article). I'm of two minds about whether the list would be better without any images, but I'm not aware of any ban on images in lists, and did not delete the Hall's image a "no images" basis. So, considering the Hall's image (in particular) to be both unneeded and somewhat detrimental, I erased it. I even experimented with reducing it, but found that if it could be made to fit within its national section at all it would then be too small to be of any worth. Otherwise, I have no particular objection to having an image of Rideau Hall here.
I do object to the leaving of a rude message on my talk-page, its repeated restoration when I erased it, and the use of invidious and misleading edit-summaries both there and here -- misleading, among other ways, in that they only mention restoration of the pic, while not only the pic was being reverted to. The right way to proceed, Bambino, would have been to leave a message here along the lines of "I don't understand why you deleted the image. Please explain; I can't make it out from your edit-summaries," -- short, sweet, to-the-point.
-- Lonewolf BC 21:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just make the 'image' fit. As you've stated. 'widen' the Canada section (plus shrink the image). Such edits are done on other articles. PS- good to see you respond 'here' (this talk page). It gives yourself a chance, to widen your explantion for deleting the image. GoodDay 21:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly though (and still think) that the reason for deleting the image was plain from the edit-summaries I left (especially in conjuction with viewing the page with the over-spilling image on it). You, at least, must have understood it without further explanation from me, given that you acted accordingly by shrinking the image, half an hour before I posted the at-length explanation, above. I still think that it would make more sense simply to do without the image until and unless Canada's section grows big enough to hold it without being padded out with white-space so as to do so. -- Lonewolf BC 22:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

How's that edit; RH image shrunk + Canada section widen = no obstruction of China section. GoodDay 21:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I love a happy ending. Good to see editors who care about a subject, reach an agreement (for the betterment of the article). GoodDay 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. :-) (I assume from its timing that your last post gives approval to my tweak at 21:44.) -- Lonewolf BC 22:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed discription of RH aswell. It's not the Queen official residence, but rather the Canadian Governor General's. GoodDay 14:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, we should 'tear down' Rideau Hall. Then it'll be no one's, official residence, ha ha. Anyway, happy 'edit warring'. GoodDay 17:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Petropolis Imperial Museum.jpg

Image:Petropolis Imperial Museum.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)