Talk:Buckingham Palace/Archive 4
 | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Condition and state of the Palace (building work and the like)
Forgive me if I'm wrong - I've searched the archives for the Talk page and I don't think I've found any other discussion on the topic - but it seems to me that maybe a small subheaded section on the condition of the Palace, and the required building work needed to restore it at various times, should be fitting.
I know it's mentioned under the heading "21st century", but in case anyone's unfamiliar, it's long been known that Buckingham Palace as a building is in great need of repair, and also well-known that these issues go back a lot further than the roughly 2016-ish mention at the bottom of "21st century" at the minute. I feel it could be expanded upon further, simply put. I don't actively have the time to WP:BEBOLD and put it in myself, I'm too busy rewriting (and crying over) the state of the articles currently setting up camp on my Watchlist. Any thoughts to the topic would be welcome; thanks! --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Updating
I don’t understand the images in this article; it seems odd to feature three images of U.S. Presidents. Obama in the 20th century makes some sense, but two images of Obama, along with one of Nixon, doesn’t when there are so many images to offer and why the focus on US. Also, two ex-US Presidents one over the other isn’t optimal for “court dress”. Giano might you be willing to find some better images of the actual palace, and rationalize this overuse of US people? There is contemplation of running this TFA for the Queen’s 95th. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- That is unfortunate, I agree, but it could be worse, they could be pictures of Donald Trump, so look on the bright side. The real problem is that unlike in the Land of the Free, Buckingham Palace is not the People’s Palace, so the only way to get a free interior image is to have an American president in it. It’s a pity Meghan didn’t raise this serious problem in her interview as that would have been more useful. The only solution is be to photo-shop il presidente out. I seriously can’t think of any other way of getting photos taken within living memory. Giano (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- None of these could be more useful? So odd to celebrate the Queen’s 95th on Wikipedia with ... US presidents! Even less so on the heels of the Meghan and Oprah show. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- No, sadly those photos are not within living memory, and mostly pre-date the accession of Edward VII who did away with all those Victorian interior decor schemes. I wonder if one of the presidents could be shopped into a torchiere with a plant pot on top? Would anyone spot the difference? Poor Meghan, if only she’s spoken to me first, I could have told her poor Archie as a great grandson of the sovereign wouldn’t be a prince. I wonder though if any Americans who saw the interview realised though it’s entirely her and Harry’s decision that he’s not Earl of Dunbarton or Baron Kilkeel. The Queen gave them extra titles for their son and grandson when they married. Poor Meghan so much to learn. Giano (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't watch, but I imagine it was well choreographed theatre with two entertainers who are neighbors running the show! OK, we are stuck with Nixon and Obama I guess :) Is the rest of the article well enough tuned up to run TFA in April ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I doubt it, the page is unstable because it’s tweeked By passers-by so often, and the FA rules change every five minutes. Probably best if it lost the star, then it can be easily kept to a decent standard and probably broken up into a category of rooms like Winter Palace. That way all the trivia people add can be kept in context or subtly “lost”, rather than the page growing into the long, dull amble it is at the moment. Giano (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- That sounds TFA ready :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- What does TFA mean, all these acronyms, one can’t keep track. Anyway, I’m currently unable to edit mainspace as I’ve said I won’t until the ridiculous morons currently calling themselves an Arbcom, stop persecuting RexxS and he resumes editing. It’s a real nuisance, but hopefully he’ll return. Giano (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Bish says he’s gone, and it is not wise to disagree with Bish! TFA = Today’s featured article, the one that runs on the mainpage so every vandal can hit it. This article is requested at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending, and the scheduler asked people to look it over to make sure we won’t incur the wrath of the people who hang out at WP:ERRORS and put up a fuss if they don’t like something. If it gets scheduled, there will be a notice here on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- If this year has taught me anything, it’s to stop worrying about pedants and concentrate on things that really matter. Sadly, finding refs for the colour of the Queen Mother’s hat in 1942 etc, no longer cut the mustard for me. I’m not sure they ever did, but I’m sure you know what I mean. Giano (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Bish says he’s gone, and it is not wise to disagree with Bish! TFA = Today’s featured article, the one that runs on the mainpage so every vandal can hit it. This article is requested at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending, and the scheduler asked people to look it over to make sure we won’t incur the wrath of the people who hang out at WP:ERRORS and put up a fuss if they don’t like something. If it gets scheduled, there will be a notice here on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- What does TFA mean, all these acronyms, one can’t keep track. Anyway, I’m currently unable to edit mainspace as I’ve said I won’t until the ridiculous morons currently calling themselves an Arbcom, stop persecuting RexxS and he resumes editing. It’s a real nuisance, but hopefully he’ll return. Giano (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- That sounds TFA ready :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I doubt it, the page is unstable because it’s tweeked By passers-by so often, and the FA rules change every five minutes. Probably best if it lost the star, then it can be easily kept to a decent standard and probably broken up into a category of rooms like Winter Palace. That way all the trivia people add can be kept in context or subtly “lost”, rather than the page growing into the long, dull amble it is at the moment. Giano (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't watch, but I imagine it was well choreographed theatre with two entertainers who are neighbors running the show! OK, we are stuck with Nixon and Obama I guess :) Is the rest of the article well enough tuned up to run TFA in April ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- No, sadly those photos are not within living memory, and mostly pre-date the accession of Edward VII who did away with all those Victorian interior decor schemes. I wonder if one of the presidents could be shopped into a torchiere with a plant pot on top? Would anyone spot the difference? Poor Meghan, if only she’s spoken to me first, I could have told her poor Archie as a great grandson of the sovereign wouldn’t be a prince. I wonder though if any Americans who saw the interview realised though it’s entirely her and Harry’s decision that he’s not Earl of Dunbarton or Baron Kilkeel. The Queen gave them extra titles for their son and grandson when they married. Poor Meghan so much to learn. Giano (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- None of these could be more useful? So odd to celebrate the Queen’s 95th on Wikipedia with ... US presidents! Even less so on the heels of the Meghan and Oprah show. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- That is unfortunate, I agree, but it could be worse, they could be pictures of Donald Trump, so look on the bright side. The real problem is that unlike in the Land of the Free, Buckingham Palace is not the People’s Palace, so the only way to get a free interior image is to have an American president in it. It’s a pity Meghan didn’t raise this serious problem in her interview as that would have been more useful. The only solution is be to photo-shop il presidente out. I seriously can’t think of any other way of getting photos taken within living memory. Giano (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Article structure
I was asked to read through this article because of a possible TFA run in April. My major concern is the article's structure: The History section makes sense, but then the article places "Home of the Monarch" in a new section, and discusses the Interior design of the building and ceremonies that take place at the location, then returns to 20th and 21st-century history. I suggest reformatting the article into clearer sections. Here's one suggested formatting, with subsections placed in brackets: Lede, History (Pre-1624, First houses on site, The Queen's House and palace, principal royal residence/Queen Victoria's reign, 1900-1939, WWII, Queen Elizabeth's reign), Layout (Exterior, Interior), Court ceremonies, Former ceremonial at the Palace, Legacy. This will help organise the article and allow readers to easily find information.
I will also note that the "Site" section needs citations at the end of the first and third paragraph. Please ping me if you want me to continue looking at the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- I will have a go at this at the weekend. The structure – history, then rooms / banquets / gardens and back to history again – has always jarred. Firebrace (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- I was just looking through its history, and you have to go way back to 2005 to find a sensible structure, but it was full of uncited weasel words and fairly unencyclopedic then. I can say that because I wrote it from a stub and that’s the way we wrote then. However, it has been so fiddled with over the last 16 years that I think it needs fresh blood and fresh thoughts. I would support it being deleted and rethought from scratch, but that’s not likely to happen. I did a better 3D plan somewhere, lost in userspace somewhere, you are welcome to use/edit it and I’m happy to opine or advise - if asked, but otherwise, I think somebody new needs to write it. If you must put an infobox in, just make sure you get the architectural styles right and the architects, and please no “clients.” Happy editing. Giano (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- The article is not going to be as you would like it in the next couple of days. Firebrace (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- User:Jimfbleak, I think this is really highlighting one of Wikipedia’s most serious problems. From looking at the history of this page, there are probably just two people on Wikipedia who properly understand this building, Firebrace and myself, and even we two haven’t always completely agreed. I feel I have contributed all I know on the subject, so that leaves Firebrace, more or less blackmailed into scribbling away to make a page into something people who know sweet FA about it want to see. It’s architecturally such an appalling building, none of our best architectural editors, Johnbod, Wetman etc are going to want to waste hours on it. So it’s either Firebrace jumps to your tune or the page is overwritten by those with insufficient knowledge. bearing in mind, this is one of the projects most important and viewed pages, I suggest you go quietly in your way and come back in a couple of years. Giano (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Jimfbleak the (newish) editor who put this article on the pending TFA requests page hardly edits, and had never edited this article, if that helps with your decision. I don’t see anything so far off in this article that readers or ERRORS watchers are likely to complain about, but it’s not my neck on the line if ERRORS people find something to complain about. And considering the top viewed articles this week, you may be walking yourself into a landmine anyway :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am willing to review the article to ensure it meets FA criteria, but I will not be actively improving the article because I have no expertise and little interest in this topic. If two of the article's authors (Firebrace and Giano) say it's not ready, then it's not ready. Z1720 (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- The article is not going to be as you would like it in the next couple of days. Firebrace (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720, Firebrace, Giano, and SandyGeorgia:. I'm not sure what "jumping to my tune" means. I looked at this article as a potential TFA, but could see that it (at least) needed updating, so I asked the question. I think the responses suggest that this isn't the time, so I'll leave it alone,thanks for looking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- You know very well what “jumping to a tune means.” If you can see it needs updating, then update it, your as much an editor here as anyone else. I’d be more than interested to see what’s changed. When the current restoration project is completed, then it will have changed, if only the electric wiring. Otherwise, I don’t think it’s altered much since Hitler dropped a bomb in it, and even that failed to bring about any architectural improvements or change of ownership. Even the timing of lunch didn’t alter that day! However, I look forward to seeing your updating. Giano (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Z1720, Firebrace, Giano, and SandyGeorgia:. I'm not sure what "jumping to my tune" means. I looked at this article as a potential TFA, but could see that it (at least) needed updating, so I asked the question. I think the responses suggest that this isn't the time, so I'll leave it alone,thanks for looking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Infobox
Why doesn't this article have an infobox, like the other royal residences, like Windsor Castle? Peter Ormond (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- See Talk:Buckingham Palace/Archive 3#RfC about infobox. DrKay (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Majority of the users say that the Palace has a long history and therefore inappropriate to sum up in an infobox. Then why does Windsor Castle, whose history goes back to the 11th century, have an infobox? You cannot pick and choose. Peter Ormond (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by You. What happens at this article is determined by the consensus of the community. Per the guideline, "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If you wish to change the community's guidelines, you will need to raise your changes at the relevant guideline. DrKay (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response and that You in the end didn't stand for you. I was saying in general that one should not pick and choose. Anyways, my apologies for not using the more correct sentence in the first place. Regards. Peter Ormond (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Windsor Castle is not Buckingham Palace, and having just looked at the former’s info box, I can see nothing there of any use whatsoever, unless I was planning to bomb it by air. It’s complex history means no mention of architecture and architect can be summarised, so one is left having to look for events which happened there, and these have to confined, by space, to just two; and I would challenge the importance of those two compared to numerous other “events” there. The very term “event” is also misleading reducing the English Civil War to the status of a pop festival. In any case, the English Civil War was not unique to Windsor Castle. Is Buckingham Palace’s complex history to be reduced to geographical co-ordinates and “events”? All relevant information is contained in the lead paragraphs. An infobox would just be cluttering trivia, I would strongly advocate removing it from Windsor Castle too, but as I haven’t edited that page for years, so I shall mind my own business there. Giano (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response and that You in the end didn't stand for you. I was saying in general that one should not pick and choose. Anyways, my apologies for not using the more correct sentence in the first place. Regards. Peter Ormond (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by You. What happens at this article is determined by the consensus of the community. Per the guideline, "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If you wish to change the community's guidelines, you will need to raise your changes at the relevant guideline. DrKay (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Majority of the users say that the Palace has a long history and therefore inappropriate to sum up in an infobox. Then why does Windsor Castle, whose history goes back to the 11th century, have an infobox? You cannot pick and choose. Peter Ormond (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Race Relations Act
Zeromonk has added a paragraph about the Royal Household's disgraceful exemption from the Race Relations Act 1968 (link). Sources refer to Buckingham Palace in the metonymical sense and I would have thought it more appropriate to include this information at Royal Households of the United Kingdom... Firebrace (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- A difficult dilemma. However, in 1968 attitudes were very different and I doubt such situations were unique to Buckingham Palace. It would be interesting to see what was happening in similar residences, the White House, Elysee Palace or Royal Palace, Stockholm, etc. Perhaps include the information, but with a contextual comparassion, and also mention of Nana Kofi Twumasi-Ankrah, to show times have moved on for the better. Giano (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- I nearly removed this because it's already covered at British royal family and I agree that it is not really about the building itself. Also, Victoria deliberately employed an Indian secretary and it's not clear when the new policy was introduced, or by whom. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hello folks, thanks for the ping. The content I added talks about people and permissible behaviours in the palace. This seemed much like the talk about what hemlines people were permitted to wear in court dress section or the part about débutantes (which are about court generally but we know took place at the Palace specifically) - relevant to what we know about how the building was used and by whom. Please do add context and mention of more recent practice too, that would be great. And thanks for the suggestion and I'd be grateful if you could help add this to the Royal Households of the United Kingdom page - the size of which makes it a bit tricky to figure out where to add the information! Zeromonk (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- I nearly removed this because it's already covered at British royal family and I agree that it is not really about the building itself. Also, Victoria deliberately employed an Indian secretary and it's not clear when the new policy was introduced, or by whom. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Mulberry Trees planted by James I at Buckingham Palace for Silk.
They were black Mulberry which he chose, not realizing it was the white mulberry trees that were silk producers. 69.172.165.14 (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Protected against edit warring
I have protected the article for a week because of the edit warring: Jjfun3695 added some content here, and it was removed by Firebrace here. Then it was re-restored and re-removed by the same users (with explanatory edit summaries by Firebrace, but none by Jjfun3695). Please discuss here. If there's consensus as to which version is preferred, please let me know, and I'll lift the protection. Bishonen | tålk 15:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC).
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
