User talk:Joopercoopers/Archive 1
Uhm.. maybe you should talk to the uploader, see [1] I don't know anything about the image. I just asked the uploader to reduce the size, per WP:FAIR. — Indon (reply) — 15:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Mughal_painting2.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
- OK, thanks, I'll do that. --Joopercoopers 15:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Taj Mahal RFC
- I've filed an RFC relating to the Taj Mahal at Talk:Taj Mahal#Request for Comment: Inclusion of minority points of view. Your comments would be welcome. Joopercoopers 18:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I thank you for your message. However, i do not have any comment to offer as I am not interested in the issue. --Bhadani 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am not oppossed to inclusion of discussion of Oak - as I've just said. I just don't think it should be legitimised by the way it's included. It's part of the history of interpretation of the building, just as the theories about Geronimo Veroneo are. Paul B 23:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: Image:Mughal painting2.jpg
That's because the concerned image is a "touched-up" one and is not released in Public Domain. --Incman|वार्ता 01:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Taj Mahal
Okay, the page has been semi-protected for now. Tell me whenever you feel protection can be lifted. Nishkid64 20:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Taj Mahal Improvement Plan
It occurs to me that the best way forward to move the article to FA status is another peer review. The previous peer review brought out peers mainly from Wikiproject:India. Since its inclusion in WikiProject Architecture, it has not had peer review. Frankly many of the original peer review comments reflected the POV of the editors. It's my experience that most of Wikiproject India editors are bright, enthusiastic, industrious high-schoolers from India, with limited experience. Many have been influenced by the Hindutva movement -- maybe not embracing it, but clearly it impacts their judgement. I think that many of their comments reflect their enthusiasm and natural understandable biases that do not particularly see the relevance of a design-based article, and imagine (without basis) that a much more wonderful article might be written.
I think the architecture articles that have reached FA status are a better benchmark for the Taj Mahal article. A peer review where WikiProject Architecture editors provided feedback would, I think, drive more quality into the process.
As for the failed FA: there were FOUR (4) total comments. WTF. 2 of the 4 were "me-too's". This is NOT a relevant sample, IMO. I was FAR more discouraged by the lack of comments than by their content.
Since you appear to have some standing in WikiProject Architecture, may I suggest that you invite a new peer review, and see what you can do about drumming up comments from that group. I will work with you to adapt the article to support useful PR comments. Then another FA attempt should have a better chance at success.
It is relevant to note that translations of the article are reaching FA status in various non-english versions of the WP. --Nemonoman 15:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- You raise some good points here. Wikipedia is a collobarative project in its conception. In my view however, the best articles are written in the early stages by maybe just one or two editor who add the content and then get some others in their private 'editors circle' to copyedit for prose, punctuation, spelling etc (Paul said he'd help out with this). That way you get a more singular 'voice' to the article and its easier to present a thesis rather than trying to accomodate every man and his dog's ideas from the off. For the Taj I'd like to think about what the general reader might already know about the building and then write an article which discusses to what extent what they already know, is born out by scholastic opinion.
- I don't really see the point of taking the article to WP:ARCHPR right now. The reason is, I think that the process is useful for getting ideas for what to add to the article and picking out the technical aspects of why the article doesn't conform to process, after the main editors have got the article to a quality they are happy with.
- I'm flattered you think I have some standing at WP:ARCH but the reality is, it's quite a quiet wikiproject - there's probably me and 2 or 3 others that really contribute there. That said, I've been at wikipedia for nearly a year now and I've crossed paths with quite a few architecture editors that aren't part of the project, and in my opinion, are excellent editors. So my suggestion is that you and I peer review the article now against the FA criteria. We'll get it peer reviewed when we're both really happy with the article and then take it to FAC
- The other thing is, whilst dialogue is good between editors, it can become an end in itself - time spent in discussion on talk pages is time not editing future FA candidates, but having clear direction is good too. So I'll start our review here - User:Joopercoopers/Taj Mahal/Review.
- This is kind of what I was trying to say last night but I was rather tired, it was quite a stressful day yesterday. High schoolers in india aren't the only problem we have on wikipedia.
- Kind regards, --Joopercoopers 19:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- As a total outsider, I have made the rearrangement I suggested earlier, making one section more concise, and moving some text to the article on Oak.DGG 23:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Lahauri
I'm really sorry this has taken so long - I've been very tied up lately with teaching and job interviews, and the passage is crammed full of horribly elaborate court titles. I should have a decent version available in a day or two, but one thing I can definitely say: Manzil does not mean a mansion in Persian - it means a halting-place or caravanserai (see here). Given that the passage in question then goes on to describe the construction of the Taj in some detail, you have to wonder at the motives of a scholar who could translate it this way - and the whole "Tejomahalya" Shiva Temple flim-flam? How do they explain that I wonder. Sikandarji 16:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Taj Mahal
RFCs usually aren't closed; in most cases, after some time, it becomes clear where the discussion is headed, and/or a good compromise is worked out. From policy, since most people appear to favor removal of this particular statement, the burden is on those who wish to retain it to provide a suitable source. I would suggest, if there are any eminent scientists or historians who make the claim, to add a short statement somewhere in the "history of" section. If a bunch of well-meaning but non-expert people on the internet make the claim, well, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Polling really doesn't help much on such an issue. I can refer you to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. HTH! >Radiant< 10:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Taj Mahal
I have unprotected the page. Thanks for letting me know. Nishkid64 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks, we'll see how it goes......--Joopercoopers 02:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Issue de table
Well, the feast is over for this time, and off we go into a period of intellectual fast. But mayhaps will we meet again some day to make more medieval merry! My regards to you for your comments at the nomination.
sincerely,
Peter Isotalo 07:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Monaco
Thanks for the revert, I seem to have a new friend, I have explained on is page why I anotated the images in that fashion - hopefully that is an end to it. Giano 14:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- The way it is now, the article is frankly horrendous. No other well done articles in Wikipedia look like that mess. I can sustain that original way of referring in-text to images, but absolutely not the way they are placed (not to speak about the messy variation of sizes), and all those images of people: these are justified in a magazine article, not in an encyclopedical one. Bye. --Attilios 16:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)