Talk:Manitoba Legislative Building

Frank Albo

Frank Albo's claims are theories to some degree. He has not always provided good evidence of what the architects themselves said and wrote about. There needs to be a more exact research method of returning to the original documents that clarify what the neoclassical artists were intending to do.

Tone of Article

The tone of this article is a bit dramatic ("beautiful statues . . . grand paintings on the ceiling and impressive Latin words above"). Also, perhaps the article should be reorganized so that the esoteric theories are not peppered throughout the article. Brackfalker 03:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many guidebooks that provide the details of the symbols. They were written around the time the building was finshed. There is no christian thirteen, the thirteen is a greek myth that if the unlucky number thirteen was in the building already then bad luck would think it's job was done and would leave the place alone. the reason for the ark of the covenant being on top of the building is simply that the builder was basing the building on king Solomon's temple. The builder was trying to show that our government is from ancient greece and is trying to show that the gods watch over us(if you look at the back of the Victoria statue you will see a smaller statue of Hermes). Melee

good article

it is a good article, but i suspect it was not awarded GA - was it? how about turning the external links into references? very interesting subject with some stunning photos. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 02:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

removing project link

Not sure why this was listed as part of the Freemasonry Project... the article does not even mention the organization in passing. I have deleted the Project link. Blueboar 12:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Masons are now mentioned, but it should be assumed by anyone educated enough that Masons did build such a building. Who else would? --joseph 00:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Golden Boy

Reverted changes made. "and the Spirit of Enterprise". The Golden Boy first got his nickname in 1919 when he was first placed on the building and the sun shon off his bronze exterior and he appeared to be golden." The Golden Boy was so named due to he was painted gold until 1951.Zef 01:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Expand

Would someone be willing to write a section on The Speaker's Reception Room, Manitoba's Mace, and the Portraits that are within the Leg hallways? Zef 02:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Scandal

This article is missing the scandal over construction materials during construction that brought the government down, and how everything construction wise after the scandal was a rush job. --68.145.127.213 (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge Golden Boy (Manitoba) with Manitoba Legislative Building

The information on Golden Boy (Manitoba) should be merged with Manitoba Legislative Building page.Zef (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Perhaps a summary should be put there and a link to its own article put there, but the Golden Boy is notable enough to have its own article. We would either bloat the MLB page or lose a good deal of relevant information if we merged them. -Oreo Priest ^talk 23:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Bloating the article does not happen. I have already taken the Golden Boy page and copied it over to the Leg article giving the Golden Boy its own section. There is not much of an increase. Zef (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The Golden Boy section in the main MLB article is now too long and doesn't flow well with the rest of it. It is dissimilar in content, chronology and focus. I think we should make the GB section match, and keep the full details in a separate article. -Oreo Priest ^talk 06:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How does it not match the flow of the article? The article is split up into physical areas of the building itself. Discussing the architecture and its symbolism. It goes into detail of the style, weight, and history. I understand that you think the GB is important enough to have its own page. I really do. But it's a part of the building, not it's own separate structure. If we start breaking up the building into its own pages, people will make articles for each significant area of the building that they are passionate about. We'll have pages for the pool of the black star, one for the picture gallery, each monument on the ground, the Manitoba Mace, the Queens throne, etc... That's what I'm trying to prevent. Zef (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a false slippery slope argument. The Golden Boy is more significant than any of the other parts. The government calls it "Manitoba's best known symbol." A quick Google search shows tons of results dedicated to it. It is notable in its own right. Compare also Statue of Freedom.

As for the flow, all the other sections highlight the most important features and symbolism. The current section in MLB on the Golden Boy also includes a bunch of information on the history of the Golden Boy itself, which slows down the pace and tone of the rest of the article. Its rusting, re-gilding and origin, for example, don't really belong in the MLB article. Do you see what I'm getting at? Any questions, let me know. -Oreo Priest ^talk 01:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at The Rough Guide to Canada, and it mentions by name and describes the Golden Boy, while not explicitly mentioning any other section of the building. (Though it says the building is nice.) -Oreo Priest ^talk 12:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Pool of the Black Star edits

A "perfect circle" is a mathematical construct, and sufficently close measurement of the room will show it is not a perfect circle. That 27 is the cube of 3 is true, but irrelevant and insignificant in describing the room, which would work pretty much the same way if it was 28 (that's the length of a lunar cycle), or 26 (the number of letters in the English alphabet) feet across. "Directly above" implies "in alignment" - if it was indirect, it would be out of line. "One degree off the center of Canada" - Which Canada? Canada was a different size when this building was made,a nd it's unreferenced anyway. All that Ishtar and Hermes stuff is out of the Winnipeg Free Press's overheated book on the Ledg. Various purple prose muted down (how is a "harmonic" different from a "sound"? Echoes in marble roms aren't remarkable. Etc.). Please provide a reference for whistling a "perfect harmonic 5th" - whatever that means. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not even close to right. This [1] says the longitude of the center of Canada is now 96 degrees 28 min W (midway between Cape Spear NF and the Yukon-Alaska border). Looking at Streets and Trips (How to get the longitude from Google Maps?) the Ledg has to be somewhere around 97 degrees 8.8 minutes West, making it exactly 40.8 minutes of arc offset from the center of Canada today. What's the numerological significance of 0.68 degrees? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

About half of your criticisms are legitimate. What matters is what the builders intended by certain symbols, not if you think they're arbitrary. How much was made up for that Hermetic Code book and how much is legitimate, I don't know, and I don't have access to the book.

A few of your points: Perfect circle means that it's relatively precise rather than roughly round, not that it's a mathematical construct. Directly above again means something other than roughly above. Which Canada? Good point. Ishtar and Hermes? If it's out of the book it should be included, even if you think it's hogwash, precluding a better source that says it is garbage. See Scale of harmonics, it doesn't mean the same thing as sound, but the first use of that word was erroneous. I've made another edit, what do you think? Oreo Priest ^talk 09:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

None of that was referenced. It's been fact-tagged for a long time. A "perfect circle" means perfect, not approximate. We don't even know the symbolism was intended or out of the book becuase there's no references. I've reverted. For all we know, the room is 27 feet across because that's how big a space they could span with a beam or the space between the two sets of toilets. References before restoring all this, please. If the symbology is as accurate as the geography, we're better off without it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Most expensive building in Manitoba?

Doubtful. This [2] aays the construction cost was under $10 milion in 1921 dollars. Even if there's a 10-fold increase in cost of living since then, teh Manitoba Hydro building cost over $200 million in 2010 dollars and I wouldn't bet that it was the most expensive building in Manitoba either. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manitoba Legislative Building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080413001158/http://www.gov.mb.ca/legtour/legbld.html to http://www.gov.mb.ca/legtour/legbld.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080413001158/http://www.gov.mb.ca/legtour/legbld.html to http://www.gov.mb.ca/legtour/legbld.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)