Talk:Rhode Island State House

Dome

According to the Minnesota State Capitol article, it is an "unsupported marble dome", which I take to mean self-supporting, because it certainly doesn't levitate. This would probably mean that the RI Capitol dome is the third-largest, rather than the second. Any thoughts on this? 68.228.155.76 07:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Whoops, forgot to sign in. Counterfit 07:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you had read the article...

“ The dome of the State House is the fourth-largest self-supporting dome in the world, after St. Peter's Basilica, the Minnesota State Capitol, and the Taj Mahal. It is the second-largest self-supporting marble dome in the world, only after St. Peter's Basilica. ”

--Loodog 21:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

way to be obnoxious loodog, he clearly read the article and was offering a correction but verifying it before editing (as one should). As for your snide, incorrect retort, we could use less of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.231.37 (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This was just brought up on the misc refdesk. Both the Minnesota State Capital and Taj Mahal are also marble. St Peter's was never the largest self-supporting dome in the world (the Pantheon, Rome is larger and older), so that list makes no sense. The truth is that RISH is the fourth largest marble dome, and not the anythingth largest any dome. FiggyBee 12:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

File:Statecapital.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Statecapital.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

New image needing placement

I'm not a regular at this article, so will leave it to others to place or not place this new image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rhode Island State House. 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://www.webcitation.org/6AOk7rKq9?url=http://www.visitrhodeisland.com/what-to-do/heritage-trails/providence-heritage-trail/ to http://www.visitrhodeisland.com/what-to-do/heritage-trails/providence-heritage-trail/

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) 06:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Images

I am beginning a section here to discuss the infobox image. I recently reverted changes to the image by @Beyond My Ken: which I believe replaced higher a quality image with a lower quality alternative. The replacement image (second) is of of lower image quality, exhibits poorer composition, and shows less of the building than the previous photograph (first). I am looking for other's thoughts on this matter. @Pbrks, XRay, Kzirkel, Commonists, Rhododendrites, and Magnolia677: Filetime (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• The first image has better perspective, a higher resolution, and includes the entire building. Easy choice, IMO. Pbrks (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• The first would be best for this article. It captures more of the statehouse, and looks like what it is meant to illustrate, per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. In the second image, the clouds are distracting and make the image too "artsy", and the yellow sign on the stairs should have been cropped out. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• This discussion is tainted because -- once again -- Filetime has violated WP:CANVASS by pinging specific editors to the conversation, instead of posting neutral pointers on WikiProjects. Since this is the case, no decision reached here will be valid. Filetime has been told before that canvassing editors to a discussion is improper behavior, and yet has chosen to do so again in an effort to get his way. I am collapsing this discussion. If it is uncollapsed, a report will be filed at ANI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Filetime uncollapsed the thread, and in the process, deleted the above comment, which I have restored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: How would notifying me be canvasing, a policy which permits notifying editors "who have made substantial edits to the topic or article"? I have added images to this article, and User:Kzirkel has also made edits to the photos on this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to note that by adding editors who are active on the Commons Quality Image nomination page, my intention was to solicit voices with photographic experience who might improve the robustness of a discussion and subsequent consensus. This sort of behavior is defined as "perfectly acceptable." I welcome all editors to ping anyone else who they believe might aid in more fully achieving consensus. Filetime (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's a shadow of a doubt that the first image is significantly better! I think that before changing the image you should always ask permission on the discussion page.--Commonists (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of MoS

Some editors seem to be under the imporess that MoS requires all imagwes to be lined up on the right side of the article. This, however, is not the case.

• MOS:IMAGELOCATION says "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left"

• Help:Pictures#Alternating left and right says "Perhaps the easiest way to handle multiple floating pictures is to alternate them left then right (or right then left); this way they do not come into contact with one another, and so cannot stack up in an unattractive way.".

In point of fact -- as any editor who has worked on article layout knows -- stacking images on the right side can be very boring for the reader, so alternating sides (without squeezing text between images) provides visual variety to the article and makes it more enjoyable to read.

Not only that, but because the majority of our article have infoboxes, interpreting MoS in this way would mean that there couldbe no images at ll for the expanse of the infobox, as it takes up the right-aligned space. For ssort article, with longish infoboxes, there would essentially be no images in an article at all except for the infobox and perhaps a gallery.

To my knowledge, there has never been a consensus that images must be right-aligned, and the majority of reasonably-sized Wikipedia articles I have edited or read have left-aligned images in them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)