Talk:Vorontsov Palace (Alupka)

Error

How is a palace built in the 1830's and forfeit to the state in 1927 able to be in one family's possession for 300 years? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.143.78 (talk • contribs).

Yes, sorry about that. It was supposed to be generations not centuries... Thanks, —dima/s-ko/ 22:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Query

I'm just going through the pages making some small additions and alterations and have come across this statement "Although the Vorontsov Palace was built based upon new 19th century construction techniques and styles, it still manages to incorporate Classical style architectural elements." Does it? Where are they? I don't see them.  Giano  14:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where that sentence came from; it was most likely from a long-ago revision of the article which I had roughly translated from the Russian Wikipedia version. In fact, I have found the original sentence in Russian and that was a wrong translation from the start. What the phrase referred to was the "Fact that the Vorontsov Palace was built using new construction techniques as compared to the Classical architectural construction style. " So it was never meant to state that the Vorontsov Palace ever maintained classical architectural elements! DDima 19:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant - thanks. We'll lose that phrase and plough on. I wish i could find some reffs that I could understand. I have found some, but i think they were all written in Soviet times when they would say anything to encourage tourists.  Giano  19:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Haha exactly right. Many of the sources have so much POV in them its not funny. DDima 19:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• We've a wonderful and huge selection of picture on commons; I think we need to lose some of the images the article in order to use the better ones that are left to more strongly illustrate the points made in the text. It's such a complex building that it will be easier for people to grasp what's going on there if they can easily refer to a picture.  Giano  15:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I must say I'm amazed by the pictures in the commons. Some newly added ones of the palace really do the article more justice than the past ones! DDima 07:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks a little bare and uncluttered at the moent with so many images gone, but when I've written a little more text, there will be room to add some back, also we can think about a gallery of the best images at the bottom.  Giano  15:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

DDima as you started, wrote the page and added the info box you can make the final decision, but do we really need that large info box if all it contains was to be put clearly in the lead paragraph. I just feel it would be better to start the aricle with a nice big picture of the palace. You decide.  Giano  15:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I keep going back and forth on my opinion with the infoboxes! I wouldn't mind if it disappeared. You are right it is essentially a duplicate of the information immediately to the left of it... DDima 19:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Is that a yes or a no? :-) ? Ignore mind my reputation on the subjct. You started the article, so you can have so can have the last word. We can always put it back if you don't like it without.  Giano  20:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks good! I can't say I'm a fan of the first image, it just looks kind of bland and colorless. Perhaps File:Alupka castle6.jpg is better? Has more depth and vividness to it.. And maybe if the images in #architecture were staggered a little since they crunch the text into a thin column on my browsers. DDima 07:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@User:DDima:I've changed the lead image per your recommendation (I chose the other one because it showed the local stone as well, but it was a bit askew I agree. Can you have a fiddle with the images as they look OK on my screen?  Giano  10:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just realised that in the conclusion the Shuvalov wing has a couple of mentions, yet there's no reference to it before. Is there anything in the references about it? I suspect its that low wing on the side with the big bay window. This article really needs a plan. If you have one that's copyvio, if you email it t me, I can draw another from it.  Giano  10:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a mention to the Shuvalov wing in one of my sources (I'm not sure if this information is reflected in the article itself) which says that the Shuvalov wing is located west of the building's main wing, aside from that it was a soviet sanitarium in the past... From the same source comes a very rudimentary second floor plan... Unfortunately, I haven't seen any other floor plans. DDima 17:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a pity; I am becoming quite attached to this house now, and think if I could draw 3D floor plans (similar to the ones here) we could get a half decent interior section and then it would stand a chance at FA. It's Monday tomorrow, I will have a hunt about the bookshops and libraries of London and see what I can find in the way of reffs. Even a book on 19th century Russian domestic architecture may give me some general, but applicable quotes. The trouble is that at FAC people will demand so many footnotes per so many words even if we are stating the obvious.  Giano  17:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Your new picture layout works well on my screen. My hunt for references today was not successful, but I have come home with a big coffee table of photos of Tsarist places then and now [1], so some good pics of Livadia and the area which must be out of copyright. Not that great for this page, but fascinating to read anyway.  Giano  21:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay good. That book I told you about is available for me to get, I just need to get downtown and visit the library, hopefully this week.. I've already happened to find a source from that book for a section you added (regarding the style comparisons between the Vorontsov Palace and Sezincote House for instance). But I can't see much of it as it's only Google's book snippet view. DDima 00:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fantastic, does the ook mention Sezincote by name?  Giano  08:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes! And the royal pavilion as well .. Who knows what might be in that book, could be a treasure trove, even for other Crimean palaces. DDima 08:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've found this which is a summary of some of the text that is in that same book. There is some interesting info and tidbits that can be incorporated into the article. DDima 08:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this definitely the right book: Towers of Crim Tartary English and Scottish Architects in the Crimea, 1762-1853? If t is, I'll treat myself t a copy, then we'll all k ow what it says for sure. I'm finding this subject very interesting?  Giano  09:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's it! Myself as well , there are plenty more articles which can be written from the information within! DDima 18:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It's ordered for me as a present; the only problem is that I won't be allowed to see it before Christmas!  Giano  18:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Since this is a very large article, an infobox gives a brief and quick overview of what this building is about and what the dimensions are. I find it quite useful and it's not obstructive. Gryffindor (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@Gryffindor:I think you will find that the primary editors are happy with it as it is. Thank you for your interest.  Giano  09:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Bags of stone?

"29 bags of coloured stones brought in from the Crimean city of Koktebel" - is that the correct translation? - Should it be perhaps 29 types/colours of stone? Bags it a bit of a meaningless, ambiguous term.  Giano  14:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I checked the source, but yeah that's basically what the source says... 29 bags.. DDima 18:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vorontsov Palace (Alupka). 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/20111006163655/http://www.crimea.edu/eng/crimea/sights/landscap/parks/aluppark/full.html to http://www.crimea.edu/eng/crimea/sights/landscap/parks/aluppark/full.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) 06:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Medici lions error

There are two mentions of the lion sculptures here, of which one would be enough. Also, it seems they are not all Medici lions, a label only suitable for standing lions with a sphere under a claw. /Urbourbo (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I have fixed it. Giano (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)