File source problem with File:6-27-2006-10.jpgedit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:6-27-2006-10.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILYsock(TALK) 06:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
File copyright problem with File:Beige Deomlished Key Square.jpgedit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for uploading File:Beige Deomlished Key Square.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
Articles related to architecture over the past two weeks are listed automatically by AlexNewArtBot.
This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.
This template will be updated regularly. If you would rather not receive this bulletin, just delete it from your talk page.
Hello and welcome to the WikiProject Architecture - here's the bulletin - if you don't like it just delete it from your talk page, otherwise, it automatically updates. Please give me or one of the other project members a shout if you need any help. Kind regards Elekhh (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Many kudos for all the FLW related photographic additions, copy edits, added citations and more! What are your views on Nikkō Station and Judge Charles P. McCarthy House? There are certainly plenty of websites that claim these to be Wright designs, however neither is listed by Storrer, Heinz or [1]. Should they be coded in purple or are they "Not by Frank Lloyd Wright, no matter who says so" ? --Waltloc (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
You're very Welcome! I originally intended to just focus on Wright's Oak Park houses, but the addictive nature of WP has lead to a lot more than that.
Regarding the two works, I think the McCarthy House is more plausible for inclusion than the Nikkō Station. The McCarthy House at least has the support of its National Register of Historic Places listing. Despite the fact that none of the websites that claim the house as a Wright design have much authority in that matter, no one has stepped up to say it is the work of any other architect (Note that others, like the Prairie School Traveler simply list it as unknown). I am not as knowledgeable of the other Prairie designers, but Van Bergen is the only one I know of with an architectural style like the McCarthy House. I think this house requires more research, but I wouldn't be surprised if Wright really was the architect for this job.
Nikkō Station is much harder to justify even with the numerous websites that claim it is by Wright. Your analisis on the talk page of that article presents the dillema fairly well. On various sites, I found construction dates listed as 1890, 1915, and 1918. If 1890 is the correct date, there is a very slim chance that Wright had anything to do with the design. If I had choose the right year based only on the exterior and interior design of the station, I would have to go with 1890, because everything about this station is in the High Victorian Style that was most popular in the late 19th century in Europe and North America. Even if Western architectural influence in Japan followed a different timeline than the other end of the globe, it is hard to believe it would have lagged by 25 years. In comparison to other wright works, the station's exterior has something in common with some of his bootlegged houses and the early works of the 1890s. However, the interior reveals marble fireplace mantles, plaster ceiling medalions and staircase that bear little resemblance to American Wright buildings of any period.
I have to assume that if so many people believe it is a Wright design, that notion must have come somewhere. Maybe the station was built in 1890 and Wright remodeled some part of it in 1915 or 1918? Or maybe he simply passed through and some account was misconstrued. This hotel website suggests that Frank Lloyd Wright spent time in Nikkō during the design of the Imperial Hotel so it possible that he did a project for that town as well. Without better sources, its hard to tell.
My verdict (at least for now):
Judge Charles P. McCarthy House: a probable Wright design, but more research wouldn't hurt.
Nikkō Station: probably not, unless we find a source which explains why this building is so "un-Wright."
P.S. don't be afraid to issue me more citation/clarification needed tags if you think my additions need more explanation.
I am wondering whether or nor the McCarthy house is actually a Fireproof House for $5000 (like Dr. G.C. Stockman House, Raymond W Evans House and Jesse R. Zeigler House - but it has been enlarged to be "approximately twice the size as the original plan called for". The comments in this link are interesting - [2]. Wright blueprints purchased from Ladies' Home Journal but never made it into the "very large book" in Taliesin. Seems plausible. --Waltloc (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
The link to the Fireproof House seems plausible. I did some preliminary measuring using Google satelite imagery and the front section of the McCarthy House (without the rear addition and entrance extension on the east side) is roughly the same dimensions as the main portion of the Fireproof House (using dimensions off the Zeiger House HABS report). Chimneys are also the same size, although the McCarthy House chimney is placed slightly further back from the front.
The comment left by the current owners raises a couple questions: First, if this house was based on the plan from the Ladies' Home Journal, did Wright perform the modification or was it carried out by the first owner or another architect? If the latter is the case, did the McCarthy actually purchase the plans or just base it off of what he saw in the journal? If the blueprints were just bought and modified independantly, it may have slipped inclusion in the "very large book" and definitely would not have appeared in the book at if they were "pirated" (there was no real architectural copyright back then). Second, it makes a difference whether this "very large book" was compiled by Wright during his life or if it was done posthumously. If it really is a total and absolute compilation of Wright commissions, why were houses like the Wynant House not discovered until 1995? If the Wynant House was not in the book or obscured by incomplete information, could the same be true for other houses? Third, where would we draw the line in determining Wright work? If the McCarthy house were to be determined as a modification of Wright's stock plan completed by another architect, is it still considered a Wright design?
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On July 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Fireproof House for $5000, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
for changing that picture at Romanesque Revival architecture, it had been bugging me for a while. I was reluctant to do it myself because then I'd want to cull all the Richardsonian Romanesque out of the images and that might stir up a hornet's nest. Which probably should be done anyway. For starters (actually, Step 2, since yo already started it) what do you think of the Toronto portal that is the next picture? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
I would probably say Richardsonian for Toronto City Hall. I am going to try and flesh out the United States section a little bit more, and hopefully in the process I can make the differences between these two related styles more clear. I think there should be one paragraph about Richardsonian Romanesque and it's development from Romanesque Revival where it would be appropriate to include a picture. However, beyond that, I think we should make sure that all of the photos are clearly excellent examples of the style in order to avoid confusion. After all, in reality there is a lot of "mush" between styles that makes a lot of buildings, especially those designed by lesser known and lesser trained architects, hard to classify.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Chicago Landmarks may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 9 "{}"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
{| class="wikitable sortable"
| 4801 S. [[Michigan Avenue (Chicago)|Michigan Avenue]]br/><small>{{Coord|41|48|26|N|87|37|20|W|name=George Cleveland Hall Branch, Chicago Public Library}}</
| 1121 N. Leavitt Street<br/><small>{{Coord|41|54|07.2|N|87|40|54.2|W|name=Holy Trinity Orthodox Cathedral and Rectory}</small>
| 1200-08 N. Ashland Avenue/1600-12 W. [[Division Street (Chicago)|Division Street]]<br/><small>{{Coord|41|54|13|N|87|40|04|W|name=Home Bank and Trust Building}</small>
| 40-52 E. [[Chicago Avenue]]<br/><small>{{Coord|41|53|49|N|87|37|35|W|name=Hotel St. Benedict Flats}</small>
| 800 S. [[Halsted Street]]<br/><small>{{Coord|41|52|18|N|87|38|51|W|name=Hull House}</small>
| 1301 N. Humboldt Drive<br/><small>{{Coord|41|54|20|N|87|42|03|W|name=Humboldt Park Boathouse Pavilion}</small>
| 3015 W. [[Division Street (Chicago)|Division Street]]<br/><small>{{Coord|41|54|08|N|87|42|12|W|name=Humboldt Park Receptory Building and Stable}</small>
| 1525 E. 53rd Street<br/><small>{{Coord|41|47|58|N|87|35|17|W|name=Hyde Park-Kenwood National Bank Building}</small>
Avenue, along the [[Bubbly Creek|south fork of the South Branch of the Chicago River]]<br/><small>{{Coord|41|50|33|N|87|39|55|W|name=Site of the Origins of the I&M Canal}</small>
330 N. Wabash Street<br/><small>{{Coord|41|53|19|N|87|37|39|W|name=IBM Building (330 North Wabash)]}</small>
The first ever Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 across the United States and Canada - including Chicago! Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join!
Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors.
Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here!
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
File source problem with File:The Red Door.jpgedit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for uploading File:The Red Door.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Fox69. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Chicago Landmarks may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 9 "{}"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
.jpg)