Talk:Buckingham Palace/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Copied from FA Review

(I have copied DrKiernan's comments here to avoid further clogging the FAR page as some a re simple and some may require some discussion) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting: Lead

• Material in footnote 1 is repeated in section "First houses on the site".
• "royal entertaining": I prefer "royal/official hospitality" as "entertaining" can be misread as a verb (agree, mainly for broader meaning of "hospitality" - I love a good gerund...)
• "The original early 19th-century interior designs... Sir Charles Long": convoluted, as the phrase "on the advice..." relates to "use" rather than "pink lapis".
• Visitor numbers can be confused with tourists; both could be given.

History

• "14 of their 15 children were born here." We're not there. (done)
• "even though it is at Buckingham Palace that they present their credentials and staff to the Queen upon their appointment." Convoluted.
• Perhaps mention that William IV didn't want it, and suggested it as a home for Parliament after the Palace of Westminster was destroyed by fire? (partly done - need ref for him not wanting it - am looking)

Home of the monarch

• "annually following Trooping the Colour." prefer "annually after Trooping the Colour." (The two verbs together is confusing) (done)
• "Before Prince Albert's demise, Queen Victoria was known to openly enjoy music and dancing," as I believe I said before during the last FAR, she enjoyed them afterwards as well.

That is pedantic as the meaning is made clear in the next paragraph, but I have changed it. Giano (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought readers would be mislead into thinking that she did not enjoy music after his death. The change is great. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• "musicians entertained at Buckingham Palace." they were entertained as well as entertaining. (well yeah obviously...I think that goes without saying, but primarily they were entertainers - would you prefer the more reciprocal-implying "visited"?)
• please check "has 18th-century wall paper, which was supplied in 1817" (1817 is 19th-century)

FGS just change it. Giano (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC) --> (just removed anyway)

I did not feel able to "just change it" because it might have been correct. It is possible to supply 18th-century wallpaper at any point during or after the 18th-century. Just because it was supplied in 1817 does not mean that it was made then, since it could have come from some other house where it had been used previously. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Paragraph "The original early 19th-century ... cream and gold colour scheme." is exactly repeated in the lead. I don't want to read the same thing twice.

Make it gold and cream then. apparently what is in the lead must be repeated. Giano (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• 1844 room's redecoration for Nicholas I is repeated. (combined)
• Debs were presented in the gardens latterly rather than the throne room. Edward VIII, for example, called off the presentation of debutantes in 1936 because it was raining.

George VI and Queen Elizabeth re-instated full court presentations as the Times reports here:[1]. Giano (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Modern history

• Placing this section below the rest creates a structural problem, as the bombing of the palace chapel is mentioned before the main paragraphs on the war. (I added mention of wwii to lede so this isn't the first mention. Insanely tricky to get this right otherwise) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• The paragraph on George V's "enforced abstinence" is bias. He is also reported to have been abstemious and frugal anyway, and not drinking was of little consequence to his lifestyle. He is also reported to have been happy to have done his duty, and is not known to have complained about it. It is unfair to just give one opinion out of several. "The King's children were photographed at this time serving tea to wounded officers" is trivial.

That is Dr Kiernan's opinion. Numerous sources, including Stamfordham, report his fury, in his memoirs Edward VIII tells of it and his mother lacing her "fruit cup" with champagne and George V drinking his illicit after dinner port in the pricavy of his study. Giano (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)'

I could not find those passages in my copy of Edward's memoirs. DrKiernan (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• "it had been deliberately targeted by the Nazis": this is disputed. People in the palace thought it was deliberately targeted, but there is no evidence whatever. (removed bit - clearly was targeted as I fail to see how one can accidentally hit a target which happens to be the home of the monarchy, but removed bit is pretty obvious so we can do without it)

See for example, Paul Fussell's Wartime: "in September 1940, bombs struck Buckingham Palace, it was assumed on all sides that they had been aimed there...Actually, the bombs were more likely jettisoned in a cold panic by a Luftwaffe flyer caught in a searchlight. But simple cause-finders like Vere Hodgson cannot abandon their conviction, so necessary to self-respect as reasoning creatures, that bombs are precisely "aimed" and that thus their damage makes interpretable sense." Although the residents of the palace either believed or played up that the palace was deliberately bombed, and many popular commentators still claim this for dramatic effect, most academics today think that the Germans did not have the technical capability to target individually selected buildings from the air, and subsequently did not bother to do so. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• "On two occasions a man, Michael Fagan, was able to break into the palace" Looks awkward placed in a single, out-of-context paragraph by itself. (added fascinating incident with the boy Jones, as I wouldn't want us to be accused of recentism) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It is of course a very strong article, but I would only consider striking my remove "vote!" if the issues around neutrality and reliability are resolved. The prose, structural and comprehensiveness issues are less concerning (given the strength of the rest of the article), and are given here more in the way of a "peer review" rather than a comment on FA-status. DrKiernan (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Aargh - it is Saturday am here and I have to run off and do some RL chores for a while. I will be back later to give it a good massage. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Annual tourism numbers

Anyone have any idea where we can find these? I typed some combos into google and nothing came up...Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

300,000 in 2005 [2] DrKiernan (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The size of the palace

The article, under the section "Interior", contains the following statement: The palace contains 77,000 square metres of floorspace (828,818 sq ft). The reference, apparently from the Royal website, cannot be found. I dispute this measurement as misleading. This link says that Buckingham Palace has a facade length of 460 feet. The palace is more or less square aside from some additions which could wholly be contained within the Quadrangle with plenty of space around. That being said, if the palace were solid all the way through, with floors in the Quadrangle, it would have approximately 200,000 square feet on each level with between four and five floors. Remember, these floors would mean no open courtyard. Three of the wings themselves are particularly narrow when compared to the overall dimensions of the palace. The size of Buckingham Palace has been grossly exaggerated and should be removed as misleading. 142.68.131.30 (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, whoever added that may have pressed the wrong button their caluculator, the referenced website says: Buckingham Palace: In measurements, the building is 108 metres long across the front, 120 metres deep (including the central quadrangle) and 24 metres high,(I've no idea what that is in feet) and that is what I have replaced the existing measurements [3]. I would have thought it would be almost impossible to calculate the definite floorspace because of debate over where the mews begin and end, whether to include the open logias arownd the quadrangle, not to mention all the subsidary annex buildings. Thank you for pointing that out.  Giano  08:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome, thank you for rectifying the situation as best as possible given what we know. I think I know where they got their measurements... 460 feet is roughly 140 meters. Since the palace proper is more or less square, 140 m * 140 m * 4 floors = 78,400 square metres, which is close to the number 77,000 that was given before. Perhaps they were using slightly different measurements than the 140 metres. The 108 * 120 measurements would require six floors. Still though, we know it's not solid all the way through. 142.68.131.30 (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think by saying "require six floors", you have probably hit the nail on the head regarding those calculations. In Blore's highly visual principal facade, there are 6 floors, basement, ground floor, mezanine, piano nobile, bedroom floor, and then the staff floor above that, but that is just that one wing, it's not 6 floors all over, so as you say, it's as best as possible solution.  Giano  20:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The link http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Factfiles/40factsaboutBuckinghamPalace.aspx says covers over 77,000 square metres as it is reliably sourced why remove it ? MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Because our anon friend, like me, folowed the ambiguos reference to this page [4] on the same site. I will revert myself, restate the information and rectify the reference.  Giano  22:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think that we know the 800,000+ sq ft figure is wrong, even if it is on the Royal website. They took the footprint and multiplied it by the number of floors. The statement of the dimensions and the erroneous statement of the square footage contradict one another. I think this is evident, although calculating the real square footage would be original research. Even more so, that statement on the Royal website isn't specific enough to say floorspace and basements are not counted in square footage. I say we just keep the dimensions. I have a friend who was being taxed on a 64,000 square foot house because they measured the footprint and multiplied it by the number of floors, when really she had a courtyard and many double story rooms... 142.68.131.30 (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a fact, these are troubling times in which to be rich. I don't realy get feet at all, so please revert (you don't have to be logged - just leave a brief edit summary) to which ever dimensions you feel are the most accurate - failing that its "Buckingham Palace is a bloody big place" and leave at that.  Giano  07:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont think wikipedia disallows facts just because you think they are wrong as long as they reliably referenced. Unless you can find another source for an alternate figure then everything else is original research. MilborneOne (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There are three of us in this conversation. You think it is ones size, our anon friend thinks it's another. I wrote most of the page and agree with Mr Anon that it's unlikely to be that size, but I'm not reverting again, as I'm not sure and there is a ref. If someone else wants to change it that is fine by me too.  Giano  16:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont have any thoughts as to the size , I have not concept of the size I was just commenting on the removal of reliably referenced facts. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think so long as removing something which is sourced does not infer something contrary or incorrect that it is okay to remove it. Any thoughts? 142.68.131.30 (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Guards

That section needs some sources.  fetchcomms☛ 04:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it [5], it must have crept in some time back when no one was looking. It can go back if someone finds some references and I doubt they will; I cannot beleive that the British Tourist Board would agree to tourists being "pistol whipped" just for looking a little odd, especially, as the guards seem to have rifles not pistols. No, The Mall would be lined with Americans and Japanese all with their heads bashed in; I don't buy it.  Giano  12:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Article is poorly referenced

This article has only a few references from only a few sources. Most of it is unreferenced. How does it manage to be a FA? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There are eight reference sources. The vast majority of the information in this article is not controversial and is considered general knowledge (i.e., the information would be available in at least three accessible general reference sources). What statements does this article make that you feel are contentious? Risker (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am comparing it to the standards of FAC. I am not English so I do not "know" that most of this information is noncontroversial. How about for starters the information under Modern history? (I will keep that in mind that an editor can declare information in an FAC as "uncontroversial" and let it go at that. I will refer to this article in the future if anyone questions sourcing. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Should I tag the parts that are not "general knowledge" to someone who is not English and intimate with Buckingham Palace? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, I understand where you're coming from. Before you tag everything, though, perhaps you could let us know what areas you feel need references? That way we can all go find references without having to add a bunch of tags. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 01:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned above the Modern history section is unreferenced. Additional examples:

• "In 1531 Henry VIII acquired the Hospital of St James (later St. James's Palace) from Eton College, and in 1536 he took the Manor of Ebury from Westminster Abbey. These transfers brought the site of Buckingham Palace back into royal hands for the first time since William the Conqueror had given it away almost 500 years earlier."
• "(It was this critical omission that helped the British royal family regain the freehold under King George III.)"
• "The improvident Goring defaulted on his rents; Henry Bennet, 1st Earl of Arlington obtained the mansion and was occupying it, now known as Goring House, when it burned down in 1674. Arlington House rose on the site — the southern wing of today's palace — the next year, and its freehold was bought in 1702."
• "The house which forms the architectural core of the present palace was built for the first Duke of Buckingham and Normanby in 1703 to the design of William Winde. The style chosen was of a large, three-floored central block with two smaller flanking service wings."
• "(Like his grandfather, George II, George III refused to sell the mulberry garden interest, so that Sheffield had been unable to purchase the full freehold of the site.) The house was originally intended as a private retreat for the royal family, and in particular for Queen Charlotte, and was known as The Queen's House. St. James's Palace remained the official and ceremonial royal residence; indeed, the tradition continues to the present time of foreign ambassadors being formally accredited to "the Court of St. James's", even though it is at Buckingham Palace that they present their credentials and staff to the Queen upon their appointment."
• "Following the Queen's marriage in 1840, her husband, Prince Albert, concerned himself with a reorganisation of the household offices and staff, and with the design faults of the palace. The problems were all rectified by the close of 1840. However, the builders were to return within the decade."
• "The ballroom wing and a further suite of state rooms were also built in this period, designed by Nash's student Sir James Pennethorne."
• "and the greatest contemporary musicians entertained at Buckingham Palace. Felix Mendelssohn is known to have played there on three occasions. Johann Strauss II and his orchestra played there when in England. Strauss's "Alice Polka" was first performed at the palace in 1849 in honour of the Queen's daughter, Princess Alice. Under Victoria, Buckingham Palace was frequently the scene of lavish costume balls, in addition to the routine royal ceremonies, investitures and presentations."
• "and the greatest contemporary musicians entertained at Buckingham Palace. Felix Mendelssohn is known to have played there on three occasions. Johann Strauss II and his orchestra played there when in England. Strauss's "Alice Polka" was first performed at the palace in 1849 in honour of the Queen's daughter, Princess Alice. Under Victoria, Buckingham Palace was frequently the scene of lavish costume balls, in addition to the routine royal ceremonies, investitures and presentations."
• "There has been a progressive relaxation of the dress code governing formal court uniform and dress. In previous reigns, men not wearing military uniform wore knee breeches of an 18th-century design. Women's evening dress included obligatory trains and tiaras or feathers in their hair (or both). After World War I, when Queen Mary wished to follow fashion by raising her skirts a few inches from the ground, she requested a Lady-in-Waiting to shorten her own skirt first to gauge the King's reaction. King George V was horrified and Queen Mary's hemline remained unfashionably low. Subsequently, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth allowed daytime skirts to rise."
• "Today, there is no official dress code.[19]" (not a proper reference)
• "Most men invited to Buckingham Palace in the daytime choose to wear service uniform or morning coats, and in the evening, depending on the formality of the occasion, black tie or white tie. If the occasion is "white tie" then women, if they possess one, wear a tiara."
• "Today, the Throne Room is used for the reception of formal addresses such as those given to the Queen on her Jubilees. It is here on the throne dais that royal wedding portraits and family photographs are taken."
• "Investitures, which include the conferring of knighthoods by dubbing with a sword, and other awards take place in the palace's Victorian Ballroom, built in 1854. At 123 by 60 feet (37 by 20 m), this is the largest room in the palace. It has replaced the throne room in importance and use. During investitures, the Queen stands on the throne dais beneath a giant, domed velvet canopy, which is known as a shamiana or a baldachin and was used at the coronation Durbar in Delhi in 1911. A military band plays in the musicians' gallery as the recipients of awards approach the Queen and receive their honours, watched by their families and friends."
• "Smaller ceremonies such as the reception of new ambassadors take place in the "1844 Room". Here too the Queen holds small lunch parties, and often meetings of the Privy Council. Larger lunch parties often take place in the curved and domed Music Room, or the State Dining Room. On all formal occasions the ceremonies are attended by the Yeomen of the Guard in their historic uniforms, and other officers of the court such as the Lord Chamberlain."
• "however, his brother, Prince Harry, was christened at St George's Chapel, Windsor."
• "The largest functions of the year are the Queen's Garden Parties for up to 8,000 invitees, taking tea and sandwiches in marquees erected in the Garden. As a military band plays the National Anthem, the Queen emerges from the Bow Room and slowly walks through the assembled guests towards her private tea tent, greeting those previously selected for the honour. Those guests who do not actually have the opportunity to meet the Queen at least have the consolation of being able to admire the Garden."
• "The last major building work took place during the reign of King George V when, in 1913, Sir Aston Webb redesigned Blore's 1850 East Front to resemble in part Giacomo Leoni's Lyme Park in Cheshire. This new, refaced principal facade (of Portland stone) was designed to be the backdrop to the Victoria Memorial, a large memorial statue of Queen Victoria, placed outside the main gates. George V, who had succeeded Edward VII in 1910, had a more serious personality than his father; greater emphasis was now placed on official entertaining and royal duties than on lavish parties. George V's wife Queen Mary was a connoisseur of the arts, and took a keen interest in the royal collection of furniture and art, both restoring and adding to it. Queen Mary also had many new fixtures and fittings installed, such as the pair of marble Empire-style chimneypieces by Benjamin Vulliamy, dating from 1810, which the Queen had installed in the ground floor Bow Room, the huge low room at the centre of the garden facade. Queen Mary was also responsible for the decoration of the Blue Drawing Room. This room, 69 feet (21 m) long, previously known as the South Drawing Room, has one of Nash's finest ceilings, coffered with huge gilt console brackets."
• "While this may seem large, it is small when compared to the Russian imperial palaces in Saint Petersburg and at Tsarskoe Selo, the Papal Palace in Rome, the Royal Palace of Madrid, or indeed the former Palace of Whitehall, and tiny compared to the Forbidden City and Potala Palace. The relative smallness of the palace may be best appreciated from within, looking out over the inner quadrangle. A minor extension was made in 1938, in which the north-west pavilion, designed by Nash, was converted into a swimming pool."
• "War time coverage of such incidents was severely restricted, however, The King and Queen were filmed inspecting their bombed home, the smiling Queen, as always, immaculately dressed in a hat and matching coat seemingly unbothered by the damage around her. It was at this time the Queen famously declared: "I'm glad we have been bombed. Now I can look the East End in the face"
• "On 15 September 1940 an RAF pilot, Ray Holmes, rammed a German plane attempting to bomb the palace.[29] Holmes had run out of ammunition and made the quick choice to ram it. Both planes crashed and their pilots survived. This incident was captured on film. The plane's engine was later exhibited at the Imperial War Museum in London. Following the war the British pilot became a King's Messenger. He died at the age of 90 in 2005. (reference should be moved to end of paragraph)
• There is only one reference in The Garden, the Royal Mews and the Mall that does not cover the section.
• There is only one reference, and that one is inadequate, in 21st century: Royal use and public access.
• "...and Webb's famous facade which has been described as looking "like everybody's idea of a palace" the large staff employed by the Royal Household work to keep Britain's constitutional monarchy functioning." (This sentence does not make sense, or is incorrect grammatically.
• Also, there are peacock terms, like "famous" scattered around with no references.

I am comparing this to current FAC standards. New editors should be able to edit the article and not have a confusion over what reference pertains to what statement. However, much of this article does not seem to be referenced at all, but as the editor said above, statements do not need referencing because they "are common knowledge". For a subject like Buckingham Palace, I would think there would be plenty of accessible references. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Statements do not need to be "contentious" to need referencing. If a reader does not know the subject, it is difficult to know whether to be "contentious". References are to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS. "Common knowledge" refers to such statements as "the sky is blue" and not statements describing an important and historical building in one particular country, especially when this is a rather POV article, containing no criticism or alternative views on the monarchy and its ownership and use of such buildings. In fact, the ownership is not covered at all. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is not POV; it is describing the history and current use of the building. 'Alternative views on the monarchy' have no place in such an article. It is a dry recitation of facts about the succession of buildings which have grown into what BP is today, and nothing more. Discussions on alternative views of monarchy belong at articles like Monarchy and Republicanism. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

POV is impossible to evaluate without an array of reliable sources, as the material of the article depending on "common knowledge". Most historical writings have some POV inherent in the perspective. I understand the history of the royal family, as well as the Palace, are above reproach in much of England. I think if the article restricted itself to a description of the building, as most architectural articles do, rather than so much about the doings of the royal family, this issue would be clearer. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Errr... no. The article is reporting factually on the history of the building and what happens there today. If the article were about a famous school building, one would expect that the article would touch on famous people who had attended or worked at the school. Same thing here; the history and current function of the building is inextricably entwined with its inhabitants. You're seeing POV where there is none, sorry. If there were even a hint of POV, the article never would have reached GA status, let alone FA. I understand where you're coming from with the need for references, but POV? You're barking up the wrong tree, I'm afraid. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Errr... hard to tell without references and relying on "common knowledge". So you are saying that there is no controversy about the role of the "inhabitants" and their use of the real estate? Having lived in England, my "common knowledge" differs. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) No, I didn't say that. Again, as posted above: The article is not POV; it is describing the history and current use of the building. 'Alternative views on the monarchy' have no place in such an article. It is a dry recitation of facts about the succession of buildings which have grown into what BP is today, and nothing more. Discussions on alternative views of monarchy belong at articles like Monarchy and Republicanism. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got a point with many of those. I can handle referencing some of the modern stuff from a book I have laying about. Later, though. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Don't even try it. Do not play WP:GANG, here. Demonstrating your ignorance is not going to alter the article one whit, and trying to invent grounds to cavil will not justify mangling things. I know, and it's just awful that "Prince of Canada" couldn't change the caption to something foolish and now wants to get revenge, but revenge isn't a reason to demote an FA. Geogre (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I didn't change any captions to anything foolish, nor is there any 'revenge' going on. What on earth are you on about? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Careful George. Our policy on civility clearly forbids personal attacks. Comment on the article, not on other editors. --mav (talk) 04:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• This article is poorly referenced. I noted that and asked if I should put fact tags on. Prince of Canada asked for a list of unreferenced statements. I provided them. He said he would take care of them and reference them. Please do not change my post and misrepresent the problem. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Here you are Matisse [6] looks like your kind of page now, nothing contentious and easy to understand. Enjoy! Giano (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Giano, please don't take Matisse's comments personally; it seems s/he says this about a lot of articles for which s/he has not personally done research. Fact is, this article has been unstable since Day One, as you have noted on many occasions, given the number of drive-by additions. I know you and others have tried to keep the article cleaned up, despite the frustrations involved. Let someone else take their turn trying to keep this article free of junk without being accused of "owning" it. Risker (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

" It has been a rallying point for the British people at times of national rejoicing and crisis." Makes the assumption that Britons as a whole take comfort from the presence of a Monarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.236.197 (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

canada gate buckingham palace

I am not particularly adept at creating or editing Wikipedia pages, and would like to challenge on of you fine folks to create a page regarding the canada gate at buckingham palace, I understand it is quite the display and was disappointed to not find any referance to it on Wikipedia.--Deluxebros (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's really a gate to the Green Park, rather than Buckingham Palace - It's very easy to write a page, if you want to write it, I will wikify and MOS it etc. If you prefer you can dump the basis of an article on my talk page, I will write it up for you - do you have any reference books or info?  Giano  23:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

buckingham palace

c sisi poto stuve tora un bec avec les bec des otruch alr sisi pôtô tora le bec jenre le alr jenre le alr tora plu dbec psk tu ljenr mm pa jté arnaké Mdr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.87.206.41 (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The interesting, the daft and the banal

Keeping this page concise and to FA standards is constant problem. I reverted an edit this evening [7] which I thought interesting, but without a real place in the page. With that in mind, I have started a page here User:Giano/Buckingham Palace (trivial facts), I have not added anything to it, as I don't want to steal credit for information given by someone else, but there's quite a lot in the page that could go there - royal quotes, funny stories, appocryphal (I can't spell that) stories, jokes and whatever. Plus a lot that gets reverted never to see the light of day again. Whoever adds a fact first, can put it into mainspace.  Giano  17:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Pink lapis?

I thought lapis was always blue, as its main mineral was lazurite. If it is pink, is it not another material? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Dress

"Most men invited to Buckingham Palace in the daytime choose to wear service uniform or morning coats, and in the evening, depending on the formality of the occasion, black tie or white tie. If the occasion is "white tie" then women, if they possess one, wear a tiara."

In 1995 when I was at a Garden Party the majority of men were wearing lounge suits, the men in morning coats were in a definite minority, it was a very hot day, however. I think the statement may be a little outdated. I just checked the referenced site and indeed it says lounge suits not morning coats.Urselius (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Did the rammed German bomber have bombs in or not?

There seems to be a contradiction in the following:

"On 15 September 1940, known as the Battle of Britain Day, an RAF pilot, Ray Holmes of No. 504 Squadron RAF rammed a German bomber he believed was going to bomb the Palace. Holmes had run out of ammunition and made the quick choice to ram it. Holmes bailed out. Both aircraft crashed. In fact the Dornier Do 17 bomber was empty. It had already been damaged, two of its crew had been killed and the remainder bailed out. Its pilot, Feldwebel Robert Zehbe, landed only to suffer mortal wounds from a civilian mob. During the Dornier's descent, it somehow unloaded its bombs, one of which hit the Palace."

If the Dornier "bomber was empty," how could it have subsequently "somehow unloaded its bombs?" It looks like someone has edited in the first assertion without removing the later one. We need to determine which is correct and remove the other one. A complication is that contemporaneous news on a subject as sensitive as this would be unreliable due to propaganda considerations.

80.229.220.14 (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Dont know the story but I read "bomber was empty" as being no crew not no bombs. MilborneOne (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Easier to remove all mention of bombs in or not in the plane to avoid speculation. It does not matter if the dornier did or did not have bombs as it was believed it was going to attack the palace, the fact it was empty is irrelevant in the context, it was still a perceived threat. Also what plane was Holmes flying? I think it was either Spitfire or Hurricane (probably more likely hurricane as they were mainstay of RAF at the time) Also short sentances 'Holmes bailed out. Both aircraft crashed. (comma wouldn't go amiss) (Fdsdh1 (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC))

When was it built?

In the opening paragraph it says 1705, but later on 'Buckingham House' it says 1703. VenomousConcept (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace is not the primary residence

The queen much prefers Windsor Castle and sees buckingham palace as but an away home, therefore "Primary Residence" is not a suitable term, as I have been watching documentaries on the british monarchy, this seems to be very widely known information and so this should be changed as soon as possible Gaogier ^{How can I help?} 23:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are unfortunately perhaps certain arguable historical and architectural considerations which are demonstrable with particular reference to the maps of the Ordnance Survey and the 19th Century 'Battle of the Scales', likewise directly related to the Ordnance Survey. Given that these do not necessarily in any way relate to either the personal preferences of any given monarch at any particular period of history (or indeed the official view of the Government at any time since these historical factors can be shown to relate also to other architecture both in central London and elsewhere within the United Kingdom involving governmental decisions and in particular the First World War and its memorials as well as the history of the 19th Century at a European level) the description 'Primary Residence' can be justified in an historical sense at least on this account.

It would be helpful for further discussion of these matters (if required or thought desirable at all) if dimensions of the Palace with particular reference to its length are provided in the article either directly or by reference to the Ordnance Survey. Rather unfortunately perhaps, at least in my own view, this sort of approach (refusal or failure to take into account history and architecture with particular reference to the 'world wars') seems not to be limited to this Palace, and in relation to the 2001 "9/11" raid on New York World Trade Center together with the The Pentagon in Washington the possible relationship between the two, together with New York as a whole, in connection with this seems to have been ignored, the failure to analyze it being I suggest quite clearly the true motive for what seems to be our ignorance or indifference, as recently made clear in the Washington Post, in relation to the raid on the Pentagon as connected with New York (it is in my own personal view equally clear that it is precisely these factors that were in the mind of the African terrorists themselves). Peter Judge 28 October 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.164.46 (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure quite what point you are making here (my English has limitations) with paricular regard to the "New York World Trade Center together with the The Pentagon." However, I have made this edit here [8] which I think clarifies the matter. Giacomo Returned 11:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sir. It must be supposed that this admittedly rather complicated matter at an international level (I must repeat again that what I myself suggest here in outline does not seem to be accepted in any form whatsoever at an official level in any country of which I am aware) is now clarified so far as Buckingham Palace is concerned by your addition of a reference to its character. Meanwhile, I can alas make no forecast whatsoever as to how (generally speaking) this matter is likely to proceed and I think it is also possibly the case that my own English has limitations, perhaps more Sir than your own! P.S. I am sorry but I failed to make clear that the length of the Palace as cited on the official website quoted in this article, (namely 120m) is not unfortunately at all relevant since (as any map of sufficient scale will show) it fails to include the entrance from the Gardens, as shown in a photograph in this article, which has on each side a visible frieze relating to the 19th Cent. Napoleonic Wars, and is thus relevant to the issue that has here been raised by myself (this I suggest must be held to confirm what seems, I repeat once again on the basis of this and other facts of which I happen to be aware, to be the apparent official and governmental approach to these matters of national significance which must be held to involve either ignorance or indifference, that which is admittedly general). Peter Judge 5 November 2011

I couldn't agree with you more, but those entrances/wings(with attendant friezes) are clearly designed to be precincts rather than part of the facade. They are just screens hiding and uniting outbuildings. Giacomo Returned 20:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, and I am glade to know you are keeping track, but I am sorry, I do not know what you mean exactly by 'precincts rather than part of the facade'? I am also sorry that we coincided in editing and I was going to add a further piece of information which I hoped would confirm the essential relationship of this piece of architecture (the entrance to the south) together with the frieze to the history of Europe and the United Kingdom ... may I now do so and thus seek to draw the attention of anyone who is interested to the fact that although I say there is 'ignorance or indifference' at an official level, I should have recalled that there is available within the Palace a book with some clear indications to the contrary (together with other factors that I do not mention for the time being at least) namely the illustrated book by Jonathan Marsden entitled Buckingham Palace: Official Souvenir Guide, designed by Baseline Arts Ltd., Oxford, which shows on p.52 the length of this Palace as mentioned above, that is including the entrance from the Gardens, at exactly 1 inch and the scale of which can therefore, even if this is not mentioned in the book, be calculated, when it is considered together with the OS map at 1:2500, as being at half that scale, i.e. 1:5000, giving a length of 138.8 recurring yards/127m that which is presumably when taken together with other factors no coincidence (and in fact it must I suggest be held, when taken together with the frieze evidently included within the main structure of the Palace at the same time, to relate directly to the removal of a nationallyh significant Napoleonic War Memorial on the other side of the Palace, together with the reconstruction of the Palace, about half way through the 19th Century, and this is presumably after all not something unknown at the monarchical level?). Admittedly, this provides some problems, since the issue is a very wide one and I shall understand very well if anyone finds it difficult to understand or perhaps not sufficiently important in practical terms, but relevant architecture remains nationwide until it is removed altogether, together with the OS maps as mentioned (that is, with reference to the 19th Cent. 'Battle of the Scales' as between the British Imperial and European metric measuring systmes since in effect it continues even if this is nowhere mentioned in the Ordance Survey article and the time of the conclusion, if ever there is one, remains unpredictable). Peter Judge 5 November — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.140.127 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please add whatever you like; that's the beauty of Wikipedia. If anyone disputes what you add, or has a problem understanding, you will soon here about it. Giacomo Returned 20:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed "primary" residence to "official" residence, which I think is the more accurate term. Official correspondence to the Queen is sent to Buckingham Palace, at least according all of the "forms of address" guides I have seen.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Coat of arms at the gate

Whose exactly is this coat of arms? It is at the front gate of the palace and maybe it is interesting for the article. Thanks. --Kadellar (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like just a representation of the royal coat of arms. MilborneOne (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Bomb Shelter

I suppose that the palace includes a bomb shelter, as was customary in WW2 but no reference to it in the article....

Milton (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Security breach

What about the recent security scares, in February when a man brandishing butcher knives outside the gates had to be subdued with Tasers and last week, when a man was able to get only yards from the Queen's private apartments before being subdued by protection, not to mention the Duke of York's brush with policemen the next day? 74.69.9.224 (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What about it? In the long history of the palace these incidents are fairly trivial - if you were to start a page Security breaches at Buckingham Palace they could belong there. But in the great scheme of things, these most recent incidents did not result in anything that was really newsworthy or long term memorable (compare with Michael Fagan talking to the Queen in her bedroom). This page has to be of a reasonable length and recording every minor incident will result in monotony.  Giano  06:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

These breaches are a systemic problem; eventually someone with ill intent will gain entry and cause a ruckus. It would be nice to have the history of security breaches dovetailed. But whatever. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do feel free to start the page Security breaches at Buckingham Palace; you don't have to log in, just click on the red link and start typing, and ask if you need any help or advice.  Giano  09:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

I have readded the infobox that was missing on this article. Does anyone know why it was removed? Based on Palace of Westminster for example, shouldn't the template be Template:Infobox historic site? What are the pros and cons for an infobox? Gryffindor (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see the archives of this page and you will find out. Your info box was full of errors, anachronism and distorted the page.Furthermore it was confusing and unnecessary. 09:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)  Giano  09:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you point out where in the archives this was discussed? The infobox I took is based on previous versions, it is not my creation. Don't forget to sign your comments. Gryffindor (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Relevant discussion is here: [9].  Giano  09:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion was in September 2008, over 5 years ago. The consensus there was also not very clear. One contributor turned out to be a sock puppet, some are not active users anymore. I will leave the discussion open here. Gryffindor (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Do what you like on this page, but in future before adding infoboxes to any Wikipedia page, I suggest you gain concensus on the talk page and then read the page in its entirety first. Your silly boxes are littered with errors and distortions and anachronisms. Saying "well I didn't write it" after you have added it, is the excuse of a seven-year-old.  Giano  09:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

These infoboxes might work well for structures that have a single architect or firm and are constructed within a decade or so, but they are ill-designed to cope with buildings that have extensive and complex histories involving multiple owners, architects and periods of construction. Infoboxes can work when they present simple and essentially incontestable facts, but they are not designed for nuance or complexity. DrKay (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

My point entirely. At a quick glance at an infobox a student could be forgiven for think William Wynde was responsible for the palace's architecture, but I think even a serious architectural historian would be hard pressed to identify any of his work there now. Similarly, where has this 'epoque' architecture come from; the article clearly states that that's interior decoration in a few rooms; and as for the clients. The only way anyone can realsie what is going on there is to read the article; it's not possible to accurately summarise such a lot of history in a few brief lists.  Giano  11:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have just removed another of these monstrosities [10] this one full of mistakes and over simplifications. What is it with the people who love these these boxes so much that prevents them being able to read the article to get even the most basic facts correct? completion date? style of architecture - and "tenants"? Ridiculous. Giano (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Quite agree. We do not have to have a poxy little box on every article.--Charles (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of info box

Could Giano please give a more detailed description of how my useful infobox was 'erronious and misleading'?Matthewm192 (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Matthewm192: Just for a start: Completion date - wrong! style of architecture - wrong! Tenants - wrong! That's just a start of your oversimplification and misleading box. If it were possible to summarise such a complex and historical building into half a dozen words, it would not be necessary to have such a long page, and what pray is "Georgian architecture" supposed to mean in this context? Had you bothered to even read the page you would see that most of it was built in a Neoclassical style in the 19th century - and even describing it as Neoclassical would be an oversimplification. Putting that glaring and misleading error aside, you did not even bother to read the caption of the existing lead image before scanning the page in ten seconds and coming up with your ridiculous effort. People like you wandering in off the street and imposing these daft boxes are a menace to the integrity of the project. Giano (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is a reasonably standard and uncontroversial bit of article structure, like the table of contents, and certainly isn't meant to either belittle the subject or replace the carefully-constructed prose of the article. (For example, the articles for the Queen, the Palace of Westminster, and Windsor Castle all use infoboxes.) If the infobox here contained some imperfect information, it might have been more helpful to correct those items rather than rip out the entire structure.  Unician ∇  19:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No. It was erroneous, it was unnecessary and now it is gone - and your input on this page,Unician, has been? ....... I don't seem to be able to evaluate it. Giano (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It did not take me 10 seconds at all! I gave at least an hour to my contribution. Also, I understood that not all the information was 100% correct but I expected that someone helpful would edit it to make it correct. This is my first major edit on Wikipedia so I am new to the whole business. I find info boxes very useful and hoped that I would be educating people by adding it, I never intended to mislead. The reason it says that the architectural style is 'Georgian' is because I copied the box from the 10 Downing Street Page and edited it to the best of my knowledge.Matthewm192 (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Words fail me! We should rejoice that you had not previously been looking at the Taj Mahal. That could have seriously misled our readers. Giano (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I for one agree with Matthewm192, in thinking that an infobox would be quite useful, and something along the lines of that at 10 Downing Street would be a good start. Granted the topic is somewhat more complex than say Ford Green Hall, but just because something may prove difficult doesn't mean it isn't needed. Perhaps something along the lines of:

Buckingham Palace
The east front, and principal façade of the palace.
General information
Architectural style	Georgian, Neoclassical, Edwardian
Town or city	City of Westminster
Country	United Kingdom
Coordinates	51.5010°N 0.1416°W / 51.5010; -0.1416
Current tenants	Elizabeth II (Queen of the United Kingdom) Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (Husband of Queen Elizabeth II) The Duke of York (Son of Queen Elizabeth II) The Earl and Countess of Wessex (Son and daughter-in-law of Queen Elizabeth II)
Construction started	Buckingham House: 1703 (1703) Remodeling under George III: 1762 (1762) Remodeling under George IV: 1826 (1826) Remodeling under Victoria: 1847 (1847)
Design and construction
Architect(s)	William Winde, John Nash, Edward Blore
Website
Buckingham Palace
Listed Building – Grade I

Sotakeit (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"Current tenants" seems inappropriate and the Queen's Gallery was built in the 1960s, so it's difficult to include construction start and end dates. The start date and ages for the remodeling are also unnecessary and overly complicated. DrKay (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, DrKay. Would "Current occupants" or "Current residents" be better? And what about listing two start/end dates then? One for the palace and one for the Queen's Gallery? Sotakeit (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen, gentlemen

You are both right on some major points. The removal of this insulting box is quite correct. The insult, however, was not intended. At the height of the Nixon scandal, Nixon was disparagingly called "resident." If you had thought about it at all, how could you possibly characterize the monarch and her family as "tenants?" How insulting! But the problem is, of course, our infobox! In the first place, Buckingham Palace is not a house, it is a state building and the main person who lives there is a high-ranking officer of the British government. Let's have some respect here. Surely you can understand that, even in our democracy. In fact Britain in many respects is more democratic than we right now. The monarch is a state symbol of democracy and freedom, not a "tenant." The Prime Minister is not a "tenant" of Downing Street, either, nor our president of the White House. Some sensitivity on these things, please. They don't need our disrespect in these trying times. On the other hand the infobox is one of the better WP templates. Numerous articles have them. They are attractive in design and give concise information and identification. I'm not surprised to hear the editor worked hard on it. This is a labor of love. It is not to be disparaged. There is however a solution, and I am surprised no one has thought of it. Design another infobox! I suggest "infobox palace," or infobox "state building," with a picture of the nation's flag in it and the appropriate labels for the appropriate information. If we respect all governments that is closer to the WP ideal and avoids complaints such as this. As far as hostile governments are concerned (which the British is not by any stretch of the imagination), "And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others?" You should know that once you select an infobox you are stuck with the headings it offers for the information. So, we need the right one for the article. This is not it, but design of another along the same lines but with respectful headings should do it. A little more work please. Design is fun, don't you think? I'm doing something else right now, but you go ahead.Botteville (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

PS if you need a little help try this. Search on template:infobox building. Copy the entire page. Search on template:infobox palace or whatever name you select. You will get a message saying it does not exist, would you like to create it. Paste the whole copied page in. Be sure not to save yet! Now modify the page to be infobox palace or whatever. To minimize open time you should set it all up beforehand in a Word file or whatever. Or, do it in a sandbox. Then when you are ready, open the page and paste away. Then save it. There are bound to be small errora. Just open it again and correct them. Wait a decent interval for comment. Then start opening the appropriate articles and put your template to work. On the talk page, since there has been such a reaction, I would say put an instance there first and ask for comments. If none appear after a decent interval, try it on the article. One everyone is happy with it who cares, start finding other instances of palaces on which to use it. Good luck. ciao.

Staff

I want more information about staff at the Palace. It seems that some are Commonwealth immigrants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.39.115 (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Inflation

@Hchc2009: Painful though it is for me to explain this, Template:Inflation is wrong: the figure is calculated using the Retail Price Index as per MeasuringWorth.com. The inclusion of an inflated-adjusted figure does not imply that you can buy a similar palace for £3 million today. It simply tells you, the average reader, what £21,000 in 1761 is worth in today's money; not what the palace is valued at compared to 1761. Most readers would understand that... Firebrace (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Comparing figures across different time periods is a difficult task, as the essays on the Measuring Worth site make clear. There is no straightforward way to compare sums of money from the mid-18th and early 21st centuries - it isn't like comparing centimetres and inches. The Wikipedi template makes clear that this template should only be used to compare figures included in the index e.g. "staples, workers' rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets)" and that it "is incapable of inflating capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich... incorrect use of this template would constitute original research". This is why we shouldn't be using it for comparing the costs of palaces - they aren't included in any consumer or retail index from either the 18th or the 21st century; the UK RPI, for example compares the cost of purchases of the "typical UK household", not our royal family! :) There are various options for comparing larger sums of money or the expenditure of the rich in different time periods; the Measuring Worth site gives a range of these, which can give you comparative figures for £21,000 in 1761 in 2014 from as low as £2.89 million, to up to as much as £289.2 million. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to believe, as the warning itself constitutes original research – note the lack of any citations... Firebrace (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly a complex area, with a lot of professional judgement required, which is one of the reasons that the instruction on the wiki template is worded the way it is. The essays on the site make for a pretty good starting point for exploring the problems involved. If the 1760s are bad, though, the medieval period is even worse! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, maybe articles like this one should be maintained by professionals... Firebrace (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Translation of sums of money from one era to another is completely meaningless. It's risky enough doing it over a ten year period, but between centuries is ridiculous as there are too many varying factors reliant on politics and climate which have nothing to do with a sliding scale. What is one supposed to base these figures on - the price of bread or food (that changes according to the agricultural season) - the price of labour? That changes according to supply and demand and gold is politically manipulated. Giano (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, it wasn't comparing the values of buildings or commodities, but the value of the money itself. X still bought a loaf of bread in 1761 regardless of whether or not it was purchased by the Royal Family. It's a difficult thing to explain... Firebrace (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Gallery

it is not customary for FAs to have galleries. Anyone have an opinion on this major change. Giano (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with galleries in FAs per se, but they should be in line with the MOS guidance on them, which is (if I remember correctly) that they should typically have a theme or otherwise be a selection of some sort. I don't personally think the new gallery really complies with this yet - I can't quite work out what it is trying to communicate. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy to help you out: the theme is Buckingham Palace. Firebrace (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't feel in line with WP:Gallery to me, or adding value - I'd recommend rethinking or removal. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

These images seem random. Would it not be more simple to just trust the existing and very satisfactory link {Commons category|Buckingham Palace}}? I wish it were impossible to include more images in the article, but it isn't for obvious reasons. This page has thousands of views every day, which is why it regularly 'freshened' and an attempt is made to keep it at a high standard. Giano (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"Regularly freshened", hey. What about all the mistakes I corrected yesterday which had been there for years? It isn't fresh, it's stuck in a late-00s time warp. I know there is a link to the relevant Commons page, but as with many features on Wikipedia, that is a hangover from the previous decade: no one ever clicks it. Those who do are confronted by a hodgepodge of images with no quality control and a layout that is very confusing and in need of a complete overhaul to bring it into 2016. A gallery is more convenient. You seem totally oblivious to the fact that people are giving up on Wikipedia in droves because of nonsense like this. I'm still not sure what Hchc2009 means by "should typically have a theme"; what do you want, 12 photos of the same room from different angles? Isn't the building and its history enough of a theme... Firebrace (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a gallery page[11]. DrKay (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to check before replying in more detail - have you read in the past (or had a chance to read through more recently) WP:Gallery? It covers a lot of the rationale here. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Mobile accessibility

WP:IMGLOC says to avoid sandwiching text between two images, and for good reason; this is how the article looks on an iPad Mini. You may also want to consider how it looks on a smartphone. Why should the reader have to scroll past a chintzy miniature of Queen Victoria in an article about Buckingham Palace, which most people do not associate with her, before they reach the lead? It is another unfortunate example of why the article is behind the times. As of last year, "more Google searches take place on mobile devices than on computers in 10 countries including the US and Japan." [12]... Firebrace (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

As the first monarch to inhabit the palace, and build a whacking great chunk of it; it's about time people did associate the palace with her. Isn't it marvelous that Wikipedia educates people so well. Perhaps we need to make the images larger so the text isn't sandwiched. I love the way her image is so central on the smart phone; it's also not chintzy, it's her coronation portrait (who are we to pass judgment on the tastes of the time) depicting her at the very moment that she moved into the palace. Giano (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Uhuh. Perhaps it's time for another FA review... ;) Firebrace (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"Principal workplace"

In 2015 the monarch spent 159 nights at Windsor Castle and only 88 at Buckingham Palace. [13] Firebrace (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't blame her; but is she "working" or "putting her feet up" at Windsor? We need to ask that man who studies the Court Circular and makes an anal report. I'm sure I read somewhere, a while ago, that HM intended to spend more time at Windsor than in London, but I don't have a ref for that. It's fairly common knowledge that HM will be the lat monarch to reside at BP, so one day there will have to be huge up-date to this page - hopefully a long-time distant. Incidentally, Firebrace, I am working on a 3D model of BP some examples of work-in-progress are here - it's far from finished, but if you have any comments on inaccuracies etc; I would appreciate them earlier rather than later (can you watch the page?) as it's easier to fix things before it's finished. It's a slow and rather laborious process, but i have never really been happy with the existing plan in the article - and feel a 3D version would be more lively and fresh. Giano (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Giano: She works every day except Christmas. Yes, eventually it will become a historic royal palace. Hopefully, they will move the Crown Jewels there out of that horrible dungeon at the Tower. How do you feel about using this image in place of the current one of the Victoria Memorial? Firebrace (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• I think our English friends quite like that dungeon; anyway, I expect they will have to sell the crown jewels soon to make up for the shortcomings in their economy - £350million a week would be spent on the NHS, ho ho ho! I think the Victoria Memorial picture is superb and would look very nice in the article. Are you sure some twat won't come along and query the validity of its licence though? Giano (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a Featured Picture now. Firebrace (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Weasel words

@Jandalhandler: with regards to your tagging:

Under the new crown ownership, the building was originally intended as a private retreat for King George III's wife, Queen Charlotte, and was accordingly known as The Queen's House [Ref: In 1775, an Act of Parliament settled the property on Queen Charlotte, in exchange for her rights to Somerset House ... ]"

From what is said, I think it's obvious that it was intended so by the royal family, with the approval of the Parliament.

With regards to:

"Some furnishings were transferred from Carlton House, and others had been bought in France ..."

I'm of the opinion that the identity of every person who bought furniture for the palace then is trivial. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• If you are referring to the 'by whom?' tag, I agree with you. Giano (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• If we have a source for someone's obvious intended use of the Palace, let's by all means document that. - As for the person or persons or corporate entity or entities which bought the furnishings in post-revolutionary France (and, interestingly, FROM whom) - yes, it seems trivial. But everyone knows that such deals occur as if by magic - particularly when they involve the powerful and the famous. - Jandalhandler (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• A cite tag should not be used to request more information. If you really want that much detail, then I suggest you buy a copy of 'Harris, John; de Bellaigue, Geoffrey; & Miller, Oliver (1968). Buckingham Palace (must be this edition) which catalogues most major items of furniture and their provenance, but I warn you it's a very large volume. I would even suggest that The furniture of Buckingham Palace would warrant a page of its own. Such detailed information would make a general page about the palace far too long and laborious. If you want an example of what needs to be done, look at Winter Palace; when I wrote that, I had to write an entire category (see template at bottom of that page) to accommodate all the information without sending the general reader to sleep. I am happy to contribute to such a category (or check references and sources) if someone wants to start it. Giano (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Buckingham Palace. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/English/Collections/OnlineResources/X20L/Themes/1381/1092/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100426000757/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/standard/article-23727267-buckingham-palace-hits-right-note-with-jazz-fans.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23727267-buckingham-palace-hits-right-note-with-jazz-fans.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Unreferenced sentences

Does anyone have references for the unreferenced sentences in the first three paragraphs of Buckingham Palace#Home of the monarch? Also, "(see Old and New London (below)" is a nonstandard pointer. Great article, btw. - Dank (push to talk) 23:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind ... I was thinking of rerunning this at TFA, but Iridescent pointed out that we can easily foresee future events where we might want to have the article available to rerun. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Curious anomaly

According to Charles Greville (diarist), Buckingham House was sold twice between 1770 and 1820, but there is no mention of this in the article.

[George III] was empowered by Act of Parliament to make a will about the year 1766. In 1770 he made a will, by which he left all he had to the Queen for her life, Buckingham House to the Duke of Clarence [the future William IV], some property to the Duke of Kent … In 1810 the King made another will, but for various reasons he always put off signing it … After the death of the King the only good will, therefore, was his original will of 1770, which was produced and read in the presence of [George IV] … Buckingham House, which had been left to the Duke of Clarence, had been twice sold; the Queen and the Duke of Kent were dead; the only legatee, therefore, was the [Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany]. Now arose a difficulty—whether the property of the late King demised to [George IV] or to the crown. The Chancellor said that the only person who had anything to say to the will was the Duke of York; but the Duke and the King differed with regard to the right of inheritance, and the Duke, wishing to avoid any dispute or discussion on the subject, begged to wash his hands of the whole matter. [George IV] conceives that the whole of the late King's property devolves upon him personally, and not upon the Crown, and he has consequently appropriated to himself the whole of the money and jewels … So touchy is he about pecuniary matters that his Ministers have never dared remonstrate with him, nor to tell him that he has no right so to act. The consequence is that he has spent the money, and has taken to himself the jewels as his own private property.

Charles Greville; Henry Reeve (ed.), The Greville memoirs, 1875, Longmans, Green & Co., pp. 64–65. Firebrace (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

George III purchased the house in 1761, and it was transferred to Queen Charlotte in 1775 ("sale" one), who left it to the future George IV (then Prince Regent) when she died in 1818 ("sale" two). It is this bequest which is the missing link. Firebrace (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Piano nobile plan

We currently have a plan of the piano nobile with a long caption identifying, by letter, the principal rooms.

However, at default thumbnail size (220px width), it is not actually possible to read the letters on the plan; which to my mind makes the plan, or at least the caption, not especially useful. Also, the narrow width means that the caption stretches to 19 lines.

I made an adjustment enlarging this to 350px width, at which point the letters are just about readable, and the caption is reduced to 11 lines; but it still doesn't disrupt article flow at most browser widths.

Firebrace reverted this with the edit comment "What part of "thumbnail" do people not understand.".

Any thoughts? I think this plan could be really useful in understanding the layout of the palace, but the current presentation isn't very helpful. An alternative could be to break this out into its own full-width block without the article text flowing round it (I'm not sure if there is a standard way to do it, but something like the Featured Picture box on the Main Page)? TSP (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there seems to be a general lack of understanding about how non-editors use Wikipedia. If one logs out and clicks the piano nobile thumbnail, one sees what readers see: a large version of the image with its caption displayed below in the Wikipedia:Media Viewer (scroll down to read the full caption, plus attribution statement). There is no reason why any thumbnail in the article body has to be wider than 220px (default size). Firebrace (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see the functionality is the same whether one is an editor or not? Both editors and non-editors, reading the article, see an unreadable diagram with a 19-line caption.

Certainly both editors and non-editors can (if they know the functionality exists) click on the image to see it in the media viewer, but I'm not sure there's a reason to expect that every reader does this rather than looking at it in the context of the article. And for both editors and non-editors, there is still that useless 19-line caption in the article - it has a function in the media viewer, but in the article it doesn't. The diagram also relates to the article text, so I'd think people might want to look at both at once? TSP (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"I'm not sure there's a reason to expect that every reader does this". TSP, you have identified the reason: It's too small to make out the numbers; obviously, if they wish to see the numbers, they open it in Media Viewer. It's about giving people a choice. Anyway, User:Giano is creating a 3D model of the palace to replace the current 2D piano nobile. Firebrace (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@TSP: For the time being I have added a key onto the piano nobile image and shortened its caption. Firebrace (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Alternatives

Ground floor

I have hated the present plan since the moment I drew it, but took the view anything was better than nothing - the Picture Gallery looks like a rat run, which it isn't. I am working on a 3D version (the almost finished version is left), but as you can see at thumbnail it is even worse, vision-wise, than the original plan. So I'm not sure what the solution is. If you go over to Winter Palace the plan I did there is interactive (ie: you click on a room and get taken to a page about that room), which has the advantage of keeping the main page readably short and provides enough space to elaborate at length about each room. However, BP is not a globally major museum, so there probably isn't enough info to warrant a page per room. I will try and get the 3D plan finished in the immediate future as if it doesn't do for here, it will for anther page I am thinking of writing. I like 3D plans as they appeal more to children and those less able to read plans, and also give a better overall picture, but I suppose the real problem is that BP is just too big to be reduced to a thumbnail. Giano (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ground floor

Ignore the fuzzy quality and unfinished bits, that won't be part of the original. However to illustrate the state apartments, it will have to be at this angle, and at thumbnail size, I just don't think it will work. Also the size is distorting the colours, if you look on the large version, the exterior walls are roughly the true colour of Bath stone, but at thumbnail it looks lurid yellow. There's various rough versions here I have a feeling a 3D version is not going to work. I welcome any opinions before I spend any longer finishing this off and waste any more time. Giano (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Thoroe drew this plan of the Tower of London; maybe he can assist. See also this image from the DK travel guide for inspiration. Firebrace (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The Tower of London plan wouldn’t work here, as we have too many rooms to key in that clear way. I wish I was clever enough to do something like the latter plan, however, that has a few mistakes, and also doesn’t show sufficient. I don’t think this page has room for multiple plans, one of the ground floor and one of the piano nobile max. Perhaps we need to forget showing the centre room and Chinese rooms and concentrate on the state apartments. Trouble is that’s only half the story. Giano (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

If we are concentrating on the state rooms (west wing) and rooms in the east wing, it makes sense to cut out the north and south wings altogether, as they are wasting space, and have one image for the west wing and a separate one for the east, contextualised with an aerial photo of the building or just a basic outline of it. Firebrace (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is a mock-up showing what can be done to solve the various problems. I have used the {{wide image}} template, which allows the image to fit at smaller resolutions without compromising legibility. It's very basic, but hopefully conveys the general idea. Firebrace (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Piano nobile of the palace's principal rooms. A: Ball Room, B: Cross Gallery, C: State Dining Room, D: Blue Drawing Room, E: Music Room, F: White Drawing Room, G: Royal Closet, H: Private Apartments, I: Throne Room, J: Green Drawing Room, K: Grand Entrance (ground floor), L: Grand Staircase, M: East Gallery

There is a full mock-up on my sandbox, also with an image of the east wing, which is far less interesting than state rooms. Firebrace (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC about infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should there be a basic infobox such as this one in the article? (The last discussion for this topic was four years ago.) Firebrace (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

When clicked on (it’s too small to see in that silly box), the map in this inbox does not even have the Palace marked. Anyone who didn’t know where it was already, would be none the wiser after viewing your map. This is a classic example of why infoboxes are misleading and a waste of time. Giano (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Our readers expect to see an infobox in articles about world-famous buildings. Firebrace (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Do ‘’’our’’’ readers really expect to see an info box? I am a frequent reader and certainly don’t expect to see one. In fact, it’s quite a relief not to see one. Giano (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Ideally, readers would be able to rate Wikipedia articles on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being absolute crap and 10 excellent, and provide other feedback, which is a standard feature of other major websites. Personally, I find infoboxes very helpful. Firebrace (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Include I don't see why not? It seems like a reasonable length relative to the lede. I'm open to arguments on the other side, but I don't think an infobox would harm the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • And your contribution to this page has been.....? Have you even read it from beginning to end?Giano (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Seraphim System's contribution has been to comment on this RfC, which is open to everyone, by invitation. PLEase do not try to dismiss such contributions, as you appear to be trying do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Basic factoids confined within an IB do not provide the nuance and detail required to convey the long and complex history of Buckingham Palace so an IB is not appropriate for this specific article. Further, it reduces the size of the main image, which provides an important visual aspect; the "basic" box added contains little useful information: the co-ordinates are already at the top of the article; the map does not really aid a reader; other pertinent information is already included within the first few lines of the lead. Who gets to decide what constitutes the important factoids to be included? Why is the register number etc considered to be such an essential piece of information and of such great importance that it's in the box? The multitude of reasons not to have an IB on this highly viewed article have not changed over the years. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Why not? François Robere (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Excuse my French, but the proposed "basic infobox" is fucking awful. It is like someone scrawled with a crayon over a valuable artwork. Welcome to Top Trumps Wikipedia for 7 year olds. Ugh. 213.205.198.190 (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • How it looks doesn't matter. The fact is that readers expect to see an infobox, as every similar article has one, e.g., Windsor Castle, Tower of London, Palace of Versailles, the Kremlin, the White House, etc., which all have been expanded by various architects in different styles just like Buckingham Palace, the history of which is no more "nuanced", "long", or "complex" than most other world-famous historic buildings. Firebrace (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    • ...and Winter Palace one of the few comparable buildings, does not have an info box. Giano (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Only because you WP:DONTLIKEIT: "I don't like them". Firebrace (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I am flattered that you think my personal opinion is enough to mold the shape of so many of Wikipedia's most important pages. Thank you very much. Giano (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Firebrace & Seraphim. Gimubrc (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Article made featured article without an infobox, and all one would add is an intrusive map (we are not a travel guide, and the coordinates at top right lead to maps on one's choice of platform) and garish boxes highlighting selected data (its listing numbers). The information is all in the prose and easily findable; no justification for adding the box with map, and insofar as it's already an FA, could be seen as reduction in article quality. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The article passed FAR with significant changes in 2009, when FA standards and readers' expectations of Wikipedia were lower, and editing of the article since then has been very much reactive rather than proactive, with no great improvement in the past nine years. Firebrace (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    • That is your personal opinion. Keeping out the holiday snaps of tourists and the recollections of someone whose neighbour once knew a friend of a servant of Queen Mary is not being reactive. Giano (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
      • If standards are not higher than in 2009, they should be, and I think the article history speaks for itself. Firebrace (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per SagaciousPhil and Yngvadottir. Dr. K. 20:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Far too many architectural styles, architects and history (royal and non-royal) for an infobox not to a misleading oversimplification. There is no strict precedence for an infobox on a page of this type - several of the larger and more important pages on similar historic buildings don't have an info box for the reasons I have just stated. Giano (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Precisely why I left the architectural styles and architects out of the proposed infobox. Firebrace (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Contains useful information and I'd prefer to have it available at a glance upon visiting the article Dbrote (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Very useful: It is in London - Wow, who would have thought it? It's lived in by the Queen - another Wow, and then best of all, a map that is so small it can't be read and when clicked on to enlarge, doesn't even mention the palace - so you can only find it if you know where it is already.If you want some brief concise and useful facts just read the lead paragraph. Giano (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Yngvadottir - The basic infobox (excuse my french) looks fucking awful and it adds nothing to the article,

  It got through FA (which is very stringent on articles) okay so I fail to see the point of having one now,

  Readers will want to know its former name and a location which is all up top - The rest is obivously in other parts of the article. –Davey2010^Talk 16:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – I don't assign the "it can't hurt" and "because why not?" arguments much weight in this matter... the decision of whether to include an infobox should rely on the judgement of the article's main authors or a demonstrated need. If there were several readers each month chiming in that they were simply unable to navigate the article's text and requested graphical display of the basic facts, that would warrant a closer look. As it stands, though, if editors heavily involved in the topic "don't like it", that's all the reason we need to go without. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – This is one of the few articles where I believe on balance that an infobox would not be a net improvement. If we can't trust Giano's opinion on architecture, whose can we trust? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way). But can we have a decent sized lead image that I can actually see, instead, please? Pretty please, with sugar on top? --RexxS (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Giano's opinion of architecture has not been brought into question; the RfC is about a proposed infobox. Firebrace (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Suport Almost all of the information in the infobox is not in the lede; the infobox provides a very neat way of providing it to our readers in an accessible format, with the advantage of being machine-readable, too. The location is marked on the map (it should be possible to change the colour of the dot to make it more apparent); that it is not on the map which one sees when one clicks through is by design, but a new form of maps will shortly be enabled by WMF, so that should no longer be an issue. The image can be resized, even with the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • No, of course all the information is not in the lead, that is why we have an article. But all the relevant synopsis information is in the lead. Are you now proposing that we just have a huge info box instead of an article? Yes, I rather think that is something which you would love Andy. Giano (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Infoboxes are not compulsory, articles are written for people to read, the lead provides a summary if an infobox conveys all that is necessary then the article seems somewhat redundant. J3Mrs (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per SagaciousPhil and Yngvadottir. – SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Info-boxes vary in usefulness from none to a lot, and the one proposed here seems to me pretty near the "none" end of the scale. Tim riley talk 07:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - but the image itself should be reduced, as it takes up too much of the intro space. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone else, in particular the map is not of any practical use. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The map in particular is next to useless and all the other parameters are either (1) unnecessary, repetitive and obvious (in London, and lived in by the Queen); or (2) so highly specialised (registration number in a register of historic places) that they are not useful or necessary in an introductory section. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As you know,[14] Andy Mabbett has said that infobox maps soon will be useful,[15] which is great. Firebrace (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
    • As I understand it, the mapframes are quite different from the locator maps used in the infobox. They use different coding. The maps don't magically transform from one to the other once the Kartographer extension is enabled. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support There's good information easily presented in that infobox. Burying that data in the article is fine for people who want to read rather than skim. (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Came here from Ritchie's comment whilst browsing bot requests (and in turn from researching the automation of portals). I pretty much agree with Chris's comment, but to add some evidence to it from a study- many readers look only at the information box, summary text, lists, sub titles, references, or maybe only keywords (section 2.3). jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image size

I've restored the lead image size to |upright=1.8 because architectural articles need a reasonable size to be able to seen the features of the building. It was reverted referring to MOS:IMAGES, which is a guideline that recommends "the resulting image should usually be no more than 400px wide (300px for lead images)". That's the guideline. However the actual policy is in WP:IMAGESIZE which does not have the same restriction for lead images: "the resulting image should usually be no more than 500 pixels tall and no more than 400 pixels wide". Moreover the policy is very clear about this: "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width. In most cases upright=scaling factor should be used, thereby respecting the user's base preference". There's no reason to cause problems for some disadvantaged readers by forcing a fixed size, nor is there any compelling reason why the lead image should not have an upright value as large as 1.8. --RexxS (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Image should be 300px. One need only click on the image, if 300px is too small for their eyesight. The current size takes up too much of the intro space, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The current image is scaled, meaning that its displayed size varies based on your preferences. And no matter how good your eyesight, much smaller sizes lose significant detail, and relying on people to know to click and get away from the accompanying text is IMO a poor solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Why on Earth would they not know to click on a thumbnail and make it bigger? It is 2018... Firebrace (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Having worked with older people - which is also the population most likely to have trouble with their eyesight - I can say that what seems obvious and intuitive to you, is not so to everyone. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That is a discussion for the Manual of Style, which discourages having "click to enlarge" in the image caption. Firebrace (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Generally we want visitors to be able to read the article and see the images on the same page. It is not a good idea to send visitors off to another page simply to see an image. If we made all images the size of postage stamps, as you seem to think is acceptable, they would soon get fed up of bouncing back-and-forth just to make out relevant detail. With modern monitors there is no good reason why a lead image shouldn't be as much as upright=2.3 (which renders as 500px wide for most readers). The mobile view scales it anyway for very small screens. I just don't accept that our article, which is strongly concerned with the architecture of Buckingham Place, should have a lead image so small that visitors have to leave the page just to be able to make out an image of it. --RexxS (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You will see what our readers see if you log out of Wikipedia and click the image: the WP:Media_viewer. Until recently it also had been the case for logged-in users, but for some, using ctrl + click to bypass the Media Viewer and open the page in a separate tab was too much effort. Firebrace (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Which part of "we want visitors to be able to read the article and see the images on the same page" didn't you understand? It doesn't matter whether they use Media Viewer or view the image description page, they still leave the article page in either case. And have you given any thought to editors who have difficulty in using a mouse (MS, arthritis, etc.)? Any accessible website should be easily readable by someone using only the keyboard, so "ctrl-click" isn't exactly an option for them. --RexxS (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking at an image whilst reading text is impossible. Readers can do one or the other but not both at once. The rest of your comment makes no sense either, because the image description page is now accessible by mouse click only, which is what the Ludites wanted. Firebrace (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Rubbish. Of course readers can look at an image and read text at the same time; that's the whole point of having images that are related to the nearby text. You only have to look at Buckingham Palace #Home of the monarch to see how a reader can take in the caption text "it was remodelled to its present form in 1913" and see the remodelling between the first and second images. Of course the image description page is accessible by keyboard, albeit much less conveniently (for the lead image: load the page; press [Tab] eight times; and then press [Enter]), and if you knew anything about UI design or accessibility you wouldn't be spouting such nonsense. --RexxS (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Who said the image description page is inaccessible via keyboard? It can be accessed by mouse only or keyboard only. In the Media Viewer one can press [Tab] seven times and press enter for the image description page... Firebrace (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Er... you do realize he just said you can access it by hitting Tab a bunch and pressing enter? That doesn't really solve the problems of (a) you have to know that you can do that, and (b) that removes the in-article context. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, he said you can access the image description page when logged in by hitting tab and pressing enter. But you could also do that beforehand, when the Media Viewer was enabled for logged-in users, by hitting tab seven times and pressing enter within the Media Viewer. Thanks for your input. Firebrace (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Firebrace: Who said the image description page is inaccessible via keyboard? - you did: ... the image description page is now accessible by mouse click only, which is what the Ludites wanted (my emphasis) [16] --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Mouse only, as opposed to using ctrl + click, which is mouse and keyboard. Unfortunately, my original point has been lost in a field of straw men and we are just confusing people. Firebrace (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I frequently refer to both text an image at the same time - especially if I am reading something like "at the center is a portico with freestanding Doric columns" One doesn't want to keep clicking backwards and forwards, especially if one has atrocious internet speeds - it's all very well for those living in big cities with fast connections, not all of us are so fortunate - or so young! Giano (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I really hate it when an image is displayed in an article at some tiny resolution which makes it impossible to see. Images with fine detail should be displayed with scaling factors larger than the default thumbnail size. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The Media Viewer makes it possible to see fine detail of an image without it encroaching on the text. Firebrace (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Note the key words 'displayed in an article'. I want to be able to see images on the same page as the article text not in a separate window. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The article currently states: "In fact the Dornier Do 17 bomber was empty. It had already been damaged, two of its crew had been killed, and the remainder bailed out. Its pilot, Feldwebel Robert Zehbe, landed, only to die later of wounds suffered during the attack. During the Dornier's descent, it somehow unloaded its bombs, one of which hit the Palace."

I'm no historian, but I can see the contradiction here -- either the Dornier was empty, or it managed to drop bombs, one of which hit the palace. I have no idea which is correct, but it's not possible for the Dornier to both have no bombs left and for it to drop a bomb on the palace. Can someone correct the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstar3k (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)