![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Forgive me if I'm wrong - I've searched the archives for the Talk page and I don't think I've found any other discussion on the topic - but it seems to me that maybe a small subheaded section on the condition of the Palace, and the required building work needed to restore it at various times, should be fitting.
I know it's mentioned under the heading "21st century", but in case anyone's unfamiliar, it's long been known that Buckingham Palace as a building is in great need of repair, and also well-known that these issues go back a lot further than the roughly 2016-ish mention at the bottom of "21st century" at the minute. I feel it could be expanded upon further, simply put. I don't actively have the time to WP:BEBOLD and put it in myself, I'm too busy rewriting (and crying over) the state of the articles currently setting up camp on my Watchlist. Any thoughts to the topic would be welcome; thanks! -- Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) 23:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I don’t understand the images in this article; it seems odd to feature three images of U.S. Presidents. Obama in the 20th century makes some sense, but two images of Obama, along with one of Nixon, doesn’t when there are so many images to offer and why the focus on US. Also, two ex-US Presidents one over the other isn’t optimal for “court dress”. Giano might you be willing to find some better images of the actual palace, and rationalize this overuse of US people? There is contemplation of running this TFA for the Queen’s 95th. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I was asked to read through this article because of a possible TFA run in April. My major concern is the article's structure: The History section makes sense, but then the article places "Home of the Monarch" in a new section, and discusses the Interior design of the building and ceremonies that take place at the location, then returns to 20th and 21st-century history. I suggest reformatting the article into clearer sections. Here's one suggested formatting, with subsections placed in brackets: Lede, History (Pre-1624, First houses on site, The Queen's House and palace, principal royal residence/Queen Victoria's reign, 1900-1939, WWII, Queen Elizabeth's reign), Layout (Exterior, Interior), Court ceremonies, Former ceremonial at the Palace, Legacy. This will help organise the article and allow readers to easily find information.
I will also note that the "Site" section needs citations at the end of the first and third paragraph. Please ping me if you want me to continue looking at the article. Z1720 ( talk) 16:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Why doesn't this article have an infobox, like the other royal residences, like Windsor Castle? Peter Ormond ( talk) 05:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Zeromonk has added a paragraph about the Royal Household's disgraceful exemption from the Race Relations Act 1968 ( link). Sources refer to Buckingham Palace in the metonymical sense and I would have thought it more appropriate to include this information at Royal Households of the United Kingdom... Firebrace ( talk) 17:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
They were black Mulberry which he chose, not realizing it was the white mulberry trees that were silk producers. 69.172.165.14 ( talk) 20:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I have protected the article for a week because of the edit warring: Jjfun3695 added some content here, and it was removed by Firebrace here. Then it was re-restored and re-removed by the same users (with explanatory edit summaries by Firebrace, but none by Jjfun3695). Please discuss here. If there's consensus as to which version is preferred, please let me know, and I'll lift the protection. Bishonen | tålk 15:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC).
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Forgive me if I'm wrong - I've searched the archives for the Talk page and I don't think I've found any other discussion on the topic - but it seems to me that maybe a small subheaded section on the condition of the Palace, and the required building work needed to restore it at various times, should be fitting.
I know it's mentioned under the heading "21st century", but in case anyone's unfamiliar, it's long been known that Buckingham Palace as a building is in great need of repair, and also well-known that these issues go back a lot further than the roughly 2016-ish mention at the bottom of "21st century" at the minute. I feel it could be expanded upon further, simply put. I don't actively have the time to WP:BEBOLD and put it in myself, I'm too busy rewriting (and crying over) the state of the articles currently setting up camp on my Watchlist. Any thoughts to the topic would be welcome; thanks! -- Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) 23:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I don’t understand the images in this article; it seems odd to feature three images of U.S. Presidents. Obama in the 20th century makes some sense, but two images of Obama, along with one of Nixon, doesn’t when there are so many images to offer and why the focus on US. Also, two ex-US Presidents one over the other isn’t optimal for “court dress”. Giano might you be willing to find some better images of the actual palace, and rationalize this overuse of US people? There is contemplation of running this TFA for the Queen’s 95th. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I was asked to read through this article because of a possible TFA run in April. My major concern is the article's structure: The History section makes sense, but then the article places "Home of the Monarch" in a new section, and discusses the Interior design of the building and ceremonies that take place at the location, then returns to 20th and 21st-century history. I suggest reformatting the article into clearer sections. Here's one suggested formatting, with subsections placed in brackets: Lede, History (Pre-1624, First houses on site, The Queen's House and palace, principal royal residence/Queen Victoria's reign, 1900-1939, WWII, Queen Elizabeth's reign), Layout (Exterior, Interior), Court ceremonies, Former ceremonial at the Palace, Legacy. This will help organise the article and allow readers to easily find information.
I will also note that the "Site" section needs citations at the end of the first and third paragraph. Please ping me if you want me to continue looking at the article. Z1720 ( talk) 16:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Why doesn't this article have an infobox, like the other royal residences, like Windsor Castle? Peter Ormond ( talk) 05:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Zeromonk has added a paragraph about the Royal Household's disgraceful exemption from the Race Relations Act 1968 ( link). Sources refer to Buckingham Palace in the metonymical sense and I would have thought it more appropriate to include this information at Royal Households of the United Kingdom... Firebrace ( talk) 17:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
They were black Mulberry which he chose, not realizing it was the white mulberry trees that were silk producers. 69.172.165.14 ( talk) 20:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I have protected the article for a week because of the edit warring: Jjfun3695 added some content here, and it was removed by Firebrace here. Then it was re-restored and re-removed by the same users (with explanatory edit summaries by Firebrace, but none by Jjfun3695). Please discuss here. If there's consensus as to which version is preferred, please let me know, and I'll lift the protection. Bishonen | tålk 15:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC).
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)