![]() | Palace of Queluz is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 5, 2008. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This proposal was closed as "move" a long time ago. Hús ö nd 01:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Palace of Queluz →
Queluz National Palace – It's the most correct translation from the original Portuguese name (Palácio Nacional de Queluz), confirmed by Google which renders more results if a search is made using that form. The article "
Palace of Pena" has just been moved to "
Pena National Palace" for the same reason.
Húsönd 02:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I moved the article to its new name. fsouza
What if we placed the photographs beside the text, instead of below it? I think it would help the eye move more comfortably through the text. If it were alternated (at right, at left, at right, etc.) for each section, how do you all think that would work? By the way, the photographs are beautiful, Husond! Mr Which ??? 02:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Move your cursor over this picture .... Interested?? Victuallers ( talk) 23:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
trial Victuallers ( talk) 23:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Very interested, I would love to know how to do that? One small point "3" should not link to the entrance facade, and nowhere should link to Bamkin!!!! LOL. Apart from that it is brilliant, please put it in the article - with clicky instructions!! Giano ( talk) 23:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh good! Its improved a bit ... I'm working on the piunts you mentioned. I know about "Bamkin" ... I'll get bthat to go nowhere ... eventually. Is it possibile to put the missing picture on wikipedia instead of the outside link ... may take 24 hors to get right ... Victuallers ( talk) 23:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Bamkin has gone .... Victuallers ( talk) 00:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Very impressive, Victuallers! Fingers crossed it all comes together before Jan 5th. Risker ( talk) 00:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the thx guys. I think its finished. Tell me if there is a finesse you need help with. Is there a way I can find out about potential FA articles earlier...? I'd like to make sure I get credited for potential new contributions as I understand it might help me Victuallers ( talk) 11:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Extreme trivia here, but in case anyone is interested: I deleted the "official" from official guest house allocated to foreign heads of state because I can't imagine how it could be other than official. (Not that I mind: if I've overlooked something, please revert.) -- Hoary ( talk) 08:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This is just a truly great article. The photos are stellar, the clicky map is great fun, the article is superbly done. Bravo to everyone who worked on this! It is content like this that makes me proud to be a Wikipedian. -- JayHenry ( talk) 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
What a grand article. Made me smile to see something so excellently edifying on the main page. Beautiful photographs too. Well done to all concerned. One small thing--in the plan, I "read" the road as a pillared collonnade or something like that because of the huge dots--I guess they're supposed to represent the cats eyes/road studs/whatever but they just look odd! But apart from that, 10/10, gold stars all round, go to the top of the class. 86.133.240.138 ( talk) 12:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the six Portuguese palaces added to the hitherto short and useful See also section. Diluting that section with articles about other palaces is not useful, but instead likely to make readers miss the actually relevant articles linked in the section. For a listing of comparable palaces, I have instead added List of Baroque residences; I hope that's acceptable. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC).
For being a featured article, this article lacks huge chunks of information on the palace. I find that only a few lines talk about the 1934 fire and yet this fire is such a huge piece of the palace's history. There is no talk on how the restauration following the fire, it was chosen that the second floor on the palace was not to be rebuilt, merely stated that the second floor was "lost", but to this term we can say that entire wing of the palace was lost. There is also no talk on how the originial plans of the palace saw to build a much larger complex, with mirror of the current palace on the other side. I understand the importance of the architectural sections in the article, after all it is an article on a building, but the history section is saddening. This palace has tons more of history to offer than the sad couple of lines that it is given here, something one would not expect to find in a featured article. This problem must be addressed, lest the state of the article as a qualified featured article be taken away for this. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 00:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Zeorymer, your editing never ceases to impress. I find a lovely article here. If I may, I am copying it to my sand box and just tinkering with image placement and such. I will add a link in a bit. Thank you for all your edits, you're a credit to wiki's ability. Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 16:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems that no one has gone to my sandbox ( User:Cristiano Tomás/personal sanbox) and checked to look at Zeorymer's reinmprovement and ellaboration on the palace's article. I ask that you all do, because the current article is imcomplete and an incomplete article should not be featured. Let's all work together. Zeorymer's article is absolutely thorough and informative and I propose an immediate replacement of the current article for the one here: User:Cristiano Tomás/personal sanbox. Thank you all very much, Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 01:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Palace of Queluz. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Several unsourced sections. Not much about the recent history. Sections could be reorganized to have all history in one section (with subsections). File:GianonewplanQueluz.JPG would look better as an SVG file. A455bcd9 ( talk) 08:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Palace of Queluz is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 5, 2008. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This proposal was closed as "move" a long time ago. Hús ö nd 01:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Palace of Queluz →
Queluz National Palace – It's the most correct translation from the original Portuguese name (Palácio Nacional de Queluz), confirmed by Google which renders more results if a search is made using that form. The article "
Palace of Pena" has just been moved to "
Pena National Palace" for the same reason.
Húsönd 02:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I moved the article to its new name. fsouza
What if we placed the photographs beside the text, instead of below it? I think it would help the eye move more comfortably through the text. If it were alternated (at right, at left, at right, etc.) for each section, how do you all think that would work? By the way, the photographs are beautiful, Husond! Mr Which ??? 02:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Move your cursor over this picture .... Interested?? Victuallers ( talk) 23:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
trial Victuallers ( talk) 23:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Very interested, I would love to know how to do that? One small point "3" should not link to the entrance facade, and nowhere should link to Bamkin!!!! LOL. Apart from that it is brilliant, please put it in the article - with clicky instructions!! Giano ( talk) 23:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh good! Its improved a bit ... I'm working on the piunts you mentioned. I know about "Bamkin" ... I'll get bthat to go nowhere ... eventually. Is it possibile to put the missing picture on wikipedia instead of the outside link ... may take 24 hors to get right ... Victuallers ( talk) 23:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Bamkin has gone .... Victuallers ( talk) 00:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Very impressive, Victuallers! Fingers crossed it all comes together before Jan 5th. Risker ( talk) 00:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the thx guys. I think its finished. Tell me if there is a finesse you need help with. Is there a way I can find out about potential FA articles earlier...? I'd like to make sure I get credited for potential new contributions as I understand it might help me Victuallers ( talk) 11:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Extreme trivia here, but in case anyone is interested: I deleted the "official" from official guest house allocated to foreign heads of state because I can't imagine how it could be other than official. (Not that I mind: if I've overlooked something, please revert.) -- Hoary ( talk) 08:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
This is just a truly great article. The photos are stellar, the clicky map is great fun, the article is superbly done. Bravo to everyone who worked on this! It is content like this that makes me proud to be a Wikipedian. -- JayHenry ( talk) 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
What a grand article. Made me smile to see something so excellently edifying on the main page. Beautiful photographs too. Well done to all concerned. One small thing--in the plan, I "read" the road as a pillared collonnade or something like that because of the huge dots--I guess they're supposed to represent the cats eyes/road studs/whatever but they just look odd! But apart from that, 10/10, gold stars all round, go to the top of the class. 86.133.240.138 ( talk) 12:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the six Portuguese palaces added to the hitherto short and useful See also section. Diluting that section with articles about other palaces is not useful, but instead likely to make readers miss the actually relevant articles linked in the section. For a listing of comparable palaces, I have instead added List of Baroque residences; I hope that's acceptable. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC).
For being a featured article, this article lacks huge chunks of information on the palace. I find that only a few lines talk about the 1934 fire and yet this fire is such a huge piece of the palace's history. There is no talk on how the restauration following the fire, it was chosen that the second floor on the palace was not to be rebuilt, merely stated that the second floor was "lost", but to this term we can say that entire wing of the palace was lost. There is also no talk on how the originial plans of the palace saw to build a much larger complex, with mirror of the current palace on the other side. I understand the importance of the architectural sections in the article, after all it is an article on a building, but the history section is saddening. This palace has tons more of history to offer than the sad couple of lines that it is given here, something one would not expect to find in a featured article. This problem must be addressed, lest the state of the article as a qualified featured article be taken away for this. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 00:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Zeorymer, your editing never ceases to impress. I find a lovely article here. If I may, I am copying it to my sand box and just tinkering with image placement and such. I will add a link in a bit. Thank you for all your edits, you're a credit to wiki's ability. Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 16:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems that no one has gone to my sandbox ( User:Cristiano Tomás/personal sanbox) and checked to look at Zeorymer's reinmprovement and ellaboration on the palace's article. I ask that you all do, because the current article is imcomplete and an incomplete article should not be featured. Let's all work together. Zeorymer's article is absolutely thorough and informative and I propose an immediate replacement of the current article for the one here: User:Cristiano Tomás/personal sanbox. Thank you all very much, Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 01:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Palace of Queluz. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Several unsourced sections. Not much about the recent history. Sections could be reorganized to have all history in one section (with subsections). File:GianonewplanQueluz.JPG would look better as an SVG file. A455bcd9 ( talk) 08:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)