![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Independent & Admiralty Quarries page were merged into Portland stone on February 24, 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Check out this story ('Bidding Farewell to a City’s Precious Stone') from the New York Times, which offers a radically different perspective on a 'Portland Stone' which Americans (especially New Yorkers) consider to be no less important than the stone covered in this Wikipedia article, which refrains from even mentioning the Connecticut source of New York's architectural legacy. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/nyregion/saying-goodbye-to-the-face-of-new-yorks-brownstones.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1351191856-FvgQmrtZh9bnHjxumOLmog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.242.228 ( talk) 21:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
What about a quick reference to the relation between Portland Limestone and the naming of the Portland Cement? -- Mecanismo 22:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I should have thought that as a proper name for a material worked from a well-defined geological unit, the term should be 'Portland Stone' rather than 'Portland stone'. Trawling the web, both approaches are seen to be used, often mixed in a single article. The British Geological Survey refers to it as the 'Portland Freestone'. Any comment? Geopersona ( talk) 05:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Stumbled onto footage of portland stone being cut in 1955. Not sure if it warrants adding to the external links? EdwardLane ( talk) 08:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Both Portland England and Portland New England (Connecticut) stone was used in New York City. Thus I added a disambiguation. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 05:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Portland stone. 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) 16:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Currently the article is a slightly uneasy combination of the rock unit and the building stone. The building stone is just one layer within the formation, so we could have two articles, each with a different focus. At the moment the inclusion of fossil fauna list looks a bit strange with all the building stone stuff. Thoughts? Mikenorton ( talk) 15:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Independent & Admiralty Quarries page were merged into Portland stone on February 24, 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Check out this story ('Bidding Farewell to a City’s Precious Stone') from the New York Times, which offers a radically different perspective on a 'Portland Stone' which Americans (especially New Yorkers) consider to be no less important than the stone covered in this Wikipedia article, which refrains from even mentioning the Connecticut source of New York's architectural legacy. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/nyregion/saying-goodbye-to-the-face-of-new-yorks-brownstones.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1351191856-FvgQmrtZh9bnHjxumOLmog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.242.228 ( talk) 21:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
What about a quick reference to the relation between Portland Limestone and the naming of the Portland Cement? -- Mecanismo 22:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I should have thought that as a proper name for a material worked from a well-defined geological unit, the term should be 'Portland Stone' rather than 'Portland stone'. Trawling the web, both approaches are seen to be used, often mixed in a single article. The British Geological Survey refers to it as the 'Portland Freestone'. Any comment? Geopersona ( talk) 05:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Stumbled onto footage of portland stone being cut in 1955. Not sure if it warrants adding to the external links? EdwardLane ( talk) 08:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Both Portland England and Portland New England (Connecticut) stone was used in New York City. Thus I added a disambiguation. -- Zfish118⋉ talk 05:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Portland stone. 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) 16:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Currently the article is a slightly uneasy combination of the rock unit and the building stone. The building stone is just one layer within the formation, so we could have two articles, each with a different focus. At the moment the inclusion of fossil fauna list looks a bit strange with all the building stone stuff. Thoughts? Mikenorton ( talk) 15:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)