Talk:Francis Petre

Featured article review of November 20, 2005

This review resulted in the passing of a new version of the article.

• This quote which was in the article when it was an original FAC, is from the link to St. Joseph's's cathedral which too has always been listed. References and links are given so people can check facts. Perhaps people should check these out before claiming lack of references. Giano | talk 10:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes since being promoted on April 19, 2005. This is the version that was promoted. Changes are minor but significant and seem to be positive. Tuf-Kat 04:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• One of the best articles I've read. Changes have been positive. Well, except for this edit. I'm not an expert in em dashes but I don't think this is a correct usage. It appears the subject of the phrase ("styles") is lost inside the dashes leaving the "the" referring to...well, I'm not sure what. --maclean25 08:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if you are correct about em dash or not, butI reworded the sentence in question to make the point moot. If this change is not reverted, I will pass this review in a few days (assuming no other issues are brought up). Tuf-Kat 09:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you, that clears it up. Two minor imperfections in the article include an unreferenced quotation in the "Architect" section (with quotation marks in a block quote) and a one sentence introduction-section to "Cathedrals" (and it doesn't end with a period). --maclean25 07:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Expanded the cathedral intro sentence. Tuf-Kat
      • Quotation referenced. maclean25

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this. The assessment is shaky. Attention to detail was a commonplace of 19th century architects' practice. In this regard Petre was not more diligent than e.g. R.A. Lawson. What is more significant is the quality of the details, both as designed and executed. Even so, this alone would not really make someone a distinguished architect.

Peter Entwisle

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Featured Article Review

I see that this is one of two remaining unreviewed Featured Articles (per Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles). Looking at this Featured Article, I see that there are issues with referencing - the inline citations are lacking, and there are citation needed tags throughout. Some image formatting issues exist in that I see a minor bit of sandwiching - though that might be my screen's fault. Is there editor interest in re-working the citations for this article? I don't see a whole lot of activity on this page, or in the article proper, so it's possible that a FAR will draw additional eyes to the article. Per WP:FAR, I'm raising these issues on the talk page, as a prelude to a formal Featured Article Review. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? I would say it has taken exactly 24 minutes. Which facts exactly are you having a problem with, or do you like to see cite tags per 100 words? I see 2 citation tags needed - you say "there are citation needed tags throughout." your screen must be very peculiar and at fault indeed! I note with interst, the articles that you have created here, perhaps it would be a good idea if you go and polish those first, before atacking what is at the better end of the project.Giacomo Returned 20:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh hell, I don't know - I just wanted to clear out the category. If you've got eyes on the article, it's fine with me - the referencing was the only real issue I could see that might come up at FAR. I saw that tags were present, and that multiple sections had no obvious references, but you're right about the CN tags. The lack of inline cites doesn't bother me a bit personally, though more wouldn't hurt - it's a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned it here entirely because it's listed at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles. Period. Full stop. I didn't know, nor do I really care, that it's some of your best work. You're welcome to it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you did not bother to check it out all. Far from being my best work (it's not - it's old work) it has now been heavily edited by Peter Entwisle - who I am prepared to trust - and it's now more his work. You really need to look beyond lists of "Unreviewed featured articles" and regard some of the thousands of pathetic stubs which need attention. Giacomo Returned 21:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, now I tick "Piss off Giano" on my bucket list. Yay. Sorry to cause drama. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

another image, with clearer licensing

At http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/Cyc04Cycl-fig-Cyc04Cycl0288b.html there is another image of him, a shocking image but the licensing is clear. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francis Petre. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117033023/http://www.cargillscastle.co.nz/history to http://www.cargillscastle.co.nz/history

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: 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) 05:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francis Petre. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070728134533/http://shcathedral.wellington.net.nz/index.html to http://www.shcathedral.wellington.net.nz/index.html

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: 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) 16:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)