Talk:St Mark's Campanile/Archive 1

Archive 1

Translation

I've translated a good bit of content from the Italian article, but I've deliberately not included the "Curiosities" section. The result could stand some proofreading. —Ryan McDaniel 20:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Photograph of collapse

I've never seen the picture before, any more info about it, like who the photographer was? Surely it would have been impossible to capture motion like that then, and although it does look rather impressive, the white surrounding the top gives it away quite easily at least to modern eyes. Did it really fool people? --130.88.161.173 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's Have an Article and a Category on the topic of Reconstructed Building or Replica Building

I think we should have an article and a category on the topic of reconstructed builldings or replica buildings, like this campanile. German Wikipedia has it and it counts almost 60 very interesting examples. Robert Schediwy, at present in Piestany, struggling with a Slovak keyboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.168.18.234 (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am now back home so I can strengthen my argument and add some links that may convince you. Have e.g. a look at Yongdingmen, House of the Blackheads, Iberian Gate and Chapel, Cathedral of Christ the Saviour (Moscow), Dresden Frauenkirche and Semperoper. All these landmark buildings are in fact new but also replicas of older buildings that have been destroyed by historical and natural catastrophies.

I may actually try to write at least a short stub on that topic right now. Robert Schediwy (Vienna) 84.112.54.160 (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC), corrected 84.112.54.160 (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC) P.S.: I have formulated my stub under User Talk:Gryffindor. Whoever wants please pick it up there 84.112.54.160 (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Listing?

I recently saw a piece on the CBC that talked about the tower listing some 7 centimeters off center, due to poor foundation (apparently, this same problem was what caused the original tower to fall). The piece also talked about several other Venice towers with the same problem brought on by the rising sea. Some mention of this should be made in the article.Rickremember (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The base of San Marco Campanile is currently cordoned off, as they have been injecting the foundations (with resin concrete ?) for circa 2 years now to stop sinking. If all goes well, it will be unveiled in 2012 August. Allegedly a titanium reinforcing belt has been put around the bottom of the tower some years ago, so it will not fall apart. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St Mark's Campanile. 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/20080910215101/http://www.dahp.wa.gov/gis/pdfs/228.pdf to http://www.dahp.wa.gov/gis/pdfs/228.pdf

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) 04:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:St Mark's Campanile/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 07:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Venicescapes. I'll start this review shortly. Hope to have some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, Thank you for your willingness to take this on.Venicescapes (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
12. No original research.
13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. Neutral.
16. Stable.
17. Illustrated, if possible.
18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

Will use this checklist as I go along. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I've just been looking at the many images and can confirm that they are all either PD or own work so the article meets WP:GACR#6. The images are excellent and really add something to the article. Will carry on with the lead and narrative now. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Before I delve too much into the narrative, I have some comments about the lead:

1. The last paragraph of the lead is a single sentence, which is deprecated. I would add it to the end of the first paragraph and use "current" or a similar word instead of "actual".

I moved this to the first paragraph and changed the wording.

2. The campanile reached its present height of 98.6 metres (323 ft) in 1514. The present building is a reconstruction completed in 1912. Are its dimensions exactly the same as those of the one that collapsed?

To the extent that we can know, yes.

I gave this some more thought and moved the height reference so that it refers to the current tower. That avoids any doubt.Venicescapes (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

3. Much more linkage should be done in the lead. For example: Gabriel, watchtower (which is a single word), spire, Adriatic, Renaissance, Lion of St Mark and Justice.

Linked. I am hesitant to link Giorgio Spavento in the lead since it would result in a red link (rather glaring in the lead). Please let me know if it would nevertheless be advisable.

I could create a stub article for Spavento, but I wouldn't have much time now to develop it.Venicescapes (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

4. Consistency is needed re "St Mark's" because the lead and the infobox title use "Saint Mark's" and "St. Mark's". The usual form is "St Mark's" so that should apply throughout the article.

If possible, I'd prefer to spell out saint in all cases or at least when referencing the square. Please advise.

I standardized the references to the tower, the church, the saint himself, and the feast day, all of which now use St (no period). I left the references to the square as Saint Mark's Square. Let me know if those too should change.Venicescapes (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I've taken the lead in isolation thus far so it is still to be compared with the narrative. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Venicescapes. I don't think Giorgio Spavento should be linked unless there's a chance of an article about him sometime soon. As you say, a redlink would stand out in the lead. If you prefer "Saint Mark's" then go with that. The thing is to be consistent, though I don't like "St. Mark's" at all because of the full stop in the middle of a name. Anyway, thank you for attending to this and I'll continue with the narrative. Hope to be back soon. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps follow the lead of the main St Mark's article? It mentions both names to start with, and then goes to St Mark's from there on, since that's the common name (or the article wouldn't be called St Mark's Campanile, it would be "Saint Mark's Campanile"). BlueMoonset (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the lead is fine for now, pending review of narrative, and happy with Saint Mark's Square. Back soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Reputable sources

I noticed, in the backlog page discussion about the previous reviewer, a comment that they had not indicated any research into the many books referenced in the article, especially the Italian publications – Gattinoni, Sansovino, Zanetto, etc. I've been checking their authenticity and, as far as I can tell, all are authoritative works by reputable authors. I'm satisfied that the current citations (subject to any more being needed) are from reliable sources in compliance with WP:GACR#2b. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Historical background

Interesting and informative section. The footnotes are useful additions. Just one query which concerns the iron chain that could be pulled taut across the Grand Canal being installed at the height of San Gregorio. I assume San Gregorio here was the former church described in San Gregorio, Venice (if so, it should be linked). I don't understand how an iron chain at that height could impel invaders moving along or across the canal. Could you please revise the sentence to clarify? No Great Shaker (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I reworded this. I also found a handy link for harbour chain. I could add a note, if appropriate, about the great chain in Constantinople which had a similar function. See Galata Tower (old).Venicescapes (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Construction – Tower

• Change "recuperated" to "obtained". In modern usage, "recuperated" nearly always means a person's recovery from injury or illness.

• Change in correspondence to the fifth of the eight present windows to which corresponded with the fifth of the eight present windows.

One thing I like in this section, given the large number of doges through two and a half centuries, is your method of dating by each doge's term of office so that the reader always knows when a development was being done (or not). It's always best to provide a timespan rather than just say something like "the brief reign of Pietro Participazio". No Great Shaker (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Done, but with slightly different wording for the first correction.Venicescapes (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Domenico Selvo appears to be later referred to as "Selva". Which is correct? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Selvo. Thank you for spotting that.Venicescapes (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Construction – Belfry and spire

• Change "deliberated" to "decided".

• Change "execution" to "construction".

• As there is no enwiki article about Giorgio Spavento, it might be worth including a little bit of biographical info such as his dates (c.1440–1509) and that he was born and died in Venice itself.

Corrections made. I'll gather some information on Spavento and see if it's easier to insert it here or start a stub article.Venicescapes (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a stub for Giorgio Spavento. I should be able to go to the library in the next few days and get some more information.Venicescapes (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I've reached the earthquake on 26 March 1511 and will have to halt for the time being. I hope all the comments above are useful. Back later. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Halting at the earthquake seems like a cliffhanger.Venicescapes (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Ha, good one. I suppose, with my username, that an earthquake is appropriate! No Great Shaker (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The comments are all very helpful. Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would like to suggest a recasting of the end of the second paragraph in this section as follows: from "the new belfry in Istrian stone." to "a new belfry made of Istrian stone." BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Done.Venicescapes (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I've read the remainder of this section and it looks fine to me. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Progress

Hello, Venicescapes, sorry I haven't been active here for the last few days. Real life problems, I'm afraid. I haven't forgotten this review and I hope to back soon. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem.Venicescapes (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Loggetta

Starting this soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This section is fine, with a good photograph. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Later history

Who was it that said lightning never strikes twice in the same place? No Great Shaker (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It's amazing how long it took to figure out the lightning rod.

I would change "subject to" → "susceptible to" but this is only a suggestion. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thank you.Venicescapes (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The section is fine. Very interesting and informative. I presume the Venetians were interested in the telescope for better observation of comings and goings at sea. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Bells

This seems to be quite comprehensive with a tremendous amount of detail about the functions and usages of each bell. The table provides an excellent summary as a visual aid. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Collapse and rebuilding

Again, very detailed and informative. The cat must have been shut inside or it would have sensed the impending danger and escaped, poor thing. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Elevator and Restoration work

One tiny tweak, already done. Interesting that the foundations still need so much maintenance and structural support. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Influence

A very useful list with some good images. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Passed

I've made additional comments above as I worked through the rest of the article today. There's no doubt that this is a very good article and I think you should take it to FAC if and when you are satisfied that there's little further information to be added. FAC might well be more demanding than this review has been but I think you have every chance of success there. If you do go to FAC, please let me know about it and I'll take part. I'm promoting the article to GA. A fine piece of work about an interesting historical subject. Well done. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again for your time and corrections. I would very much like to remain in contact. I actually just survived my first FA and may need time to recover. If you feel that there are areas of the campanile article that might still need work, please let me know.Venicescapes (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, if BlueMoonset has any further suggestions, please let me know as well.Venicescapes (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes, I think the only remaining note I had was on the Elevator section, and the word change took care of it. (I might specify that it takes 30 seconds to travel between ground level and the belfry.) I was happy to see that the DYK nomination has already been reviewed and approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I specified this. Thank you for taking a look.Venicescapes (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Coordinates in Infobox

Hello @Evrik:, I saw your recent edit to the article on St Mark's campanile and wanted to ask if repeating the coordinates in the infobox is really necessary. They're already at the top of the page. For me, the infobox should give just the pertinent information at a glance (without having to click further). Repeating the coordinates seems to unnecessarily clutter the infobox IMO.Venicescapes (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's any set guideline on use of co-ordinates and different projects may follow individual approaches. In football ground articles, the tendency seems to be top right and not in the infobox; but I have seen both top right and infobox used by other projects – railway stations for one. Personally, I prefer top right only. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if there is policy on this. I did it because I was trying to clean up the code at the bottom of the page. --evrik ^(talk) 15:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Evrik:, I see that you cleaned up the Commons category and thank you. The coordinates template at the bottom of the page was generating the coordinates that appear at the top of the page. Moving the template into the info box caused it to generate the coordinates twice and very close together. Since it wasn't necessarily your intention to add the coordinates to the infobox, I moved the template back to the bottom of the page. The coordinates now appear once at the top. I hope this is okay.

On another note, thank you for reviewing the DYK.Venicescapes (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT, you recently added one of your photographs to the article which is largely repetitious of the photo already in the infobox. Also, as inserted, it is pushing other images out of alignment.Venicescapes (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes, Thank you for your kind message. If you can arrange the item, so that this photograph can fit into it. That would be nice, as it shows the current campanile from an angle not yet shown in the article. Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC) Jean-Pol GRANDMONT, I moved it. It's a little cluttered, but it can work.Venicescapes (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes,

Thank you for your help. Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Venicescapes,

As you are the initiator of many English Wikipedia articles on Venice and I have photographed Venice a lot, you may be interested in knowing the image files that I have already uploaded and will continue to insert in Common's dealing with different subjects on this city (landscape, art, architecture, painting ...).

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:August_2014_in_Venice

With your help and agreement I could insert new images or replace images that do not have the required qualities. Thank you in advance for the answer you will give me. Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT, thank you for asking. I'd be happy to share any thoughts about substituting or adding images. Your photographs are excellent and much better than many that exist in Wikimedia. I certainly understand your desire to share them. But I would urge caution. Photographs should be integrated into the article, and too many images can create a cluttered effect. The image use policy is here. Consider also that articles that have reached FA and GA status have had an image review. So changing or adding images has the potential to be problematic. On another note, you need to add all of the appropriate licenses to your photographs. They need a US PD tag and, since Italy doesn't have freedom of panorama, the images of 3D works should include explicit PD tags.Venicescapes (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Image in Infobox

Elizium23 (talk), JWilz12345 (Talk), Ellywa (talk), Czar, and FunkMonk, Hello, can someone please explain what is going on with the following image: File:Campanile of St. Mark's Basilica - remote view.jpg?

My understanding is that it was decided to delete the image since it was uploaded by a globally blocked sockpuppet (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Campanile_of_St._Mark%27s_Basilica_-_remote_view.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Orlando_Paride). Now it has once again been uploaded and changed on St Mark's Campanile from an IP address. Regardless, the previous image was arguably better and was specifically indicated by the DYK reviewer.Venicescapes (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Venicescapes If you think it was better take it off, I don't understand why you have to ask permission. Anyway, it was decided not to delete it, simple as that. Anyway, I don't think it was better.I do it quietly it's simple.Greetings.--5.171.191.194 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

My earlier message may have been poorly worded and unclear. I would like to understand policy and practice. On 14 July 2021, CommonsDelinker changed the photo on this page, following the conclusion of the discussions to ban the sockpuppet and delete his/her images. The edit description was “Replacing before closing a Commons deletion request”. However, the CommonsDelinker edit was reverted (IP address, presumably the user) and then quickly reverted again. From my reading of the discussion, the consensus was that the user’s photos (the individual was banned) were to be deleted, beginning with the worst quality and maintaining only those for which there were no suitable substitutes (which is not the case with St Mark’s campanile). This was mid-2021. Recently (20 January 2022) the deletion request page for this particular photo was amended with a message that the photo could be kept, and it was promptly changed on this page (23 January) from yet another IP address. Again, my desire is to understand policy and practice. I was not involved in any of the aforementioned discussions, and I am unclear as to why the question has arisen again given the consensus to delete the user's images.Venicescapes (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Venicescapes It is simply not considered a worse image than the previous one, other than that it certainly is not. However, it has been removed. Find peace. Greetings.--5.171.46.93 (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Venicescapes, I did not see harm in keeping the image of the Campanile in the last DR, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Campanile_of_St._Mark%27s_Basilica_-_remote_view.jpg , but indeed versions with larger resolution have been available in an earlier - deleted version. If you do not like this image in the infobox, there are several others of high quality available in c:Category:Campanile of St. Mark's Basilica - remote view, like File:0 Venise, gondolier naviguant sur le Grand Canal et campanile de St-Marc 2.JPG, with a gondolier and the inevitable tourists, or File:Campanile di San Marco (Venice).JPG with the Columns of San Marco and San Todaro. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Ellywa Thank you for getting back to me. The image currently on the page is fine (it was recommended at the time of the DYK review). The other image is less vibrant, and – more importantly – the loggia at the base of the bell tower is covered with scaffolding.Venicescapes (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Venicescapes Yes, but the loggia in the other one is practically black and the definition is micro. However ok. Greetings.--5.170.245.201 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Venicescapes; sorry for the long delay in reply! Anyway, the situation is, yes, a WP:LTA globally-locked, banned user who's been a prolific uploader of high-quality photographs. The FoP status of those images has been debated and their legality depends upon the laws of the land of origin. But yes, because of their abusive behavior the decision has been made to delete/replace their work (cf. our policy on WP:DENY and WP:DNFTT. Unfortunately, this user is still perpetually vigilant and watches all Wikimedia projects across multiple languages, as well as Wikidata and Commons, and so this user, on various ever-changing IP addresses, swoops in to defend his work and force it to be included in as many articles as is humanly possible. The user exhibits edit-warring behavior and is deft at evading range-based blocks. Enforcement is also difficult given the broad cross-wiki nature of his behavior. So in essence, this banned user will have his way with us, while making a mockery of our policies and administrative efforts. It's a shame because I will be the first to admire and respect the technical quality of the camera work that this user is contributed, and if the body of work is indeed his original work, this photographer could afford to sell his services and fund his pro equipment with the proceeds, but has chosen to give it away freely to the world via Creative Commons. It's really a shame that he's behaving this way, but I believe that if we have principles and ethics here on Wikipedia, our community should agree to soundly reject any and all contributions from clearly disruptive users (cf. WP:NONAZIS.) Elizium23 (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)