Talk:Magnificent Seven (Port of Spain)

Moorish architecture is Corsica?

The article says White Hall / Whitehall's architecture was influenced by its owner's Corsican heritage. But the architecture is Moorish. Isn't that a style of Spain? Isn't Corsica French? I don't understand.

Also, the way Moorish leads to one article and mediterranean another is a bit confusing. The wording and linking could definitely be done more elegantly once a clarification is made about what we are trying to say. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I added that, but I'll look into it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, FloridaArmy, perhaps it could be reworded. Here's what it says in the source: "Construction commenced in 1904 in accordance with Mr. Agostini’s own design, influenced by a Moorish Mediterranean style and reminiscent of the architecture of Corsica from where the Agostini family originated. Construction took three years."

(I hope that's not too long of a quote to be a copyvio issue.)

Have any ideas or thoughts for that?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious tag - "its road"

FloridaArmy,

You added a dubious tag, with an edit summary stating "what is meant by "its road"? Aren't all these mansions on the same road? If they are on different roads why do we only name one road in the lede?"

I answered "removed dubious tag -- its road = Maraval Road (used in the same sentence)" thinking that would resolve the problem.

It's comparing against all houses on Maraval, not just the Magnificient Seven.

I see you've added it back. What's the problem?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was it wasn't clear what was meant by "its". I changed it to Maraval road. The road might also work. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and then took the address out in the process, although all other houses have addresses. So, now different houses are treated differently. "The" would have worked fine. Less disruptive. Easy.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made that change + changed Whitehall to White Hall. It's used both way in sources, from what I saw in citations, which I think was the source of confusion. I agree with you that it should be consistent.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should also not that it's written both ways. If that's already mentioned I missed it. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying we are good here? All of the mansions now have the address information. The only difference is the college says cross-streets.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I missed your point here. Yes, it makes sense to note that it is written both White Hall and Whitehall.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious tag - two buildings

FloridaArmy, I am not understanding why the dubious tag was added within:

Whitehall and Stollmeyer's Castle fall under the purview of the Office of the Prime Minister. Whitehall was used as the Office of the Prime Minister from 1963 to 2009. The two buildings[dubious – discuss] had some restoration work so that they could be used by foreign dignitaries during their visits to Port of Spain.

Please explain. It's dubious that Whitehall and Stollmeyer's Castle were restored?

It would have helped if there was a comment field within the tag explaining the issue: {{dubious|date=June 1, 2018|comment= } as well as something in the comment field.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake although it could be written more cleanly. Perhaps: Whitehall was used as the Office of the Prime Minister from 1963 to 2009. It and Syollmeyer's Castle fall under the purview of the Office of the Prime Minister." What is meant by fall under the purview? That's who owns them? Maintains them? Controls them? A lot of thing aren't really explained. Should it be in the lede or explained in some detail in the body? FloridaArmy (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't worked on this in about 2 years and lots of others have worked on it since. I don't know. But, I am getting really concerned about your edits.

It seems, and I could be wrong, that you are more focused on being disruptive than solving issues. Are you wanting to help answer questions that you raise? Or, are you just throwing out questions?

I am getting very confused by all of this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How am I being disruptive? If you don't want me to fix up an article you noted on my talk page after saying you're happy for me to point out problems in your work then just say so. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, I meant in the articles that you had created. Second, it looks like we need to take this one at a time, so let me do that. Adding dubious tags, when that's not really the issue, and not adding a comment is one thing I would call disruptive. Changing wording for addresses from the way it is in other sections because you don't like the word "its" is disruptive.

But, you make some valid points. I guess I just need to do this a one at a time. It would have been much better to have posted something here or on my talk page saying that you saw a number of issues, since you've already received feedback about the nature of how you make edits. It seems like something being done out of anger. But, I am all for making this, or any article, better.

If you can just bear with me. As I say, it's been 2 years, and others have worked on it since. And, I didn't start the article to begin with.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits

-- Message removed from your talk page --

FloridaArmy

You are making a number of edits to this article, some of which are helpful, some of which are misleading or changing the meaning of the content, some are wrong. The addition of the dubious tags without proper explanation and changing wording, but them keeping the tags is becoming disruptive. I have posted messages on the

Talk:Magnificent Seven Houses

page about the dubious tags, which make zero sense to me.

I am about to revert all of your edits and then do some copy-editing for the things that you did that are helpful. What's up?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a lot of problems. From using White Hall and Whitehall interchangeable to grammar issues, consufing writing, improper dates, confusing wording, and lack of explanation for points made. If you don't want me to make fixes or point oit problems just say so. I am happy to leave it a mess. But you did post on my talk page that you'd be happy for me to point out problems woth your work. And you noted this article as one you'd worked on. But if it's upsetting to have inaccuracies, grammar issues, and problems of clarity pointed out to you just say so. I won't waste my time further. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you changed the way the word links, so it's now a red link. At least before we had the region. Would it be better if the was an article that included both terms and define the windows? Yes. But, right now we don't have it. And, removing the link means that someone without any knowledge about the context has no link to go to.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demerera is a region in, I believe, Guyana. Demerera windows, according to what I read, are a functional style of window used in Georgian architecture. Are the wondows from a region in Guyana or are they a type of window? If they are the type of window known as Demerera windows why would we link to a region of Guyana? What is the connection? FloridaArmy (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, now that is helpful information. In that case, I think we should remove the link entirely. I sometimes add a note with information from a source with a definition. Maybe that would be the way to go?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep the link to Demerara window and create that article. It's obviously a useful and notable subject. This type of window is noted for at least two buildings here and I'm sure other articles mention this window type as well. Perhaps User:Doncram (Doncram or {u|Doncram}) could help as he seems to be quite knowledgable for architectural subjects. I forgrt how to tag someone. @?FloridaArmy (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see there are three uses. If someone could help that would be great. To ping someone type {{u| }} with their name in the blank spot.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC) I missed a bracket... added it above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He might also be able to give input into the "Caribbean architecure" redlink. It's not clear to me what is mean by that phrase. So many islands with such different history. The idea that there's a common architectural style seems dubious. And if there was one something like Caribbean vernacular might be better. But I really don't know. Island architecture? FloridaArmy (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent!! I don't either, it was a term in a source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have this diff that summarizes where the article is now... compared to where it was before you started to make edits. It will be easier to take it by sections. So, I'll tackle items starting now with #2. Can you hold off on any more edits for the moment, or start a list of issues?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy, Do your recent edits mean, no, you don't want to stop? Create a list?

I see many of your edits are stylistic differences, but there's also a difference in comma use for phrases vs. compound sentences. I am guessing you may not be American. Is that right?

I have got a migraine today and it's getting worse, which doesn't help me out. I also have a disability where I need to take things one-at-a-time and a moving target (continued edits) makes it hard for me. You can continue if that's what you're wanting to do.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. I hope you feel better. Take all the time you need or leave as is. Generally, I'm happy to help where I'm welcome and happy to leave off if that's someone's preferences. I hope you feep better. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm American. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FloridaArmy, Hi, thanks! I am back, after running some errands and relaxing a bit. I looked over the latest diff and I don't see anything that is worth editing, so we're good to go.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent, I see Caribbean architecture is used here and there and is a redlink in at least one list. But of course there's the region and then there's the issue of an architectural style.. Ie.. Architecture in the Caribbean v. Caribbean architecture as a purported style. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we'll it could be an interesting article. Perhaps the person you mentioned could weigh in on the topic... or the one about the windows.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started a stub for Demerara windows, if you'd like to add to it, that would be great.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Should the seven buildings be introduced in the openong paragraph or at peast the opening paragraphs? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the buildings is discussed in the first paragraph... and then the second paragraph discusses the buildings. The two paragraphs could be combined, but then the first paragraph would be kind of long.

Is there a reason why you find the present arrangement problematic?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]