Talk:Ancient Chinese wooden architecture

message: I asked for an honest opinion from an editor who writes many articles, including several Feature Articles, on Chinese history and Chinese architecture. His reply: 
If you want my honest opinion, I think it is Caisson that needs to be merged into an article on zaojing (preferably as a separate explanatory section), not the other way around. I say this in consideration that it only focuses on the Forbidden City, while the zaojing covers a much wider time frame. That's just me, though.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Received third opinion on merge 

message: This behavior  is against Wikipedia policy.  Mattisse 14:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not take over this article and completely change citation method without discussion with editors who wrote the article 

message: Please change the reference method back to the way it was -- until you reach consensus with other editors. Mattisse 15:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I merely fixed a problem created by the method you chose; several different page numbers did not appear in the "Notes" section because they were overrided by the citation method you were using. I have left you a message on your talk page about this.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, no one is stopping you from reverting or changing my edits; if you prefer the other type of citation template, make sure that the "notes" section fully displays the different amount of page numbers you were using. For example, instead of simply making a citation that looks like this -->  <-- you should elaborate on your reference so that it appears properly in the notes section, like this --> <ref name="nancy 1 5">Nancy, 1–5. or Fu Xinian, 76..--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also had to correct your mistake about the Chinese authors' last and first names, which you had reversed and mistaken as vice versa! Lol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrections of mistakes are welcome. Actions against wikipedia policy are not. Nor is taking over an article and completely reformulating it without consensus! Lol.  Mattisse 15:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Since you deleted all of the material I just added from the Steinhardt article (2004), I take it then that you believe describing the oldest existent wooden architecture in an article about ancient wooden architecture is unneccessary? I thought the info was rather relevant to the topic.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to resolve the citation issue first. If you are willing to follow the original citation method and to incrementally work on the article, that would be welcome. It is not welcome for you to suddenly take over the article, just because I have been tied up in litigation on wikipedia originally resulting from your support of User:PalaceGuard008 destroying the original article. Lol!  Mattisse 15:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You do not have to type out the whole reference each time. You can use named references. Remember, this is the article I rescued and put together after the User:PalaceGuard008 take over. I should have kept it in my sandbox. I have been tied up with the fallout from the User:PalaceGuard008 issue, the ultimate resulting arbitration from the whole thing just ending a week or so ago, January 16, I believe. Please let me catch my breath. I copy edited extensively one of your article for FAC and did not make fun of your mistakes or ridicule you as you are doing to me. I respected you and your article. Mattisse 15:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ridicule and make fun of you? Now you've lost me. Is it because of the "lol" at the end of my sentence above about author names? Hmm. I really wasn't "laughing out loud" at you Mattisse...I wish there was a way to soften the "lol" in the context of "breaking the ice"...you know, like a laugh with a pat on the back or a genuine smile. I'll try to use the "lol" with more discretion now.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not change method of citation unilaterally  without consultation with other editors - please change citation method back to the way it was. 

message: Wikipedia policy recognizes this. That is why policy states change of citations method is to be by consensus. I put up with your method on the article you originated it, although I think it is messy and difficult to decipher. The citation method is a matter of preference; an attitude of superiority on your part is uncalled for.  Mattisse 15:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? Mattisse, get a hold of yourself. I'm trying to improve the article you've created here, not Lord over you or your work. If I was some jerk-off trying to "own" your article, would I still be here talking to you about citation methods and discussing possible material to add to this article from Steinhardt's in 2004?--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actions, not words, characterize behavior more accurately. I see what you did to the article without any attempt at consensus. What you say in the face of that has less relevance. The "I know best" attitude also is not helpful.  Mattisse 15:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, I now see that you were claiming the article on your user page, based, I guess, on your wholesale take over. As I said, actions...  Mattisse 16:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No, on my user page I added Ancient Chinese wooden architecture as a major edit or expanded article of mine because I added the entire section (and a new picture) about the oldest existent wooden architecture. I counted that as a major edit; since you've deleted that material, it really discounts what I've done to this article, so I took it off my list. Sounds reasonable, no?--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have different standards. I would not count for myself what you did as a "major edit", but rather as a fairly ordinary addition to an article. As for Augustus, I have no interest. However the similar Cambridge book on China is not well referenced from my point of view. Nor is the Yale book, Chinese Architecture. Mattisse 16:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As I said, I am not defending my mistakes in this article. I rescued it after it had been cut/paste into another article and very quickly tried to add more to justify it's existence as a separate article. I should have kept it in my sandbox (where a copy of it still resides). Immediately after the User:PalaceGuard008 issue and your defense of him, I was forced to enter into a "Mediation" over my "responsibility" suddenly for fixing his copy/paste of article I had written into his Caisson article. That ultimately resulted in an Arbitration case that just ended. I did not realize this new article would be under attack so soon. I wrote you previously (at the time the Caisson cut/paste was occurring), User:PericlesofAthens, of my disappointment in your not supporting my dream of writing an article on Chinese architecture, as I did for so many Indian architecture articles, using and legitimizing the Chinese terminology, rather than falling back always on Greek/Roman/Western words. I also said that, because of your views, I was sorry not to be able to work with you anymore. Now, of course I cannot prevent you from intruding once again into my attempts to fulfill my dream regarding an article on Chinese architecture. But I certainly will not let you take it over against wiki policy without resistance. Mattisse 17:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And again, I cannot prevent you from nitpicking my mistakes. But please realize there is not just one method of citing, but at least four authorized methods, maybe more.  Please read WP:CITE, WP:Footnotes and the arguments raging on the WP:Citing References policy pages. I do not think that because I was under pressure, discouraged about how articles I created were being treated (especially since you were the one people who could have helped me with PalaceGuard008 but refused to do so), and the fact that I was forced to defend myself in an arbitration and had little time to turn my attention to this article, gives you the right to take over the article. Mattisse 17:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mattisse, I understand your position, frustration, and wanting to preserve your writing; you've stated this now multiple times. However, your flowery wording of offering "resistance" against evil-doers who would dare crush your "dream of writing an article on Chinese architecture" makes it sound as if we're fighting against each other in some cheesy epic battle. I'm just trying to add relevant info of Tang wooden buildings to an article about Chinese wooden architecture because I think the subject is cool, period. Please don't treat me like I'm your arch nemesis PalaceGuard008; or maybe I should just start over so you get the point.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This characterization of my view is hardly constructive if you are desiring a collegial and collaborative relationship with me. I do not think demeaning the other editor or being sarcastic is constructive.  Mattisse 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A little sarcasm never hurt anybody as long as the intent is not to be taken as cruel or offensive; I was merely trying to lighten the mood after you have repeatedly misconstrued my intentions. However, I am serious about working on this article. If you don't mind, I'm going to add my material about Tang wooden architecture while keeping with the standard citation style that you have designated for the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation method is a matter of preference 

message: It has gone off on a tangent. Perhaps  those specific artictectural structures need to be in  sub articles as the intent of the article has now been completely changed.  Mattisse 23:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're speaking of the oldest existent buildings from the Tang era? I could create separate articles from Steinhardt's article, I suppose, but that will take time, and my weekend is now over.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an idea; how about you put the first three sections present now in an overall "History" section, and the last two present sections of the article in a "Features" section. That way everything won't be categorized so chaotically.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K., that may work. What I am interested in is the history of Chinese architecture in light of the new findings, as much as been misrepresented because of lack of archaeological evidence. Also, as I said before, I want to bring out the Chinese terminology as I was able to in the archeology of India. China does not deserve to have its archaeological concepts subsumed under Western Greco-Roman terminology which buries the unique Chinese meanings. I hope to have Chinese architecture stand on its own, as Indian architecture does.  Thanks!  Mattisse 13:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article structurally now makes no logical sense 

message: I would like to continue to use the same Wikipedia reference template through out, instead of the mixed style you have added.  Mattisse 23:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Footnote 3 is screwed up and I do not know why as I did not fiddle with the paragraph containing it. Too tired to figure it out right now, but I did try to figure it out. Mattisse 00:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Footnote 3? That's from my article; it doesn't look messed up. Are you sure it is footnote 3 that is messed up?--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After I wrote that note, I discovered what was wrong and fixed it, so nevermind!  Mattisse 13:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would you mind if I cleaned up the references? 

message: Hope you do not mind. I would like to list some links here that are possibly relevant to the article because I tend to lose them. So this list is a memory aid for me only as I try to figure things out! Mattisse 14:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists 

message: There's no reason why I should mind these; the list is perfectly fine here or on your user page or wherever. As to preserving Chinese terminology, have you considered adding an "Etymology" section to the article? That way specific terms and their meaning in Chinese can be addressed to inform the reader before they confront the same terms in the rest of the article. You should also consult someone knowledgeable in Han characters (whether they speak Mandarin, Cantonese, Fujianese, etc. is not of the biggest concern in regards to portraying the correct character symbols for these terms, although Mandarin Pinyin should be the standard when writing in the Latin alphabet).--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fine with me. I think we should be free to "feel" our way through this article. For the India architectural articles, I wrote many sub articles explaining specific Indian terms. Then the Indian architectural articles could link to those terms, as those editors prefer to use the specific Indian meanings. It has been a long road to get some of those articles through FAC, but in the process India is building a great body of knowledge that distinguishes the architecture of India from all others.  Mattisse 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of wooden architecture, have you seen the new pictures that I've added to the galleries over at Puning Temple and the Putuo Zongcheng Temple? Their wikicommons links have even more pictures for you to cruise around through, although I wouldn't call these "ancient", since they were built during the Qianlong Emperor's reign in the 18th century.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Cool! Jonathan Spence says the exact same thing in his Search For Modern China book (1999).--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: P.S. I don't have a reference for Baoguo Temple. I have looked and looked for it.  Mattisse 02:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ok, it's not a big deal. About the WikiCommons link: if you go back to the temple articles I linked on the talk page here, at the bottom right of either page you will see a small rectangular box with the link in blue and the WikiCommons logo. For example:
Or you can do it this way: go to Wikicommons, and in search bar to the left, if you type the words "Category:Putuo Zongcheng Temple" or "Category:Puning Temple" you can find them that way as well.--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: I've been editing Chinese architecture a bit and I noticed a bit of overlap in this article. I've mentioned there a bit about building layout with timbers, and I was going to add more on it. You guys here have talked a bit about the roofing structures and ornamentation as well as a bit about tamped earth walls. Do you care to team up and do a bit of info exchange and editing? Sjschen (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds cool, but I honestly do not own any books on Chinese architecture; I can help out with some scholarly journals from JSTOR since I have access to that database. However, scholarly journals tend to have a very narrow focus within a broader subject and therefore the articles I could use wouldn't be very helpful to the broader subject of Chinese architecture (just a tiny subject within it). If you need help with anything very specific and narrow in focus, let me know.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually wondering which parts of each article belong to which. I was going to try and put together a wooden framing section in Chinese architecture but I think that probably belongs here instead. There are also things here in this article about the foundation and the roofs that feels like it belongs more in the Chinese architecture article. Do you have any thoughts on what each article should focus? Sjschen (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be interested generally, depending on the seriousness of your offer. I have books on Chinese architecture as well as architecture in general and am interested in the overall progression of architectural form in China.  However, it seems that Chinese architecture is not taken seriously by many people who write the Chinese architecture articles, so I have gotten discouraged. If you are interested in a more serious approach than one normally sees in these articles, then I would be willing to put some effort into it. At the moment my feeling is that it is a mistake to do  anything outside my sandbox.  Mattisse 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have only two books on Chinese architecture (CA), but I think with your help we can turn these two articles to something informative and worth reading. Perhaps we can by structuring the articles first. I think ACWA should have more info on the "wood" aspects of CA and include information like wood joinery, timber layout, architect elements of beams, and perhaps even type of trees used, while Chinese architecture focus more on general building layouts and concepts, as well as none wood based building elements such as walls, foundations, tiles and what not. Thoughts? Sjschen (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I agree. I also would like to include the historical development as in one sense  Chinese architecture all looks like the Forbidden City, as Nancy Steinhardt says, because the bureaucratic manuals mandated a certain uniformity. But looking closer, there are many variations and also there is an evolution over time. Most of the articles that just describe the structures themselves do not get into this and conflate the variations in materials and design  over time. CA is interwoven with history, religion and politics (divine rule) for the important structures. It is also necessary to consider archeology, as according to Steinhardt, the drawing and written manuals often do not match what is found in the excavations. I have a good book on general architecture by Francis D.K. Ching that does a good job of giving definitions for many words (materials, types of joints, stonework,  etc. -- ) and a very good book by the same guy for the overview relative to other civilizations. Then I have, like you, two books on CA. Also, I have noticed there is more on the internet regarding Chinese archeology than there used to be.   Mattisse 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese architecture and ACWA teamup 

message: This comment was present in the article text itself:
[first sentence of the section]... 
"[Note that this formulation implies, if not promises, a subsequent argument in favor of the contrary view, but the contrary view never materializes! The beginning of the next paragraph seems on track to deliver the implied contrary view, but it quickly peters out without providing any concrete evidence that can challenge the stereotypical view – dear author (or anyone else), please improve this otherwise excellent article if you do indeed have concrete evidence that can support the "contrary" view!] "
I felt that such discussions should be held in the discussion page, not in the article itself. Hence, removed it and copied it here.
83.248.200.72 (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment regarding section "Archaeological Record"