Talk:Wisconsin State Capitol

message: :"the tallest dome in the northern hemisphere , and is"
because it is not true.  The article had just stated, for example, that the building was a few feet shorter than the US Capitol.  There are lots of taller domes in the northern hemisphere, and probably none in the southern one. Carptrash 16:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I removed this part of a sentence

message: It does apear to be the largest granite dome in the U.S. --Ic0n0 03:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some info on the Dome can be found here. [http://www.doa.state.wi.us/pagesubtext_detail.asp?linksubcatid=326 Wisconsin State Capitol dome].

message: I removed the comment about the Winter Solstice sign. Whether the submitter thinks it violates the Establishment Clause, the fact remains that it does not. While the Freedom from Religion Foundation was barred from posting a large banner decrying the union of church and state, they are permitted by state regulation to post a sign of reasonable size. Considering the Christmas and Nativity imagery, as well as Hannukah decorations, that occupies the Capitol rotunda every year, a secular sign cannot be construed as establishment.Thebookpolice 20:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: It should be noted that the photo of the Capitol fire (visible at http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/whi/feature/smoke/ and http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/whi/fullimage.asp?id=23250) was taken in the United States in 1904, and as such is in the public domain. I'm not in a position to do so myself, but we may want to consider adding it. -- 76.201.159.67 (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fire Photo

message: I am about to apply a major reorganization edit and I am just giving a heads up to anyone watching the article.  I made the edits on a wide screen computer where (IMO) the layout looks improved.  I after I apply the edit, I am going to switch over to a computer with a 4:3 monitor to see how this looks. If it looks decent over there, I'll finish the clean up on that computer. If it looks terrible, I'll deep six the edit myself.  Basically what I'm saying is, give me a few minutes before you revert any edits. I'll post an update when I have finished and, thanks for your patience! Daniel J Simanek (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looked it over on a 4:3 monitor, and (IMO) it looks pretty good, with no major glitches or eyesores. I don't think its the best layout this thing could have, but I do think its a big improvement. Does any one have comments or feedback on the changes? Daniel J Simanek (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I think it looked better before. There was a consistency and cleanness of line. Now it just looks hodge podge.  --Sift&Winnow 22:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the feedback. The problem I had with previous layout was that the pictures were just mashed on the right side of the page with out any consideration to sections they broke into or the order. They were just kinda there.  I was trying to mix the right and left justifications so that the images would seem like they were actually part of the article (layout-wise that is), but I can see your point about the hodge podginess. Do you have any ideas on how to address that with out just reverting the pictures to a mash up on the right hand side?  Also, do you have any thoughts on what I did to the section headers?  Daniel J Simanek (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Major reorganization 

message: It seems to me that the painting on the inside of the dome is one of the most memorable things about the capitol and it's not even mentioned. And why no photograph? Also, is the building open to the public for tours or anything?  Does anything noteworthy happen on the lawn of the building throughout the year?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.180.53 (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a photo of Resources of Wisconsin taken by me at the commons here. I've never added it to the article because there isn't room for it as the article currently is and I don't know enough about the interior to write a section on it. —Jeremy (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to be so blunt, but what is the red spot in the middle of the painting? I don't see it in other pictures of the dome (i.e.  - not as well done as yours with framing and lighting and such; just an example). Daniel J Simanek (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not entirely sure. I think that they had recently restored the mural when I visited. I assumed that it was something to do with that. It should be relatively easy to erase with photoshop if it's a problem. —Jeremy (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I figured it was something that was just "there." Its still a great picture though. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why isn't there any information or photos of the inside of the dome?

message: The lede states that the current building is the fifth building to serve as territorial or state capitol. But only four buildings are described. The article explicitly states that the third capitol burned in 1904, and then talks about the construction of the current, supposedly fifth, building. I'm guessing the fourth capitol was used between 1904 and 1917. The article really ought to say something about this fourth building. Earendur (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the fourth capitol?