Talk:Laurynas Gucevičius/Archive 1

message: I see that some guys here don't know the meaning of "classicism" in English. Not only do they confuse it with Neoclassicism, but are prone to reverting edits of superior editors adn swelling the article with peacock terms. I'm leaving this article at their mercy in disgust. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The comments which you did not liked was made by the author of the articale . and I belive that you as such "superior" editor shuold know that if author who wrothe whole text himeself is makeing mistkes report and produce your opinion and not such as "silly" comment in summary. this is a main principles of wiki. inform main author not me.M.K 12:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Ghirla. There is no need for harshe words here. In fact, I stumbled across that problem and Your reverted correction. Things don't seem to be so easy. As a person, who is indeed no expert on periods, I looked this up in the German wikipedia, for which I translated this article (thanks Juraune for Your work) and found in de:Klassizismus Hauptsächlich aber wird als 'Klassizismus' eine Epoche der gesamten Kunstgeschichte im späten 18. Jahrhundert und frühen 19. Jahrhundert (etwa zwischen 1770 und 1830) bezeichnet, welche die (vor allem griechische) Klassik zu erneuern versuchte. which reads roughly classicism ist mainly seen as the period of art history in the late 18th and early 19th century (about 1770-1830), that tried to revive (chiefly Greek) classic.  de:Neoklassizismus (Kunst) says: Neoklassizismus (seltener Neuklassizismus) ist eine eklektizistische Kunstrichtung, die sich gegen Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts innerhalb des Historismus entwickelte. ~= Neoclassicism ist an eclesticistic direction of art, that developed during the end of the 19th century as part of the historism movement. I also found out that the English wikipedia is not that clear in dating these periods. There might be differences in English and continental use. But since the original author explicitly used the words Lithuanian classicism, this terminus seems valid in my eyes. Best regards --Gf1961 12:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Gf1961, it should be noted when classicism came to Lithuania; the formulation Lithuanian classicism is pointing  to it , but I see to some "superior" is is not understandable. But he could look in some catalogs of Vilnius and he would see the same I recomend to see/buy "Vilniaus Architektura" there are and Russian explanations too ( sutable to "superior")M.K 12:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vielen Dank, Gf1961. I really appreciate Your work and your comments there. I moved the sentence left by Ghirla to a section of an article were the style of the architect is discussed, since in my oppinion, his sentence is formulated very clumsy and doesn't fit as the first sentence of the encyclopedia article. As my dictionary shows, the word "proponent" is "a defender, someone who is offering something", while as much as I know Laurynas Gucevicius didn't offer his style to others, and he was an architect, not merely a propagator of particular architectural style. Juraune 06:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Ghirlandajo for the explanation of the "peacock language". Now I really agree with you on that. And you really understand about styles of architecture. Drama of songs is when a poet becomes a playwriter and writes a play Juraune 11:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classicism and Neoclassicism 

message: There is this photo on flickr which could be used here. Renata 17:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to add present day photos of Vilnius Cathedral, Vilnius Town Hall and maybe Verkiai Palace. These buildings do not differ much from the days of the architect. Juraune 19:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: As the article is currently written, it says that Laurynas received a scholarship from King Wladyslaw August Poniatowski.  I don't have access to the references, but could someone please doublecheck this, as I'm unaware of a king by that name.  Is it perhaps meant to refer to Stanisław August Poniatowski (1732-1798) ? --Elonka 19:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, a silly error. //Halibutt 03:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, an understatement. Dr. Dan 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? Is the name of Stanisław any more respectable than the name of Władysław? //Halibutt 02:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not, but it's not any reason to give errors respectability either. Dr. Dan 23:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I still fail to understand why a silly error in someone's first name is an understatement, but perhaps it's just me. EOT. //Halibutt 07:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the so called silly error, not the name, that's the understatement. EOT, tambien! Dr. Dan 01:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It was clear before someone spoiled half of the references and deleted the other half. Just refer to some previous version and you'll see that. Wait, I'll post the links myself: , . //Halibutt 19:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: King question