Talk:Buckingham Palace

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Audience at Buckingham Palace (38563762812).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Security breaches

See Talk:Buckingham Palace/Archive 3#Security breach: "In the long history of the palace these incidents are fairly trivial". Celia Homeford (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It's also misleading to say Lawlor entered the palace or that staff 'allowed' him to enter. They didn't let him in and he doesn't appear to have entered the building. DrKay (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox -- why not?

(regarding my reverted edit that added an infobox)

@Nikkimaria, the talk archives have a lot of discussion about infoboxes; could you give a quick summary or point to a particular section?

From a quick look, this RfC seems to be the most conclusive, so let me see if I can summarize the points and reply here:

1. Doesn't add anything that the lead doesn't include. — My edit adds the map, namesake and website, but maybe those are considered trivial.
2. Map is not useful; coordinates can replace it. — It seems like the map has gotten more useful since that discussion happened, but true, coordinates can replace it for the most part.
3. An infobox can't cover the breadth of the topic. — No one is arguing that it should. It can just include info that can be summarized easily.
4. "reduces the size of the main image" — Fair enough, but you can click on it to expand it.
5. "every similar article has one, e.g., Windsor Castle, Tower of London, Palace of Versailles, the Kremlin, the White House" — That's part of the reason I added it: consistency, allowing for info at a glance.

Would that be a fair summary/response?

I'm skipping over some points that seem invalid to me, like that it's the decision of the article's "main authors" (which sounds like ownership).
— W.andrea (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

A couple of thing to note. First off, because this has had a previous RfC that concluded for exclusion, you'd need more than the two of us talking to reach the level of consensus needed to overturn that. Second, your last point is very specifically not something that can be used as an argument, since per MOS:INFOBOXUSE consensus is reached at each specific article - whether another article does or doesn't have one, or does or doesn't have a specific parameter, isn't considered relevant. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, gotcha. I was more looking to understand the reasoning for not having one, but I guess if that comes down to "we had a vote and people said no", that's good enough for me, regardless of why they said no.

And just to clarify my last point, I'm not saying it needs to have an infobox because other articles do, just that consistency across articles helps with finding info quickly, that's all.

— W.andrea (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but those maps are not useful. You click the teeny tiny map to enlarge and the red dot disappears making it completely useless. Firebrace (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you tried the map in my revision? There's no red dot, there's an actual outline of the palace, and it stays when you click to expand it. I guess there's some magic going on where it's pulling from WikiData or something. — W.andrea (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

For enough, I hadn't seen that style of map before. Firebrace (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead Image

@Firebrace Is it possible use a picture that just showed the iconic facade, instead of aeriel view of the palace? (we can still put the picture somewhere in the article to showcase the palace).

The rationale for this is because all other Palace thumbnail images only featured the famous main facade.

Kensington Palace, Hofburg Palace, Hampton Court, Versailles, Windsor Castle, Royal Palace of Caserta, Royal Palace of Madrid, Royal Palace of Amsterdam

Wentwort12 (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

also the Buckingham Palace main facade is one of the most iconic (from the street angle) Wentwort12 (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Other articles only show the main façade because we don't have any high quality aerial photos of the other castles and palaces.

The aerial photo of Buckingham Palace includes the main façade.

There is a photo of the main façade at ground level under Early 20th century (1901–1945). Firebrace (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

the semi-aerial photo of Buckingham Palace surrounded by crowd just isn't very flattering to the palace and doesn't look as iconic as those from the ground level.

Is it possible to draw some kind of consensus for this? Wentwort12 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a holiday brochure. Firebrace (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

exactly, that's why representing the best image for the topic is essential, not some weird unflattering photos Wentwort12 (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES I want to use image that's very iconic and recognizable, you want to use picture that's not instantly recognizable and from weird aerial view. I think mine would comply more with the said guidelines of the encyclopaedia. Wentwort12 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 can I ask your third opinion on our little dispute over Lead Image of Buckingham Palace.

this is the image I want to use, but Firebrace doesn't agree with

Buckingham Palace from gardens, London, UK - Diliff

Wentwort12 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Hi, not certain why I was chosen to provide a third opinion, so I guess that goes to the independence of my opinion. Also, being Australian it means that my views are made at arms-length from the subject. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE: a representative image ... to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. You would both paraphrase this as being an iconic image. I would first say, that I would not call either ideal. In the proposed alternative, the gardens dominate the fore-ground and near-middle distance and the noise of colour detracts from what is intended to be the subject (of the article, the palace). In short, in this image, it is the gardens that are the visual subject and the palace is relegated to the role of backdrop. As a subject with a contemporary presence, the collective consciousness (how it is seen) will be closely associated with key events that are relatively recent and widely broadcast. On the otherhand, there will be little perceptible detail that would distinguish any particular event over say, the last thirty years. Effectively, we have a wide pallet to choose from. The perspective (point of viewing) of the present image is perhaps a little high and a little distant, thereby making it less than ideal in my opinion. I don't think that the image need capture the full width of the palace front and that there is ultimately a compromise between fullness and detail to be balanced. However, I believe that the existing image is more iconic. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't particularly agree with this decision, but alas it's a very minor improvement anyway.

  But I do accept i suppose because why not, I do find it interesting that they use the picture I liked better in other languages, we can conclude that some of them also didn't accept that the "English" article's image sufficiently fit MOS:LEADIMAGE: a representative image ... to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.

  https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palais_de_Buckingham

  https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_Palace

  https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_Palace

  https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palacio_de_Buckingham

  https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_Palace Wentwort12 (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• The current aerial image is the most illustrative and best for this article. There doesn’t seem to be a definitive best image for palaces. This is illustrated by those used at that other very iconic palace, the Winter Palace in St Petersburg. AdamBlack89 (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  The current aerial image is the most illustrative and best for this article Nope I still don't agree with that and neither do the editors from other country/language who didn't use that aerial Buckingham image, anyhow this issue has been "resolved". But that's such a weak point, it's one aerial example vs like 20 other regular view example, and it's not even a good example if you click the Winter Palace article, the first image was the regular angle, while the third one was the aerial but idk why in the thumbnails it showed the aerial first Wentwort12 (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Nope, I didn’t think you would, but perhaps you’ll agree that Wikipedia, its images and whatever it is that places those images is a mystery to us all. AdamBlack89 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• I think an image of the facade is better, and the aerial image should be moved down in the article. Most pages about palaces show the principle facade. Politcsd7 (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation)