Talk:Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo House

I could not find "The Rhinelander Mansion" nor "The Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo Mansion" in the Lists of National Historic Landmarks. Is it listed under a different name? The article mentions that it was "purchased by a nearby church in the late 1960s".. maybe it's listed under some church name (I have seen some). Am I looking in the wrong place? Thanks in advance, --Abu Badali 14:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

See added citation. Doc ♬ talk 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's the National Register of Historic Places not the Lists of National Historic Landmarks. Are they the same? Why does teh building appears on the first (that is a commercial site), but not in the second (that is a .gov site)?. I'm confused. --Abu Badali 22:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I removed the "reference" for a while. It was:

<ref>Waldo, Gertrude Rhinelander, Mansion (added 1980 - Building - #80002727) retrieved August 29, 2006 </ref>

Awaiting for clarifications. --Abu Badali 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

With the lack of clarifications on the matter, I removed the mention to National Historic Landmark. It should be readded when we fix this sourcing problems.

I removed the following text in accordance to WP:AWW:

"It has been suggested that she ran out of money before it was complete. "

If any source is found, feel free to rephrase and readd the information to the article. --Abu Badali 23:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

In researching this for Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo, I found

If I read them correctly, the 2010 article says that Mrs Waldo bought the property at 72nd and Madison in 1882 and started construction in 1894, while the 1915 story says she inherited real estate in 1882 and sold most of it in 1896 to buy the lot and start the new mansion. Can anyone disentangle the elements? (I think that more than one piece of property is involved.)

—— Shakescene (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The real estate included the mansion's site and some other land. She sold some other property in 1896 to finance the current house's construction (the sources still disagree on exactly when construction started). – Epicgenius (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Recently, a cedilla was added to the word facade, citing the fact that our article on this topic is at Façade.

However, I don't think this word needs a cedilla, per MOS:ENGVAR. According to our article on the topic, both facade and façade are acceptable, although the latter may be difficult for users to type. Additionally, the Merriam-Webster dictionary cites "facade", without a cedilla, as being more common in the U.S. than the variant with the cedilla. I'd also like to note that many (if not most) articles on NY buildings already do not use a cedilla in the word "facade", and thus, not using the cedilla would make this page consistent with similar articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking the time to state your opinion on the subject. Other editors have also stated their opinions and the majority decided for façade as the preferred spelling on the English Wikipedia (regardless of the national variety used, so MOS:ENGVAR does not apply here). You cite the difficulty to type the word with a cedilla, but I'm not asking *you* to do it, all I ask is for you to respect what other editors understand as improvements to the article, and to please not revert them based solely on your personal taste. Counting on your understanding. Kind regards. —capmo (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your response; however, this is not a matter of personal taste. Merriam-Webster specifically says that the variant without a cedilla, "facade", is more common than the variant with a cedilla, "façade", in American English. Even on Talk:Façade, there doesn't seem to be a clear agreement that "facade" is incorrect. For example, one comment mentions that the Collins dictionary lists "facade" as an acceptable spelling. The Oxford Reference Dictionary also lists "facade" as a correct spelling, even saying that the cedilla is "usually dropped" (although I am unsure how true that is across other dialects).

The fact that the façade article is at that title is a separate matter from whether it is more commonly used in American English. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia whose titles use British or Commonwealth English spelling, such as labour movement and defence mechanism. In an American article about something else, however, we would still use the American spelling (e.g. labor movement and defense mechanism), even if the articles about labor movement and defense mechanism use a different spelling.

I would be happy to change it back to "façade" if the majority of other American English dictionaries state that "facade" is incorrect, or that "façade" is the primary spelling. Since we haven't come to an agreement on the spelling of "facade" yet, I have temporarily undone this edit for now. Please don't restore it until there's a consensus to use that spelling. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Capmo, regarding your edit summary here that "consensus was already reached at façade, we don't need another one", yes, we do need a separate consensus for this article. There was never any consensus on Talk:Façade that the variant with the cedilla should be used on all articles. That consensus only concerns the title of that particular article.

None of the participants had this article in mind when they decided on that consensus. Therefore, please stop edit warring to enforce one specific spelling over another. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't realize this before, but the aforementioned RM actually closed as no consensus, not with a consensus to not move. As such, there seems to be even less of an argument to keep the "façade" spelling on this page, even if the argument that "the consensus of the RM dictates the spelling on this page" is valid. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply