Talk:Slushko Palace

Lithuania Low‑importance

	Lithuania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture: Historic houses Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Date of building the palace

Some sources give 1690-1700 while others give 1690-1694 as the years of building the palace. Probably both are correct and this is only the matter of the definition, but could somebody doublecheck it ? What actually happened in 1694 and what in 1700 ? --Lysy^talk 20:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

I think we can remove the image gallery. The main "front facade" photo is the best and the others do not bring much additional information, other than showing that the palace badly needs overall renovation. One might argue whether we should present the "ugly" side of the building as well. There may be good reasons both to do it and not. What do you think ? --Lysy^talk 11:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets' leave the ugly one: it does not cost money. and will be useful if the article enlarged. I could take even more ugly pictures there, but i didn't. Iulius 11:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Lysy^talk 12:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

current situation

I'm not sure what is the intended meaning of this sentence: "The palace is planned to regain three floors". Can I ask for some clarification of this ? --Lysy^talk 12:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the pictures illustrating the article, one may infer that the palace was built up. The Soviets were particularly fond of adding upper floors to 18th-century buildings. See Moscow City Hall, for instance. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the 4th floor was added in 19th century. --Lysy^talk 17:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about "building up" - supposingly it has been the "redivision" of floors under the Russian Empire rule. Iulius 17:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I understood from your edit. I only have it after Venclova, who writes that "another condignation was added", so this could possibly mean either. --Lysy^talk 18:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Can you provide more information for the references ? Publisher and ISBN ? --Lysy^talk 17:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drėma's - "Vaga", 5-415-00366-5. Kirkor - "Viltis", 5-417-00514-2

Thanks. --Lysy^talk 18:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original two floors layout

I'm a little confused with the recent change referring to the original number of floors of the palace. --Lysy^talk 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused to. The source I am citing refers 3 floors in towers and 2 floors in the main part. Maybe there was some time when there were 3 floors? Too many contradicting sources Iulius 20:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could just provide the exact page number of the source that claims that, just for future reference. --Lysy^talk 21:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]