Talk:Irving Gill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photos[edit]

I had to remove the L. J. Woman's Club photo. Almost nothing in the photo was Gill's work. The iron gate is a crappy new "Tijuana Special" from the past couple of years, replacing the architect designed one. The sign is new and not Gill's work, the light fixture shown is a junky newer version and the landscaping I'm not sure Gill would have liked. Additionally, the photo showed nothing of what make this project special. This article does need more photos, but not that one. Erikdhanson (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the photo of the west side of the Museum of Contemporary Art. The photo shows absolutely not one bit of Gill designed material. Essentially, this is picture of a building that was built to replace a demolished Irving Gill building and did nothing whatever to show Gill's style, or even anything he saw in his lifetime. I look forward to photos that show Gill's work. Erikdhanson (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took some Marsten house photos in May 2008; my camera isn't super high def but perhaps one of the shots is more appropriate than the somewhat dark one used here. My flickr stream with Marsten snaps starts here. Let me know if you want me to post any of these shots to WP. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I like very much your photo of the Cossitt House, across the street from the Marston house. Its a wonderful house, deserves to be known more, and more Gill than Hebbard (in my opinion) than the Marston house, and thereby more fitting for the Gill article. Besides, the Marston House has its own page. We do need pictures on the Hebbard page.Erikdhanson (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, marvelous house. Too bad I wasn't bold enough to ask the residents for closer access! Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded two Gill-designed house images here: File:Gill house San Diego example 1.jpg and File:Gill house San Diego example 2.jpg. Both are on the same block as the Marston House, but I'm not expert enough to which is the one you wanted. Do with the images what you will. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Jolla Women's/Woman's Club[edit]

Club entrance as photographed in 2008

I changed the name to La Jolla Women's Club. Binksternet changed it back, asserting that the name is La Jolla Woman's Club. I see that does appear to be the current name.[1] But in that case, the National Register of Historic Places has it wrong; the NRHP lists it as La Jolla Women's Club according to the infobox generator at [2]. It is NRHP # 74000546. How should we resolve this? (After settling on the name, one of should write an article about the place, since it is on the NRHP.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS It appears the NRHP DOES have it wrong, since the nomination form [3] in 1974 called it the Woman's Club. --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tricky question. There's not much consistency out there, even within reliable sources. Looking at the San Diego History Center website, searches show 37 results for La Jolla "Women's Club", and 17 results for La Jolla "Woman's Club". But the San Diego city website has it reversed: 21 results for "La Jolla Woman's Club", and 6 for "La Jolla Women's Club". Google Books (which can be a blunt instrument, but still useful) shows 1,290 for "Women's" and 2,580 for "Woman's". What to do when reliable sources are split? Good question. I'd probably vote for Woman's as somewhat more predominant, but wouldn't be distressed either way. Dohn joe (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been there to take photographs, though none turned out to my satisfaction. The club certainly calls itself the La Jolla Woman's Club. What do we care if the NRHP gets the name wrong? They have misspelled a number of other names; they are not perfect. The club has never been named anything different than La Jolla Woman's Club. Their self-identification should be honored. At any rate, the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) got it right [4] as did the Historic Architecture and Landscape Image Collection [5][6]. The San Diego Union-Tribune [7] and California State Librarian Kevin Starr [8] get it right. The book The Architecture Traveler spells it correctly. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we wouldn't care if it were only the NRHP that got it "wrong". But look at the links I provided above - lots of reliable sources, including the San Diego History Center, the city of San Diego, architecture and regional reference works, and yes, even the Union Tribune get it "wrong" an awful lot. As you know, WP doesn't give much weight to any "official" name. We do care about what reliable sources call something. At some point, if enough reliable sources use the "wrong" name, it becomes the "right" name for our purposes, because that's what people call the subject. In this case, those sources are split, so the question is not frivolous. Again, I support "Woman's" in this case, but not because of any "self-identification" that we need to respect (if we relied on self-identification, we'd have to change a lot of article titles). Instead, it seems that "Woman's" has an advantage in reliable-source usage, which makes it the better title. Dohn joe (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find I have somewhat overstated the long-standing nature of the name. At the beginning in 1894 the club was named the Current Events Club. In 1900 it changed to the La Jolla Woman's Club, the name it has held from that moment on. See Who's Who Among the Women of California, page 86, published in 1922. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, 1922. A wonderful year. The year in which News Notes of California Libraries wrote about the passing of Miss Nina T. Waddell, one-time president of the La Jolla Women's Club, thus inaugurating a long and robust history of reliable sources being split about the name of that institution.... Dohn joe (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think clearly it should be San Diego Woman's Club here. That is what they call themselves. Binksternet was quite right. My main concern about the NRHP is that when you write an article about a NRHP-listed place you are supposed to list it the way the NRHP lists it. But when they are clearly wrong, as in this case, I think we should title it Woman's and maybe add a parenthetical note to the article explaining why the NRHP has it differently. (If you are trying to look something up on the NRHP site and you misspell by even a single letter, it won't find the entry.) --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW, Dohn, I think the correct name of a place or person is what they themselves say it is - unless Reliable Sources are all-but-unanimous in doing it some other way. Otherwise you could find yourself perpetuating a lot of common error - changing Johns Hopkins University to John Hopkins, for example. --MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that bar ("all-but-unanimous") is too high. While WP:COMMONNAME does say: "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources", WP still does prefer the common name over the official name in most cases. I'd say that if reliable sources are in, say 70% or 80% agreement on a name, then we should go with it, too. I don't think Johns Hopkins is a good example. While it might be more commonly known incorrectly in conversation, I think you'll find that the vast majority of reliable sources do in fact use the correct name. In fact, there will be very few cases where reliable sources "get it wrong". But when they do (again, I'd put the bar at ~70-80%, barring other relevant factors), WP should reflect it. Otherwise, we start straying into deciding what something "should" be instead of reporting what it is, and that slope can get slippery. Dohn joe (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now we are veering off topic. Let's hold naming convention conferences at the appropriate naming convention pages. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but about NRHP names, when different from a common or current name that seems best: In the NRHP wikiproject, what we usually/always do is use the "correct" name for the article, with a redirect from the NRHP name if different. We usually/always show the NRHP name in the NRHP infobox, however, and also in the text mention that it "was listed on the NRHP as XYZ House". That indicates clearly to some readers that THIS is indeed the article covering that NRHP place which they saw reference to somewhere else. If the NRHP name of a California place has an obvious typo or otherwise is actually wrong, we write a note, hopefully with documentation, at wp:NRIS info issues CA#Property names, and we proceed use the corrected name in the article. If the NRHP name includes double hyphens, i.e. "--" (apparently as a substitute for an em-dash or an en-dash in the limited NRHP computer system) we replace that by a single hyphen instead in all usage (i.e. in the article title, in the NRHP infobox title, in text mentions. About "Woman's Club" vs. "Women's Club", both usages are common: see List of women's club buildings, mostly U.S. NRHP-listed items. "Womyn's Club" has never been observed before my writing it in this sentence. :) Hope this a) seems reasonable and b) is helpful here. --doncram 06:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Register[edit]

I don't know who stated that only 2 Gill buildings were on the National Register, but I count at least 12. In San Diego: Sunnyslope Lodge, George W. Marston House, Burnham-Marston House, La Jolla Women's Club, Major Myles Moylan House, Scripps Lab Building. In the city of South Pasadena: Miltimore House. In Santa Monica: Horatio West Court. In Torrance: the Railway Bridge. In Oceanside: The Americanization School, and the City Hall/Fire Station buildings (i think these are together as one NR listing, despite being built at different times, now connected as the Oceanside Art museum). In National City: Granger Music Hall. There may be more I have missed. Erikdhanson (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great catch, thanks! Your list above omits some that are listed in the article. Let's do a formal count, using both the ones already in the article and the others we come up with. I'll post at WikiProject National Register and WikiProject San Diego for others to come and help.
  1. Sunnyslope Lodge, San Diego
  2. George W. Marston House, San Diego
  3. Burnham--Marston House, San Diego
  4. La Jolla Woman's Club, San Diego (woman not women; we hashed that out earlier)
  5. Maj. Myles Moylan House, San Diego
  6. Old Scripps Building, San Diego
  7. Granger Hall, National City
  8. Miltimore House, South Pasadena
  9. Horatio West Court, Santa Monica
  10. Pacific Electric Railroad Bridge, Torrance
  11. Americanization School, Oceanside
  12. Oceanside City Hall/Fire Station
  13. Clarke Estate, Santa Fe Springs

Other possibles:

  • La Jolla Recreation Center? He designed it but I don't think it is on the NRHP.
  • I'm not sure if the Gill Auditorium is officially included in the California Quadrangle historic listing or not.

I think there are more; please add them to the list to keep the tally going. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. One good place to start is National Register of Historic Places listings in San Diego County, California. Another good resource: http://www.sandiegohistory.org/online_resources/gill.html --MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the 2010 version (latest available) of the National Register's NRIS database, hits on architect/building/engineer = "Gill, I" or "Gill,I" are:
That is probably a pretty comprehensive list of Irving Gill works listed on the NRHP before mid-2010. Hope this helps. --doncram 04:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's very helpful! I have deleted the Museum of Contemporary Art (I was mistaken about that) from the list and added the Clarke Estate. What about the Burnham-Marston House and the Major Myles Moylan House? They are on the list at National Register of Historic Places listings in San Diego County, California. Also, can you check the listing for California Quadrangle and see if it includes the Administration Building (now the Gill Auditorium)? --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it appears the Administration Building is included in the California Quadrangle listing, [9], but the NRHP application states (erroneously, I believe) that the architect was Winslow [10], so I guess I'll leave it out pending further research. --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here [11] is the application form for the Major Myles Moylan House, which attributes it to Falkenham and Gill. The list of properties in San Diego County says it was listed on March 22, 1984. I can't find it in a search of the register but it may be because I'm not using the correct name for the property. --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found the Burnham--Marston House, reference # 86002665. You have to use two hyphens between the names to find it. It is credited to Hebbard & Gill. --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, I found the Moylan House also. It was listed under "Moylan, Maj. Myles, House" but the name is then given as Maj. Myles Moylan House. So both of those check out and it looks as if the total is 13. --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent sleuthing work. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you all think - should we make a specific list in the article of NRHP listings? I was tempted to add them to the existing list with a (NRHP) notation, but the existing list is organized by year and I don't know the year for some of these things. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reader should know what are all the best Gill buildings. If the organization by year is getting in the way, we can organize a list in a different way. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done! I listed "NRHP projects" and "other significant" projects. Projects and years still need to be added. --MelanieN (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, without "I" following Gill, there are also:
And for those co-architects, there seems to be only Ramona Town Hall, 729 Main St. Ramona, CA (Hebbard, William Sterling), in which Hebberd or Falkenhan appear, otherwise, in the NRIS database.
About having an NRHP-listed list and an "other" list, I rather prefer not to separate them, but rather to organize them by year built or designed. I have myself started several hundred architect articles, for architects having multiple works listed in the NRHP, and usually did so by starting with an alphabetical list of the NRHP-listed works only. But if more information is available (and there is for almost all of these, because California NRHP nomination documents are almost all available online), I do think it is better to organize them chronologically. The NRHP distinction is a later "award" which hardly adds or subtracts from the merit of the architect's work, and is more a medal of survival that doesn't distinguish importance vs. wonderful-but-later-demolished-to-make-room-for-a-skyscraper ones. But any way you like to develop the articles is fine by me, really.
Also, FYI, I started Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Granger Hall (National City, California), soon to be in mainspace, which begins to describe Gill's training in _acoustics_ under noted architects Adler & Sullivan. Perhaps more from the linked NRHP nomination document in that article could be used in this Gill article. Keep up the good work! cheers, --doncram 20:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, feel free to reorganize the list any way you like. I do agree that the way I did it - separating NRHP-listed properties from others - is kind of artificial. My main goal was to get all the NRHP listed properties into the list somehow. If you would rather reorganize it to be by year, with "(NRHP)" after the National Register ones, feel free. And thanks for undertaking Granger Hall; I too took note of some items that need Wikipedia articles, although I won't be working on them any time soon, so anyone else please feel free to create them. --MelanieN (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, i just took a shot at it, re-ordering chronologically (except for 2 so-far-undated ones left at the end), and adding ", NRHP-listed<ref name=nris/>" for each of the NRHP-listed ones. That's maybe a little heavy-handed; your changing to mere "(NRHP)" and dropping the reference would be fine, too; I just happen to like doing that way, documenting the NRHP-ness clearly and allowing non-NRHP ones to be inserted, and even suggesting that one or more footnote for each item is probably appropriate. The article is looking good. :) I may create more of the NRHP articles, too. cheers, --doncram 06:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good work! That's definitely an improvement. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, here's an interesting source: http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/71fall/gillbuildings.pdf See anything there that needs to be added? --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irving Gill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irving_Gill&oldid=1207426232"