Wikipedia

Talk:National Gallery/Archive 1

< Talk:National Gallery
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Disambiguation

This page has been the subject of a cut-and-paste move. I think the National Gallery should be at National Gallery (as far as I can tell all the other National Galleries of the English-speaking world are the National Gallery of Whatever), but I realise that may be a slightly parochial view. In any event the move should be done properly. I will revert this unless someone gives me a very good reason not to (or someone does it first). --rbrwr

Yes, it's parochial. I can't speak for other countries, but even just here in Australia there are two National Galleries, both well-known. Clearly, it needs to be "National Gallery of London" (or whatever). Revert the cut & paste by all means, but then move the page to a suitable title. Tannin

OK, I've undone the cut-and-paste. I think this should probably go to "National Gallery, London", which is a term used on the NG website. I still have to point out that the proper name of the institution is "The National Gallery", not "The National Gallery of London, England" or anything like that. Does anyone have a better suggestion than "National Gallery, London"?

There's also the question of what to do with this page, assuming we move the London NG away. Here are some of the things we might have to disambiguate between:

  • Australia
  • Bermuda: Bermuda National Gallery [3]
  • Canada: National Gallery of Canada (Musée des beaux-arts du Canada), Ottawa [4]
  • Ireland: National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin [5]
  • South Africa: South African National Gallery [6]
  • UK
  • USA: National Gallery of Art, Washington DC [10]
  • Armenia: National Gallery of Armenia [11]
  • Czech Republic: Národní galerie v Praze, Prague [12]
  • Denmark: Statens Museum for Kunst [13]
  • Finland: Valtion Taidemuseo/Statens Konstmuseum [14]
  • Greece: National Art Gallery and Alexandros Soutzos Museum
  • Iceland: Listasafn Íslands [15]
  • Jordan: Jordan National Gallery of Fine Arts [16]
  • Norway: Nasjongalleriet [17]
  • Slovakia: Slovenská Národná Galéria [18]
  • Slovenia: Narodna Galerija [19]

--rbrwr

National Gallery, London sounds good to me. Tannin

Moved. Now I need to fix all the links and turn National Gallery into a disambiguation page based on the list above --rbrwr

Looking good, Rbrwr. Tannin 07:59 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)

1777

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article on the Italian Wikipedia says that the idea for a National Gallery was first mooted as early as 1777. If anyone knows more about this date (or any other calls for a National Gallery before the 1820s) I would be hugely grateful to hear from them. Ham 17:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

the National Gallery,with its elegant dome and graceful colonnades,dominates the north side of Trafalgar Square,housing a very rich collection of paintings.Most famous are the Renassance and Impressionist works.

Level 2?

The floor plan included in this article is described as a level 1 floor plan, however to my knowledge only the Sainsbury Wing has a Level 1, the main building has a Level 0 and Level 2 and the floor plan used in this article appears to be Level 2. Should this be changed from Level 1 to Level 2?

GA Sweeps

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review.

The article could still benefit from more citations, but it satisfies the GA criteria. The sources are good, it is well structured and well illustrated. The article has in fact improved significantly since its promotion. Lampman (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! I still hope to get this up to featured status one day. Ham 21:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 14 years ago33 comments7 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Pages moved as per Proposal 1. (c) does not need creating, it automatically goes to this article.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


National Gallery (London) → National Gallery, London — or "National Gallery". The only previous discussion was in 2003 (see above), when "National Gallery, London" gained consensus approval. At some subsequent point it was moved without discussion to the present title, which matches no other article I can see. Even worse it means that every single link to this article has to be disambiguated, as actually writing "National Gallery (London)" is never correct. [Note: not so - see "further discussion" below] There are several hundred articles in "what links here" at "National Gallery, London". In terms of WP:COMMONAME the correct name should be "National Gallery" or "National Gallery, London"; no other "national gallery" has that plain name, and it is very often referred to just as "National Gallery" in published art history etc., not just from the UK - compare The Times. When it is not "National Gallery, London" is almost invariably used. "The National Gallery" is the full official name, but it is not used with the capital "T" by RS in practice. Note the quasi-disam page National gallery (small "g"). Currently National Gallery redirects there, but it can be seen from "what links here" that links to "National Gallery" nearly all relate to London. That redirect should be changed to here if "National Gallery, London" is preferred. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


Further comment discussion moved below. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Nb "National gallery" is the "disam page" (small "g"). "National Gallery" redirects there, but I argue above it need not. Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
IMO, the lower case g page should redirect to the full (international) disamb). The current naming struct was badly thought out, it seems. Ceoil sláinte 09:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
There is only one institution just called "National Gallery", even allowing for translations. There are several "National Art Gallery" or "Nation Gallery of Foo" forms. The disam page covers some with neither word in the title, so it rightly has lower case, dealing with the concept of a "national gallery", however named - it isn't strictly a disam page in fact, although categorized as one. Really it should have article text on the idea of a ng.. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. For buildings and structures, Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Naming conventions says: Where disambiguation is required "(London)" or ", London" is used as a suffix e.g. [[Hyde Park, London]] and [[City Hall (London)]]. There is no pattern as far as I can see to the use of these disambiguators. The 2008 move did not give a rationale for moving from ", London" to "(London)". However, a quick google reveals "National Gallery, London" is used in some instances in the real world to indicate this place, but "National Gallery (London)" is not. MRSC (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Calling it The National Gallery would solve the problem, as this currently redirects to National Gallery (London) anyway. The Sunday Times is the name of the article, although often it is referred to in usage as "Sunday Times" or "the Sunday Times". Why disambiguate when there's no need? Ty 06:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
My feeling is that this goes against WP:THE. While there isn't a specific guideline there for institutions such as the NG, the general gist is that except in a few cases the definite article shouldn't be used; it advises Eiffel Tower against The Eiffel Tower and White House against The White House. I think physical locations are a different case from printed works such as newspapers. Note also this edit; there are probably others like it. Ham 12:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
And you don't see it like that in good RS, or their own publications, so piping would be needed. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
As Johnbod said above, There is only one institution just called "National Gallery", even allowing for translations. (The page National Gallery (Athens) seems to be mis-named; but if we kept it as it is, the London National Gallery is far better known and wouldn't require disambiguation). Note the modifier, of Art, in Washington. Ham 13:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes; from their own site's "About us" page: "The National Gallery-Alexandros Soutzos Museum, as it was named upon its merger with the homonymous bequest, now houses more than 15,000 works of painting, sculpture, engraving and other forms of art and it is a treasury of Greek artistic creation from the post-Byzantine period until today...." Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

I suppose if there's one thing I disagree with in Johnbod's otherwise unobjectionable rationale, it's the statement that actually writing "National Gallery (London)" is never correct. Piped linking means that one can type the full page name so that it will appear as National Gallery, which is totally correct. You couldn't do the same with a comma, so for reasons of convenience alone brackets are a better way to disambiguate. And who can really say that using a comma instead is more correct?

We could say that that punctuation never appears on the Gallery's official website, and that the title of the home page is Welcome | Home | The National Gallery, London. But that's clearly just one way of disambiguating from other National Galleries' sites, more elegant perhaps because it is as one would write it in a sentence, but not to be taken as part of the official name — which is simply "the National Gallery". Ham 23:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I just meant that you always have to pipe the thing, whereas most of the time "National Gallery, London" is what you want to have in the text anyway. Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but (and apologies for going over old ground here) where National Gallery, London appears with a link in the text it has to be typed
[[National Gallery, London|National Gallery]], London
if the title has a comma, but if we keep the brackets you only have to type
[[National Gallery (London)|]], London
and you would rarely, if ever, type
[[National Gallery, London]]
So I think disambiguation with brackets, if there has to be any (and my preference would be for none), suits Wiki markup better (provided enough people know about piping, and I think they do). Ham 12:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I must admit I was unaware what happened when you typed "National Gallery (London)| " which is indeed useful. But I'd you disagree that you would rarely, if ever, type "National Gallery, London" - I usually type that, as I think do most editors, obviously not in articles about London etc, but in general art articles. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
But with the square brackets as well, i.e. producing National Gallery, London? I thought National Gallery, London was normally considered better style.
(Glad you can now see what I was prattling on about in the 2nd and 3rd sentences! : ) Ham 13:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Well either. In fact I usually type the former, if only from laziness. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
All I'm saying is [[National Gallery (London)|]] is favourable to the lazy... :O) Ham 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, the lazy & well-informed! I wonder how many people know that trick. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
My initial take was National Gallery, London made the most sense in terms of writing and typing...Modernist (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"National Gallery" would seem to be the official, legal name.[20] Wiki disambiguation protocol would normally be National Gallery (London), just requiring a "|" to produce National Gallery per example above. Ty 13:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is, how necessary is disambiguation in the article title? The difference in capitalisation between National Gallery and National gallery ought to make it clear that one is about an institution called the National Gallery and the other (after some expansion) is about the concept of national galleries. A disambig message at the top of both pages would also explain the situation. In fact, this page already has the following text: This article is about the National Gallery in London, for other National Galleries, see National Gallery [sic; it links to National gallery]. It's as if the article were already called National Gallery. Ham 13:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
As this page is disambiguated, it doesn't need the disambig notice (whose text I've corrected). The redirect of National Gallery to National gallery is a hangover from the time when upper case mattered in the search: it no longer does. A user should be able to search for "National gallery" or "National Gallery" and get the same result. The term shouldn't be used for a specific article, unless that article is the primary target, i.e. unless its traffic is more than traffic to all the other relevant articles combined: this, I think, is not likely to be the case here (but check with this tool if you want). The present title therefore is the correct one. Ty 13:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
A user should be able to search for "National gallery" or "National Gallery" and get the same result. – A very good point which I hadn't really considered; we don't always use capitals in the search field. I considered using the tool as you suggested but thought of more national galleries that could be added to the list at National gallery, and thought better of it. Instead I've given that page a lead section. I still think the fact that NG(L) is almost 7 times more visited than National gallery counts for something, but then again National gallery is the best name for the disambig page (though what about List of national galleries?...) Ham 20:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The fact that National Gallery (London) has 7 times the visitors of the disambig page National gallery is a strong case for National Gallery (London) being the primary topic and moving it to National Gallery, whilst moving National gallery to National gallery (disambiguation) (which currently redirects to National gallery).
You turned the disambig page National gallery into an article. I've reverted that, as there needs to be a disambig page. However, if you additionally want to create an article, then that needs to be factored in also!
There can be List of national galleries, but there still needs to be a disambig page for functional reasons. Ty 01:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I turned National gallery into an article based on Johnbod's suggestion above: The disam page ... [deals] with the concept of a "national gallery", however named - it isn't strictly a disam page in fact, although categorized as one. Really it should have article text on the idea of a ng.
That said, I totally agree with the title changes you propose. Ham 21:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Towards resolution

To sum up, the problem is that there are three pages vying for the same title:

a) the National Gallery in London
b) a disambig page National Gallery
c) a general article on National galleries.

The disambig page should not be an article, but just a navigational aid. I have put two proposals below with space for comment, but feel free to add more. From the above discussion, there is a good case for making the London National Gallery the primary topic as in 1. If there were a significantly different name for the general article on national galleries (e.g. "National galleries worldwide" - though I'm not suggesting this; it's just to illustrate what I mean), this would help to solve the problem. Ty 12:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposals:

  • 1.
a) National Gallery
b) National Gallery (disambiguation)
c) National gallery
  • 2
a) National Gallery (London)
b) National Gallery (disambiguation)
c) National gallery
  • Comment
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Gallery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on National Gallery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The third archive link doesn't work, so another source will have to be found, or the paragraph (as it's the reference for a whole paragraph) might have to be removed. Ham II (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Gallery. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

I reviewed the discussions above and still come out very strongly disagreeing with the present title. In Washington DC, the National Gallery of Art is often referred to as the National Gallery. In fact, I think that one should be called National Gallery of Art (Washington DC). To assign the title of "National Gallery" only to the London museum is an example or preening poohbah-ism at the extreme. The google entry of National Gallery points to National Gallery, London, and that is likely how most in the world view this. Wikipedia is not only English, and the entries should reflect this. I expect scholarship now and in the future will generally assign a title to "The National Gallery" that makes it identifiable amid the dozens of other National Galleries. To day that all other National Galleries are "National Galleries of Somewhere", reflects perhaps the fact that other Galleries do not have the same narcissistic perspective. In their own countries, they are likely also called "The National Gallery" but to the world, they should be the "National Gallery of Somewhere". The same should be true of the one in London. I don't care if I rake the coals again by bringing this up, but I strongly feel it was wrongly decided. I think also that in time, this sentiment will grow.Rococo1700 (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

In sure the NGA is often so called "In Washington DC", as you say. But globally, for example in art history books, "National Gallery" means London. As with The Times and other things, the British didn't disambiguate because they were the first, certainly in the English language. Anti-British tirades don't help your case. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree with all of Rococo1700's argument, but my opinion has shifted lately in favour of National Gallery, London. This would still reflect that the official title is "National Gallery" without any qualifier, but would have disambiguation after a comma (rather than in brackets) following the house style for places in the UK. Naming disputes along the same lines have come up at the talk pages of the National Portrait Gallery, the Natural History Museum and the Science Museum, and in each case disambiguation has won the day. Ham II (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem with that is you take those following plain "National Gallery" to a disam page (and quite a long one) when the great majority wanted London, not say the Magyar Nemzeti Galéria (in Budapest). Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair point, assuming that National Gallery would end up as a new name for National Gallery (disambiguation) rather than as a redirect to National Gallery, London (cf. National Portrait Gallery vs. National Portrait Gallery, London and Science Museum vs. Science Museum, London). We'd have to request a bot to change the current links to National Gallery. Ham II (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
As usual I beg to differ, for one is complaining about the poohbah-ism of "National Gallery" tirade may be an anti-English tirade, not a anti-British. I will think about it some more and get back to you. I think there is a difference.
1. Also in addition to the Google disambiguation.
If you search under "National Gallery" in google books, you do come across "Giotto to Durer: Early Renaissance Painting in the National Gallery." First notice "The" is not capitalized here. It is published in association with "National Gallery Publications Limited". However catalogued in the British Library Cataloguig under author and "National Gallery (Great Britain)". Hmmmm, which one of these is more encyclopedic?
2.In addition, the "National Gallery Technical Bulletin, volume 31" was funded the "American Friends of the National Gallery, London" not "of the National Gallery". It is also catalogued under "National Gallery (Great Britain)".
3. In 1824, the collection was called "The National Gallery, Pall Mall" [21], but that seems awfully provincial and almost paradoxical. I would not want to call this "The National Gallery, Westminster"
4. John Ruskin, at the turn of the century (if he ever really made it across is another story), on the other hand refers to it in his handbook as "National Gallery", and since he had an adamant opinion on nearly everything, how else are we to decide. He does in his introduction talk about "our own National Gallery" and later distinguishes "the "National Gallery" in Trafalgar Square (sic)" and the "National Gallery of British Art" or (Tate Gallery). Use that evidence for what you will.
5. I did search in the Library of Congress (loc.gov) in the United States under "National Gallery" and unfortunately few of the results, mainly old photographs, were for the British Gallery. Their catalogue records mimic the British library in describing as Contributor "National Gallery (Great Britain)"
6. In searching through Google Scholar, I honestly place in doubt your assertions: Among the titles I found were:
a) [BOOK] Italian painting before 1400: National Gallery, London, 29 November 1989-28 February 1990 D Bomford, J Dunkerton, D Gordon, A Roy - 1990 - bcin.ca Catalog of an exhibition held at the National Gallery, London, from 29 November 1989 to 28 February 1990 on Italian painting
b) Holy feast and holy fast: The religious significance of food to medieval women CW Bynum - 1988 ... The National Gallery, London. Courtesy the Trustees, The National Gallery, London.
c) Monuments & maidens: the allegory of the female form
citing work by Giovanni Battista Moroni, Chastity, mid or late 1550s.(National Gallery, London).
d) National Gallery Catalogues: The Dutch School. National Gallery (Great Britain), N MacLaren - 1960 - the Trustees
d) ATR-FTIR imaging for the analysis of organic materials in paint cross sections: case studies on paint samples from the National Gallery, London. M Spring, C Ricci, DA Peggie, SG Kazarian - Analytical and bioanalytical …, 2008 - Springer
In otherwords, Johnbod's prior statement maybe only applies to some art books, as you can see above, not all, and perhaps, not the majority at present, nor does it apply when referring to encyclopedic sources. As usual some of his assertions appears to more tripe than piffle, fitting, since I concede that in the past he can be often resistant to gorge on humble pie. (I hope meat pie references are not viewed as anti-British.)
I strongly recommend changing to National Gallery, Great Britain or National Gallery, London.Rococo1700 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I would much prefer National Gallery, London, as being consistent with National Portrait Gallery, London, Natural History Museum, London and Science Museum, London. Rococo1700, could you please formally request a move? We also need to consider where National gallery (sic) would redirect to; presumably to the disambig page rather than to the London NG as it currently does. Ham II (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
It would be better if you did it, Ham, as you will be able to do it in a concise and unheated fashion. Johnbod (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I am ok with anyone suggesting this, I was concerned about being accused of re-opening a closed argument, but in this case, I just didn't think the facts merited the decision according to the standard rules of this encyclopedia. I am OK with either National Gallery, London or The National Gallery, London, I agree with reformatting National Gallery to a disambiguation page. I will check back in, in a few days. I would have to look up on how to pursue request a move , I would have to reread the archived discussions. Rococo1700 (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Johnbod and Rococo1700: Any thoughts on the proposal below? Ham II (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments9 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Eventhorizon51 (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

National Gallery → National Gallery, London – Adding disambiguation to the official name, with National Gallery becoming the new title for National Gallery (disambiguation). This follows the pattern of National Portrait Gallery vs. National Portrait Gallery, London, Natural History Museum vs. Natural History Museum, London and Science Museum vs. Science Museum, London. Ham II (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep, or 2nd best National Gallery, London (all per my 2010 proposal above). "The" is not needed, and brackets are a pain all round, as "National Gallery, London" is fine in text, but "National Gallery (London)" is not. This should in any case keep "National Gallery" as a redirect. Looking at Science Museum, it is hard to imagine any readers are helped by it. National Portrait Gallery is a different case, as 3 major countries actually have museums called exactly that. There is actually only ONE museum called the "National Gallery". Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
As discussed back in 2010, there is no "concept of a "National Gallery""; there is one for a "national gallery", though art gallery covers most of it. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Again, I request the title be moved to "National Gallery, London"

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The decision here is bordering on ridiculous and arbitrary. My opposition will not cease, unless someone gives me reliable data that their answer is justified on a general consensus of the sources. It should not be based on what some people want to call it. As I point out above, The general consensus of the sources today do not support a title of just the "National Gallery".

The editor closing the discussion and making the decision provides no justification for the decision. One of the Oppose arguments speaks of the "London Gallery", was that a keep or oppose vote?

One editor says that until there is a National Gallery entry, the name will stay the same, although to many "National Gallery" can mean the National Gallery of Washington, D.C. or Australia, etc. I don't care about a National Gallery entry.

There is a simple, non-controversial change here. Just call it National Gallery, London or The National Gallery, London or National Gallery, England or The National Gallery, England or National Gallery, Great Britain or The National Gallery, Great Britain. Wikipedia has a weird problem with assigning specificity. Recently I created a re-direct for "Malo", which directed to a Carlos Santana rock group. But the term is also evil or bad in Spanish. I love Santana as much as the next guy, but for god sake, are we going to change the dictionary and make the primary definition of "Yes" a rock group. The same concept applies here and in addition, as I said, there is strong evidence that the primary sources refer to this institution as the National Gallery, London. Maybe except for the National Gallery itself, and even this is not entirely true.

Give it a rest! You can hardly say something is a "non-controversial change" when there are two move proposals above which have not found consensus for this. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)



National Gallery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM)

The predominance of the sources link to National Gallery, London. The title as it stands is confusing. The prior editor failed to provide reasoning for his judgement. Rococo1700 (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Give me a break, Johnbod. Yes it is a non-controversial change when the largest search engine in the world finds "The National Gallery, London" as one of the links when you search "National Gallery". It is non-controversial when the largest library in the world lists the entry for the site as National Gallery, London. This alone makes national art collection, Justlettersandnumbers' claim that "primary topic" applies here not true.

Find something else to argue about if it bothers you that other disagree with you. If your read the discussions above you find there is a strong movement afoot for moving. If you limit it only to the snippet of editors like you, then your are right. But Wikipedia should work by some standard set of rules.

No, this will not go away until there is an intelligent discussion of why this name should not be moved. This is the stuff that makes Wikipedia fail. I have already marshalled evidence above; where is the evidence that this was considered? This should be taken before a larger board of editors in Wikipedia, a larger forum.Rococo1700 (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I have stated on EventHorizon51's talk page that the tabulation of the decision was in error. There is not a strong consensus to stay or to move, and thus it is not a closed issue. In my opinion, the vote should be read as favoring a move, but by 4 votes to 3 and a half. In situations like this, we need more input.Rococo1700 (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. This is being procedurally closed because this is not the place to argue a move was improperly closed. The nominator has already listed this at WP:MR. Calidum ¤ 21:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

National Gallery → National Gallery, London – See the arguments above and on EventHorizon51's talk page. I do not think the discussion was correctly concluded. Rococo1700 (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose: no evidence has been provided that the London-based National Gallery is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of 'National Gallery'. Having examined EventHorizon51's talk page and the previous discussion as suggested by the nom I see no additional evidence being proposed and some very dodgy maths being used try to suggest that was more support for the previous move than there actually was. Repeated move requests are WP:DISRUPTIVE and when this move request is closed I suggest that a moratorium be placed on further requests for a minimum of six months. Ebonelm (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Also if you really think that the previous discussion wasn't correctly concluded then the correct procedure would be to open a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review. But given that there was significant opposition to the proposed move I doubt you'll get an overturn. Ebonelm (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have no idea how the Move review is settled or on what basis. It seems to have devolved into an argument about whether we have an argument.

I will wait till Christmas, and re-open the discussion.

I fear I did not open the discussion to enough editors. I think we should set up a series of facts that need to be accepted before we can say that state the WP:PrimaryTopic argues one way or another. Then the discussion will be less mushy about why this should be changed. I am going to post a neutral statement on all the talk pages of Galleries and Art groups and nomenclature groups, and lets get a clear discussion started on the topic of whether specific places or specific institutions should have ownership of common names as regards this institution. I will likely make the move first and then ask others to justify why it should be moved back according to criteria without merely saying: "the way things are is the way things are" or that it is WP:PrimaryTopic, just because they say so, when I have argued using evidence that it is not. I think "holy cows" are difficult to slaughter. This name has become a holy cow.Rococo1700 (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that would be your obsession about moving it! See WP:STICK. Putting you on notice that your plan to move it against a double consensus will be immediately reversed, and is likely to lay you open to sanctions. Johnbod (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. My opposition with this recent debate is that it failed to address the issue at hand. "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." By this criteria, the title should reflect "National Gallery, London". I think it is cute that your found a Wikipedia essay to support your point. But I could say that it is really WP:BRD and not WP:STICK that applies; but that would be too easy. I would rather prefer that the discussion agree on some parameter that will define how we decide: for example, the title of this entry will reflect the most commonly used encyclopedic entry (a reliable and verifiable scholarly source) for this entity: we can then decide what we will use as reliable and verifiable encyclopedic entries, and then measure out the parameter. Or put forth your own measurable, verifiable parameter, and see if it is acceptable to a consensus. This contentious debate keeps rearing its head not because of WP:STICK, but perhaps because the prior decisions have been problematic. The discussion regarding how this decision was made in the recent debate only convinces me further. Finally, I ultimately have no jingoistic compulsions in the argument, despite my constant cajoling of the imperial pretensions of the one and only "National Gallery" (by which, I mean "National Gallery, London"). All in jest, guv'ner. Now muster your arguments for December. If your only arguments are WP:STICK, or "I won two times before, so I win now", and not some rational, verifiable argument, then I fear you will fail. For example, show me that in various encyclopedic guides to artists, the same lists that cite the location of a painting to "National Gallery of Scotland" (period) also map a painting to the "National Gallery" without the need of a further suffix. Enjoy.Rococo1700 (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Gallery. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Gallery. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Gallery/Archive_1&oldid=1213307043"