Talk:National Trust

fuel

National_Trust fossil fool fuel

Heard something on television.

Dhsert (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You could try turning the volume down, to make it less distracting? But maybe it was connected to this story. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

True; but, I, generally, only use talk pages, in order to express a perspective, rather than fight about content.

Dhsert (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to fight to make a suggestion for an addition to the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Collections of the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty

I've started a category for artworks in the collection of the National Trust at 'Collections of the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty'. If any editors know of any objects that could be included, please do so. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

National Trust pilot

Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, I realised when leaving the above message that I perhaps should have left a note on this Talk Page at the beginning of the pilot. I'm not sure how that oversight happened. I'm very happy to talk through any aspects of the pilot that page-watchers are interested in, and keen to hear your views on the National Trust getting involved in Wikipedia more generally. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of image of Massey statue

Given that the statue itself has been removed, per this article from the BBC, I have removed the image of the statue from this entry. Happy to discuss further in good faith. EriedgenArc (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The section discusses the problem the statue represents for the NT and it is useful to see why. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed especially as it may have been done illegally. It should be restored and updated. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

When I shortened the caption to the picture I did wonder if it should be there at all. Like EriedgenArc, i wondered if, given that the statue itself has been removed, an image should be displayed here. On the other hand if it is the context that makes it offensive displayed at the front the house, should there be less objection to displaying the image in a different context? I certainly would not object to it being removed.Southdevonian (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

If it depicted a naked white woman holding the bowl, a common piece of statuary, would anyone be upset? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It is entirely possible to document the situation without an image of the statue itself. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That is trying to hide the situation, to pretend it never happened. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This thread is about the removal of an image, while the explanatory text was left intact. Retaining the text detailing the circumstances is hardly pretending it never happened. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Somehow I must have missed the deluge of posts from readers objecting to the image being present. Basically you are taking it on yourself to decide what the general public can and can't see. Sorry but I don't condone that form of censorship. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Invoking the spectre of 'censorship' to retain the image is facile. When the topic is ably described by the text, what purpose is the image serving? There is an editorial discussion to be had over the merits of including the image and whether it helps readers to understand why the statue was removed, but the reductive approach you have taken is not going to get us there. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

To follow on from Southdevonian and Richard Nevell: reductivism is not useful in this scenario. As Richard Nevell points out, the image can be contextualised and described with nuance and sensitivity in the main text, without including the image itself. The statue has its own entry, with a picture, which people can visit if they elect to, as informed individuals Dunham Massey Hall sundial. Whether this entry is suitably contextualised is another discussion, but its relevance is here is that to have this image in the main body of the National Trust page adds no value to the Trust article, and opens up the potential for offense and harm to readers. I suggest we add a link to the statue entry to the Trust page, with context, and then remove the image. You mention that there is no deluge of posts from readers: many readers do not have the capacity or technical skills to edit this Talk page, and just because there is no current discourse, does not mean there never should be. EriedgenArc (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

How far does this go, removing material that some might find offensive? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

"When the topic is ably described by the text, what purpose is the image serving?" (RN above) is not the normal way we operate. As for "There is an editorial discussion to be had over the merits of including the image and whether it helps readers to understand why the statue was removed", isn't that what we are doing? I reiterate that I think the image should stay, not least because I am suspicious about the motives for its removal. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I would add a picture is worth a thousand words, maybe a cliché, but still true and relevant. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello all, Reading the discussion above, I wondered whether a compromise could be to add "now removed" to the caption under the image? @Murgatroyd:, @Johnbod:, @EriedgenArc:, @Southdevonian:, @Richard Nevell: what do you think? For full disclosure, I am employed by the National Trust (see comment below), but I have not had any requests from colleagues about this item, rather I read the discussion and a change to the caption came to mind. Best Lajmmoore (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Southdevonian (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The text already makes that point. We shouldn't be adding editorial material to image captions. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Murgatroyd49, I took a look at WP:Captions guidance - I hadn't looked at it previously - and it seems to suggest that it is good to provide context for captions (as the above suggestion) - see here & here Lajmmoore (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

As ever it s a matter of matter of judgement as to how much is too much. Captions shouldn't just repeat what's in the text, at the other end of the spectrum, they shouldn't introduce material that is not in the main text. My view is that images are for illustrating the text, not the other way round. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable solution to me, and pays due heed to the fact that the statue is no longer there. EriedgenArc (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedian in Residence

Hello editors. Just a quick message to make page watchers aware that I'm working on a second pilot for the National Trust to explore ways that might be able to support the Wikimedia community. A brief summary of the project is here: Wikipedia:GLAM/National Trust. Thanks to all who supported the initial 2022 pilot Lajmmoore (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I hope my comment is largely unnecessary: Whilst this is likely to be a worthy contribution to Wikimedia, I think we all need to ensure these pilot projects don't become models for subjective reputation management. This happens under the guise of (Insert Organisation Name) ostensibly providing support to Wikipedia (and associated projects), along with a swift approach to any co-management of said content by users not directly involved in the Pilot (and possibly not being aware of said agenda). Wikipedia- the free encyclopedia, belongs to everyone. Mongoosander (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Mongoosander thank very much for your comment. Quite a lot of what I'm doing is helping the NT understand how the on-wiki community works, to avoid, I think, what you're alluding to. This is a pilot, and we are keen to evaluate not just the NT's perspective on the residency, but that of existing editors too, so please do keep an eye on what we're doing and let me know your thoughts over the next few months Lajmmoore (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Images on Commons

Hello all! One aspect of this second pilot has been to release a discrete number of images relating to NT collections to Wikimedia Commons. This has now been done and some of the images available are here. If you have thoughts on this topic, or indeed, potential requests, please leave a note on the project's talk page. I'm grateful for the support from editors here, many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This is nice, but do the files sizes have to be so small? Also please ensure all the Commons files have the dates of the objects; at the moment most don't. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very @Johnbod you're right, I overlooked the dates. In terms of image size, I'll put your feedback in the evaluation report I'm working on, thank you! Lajmmoore (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)