Talk:The Lowry

Dates

Having tidied this page I am unable to confirm the date of completion v. opening. Arup says it was completed in 1999 whilst it appears to be opened in 2000. I've tried to add relevant references to this. Perhaps someone else knows the answer here and can reference it. Thanks SuzanneKn (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Link

Hi, Could you place a link with your article on 'The Lowry' please... www.lowry.co.uk It is a comprehensive site of L.S.Lowry's published works, most of which are rare and little seen images. Thank you in advance. 86.136.238.251 (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The external link to the website is in the info box. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments please

The Lowry and Controversy on entrance policy

Hi! I was rather disappointed that you so summarily removed the addition to The Lowry page about the story about their attitude to youngsters entering the building "without supervision". It was the Salford Star that first brought the "unwritten policy" to light - and it has since spread wider, not just The Guardian. Are there other museums with a similar policy? As far as I know, none of these museums actually have it written on the websites or on their front door. So is this story worth including in Wikipedia? I would argue YES. It shows that the buildings are more than bricks and mortar and unveiling ceremonies. See, for example: Yerba Buena Center for the Arts --TTKK (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree, as I said in the edit summary many museums adopt this policy towards unaccompanied youngsters (written or unwritten) and a stunt by the Salford Star, even if it was taken up by the Guardian, doesn't deserve coverage. And I read the sources and considered what was there before removing undue reference to a stunt. I also consider undue weight has been given in the article to which you linked. J3Mrs (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with J3Mrs, if this develops into a bigger story than a line or two may be warranted, but right now it appears to be a storm in a teacup and not deserving of mention. Parrot of Doom 11:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And I absolutely disagree with J3Mrs. Where exactly is the evidence that "lots of galleries apply a similar policy regarding unaccompanied children"? So, just because it was a 'sting' arranged by a local paper why does that make it invalid and just a "stunt". It's exposing real injustice. And it's perfectly notable. A so-called public Art Gallery has become the preserve of those who wear the right clothes and are the right age? how pathetic. I don't see why we have to disregard a totally legitmate story carried by a national newspaper just because one editor decides they know better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.200.196 (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the IP's edit and wonder what other editors might think. J3Mrs (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Breaking down the paragraph sentence by sentence, I think it's clear there are some issues with the material.

• "In May 2006 the Salford Star magazine organised a sting operation against the Lowry to demonstrate its intolerance towards youngsters wishing to enter the complex without adult or teacher supervision, though such a policy is not publically acknowledged."

Over dramatises things, especially "intolerance" which is a loaded word.

• "In his article in The Guardian about the incident, David Conn described how the Salford Star arranged for six local teenage boys to visit the centre with telephone cameras as well as secretly recording the operation."

The method isn't particularly important.

• "With no explanation given, the youths were stopped at the reception and first asked to leave and then forced out by security guards."

Seems a reasonable summary of the events, everything else is pretty much surplus.

• "The Salford Star printed alongside their original story all the pledges the Lowry has made, in return for its public investment, about ensuring that "it is used by local people"."

The format the Salford Star's article took is irrelevant.

• "The photos taken by the youths have since been published on The Guardian website under the title "Sunday afternoon at the Lowry"."

What photos The Guardian used has no place in an encyclopedia article.

In short if the incident was to be included, it would need pruning to avoid placing undue weight on it. But then what it boils down to is the Lowry turned away six kids. Is that really worth mentioning? However, I'd be interested to see if the Lowry responded to the story. Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why has this discussion been moved here? It should be at The Lowry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.166.168 (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Lowry article might well have less watchers than this talkpage, which is basically for anyone interested in topics related to Greater Manchester. Parrot of Doom 11:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.200.85 (talk)

A reponse to each of your points:

• "Over dramatises things, especially "intolerance" which is a loaded word.

- As the Salford Star mentioned, they were simply organsing the sting with cameras and tape recorders because this sort of thing has occurred frequently before at the Lowry. No such incidents in other cultural buildings in the area have been noted by youths - just The Lowry.

• "The method isn't particularly important."

- It's crucial! In this day and age of "Citizen journalism", the recording was necessary to PROVE the bias going on.

• "Seems a reasonable summary of the events, everything else is pretty much surplus."

- They were given no explanation such as "We have a policy whereby youths can enter only with adult supervision". They could not say that because THERE IS NO SUCH POLICY. It was discrimination, like refusing to serve a person because of the colour of their skin.

• "The format the Salford Star's article took is irrelevant."

- The Salford Star was pointing out the hyperbole coming from The Lowry about being a centre for local people. Simply, alongside theeir article was a list of the pledges.

• "What photos The Guardian used has no place in an encyclopedia article."

- The photos taken by the boys - part of the EVIDENCE for the incident - have been reproduced. This story is not mere gossip.

--TTKK (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

So far I'm not convinced that this anything more than a sensationalised story that at best merits a sentence (there was far too much trivial detail), but realistically probably shouldn't be included at all. Nev1 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the national press coverage, a few sentences seems reasonable. I agree that the version as originally inserted had significant problems. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this was a local newspaper stunt and deserves perhaps one sentence at most. It's a great shame that museums and galeries aren't used more by younger people, but I fear this really is a general national pattern. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian is not a local newspaper by any means, it's one of the largest quality national newspapers in the UK, despite its past historical connections with the north of England. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The original "news gathering exercise" was undertaken by the Salford Star, who were not acting, as far as we know, at the request of The Guardian. I'm sure that the Star does a lot of excellent work for the local community - its website looks quite lively - but I guess even national broadsheets have to try and fill column inches some days. It's regretable if this is an unwritten policy, but it's probably not that significant in terms of all that the Gallery does and it's history to date. I personally think the article is sadly lacking in theatrical/performance detail. Indeed on what it actually exhibits also. I'm sure some of those "youths" might have been particularly surly just to get the right response from he security staff - but we'll never really know, will we. I am loath to defend the editor on whose page this topic seems to have started, although, I must say that some of the later contributions to this debate have been very amusing. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

When the section on the "sting" was added it accounted for 149 words out of an article just 729 long, certainly out of proportion for an article on an art gallery. To be honest, the Guardian article on the whole thing was very short and didn't contain much of the speculation added by TTKK, for instance I see nothing in the article about. "The Salford Star printed alongside their original story all the pledges the Lowry has made, in return for its public investment, about ensuring that "it is used by local people"" seems to be just drivel that isn't relevant. Nev1 (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine that the original editor might have mistakenly added in detail from the Salford Star itself, for which he should have provided a separate source. If the article was as long as perhaps it should be, then 149 words might not look overly long. I think a reasonable compromise would be to add one or two sentences, as Demiurge1000 has suggested. But I really don't think one can expect to build consensus by describing another editors's contributions as "drivel". Did somebody say "This page is for discussing the article, not taking swipes at other editors"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone has some valid points here. The original content had an interpretation of what the Star said, which the Star didn't openly state itself. This was a problem (as already acknowledged). 149 words out of 729 is excessive for an establishment of this nature. But the article is longer now, and I think 149 words (or even more) would be fine. I would also say that the link to the Guardian piece given above is misleading; yes the Guardian devoted very little text to the event on their website, but for whatever reason they have poured huge effort into an animated depiction to accompany the audio capture (it doesn't work properly for me, but if you watch it with judicious use of the PAUSE button you can get an idea of what happened, especially if you grew up in the area). Did they devote even more space in their printed version? It's almost "significant coverage" on its own. I think we should keep on providing better coverage of what the venue does for art and theatre in the area; but we should also cover this (quite small) controversy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Nev1 has analysed the disputed edit very well. The Salford Star's stunt, and that is all it was, seems to have caught the Guardian on a quiet day. Having read the responses here, I still don't think I was wrong to remove it. I have also removed the sentences about ticketing as pointed out by TTKK on my talk page. J3Mrs (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

After re-reading the above, I have re-added a neutral version of the disputed material, using but not exaggerating the two original sources. I realise that the incident may not be seen as positive for many Mancunians, but there is no reason not to include a very short version of this incident. I've kept it under "Galleries" as that's apparently what the kiddies claimed they wanted to see - I don't feel that a separate "Controversies" section is justified. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus for this materiall to be re-added. It adds undue weight to trivia and has again been removed. Please see the excellent response by Nev1 above. J3Mrs (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a sentence in background which is as much, and probably more than this incident deserves. J3Mrs (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no lack of consensus for some mention of the incident being included, as far as I can see. Nev1 happening to agree with you doesn't change that, especially given the canvassing that's occurred on this topic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree with you, Demiurge1000. I thought your original version was very well balanced. Now that the article is a little longer, I think one or two sentences are fully justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Using "children" in this context is not neutral. J3Mrs (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, have gone back to "teenagers" now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have been reverted without explanation by User:Martinevans123. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have made no contributions to this material, and have certainly not reverted anything, with or without explanation. I think "youths" would probably be better than "teenagers", and that "children" would be a bit misleading. The Guardian calls them "lads". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the revert in question. (Possibly an unintentional mis-click, although I can't think of any tool or feature that would produce that message with a mis-click.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. That edit was wholly unintended and unnoticed. I blame this combination of ancient and new remote mouse. But I have now made a real suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all - I recommend old-fashioned technology, like punched cards - always reliable! I think there's more to be improved with this sentence, but I should wait for my mouse to cool down first, since I myself am vaguely close to some arbitrary WP limit of reverts. Also I need to explain properly here why I think we've not quite done it perfectly. (By the way, sorry for jumping to "omg he reverted me!" :) )--Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The effort required to find "the perfect edit" seems to increase exponentialy as a function of the number of editors involved (even if they agree!) Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Teenagers is fine J3Mrs (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Article - broken CSS

This article exhibits the usual broken Wikipedia CSS: delivering low resolution feature-phone-type content to high resolution devices with better-than-desktop resolution, forcing users to accept the poor user experience resulting from the poor web design or else scroll to the end of the page and click a link to request a suitable version of the page (so-called 'Desktop'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.54.118 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What has this got to do with the content of this article? Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Lowry. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330200042/http://www.thelowry.com/ls-lowry/the-ls-lowry-collection/ to http://www.thelowry.com/ls-lowry/the-ls-lowry-collection/

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) 13:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Lowry. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927102909/http://www.millennium.gov.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=1536&d=11&h=24&f=46&dateformat=%o-%B-%Y to http://www.millennium.gov.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=1536&d=11&h=24&f=46&dateformat=%25o-%25B-%25Y
• Added archive https://archive.is/20070224002032/http://www.millennium.gov.uk/cgi-site/awards.cgi?action=detail&id=179 to http://www.millennium.gov.uk/cgi-site/awards.cgi?action=detail&id=179
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120601232918/http://www.thelowry.com/ls-lowry/the-ls-lowry-archive/ to http://www.thelowry.com/ls-lowry/the-ls-lowry-archive/

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) 15:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)