Talk:Hall of Remembrance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Military history: British / European / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

Images[edit]

I added a gallery of the paintings commissioned for the Hall, but was reverted with the rather cryptic comment "IWM image credits required; more apt format."

Here is the gallery that was removed. Perhaps there is a better format, but I thought this did the job reasonably well, given the different shapes and sizes of the paintings.

I don't understand why the current bullet list of paintings is considered a "more apt format", rather than taking the opportunity to show the actual paintings themselves. We have the images, and some readers might like to see them. Secondly, what "IWM image credits" are required? I thought that was the function of the File page. If the captions are inadequate, surely they can be improved, rather than reverting the whole thing. Can we use the images on the same basis as other images, or not? If not, shouldn't they be deleted? -- Theramin (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is totally inappropriate to include so many images in such a short article nor does it reflect the uncertainity about the composition of the list; since I started it I've revised it several times and expect to do so again. The IWM website specifies the format in which they want the use of works in their collection to be acknowledged and it is a courtsey to do so.14GTR (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, thanks for giving your view. I don't agree, unfortunately:

This is an article about a collection of paintings, of which we have copies, so it surely make sense to show (some of) the paintings
I can't see the uncertainty that you mention about the composition of the list in the article: perhaps something more explicit should be added. But in any event, if the list changes, the images can be changed too.
While we might respect the IWM and their request for acknowledgement, and of course we should be as courteous as we can, either the images are free to use (so we can use them, with attribution as usual on the separate :File page) or they can't (in which case they should be deleted). Or we could try to meet their request by adding an appropriate caption, rather than just deleting the images from the article.

But I'm not going to die in a ditch about it, if you think this article really is best with no images at all. Perhaps a compromise might be to include one or two of the ones that definitely were included - Gassed, perhaps? I'll let you decide. -- Theramin (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.. and there is no need to show the set of images on this page either.14GTR (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up[edit]

I don't want to die in a ditch about it either, but I have to agree with Theramin. Unaware of this discussion, I also added gallery which has been reverted a few times now. I just don't see any merit in 14GTR's argument -- this is one article that really benefits from a gallery. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 08:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]