Talk:List of artworks in the collection of the Royal Society of Chemistry

Lists List‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

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

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry 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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sculpture cat[edit]

I readded cat. sculpture.This collection holds sculpture in the form of busts. Not sure why the cat was removed.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Removing inaccurate content, fix the formatting, removing location information etc[edit]

Hi - I would like to reformat the page so that it doesn't look as awful as it does right now. I'd also like to remove information that I know to be inaccurate. I'd also like to remove information detailing precise locations of various objects as I don't believe these to be of any legitimate interest to anyone. Do I need to detail each and every revision here before gaining permission from someone to do so? Davidbtn2 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbtn2: thank you for raising your concerns here. We base content on sourcing, so sourced content usually isn't removed simply on an editor's assertion. I hope you can understand that in a context where any pseudonymous editor can claim to have particular knowledge, we are very wary of accepting anybody's word at face value. That is frustrating for genuine experts, but is a crucial safeguard for the encyclopedia.

It's not a question of permission; it's about gaining consensus among interested editors to make large changes. I'm certain that nobody is going to complain about improving spelling, grammar and flow. Please go ahead and do those, but please note that our convention is to use an endash, not a hyphen or a solidus in date ranges.

What is going to be controversial is removing some or all of the information contained in the article. It would really help the discussion if you made a list of the content removals you want to see and the justification for them. Is this something like what you want?

Remove location for each image
Remove The location within the building for each piece of art
Completely remove the information about some of the pieces of art

Does this edit represent the sum of the changes you want? That's 6,779 bytes removed, which is a lot. I think you'll need to make the case for those removals. Perhaps we can invite Andy and John who know the Royal Societies to comment on your proposals? --RexxS (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RexxS, for the ping. I have no doubt David contributes in good faith. In the edit you cite, I have no problem with the majority of the stylistic changes, nor with the removal of room and corridor locations. I do think the following are problematic: Removal of "Burlington House" from the lede; removal of dimensions; removal of entire artworks. If any of the latter are no longer on display, or no longer in the possession of the society, they can be moved to separate section at the foot of the article. If David can identify content that is inaccurate, he is best placed to correct it, rather than remove it, and to find supporting sources to cite, and I woudl encourage him to kindly do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've only set foot in the place once (you were there too, RexxX), so I'll sit this out, thanks. The article is mainly by Andy & "User:Eowyn041084, My name is Laura. I live in London. I work as library assistant at the Royal Society of Chemistry", back in 2015. Johnbod (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a chance to reflect on this and think that given the parameters of what is permitted, I would just like to remove the precise location information as has been mentioned (e.g. x item is on the ground floor to the left etc.) some of which is incorrect anyway as a few items have been moved. This would help with the security concerns I have. I've realised that I've been looking at this page with the eyes of someone with expert knowledge of the collection and not as a lay person. In its current state (poor formatting, with some incorrect / irrelevant information and the odd subjective statement), it's not a page that most people would find legitimately useful and in a weird way, spending more time properly improving it could be counterproductive. Please let me know if I may make those changes. Thank you. Davidbtn2 (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Should I just bite the bullet and make those location amends as discussed and then you can review whenever you wish? Davidbtn2 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davidbtn2 this isn't a matter of permission; Wikipedia doesn't work like that. You just need to get other interested editors to agree with what you're doing, otherwise you often get your work reverted.

The case for removing precise locations is that the RSC wing of Burlington House isn't open to the public, so the casual reader doesn't need that much detail. There is a concern that giving location detail does little more than assisting potential theft. So the article wouldn't be any worse off if the locations were removed, but the RSC would benefit.

If I've summarised that correctly, then my recommendation is to go ahead and remove the location information. If you do just that in one edit, then folks can judge it on its merits. Later on, if you want to edit the grammar, etc. do that in one edit. If you want to make other changes, do it in stages, addressing one issue at a time, please.

I hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand, thank you. I’ve finished editing now. Davidbtn2 (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]