User talk:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:47, 14 June 2007

Welcome...

Hello, Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Xiner (talk, email) 18:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Xiner (talk, email) 18:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Liszt's article

Just wanted to say thanks for your edits to the Liszt article. Stating that he was Hungarian but of German descent I think reflects a nice compromise, and is probably the most accurate way of putting it. I'm not sure personally whether it's necessary to mention the descent or not, but given the debate surrounding it it's probably for the best. Thanks again. M A Mason 13:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British/Irish Hugenot category

Hello Gustav, I have left a message on the Huguenot talk page in response to your post about creating a category for people of British and Irish Huguenot descent. I havent yet created a category and will attempt to if you don't. Natalie West 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Beckett

Thanks for reducing the picture size on the Samuel Beckett article. Exiledone 14:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who have renounced Judaism

I was surprised that you voted "Keep per Runcorn"[1]. I did not vote to keep and would never have done so. I made two comments, both of them tending towards delete but did not feel strongly enough to vote.--Runcorn 19:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have created "Category:Jewish converts to Christianity" as an attempt to do an end-run around the deleted Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_19#Category:People_who_have_renounced_Judaism. Not only does this go against the spirit of the deletion, but the category you created was also deleted: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_8#Category:Jews_who_converted_to_Christianity Please do not attempt again to re-create these deleted categories. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Hirschell

Thanks for your message. Hirschell's father is always referred to as Hart Lyon in Britain, so far as I know. Both of these articles are on my list to expand. I shall restore the note about variant spellings of Hirschell's surname.--Brownlee 21:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to use the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as the most recent and authoritative source; that calls him Hart Lyon.--Brownlee 11:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music publishing

I have made a start by renaming the article 'Music publisher' as Music publisher (popular music)' and creating a dismabig in Music publisher. there really needs to be a 'Music publisher (sheet music)' article and I will create this as a stub. Once tge articles are set up we can start work on the categories. Best regards --Smerus 07:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As my move has prompted an objection, you might care to visit Talk:Music publisher (popular music) and cast a vote (hopefully against moving back) for the reasons I have given.--Smerus 15:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge categories, as you suggest, is here. Please vote if you agree. --Smerus 07:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scan of article

"If a scan of the Jewish Chronicle article in question" - yes, please scan it and send it to me at booksnmore4you AT gmail.com and I will take a look. C.m.jones 20:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish_mathematicians deletion review

I have changed my stance to Weak Undelete, but I do not feel it is entirely substantiated. The arguments presented are well founded. At least, I feel that the discussion possibly does not belong here, but rather possibly in WP:RFC for further debate, and ideas. I must agree the Jewish people are in a rather interesting position. Just my thoughts. --Martian.knight 00:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB: this is up yet again (May 14th)--Smerus 19:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marylebone

Hi ya. I didn't know there was such a thing as a London Borough of Marylebone. While I appreciate that you might be creating this category in complete good faith, it is somewhat unusual when the other London categories are related to some physical characteristic of the object under discussion, or the physical borough. I for one would be interested in hearing some kind of justication. Cheers. Kbthompson 23:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pinto

Don't know about Mori - I suppose it must have been George, but thank you for making me look again at the Pinto article which needed some tidying up. Cheers ---Smerus 17:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neither Pinto nor Salomon were Jewish.--Smerus 19:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not the slightest evidence that any of their ancestors were Jewish either.--Smerus 19:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Clearly someone had a Sunday afternoon with not much to do. I have reverted Brahms and Mendelssohn - I guess the others will be looked after appropriately by their 'keepers' - best regards --Smerus 21:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G., I will leave the other pages - I have only one lifetime (if that)! You are welcome to deal with them yourself of course.--Smerus 08:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opera houses in Poland

Sorry, but don't read Polish....Viva-Verdi 18:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comas

I don't know. I'm not native speaker of any (British, American, Australian) English so I won't argue. Just don't forget to fix all links. Radomil talk 19:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of opera houses

See the header to the whole article. I did not write it, but it lays out the purpose of the "list".

Anything else is pointless, so it has been reverted. Viva-Verdi 00:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You now have 2 editors who do NOT support your position of:

(i) Adding a performance venue which long-ago stopped presenting operas. The intro note says that "Opera Houses" not presenting opera ARE NOT INCLUDED. (The Khedive is something of an exception in that it burnt down, but it might just as well be merged into the present Cairo Opera House article with a reference link)

(ii) Adding additional info to an entry when all it is is a LIST.

Viva-Verdi 02:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out old votes

I struck out your old vote for you as is generally theway this is done on Wikipedia to show a changed vote. However, someone appears not to like me doing so [2], you may wish to revert them. Giano 17:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

with Palme?

Various officers of the Royal Air Force (and I imagine other British officers) were awarded this award "with Palme" - does anyone know what that signified? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a palm degree concerns an acknowledgement for people who has been cited at the army level, and is in fact the french higher acknowledgement level for a croix de guerre... the other degrees are much more lower :

a bronze star for those who had been cited at the regiment or brigade level.
a silver star, for those who had been cited at the division level.
a silver gilt star for those who had been cited at the corps level.

Sincerily user:Paris75000 11:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Yep you're right : in France, a palm is the higher acknowledgement for the Croix de guerre (it's mainly for heroic and single acts on the warzone) while in Belgium, their palm fot the croix de guerre meant it was awarded to a military person for action during wartime. This difference seems to be noted somewhere to draw correctly the line.

Sincerily user:Paris75000 12:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New category

I've noticed that you are interested in the "people by former religion" topic ---> Category:Jews who have renounced Judaism. So, if you'd like to tag some articles with this category go right ahead. --Wassermann 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bother. As User:Wassermann well knows, it is a recreation of a deleted category: see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_19#Category:People_who_have_renounced_Judaism. It has been speedy deleted, per WP:CSD G4. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:9th duke of marlborough.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:9th duke of marlborough.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Arbuthnot

I did belatedly try to answer your question, but I didn't get there until about 10 mintues after the debate was closed. You can still find it in the apge history if you're really interested. David Underdown 12:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bassano

Don't know this article but I'll look it up next time I'm in UCL library --Smerus 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ramsay Arbuthnot

I'll stay (weakly) with delete for the moment as per my original rems; I'm still not convinced. FRGS in my opinion is noteworthy rather than notable, and I don't see anything in the military career to raise him above the usual - Aide-de-Camp by that stage was a meaningless post, given that the monarch hadn't fought in battle since 1692 (I suspect Vintagekits may be able to expand further on that little incident), and (as far as I'm aware) the Arctic Medal was a service medal rather than a gallantry/achievement award (I'm willing to be corrected on that). I do think we have to be careful not to go overboard deleting Arbuthnots, especially when Kittybrewster's blocked and unable to defend them; however, I also think we shouldn't go too far in being seen-to-be-seen fair to them. If you or I had written this article it would be unlikely to survive an AfD in its present state; I don't feel we should give benefit of the doubt purely because it's an Arbuthnot.

I've replied here rather than on the AfD itself, as I don't think it really adds to the discussion and I don't want to fan flames. Kittybrewster is certainly right about one thing; these AfDs are becoming unpleasant, and have a tendency to degenerate into slanging matches between the {{irc}} and the Kittens, which get closed on the basis of which faction has annoyed the closing admin the least. I'm also uncomfortable with these articles being nominated when KB isn't around to defend them - while I don't think most of them are defensible, I do think he deserves a chance to expand them while they're under discussion — iridescenti (talk to me!) 01:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Ramsay Arbuthnot

Thanks for the notice; I'll still stick with keep. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sims Reeves

Dear G von H, I note your edits to John Sims Reeves. Only one query, why insist upon the information given by any Dictionary when the person states the date of his own birth? Surely he must be the first authority? As to order of listing, I have always listed my sources alphabetically - is this against WP policy? I didn't know the 1924 source and am v interested to see it! Cheers, Dr Steven Plunkett 18:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Adams external links

Hi, I removed the links because they fall under category 1 of WP:EL (external links guideline) under "Links normally to be avoided": Links that provide information which we would try to include if this article were to be a featured article. That is to say, the article should be improved by incorporating the information in these pages rather than linking to them. Since the links go to pages which are designed to promote Adams they are especially on shaky ground. The link to the Arts Medal for instance can be replaced by a line in the article and a link to an independent source such as [3] which fits with the WP policy to let independent sources decide what is important. Best -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of England

Sehr geehrter Dr Humpelshmumpel! I think you are raving about something that has arisen unintentionally. According to the history, User:Angelstorm back in March found the present article (or its predecessor) under 'Music of England' and realised that this was nonsense, so moved the article to its present Folk-music title. The result of this is that the 'English music' and 'Music of England' titles have been left hanging as redirects to this article. The solution to this is for someone to take over the whole classification of 'English Music' articles and start writing them (see some suggestions I have made on that discussion page). It is not that 'English music' has been mischievously redirected and hijacked by the folk crowd, pigtails and all, but quite the opposite - the article titles you are interested in have got 'rolled up' in a sort of oubliette of discarded titles for the article which developed into the present folksy one. It is up to interested editors to rescue those titles and define their meaning anew for the great and fully English story in Wikipedia. Over to you?! Dr Steven Plunkett 10:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked further I begin to see your complaint - you should indeed require that 'English' music be permitted to define the classical English idiom. I'll add a comment in support to that discussion page. Sorry. Dr Steven Plunkett 11:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gustav. Please feel free to drop me a message if you have any constructive criticism regarding the move I made. I am always happy to hear from other users regarding my edits. Please just ensure that such criticism *is* constructive :) Rgds .. Angelstorm 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of the UK

You may be interested in (and I hope may wish to participate in) Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom - do please take a look. --Smerus 07:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gustli, The article on Classical Music in the United Kingdom is just as woful as the other one, in a different way. Well done for your efforts so far. I haven't started to add to project yet but feel I soon shall, just at present up to my knees in Harry Plunket Greene. Possibly I may attempt to rewrite/improve sections of the article mentioned above in the hope that it may generate useful concepts for subsidiary article titles or areas. At present it is scrappy to say the least. However I must also have a life. (Why? I hear a strangled cry), yrs Dr Steven Plunkett 16:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandrake of Oxford

You supported the proposal to delete but the proposed deletion discussion was removed because the person who made the nomination was an alleged sockpuppet and has since been banned.

The original reason for the nomination was valid as the article clearly does not meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. On that basis alone I would ask you to resurrect the Articles For Discussion process so that the integrity of Wikipedia Content is protected.

As a member of good-standing you are able to reopen the discussion.

All I ask is that you act in the best interest of Wikipedia and judge the Mandrake of Oxford article SOLELY on its merits. thanks--86.147.169.220 17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbuthnots

Isn't this amazing the family themselves [4] have only recognized thirteen member as being "famous" [5] yet we have to have here some 60 odd; I am tempted to email "The Hon Historian, of the Arbuthnott Family Association - "who will welcome corrections, additions and constructive suggestions" and see if s/he has a clue what is going on here. I also note the Arbuthnott site clearly states [6] that "The site (Kittybrewster's) is not subject to the control of the Association and the Association specifically disassociates itself from the site". Giano 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There it is in black and white- a list of Famous Arbuthnots! I think we can reasonably use this as a guide for Wikipedia as it is from such a prestigious source which clearly has in depth knowledge of their subject. But wait! KittyBrewster has made a larger list (what a surprise!)- including "Convicted Criminals (non-petty)"! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Sarkozy's photo

Please do not upload this unfree photo. We have many free photos of Sarkozy. David.Monniaux 22:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not upload any picture of Sarkozy? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, sorry, mistook you for a guy that insists on uploading his official photo (done by a professional private press photographer). David.Monniaux 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Baronets

I have replied in in my talk space - Tiswas^(t) 16:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.A.

Followed up on my talk page. DGG 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Marischal

Further to your edits- I lived in Keith Marischal House for 15 years. It is a mongrel building, with earliest parts dating from the 15thc., and extended by the 6th and 7th Earls Marischal. However the final stage of building there was carried out by Mr. Skene Tytler in the mid to late 19th c. by Peddie and Kinnear of Edinburgh with craw step gables, faux turrets ie baronialised in the Scottish style. Admittedly plain in comparison with certain other buildings revamped at this time, such as Duns Castle, the SB motifs are certainly there. Regards Brendandh 19:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The house was bought in the 50's by my step-grandfather at a knockdown price, the farmer was going to take the roof off, as property was taxed then on the size of the footprint of the building, a roofless building didn't count! He bought the House and its immediate policy (approx 10 acres). When I lived there, it was in the oldest part the tower dating from 15thc., and following a leak in the roof and resultant cave-in of the ceiling in my bedroom, found contemporary panelling behind the plaster. The trusses and rafters in the attic are reputed to be that timber that was given to the 5th Earl by the King of Denmark for his part in James VI's nuptials. With these construction materials he turned the tower of Keith into a dwelling around a courtyard. If you look at the KM page the first photo [Image:Keith front.jpg] (taken by me), shows the wings on either side with low windows to the inside of each wing. All the construction in between is 19th c. Above the left hand door on the second floor you can make out the curved tower of the original turnpike staircase for the tower, much obscured now, the 19th century faux turrets are hidden behind the trees. Unfortunately the earliest photographs of the house were made following the renovations in the 1880s, but there are saine records held I think in the Register house in Edinburgh relating to the aspect of the house on its sale to the Skene Tytlers in the 1870/80s. Hope that's useful. Brendandh 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Ps my mother has done a huge amount of research upon the house, and its occupants with a view to writing a book about it at some point. I might use some of that to ad to your article if that's ok? Cheers[reply]

Apologia

Jaysus, I must have been close to nightnight when I wrote that! I think I've fixed it tho' Slan Brendandh 00:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bassano/Laniers and Jewish Origins

I have added a discussion of Jeronimo Bassano's Jewish origins to his page. You are right that Dr. Ruffatti has written against the idea that the English musician Bassanos were Jews. However, Prof. David Lasocki's book contains a chapter that comes to the exact opposite conclusion (Ch. 6). I decided to say that there is disagreement on the issue, and provided a Bassano descendant's views on why it doesn't make sense that the Bassanos would move to London at that time as practicing Catholics. For goodness sake, anyone who knows about Henry VIII knows the problems with this. --139.80.18.108 00:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruffati may have a stronger case. I would like to see the documents he references (I read Italian). Nonetheless, just because you personally want to believe he has a stronger case does not mean there is no difference of views. In order to keep the article NPOV, you have to present the views of both sides. David Lasocki has an alternative point of view. Next time I am in Italy visiting family, I'll head over to Bassano del Grappa and have a look at these famous "alcuni documenti" and see if they are as definitive as you think they are. In the meanwhile, I'll see if I can get hold of Ruffati's article and find out exactly which documents he cites and why. --139.80.18.108 22:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reverting my edits and engaging in extremely inhospitable and POV behavior, Gustav. I have asked others to review your edits on Jeronimo Bassano and Lanier family tree. Since you are abusing your power as an editor, I am going to stop making any edits, since you will obviously erase whatever I write. No sense wasting my time. I hope the complaint gets through to you what I have been trying to point out all day.--139.80.18.108 02:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broadwater Farm

(Crossposted to assorted "people I've run into and whose opinions I respect")

I realise it's totally outside your field, but if you get the chance could you take a look at the article on Broadwater Farm I've recently created? I do think it deserves it's own article - yes, it might be most famous for events that happened 22 years ago, but having it as a redirect to Broadwater Farm riot seems to me as ludicrous as redirecting Germany to World War II or Northern Ireland to IRA. However, now I've set up incoming links it's likely to be a beacon for POV-pushing, so I'd like to get opinions on (a) what a NPOV will be on something like this where the two POVs are likely to be diametric opposites, (b) whether you think it can/will ever be stable (and whether it's worth trying to keep stable) and (c) how much of a focus ought to be on the riots as opposed to the place itself. If any of you feel the urge I'd also appreciate anyone who feels able/willing putting it on their watchlists, as I suspect it's going to be heavily vandalised & spammed — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peerage

To be clear, I'm not accusing *you* of having some sort of ideological vendetta against the peerage; your contributions speak pretty clearly otherwise. But I think you're being a bit naive about 1) the success of summary style and 2) the value of challenges to notability. I thought the summary style was a good solution for baronets because most of them are individually non-notable, and it seemed like a good compromise between the "keep" and "delete them all" factions. That said, when even as dilligent a contributor as Giano can't be bothered to summarize individual articles before redirecting them ([7] [8] [9]), it doesn't look like much of a compromise from the "keep" side, does it? I don't see any reason why this would be different for barons, viscounts, etc. if your test case is successful. Moving on to notability, in an ideal world, yes, it would be best if all questionable articles were politely queried for notability, their authors brought forth evidence and sources and improved the article, and so on. In practice, there are certainly people out there who view challenges based on WP:N as an opportunity to delete as many articles on peers as they can — you shouldn't have to look very hard in the current AfD to find some of them. And given a little wikilawyering over the definition of "reliable source", there are a lot of potentially challengeable articles. Having a blanket rule to protect peers, MPs, etc. may protect non-notable individuals, but it also prevents people from using this strategy to remove articles because the author was swamped while responding to twenty AfDs at once. Strictly as a matter of opinion, I feel that the proportion of notable individuals among the peerage is high enough to make it worth protecting with such a rule, as opposed to the baronetage, where it is much lower. Choess 14:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you don't mind me adding my tuppence. The notion of umbrella protection for any category of articles is against the spirit, if not the letter of Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Articles must be judged on their own merit, and not on the merit of related work. If anything, such umbrella protection would only work within the confines of a list. That's not to say that it would not be prudent to discuss the inherent notablity of minor and major nobles, of which the current discussions are no doubt a precursor. We would then have a benchmark that articles would have to reach (c.f elected officials versus also-rans, at various levels of government, as a corollary). It should also be noted that deletion is not permanent, and editors may always revisit articles to bolster the case for inclusion. - Tiswas^(t) 14:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Kitty Kanvassing!

This messege here is canvassing per WP:CANVAS because the messege is notneutral since he shows his view that "it is notable". Now this guy has had many warnings for canvassing but now that be blanks his page no admin can see the previous warnings. Now I for one think that if an editor chooses to blank/hide his history then they should already be treated with suspicion and especially if they have already recieved warnings. What course of action should/can be taken!?--Vintagekits 16:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anyone can see the previous warnings, admin or not--they do not get removed from the page history. Most admins check this & if you think one isn't, just remind him--but don't embarrass him too much because we are always supposed to do that as a matter of course--kb is not the first person to try that little trick. DGG 09:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir William Arbuthnot, 1st Baronet

Please would you offer your view on his talk page as to whether he was a PC. - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North American Opera Co. List

I thought it might be nice to sepperate by country since my master plan is to have a global list seperated by continent and then country eventually. But we don't have to and I may be a little too ambitous. lolNrswanson 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on that. I would be more likely to do divisional sub categories in those cases. Like Eastern European and Western European. I lumped all of Central America and the Caribean together for North American Companies. Also, what criteria are we using for the companies? I thought the original intent of this list was to be more inclusive of good proffessional regional companies that produced a smaller amount of operas (say at least 3) per year. Otherwise the list is simply like the other one. I'm not sure "full-time" is a good word.

Well i think professional is the key word. As in the performers are PAID working professionals in the field and people pay for tickets. I wasn't thinking of including amateur community groups and things like that. I was hoping to include companies like Tulsa Opera and Philadelphia Opera that have smaller seasons but still put on high calliber productions that are often just as good as those produced in New York, Chicago, Houston, etc.Nrswanson 16:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image size in articles

Hi Gustav - WP:IUP is a policy with the suggestion that images are to be thumbnailed. This actually provides each editor (and logged in reader) to set their own preference as to the displayed image size, which, by default, is 180px. Obviously, there are exceptions, such as when an image needs to be a certain size to illustrate a claim in the main article space - I do not, however, see this to be an issue in the London Bridge article - Tiswas^(t) 12:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an issue for the village pump, or WP:IUP talk page, and not one to be proven or disproven in the article itself - Tiswas^(t) 12:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to exploit my innate talent for pedantry, WP:IUP is {{policy}}. Just because it is ignored or applied differently elsewhere, does not subtract (nor add) from its domain in the London Bridge article. There is, as you mention, an element of discretion available to editors, and is detailed in the manual of style - specifically:

*Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:
On images with extreme aspect ratios

When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts

When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region

On a lead image that captures the essence of the article.

Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult.

In respect to the article in question, I do not believe that any of these exceptions apply (c.f. the Blenheim Palace article, which is a panoramic view) - Tiswas^(t) 12:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the quote is from a discretionary guideline derived from policy. Thatr doesn't mean that we simply ignore it. The lead image should most probably be set at a larger than default width, as per established guidelines (notwithstanding the fact that thumbnails become messed up within infoboxes) - The other images should be thumbed, in accordance with these guidelines. - Tiswas^(t) 13:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong - I'm inclined to agree with you, in principle, in that landscape images may be better served with a larger default pixel width. There are other considerations, however. Using the thumb default means that each user sets their preference, making potentially contentious images sizing moot - you or I, or any other editor may want to force the images in the article to a certain width, in order to satisfy our own aesthetic viewpoint, which may, or may not, be commensurable to other editors'. The guidelines are there to guide, and, despite not being as binding as policy, are a measure of established consensus. If we do ignore any rules, we need to make a case for ignoring them (although I do not mean to imply that you are not already doing so), and see that the rules are updated accordingly. - Tiswas^(t) 13:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 13:29, 14 June 2007 edit Princess Tiswas (talk \| contribs) 3,237 edits reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:47, 14 June 2007 edit undo Princess Tiswas (talk \| contribs) 3,237 edits reply Next edit →
Line 234:		Line 234:

	:::: Yes - the quote is from a discretionary guideline derived from policy. Thatr doesn't mean that we simply [[WP:IAR\|ignore it]]. The lead image should most probably be set at a larger than default width, as per established guidelines (notwithstanding the fact that thumbnails become messed up within infoboxes) - The other images should be thumbed, in accordance with these guidelines. - [[User:Princess Tiswas\|<span style="color:#006400">Tiswas</span>]]<sup><span style="color:#FF0000">([[User talk:Princess Tiswas\|t]])</span></sup> 13:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)		:::: Yes - the quote is from a discretionary guideline derived from policy. Thatr doesn't mean that we simply [[WP:IAR\|ignore it]]. The lead image should most probably be set at a larger than default width, as per established guidelines (notwithstanding the fact that thumbnails become messed up within infoboxes) - The other images should be thumbed, in accordance with these guidelines. - [[User:Princess Tiswas\|<span style="color:#006400">Tiswas</span>]]<sup><span style="color:#FF0000">([[User talk:Princess Tiswas\|t]])</span></sup> 13:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

			::::: Don't get me wrong - I'm inclined to agree with you, in principle, in that landscape images may be better served with a larger default pixel width. There are other considerations, however. Using the thumb default means that each user sets their preference, making potentially contentious images sizing moot - you or I, or any other editor may want to force the images in the article to a certain width, in order to satisfy our own aesthetic viewpoint, which may, or may not, be commensurable to other editors'. The guidelines are there to guide, and, despite not being as binding as policy, are a measure of established consensus. If we do ignore any rules, we need to make a case for ignoring them (although I do not mean to imply that you are not already doing so), and see that the rules are updated accordingly. - [[User:Princess Tiswas\|<span style="color:#006400">Tiswas</span>]]<sup><span style="color:#FF0000">([[User talk:Princess Tiswas\|t]])</span></sup> 13:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)