Talk:Memorial

Images of Shrines of Remembrance

Deepak gupta has denied me the basic right of having an image of the Shrine of Remembrance in Brisbane, Queensland, put on the Memorial page, and he has discourteously removed the image twice, with the comment, on his second removal of the image, that there was already the image of a Shrine of Remembrance from Australia on the page (the Shrine of Remembrance from Melbourne, Victoria, which is about 2000 miles in distance from Brisbane). He feels that only one memorial image from each region - presumably he means from each country - should be allowed on such a page. How do other Wikipedians feel about this? I feel that the images should not be limited by the region in which they were taken, but should represent a person's feelings about what the memorial represents. This is not a contest to see which countries can put the most images on a page. The images should be treated with respect, with everybody having an equal right to pay tribute, with their images being allowed to remain on the page, irrespective of which region (or country) the images were taken in. Deepak gupta is obviously of the opinion that only particular Wikipedians should have this privilege, as he has personally 'chosen' which Australian Shrine of Remembrance he allowed to remain, and which Shrine of Remembrance he disposed of. Wikipedia is supposed to be a 'free' encyclopedia, with Wikipedians being able to contribute appropriate images to the articles they wish to, provided the images were in keeping with Wikipedian policy, and with respect to the images being used appropriately. Deepak gupta is obviously of the opinion that this is not the case and that he is the sole judge of what should, or should not, be allowed, by other Wikipedians. Figaro 11:42 23 October, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize for removing the image for the second time. I should have used the talkpage and discussed the matter before making that edit. All I felt was that there should be a more global representation of memorials around the world. I dont find it very encyclopedic to have two memorials from the same country. Regarding the issue of feelings, there are plently of memorials around the globe and we cant include all of them just because people have emotional feelings attached to it. Again, thats my opinion but if you do feel that the image should be there in the article, then go ahead! I would like to express my apologies for not using the talkpage again. Cheers --Deepak|वार्ता 19:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Memorials

Having checked the disambiguation page, there doesn't seem to be more than a brief mention on Wikipedia of the alternative meaning of the word "memorial", viz. a document of petition submitted to certain governmental bodies, e.g. the English College of Arms. I realise this is fairly trivial; however, it seems to me that it's important to make sure every meaning of a word is covered in detail, and it would be useful to tell users about the correct legal wording of a "memorial" petition document. Walton monarchist89 10:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Maybe I'm being fussy but it seems to me there are too many pictures on this page. I realise it's difficult to decide which memorials ought to be pictured and which shouldn't, but wouldn't it be better to put pictures of specific war memorials under other articles, e.g. on the page for the town or locality where the memorial is. Walton monarchist89 10:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say to leave one picture, one that gives the page a good look. --F e tofs ^Hello! 12:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi.... i'm from brazil.......... i think you must put to traduze the text........ thanks.....

How does "List of composers influenced by the Holocaust" relate to the word "Memorial"?

I don't see the immediate connection or relevance. Memorial, as used here, is a generic or general term, and apparently has nothing to do with any particular death or loss, including the holocaust, even as tragic as that was. This seems obvious. 71.146.80.170 (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]