Talk:Cross of Sacrifice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Public Art (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Public Art, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of public art 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Locations[edit]

Someone arbitrarily deleted the list of locations of the monuments, without discussion. I posit that this portion of the entry is important. It is important to military cemetery researchers such as myself, who need to know where to find the cemeteries and the monuments in foreign countries. This is important information for any encyclopedia entry. I'm a member of Military history WikiProject and I'm taking it up with the group. Your thoughts? -- K72ndst (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If Cross' Of Sacrifice are recognized as only those located in Commonwealth War Graves cemeteries then the article should state that. Is Arlington a Commonwealth War Graves cemetery? There is a replica of the Cross Of Sacrifice located in Weymouth, Massachusetts.--24.34.24.166 (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Arlington does contain a CWGC cemetery.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Crosses of Sacrifice are NOT only recognized as located in CWGC cemeteries - as witness the one in Adelaide, South Australia. The plaque is official and the cross is located in a special memorial garden, but it is not a war grave location. The list of others should be restored. Ptilinopus (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide citation that the Adelaide cross is a CWGC cross? I searched and couple not find a citation that noted it as a CWGC Cross of Sacrifice. If it's not a memorial managed or installed by the CWGC it doesn't belong in the article. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
As to a citation that it is a CWGC cross, I do not have a direct reference, but I do refer you to http://www.scenicadelaide.com/2008/04/05/the-cross-of-sacrifice-part-of-the-womans-war-memorial/ for the plaque inscription, which includes the emblems of all four of Australia's armed forces... But as for your statement that it doesn't belong in this article if it is not managed or installed by the CWGC, on what arbitrary basis is that decision taken? And by whom? The article describes the Cross of Sacrifice and its origin and purpose; the cross I refer to fits that description and purpose - to honour those who died in the Great War. If this article is to exclude any Cross of Sacrifice that matches the description and purpose, and which is officially set up, but which is not traceable directly to the CWGC, then the article should be renamed "Cross of Sacrifice (CWGC)", with another more general article covering Crosses of Sacrifices generally to be created. As it is, this title is inclusive, and I would argue that arbitrary exclusion of other official Crosses of Sacrifice is not warranted. Ptilinopus (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to put forward a requested move however the content of this article is long standing an article about this being a CWGC element. I have no qualms about the content being inserted so long as it is cited, in a reliable source. If it can't be confirmed that it's a CWGC cross of sacrifice that should likely be noted.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Issues remaining after article upgrade[edit]

I was able to add a great deal of information about the development and design of the Cross of Sacrifice, and its implemention in Commonwealth cemeteries up to 1937. Where the article is weak is on World War II and post-WWII useage. It is unclear to me, in my reading, whether the implementation standards were altered in any way. That still needs addressing, perhaps. (Or at least verification that they did not change. The CWGC site is notoriously uninformative on this.) It would also be interesting to find out more about how they are manufactured (by whom, where, who is the stone sculptor, who is the bronze caster, who does assembly, etc.). It would be outstanding if someone could find preliminary designs for the cross in either the CWGC archives or Blomfield's papers, photograph them, and add them to WikiCommons. I doubt they would be under copyright any longer. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Great work! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! - Tim1965 (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed good updates. Could you install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js and check the red reference errors which appear? Some of them involve missing citations or incorrect dates for which the correction is not clear to someone without the sources. --Mirokado (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Excessive background?[edit]

The first three sections (titled: 1.1 The Imperial War Graves Commission; 1.2 Development of the war cemetery ideal; 1.3 Blomfield appointment) seem to me to go into too much detail for an article on the Cross of Sacrifice. Those sections read more like an early history of the IWGC, and the reader has to wait a long time to read about the Cross of Sacrifice. This 'early IWGC history' material absolutely should be incorporated into other articles (such as the main Commonwealth War Graves Commission article, though integrating the two sets of material will be difficult). I would normally just remove it, but as there is so much material, with excellent referencing, I'm starting a discussion here first. The material in question was added with this edit, so I'm pinging User:Tim1965 to see whether the material in those first three sections can be shortened and/or placed in other articles where it would be more relevant. I have a number of the books used, so can help out if needed. I'll ping User:Hchc2009 as well, as they commented above. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that most of the section titled "The Imperial War Graves Commission" can be moved to the main article Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Some of it needs to remain, to provide context and because names are later used elsewhere in the article. Although material in the section "Development of the war cemetery ideal" should be moved over to the main article "Commonwealth War Graves Commission", much of this section is written to be very specific to the development of the war graves as it pertains to the Cross of Sacrifice. It does not contain an overview of the development of the war graves ideal as a whole, a subject much broader than what I contributed to the "Cross of Sacrifice" article. Really, only the first and third paragraphs (as constituted on 11 January 2015) are generic; the rest contain information specific to the Cross of Sacrifice development story and not to the war cemetery development story. While the section "Blomfield appointment" is generic and should be moved over to the main article "Commonwealth War Graves Commission", I think it needs to remain here, too. Otherwise, the addition of Blomfield to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission lacks explanation. I realize there are issues of content forking here, which we should remain aware of. But it seems inappropriate to make readers abandon the Cross of Sacrifice article to gain information on the context in which the Cross of Sacrifice was developed from an in-depth Commonwealth War Graves Commission article. (I would be careful, too, about adding information to Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which is classified as GA. We don't want to disturb that rating if at all possible.) - Tim1965 (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that context is needed, but it is terribly easy to get carried away and write too much. I would say a section of a couple of paragraphs at most to set the scene, and then start into the Cross of Sacrifice proper. I helped in parts with the CWGC article, so could help integrate the other material over there - or maybe ask on the talk page over there or transfer it yourself? Two articles I was thinking of in particular in relation to setting the scene before talking about memorials were ones I started: Stone of Remembrance and Memorial tablets to the British Empire dead of the First World War. The Stone of Remembrance ones could do with more context, but I'd never dream of adding as much background as you did here. I would expect readers wanting more background to read the relevant articles. In the Memorial tablets article, I set the scene in the first two paragraphs. More than this really is excessive. If you look around the various memorial articles, I don't think you will find any that go into the level of background detail you have added here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
My sense is that most memorial articles are woefully under-developed in regard to context. Few refer to a main article at all. Some don't need much context (a memorial to a dead general or battle probably doens't need much), but other are developed out of a fairly complex milieu that needs discussion. I'm no expert on the CWGC; I contributed to the "Cross of Sacrifice" article simply because it was stubby and I was developing articles about memorials for Arlington National Cemetery. I would find it hard, myself, to integrate into the CWGC article, absent my general knowledge of that organization. (BTW, I tried to find a third dimension for the Stone of Remembrance and can't find it mentioned anywhere!) - Tim1965 (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
OK. Unless you make a start first, I'll see what changes I can make tomorrow or later in the week. I'll try not to make any major changes, and will check back here as well, but I do still think those introductory sections need tightening up and that the article overall will benefit from that. Carcharoth (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments[edit]

Notwithstanding my comments above, the material added that is directly about the design and history of the Cross of Sacrifice is really excellent. A couple of points:

  • (i) The Tyne Cot Cross of Sacrifice is said in one note to be part of a blockhouse, and in a picture caption to be part of a pillbox. Not sure if that is an inconsistency that needs correction, or just a slight variation in terminology.
I thought blockhouse and pillbox were the same, but I may be wrong. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems a pillbox is a type of blockhouse. Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (ii) The bit about the Lutyens cross is fascinating. Would a picture of that be available anywhere, and if so would it be suitable for this article? It could be used in another article and linked from here if not suited to be used directly here.
I never came across a free image of the Lutyens cross; I did some brief searching on Flickr and the web, but came up with nothing free-media. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I had read that bit by clicking on the note currently labelled 'g'. I hadn't realised that the reference for the Abinger bit was back up in the main article (currently reference 51, here - I will try and get a photo next time I am passing through that area). I presume the other Lutyens crosses are named in Lutyens and the Great War - I can check that and move the references down to the note itself, where they should really be. I have the Inglis/Brazier book, but don't have Hussey's Life of Lutyens. Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
One of the things I have a problem with is attaching references to footnotes. The only way I've seen it done is by putting the inline reference behind the footnote. The other way is by putting the reference inside the footnote, by hand – actually typing it out. That makes it far more clear, but doesn't permit a machine-readable footnote. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (iii) Ditto for the Halifax Memorial marker as being the largest Cross of Sacrifice. Would that be this one? (We should have an article on that memorial, but don't as yet). We do have images of that Cross of Sacrifice: image.
That's the Halifax Memorial cross on the CWGC site! Are those images free? (I don't know the copyright status of British government images.) - Tim1965 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I've assumed CWGC pictures are copyright to them (they aren't strictly speaking a government organisation as they are funded by several governments and founded by Imperial Charter - I've never been able to quite work out their status, which can be frustrating when discussing image issues on Commons). The Halifax Memorial image I found and added to the article seems to be OK. Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (iv) If you are aiming for a full list of all the UK Crosses of Sacrifice (the ones with the "one in design and intention" text), then you could add the one in Richmond Cemetery in London (see image 1; image 2). There is also one in Twickenham Cemetery (I have a photo of that which I have not yet uploaded). Not sure about Brompton Cemetery (where I also took some photos). Anyway, a full list would be quite some task.
I never aimed for a full list, just those which were notable. And by "notable", I limited myself to those for which I could find readily identifiable sourcing. Only a few met that criteria. If a Cross was already listed in the original article, I assumed it was notable and tried to source it. Some I could not, and I deleted those. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It is the list of 416 in the UK that I'd be interested in. All 1000 in France and Belgium by 1937 may be more difficult. As you said above, the (apparent) lack of official numbers on Crosses erected after WWII is frustrating. An answer may lie in the annual reports of the CWGC - I have at times considered going through those year by year in the CWGC archives or other copies (I think the British Library have copies of the reports as well) to answer some of the more obscure questions, but whether those reports are acceptable or not as a source isn't entirely clear. Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (v) This bit is interesting: 'The committee considered adding text to the base or steps of the cross, but rejected this idea'. There are some Crosses of Sacrifice that do have special text added. One example is the one at Thiepval Memorial#Anglo-French memorial, with the inscription as described there (there are photos on Commons of the inscriptions). There is another example of an addition made to a Cross of Sacrifice in the more recent Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Military Cemetery - the marker added (some sort of marble block?) can be seen here.
I think the committee considered adding text the way the Stone of Remembrance has text. That concept was rejected for the Cross of Sacrifice. That did not, however, prevent other bodies from adding text. My guess is that if someone had suggested adding text to Lutyens' Stone, he would have gone ballistic. (Did anyone ever suggest it? I don't know. It seems unlikely, as it already has text on it.) - Tim1965 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The blank base of the Cross of Sacrifice seems to have been a natural place to put text. I don't know which body added the text to the Thiepval Memorial's Cross of Sacrifice, but I suspect it was the IWGC itself, or the joint Anglo-French body dealing with aspects of that. It's not that important, I just thought that a note in the article that though there was no standard text used on all Crosses (the base was left blank), some Crosses did have text added individually. How rare that is, I have no idea. Most of the standard CWGC ones I've seen in cemeteries don't have text, though I may look more closely now! Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll add the Halifax Cross of Sacrifice image to the article if there is room. Possibly some of the other points above could be incorporated as well if discussed in sources. Carcharoth (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to be very thorough regarding the Cross of Sacrifice. I found and referenced nearly all the major sources. There may be some very old British architectural journals which covered the development of the war cemeteries and Cross of Sacrifice, but I did not find them via Google Books. I've also got no access to Imperial War Archives, which may contain reports on the Cross (and war cemeteries) that provide additional information. I've also been unable to track down Blomfield's autobiography in the U.S.; that may contain some information about the Cross' development not included in this article. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
If I find anything more, I'll add it, but what you have done is, as I said, excellent. I hope we can agree on the right balance to strike for the background details in the opening sections. Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there a way to ask for opinions from the Military History WikiProject? Almost like a pre-GA review? I love duets, but this should be a chorus. (ha ha) - Tim1965 (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
For informal views, you could drop a note on the WikiProject talk page asking people to look in on the discussion here. I'm still pondering what is best to do here. I re-read the CWGC page and there is a lot of duplication, though I do now see the Cross-specific elements you mentioned here. It is possible that I know too much about some of this to be able to summarise it properly, as I would assume too much knowledge from the reader just as someone else might assume too little. If it helps, maybe read through those three sections I highlighted and ask yourself whether a reader will be saying "fascinating, but what does this have to do with the Cross of Sacrifice"? A lot of what you have written there could be put with very little changes into the introduction of all CWGC memorial articles if you make this assumption that all readers of those articles need to be told in this level of detail about the establishment of the IWGC (as opposed to a single line along the lines of "the IWGC was established in 1917 during WWI and following the war built numerous cemeteries and memorials to commemorate the fallen. This memorial/cemetery..." etc.). The question is how much of that background to bring into this article. On the technical points, I put one of the references with its note, see here. See Template:Efn for more. Not sure what you were doing wrong, but that should work for the other notes. It would be best if you moved all those references to go with their notes, as you know where they should go. One point on sources, I don't think the geograph.org pages are reliable sources. Not sure where else you can source that information, though. The inscription can be sourced to one of the entries on the Imperial War Museum's war memorial database, such as this one. There is also this source (Canadian Corner by John Pateman), which is also mentioned here (the booklet has more details). Unveiled in Orpington in 1921. I can definitely get a photo of that! Though for now we have 1 and 2. In general, I would mention and reference the UK Crosses of Sacrifice that had newspaper reports about the unveiling ceremonies. If that gets too long, it could be split out to a list. Carcharoth (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible additions[edit]

I'm putting here a list of possible additions, based on some of the reading I've been doing based on searches of the CWGC site. Some of these tidbits of information may be better suited to a list article, or individual articles on the cemeteries where the Crosses of Sacrifice are located, but some may be suitable for use here as well.

There is undoubtedly more, but that is what I came up with on an initial search. I think describing a couple of the more major unveiling ceremonies (different locations and WWI and WWII) would help round the article out. The CWGC news items should be good to use as well (bringing in the topics of maintenance and vandalism). There may well be other British Pathe news clip of ceremonies centred on a Cross of Sacrifice as well. And I think something on some of the differences and exceptions would be good, though it is harder to reliably source that. Definitely the example of a change made for the Jewish cemetery could go with what is already in the article on changes made for Chinese and Indian graves, and for Turkey, Macedonia and Italy. How to put something in about how some Crosses of sacrifice have inscribed text and/or names I'm not sure - maybe just add pictures of examples of inscribed text, I should be able to take some photos of ones in the UK. Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Development of the war cemetery idea[edit]

Currently the article states:

"Prior to World War I, the British (as well as continental European) tradition was to bury officers who died on the battlefield in individual graves and common soldiers in mass graves"

I have recently been researching British use of the famous epitaph of Simonides at Thermopylae. It turns out that there are several examples from the First World War but they all seem to follow the lead of one that was as famous in its day as the Kohima Epitaph is today. It was one written by Edmund Garrett and can be found on monuments to the Imperial Light Horse (and some other graves) in South Africa dating from the Boer War. The two British military cemeteries that contain these monuments are near Ladysmith in South Africa. The Intombi Cemetery contemporary photo recent post war 21st century (28°35′44″S 29°49′20″E / 28.59559°S 29.82221°E / -28.59559; 29.82221) contains 600 graves and the much smaller Wagon Hill Cemetery (28°35′15″S 29°45′55″E / 28.587379°S 29.765325°E / -28.587379; 29.765325). They rather give the lie to the above statement.

These are just two of many British military cemeteries in South Africa. But this is not the first war to have British military cemeteries a quick look on Wikipedia turns up Haydarpaşa Cemetery which contains 6,000, Crimean War graves (1854–1856). While men were buried in mass graves not all of them were, and not all the pits were unmarked.

A goggle search turned up this article Imperial & Commonwealth War Graves and Cemeteries: Early Practice which includes

The Office of Works, a body set up to take care of Public Works projects and parks, was to take responsibility for the maintenance of the Crimean War graveyards. This was then extended to India in the aftermath of the Indian Mutiny when the British government took over responsibility of direct rule from the East India Company. There was actually an outsourcing arrangement where the British Indian government would pay the Office of Works for the work done within British India. It is interesting that the responsibility was for the upkeep of the graveyard as a whole and not for individual graves. There was therefore a continuance in the variety of graves found within these graveyards often based on rank and/or wealth. The Office of Works also did not have responsibility for recording or burying the dead - but merely tending what had already been established in whatever manner it had been laid out.

Also this one Remembering the Franco-Prussian War Dead: Setting Precedents for the First World War which states:

It took the Crimean War to trigger efforts by France, Russia, and Britain to provide permanent resting-places for their war dead. Seventeen large ossuaries were constructed by France to house the remains of its officers and soldiers in Sebastopol. For Germany, it was perhaps the Prussian Wars of Liberation that had the greatest effect upon relationships between soldiers, the army, and the nation. In consequence, it was not republican France but imperial Germany that pushed for a comprehensive project to bury every officer and soldier who had died in the Franco-Prussian War. Article 16 of the Treaty of Frankfurt of 1871 set the tone and established the framework for this new development, stating that, ‘The French and German governments reciprocally agree to respect and maintain the tombs of soldiers buried on their respective territories.’ Since most of the dead lay on French soil, the article can be interpreted as having been primarily motivated by concerns for the safety of German graves after the army withdrew from occupation. In other words, France owed the protection of its fallen soldiers to its wartime enemy.

It is simple history to state

"Prior to World War I, the British (as well as continental European) tradition was to bury officers who died on the battlefield in individual graves and common soldiers in mass graves"

As if it were some sort of revolutionary change that took place when in fact it was evolutionary. It is like so many things in history at first it seems clear. Ie someone goes to bed the night before the Battle of Bosworth in the middle ages and wakes up the day after the battle in the early modern age. Or that the Industrial revolution started some time in the 19th century (when in fact there were 20,000 smithies working within 10 miles of Dudley by 1620), these things tend to develop gradually and incrementally. So the Germans and the French by the 1870 were agreeing a peace treaty that included maintenance of military graveyards, and the British were when practicable burying their dead, including private soldiers,in marked graves by the Boer War, and making arrangements to look after them

A group called the Guild of Loyal Women took on the responsibility for looking after the upkeep of the graves. These well meaning women compiled registers and recorded locations to help loved ones locate their deceased family and friends. They also came up with the idea of providing simple iron crosses to mark them.( Early Practice )

You can see some of those crosses on in the Intombi Cemetery recent post war photo, and here is an account of how Guild of Loyal Women recorded the graves of two privates allowing an Australian family to visit the grave 100 years after the death.[1]

War memorial in New Zealand unlike Britain they tend to commemorate the dead of wars since the Boer War rather than from the First World War.[2][3]

-- PBS (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I remember reading about the Boer War memorials all the way back in 2009 when I wrote the introduction for List of Commonwealth War Graves Commission World War I memorials to the missing in Belgium and France. I actually need to redo the text over there completely. I will try and add some details here as well as I get round to that, if no-one else does first. The details of Crimean and Franco-Prussian war burials and memorials are new to me. One thing that I do think this illustrates is the need to have things like this securely written and sourced in the main articles: Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the history section of an article like War memorial. Having such background material redone different ways in different articles is one of the pitfalls of repetition across articles (i.e. when such repetition is inconsistent, it can cause problems). Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
It should be simple history in this article. In the main Commonwealth War Graves Commission article, or in a broader article about British war graves (is there one?), the full, gradual, and halting evolution of war grave treatment would be covered. But it's not. It's a common problem in Wikipedia. Contributors like to focus on narrow topics they can address, and don't want to spend years of their lives learning a broad history to write that more comprehensive article. I've often seen narrow articles which are have good depth and excellent citation, only to have a related article of broader coverage be pretty darn awful in terms of writing and citation. Furthermore, Wikipedia often seems to assume that an article of broad scope will be built up, only to get too big and have content shifted into sub-articles of narrower scope. It quite often doesn't happen that way, so the narrow articles end up better than the larger ones. (And, in consequence, simple statements about development of an issue remain simple.) Not sure what a good solution is. (The reverse can also be a problem: As the main article is updated, graded, and improved, these changes often do not filter down to the articles split off the main.) - Tim1965 (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cross of Sacrifice. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Non-Cross of Sacrifice images in the gallery[edit]

This article is about the Cross of Sacrifice (CoS). Although the text discusses how a CoS was not used in some cases, the focus is on the CoS itself. Subsequently, I argue that non-CoS images don't belong in the gallery. These alternatives, such as carved Latin crosses, are not a Cross of Sacrifice. They are not even a variation on a CoS. They are distinct art objects in and of themselves. Inclusion in the Gallery seems to imply that these alternative objects are variations on the CoS, and should be considered to be a Cross of Sacrifice. That is not supported by the citations or the text. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I included those images in the gallery specifically to illustrate the following text of the article: "In Turkey, no cross was erected in order to accommodate local Muslim feelings. Instead, a simple Latin cross was carved into a stone slab, which was placed at the rear of the cemetery. In Macedonia, a cairn was used in place of a cross to reflect the local custom." I've now put the images here, so they won't get forgotten or lost in the page history.
They are so difference in appearance, surely no-one would make the mistake of thinking they were a form of the Cross of Sacrifice, would they? Do you think it would be possible to include these images in some way, as including the images means that readers don't have to try and imagine what is being described? I've not yet managed to find an example from the mountain cemeteries in Italy of the "Latin cross made of rough square blocks of red or white stone". Carcharoth (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  1. Gallery images should be used primarily "if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images."
  2. Gallery images should add to the reader's understanding of the subject.
  3. Gallery images should be suitably captioned.
  4. The gallery should be appropriately titled.
  5. Point of contrast or comparison is appropriate.
  6. Gallery title should be descriptive, and images should reflect the description.
By these guidelines, the current Gallery shouldn't really exist. So I'm pulling a 180: Restore the deleted images to the gallery, retitle the gallery (if you can think of a good title), and update the captions to bring out the distinctions (rather than use the "example of" text, which doesn't help bring out these differences clearly).
If any existing images can be saved by recaptioning them so that they bring out aspects of the Cross of Sacrifice that cannot be brought out in the text, then let's save them. Otherwise, we probably should leave them in Commons. And maybe we should move the "Commons" tag up below the Gallery? If you want, I'll re-add the images and make the changes. - Tim1965 (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
My view on the gallery image policy is that it is outdated in a world rich in multi-media. Wikipedia is very behind the times in that it essentially limits itself to only as many images as will fit with the length of text. When done well, an image gallery enhances a page and improves the reading experience (as any well-illustrated article will). A gallery of repetitive use of similar images is clearly inappropriate, but too many editors instinctively push back against galleries because they have seen poorly done galleries and have not seen galleries that have been done properly. Readers are very unlikely to click through to Commons, and the idea of 'leaving images on Commons' is silly. If the images are illustrating something that is visually distinctive and adds to the article, why not present it to the reader? I'll say more in another comment, as I want to summarise the (not-yet-finished) image work I've been doing on Commons on images of Crosses of Sacrifice and also to look more closely at the images used in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the current gallery is fine under the policy. For a long article on a specific design, the article was very underweight in actually describing and illustrating that design, and I have added some basic features of the design that weren't mentioned (which I'll leave to you guys to reference). The description of the design is still too short; if you are going to write a pretty long article on a design for a class of artwork you have to take on describing it properly. Another gallery illustrating the variation that actual examples seem to show would also be justified, for example between sizes. I also think a couple of images of the non-CoS types, clearly captioned, should be restored. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Whether you or I think the Wikipedia guidelines on Gallery useage are outdated, Carcharoth, is kind of irrelevant. Those are the guidelines. I strongly encourage you to start a start a discussion of them on their Talk page, and get a change going. Until then, we should follow them. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely we need to consider the guidelines, but guidelines are only a guide. I have plans to add more text using the books and references I have, and I think that text will support the use of more images and even some images in galleries and paired images with a single caption (this is more complex, but is possible). I hope you will consider the result and see if you think it improves the article (I will also attempt to reference what Johnbod added about the design features). Carcharoth (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Johnbod, what you did is really original research, isn't it? - Tim1965 (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
That's why I asked for it to be referenced. But the features are very clearly there, in the hundreds of photos Carc has kindly assembled. No doubt the sources give more. The article was clearly unbalanced in the vast detail given to the history and usage, but a very cursory treatment of the actual form of the subject of the article. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Images on Commons[edit]

Summarising here the current state of the images available on Commons in relation to this article:

  • The category is at: commons:Category:Crosses of Sacrifice. As of August 2016, it contains 1,048 images, ranging from long-distance shots to sideways views to frontal standard photos to historical images to close-up details and so on. There are also eight sub-categories for individual Crosses of Sacrifice, containing a total of 62 images making the total 1,110 assuming there is no duplication. There are undoubtedly far more images available, as not all the images will have been tagged yet (I have been through all the CWGC cemetery photos except the ones in France, which is still 358 categories).
  • To make this collection of images more accessible (most are not well composed or of good quality, and in many the Cross is incidental to the point of the photo), and to allow arrangement and annotation of the images, I started a gallery page on Commons, which is at commons:Crosses of Sacrifice. This is the link currently used in this article to take people to Commons from the external links. The interwiki link in the sidebar takes people to the category (not sure if this can be changed?). I started that gallery page on Commons in January 2015 with an initial 40 images. I returned to this last month and as of 29 July 2016 (with much use of a cropping tool) had expanded the gallery to 260 images (all of different locations for the Cross of Sacrifice). Gathering together this many photos took many hours over most of July! The current version (3 August 2016) has some re-arrangement by country, with many more to be added for France.

What I still intend to do is add a section to the gallery over there for historical images and architectural details and so on. Sort of what I'd like to see here, but kind of testing things out over there and collecting images together for appraisal. Does that sound like the right way to do things and what else could be done with these images? I'll comment below about the images currently used in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Review of current images in article[edit]

Starting a section to review the current images in this article as of 3 August 2016:

  • Lead image: Ypres Reservoir Cemetery (generic Cross of Sacrifice image, Belgium, 2008, size not given)
  • Development and design of the cross: Fabian Ware in 1916 (this is a non-free image which I will remove), Frederic Kenyon, unknown date, and Reginald Blomfield in 1921. All used to show people involved in the design of the Cross.
  • About the Cross of Sacrifice: Eindhoven General Cemetery (generic Cross of Sacrifice image, the Netherlands, 2014, size not given); Halifax Memorial marker (Canada, 2007, used to illustrate "As of 2012, the largest Cross of Sacrifice in the world was..."); Tyne Cot Cemetery (Tyne Cot Cemetery, Belgium, 2010, used to illustrate the incorporation with a pillbox/blockhouse).
  • Assessment: La Belle Alliance Cemetery (Belgium, 2010, used incorrectly to illustrate "Cross of Sacrifice incorporated into a wall", as the wall and the entrance gap are in front of the Cross, not joined to it - this image needs replacing. Accurate examples of this 'wall incorporation' are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6).
  • Notable installations: Toowong Cemetery (Brisbane, Australia, 1924 - good use of an historical image and also used to show a Cross being constructed); Cathays Cemetery inscription (Cardiff, 2013 - used to show the inscription used in the UK); Canadian Cross of Sacrifice (Arlington National Cemetery, USA, 2011 - used to accompany text about this cross).
  • The gallery contains: 1 (Toowong Cemetery, unveiling, 1924), 2 (Canadian Cross of Sacrifice, wreath laying, 1937), 3 (Canadian Cross of Sacrifice, wreath laying, 1947), 4 (Hunters Cemetery, 2010, schoolchildren paying respect), 5 (Thiepval Anglo-French Cemetery, 2010, shows inscription used here), 6 (Yokohama War Cemetery, wreath laying on Anzac Day 2006).

I'll stop there for now and make a new post with ideas (including some I put on this talk page earlier) for what could and should be illustrated, and how best to do this. Carcharoth (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Image coverage[edit]

Suggested images (some will need associated text written to support them):

  • Example of a Cross erected after WWI (do we know which one came first?)
  • Example of a Cross erected after WWII (we are told the first ones: Great Bircham and Choain)
  • Examples of the different sizes
  • Close-up of the architectural features
  • Examples of inscriptions on Crosses
  • Examples of unveilings
  • Examples of historical images (from 1920s up to the present, including post-WWII and ones erected only in the last few years such as the Glasnevin one in Dublin)
  • Design plans for the Cross
  • Example of Cross construction
  • Examples of Crosses being used during commemoration events
  • Images of Crosses with a specific history (e.g. Canadian, Adelaide, Dublin, Gibraltar, and several more)
  • Examples from different countries to show diversity of locations (e.g. Belgium, France, UK, other European countries and non-European countries - maybe one from each continent?)
  • Example of a broken Cross (an image is here, but not very dramatic)
  • Examples of cemeteries with more than one Cross (e.g. Brookwood and Yokohama)
  • Examples of the different locations within cemeteries and in relation to memorials
  • Example of Cross of Sacrifice as a memorial (e.g. File:R.E. Grave, Railway Wood.JPG)
  • Example of Cross of Sacrifice on top of a memorial (e.g. File:Messines Ridge British Cem. 7.JPG)

That should be enough to be going on with. Some of these already in article, but need to be supported with associated text and references to justify inclusion. I can do that, though some images may still end up in a gallery that is appropriately titled with supporting references. Carcharoth (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll make some comments, since I did most of the research on the article.
  • I didn't come across anything that indicated which Cross was first erected after WWI. (I assume it would be a Cross in one of the "experimental" cemeteries mentioned in the text.)
  • We should consider which architectural features need close-ups. Clearly not everything.
  • Why historic images? They're all historic, aren't they? Or is there some definition of "historical" that I'm missing?
  • I looked and looked and looked for design plans for the Cross. I'm sure they are easily available in the Imperial War Archives, but I live in the USA. Someone in Britain needs to go to London and photograph these.
  • Crosses with a specific history needs a lot of research work. When upgrading this article, I tried to find information on some of these, but there was very little out there. Someone else may have more luck. The ones mentioned in the text were all the ones I could find.
  • (You have inscriptions listed twice.) removed, thanks

- Tim1965 (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

By historic images, I mean an attempt to get broad coverage from the 1920s to the present day. The vast majority of images are from the last 10 years or so. For me, historic images tend to be ones from archives, from old newspapers, black-and-white ones, ones from the interwar period, and ones depicting historic events (some of these will be modern, such as the Glasnevin Cross of Sacrifice). I live in London - I will try and get to a place that has the designs, either the British Library, RIBA or the CWGC (out in Maidenhead, which is not too far from London). I am puzzled by one thing here: you say "Clearly not everything". Why not? This is a simple design. It is easy (from the UK) to access and photograph examples of them. It is possible to crop high-resolution images. The difficulty is finding sources that actually talk about these features, but if those sources are found, then the photographs become legitimate. Carcharoth (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)