Talk:Paul Nash (artist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Fair use rationale for Image:Neworld.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Neworld.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

IWM ref number in image captions[edit]

User:14GTR has kindly explained that there is a requirement to show the Imperial War Museum article reference number as part of the caption for any image copied from their collections, e.g. "(Art. IWM ART 1154)" etc. If this is a pre-requesite for use, it seems reasonable and easy for an editor to apply. But I'd argue that it's less than clear to the average reader what these numbers mean. Since a full explanation, hidden somewhere in the article, might be rather cumbersome, would it possible instead, as a compromise, to embed an internal link to Imperial War Museum into these reference numbers? I believe that most readers would expect to see the location of the artwork somewhere in the caption. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear from WP:CREDITS that the reference number belongs on the image description page, not in the caption in the article. If there's a desire to change that consensus it should probably be raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions rather than here. I see that a somewhat related RfC has run out of steam there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks for the info. A quick check on the articles for other war artists suggests that this convention has been applied across all IWM images. Not sure what is now the best thing to suggest. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, please don't take me as any kind of oracle, that's just how I see it. It may be that some consensus on this has already been reached elsewhere between 14GTR and other editors? Personally, I find those numbers intrusive and unnecessary. As I understand it, Wikipedia is governed by American copyright law, so the owner, creator and publisher of a scan or photo of a two-dimensional public domain image have no rights in it whatsoever, as they have made no creative contribution to it. A museum in Britain (where the law is different) can request that the numbers be displayed, but can in my view neither demand nor enforce conformance. If it comes down to choosing between a courtesy to the museum and courtesy to our readers, my choice would be for the latter. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Still awaiting input from "interested parties". Don't seem to have made much progress with this yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
So, unless there are any objections, I propose to remove the IWM reference numbers. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of any convincing argument for retaining them, I fully agree that they should be removed - not just here, but anywhere they have crept in. The War Museum isn't even the copyright holder (the Crown is). A note to say where the pictures now are, on the other hand, would perhaps give a nod to the museum and provide useful information to our readers with one stone. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
So, I went ahead and did that. However, I find the repeated acknowledgement of where the paintings are to be excessive. How could it be made less so? The advantage of all this is that it makes you look at the pictures, however briefly. He really was a rather good painter; I've always liked him, and am pleased to find that I still do. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
That is an improvement. I'm not sure how the repetition could be made excessive. The paintings just happen to be all part of the same collection, whereas most artists have their works spread across many collections. A global statement somewhere might be a possibility, but a bit unusual. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Post-nomnals[edit]

This source says that Nash "became a member of Friday Club and LG, NEAC and SWE". What do these post nomnals mean and should they be added to the article sowewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

NEAC is the New English Art Club, SWE is the Society of Wood Engravers and the Friday Club was started by Vanessa Bell. Whether any of these is as prestigious as The London Group (recently added to article) I am not too sure. I am not an expert on art – I have an interest in Nash because he lived in my part of the world and is buried a few yards from my parents. LynwoodF (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for the clarification. So not honorifics, then. I think the abbreviations are used more usually in fine art circles e.g. by Christie's, Sotheby's etc., for cataloguing purposes. If this is so, I'd be wary of using them without explanation. I guess his membership of these clubs and societies could more usefully be simply be mentioned in the text. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Nash (artist). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)