Talk:Statue of Margaret Thatcher (London Guildhall)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Statue of Margaret Thatcher (London Guildhall) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 May 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sculpture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture 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.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles

Visual arts: Public art

	Visual arts portal 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
	This article is supported by the public art task force.

References

Later mentions: BBC 2006,[1] The Guardian 2007,[2], The Guardian 2008,[3] Wales on Sunday 2009.[4] Ty 01:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Parliament source states that the marble statue has been repaired and stands in the Guildhall Art Gallery - [www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/baroness-thatcher-booklet.pdf]. Should this be included or is there fuller information elsewhere? --Wikiain (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Included it. --Wikiain (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 September 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Statue of Margaret Thatcher (London Guildhall). bd2412 T 13:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Margaret Thatcher, Guildhall Art Gallery → Statue of Margaret Thatcher, London Guildhall – The statue was moved out of the gallery into a "quiet corridor" of the Guildhall, some years ago (source). Gapfall (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Statue of Margaret Thatcher, Guildhall. "London Guildhall" is an informal way to refer to Guildhall, London.--Nevé –selbert 21:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support original proposal. Although London is not strictly necessary for disambiguation (there are only two such statues with articles, only one of them in a guildhall), Guildhall is itself highly ambiguous. But the shorter title Statue of Margaret Thatcher, Guildhall would also be acceptable. A move is a must. Andrewa (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Statue of Margaret Thatcher (London Guildhall) and also Statue of Margaret Thatcher, Palace of Westminster → Statue of Margaret Thatcher (Palace of Westminster). The original proposal is sound, and it's helpful to include the city name, as Andrewa says, but I'm not sure why the comma disambiguation. Per our usual policies the disambiguator should be in parentheses, unless the entity is an actual locality. — Amakuru (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- More than happy with that option. Not sure that it makes a lot of difference to readers, but it's good to be clear on our guidelines and even to follow them (;-> if only to save editors' time in discussions. Andrewa (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. There is a clear absence of consensus for the proposed moves. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:Statue of Margaret Thatcher (Palace of Westminster) § Requested move 2 October 2017

– ~~Per WP:COMMADIS.~~ --Nevé –selbert 07:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 18:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would like to revise my edit summary. As WP:COMMADIS does not directly apply, I nonetheless still believe this page should be moved for consistency with other statue-related articles, such as those in Category:Statues of monarchs or Category:Statues of heads of government.--Nevé –selbert 20:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statues are not places, so WP:COMMADIS does not apply. older ≠ wiser 08:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically. But failure to use it here will produce a WP:CONSISTENCY problem with other articles; and WP:NATURALDIS and WP:DISAMBIG prefer natural disambiguation when available, over parenthetic, so these should still be speediable as routine cleanup. Comma-delimited natural disambiguation may be required only for a few things, but it's not forbidden otherwise. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 10:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see anything natural about using comma disambiguation here. And this was moved following a recent requested move discussion, so moving again so soon is not uncontroversial. older ≠ wiser 10:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - See Category:Statues of heads of government, where parenthetical disambiguation is not used.--Nevé–selbert 15:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then there's no consistency with subcategories like Category:Statues of Joseph Stalin or Category:Statues of Mao Zedong, and there are other categories of statue articles where comma disambiguation is not the rule such as Category:Statues of monarchs or Category:Statues of writers. There is no de facto convention for disambiguation stature articles. older ≠ wiser 16:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Neve-selbert, Bkonrad, and SMcCandlish: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delisted discussion at Talk:Statue of Margaret Thatcher (Palace of Westminster) to avoid mirroring.--Nevé –selbert 08:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comma disambiguation is standard for UK architectural topics. See Category:Monuments and memorials in London. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This was decided at the above RM. It is not a place, so COMMADIS doesn't apply. The version with the comma looks unwieldy and goes against our naming conventions. If other monuments are wrongly named, then they should also be moved. — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We have always used comma disambiguation for the built environment in the UK and most of the rest of the Commonwealth. This is a long-established convention. Obviously editors who took part in the above RM were unaware of this. Although maybe they should have taken a glance at our categories first. And in no way does WP:COMMADIS actually mandate against this. How on earth is a comma any more unwieldy than parentheses?! Consistency actually suggests that we should use the comma form, since that is already used for thousands of other structures in the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And I repeat: Comma-delimited natural disambiguation may be required only for a few things, but it's not forbidden otherwise. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 08:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Very few things are forbidden. That doesn't make them a good idea. If comma disambiguation were encouraged or even neutral versus parenthetical disambiguation, it would be found all over the place. But in fact it is only usually found in very limited places, such as localities, and then only because there is a longstanding convention off-wiki to phrase things that way. Compare a google search for "statue or margaret thatcher london guildhall" with a search for an actual place name, such as "leamington spa warwickshire" It may be true that many UK structures are titled that way, but that doesn't fit with the pattern used elsewhere on the Wiki, or usage in the real world, and it should probably be changed. — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are simply not true. Comma disambiguation is used for structures in many countries on Wikipedia (e.g. most of the Commonwealth outside Canada) because they are considered to be places! As to your statement that it isn't used in the real world, disambiguation isn't used in the real world! It's a Wikipedia thing. So how can you say with a straight face that parenthetical disambiguation is used more than comma disambiguation in the real world? But I have to say that in the real world it would be far more common to see "Buckingham Palace, London" than "Buckingham Palace (London)"! On an address, for instance. When listing an address, do you put "Foo House, Foo Street, London W1" or "Foo House (Foo Street, London W1)? Clearly, it's the former. More common still, of course, in normal writing would be "Buckingham Palace in London", but we don't use that form here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that there are common uses of comma disambiguation for places in natural language in reliable sources. Thus comma disambiguation for places is a variation of natural disambiguation. The point of parenthetical disambiguation is that the disambiguating term is not a part of the name or title of the subject. older ≠ wiser 12:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. An address uses commas. And an address is natural disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. That is pretty much a restatement of what I said about comma disambiguation being a variant of natural disambiguation for many place names. I'm not aware that statues have addresses. older ≠ wiser 14:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly where we disagree. A statue is immovable, it has a location, ergo it has an address. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except when they move (as this one has been). And technically, yes just about anything you can locate with GPS could be considered to have an address of some form or another. Whether any particular form of address is commonly used to refer to statues in reliable sources is another matter. older ≠ wiser 15:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Because these are not places/locations and WP:COMMADIS does not apply. Deadbolt44 (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A statue is a sculpture, not a place. If consistency is desired, the other articles should be moved to parenthetical disambiguation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Any immovable thing is a "place". An island, a hill, a town, a house, a railway station, a statue... -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Statues are definitely movable... -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - You try... Most of them are cemented in place. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not the one trying. If the owner of the statue wants it moved, some cement is not going to prevent them from moving it. Do you see the problem with basing an interpretation of a guideline in this manner? -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, for God's sake, heritage agencies generally refer to statues as immovable heritage. That's why they get heritage-listed as buildings and structures and not as movable heritage. If you don't like the term, take it up with them and stop being pedantic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        And numerous historic building have been move en toto, brick by brick. The distinction is bogus. Let's move on. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 11:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - (after ec) Naming conventions for places are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Nothing there regarding statues and despite what Neve-selbert claims in revised rationale, there is no consistent standard apparent in Category:Statues of monarchs or Category:Statues of heads of government (in particular the subcategories) or in other sub-categories of Category:Statues. Now it may be possible to argue for local consistency with other similar articles about statues in Britain, but appealing to some non-existent standard is a non-starter. older ≠ wiser 14:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nobody is. But it has been standard practice for many years for structures in Britain and other Commonwealth countries to use comma disambiguation. Any look at the categories will ascertain that. And consistency within the main categories in which an article will appear (i.e. the categories by country) makes sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Why should structures in Britain and other Commonwealth countries be treated differently from structures and other entities elsewhere in the world? That's a standard that makes no sense, as there's no particular WP:ENGVAR or WP:TIES issues at play, it's just a Wikipedia-specific regional difference, that is contrary to WP:CONSISTENCY with structures and other non-locality entities across the pedia. And it's not one we should be perpetuating by moving these statue articles so that they too are inconsistent. — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      They're not. There are articles on many structures in many countries that use comma disambiguation. In fact, the only countries that consistently don't use it are the USA and Canada. Just as the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc, consistently do use it. You're arguing from a false viewpoint. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Just as the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc, consistently do use it [comma disambiguation] ^{[citation needed]}. older ≠ wiser 15:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      It certainly doesn't apply to UK railway stations - see User:Amakuru/Disambiguated_stations. I formed that list because of a related peeve of mine, the fact that so many stations use an infix style of disambiguation, e.g. Barmouth (Londonderry) railway station, even when there is no National Rail station name with that particular disambiguator. Those should also be brought into line with normal Wikipedia naming parenthetical conventions, i.e. Barmouth railway station (Londonderry). — Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      That weird infix style is not going to survive. It's not used for anything else on the entire system, as far as I can tell. It fails both WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and I would expect a mass RM about it to conclude for Barmouth railway station (Londonderry) or Barmouth railway station, Londonderry, by a landslide. Which one is a tossup, but we've been moving away from unnecessarily parenthetical disambiguation inexorably in many topics; there's no reason that one (or this statue one) should be any different. That said, why is "railway" included? Are there other Barmouth stations in Londonderry? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 11:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      You say "we've been moving away from unnecessarily parenthetical disambiguation inexorably in many topics" - please could you provide some examples of that? Of course we have the WP:NATURALDIS guideline, but that's not really a trend in a particular direction, it's something that's been around for years, and I wasn't aware that things had changed in particular in that department. And NATURALDIS concerns our wish to use an actual unique name if one exists, for example English language rather than English (language), i.e. avoid disambiguators at all where possible. It does not tell us to prefer comma disambiguators over parentheses ones, and in my view it should not do so as a disambiguator in parentheses is easier to parse and read than a comma one. — Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.