Talk:National Portrait Gallery, London: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

Dudu90 (talk | contribs)

3 user groups
5,885 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Requested Move: moved to archive
Line 16: Line 16:


{{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}}
{{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}}
==Requested Move==
I have listed this article on [[WP:Requested Moves]]''"*'''[[National Portrait Gallery (London)]] → [[National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)]]''' —(''[[Talk:National Portrait Gallery (London)|Discuss]]'')— Standard for NPG articles to disambiguate by country, not city, and this move would revert back to the articlespace occupied for ca. 2.5 years until recent move. There is no need to disambiguate between NPG (UK) and [[Scottish National Portrait Gallery]] (per the intent of the move) since the names and roles of the two galleries are not consonent anyway. There ''is'' a need to disambig. between the NPG (UK) and other institutions with identical names across the world, which the current title does not adequately do. —[[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 12:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)"''

* Note that I'm not implying in any way that this debate is over; typically move requests take several days to complete. Hopefully this will in fact stimulate discussion by bringing in independent voices. I think a pretty good argument has been made for NPG (UK) but any additional sensible points, for or against, would obviously be very welcome. The full case is available above, but succinctly: a) the NPG has several outstations based outside London, including one in Wales; b) the original move (to NPG (England)) seemed based on a slightly incorrect notion of the Gallery's role and remit, which is UK-wide and ''not'' just restricted to England, as stated very clearly by the NPG and as reflected in their collection; c) there is no need to disambiguate between this page and the Scottish NPG, since their official titles are different anyway and, since the basic search "National Portrait Gallery" points to a dab page, there is no possibility of confusion. There ''is'' by contrast a need to disambig between this page and other institutions with ''identical'' names, which are currently disambiguated by country (see [[National Portrait Gallery]]), seemingly by intent rather than by accident. [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 12:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
:* 1. Where is this standard established, and 2. How far does this extend, e.g. should [[National Gallery, London]] also be renamed? ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 19:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
::As mentioned by Ham below, the NPGs in Australia and the US are disambiguated by country, reflecting (I think) the official titles of the two institutions. This is despite the fact that for Wikipedia purposes, other potential disambiguators could include e.g. [[Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery]] and [[National Portrait Gallery (Canberra)]]. I suggest that the intent behind the disambiguation is therefore to include a national identifier in the article title, which if followed in this would give NPG (UK). The reason for this is that the purpose of a National Portrait Gallery is to act as a historical archive specifically to record the lives and images of a given country's historical figures. This link [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=DELA%2CDELA%3A2006-04%2CDELA%3Aen&q=%22national+portrait+gallery+london%22] does redirect to www.npg.org.uk/, as does this one [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=DELA%2CDELA%3A2006-04%2CDELA%3Aen&q=%22national+portrait+gallery%22&btnG=Search] (without the city qualifier). One reason for this may be to distinguish between the main site and the various regional NPG outstations- all of which are outside London and one of which is outside of England. The ''official'' title of the institution is "The National Portrait Gallery" (see e.g. the Museums and Galleries Act 1992[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/Ukpga_19920044_en_8.htm#sdiv6]). Note from that also that the NG is referred to officially as simply "The National Gallery" and not "The National Gallery, London" ''but'' the NG ''does'' style itself "Nat. Gall., London"[http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/]. The National Portrait Gallery, judging from its website, does ''not'' style itself "National Portrait Gallery, London", and as detailed above this is not the official title either. A key difference between the National Gallery is in its scope and remit; the National Gallery is the British national art collection, but it is ''not'' the national collection of British art (which is at the Tate, broadly equivalent to the [[Smithsonian American Art Museum]]). Nothing intrinsically connects the NG collection to the UK except by simple virtue of the fact that it is located here; it is international in scope. The NPG by contrast ''is'' intrinsically connected to the UK by virtue of its very existence (see discussion above). Assuming good faith, the intent of the move was to disambiguate between the [[Scottish National Portrait Gallery]] and the UK/Lon NPG, moved originally to NPG (England). There is actually no need for this, since the official name of the Scottish institution is different anyway, and since the basic search "National Portrait Gallery" points to a dab page ([[National Portrait Gallery]]) where the two are juxtaposed. There is no possibility of confusion, and the NPG does not consistently append either "London" or "United Kingdom" to its name, so choosing the most appropriate and informative disambiguator is pretty much up to our own judgement. I suggest that following the Wikipedia convention and maintaining consistency is sensible here, not for its own sake but because I feel that including a national disambiguator is a worthwhile move, as it a) is describing an institution that has fairly extensive, permanent operations outside of London, and b) gives an informative statement of the remit and scope of the collection, as well as its location. I would suggest that if we refrain from moving this page back then we ought also to consider moving the other two obvious candidates ([[National Portrait Gallery (United States)]] and [[National Portrait Gallery (Australia)]] in order to avoid confusion, and I shall leave a note on those talk pages linking to this discussion. [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 04:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the explanation, but I stay with my oppose, per [[Talk:Munich air disaster#Survey|WP:Avoid standardization paranoia]] and the fact that common use overrides standardization concerns. I don't see any evidence that NPGUK is in common use, unlike NPG,L. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 19:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::::So, to clarify, you want to rename the page and move it to "National Portrait Gallery, London"? [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 02:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for now, per [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=DELA%2CDELA%3A2006-04%2CDELA%3Aen&q=%22national+portrait+gallery+united+kingdom%22] vs. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=DELA%2CDELA%3A2006-04%2CDELA%3Aen&q=%22national+portrait+gallery+london%22]. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 19:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. It is clear that the standard is established on Wikipedia from the page [[National Portrait Gallery]], where the UK/London one is alone in having the name of the city, as opposed to the country, in parentheses. As regards the naming of [[National Gallery, London]], [[Talk:National_Portrait_Gallery_%28London%29#A_few_cautionary_words|please see here]]. <small>[''[[User talk:Ham|talk to the]]'']</small> [[User:Ham|H<small>AM</small>]] 16:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - this provides consistency with the other NPGs and accurately describes its scope. [[User:BlueValour|BlueValour]] 00:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''', for reasons outlined above. [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 14:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' for the reasons given above, plus the new evidence by User:Trialsanderrors that all the top Google hits for the "United Kingdom" version are for Wikipedia - always a very bad sign: it shows that Wikipedia is making up a brand new term, ie. [[WP:OR]]. --[[User:Mais oui!|Mais oui!]] 00:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

::OK, I won't try to change your vote. However, for the record, no-one is trying to claim that NPG (UK) is in common use- undeniably, the title most commonly used is simply "National Portrait Gallery". Similarly, I strongly suspect that the Washington Post or the Melbourne Age do not describe new exhibitions as appearing at "[[National Portrait Gallery (United States)]]" or "[[National Portrait Gallery (Australia)]]". I daresay that [[John Smith (Ohio Senator)]] rarely appends "Ohio Senator" to his name when writing cheques- but his article is so labelled on here in order to disambiguate it. Should we remove the disambiguators from this and all the other [[John Smith]]s because to include them would be Original Research? I think not. The paranthetic disambiguator is entirely an abstraction to distinguish this page from others that share the same title, tailored to the specific needs of Wikipedia, and is presumably used nowhere else. Hopefully we all now accept that the original intent of the page move- to distinguish between the [[Scottish National Portrait Gallery]] and the [[National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)]]- whilst assumedly in good faith, in fact was not necessary- there is no possibility of confusion between these clearly different institutions, so long as the basic search NPG points to a dab page, which it always will. The decision as to what to call this page is ours- so the question is, what is the least misleading title for the page, and what is the title most commonly used? There is no substantive difference between "NPG (UK)" and "NPG, London" in terms of the name of the institution, both would be equally recognisable to a non-expert, and by far the most common descriptor is simply "National Portrait Gallery"- see e.g. [http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1945234,00.html], [http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1942899,00.html]; [http://arts.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1942036,00.html]; [http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1940571,00.html]; [http://arts.guardian.co.uk/reviews/observer/story/0,,1934161,00.html]; [http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,1933271,00.html]; [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2426774.html]; [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2316248.html] ; [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,585-2395720.html]; [http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25335-2421173.html] (the top few relevent contemporary news stories drawn without artifice from a search of The Guardian and The Times). In all of these, the phrase "National Portrait Gallery, London" occurs precisely twice; the first obviously as an address rather than a title ("National Portrait Gallery, London WC2") and the second more ambiguous but probably meant also an address. On every other occasion (numerously), the unalloyed phrase "National Portrait Gallery" occurs. It is not at all true that "National Portrait Gallery, London" is the most common name for the institution, it is certainly not the official name, and there is very little evidence that this is the name by which the institution styles itself. [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 02:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
:::There's clearly very little need for disambiguation for local sources when they talk about the NPG in London. Nevertheless, if they think they need to disambiguate they use "London", not "United Kingdom" (as does the NPG itself, see first find on the Google search). As I posted in my response in the [[Talk:Munich air disaster#Survey|Munich air disaster]] discussion, common usage should always trump standardization needs, or we end up with something like "1-0, 1986 FIFA World Cup quarterfinal Argentina-England" for what is universally known as the [[Hand of God goal]]. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 20:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

::::With that Google link redirect, is the NPG seeking to disambiguate between itself and other portrait galleries around the world, or between its own London headquarters and the 3 other major outstations, all of which are outside London? This article is about the institution itself, not about the London branch of said institution. There are no other occurrences of "NPG, London" on their website that I could find, and it is emphatically not the case that the phrase "NPG, London" is commonly used in normal speech or writing, as the links above demonstrate. Thousands (tens of thousands?) of Wikipedia pages are disambiguated in order to ''minimise confusion'', rather than reflect strict common usage (see e.g. the John Smith example above). Among these tens of thousands are [[National Portrait Gallery (United States)]] and [[National Portrait Gallery (Australia)]]. It is manifestly not the case that "NPG (London)" is in common use; the very least that would be required would be a move to "NPG, London" which would even then be confusing for several reasons; 1) The lack of a national disambiguator contrasts this page with the other NPGs, and would lead to uncessary and easily-avoided confusion about what the remit of the collection actually is (London? England? or the entire UK?); 2) since the other UK-based NPG ''does'' include its remit (Scotland) in its name, it could lead to a situation whereby the UK NPG could actually be perceived by an uninformed reader as an ''outstation of the Edinburgh SNPG'', thus completely contradicting the stated intent of the original move and of disambiguation generally; 3) by analogy with the "NG, London" page it would be easy for a similarly uninformed reader to assume that the name by which the UK NPG most commonly styles itself is "National Portrait Gallery, London". A quick comparison between the NG and NPG websites will suffice to demonstrate that this is emphatically not the case; 4) a move to "NPG, London" misleadingly implies that this page only refers to the London headquarters, whilst I believe Ham and myself had planned to add information to the page pertaining to the other branches. It is certainly '''not''' the case that "NPG (London)" is ''ever'' used to describe this institution in common speech or prose. "NPG, London" is very rarely used (see links above) and when it ''is'' used it is usually in the form of an ''address'' rather than the ''actual name'' of the institution. To restate; I certainly don't see how leaving this page at "National Portrait Gallery (London)" reflects common usage (since it is never used). "National Portrait Gallery, London" is also rarely if ever used as the name of the institution (presumably because it isn't correct), and introduces an unecessary degree of confusion and ambiguity (not least because it is factually wrong, '''unless''' this article is split to deconvolve the various outstations and the scope of this article is changed to concentrate '''only on the London branch'''). "NPG (London)" is definitely a no-no if the goal is to reflect common usage. If the goal is to minimise ambiguity (''"give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity'') then "NPG (UK)" is the best. IMHO, I do not see that ''either'' "NPG (London)" (a syntax that is never used in common speech or writing and thus presumably would never be searched for) or "NPG, London" (which introduces unecessary confusion and ambiguity) is more recognisable or less ambiguous than "NPG (UK)", where the page sat without problems for years and which maintains naming consistency within the project- the only purpose of this disambiguation, let us not forget, is to distinguish this page/institution from the other two in the Anglophone world which share the same name. [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 14:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::''minimise confusion'' NPG London does a better job at that than NPG UK. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 03:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::Why? [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 11:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::::1. More commonly used. 2. More specific location. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 07:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
::::::::OK, I see that we shall have to agree to disagree! Just to be clear- as a UK native and long-time resident of the London area, a regular reader of the national and local press (and some non-English papers) and keen (over keen!) television viewer, I can confirm that "National Portrait Gallery (London)" is '''never''' used by anyone, anywhere, as the name of this institution, except for here on Wikipedia. As for your second point, the location is not more specific, since we are seeking to describe an institution that is ''not solely restricted to London''. Would it be less confusing to rename [[Federal government of the United States]] to [[Federal government of the United States (Washington D.C.)]]? That is after all where that particular organisation is headquartered. For the reasons I outline above, even ''if'' the NPG was restricted to London (it is not), it will in fact potentially *increase* confusion and ambiguity if the name remains as it is, especially if the disambiguation of the other NPG pages is not altered. Anyway, thanks for your input and responses. [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::'''Comment''': Use of the article title ''National Portrait Gallery (London)'' doesn't imply that this is a name anyone uses outside Wikipedia, rather it implies that the common name is ''National Portrait Gallery''. That's the role of the disambiguator in the article title. No change of vote. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 17:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

* '''Oppose'''. The English have a way with English that defies logic, for example many of the attractions of London are actually in the [[City of Westminster]] and somehow it seems quite natural for it to be so. Similarly with this. It's the National Portrait Gallery of London, somehow, even though we all know London is not a nation. The existing title is the best of a confusing lot to describe a confusing situation. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 16:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:The National Portrait Gallery ''of London''? With respect, I don't agree with you about that being the best of a bad bunch. The National Portrait Gallery ''in London'' (as implied by the styling ''National Portrait Gallery, London'', the same formula as that used by [[National Gallery, London]]) – OK, better, apart from the fact that there are bits of it outside the metropolis. ''National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)'' – better again, as it's at least accurate about the contents, but still not perfect, with its apparent implication that the UK only has one NPG. But we can at least do something to dispel that confusion early on the text with the dab notice I've been proposing. The perplexed will have the situation clarified for them before they even start reading the article proper. For my money, the least confusing option is still ''NPG (UK)'' plus disambig text. <small>[''[[User talk:Ham|talk to the]]'']</small> [[User:Ham|H<small>AM</small>]] 20:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
:The City of Westminster is a borough of London. You speak as if they are two separate places- they are not. Everything in Westminster is also in London, as the former is a constituent of the latter. The City of Westminster is a part of London in the same way that [[Queens]] or [[Manhattan]] are boroughs of New York. Through a historical quirk, it happens to be called a "city" council rather than a borough council- that doesn't make it an actual city in any real sense of that word that we would recognise (in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of Britons are unaware that this is even the case anyway). I don't therefore recognise your analogy as valid. To be honest, I really don't see how reverting to the previous title (where the page sat for 2.5 years without incident) is confusing at all. This is the National Portrait Gallery ''for'' the United Kingdom located ''in'' the United Kingdom. The equivalent entity ''for'' Scotland and ''in'' Scotland has a different official ''and'' common name, and the basic search "NPG" points to a dab page anyway. Where's the confusion? For the reasons I outline (in excruciating detail!) elsewhere, the title as it is is both a) confusing and ambiguous; b) divorced from everyday language and understanding. [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 02:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
::The City of Westminster is indeed part of London, although incidentally, and perhaps confusingly, the [[City of London]] is not. Anyway, enough trivia. I think the current page title is fine - '''Oppose'''. It ''is'' the National Portrait Gallery, and I imagine most people who know, even outside the UK, would say if asked that it is "''in'' London", rather than "in the UK". Oh, alright, a bit more trivia; in this country, we have a [[National Gallery of Victoria]]... [[User:FiggyBee|FiggyBee]] 18:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:::The City is not a borough and is not policed by the met (but then neither are [[London Waterloo]], [[London Paddington]], [[London Victoria]] etc). It is obviously well within the "city limits" (which vary according to who you ask and when you ask them anyway) and City voters do take part in London Assembly and London Mayoral (i.e. Greater London Mayoral) elections. Nobody when asked would deny that The City is a part of London, although I suppose in some sense you are technically correct. As for your substantive point- see the long discussion above regarding the relationship between remit and location in the specific and unique case of National Portrait Galleries. Basically, "NPG (UK)" is much more informative, more factually correct and less ambiguous. [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:::This page is now 71KB long; it is asking too much of anyone to read all of it. However, as it is consisted mainly of the same arguments being reiterated ad nauseam, I wish to ask whether you have considered such points as the fact that parts of the NPG are outside London etc etc etc. Sorry if I come across as a bully and a bore; that's just the effect this depressing affair is having on me... <small>[''[[User talk:Ham|talk to the]]'']</small> [[User:Ham|H<small>AM</small>]] 18:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose''' I hold no brief for the Scottish National Portrait Gallery; but this seems a perfectly good disambiguator. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 20:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:There is no requirement to disambiguate between the SNPG and the UK NPG. There is a requirement to disambiguate between the UK NPG, the Aus NPG and the US NPG the latter of which are dabbed along national lines. This (among many other things- see above) demolishes consistency in article naming and could pose problems on that basis alone. [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
===Tally===
Three contributors in favour of the move (Badgerpatrol, BlueValour and Ham), two against (Mais oui! and trialsanderrors) and one (BrownHairedGirl) with ultimately no preference for either. Does this constitute a consensus? <small>[''[[User talk:Ham|talk to the]]'']</small> [[User:Ham|H<small>AM</small>]] 20:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:Not by my understanding of consensus: one third of participants are strong objectors. There is no majority for the proposal, and a bare plurality. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]] <sup>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</sup> 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
::The proposal should be relisted under propped page moves in an attempt to generate more attention. It is blatantly absurd that this move- which was done with no consultation whatsoever, let alone even an ''attempt'' to build consensus- cannot now be reversed despite the fact that it defies logic and is not favoured by the majority. Clearly there is more of a consensus to move the page ''back'' than there ever was to move it here in the first place. However- that sadly is the situation we are faced with currently. [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 14:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::More discussion is needed IMO. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 16:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

=== Closure? ===

There's been a lot of spirited and cogent arguments given by all sides on this issue. I'm coming in new to the discussion (from [[WP:RM]]) and, after reading through all the text of this page, I think that all the arguments have been basically laid out and perhaps it would be of interest if I could sum up and perhaps move to closure? This ''is'' the oldest living request at [[WP:RM]], after all. BTW I am American.

First, I think that the kicker in all this is that UK is different from most other nations in that it is a ''nation of nations'' - nation-state in the first use, self-aware ethno-linguistic-historical group in the second. This colors a lot of articles dealing with UK entities. You do not have these problems with the USA, France, Germany, Italy, and so forth. Nor even with Switzerland or Austria. There (to simplify) you have the nation-state and you have provinces (or states or cantons), period. The UK has a third level: nation-state, subnations (Scotland, England, etc.), and counties.

Second, this is a situation where there is ''no'' perfect solution. We need to find the least bad solution, and recognize that that is what we are doing. OK, to begin.

"National Portrait Gallery (England)" doesn't seem to have garnered much enthusiasm. I don't see going with that, at all. It does seem clear that the "National" in the title does not seem to apply to just the "nation" of England. Regardless of what particular bureaucracy it is under, it appears that in its founding, in how it sees itself, and how it is seen, that the "National" refers to the ''British'' nation (= the UK, for our purposes) and not just the English nation. (There could be and maybe someday will a portrait gallery strictly for the English nation, but this is not it. (There are complicated historical reasons why British institutions often ''also'' stand in for purely English ones, but that's a whole nother essay.))

Now, the gallery is ''in'' England, but if we want to use the ''location'' of the institution, "London" is more exact.

So I think England is out. But not such much due to the points raised above - many other points have been raised by other editors - mainly because it didn't seem to raise much enthusiasm. So on to London vs the UK.

So then, a question. If this British institution happened to have been founded in Portsmouth, would "National Portrait Gallery (Portsmouth)" be proper? It would in a sense, but it also doesn't seem quite right. So in precisely the same way ""National Portrait Gallery (London)" feels a bit wrong. One would not say "National Portrait Gallery (Washington, D.C.)", I don't think. And in fact the American article is named "National Portrait Gallery (United States)". (If the UK decided for some reason to move its capital to (say) [[Selby]], would the article on the legislative buildings properly be titled "Houses of Parliament (Selby)" or "Houses of Parliament (United Kingdom)"? The latter, I think.)

London is much ''larger'' than Portsmouth or Selby, is instantly recognized by most all English speakers, and is the traditional location of many traditional British institutions. But the principle still applies, I think.

So "National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)" is starting to look pretty good.

But.

The remaining sticker is that there is ''another'' Natonal Portrait Gallery in the UK, that of Scotland. Both galleries use the word "National" because both the UK and Scotland are nations - but in different senses of the word, as noted above, and that makes a deal of difference, I think.

In the United States, we would have a National Portrait Gallery and perhaps various ''state'' galleries, which would be called Pennsylvania State Portrait Gallery etc. or perhaps regional galleries (Midwest Regional Portrait Gallery etc.). The word "National" would never come up. In another country the National Portrait Gallery of Scotland would be called the Regional Portrait Gallery of Scotland. And my reading of the situation is that is what it is for the purposes of this discussion, I think - a regional gallery (even though the region is called a "nation"). I'm sorry if that's insulting to Scottish editors, but can't be helped.

The nomenclature of United Kingdom entities is confusing. We just have to accept that. There is no perfect solution to this naming problem. However, after reading this page and stepping myself through the thoughts described in this post, I for my part have concluded that "National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)" is the ''least bad'' name. I also think that, taken as a whole, both strength of argument and (to a slight extent) numbers of commentors on each side weighs a bit more on the side of "National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)", although all sides have respectable arguments.

So. I would like to achieve closure on this and make the move to "National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)", with various redirects of course. I won't do this yet, but can anyone give a reason not to? Bearing in mind that I have already read all of the arguments on this page. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 17:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:That's well laid out and I agree with almost everything there (except (as you correctly surmise ;-) the SNPG being a "regional" gallery- a) because it isn't so, b) because it incorrectly suggests that it is somehow a subordinate component of the UK NPG when in fact both are completely separate). The key point is that both the common name and the official name of the equivalant entity for Scotland alone is different- it is the [[Scottish National Portrait Gallery]]. With the dab page (and especially with the dab page ''and'' Ham's dab notice) there is zero possibility of confusion between the two- ''unless'' this page remains here, in which case confusion actually becomes much ''more'' likely. Any paranthetic disambiguation is required only to distinguish between the NPG (UK), NPG (US) and NPG (Aus), not between the SNPG and the NPG (UK). [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 02:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

:One ''reason not to'' is that many of the arguments which you have asked not be repeated apply to this name too. Bearing in mind that we have also read the above (including your last post), can you give a reason not to leave it as it is? [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::If asked to paraphrase the current article title, I would do so thus: ''National Portrait Gallery (the nation being London)''. Such a bonkers notion is only confirmed by the NPG disambig page as it is at the moment, where we see ''NPG (London)'' alongside ''NPG (United States)'' and ''NPG (Australia)''. Now we are in agreement that that is a patent absurdity. ''NPG (United Kingdom)'', by contrast, asks you to believe that the United Kingdom is a nation, and that requires a little less suspension of disbelief, don't you think? If there are to be crazy discrepancies on Wikipedia, they should be ones that are already there in the real world (like the [[City of Westminster]]) and not ones of our own making (like [[National Portrait Gallery (London)]]). With my regards, <small>[''[[User talk:Ham|talk to the]]'']</small> [[User:Ham|H<small>AM</small>]] 20:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I know what you're getting at, but I don't agree with this simplistic paraphrase. ''National Portrait Gallery in London (London being a city)'' is also a legitimate paraphrase. To see this alongside other NPGs at the disambig accurately reflects the way English works. Our job here is to use English as it is, rather than as we think it should be. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 21:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::::The other two NPGs (both obviously located in Anglophone countries) are disambiguated by country. This one is disambiguated by city, when let's not forget that the only purpose of this disambiguation is to distinguish this entity from the other two (in ''Australia and the US'') with ''identical'' names (since there is no identically named institution in the UK to disambiguate this one from). How does that accurately reflect the way English works? I should clearly have paid more attention in my English lang + lit lessons at school, because I must confess that I can't quite grasp your point. [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 02:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Granted, there is nothing to stop ''London'' in brackets from meaning that as well. I do not mean to make impositions on English when I say that ''NPG (L)'' implies what I think it does when it can also have another meaning. But the standard that has been established (i.e. ''NPG (Country)'') is too sensible, and the case for the London/UK NPG deviating from it not strong enough when any confusion can be put to rest by way of a disambig notice at the top of the page.

::::Too right, the encyclopedist shouldn't remake the English language to suit his or her own preferences, but that doesn't detract from the fact that (as I see it) there's an element of taxonomy to "our job", and where there is a model that works, we should apply it consistently. Even though we've expended I don't know how many kilobytes arguing about this, I don't think that the British NPG is an exceptional enough case to buck the rule: the title ''NPG (UK)'' is strictly speaking correct, and there is only one way in which it could mislead by implication (though not to a reader attentive enough to read the proposed disambig text), whereas ''NPG (L)'' could potentially do so in several ways, which need not be reiterated. Is that reason enough not to leave it as it is? <small>[''[[User talk:Ham|talk to the]]'']</small> [[User:Ham|H<small>AM</small>]] 22:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::Is this ''element of taxonomy'' supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines? There are so many of them I have trouble keeping up! But my feeling is that [[Wikipedia:use English]], [[Wikipedia:neologism]] and others discourage it, '''particularly''' where article titles are concerned. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 23:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::Well, I haven't time to trawl through them to find out; it was merely an observation on my part about this whole business of disambiguation. If you can explain to me how ''National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)'' is in a language other than English, I will take your invocation of [[Wikipedia:use English]] seriously. As for [[Wikipedia:neologism]], Badgerpatrol tackled that in his post about ''John Smith (Ohio Senator)'', exhaustively I think. <small>[''[[User talk:Ham|talk to the]]'']</small> [[User:Ham|H<small>AM</small>]] 23:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Steady on! ''National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)'' is of course English. I think what you're saying is that you can find '''no''' basis for this ''element of taxonomy'' idea in the current guidelines and policies. But please provide a link to the ''post about John Smith (Ohio Senator)'', it sounds very relevant. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 08:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::That post is on this page: go to the section "Requested move" and it's the post after Mais oui!'s 'oppose' vote. The gist of it is that in arguing for ''NPG (UK)'' we're not coining a neologism, unless all disambiguation is to be considered as such and a title such as ''John Smith (Ohio Senator)'' is to be read as suggesting that the man ''is actually in the habit of appending the words ''(Ohio Senator)'' to his name''. We ''know'' as residents of the UK that ''National Portrait Gallery'' is the only name truly in usage (but the article cannot be called such because there are other institutions in other countries with that same name); we are ''not'' arguing that it be henceforth referred to as ''NPG (UK)''; thus "Avoid standardisation paranoia" and "WP:Neologism" do not (in my opinion) apply.

:::::::::Got it, thank you! The post in question brings up some interesting points but is not consistent... having rightly pointed out the function of the disambiguator (ie internal to Wikipedia), it then proceeds to discuss whether the disambiguator is used outside of Wikipedia. I fear I have not been consistent in this myself, so I can't be too critical.
::::::::::Actually, it's perfectly consistent. As you will see from [[WP:NAME]], priority in choosing article names should be given to the title most easily recognised, where a choice exists. T+E posited that in this case that is [[National Portrait Gallery (London]]. In fact, that syntax is never used to describe this institution, and so (as I point out) the only relevent criterion is what works best in a Wikipedia context. However, I sense from some of the more recent comments that the voluminous discussion above is not already not being read by new respondents, so I shall leave it there. [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::::'Taxonomy' was never intended to be anything other than a personal take on encyclopaedia-building (note the disclaiming "as I see it") and I don't expect it will ever be enshrined in policy. As I was only bringing it up to explain my semantic point about ''(London)'' in brackets, an issue which has now thoroughly done my head in, I won't elaborate further on this "wiki-sophy" of mine. Instead I wish to re-emphasise what I said a few posts ago, which has not been picked up on: that ''NPG (UK)'' potentially misleads on only one count (and even that can be easily remedied), whereas the current ''NPG (London)'''s potential for misdirection is greater. Best regards, <small>[''[[User talk:Ham|talk to the]]'']</small> [[User:Ham|H<small>AM</small>]] 17:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::It's a shame this wasn't properly structured into ''Survey'' and ''Comments'' sections, we could then have subdivided ''Comments'' and made it a lot easier to read, but it still wouldn't be easy. Disagree that there's any ''potential for misdirection'' in the current title, I think it accurately indicates the confusing situation, and that if we try to resolve this confusion we (1) only make it worse and (2) overstep our mandate as Wikipedians. We may need to agree to disagree on this. Hang in there, and regards appreciated and reciprocated. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 20:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::There is a potential for misdirection in that it a) misleadingly suggests that this instiution is wholly based in London, when it is not; b) the lack of a national disambiguator could be taken to mean that this institution is subordinate to the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, when it is not. As for your second point- you are aware that the article name was recently '''changed''' from NPG (UK) to NPG (England) and then NPG (London), and that the proposed rename would only return the title to the status quo where it had sat for 2.5 years without any obvious confusion? [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::People. '''''It doesn't matter.''''' Sheesh. Provided the proper redirects are in place, everybody going to get the article just as quickly no matter what the name is. How about naming it "National Portrait Gallery (taxonomical name disputed)" with redirects from both "...(London)" and "...(United Kingdom). OK that wouldn't be allowed, but let me say that, on the most deep and profound level: ''whatever''. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] 02:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::Fair point. Whatever happens, the current title (whilst confusing and inaccurate) is a vast improvement on the grossly misleading and factually wrong "National Portrait Gallery (England)", which was the destination of the initial move. [[User:Badgerpatrol|Badgerpatrol]] 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::True. We tend to be passionate about getting things ''right'', whatever that may be. But a reasonable principle is that if the community is of two minds, it doesn't matter which way we go. Sorry if I've been forgetting that at times. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->

== Template for NPG links ==
== Template for NPG links ==


Revision as of 18:52, 15 July 2009

WikiProject iconLondon Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMuseums Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I should probably have left a message about here when I created it, but better late than never, I hope.

Template:npg name is a simple way of making a link to the NPG's collection of portraits of an individual. The intention is that like {{imdb name}}, it will be handy in the "see also" section of biographical articles.

It works in a similar way to {{imdb name}}: find the NPG's ID for an individual, and that's all you need.

For example:

  • {{npg name|id=01653|name=Charles James Fox}}

produces

I have set it to refer to National Portrait Gallery (London), simply because that's the current article name. If it is changed, then the template should be edited to reflect that.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Removed from main page to here per WP:TRIV (I would personally prefer not to have a trivia section, particularly where the information adds nothing whatsoever of encyclopaedic value to the article, but that's obviously up for discussion): "Posing for artist Stuart Pearson Wright at age 14 while on a break from filming Harry Potter, at age 16, Radcliffe became the youngest non-royal ever to have an individual portrait in England's National Portrait Gallery. On 13 April 2006, his portrait was unveiled as part of a new exhibition opening at London's Royal National Theatre, then moved to the National Portrait Gallery where it currently resides." Badgerpatrol 14:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to get images from the NPG for the Wikipedia

The NPG has many {{PD-art}} paintings, and with a few tweaks to their image viewer, it is fairly easy to grab them for use on the WP. For Image:VermigliAsper2.jpg, I modified the HTML from this page to get a larger image without copying little squares and pasting them together manually. Instead, just display the whole image on a high res monitor (it now defaults to 1600x1600, but change that as you wish), take a screen capture, and crop. Here's the original and modified code for your reference (sorry it is so wide):

ModifiedOriginal
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html40119991224/loose.dtd">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/common/search.css" type="text/css" />
<script language="JavaScript" src="http://www.npg.org.uk/zoomify/zoomifyFunctions.js"></script>

<!-- BEGIN SUBS & FUNCTIONS SECTION -->
<!-- Start the Page -->
<TITLE>NPG 195; Pietro Vermigli</TITLE>
<META name="description" content="NPG 195; Pietro Vermigli">
<META name="keywords" content="Pietro Vermigli,Hans Asper,Pietro Vermigli,">
</HEAD>
<body><center id='main'><div id="inDetail" style="padding-bottom:0px;"><img name="logo" src="http://www.npg.org.uk/live/images/logo_full.gif" style="width:109px; height:71px; border:0; float:left;" alt=""/>NPG 195<BR><b>Pietro Vermigli</b><BR>by&nbsp;Hans Asper<BR>oil on canvas, transferred from panel, 1560
<!--start of zoomify object, to display a different image alter the flashVars zoomifyImagePath    in both the object and embed tags-->
    <OBJECT classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553516000"
             codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0"
             WIDTH="1600" HEIGHT="1600" id="zoomify">
             <PARAM NAME=movie VALUE="http://www.npg.org.uk/zoomify/zoomifyApp.swf">
             <PARAM NAME=FlashVars VALUE="zoomifyImagePath=http://images.npg.org.uk/OCimg/zoomify/96/mw06496/">
             <PARAM NAME=allowScriptAccess VALUE=always>
             <PARAM NAME=bgcolor VALUE=#FFFFFF>
             <EMBED src="http://www.npg.org.uk/zoomify/zoomifyApp.swf" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"  WIDTH="1600" HEIGHT="1600" NAME="zoomify"
                FlashVars="zoomifyImagePath=http://images.npg.org.uk/OCimg/zoomify/96/mw06496/" 
                TYPE="application/x-shockwave-flash" PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" allowScriptAccess="always">
             </EMBED><!--&zoomifyX=0.0&zoomifyY=0.0&zoomifyZoom=1&_zoomifyToolbar=1&bgcolor=EBEBEB&zoomifyMaxZoom=100&zoomifySaveState=1"-->
    </OBJECT>
<!--end of zoomify object-->

     <div style="width:1600px;padding-top:12px;line-height:25px;"><b>Explore details of the image by:</b><br />
         
        - Using the plus and minus buttons <img src="http://www.npg.org.uk/ican/icanimages/zoom/plusminus.gif" alt="*" width="46" height="25" border="0" align="absmiddle"> to zoom in and out of the image
        <br />    - Using the directional arrows <img src="http://www.npg.org.uk/ican/icanimages/zoom/arrows.gif" alt="*" width="88" height="25" border="0" align="absmiddle">  to access a particular area of the image
        <br />    - Using the slide button <img src="http://www.npg.org.uk/ican/icanimages/zoom/arrows_slide.gif" alt="*" width="25" height="25" border="0" align="absmiddle"> alongside the top of the navigation bar to zoom in and out of the portrait
        <br />- Using the reset button <img src="http://www.npg.org.uk/ican/icanimages/zoom/recentre.gif" alt="*" width="24" height="25" border="0" align="absmiddle"> to the right of the navigation bar to take the image back to its original size and location
    </div></div></center></body></html>

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html40119991224/loose.dtd">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/live/search/common/search.css" type="text/css" />
<script language="JavaScript" src="/zoomify/zoomifyFunctions.js"></script>

<!-- BEGIN SUBS & FUNCTIONS SECTION -->
<!-- Start the Page -->
<TITLE>NPG 195; Pietro Vermigli</TITLE>
<META name="description" content="NPG 195; Pietro Vermigli">
<META name="keywords" content="Pietro Vermigli,Hans Asper,Pietro Vermigli,">
</HEAD>
<body><center id='main'><div id="inDetail" style="padding-bottom:0px;"><img name="logo" src="../images/logo_full.gif" style="width:109px; height:71px; border:0; float:left;" alt=""/>NPG 195<BR><b>Pietro Vermigli</b><BR>by&nbsp;Hans Asper<BR>oil on canvas, transferred from panel, 1560
<!--start of zoomify object, to display a different image alter the flashVars zoomifyImagePath    in both the object and embed tags-->
    <OBJECT classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000"
             codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0"
             WIDTH="500" HEIGHT="400" id="zoomify">
             <PARAM NAME=movie VALUE="/zoomify/zoomifyApp.swf">
             <PARAM NAME=FlashVars VALUE="zoomifyImagePath=http://images.npg.org.uk/OCimg/zoomify/96/mw06496/&zoomifyX=0.0&zoomifyY=0.0&zoomifyZoom=-1&_zoomifyToolbar=1&bgcolor=EBEBEB&zoomifyMaxZoom=100&zoomifySaveState=1">
             <PARAM NAME=allowScriptAccess VALUE=always>
             <PARAM NAME=bgcolor VALUE=#FFFFFF>
             <EMBED src="/zoomify/zoomifyApp.swf" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"  WIDTH="500" HEIGHT="400" NAME="zoomify"
                FlashVars="zoomifyImagePath=http://images.npg.org.uk/OCimg/zoomify/96/mw06496/&zoomifyX=0.0&zoomifyY=0.0&zoomifyZoom=-1&_zoomifyToolbar=1&bgcolor=EBEBEB&zoomifyMaxZoom=100&zoomifySaveState=1"
                TYPE="application/x-shockwave-flash" PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" allowScriptAccess="always">
             </EMBED>
    </OBJECT>
<!--end of zoomify object-->

     <div style="width:500px;padding-top:12px;line-height:25px;"><b>Explore details of the image by:</b><br />
        
        - Using the plus and minus buttons <img src="/ican/icanimages/zoom/plusminus.gif" alt="*" width="46" height="25" border="0" align="absmiddle"> to zoom in and out of the image
        <br />    - Using the directional arrows <img src="/ican/icanimages/zoom/arrows.gif" alt="*" width="88" height="25" border="0" align="absmiddle">  to access a particular area of the image
        <br />    - Using the slide button <img src="/ican/icanimages/zoom/arrows_slide.gif" alt="*" width="25" height="25" border="0" align="absmiddle"> alongside the top of the navigation bar to zoom in and out of the portrait
        <br />- Using the reset button <img src="/ican/icanimages/zoom/recentre.gif" alt="*" width="24" height="25" border="0" align="absmiddle"> to the right of the navigation bar to take the image back to its original size and location
    </div></div></center></body></html>

--Flex (talk/contribs) 16:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but anyone reading this may wish to familiarise themselves with the legal action mentioned in the following section. Paulbrock (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See: Legal threat against Wikipedia User --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name change (Sigh...)

Despite the voluminous discussion on this page I see Mais oui! has changed the name again. As we all know he pays no attention to discussion, and as the disambiguator London is less fragrantly bad than England, this time I'll let itstand. 'Commenest name' as a rationale doesn't really hold water (see discussion above, if you can be bothered), but if it's supposed to mean that the NPG's London base has a higher profile than Bodelwyddan Castle et al, then fair enough. It's clear that MO! wants to emphasise the Englishness of the NPG so as to rationalise its relation to the Scottish National Portrait Gallery. So I've added a sentence to the intro stressing the messiness of their non-relation.

Of course, the NPG is actually meant to vindicate the construct of British history, which always means the history of England first and, only when they have been subsumed into it, those of Wales, Scotland and Ireland (still in the Union in the 19th century, all of it). So in that sense it is a very English gallery, but one that flies the Union Flag, not the St George's cross. The English were quite unselfconscious about their equation of 'England' with 'Britain' until recently; the need to define England as distinct from the imperial project has only really arisen with the devolution of Scotland and Wales. Understandably, they're having problems with it. Maybe London is the perfect disambiguator after all, since no-one on Talk:London can agree as to whether it's the capital of the UK or of England. Ham 18:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

seeing as there is another (albeit prefaced with Scottish) National Portrait Gallery in the UK, it can not be disambiguated with 'United Kingdom'. that's the only reason i see for the move. ninety:one 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should at least have a comma & not brackets, per the usual convention of the NG etc, and to avoid references going through a redirect. Unless anyone objects I will move it there after a while. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no! brackets is the way, we recently moved National Gallery (London) from a comma ninety:one 19:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a footnote to this debate, it has to be said that brackets are handier than commas for formatting reasons. It's quicker to type [[National Gallery (London)|]] than [[National Gallery, London|National Gallery]]. I exaggerated the problem with brackets above; ease of formatting needs to be considered as well. Ham 01:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F302269030