London Mid‑importance

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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Museums Low‑importance

This 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

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

• Portraits of Charles James Fox at the National Portrait Gallery, London

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]

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]

I've removed this info Misstinkafairy (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... 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]

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]

On the contrary, one often wants National Gallery, London in the text, which of course works via redirect, but never National Gallery (London), which is just wrong, imo, unless in a list using that convention. The move there in 2008 was undiscussed and should be reversed. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where the phrase appears in text it can be formatted thus: National Gallery, London. This is better style than National Gallery, London. The formula National Gallery (London) would never appear in text, as you rightly say, but with the addition of the character | it becomes National Gallery (the official and familiar name), which IMO makes the brackets very useful, and justifies the (admittedly undiscussed) change as bold editing. Ham 16:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The recent dispute with Wikipedia is completely unimportant in the gallery's 153 year history. I removed the section from the article and put it below:

On 10 July 2009, the National Portrait Gallery started legal proceedings for breach of copyright against Wikipedia editor David Coetzee. The dispute centres on whether digital photographs of public domain artworks are protected by copyright. The National Portrait Gallery made low-resolution images of public domain original portraits available to all, but only allowed users to see a section of each image of their choice in high resolution at any time. Coetzee circumvented this software and downloaded thousands of high-resolution reproductions of images from the NPG website, and placed them in an archive of free-to-use images on Wikimedia Commons. The NPG claim that this will deprive them of significant revenue and that these images are part of a £1million project to digitise the gallery's collection.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

--Apoc2400 (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now maybe, but the mainstream news are starting to pick up on this now. It may yet develop. ninety:one 22:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added an external link to the Wikinews story, should be enough. -- œ^™ 02:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The story is a headline on BBC Radio 4 news. Wikipedia can't just sweep something embarrassing under the carpet. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this embarrassing to wikipedia? If anything it's only embarrassing to the NPG. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the mainstream media picks up on it, this is still an insignificant event in the history of the NPG. This navel-gazing does not below here, regardless of who it reflects good or bad on. --Apoc2400 (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Apoc2400 and OlEnglish. I have removed the section and ask Nunquam Dormio to seek consensus here first before re-adding it a fourth time. Also, please do not call good-faith edits vandalism.

Editors wishing to describe this incident in the article should be prepared to explain why "Wikipedia played a major role in the subject of the article" (to borrow language from WP:WAWI). See also WP:UNDUE ("An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject").

Mentioning the incident might be more justifiable as part of describing a hypothetical general attitude of the NPG with respect to copyright (as hinted at by Cory Doctorow in 2007), but that would need more sources.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: This comment by an anonymous academic publisher confirms Doctorow's observations from a different angle, characterizing the NPG as the most restrictive of British museums and galleries (comparing it to the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum as examples).

As an anonymous blog comment, it does not qualify as a reliable source, but it seems to indicate that searching for reliable sources documenting such a long-standing attitude of the NPG could be worthwhile. According to today's Independent, "leading art critic Brian Sewell" called the legal action by the NPG against Wikipedia "another example of their folly", apparently referring to comparable previous incidents. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me utterly perverse that a significant news story that has been picked up by mainstream organisations such as the BBC and the Independent gets no mention in the article on the organisation that began the current flurry. A short, factual and well referenced mention of the incident seems to me to be completely justified. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How often during the last one and a half centuries has there been news coverage of the NPG by "mainstream organisations"? Why single out the coverage of this incident? That is the question that needs to be answered here, and the answer cannot be "because it is the one that directly relates to us as Wikipedians". Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the NPG does what it says it is going to do, the courts will need to provide a significant clarification of UK copyright law as it applies to the reproduction of images of works that are themselves out of copyright. The fact that Wikipedia is involved is of only minor significance. Wikipedia users will come to this article (as I did), expecting some information. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the incident leads to such a clarification that would admittedly be a valid reason, but at the moment it is just informed speculation. (Talks are ongoing between the NPG and Wikimedia to resolve the matter without a court case.)

There is already some information for those Wikipedia readers in form of the Wikinews link. (By the way, there is also a lot of coverage in this week's edition of the Wikipedia Signpost, which is an entirely appropriate place for Wikipedians to read and write about the incident.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about using the first 2 sentences from the material that was removed ie "On 10 July 2009, the National Portrait Gallery started legal proceedings for breach of copyright against Wikipedia editor David Coetzee. The dispute centres on whether digital photographs of public domain artworks are protected by copyright." together with appropriate references? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rjm. Failure to mention the incident may give the impression of censorship, and it can be removed later.--Charles (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not of long-term relevance, it should not be included here to begin with. See WP:NOTNEWS. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with HaeB. See Wikipedia:Recentism. -- œ^™ 19:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is significant, the news coverage certainly is. The removal of the material smacks of censorship. As it is related to the finances of the NPG I have added something there.--ZincBelief (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not censorship, once again read WP:Recentism. It may be significant right now but in a few years from now i'm willing to bet noone (apart from Wikipedia editors) will remember this, and it will most likely be edited out as irrelevant to the overall history of the gallery. Are we going to include commentary everytime the NPG shows up in the news? The event and news coverage is recent and the wikinews link is enough and even the wikinews link will be removed once the hype over this dies down. It is much more significant to Wikipedia's history rather than the Gallery's history anyway. Remember that our duty is to the readers not other Wikipedia editors, right now the readers will want to know about this news item and that's why the wikinews link is there. -- œ^™ 00:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the prospect of this becoming a landmark copyright case is hardly "completely unimportant in the gallery's 153 year history". And that is just going on the media context, before even citing the words from the NPG themselves such that they believe a fundemental part of their mission, the digitisation project, is under threat from Commons. This is hardly trivial news, it certainly rates acknowledgement, and wp:recentism does not call for the removal of information just because the rest of the article is lacking. MickMacNee (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest leaving this poll open until 29th July (7 days from now) before making edits either way.

Support - please sign below.

• Support Notable. May lead to landmark copyright case. Of interest to our readers. Widely verifiable bodnotbod (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If the NPG were pursuing a copyright protection claim against someone else, mentioning it wouldn't even be controversial. Because it's a claim against Wikipedia (ultimately), various reasons are invoked by some people as to why it should be airbrushed out of history. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Recentism is being overhyped here. Readers will expect to find some reference to this important legal case.--Charles (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support worthy material per my comment above. MickMacNee (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support see above Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against - please sign below.

• Oppose per WP:Recentism, WP:News articles and WP:NOT#NEWS. The sisterlink to Wikinews is enough for the readers. See my comments above. Besides, it already is mentioned in the "Finances and staff" section. I don't see anyone edit-warring over removal of that. -- œ^™ 23:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If it's already mentioned in the "Finances and staff" section, what are we voting over? I'm in favour of including the story but more than one mention would be undue 'recentism'. Ham 16:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The finances sentence is a round the houses way of mentioning it, actually without mentioning it, by using the incident to cite something pretty much unrelated(how much they make from digitised works). It is not a decent addition at all, and is certainly not a replacement for a mention of the legal threat. MickMacNee (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Also the finance section doesn't actually mention the threat of legal action. How about adding "and the gallery has threatened legal action against the editor who uploaded the images"? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]