Talk:Alexander Thomson

Image

I re-added a photo I took of Egyptian Halls, for the reason that it's fairly absurd to talk about the work of an architect and not illustrate it. It was then promptly removed again by User:Twospoonfuls, citing the reason "Thats what the commons page is for, and there is a reason: it looks crap". I disagree with both those of those points, as the commons is not there as a substitute for the wikipedia page, and many users will never click through to it. Egyptian Halls may indeed look like crap in the photo, but that, sadly, is what it does look like at the moment, like many of his other buildings. A photo of an architect, interesting as may be, doesn't really show the reader anything useful; a photo of one of their buildings does. If it's felt that the image of the Caledonia Road church, also the commons, is more suitable, then I don't mind at all. Maccoinnich 21:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My view on illustrations is that they are just that; illustrations, they are not content. I've noticed a tendancy of users to add pictures to articles that have only a tangential relationship to the text on the page. The Egyptian Halls apart from being IMO a poor picture (and did not improve the page layout) is not refered to in the text, there is therefore no context by which one can judge how representative it is of Thomson's work. If you would like to add a description of Thomson's buildings and their details in a way that would be informative and encyclopedic and illustrate that, it would be very welcome. As for readers who can't be bothered to click through to the commons page, sadly that is probably true, but all i can say is that the intellectual sloth of some people never ceases to amaze me yet I don't see why it should be indulged. Twospoonfuls 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sloth doesn't come into it - for a casual reader, it is not particularly obvious what "Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Alexander Thomson" means. I know what it means, you know what it means, but many people wont. The idea of making an encyclopaedia challenging to use is somewhat bizarre.

Nor does your particular view of illustrations come into it. The article is short, and doesn't mention any of his buildings explicitly, but it does mention both warehouses and churches (including ruined ones), so the images have somewhat more than a "tangential relationship." A photo of Victorian Glasgow, to show the context in which he was designing, has a tangential relationship. A photo of one of his buildings has a pretty direct relationship. The Egyptian Halls in particular shows the kind of detail he was known for; Caledonia Road church is fairly representative of his churches. And if you want to take a better picture, then go ahead and try. Until then, I would suggest you shouldn't remove other users contributions. Maccoinnich 14:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid my views on illustration a very much to the point. The Egyptian Halls picture does not "show the kind of detail he was known for" it shows the kind of detail he used in his middle eclectic period. To put it on the page without context was to suggest that it stands as synecdoche for Thompson's work as a whole, it does not any more than one of his early romanesque villas, or late ionic buildings would. To leave it there would have been actively misleading. I see you took that picture and I understand that you are parti-pris, but consider this - for the amount of typing you've expended berating me you could have added some content to the page and illustrated that. Twospoonfuls 14:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 10:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Outwith

Please do not use this virtually unknown word. I had to look it up when I first saw it, yesterday, in a Liverpool article. My immediate thought was that it was a mistyping of "without". I agree with the fellow whose edit was "Exchanged obscure word for a more understandable one." 31.48.111.109 (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a Scottish English word, and is certainly not 'virtually unknown' in Scotland, where it is a perfectly normal word. Probably does make sense to change for an international readership, though.109.149.9.143 (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2016

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 consensus.(non-admin closure) Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 21:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

---

• Alexander Thomson → Alexander Thomson (architect)
• Alexander Thomson (disambiguation) → Alexander Thomson

– Rationale: No clear primary topic. The architect is probably the most significant single topic, but the test of a primary topic is that it is more significant than all the other topics combined.
In this case the other topics include a leading theorist of British fascism (Alexander Raven Thomson), a pioneering colonist of Australia (Alexander Thomson (pioneer)), and two senior judges on whom we do not yet have articles.
The 90-day pageview analysis shows the architect getting about 60% of the pageviews, but that data may be misleading because the lack of disambiguation will direct readers searching for any of the other topics to the page on the architect. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support: pageview analysis shows that it is not significantly more than all other variations. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even after including WP:PTMs, the architect still receives the majority of page views. I am not seeing enough evidence that this is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. SSTflyer at 04:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support no primary 2601:541:4305:C70:3DF9:26D2:C071:2705 (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per SSTflyer. Page views linked above just don't support this nom. The architect clearly gets most of the traffic, the faschist politician is distinguished by his middle name and per the article was "usually known as Raven", the other articles get very few hits at all. The dab page (not included in the above page views for some reason) gets an average of one hit per day which suggests that the majority of our readers are already getting the article they want. PC78 (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alexander Thomson. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://places.designobserver.com/media/pdf/Glasgow%2C_Scotl_752.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050419165542/http://www.ntseducation.org.uk/students/case-holmwood.html to http://www.ntseducation.org.uk/students/case-holmwood.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502002104/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ken.owen/main.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ken.owen/main.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexander Thomson. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090428105820/http://www.greekthomson.org.uk/ to http://www.greekthomson.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)