Talk:Harpy Tomb

Accession number

There are two, the historic one is used by Pryce but not by the BM's web page. I don't want to get into a tussle about it, but It seems to me that it would be useful to clarify the different usages. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 12:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My point was that the this kind of information does not belong in the lede text, not that it should not be in the article at all. These are reference numbers, so belong with the references. An inline note would also be acceptable, but I still don't see the need, the BM template at the foot shows the ID number and the hyperlink takes you to a BM page which displays both the ID number and the sculpture number. SpinningSpark 12:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My point was that the this kind of information does not belong in the lede text. It's been fascinating to watch over the years the emergence of a new verbal mood, which for want of a better name, I'm calling the wikipedian imperative. It's used to convey with auctoritas a rule the writer has just made up on the spot.

May I suggest to you that it belongs wherever it is most useful, and knowing exactly where it is located, in the literature and in actuality, is the kind of thing a reader wanting research this subject would want to know. But as I said, I'm not going to labour the point. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 13:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You say you are not going to labour the point right after you have laboured the point, as if saying that is a means of cutting off any opposition. You follow that with some rather uncivil namecalling and accusations. The rule that I have "just made up on the spot" is WP:LEAD, which says among other things;

• "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible."
• "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction."
• "The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader, without being overly specific."

I gave a reasonable response stating my views. You may not agree with what I said, but the tone in your response was completely uncalled for. SpinningSpark 14:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

the tone in your response was completely uncalled for Well aren't you delicate.

specialized terminology, overly specific And what makes you think that accession numbers are either of those things?

I was tempted to do some research into this subject, but I can see now that it'll be a chore. You, I suppose, will be busy deleting all the catalogue numbers from the ledes of the articles on stars. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 15:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Alright you two, knock it off please. I tend to agree that the numbers need not be in the lede, but should be somewhere. It is only because these are permanently mounted on a "chest", and perhaps because they are so long in the BM, that there is only one number for the lot - otherwise each piece would have its own number, like the over 200 for the Elgin Marbles and the 13 for the pieces into which the Mold gold cape has broken - see that article, they aren't even a sequence. Let's not even think of the Staffordshire Hoard, at over 1500. Is this being used, btw. The two databases don't link up. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Used for what? The Harpy Tomb doesn't have a gable. SpinningSpark 16:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong item - this is the right one. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that's because my version of the id number has a spurious dash in it so I never got it to work. That's the one that should be in the link, I'll fix it. SpinningSpark 16:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It's Smith 94, Pryce B287. Given BM's links don't always work, the bibliography page on that link conflates Smith and Pryce and BM's acquisition numbers aren't necessarily unique, this is the utility of being able to cross-reference catalogue numbers on WP. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ)

@Abductive: Why do you think a northing of 24.4″ is more accurate than 24.6″? I can't see your basis for saying that, 24.4″ looks further off than 24.6″ to me. I think 24.5″N, 4.7″E is really close to the centre of the structure, and better numbers than either of the previous coords. SpinningSpark 08:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

At the moment the coordinates are pointing into the shadow. If you look at Yandex, which has the clearest view, you can interpolate what the blurrier view of Google is showing. Anyway, each of the three main satellite map views is off from the others, by at least 0.1", which is why it is excessive precision to go to 0.01" precision in coordinates. Even if we were standing there taking GPS readings, they would vary by about 0.1" as the GPS satellites rose and set, and as solar wind varies. Abductive (reasoning) 14:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the .01" rounding, that's plainly ridiculous. I'm disputing your change of the northing from 24.6" to 24.4". I'm not sure that the Yandex view is any clearer, you just can't zoom in as far as you can in Google which admittedly does go blurry if you try. The current Yandex view (24.6") does not have the pin in the shadow, in fact it is closer to the centre of the object than the Google pin, which is only in the shadow in their view because of the time of day, the shadow is going the other way. In fact, the Yandex view with the 24.4" setting is right in the shadow on the other side. I still think my suggestion above of 24.5"N, 4.7"E works best. It is bang on in Google, and out of the shadows and nearer centre in Yantex than your coords. SpinningSpark 15:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you are confident that it is pointing to the object, that's fine with me. Abductive (reasoning) 21:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)