Talk:William Fane de Salis (businessman)

Galleries

These have been the subject of various reversions of late. I have made a bold edit which I hope offers an encyclopedic way forward. On the one hand, I don't think that this or any other encyclopedic article is a really good place for pictures of the subject's ancestral tables, various relatives, and whatnot. (I found them interesting and I hope they can be recycled elsewhere; for example we lack an article on Baron Henri Joseph François de Triqueti and a couple of the pictures would be useful there.) On the other hand, pictures of the subject himself strike me as pretty unarguably relevant even if there are lots of them, and I'd personally also include his wife. (At this point I should admit that she was my great-great-great aunt, which is how the article arrived on my watch list, but I hope that's not affecting my judgement here.) His commendations, personal works, places he embellished, and prizes also seem to me directly relevant and worth inclusion. (Admitting another point of personal interest here, I'm still associated with Teffont manor and church.) Comments of course are welcome. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files and the edit summary of User:Sven Manguard "... this isn't ancestry.com" - image galleries are generally to be avoided on Wikipedia, although they are more common in articles related to the arts.

I honestly don't think these image galleries add anything to this article, and it should be noted that this article used to contain even more images! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Andrew_Salius_Fane_de_Salis&oldid=398789645. memphisto 11:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Mmm. Please note that I did not reinstate the images of peripheral relevance, but I honestly disagree with you on the rest. I suggest that at least the images of the subject, his wife and buildings are directly relevant to the subject and add considerably to this article. The image of him conversing with his wife struck me as especially charming. There has been too much reverting already; would we do well to get a few other opinions? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems rather wrong headed that historical and exclusive to Wikipedia images so integral to the man: his house, pictures or sculptures of him, his wife, and key things he commissioned or earned are considered mere worthless flim-flam. Think of the the British Museum and its recent book 'The world in 100 objects'. Furthermore if pictures are worth 1,000 words, and valid pieces of art history to boot then why not enjoy the large cake?

Why do you spurn these gifts?Rodolph (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has already reached a consensus on the use of image galleries (which I linked to above) - so I don't think it's worthwhile debating their inclusion on a per article basis. However, I'm not saying that the article wouldn't be improved by the inclusion of relevant images within the article text. memphisto

Well, the policy is about encyclopedic context, and I think that the images I left in had sufficient context. However, could I ask if you would have any strong feelings about the inclusion of these images on Wikimedia Commons, with an appropriate link from the article? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There are no issues linking to a gallery hosted on Wikimedia Commons, such as in the article Reconquista which uses Template:Commons. I imagine the difficult part would be transferring all the images to Commons. 17:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. I hope that Rodolph will be inspired to place his images on Wikimedia Commons, where I trust they can be uncontroversially useful. There seem to be several tools available for this purpose from Wikipedia:Moving_files_to_the_Commons#Tools and I hope the process won't be too much of a trial. In the meantime both of us have tried to incorporate the more obviously-encyclopedic images within the text and I have done a minor copyedit for brevity; I do hope for consensus on this solution or a similar one. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Andrew Salius Fane de Salis. 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/20140523230219/http://www.louthcoco.ie/en/Services/Archives/Archive_Collections/Archives_relating_to_development_of_County_Louth/PP00001_Filgates_of_Lisrenny_Papers.pdf to http://www.louthcoco.ie/en/Services/Archives/Archive_Collections/Archives_relating_to_development_of_County_Louth/PP00001_Filgates_of_Lisrenny_Papers.pdf

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) 05:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)