Talk:Alexander Thomson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.

[edit] 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)