Talk:Sir William Brockman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Re cleanup

I've partially cleaned up the page (giant images and irrelevant images - from past experience of this kind of issue, I very much doubt that those from other sites count as fair use). But also see Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources; it's the convention to summarise and link rather than use long quotes from sources. Tearlach 21:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I will move the pictures to the right as Tearlach suggests to avoid the wrap around affect. I really like the letter from Fiarfax - I think that historical letters that mention a relevant figures are different than quoting long strips from historical sources. I think that together the re-enactment photos and the quotes really "bring the figure to life". I will better support the copyright issue. A. Brockman

I'm not going to get into a revert war over this, but I urge you to look at other articles and get a feel for the conventions here. Whatever the permission situation, it's the convention to use only specifically relevant images. For instance, even Oliver Cromwell, despite his pivotal involvement in the English Civil War, doesn't have pictures of Civil War reenactments.
As to the quotation about primary sources, it doesn't matter what you or I "really like": Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources is specific on Avoid including entire texts of treaties, press releases, speeches, lengthy quotations, etc. In an article of a treaty, for example, summarize the treaty and then provide an external link. These quotes should go to Wikisource.
This is an encyclopedia, not a family history scrapbook. Tearlach 09:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I will review the references this weekend. Why are old portraits more encyclopedic than re-enactment photos? A lot of good museums are using the most accurate photos they can find, creating accurate panoramas and so forth to bring material to life. Personally, I think that they both add value but i will also review wiki guidelines this weekend. ABrockman

The close relevance is the point. See Horatio Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener. He was a major WWI figure, but the article only uses pictures of him, not generic ones of WWI soldiers in the trenches. BTW, adding the reenactment pictures to Oliver Cromwell after I cited it as an example of the convention for their non-use almost certainly comes under WP:POINT. Tearlach 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I added this after re-adding the images thinking you only removed them for copyright. i will read the reference you provide. I still think they are nice... The Cromwell page has coins, statues, arms, all sorts of things, why not an image conveying a feeling of the actual violence in the military section? But again, I read the rules and the examples you provided. Regards, ABrockman

More examples: George Washington, Napoleon I of France, Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson and Winston Churchill. In all these, the images are directly related to them; as I said, it isn't the convention to include generic ones of subjects' life and times. Tearlach 09:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Washington Crossing the Deleware almost certainly involved models, dressed as stressed continentals, in a boat. The portrait artist then painted the portrait. I don't know enough art history off the top of my head to know if Washington himself posed or was illustrated in the re-enactment. I wouldn't want to see a Wahington-Impersonator in Washington's biography but I don't think I would mind seeing a re-enactment photo of an important battle, and I'm not sure how it differs with "Crossing the Deleware" except that a famous oil painting is more respected than an inexpensive photograph. I am going to email a few people I trust to offer me an honest opinion - I don't want to leave them up if they are tacky. Regards, ABrockman

I've never said they're tacky, just insufficiently relevant.
I am going to email a few people I trust to offer me an honest opinion.
What outsiders think isn't a measure of what's appropriate on Wikipedia. Tearlach 12:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sir William Brockman's descendents

Awesome!!! You have a picture of my 10th great grandfather!

[edit] June Cleanup Tag

Would the tagger please discuss what they would like to see in a cleanup. Thanks! Sandwich Eater 00:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Query passed on. Please don't blank Talk pages. Tearlach 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Seems we're not going to get a reply from the tagger. It looks generally OK, but I said way back that the verbatim letters should be summarised in line with Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. Tearlach 02:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted the tag. It's for the benefit of anyone who comes along, and doesn't require that the originator explain it. Some specifics now that I've looked at it properly. Summarise the letters, for reason explained above: It makes interesting reading. Let the reader be the judge of that. Sharpen up the intro: before wading into the biography, it needs a good topic sentence giving birth and death dates and saying who he was and why he's notable (the first sentence of Oliver Cromwell is a good example of style). Tearlach 08:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Added the Cromwell-esqu opening. Left the letters. I reviewed the rule and it discusses copying entire treatises and tracts of text, not a brief letter. I think the letter adds to the article and is central to Sir William's notability. Sandwich Eater 03:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sir William being knighted

I've deleted the 'and was therfore (sic) called Sir William' from the sentence beginning 'He was knighted by ...'.in the 'Prominence in Kent and Conflict with Cromwell' section.

'He was knighted by Charles I in 1632.' is perfectly adequate, as any man who is knighted under the English/British system of honours was and is automatically accorded the title of 'Sir'. There are exceptions to this (when honorary knighthoods are given to foreign nationals, for instance), but in this case and context, the addition is completely unnecessary. Edmundoconnor 00:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)