Talk:William Henry Perkin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject Chemistry
Chemistry Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Textile Arts WikiProject
Textile arts Portal
This article is within the scope of the Textile Arts WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

What evidence is there that Perkin's mother was of Scottish origin? I would be interested to know. (Query by 193.62.111.10 on 16 Jun 2006)

From 'Mauve: how one man invented a color that changed the world...' by Simon Garfield (the first reference on the article), in chapter two page seventeen first paragraph last sentence: "Their mother Sarah, a woman of Scottish descent who had moved to east London when she was a child...". As for where Garfield gathered the information, I can't say for sure since it is not cited explicitly. However, after browsing through the 'Acknowledgements' and 'Bibliography' sections of the book I can say that there were plenty of possible sources including family archives, interviews with grandchildren, or even an undated family tree from the "Kirpatrick Collection at the Museum of Science & Industry in Manchester". I don't know where the editor of this claim in the article got the info, but the book should be enough verification. Does that help? If not, let me know. Bfesser 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo of Graveyard

Maybe someone could snap a photo of the graveyard where he's burried at least? The photos in this article (of two plaques) are a bit bland.--Bfesser 23:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:William Perkin book.jpg

Image:William Perkin book.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Move to William Henry Perkin. EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, titles such as "Sir" aren't meant to appear in article names, so I'm suggesting this page is moved to William Henry Perkin. William Henry Perkin is currently a disambiguation page with links to only two articles, this article and William Henry Perkin, Jr., the latter already being linked from this article via a standard {{for}} link at the top of the page.

Alternatively, perhaps the names William Perkin, William Perkin (senior), William Henry Perkin (senior), etc, could be used.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The Sir makes an excellent disambiguation in this case; The existing article name is best. The unqualified name should remain a disambiguation page as currently. Andrewa (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • But (1) Perkin wasn't Sir William Henry Perkin until the last year or so of his life; (2) I haven't yet seen any other articles using this name format. Wherever they are, perhaps they need amendment too. I'm aware of William Perkin the discoverer of mauve(ine) as "William Perkin", not "Sir William (Henry) Perkin", just as I'm and I imagine most of the world is aware of Isaac Newton as "Isaac Newton", not "Sir Isaac (other forenames) Newton". Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • (1) What he was called during his lifetime is irrelevant. The question is, what is he called now? (2) Yes, Isaac Newton is normally called just that, without ambiguity. There's no suggestion that his article should have the Sir added. This is different, as there is ambiguity. See WP:NC in a nutshell. There are a few biographical articles that already have the Sir; Whether there is any pattern to these I'm not sure, and yes, in some cases it may be wrong. And in others it may not be. I accept what you say, that you're aware of him by the unqualified name, and I guess weren't aware of the ambiguity up until now. But now that you do know the need for a disambiguator, what's wrong with this one? Andrewa (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I guess I haven't seen a title used for disambiguation elsewhere and it struck me as inconsistent. Anyway, since William Perkin junior already uses William Henry Perkin, Jr., why not keep things simpler, more commonplace and more consistent (at least, to me) by moving this article to William Henry Perkin and slapping a "dablink" to his son at the top? (I'm imagining William Perkin senior has significantly more claim to notability than William Perkin junior.) Thanks for your input. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) says quite categorically: "Titles of Knighthood such as Sir and Dame should not be included in the article title: use personal name instead, e.g., Arthur Conan Doyle not Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. (But make a redirect from the form with the title if it is well known, thus Sir Walter Raleigh redirects to Walter Raleigh.) " Pterre (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.