Talk:Christopher Wren

RfC: Gallery
Should the gallery in this article be changed from the current version to the altered version? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 CURRENT GALLERY 


 *  Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. WP:CANVASSING of individual editors should be avoided. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC) ''

Survey

 * No - An architect is a visual artist, and like any other visual artist, their most notable works should be adequately presented in the article about them. Not only does the altered version remove significant works from the gallery, but it's formatting is very poor, and does not afford the reader a good look at the buildings. This is a grave disservice to the reader.  In addition, some of the replacement images, although they may be technically better, are visually inferior to the current images. In all, the current gallery serves the reader much better than the altered version, and is a more rounded representation of Wren's work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would add that the replacement of individual images can certainly be discussed outside the scope of this RfC, which seeks only to deal with the wholesale changes to the gallery made -- without discussion -- by one editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No - The images in the current gallery are much prettier. That sounds dumb, but in an aesthetic pursuit like architecture, I guess that must count for something. As BMK says, they give a better look at the buildings. As for how representative they are, I can't comment. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 04:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)o
 * Yes Images evaluated as quality and featured images are such. Furthermore, 57 images is a gross violation of WP:NOTGALLERY. Filetime (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No unless good reasons are given. They are both lovely. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC).
 * See: this thorough explanation that BMK conveniently left out Filetime (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I think this is actually asking several questions, so I'm going to break it down.
 * Chronological order: Yes - the second gallery being in chronological order seems to me to be more informative;
 * Works only: Yes - I agree that a gallery of an artist's work should be restricted to those works and not include images like the plaque photos (I really don't think they're informative to include in an encyclopaedia article anyway).
 * Fewer photos per building: Yes - having multiple photos of one building (e.g. five of the exterior of St Paul's) is less desirable on the architect's page than it would be on, say, an article about that particular building.
 * Gallery mode: Yes - the default gallery mode in the second gallery shrinks the images to similar sizes and makes it much easier (for me anyway) to look through (which might be why it's the default appearance).
 * but with the following caveats...
 * Specific images: We can definitely still explore which are the best images to use for each building separately. Beyond My Ken says this isn't a discussion about the specific images, but if there are featured images of some of the buildings, I imagine those are very likely the best ones to include.
 * Fewer buildings: If a building is already featured elsewhere in the article, I'd agree it doesn't need to go in the gallery as well. However, I don't think we need to limit the number of buildings featured in the gallery and I think doing so is likely to cause future conflict as to which buildings to include or not.
 * Interior/exterior: Where there are interior images in the second gallery, I think it would be informative to also have an exterior.
 * So, I'd like to suggest a compromise solution, using the second gallery in chronological order, with up to one exterior and one interior image per building, but including all of the buildings from the first gallery?
 * --JCrue (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No - The current images provides a better view and representation of the buildings. Sea Ane (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Just wanted to clarify that User:Beyond My Ken asked for comment on the format of the gallery, and not about the specific images used. --JCrue (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither The formatting of the first gallery is better but because 57 images is too many I'm leaning yes for the more reasonable image count. Spudlace (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No - either gallery is consistent with WP:NOTGALLERY, which requires that collections of images have encyclopediac value and does not mandate any limit to the number of images. If we think 57 images is too many, we should do that based on the needs of the article rather than based on a misreading of WP:NOT. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No Old one looks better.Thelostone41 (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Regarding WP:NOTAGALLERY: NOTAGALLERY is about images without context. In an article about an architect, the context for the images is provided by the text of the article, and the images provide visual context for the ideas and descriptions in the writing.  In short, there is no violation of NOTAGALLERY. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Beyond My Ken seems to believe that a gallery of 57 images, many of which do not even depict Wren’s work, is appropriate for the ‘’’Gallery of architectural work’’’ section. The gallery [as reverted] by BMK includes as many as 3 images of the same building as well as many undeniably low quality photos for which quality and even featured images exist. I am of the opinion that given WP:NOTGALLERY, a gallery should only include selected images of Wren’s most important and representative work. Further images or an exhaustive list are more appropriate for a List of works by Christopher Wren article and can be viewed by users who are so inclined, or on the pages that are devoted in their entirety to each of these structures. The included images should also note the dates of construction and be ordered chronologically, as I had so thoroughly done. I also (can’t believe I have to say this) believe that when available, images evaluated as quality and featured images should be used. Many of the images that BMK reverted back into the article are of abject technical quality (blurry, over or under exposed, not corrected for perspective distortion.)


 * I would lastly like to stress (again kind of at a loss here) that the content of galleries should accurately reflect their titles. Obviously, neither the Blue Plaque nor Bankside House are Wren’s works. BMKs reversion thus not only violates Wikipedia’s clear rules regarding WP:NOT, it is a sloppy umbrella reversion that returns misplaced content to the gallery. Filetime (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The duplication of images that are already on this page above and the poor formatting of this comment are the fault of Filetime, who refused to allow me to correct them. As with their image choices for the article, their judgment in this matter is extremely poor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You literally duplicated an entire discussion. If you are so worried about repeated content, engage with the thorough discussion above. Filetime (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I did not "duplicate an entire discussion". I replaced a discussion that you started and invited your friends to participate in with a formal RfC in which everyone in multiple WikiProjects was provided a neutral pointer to. Them's different animals. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd here like to ping major editors as well as editors to Balliol College, Oxford who have similarly expressed preferences regarding images relating to Wren’s work (explicitly permitted in the rules laid out at WP:CANVASSING given that they are "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" and are all pinged regardless of their opinions. Filetime (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder to neutral participants here that this RfC is not about individual images per se, it's about the sweeping changes made by one editor to the gallery without prior discussion. Separate discussions can be held regarding which images are best to represent which buildings outside the scope of the RfC, but the size and formatting of the galleries is what is being considered here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This RFC is about whether images of architectural works should be ordered chronologically and whether featured and quality images should be included in place of those which are as few as 600 px wide. Filetime (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that is what you want it to be about, but I am the editor asking the question, so its about that question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, as the number of images is way too many. It certainly needs reworking, but not with a similar number. Secretlondon (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - Looking at the file history and seeing the discussions on this page, it's clear to me that both Filetime and Beyond My Ken have a lot of enthusiasm and passion for this issue but I sense things are getting a little heated. I'd like to remind everyone of the Dispute resolution guidance, particularly the advice to disengage, rest, and revisit, which I have personally found very helpful in the past! I'm sure 's intention wasn't to inappropriately canvas, just to get the input from some other editors who have recently been discussing a very similar topic. --JCrue (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , if someone asked you for a representative image of the interior of a building, which of these would you show them? Note that the painting on the ceiling is not original (1708, by William Snow) and was unpainted as Wren designed it.

St Bride's, noted as "one of Wren's finest churches" is known for the "significant development" of "the provision of side galleries." Which of these two images better captures this important work and its place in Wren's architectural practice? Note that the second image has been selected as a featured images, meaning it is "considered one of the finest images" on Commons. Filetime (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Once again, these comments are not relevant to the question which has been asked here, which goes to the format and size of the gallery, and does not inquire about the choice of individual images. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that clarification as to what the "question" is, Beyond My Ken, because in fact, up to now, you haven't made that clear at all: you have merely posed a stark binary choice between the "current" and "alternative" galleries. As JCrue has pointed out, there are actually a number of different questions at issue, and it would be helpful to separate them out. To my mind, they are as follows (and I will refrain from offering my own opinions on any of them at this stage):
 * Should we set a limit on the size of the gallery, with a view to avoiding an indiscriminate collection of images (per WP:GALLERY); and if so, what? This needn't be an absolute limit, but it might be helpful to have an approximate guideline (e.g. 30, 40, 50, or 60 images).
 * In order to discourage indiscriminate growth, should we limit images to one per building? Or, where appropriate, two per building (interior and exterior)? Should we avoid illustrating a building in the gallery if it has already been illustrated in the body of the article?
 * Should the gallery include images that relate to Wren, but do not illustrate his buildings (e.g. plaques)?
 * Is it helpful to arrange the images systematically in some way – e.g. chronologically, as Filetime has done, or perhaps thematically (separating religious from secular, for example)? Or do we want to maintain a random order?
 * Is it preferable to format the gallery in default "gallery" mode (as the alternative version does), or in "packed" mode (as the current version does)?
 * Once we've reached a consensus on those points, we can perhaps turn to the merits of individual images. GrindtXX (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , with regards to question 1 (a limit on the size of the gallery), I think that the newly created List of works by Christopher Wren further undermines the argument for any more than, say, 25 images within a single gallery. Any reader, so inclined, can simply visit the aforementioned page  and view 85+ images of Wren's work in chronological order. As for the images that are selected, in accordance with what is quite clearly outlined at WP:GALLERY, as many as possible should be distributed throughout the article in relevant sections. Filetime (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I was not aware there was a separate List of works by Christopher Wren. Following the precedent set by other pages (e.g. Vincent van Gogh and List of works by Vincent van Gogh, Pablo Picasso and List of Picasso artworks 1901–1910, 1911-1920...) I would go further and suggest we shouldn't try to reduplicate the list article by having a gallery on this page at all, and only have the images used alongside the text. --JCrue (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Having thought about it some more, I'm inclined to agree with JCrue: the gallery is unnecessary. This article is primarily about the man rather than his works: for the latter, we have not only List of works by Christopher Wren, but also List of Christopher Wren churches in London. A few of the images in question could reasonably be relocated to appropriate places in the body of this article, which at present is a bit text-heavy. GrindtXX (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Filetime (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * From the point of view of the best organisation of this material, I might prefer to have separate articles with galleries of his work, but such articles have often been taken to AfD again and again until they are deleted. See, e.g., Articles for deletion/William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery. In the RfC at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries, some of those opposed opposed to changing the wording of WP:NOT to explicitly allow encyclopediac galleries said that they were not opposed to galleries within articles but would delete the same content in standalone articles. Putting the gallery into list form reduces the probability of deletion, but it also reduces the visual appeal of the images. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Would anyone else like to contribute before I remove the gallery and add 3-5 inline images in accordance with the current majority opinion? Filetime (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Date of Death, AGAIN!
What is the problem here people? His date of death is listed as 8 March 1723 [O.S. 25 February]. WRONG! Old style should state 25 February 1722! Again for those who don't know or don't care about actual history, England started the new year on 25 March starting from around the 12th or 13th century until 1753 when the Gregorian calendar came into effect. Until that time they were on the Julian calendar which was 11 days behind the Gregorian calendar. The article also quotes a stone plaque beneath the center of St. Paul's Cathedral that alledgedly says, "SUBTUS CONDITUR HUIUS ECCLESIÆ ET VRBIS CONDITOR CHRISTOPHORUS WREN, QUI VIXIT ANNOS ULTRA NONAGINTA, NON SIBI SED BONO PUBLICO. LECTOR SI MONUMENTUM REQUIRIS CIRCUMSPICE Obijt XXV Feb: An°: MDCCXXIII Æt: XCI." Somebody please provide a photo of that plaque, because if it really does say 1723 in Roman numerals, that means he was 92, not 91, when he died. This has been discussed many a time on this talk page until sometime recently when it was removed. Until such time as it is fixed to the proper dates and protected from being changed by some idiot who doesn't know a damn thing about history and how things worked in the England of the middle ages to Rennaisance period and thinks January 1st has always been New Years Day since time immemorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A9B0:527F:8521:4451:BCD6:82A3 (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * ... bit like spelling ('center' .... ?) 82.40.43.135 (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, time immemorial. I've forgotten when that was. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC) p.s. here's an image you were asking for.

Victorian attitude to Wren
The article should contain some detailed reference to the attitude to Wren in the Victorian era, and to the fact that many of his churches in the City of London were demolished in the 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.43.135 (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)