Talk:Lord Uxbridge's leg

Spontaneous praise
I think this is my favorite Wikipedia page. Just... thank you everyone who helped make this happen. A2soup (talk) 06:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Poetaster Credit
I don't want to cause any change to the content of this beautiful article, but Google has a document that seems to suggest that a certain George Canning (in all likelihood the once-prime minister) wrote the poem as opposed to Thomas Gaspey. Citation 12 links to a source that also credits Canning. The text also seems to be much more in line with Canning's poetic style than Gaspey's.

The Fireside Encyclopedia

Citation 12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.12.88 (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC) I'm going to change it unless anyone objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.12.88 (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Image caption
The image is a portrait of Lord Uxbridge; there is no necessity to add any further wording so I am reverting this again. Please state any reason for including anything else before adding other detail. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is about the leg, not Lord Uxbridge. The portrait was chosen over many superior portraits specifically because it shows the leg. The burden of argument should be on those who wish to not mention the subject of the article in the caption of a picture selected from among many better pictures specifically to show that subject. And, in my view, the only argument against it is that Wikipedia shouldn't be funny, which I don't think holds water. When something is both funny and appropriate, all the better. (Also pinging, who I see has been involved in this.) A2soup (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How about a compromise caption such as "Lord Uxbridge, portrayed by Henry Edridge in 1nnn, before the loss of his leg." (Does anyone actually know the date of that picture?) Pam  D  17:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "Lord Uxbridge's leg, pictured attached to Lord Uxbridge" is laugh-out-loud funny (for extra humour, substitute "leg" for other body parts), and unnecessary. I would assume most people can infer a picture of Lord Uxbridge with two legs is before he lost one of them - if the problem is that the visually impaired can't make that inference, the image alt should provide the more verbose description from A2soup. I seem to be resembling a comedy sketch now, so I'll stop. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The question is not one of whether people can infer the leg is there or not - it's a question of the article being about a leg, the lead image being selected to show that leg, but the caption somehow omitting mention of the leg. Would you suggest that the lead image of Rings of Saturn be captioned "An image of Saturn" since people can infer that the rings are there? In any case, I would support 's compromise. The portrait is from from 1808. A2soup (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have just reverted 's change. I vehemently disagree with any changes to the previous caption - to alter it to the "compromise" suggested within a matter of a few hours without allowing others sufficient time to comment is unacceptable. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 22:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I didn't mean to short-circuit the discussion. What is your objection to the compromise, and your response to my points above? A2soup (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As I previously stated above it is unnecessary and I believe has offered a similar opinion above.  has also indicated by his revert of your earlier edit that he disagrees. Please allow a reasonable time making allowances for different time zones before editing to reflect your preferred version. Thanks.  SagaciousPhil  - Chat 23:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry again for the quick change: I figured that since it was a compromise and very far from my preferred version ("attached to Lord Uxbridge"), it wouldn't be seen as a revert but rather a productive step forward. My mistake. Re "it is unnecessary", I would note that several portraits of Lord Uxbridge after the loss of his leg show both of his legs, with trousers concealing and disguising the prosthetic, e.g. . Therefore, without the clarification in the compromise caption, readers will not know whether the leg depicted is his original leg or the prosthetic. In an article about his leg, this is an important distinction. In this light, do you still regard the clarification to be unnecessary? A2soup (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I have come up with another compromise idea: use the image shows at right with the caption "An 1815 study by George Jones thought to show Lord Uxbridge at Waterloo after receiving the wound that caused the loss of his leg." Thoughts? A2soup (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that is a very poor image. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 08:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you go into more detail? What about it is so poor as to outweigh the fact that it is far more relevant to the subject than the current image? A2soup (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's dark, the top of the soldier's head is cut off etc etc. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 08:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think there is any value in having the lead image be pertinent to the subject of the article? In any case, if you are dead-set on the current image, how would you respond to my argument above that mentioning the leg in the caption is necessary to clarify whether the real leg or prosthetic is pictured? A2soup (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you wait to see if any further comments are made - as I've stated previously I feel it is unnecessary. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 08:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * After you stated that previously, I made a new argument that portraits showing the real leg and prosthetic are not easily distinguishable, so a clarification is necessary, especially since the leg is the subject of the article. Do you think it is unnecessary even in light of this fact?
 * As for further responses, I guess there's no harm in pinging, , and to weigh in again. A2soup (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say "thought to show Lord Uxbridge at Waterloo after receiving the wound that caused the loss of his leg" in the caption at Commons, it merely says "possibly Lord Uxbridge" and nothing about the wound or the leg, so where did you get that from? A picture that we're confident actually is Lord Uxbridge is surely preferable. For identification purposes, although the article is about his leg, it's showing what he himself looks like that's educational - legs do tend to look pretty similar. I favour the current image and the current caption. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I got it from the image source, which describes it as "A Highlander, Black Watch attending a General of Hussars, possibly Lord Uxbridge: a study for 'The Battle of Waterloo'". Since the Battle of Waterloo is specified, "attending" implies care, the general and soldier's postures indicate caring for the wounded, and the general's leg appears to be wounded, I felt the inference was justified. Indeed, the fact that the picture depicts a leg-wounded general from Uxbridge's unit is almost certainly why the gallery believes it to depict Uxbridge. Is that enough justification?
 * Re "it's showing what he himself looks like that's educational", as I argued above, there are many far better pictures of Lord Uxbridge. The reason the current one was chosen was not to show him, but to show his leg, which makes sense because it is the subject of the article. What we have now is equivalent to having the caption for the lead image of Rings of Saturn be "Saturn eclipsing by the Sun" - yes, that's accurate, but the picture was chosen because it shows the rings, so surely they should be mentioned (and should really be the subject of the sentence)? A2soup (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please point me to the prior discussion concerning the choice of the current image. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 09:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That the choice of image was made specifically to show the leg is apparent from the fact that added the image with the original caption "Lord Uxbridge with both his legs." I never argued there was a discussion, only that the picture was chosen to show the leg. A2soup (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's not sufficient for your suggested caption - the bit about the leg wound is your own synthesis and is not allowed. And the gallery does not say it "believes it to depict Uxbridge" just that it's possible, and that's a big difference. You could toss a coin without showing me and ask me what it is, and I could accurately say it's *possible* it's heads but that would not mean I *believe* it's heads. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to do semantics, it's obvious that the gallery thinks it's *possibly* Uxbridge instead of, say, *possibly* Wellington because it clearly depicts a leg-wounded general from Uxbridge's unit. I understand how one might see that as an unacceptable level of original synthesis, and would prefer the current image if it could only have an appropriate caption.
 * On that point, would you advocate removing mention of Saturn's rings from the caption of the lead image of Rings of Saturn? If not, why not? A2soup (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious reference work. As Ritchie333 mentions above the amended caption may be humorous but it is highly inappropriate in a serious encyclopedia. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 09:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, "semantics" means "meaning", and the meaning of what we say is actually very important for an encyclopedia. And I don't see any obvious leg wound in the painting. As for an alternative caption, I just think the "leg still attached to Uxbridge" caption is very silly and that, along with replacing the image with one that's only "possibly" of him, is what I object to. If you can get a consensus for an alternative caption for the current image, I won't object. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Sagaciousphil: Do you think the proposed compromise caption, "Lord Uxbridge portrayed by Henry Edridge in 1808, before the loss of his leg", is humorous?
 * @Boing! said Zebedee: As you can see from my response to Sagaciousphil, an alternate non-silly caption was discussed above. What do you think of it? Also, would love an answer on the Rings of Saturn image caption. A2soup (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, suggest it again below and do a Support/Oppose thing. (And I'm not interested in your Saturn diversion, no matter how tediously you repeat it). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks for working forward with me, and I'm sorry if the Saturn thing was annoying. A2soup (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have stated several times now, I do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to change the caption. What is or is not done with the caption on the Rings of Saturn is of no interest to me whatsoever. My focus is simply on this article. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 09:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For info, I've updated File:Henry William Paget00a.jpg at Commons to include the date of 1808, as that's what the National Portrait Gallery says. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Caption for lead image
What should the caption for the lead image (pictured right) of Lord Uxbridge's leg be? See the discussion above for context.

Options: Comment with your position in the appropriate sections, no need to comment in every section. A2soup (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Lord Uxbridge with both his legs, by Henry Edridge, 1808" (original caption updated with artist's name)
 * "Lord Uxbridge's right leg, shown attached to Lord Uxbridge in a portrait by Henry Edridge" (added in basic form 2 August 2012, first disputed 2 September 2013)
 * "Portrait of Lord Uxbridge by Henry Edridge" (since 29 July 2015)
 * "Lord Uxbridge portrayed by Henry Edridge in 1808, before the loss of his leg" (proposed compromise)

Lord Uxbridge with both his legs, by Henry Edridge, 1808

 * Support - in place 2008-2012 with no edit-warring. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - My argument for "Lord Uxbridge portrayed by Henry Edridge in 1808, before the loss of his leg" applies equally well for this caption. A2soup (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - will continue to encourage childish comments. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 15:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It didn't for the 5 years it was in place. It also clarifies that the portrait was with both original legs, a question bound to be asked otherwise. We should not force readers to do the maths. Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - The wording is childish. Perhaps merge this with option #4: "Lord Uxbridge, before the loss of his leg, by Henry Edridge, 1808"? J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 16:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would consider that suggestion just a variation on #4, since it's the way the leg is treated that's the controversial part. A2soup (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak support as second choice. Pam  D  06:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, a ridiculous caption. Eric   Corbett  21:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose No need to state the obvious. Esemgee (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per - We really don't need to state the bleeding obvious. – Davey 2010 Talk 04:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Lord Uxbridge's right leg, shown attached to Lord Uxbridge in a portrait by Henry Edridge

 * Oppose. Infantile humour, and Wikipedia is meant to be serious. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Much as I love the humor, it's not encyclopedic. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - My argument for "Lord Uxbridge portrayed by Henry Edridge in 1808, before the loss of his leg" applies equally well for this caption. I recognize, however, that there is significant opposition here, and I would be fine with either the original or compromise captions. A2soup (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Unencyclopedic. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 15:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is not a portrait of Lord Uxbridge's leg. The portraitist did not believe the right leg to be the primary subject, and I would welcome anyone to argue otherwise. This is a portrait of Lord Uxbridge, before the loss of his leg. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 16:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose: fun but unencyclopedic. Pam  D  12:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Legs aren't attached to an individual, they're part of that individual. Added to which, the leg isn't "shown", as it's not a picture of his leg. Eric   Corbett  21:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not even funny. Esemgee (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose .... This RFC's going to get worse isn't it!, Anyway nope as noted above unencyclopedic. – Davey 2010 Talk 04:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Portrait of Lord Uxbridge by Henry Edridge

 * Oppose - It is absurd not to mention the subject of an article in the caption of the lead image of that article, especially when that image was selected specifically to show that subject. This caption would be the equivalent of the caption of the lead image of Rings of Saturn being "Saturn eclipsing the sun" - yes, that's accurate, but the rings need to be mentioned as the subject of the article and the reason that particular image was chosen. A2soup (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - this is the most sensible option. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 15:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak support - While this is the most accurate description of the portrait, it does leave the reader to wonder whether the portrait included an artificial or natural limb. I would prefer another option, but would support this one. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 16:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: does not mention topic of article, no indication whether the trousers hide real leg or prosthetic.  Pam  D  06:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support because that's what it is. Esemgee (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose because that's not what it is. Well it is a portrait of Lord Uxbridge, but it's also a picture of a landscape with soldiers. So why omit the landscape? For the same reason that the text should relate more closely to the subject of the article. /B****n (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Lord Uxbridge portrayed by Henry Edridge in 1808, before the loss of his leg

 * Support - The subject of this article is not Lord Uxbridge (he has his own), but his leg. The lead image was chosen from among many far better pictures of Lord Uxbridge specifically because it shows his leg, which makes sense. What does not make sense is to not mention the leg, the subject of the article, in the caption. Also, to make a practical point, several portraits of Lord Uxbridge after the loss of his leg show both of his legs, with trousers concealing and disguising the prosthetic, e.g. . Without the clarification in the compromise caption, readers will not know whether the leg depicted is his original leg or the prosthetic, which is an important clarification to make in an article about his leg.
 * I would actually most prefer the "attached to Lord Uxbridge" caption (in my opinion, when something is both funny and appropr and iate, all the better), but seeing that there seems to be little support for it, I support this as a compromise. A2soup (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as per A2Soup. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - poorly worded and unnecessary. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 15:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - as this is the best-worded one, but it could be improved upon. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 16:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as 1st choice-clear and informative.  Pam  D  06:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support obvious solution - accurately describes portrait while mentioning the subject of the article. -Darouet (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the grounds of redundancy. He's clearly standing on two legs. Eric   Corbett  21:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose No need to mention his leg, but I could support inclusion of the date. Esemgee (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The subject of the article is not Lord Uxbridge but his leg, so the clarification is (imho) essential. The other options, however, feel inappropriately flippant and unencyclopædic. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 07:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC), via the feedback request service.
 * Support - obvious/common sense choice —Мандичка YO 😜 04:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support; common sense caption. Keep in mind this is an encyclopaedia. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  16:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. This does seem like the best option. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Well I'm not overly convinced but I don't have anything better so this will have to do. – Davey 2010 Talk 04:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Makes more sense than the other options. SamWilson989 (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - most sensible. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - this is plainly the most clear way of putting it. I'm all for jokes, but certainly not at the expense of clarity. Neutralitytalk 04:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Huh?

 * I see my original caption "Lord Uxbridge with both his legs" lasted from May 2008 to 2012, until changed by an isp with 5 edits, since when no stable solution has been found. I suggest we go back to it. Why was it not included in the options? All the others are worse, although the artist's name can be added, sure. "portrayed" is wikispeak, best avoided. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Both? He had at least three during his life time. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the omission - I made the RfC based on the recent discussion. I'll add the option. Having a feel for the crowd here, though, I doubt it will gain much traction. A2soup (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're probably right given how late is it coming in. Does your feel include the ones who keep reverting you? Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was only reverted twice, and the second time was for the compromise rather than the original caption, but yes that's mostly who I've been talking to. A2soup (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * the introductory statement to the RfC is incorrect. The "dispute", if you wish to call it that, dates back to September 2013. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 15:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed! Apologies, I did my history by looking for each subsequent caption with WikiBlame. A2soup (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion
I see some people are supporting more than one option, and I think it might help whoever gets the job of assessing consensus if everyone clearly states which is their first choice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What is Eric C to do? He has opposed all four. Johnbod (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No he hasn't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lord Uxbridge's leg. 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/20081206035951/http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/changingTheWorld/page2-1.shtml to http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/changingTheWorld/page2-1.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)