Talk:Pneumatic Institution

Exact establishment date
From what I gathered from the sources so far, 1799 may not be the accurate establishment date. It depends on how you define "establish", but perhaps 1798 is more accurate. I will try to find something citeable. So as long as that is unclear, perhaps we should lay off the "established in 1799" categories. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I had been convinced by the above announcement, insofar as "established" = "open for business", especialy as the date was 21 March. But agree that (better?) source(s), and /or more detail on the activities after the properties were first rented would be ideal. But by all means delete the cat tags if you are unsure. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it as it is, becaue it's consistent with the article. Once we have actually dug up something more precise, we can change both the article and the category. -- Nczempin (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

images
I would like to add some more images to the article. However, I am not sure about the policies regarding those (that are not yet already _in_ WP), perhaps someone with more knowledge about them than me can provide a few pointers (until I've educated myself on them, which may take a while). Specifically: I would like some kind of a picture of the buildings where the PI was located. There are pictures of them here and here. Here are there terms. It is also possible to use Google Street View to show them (the plaque is visible, or at least what I think is the plaque), no idea what WP's policy is on those. Or someone could just pay a visit and snap a few shots (with a detail shot of the plaque).

The other picture (so far) that I would like to include is this: While it may not be 100 % certain (or at least I am not) that this is actually Davy's lab at the PI, I could live with just "a lab of Davy". I don't know if we can just take it (it looks contemporary, i.e. copyright run out), the Beddoes image on that site is the same as the one we got into WP.

It would also be nice to show some of the apparatus that Watt built here. -- Nczempin (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The images at the English Heritage site are quite good. But I see the copyrights belong to Ruth Povey and Joy Roddy, so presumably we'd need their permission, possibly as well as that of English Heritage. I couldn't find any similar ones at Geograph, which is usually a good source of free images. So yes, a photo by a wiki editor might be a lot easier. I see from the EH site, however, that the plaque says only that Davy lived at No 6, and makes no mention of the Institution. So I wonder would it really add enough for this article? Re the other ilustration, from general-anaesthesia.com, although it shows some sort of apparatus, I'm not sure who is meant to be who, and it looks to me like it could easily have been drawn in the 20th century. Perhaps that website coud tell us? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The EH site in fact says this: "Photographs taken by Images of England volunteers are the copyright works of those volunteers indicated next to each image and the digital images of those photographs are exclusively licensed to us." So they don't look like a possibility, ubless those volunteers could supply the originals or other copies. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If I have time next weekend (UK Wiki conf bobbins) I might walk down there. If I don't, and I remember, I'll poke the Bristol visitors and see if one of them will do it. It's an interesting walk and not too far from the Watershed. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure a good image in the article would be a real watershed haha. (sorry). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. I just about needed that, thanks :-) If the plaque only mentions Davy, it would be slightly less useful :-( -- Nczempin (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Watt apparatus
The Stansfield paper has nice pics of some of Watt's devices, from the Considerations book by Beddoes & Watt. Can some one more knowledgeable than me about using these please get them into Wikipedia? They are drawings from a book from 1795. -- Nczempin (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Easy enough to lift the images out of the pdf and upload them into Commons. They are obviously out of copyright. But I see that Ronald Stansfield has credited each of the 3 plates with: "by permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library" who must own the Beddoes & Watt 1795 book. So even though re-use here would be third- or even fourth-hand, I'm guessing some kind of permission might still also be required? Not sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to die trying. -- Nczempin (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, not sure I want to be accused of helping too much. But will see what I can do. Reading the Stansfield paper again, their relevance seems greatest to Boulton and Watt, so maybe they could be used there also. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Have now uploaded just Plate 1 as a test, in Commons. It's called "File:Watt apparatus 1.JPG". I'm not sure it will last long because (a) there's no permission from the "Syndics of Cambridge University Library", (b) there's no permission from the journal Medical History and (c) there's no permission from Ronald Stansfield. But we'll see what happens. I suggest you try and add it here or/and at Boulton and Watt. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're taking the bullet for me? I'm so touched. Srsly, what is the bigger "crime", adding the file to Commons or adding it to an article?. -- I'll add it to this here article. Perhaps we should have done more due diligence, but here goes. Geronimooooo! -- Nczempin (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, having seen [[File:Watt apparatus 1.JPG]] I think we are on the safe side. Great job! I've just put it in the article. -- Nczempin (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Give it a couple of days and I'll upload the other two. Ronald Sanderson suggest that the diagrams were probably from a Boulton and Watt technical sales catalogue or similar. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The other two now added as [[File:Watt apparatus 2.JPG]] and [[File:Watt apparatus 3.JPG]] . Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK
I (or someone else if so inclined) will add some more info on the fact that "treatment" was free, and then I will submit this to the DYK process. -- Nczempin (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I submitted it: Template_talk:Did_you_know. -- Nczempin (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed all but one "citation needed" tag because you must have gotten the information in the last half of this paragraph from somewhere :). Yoninah (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. -- Nczempin (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)