Talk:Royal Naval Division War Memorial

Geography category?
Is there a geography category to add to this article, such as for a particular part of London? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The lowest level of local government is the City of Westminster though the area is informally known as Whitehall, after the street. It's in Category:Grade II* listed buildings in the City of Westminster. We don't seem to have anything like a Category:Monuments and memorials in the City of Westminster. We could probably do with a more refined category given the proliferation of military memorials in the area. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 01:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging in case you have any thoughts here. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We've got Category:Whitehall, and Commons has c:Category:Monuments and memorials along Whitehall (as well as c:Category:Monuments and memorials in the City of Westminster). I would be happy to see equivalents of either Commons category being created here, except that the second is so phrased as to be only about Whitehall the street, which would exclude this memorial. Category:Monuments and memorials in Whitehall would be better. Ham II (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Dumping ground
Moved here from the article until I decide what, if anything, to do with it. It's currently unsourced but it should be easy enough to source some of it.

There are other Royal Naval Division memorials at Beaucourt near the Somme – a Portland stone obelisk with bronze plaque, commemorating the Battle of the Ancre in November 1916 – and at Gavrelle – a 3-ton anchor surrounded by a broken wall of red bricks, commemorating the Battle of Arras. The Collingwood Corner memorial near Blandford Camp commemorates the men of the Collingwood Battalion who lost their lives in the Third Battle of Krithia at Gallipoli.


 * The Royal Naval Division memorial, Great War London Not a eliable source
 * War Memorials Archive, Imperial War Museum Now cited
 * Obelisk: Royal Naval Division – WW1, London Remembers Not a reliable source, doesn't contain any new information
 * The (63rd) Royal Naval Division, wereldoorlog1418.nl not a reliable source
 * Architectural brief for relocation (Trehearne Architects) Could be uable but realy doesn't say a lot.

—HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 01:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Context
I saw this wide panorama at Horse Guards Parade and wondered if it might be helpful to provide some context for the location of the memorial, to one side of the open parade ground.




 * I don't know. I thought about it when I was writing the article. It's an amazing photo, but the memorial is barely visible in it which is why I went with the photos we have. I tried to include photos from different angles to give context as best I can with the photos we have available. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 16:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm not opposed to another image that gives more context, but in this image, the memorial is barely visible. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Being barely visible is part of the point of adding context. Unlike the Guards Memorial, this memorial is quite modest and hard to spot, and gets lost at the edge of the wide open space. Perhaps an image of the Admiralty Extension building, then? 213.205.198.203 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the second image more. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Of the two, I'd actually prefer the first one because it would take up several lines to itself rather than squashing anything already there. I'm just not sure that either is particularly relevant to this article. If somebody wants to know about the layout of Horse Guards Parade, wouldn't they be better off reading our article on Horse Guards Parade? HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 09:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Map in infobox?
Should a map be added to the infobox? I'd have to do some digging to see how to make one display properly, but I think this would be beneficial to the article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent on this. On the one hand it wouldn't do any real harm, but on the other the article already contains coordinates, so a reader can access their preferred mapping service in two clicks. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 10:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)