Talk:Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)

(sculpture) or (Kirby)
, thanks for your work here. Are you sure that "(sculpture)" is the correct convention for the title of the article? I was relying on WP:Manual of Style/Visual arts, which states "If the title is not very specific, or refers to a common subject, add the surname of the artist in parentheses afterwards, e.g. Reading the Letter (Picasso)." --Usernameunique (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have seen both, usually the artist name is when there are multiple similarly named artworks.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Notability
The notability of this artwork is not evident from the cited sources. — Editør (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , any reason why Cocke 2013, and the various contemporary sources about its installation, are not enough? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For each reference:
 * 1: catalogue of all public sculptures, does not establish notability of any particular sculpture
 * 2: catalogue of all public sculptures, does not establish notability of any particular sculpture
 * 3: sales catalogue, not independent of the artist, does not establish notability
 * 4: local newspaper, discusses the artwork, but alone not enough to establish notability
 * 5: does not mention the sculpture
 * 6: does not mention the sculpture
 * In general, local newspapers can vary in quality and reliability, while some are dedicated to indepentent journalism, others will directly print press releases as articles. I don't know the Ipswitch Star and looking at the source I don't immediately see any issues, but in my opinion this source alone is not enough to establish the sculpture's notability. If no additional sources that establish notability can be found, maybe the relevant content can be moved to the paragraph about the visitor center in Sutton Hoo? — Editør (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Some new sources have been added, but the new sources are about (the background of) the visitor centre, not the sculpture that is the subject of this article. As such they cannot establish the notability of the sculpture. – Editør (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , does the new section "Themes" address your concerns? It addresses the sculpture in a way that could not be covered in the Sutton Hoo article, relating it both to the actual helmet, and to Kirby's work. Re: the first two sources you mention above (Cocke 2009/2013), I'm not sure where your statement comes from that they cover "all" public sculpture, not just that which is sufficiently notable. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Among the cited sources I see no improvement in terms of establishing the sculpture's notability:
 * 1. Cocke 2009: catalogue of local public artworks, does not establish notability of any single artwork
 * 2. Cocke 2013: catalogue of local public artworks, does not establish notability of any single artwork
 * 3. Axle Arts 2015a: gallery tweet, not independent from the author
 * 4. Ipswich Star 2002: local newspaper, discusses the artwork, but alone not enough to establish notability
 * 5. Worsley 2003: does not mention the artwork
 * 6. National Trust: does not mention the artwork
 * 7. Architects' Journal 2000: published 2 years before the artwork was made
 * 8. Dawson 2002: undetermined, because I have no access
 * 9. Kennedy 2002: does not mention the sculpture
 * 10. Axle Arts 2015b: gallery catalogue, not indenpendent from the author
 * 11. Cocke 2013: see 2
 * 12. Williams 1992: published 10 years before the artwork was made
 * 13. Bruce-Mitford 1972: published 30 years before the artwork was made
 * 14. Williams 1992: see 12
 * 15. ArtParkS: mentions the artwork once in a list, but no significant coverage that can establish notability
 * 16. Bath Contemporary: mentions the artwork once in a list, but no significant coverage that can establish notability
 * I am putting back the warning and I am going to nominate the article for deletion, so others can weigh in. – Editør (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge
The discussion has closed as keep. My rationale for a merge with Rick Kirby was only as an alternative to outright deletion. Since this article is being kept, there is little point in a merge and I will not pursue it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Usually these are closed as merge so I was surprised by the outcome, however I'm not going to pursue a DRV or the merge proposal. Szzuk (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 2 people wanted to delete, 3 people wanted to keep, 6 people wanted merging or redirect (counting a merge vote for Prince of Thieves). A more reasonable outcome of the AfD would have been merge. – Editør (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It should have closed merge, so I support a merge but I contribute to article deletions almost exclusively, so it isn't a biggie for me. If this were to go to DRV I think it would get endorsed but you can proceed if you think appropriate. As you wish to pursue the merge discussion the notability template should stay in place until it is concluded. Szzuk (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned the issue at User talk:Joe Roe#Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture). – Editør (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I will make the position clear. The AfD was closed as keep, that is a consensus. The notability tag will stay off the article. I would recommend either: a new AfD or, a RM, either way, a RM or AFD tag can be used, but not the notability tag. (it is also possible I would support a RM.) Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The AfD asked for deletion based on a lack of established notability, this is not the same as the notability warning: the notability of the article has still not been established by cited sources. – Editør (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also see Help:Maintenance template removal. – Editør (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The correct tag would be something source related like refimprove or another of the more specific tags related to a dispute. By definition the AfD being closed as keep means it is judged fit for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and therefore notable. The Afd resolves the issue of notability. Therefore tagging for a notability issue now is incorrect. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't say I'd ever read the notability template closely until not long ago, a close reading appears to indicate while a merge discussion is underway it should stay. Perhaps it should have the merge template as an alternative. Szzuk (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * So there are lots of templates for everything, but some that could be used instead are More footnotes, Primary sources, More citations needed, Third-party, Unreliable sources and refimprove, depending on what exactly you think the issue is. It is quite clear from the policy, and from Template:Notability/doc that after an AfD, the notability tag should not be used. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

"Coloured red"?
Do we mean "painted"? If we do why not just say it? --90.253.62.91 (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Per the source, it is made of "[s]mall mild steel plates, coloured red." It is possible, of course, that it was painted, but it is also possible that another method was employed, such as adding something to the steel. "Coloured" is a general explanation that accounts for whichever method was used. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's possible to add anything to steel to make it red. It looks too bright to be a rust coating (which is all the rage in sculpture; cf. Angel of the North) so that leaves paint. It just seems somewhat odd not to state the nature of the colouring. --90.253.62.91 (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It's simply because I don't know, and a source doesn't say, for sure. I may have the opportunity to ask Kirby a couple questions in the coming weeks, and if so, I will ask. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Source for it still hanging above the entrance?
The sentence "As of 2019 it remains above the doors, dominating the entrance" is cited to a 2002 source, so it isn't really verified as written. Ordinarily I'd assume this was OK, but given that the visitor centre has undergone a large-scale revamp this year I think we should find an up-to-date cite for this. It was also raised at WP:ERRORS that the sculpture is outside just one of several buildings, but it's hard to be sure based on the sourcing currently in the article. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Plot diagram on page 7 here makes it very clear that the exhibition hall is within the wider confines of the visitor centre. Kevin McE (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , added Russell 2019 as a source. The 2002 source is being used for the "dominating the entrance" portion of that sentence, but, as you say, doesn't speak to the first part of the sentence. Meanwhile, Google's street view shows the sculpture still up as of October 2018. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * aha, thanks for that, but the renovation was this year so even October 2018 isn't conclusive. And I have new evidence to present: shows what looks like the same helmet, but it's now in its own concrete hut, somewhere in the grounds. Not sure if we can get a source on exactly where that is...? Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "somewhere in the grounds", therefore within, not outside, the whole complex. And given that there is no building called the visitor centre, and that the term visitor centre must apply to the whole complex, within, not outside, the visitor centre.  Kevin McE (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Well caught, . And using the same album, here is what the exhibition hall looks like now. I've added that it was moved to the article, using a tweet from the National Trust as the source. Hopefully a better source (and photograph! I just asked the person on Flickr if they would license it) will come along, but hopefully that will do for now.
 * , thanks for your contribution. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , just an update to let you know that there is now a better source, found by : link. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Photograph
This article currently only has photographs of the sculpture in its old location at the Sutton Hoo visitor centre, despite the fact that it was moved in 2019. I haven't been able to find an updated photograph with an appropriate license, such as from Geograph or Flickr. By any chance, does anyone have a photograph—or the ability to take a photograph—of the relocated sculpture? Mass ping of Wikipedians in Suffolk:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't have access to any, none of the Commons images appear to be post 2019.  Crouch, Swale  ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|talk ]]) 06:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Do we know where is has moved to? I visited in Feb. 2020 but don't have a photo.  If it is outside I could go to see if I can get one tomorrow, after that we're in Tier 4.Steve James (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . That would be great if you're able to. It's definitely outside; this is what it looks like now. According to the National Trust, the sculpture is "waiting to greet you as you arrive", so it is likely by the entrance. Looking at Google Maps, it looks like it might be by the car park, at 52.094587N, 1.341976E.


 * By the way, if you're able to go would you mind also taking a close-up photograph of the placard by the sculpture (visible in the above link)? It doesn't look like it says much, but it would still be nice to read. —Usernameunique (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Here are some pictures on Wikimedia Commons including the placard. I did wonder as I was driving home if I should have also taken a shot from a bit further away.  If you want something like that then I can always return another time.
 * Sutton Hoo Helmet Sculpture, Front 1.jpg
 * Sutton Hoo Helmet Sculpture, Front 2.jpg
 * Sutton Hoo Helmet Sculpture, Front 3.jpg
 * Sutton Hoo Helmet Sculpture, Information Plate.jpg
 * Sutton Hoo Helmet Sculpture, Back.jpg
 * Sutton Hoo Helmet Sculpture, Right.jpg
 * Sutton Hoo Helmet Sculpture, Left.jpg

Steve James (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * These photos are great,, thanks very much for heading over and taking them! Really nice composition, too. If you do find yourself back there a photo from a bit further away might be nice as well, but no need to go out of your way to do so; the photo I've placed in the article (the second shown here), in particular, frames the sculpture nicely. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)