Template talk:National Statuary Hall Collection

State vs. non-state sculptures
Do you think we should separate the U.S. state and non-state sculptures? For example, the statue of Rosa Parks is part of the collection, but does not represent a particular U.S. state. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I put her last. I think she should be there somewhere. deisenbe (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree about the statue of her being included, I'm just wondering if we should separate out the state statues for organizational purposes. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how to make this happen in terms of markup, but I see there being a collection of sculptures, with a subgroup of state statues, then further divided into current vs. former state statues. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I got this partly figured out. With this edit, I created a subgroup for state statues. So Rosa Parks remains part of the collection, but not as one of the state statues. Does this work for you? --- Another Believer  ( Talk ) 17:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, National Statuary Hall Collection says the statue of Parks is not part of the collection... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Architect of the Capitol coordinates everything on art in the Capitol. According to his page on her, https://www.aoc.gov/art/other-statues/rosa-parks, she is in the National Statuary Hall. I think common sense would say that therefore she’s part of the National Statuary Hall Collection (which needs updating), of which those contributed by states are a subset.
 * On the template, I’d suggest putting first State Statues and then Other Statues (National Statues? Federal statues?), and move DC to others. Unless you have a faith I don’t share in what is accomplished by red links, I think it would be much more helpful to readers to change them back to links to the people. Under the people you could put the red links.
 * It sure is nice interacting with others who know what “federal” and “subset” mean. deisenbe (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. However, I don't agree with displaying links to people with the template. For the sake of consistency, we should only display links (red or blue) to notable works within the collection. Red links encourage article creation, and Carptrash and I will get to creating a stub soon enough. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Current vs. former
I'm also wondering if we should separate current and former state statues... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is quite what you mean, but yes, I think we should include all the current 100, but should also somewhere have statues that were in the collection but were replaced. Carptrash (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. I will see if I can figure out how to add further subcategories. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've created a section for replaced statues. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Martin Luther King Jr. (Wilson sculpture)
Should Martin Luther King Jr. (Wilson sculpture) be added to this template? I guess I'm not exactly sure where to draw the line between Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Collection, and National Statuary Hall Collection. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Curious if you might have any insight here? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging you as well, since I know you've done some work on sculptures in DC. Any ideas on how to organize this template, and where to draw the line re: National Statuary Hall Collection, Architect of the Capitol, etc? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but since the National Statuary Hall Collection is just for the sculptures given by each state, I wouldn't add unrelated works. Maybe another template or renamed template that could include the other sculptures?  APK  whisper in my ear  23:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Add to the template
a “by state” section, using abbrevs. AK. AL. AR. AZ. CA and link each abbrev to the statues for that state on the List page. deisenbe (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you'd like to see the works sorted by state and not alphabetically? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Both. Two sections. deisenbe (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not entirely sure I understand what you have in mind. I don't think we should be displaying entries twice, though, right? So we should pick one or the other? Do you care to take a stab at updating the template, or are you just throwing out ideas? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m throwing out ideas. The problem with my suggestion above is that I forgot we aren’t dealing with html, where you can set a “bookmark” to link to a particular part of a file, which here, and correct me if I’m wrong, the only way to do that is with a subheading. So even if we wan’t to send someone to the two state statues of any state, I don’t know how that could be done. deisenbe (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems best to me alphabetized and not broken down to states. Readers who want a state breakdown can go the main page. I don't think Wikipedia uses postal abbreviations to sort, even if it were to divide up into 50 states. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I’d recommend including a link to the main page. deisenbe (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * By main page, do you mean National Statuary Hall Collection? This is linked in the template title. I'm also leaning toward sorting alphabetically, and not by state. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

National Statuary Hall
Should we include a link to National Statuary Hall in the template? Thanks. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the 'Related' section, both for full Wikipedia coverage of the topic and for the allowed placement of the template on the Statuary Hall page which will allow more readers to see and access it. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I also vote yes. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Like it now? It was also me that moved Douglass and Parks down. Somehow I didn’t know that a template like this can only be on the pages linked from it. deisenbe (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Car of History and Liberty and the Eagle
Should a red-link or article of the Car of History (image and list of pages it's already on) and Liberty and the Eagle (which I've just found listed) be included, possibly in the 'Other statues' section? The first statue/clock depicts Clio, the muse of history. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are more sculptures to add to the "other" section, I believe including those you've mentioned. Where things get a bit tricky is differentiating the "Architect of the Capitol" vs. "National Statuary Hall Collection" -- see Template_talk:National_Statuary_Hall_Collection above. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, good, I didn't know you had them on your radar. The Clio statue is interesting and educational, and Liberty and the Eagle sounds like a good one. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * These ones are on my radar, but do please feel free to expand this list if you're aware of others. I'm still not really sure I understand which artworks are specifically in the NSHC vs. the Capitol collection, but regardless, I know there are more articles to create. We can figure out the sorting, category, templates, etc., over time. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Remove?
Shall we removed Frederick Douglass, Portrait Monument, and Rosa Parks, if they are not part of the NSHC itself? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should. ~ HAL  333  23:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , ✅ We can revert if someone else disagrees. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Rosa Parks statue is in the room, and so it seems it would be "part" of the collection even if it's not an official entry (i.e. how is "collection" defined, if it's in the midst of the other 'collectibles' then it is, well, there). The Architect of the Capitol seems to claim it within the room/collection. Probably should stay on the template. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think this make the artwork part of the U.S. Capitol's collection but not the NSHC. I am in favor is defining NSHC in the strictest sense. No problem with having articles about the Rosa Parks statue and others, or including with U.S. Capitol categories/templates, but the Architect of the Capitol specifically says these are not part of the NSHC. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A possible solution. Since it's in the room, although officially not in the room (the official collection), how about including it as the last entry in 'Related'? Randy Kryn (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since no objection here, have added Parks back under 'Related' with full name of the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, but I think we should get some other editor feedback here. See below. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Rosa Parks
Should this template include Statue of Rosa Parks (U.S. Capitol), which is displayed in National Statuary Hall as part of the collection of the Architect of the Capitol, but not the National Statuary Hall Collection? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the Parks statue is actually displayed in the Hall, and so is appropriately listed as a statue on the National Statuary Hall page, adding it to the 'Related' section of the template seems the best way to include-the-obvious while skirting the technically correct. For example, if someone has a stamp prominently displayed in their stamp collection album, but tells people that it's not really a part of their collection but is just there, that stamp seems, at least, to be 'Related' to their stamp collection album. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)