Jump to content

Talk:List of Archibald Prize winners

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of Archibald Prize winners. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

@Pdfpdf: WP:EL is pretty clear about embedding external links into articles like this for the reasons explained in WP:CS#Avoid embedded links, WP:El#cite_note-7 and WP:ELLIST. In particular, we don't add an external link, embedded or otherwise, for each entry in a list article. The consensus about this type of thing is pretty well established at WP:ELN, so it would be better to try and file another way to incorporate this information into the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Thanks for the quick reply. (Appreciated.) In my opinion, and the opinion of MANY others, its not as simple as that. It's late here - I'll provide a better reply ... later. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Embedding external links into the article content is something generally not allowed and I cannot see why this would be an exception to that. If the links are intended to be citations to reliable sources, then they should be converted to inline citations (embedded citations is a style no longer considered acceptable). On the other hand, if the links are intended to be external links, then they should be added to the end of the article in the "External links" section; even better would be adding a link to a more general page instead of a page for each image. Many of the images link to the Art Gallery NSW website and these links could all be combined into Archibald Prize so there's no need for a link to each of those individual pages. The same may be able to be done for the other links as well. In addition, many of the paintings can be seen in the sources cited in the notes section, so the image links are redundant in almost all cases. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. Trying to find and include a link for every winner violates NOT, especially WP:LINKFARM. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The excessive linking in the "External links" in the external links section has been cleaned up by Ronz, so that still leaves the embedded "Image" links in the two tables and in the "People's Choice Award" section. In addition to what I wrote above, at least 22 of the paintings have been uploaded to Commons and are shown in the "Public Domain Gallery" where they can be seen. That makes it even more unnecessary to have the embedded links. Why does an direct link to the jpg file for Desbrowe Annear need to be embedded as Image when (1) the citation for the entry (Winner: Archibald Prize 1921) shows the painting and (2) a file of the painting has been uploaded to Commons and can be seen twice within the article? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @Marchjuly: and @Ronz: I could individually address each of your comments, but on the whole I see little point because, a) quite clearly, it wouldn't make any difference to your Ps.O.V., and b) on the whole, I don't think it's worthy of "dying in a ditch" about. To make it worse (for me), on the whole, I sort of agree with you. I just wish you had made these comments BEFORE I went to all the effort I've gone to on this article ... Pdfpdf (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pdfpdf: Just for reference, I didn't initially remove the links because I wanted to "waste" all of the effort you put into improving the article. I saw the state the article was in before the changes you made, and think you did improve it quite a bit. My removal of the embedded links was a bold attempt to continue to build on what you started and try to bring the article even more in line with relevant guidelines. There's still some embedded links in the article which probably should be removed for the reasons I've mentioned above, especially if the eventual goal is to keep improving the article so that someday it may be considered for GA status. FWIW, I'm not really here to try and win; I'm more interested in simply trying to make articles better in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. I came across this article while checking some non-free images, and then noticed the links. I wasn't out poking around looking to give other editors a hard time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To explain my edit summary, "redundant" [1], generally we don't include links to sub-pages of a website, especially when they are easily accessible from a linked website already in the "External links" section. In that sense, all these external links are redundant with the one that I added. Additionally, an External links section is not a location to leave links to assist editors in building the article. I certainly do leave such links in poor articles myself, but realize that anyone can come along and remove them. A good solution is to move the links to article talk space or user space.

As for the reinsertion of the images, the edit summaries pretty clearly show these were done by disregarding our behavioral policies and any attempt at consenus-building. I think they should be removed again. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the images from the Packing Room Prize table, leaving them in the People's Choice Award section while it is still being changed into a single table like the others. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

See above comment [2]: --Ronz (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References for People's Choice award winners:
1980s: 1988; 1989
1990s: 1990;      1991/92;    1993; 1994; 1995; 1996; 1997; 1998; 1999
2000s: 2000; 2001; 2002;

[edit]

@Pdfpdf: It's not clear how a link to a jpeg file such as Image for Bergstrom's Jon English, for example, is a citation to a reliable source. What can the reader verify from looking at that jpeg file that they cannot verify from Winner: Packing Room Prize 1995. The same goes for all the image files you re-added. Your edit sum stated "restore deleted references", but it looks like you simply re-added the embedded external links removed by Ronz by placing them between ref tags. This type of linking seems excessive per WP:NOTLINKFARM and also a bit of WP:BOMBARD#What is and is not bombardment and WP:CITEKILL. I'm also pretty sure that a discussion at WP:RSN would mostly like come to the same conclusion. I didn't revert you to give you the chance to try and explain, so hopefully you will choose to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much to be explained. The links to non-jpg have been restored. The links to jpg have been pruned. Thanks for the ping, the time to receive the ping, and the time to respond. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't look remotely like collaborative editing. Let's see what editors at AN3 think. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The recommendation was to take it to RSN. I don't understand how that would help. I'll check with the commenting admin.
@Pdfpdf: Could you please explain how the images are now "references" and what they verify? --Ronz (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at ELN here, noting that some of the other "Notes" contain links that seem to be more like external links than verifying references. --Ronz (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Archibald Prize winners. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Archibald Prize winners. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Archibald_Prize_winners&oldid=1201578515"