Talk:Tragic Prelude

Embedded links

@Deisenbe: Please stop adding embedded links to the article. Links to external websites shouldn't be embedded into the body of the article as explained in WP:CS#Avoid embedded links and WP:EL#cite_note-7. I removed the links once here and here, and left edit summaries explaining why. There's no need to add a url link to the Wikimedia Commons file because (1) that is not how files from Wikimedia Commons are added to articles and (2) the file is already being displayed in the Tragic Prelude#Curry's description section. There's also no need to add link for the east wall photo because that a link showing that is already found in the Tragic Prelude#External links section; the article doesn't need three external links to the same website. I'm assuming that you just didn't notice that the links had been removed and the edit summaries explaining why, but now that you do please don't re-add them again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I did notice that the links were removed and I read your edit summaries. I'm asking you to make an exception here. It's important and there isn't a better option that I see. The problem is not the Commons image, it's the external link to the picture of the east wall.

1. There is no public domain image showing the entire mural. I'm sure of that.
2. You can't discuss a famous, influential work of art, one that there's a whole book about, and require readers to find a link to one wall of it in an external link at the end. It's much more important than an external link.

Please reconsider. deisenbe (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You re-added the links without addressing the reasons why they were removed or even acknowleging why they were removed. When you do something like this, other editors are going to assume either (1) you didn't notice the links had been removed or (2) you did notice but just preferred the links be there regardless. Even if you thought the removal was a clear case WP:VANDAL or was otherwise unexplained, your edit summary probably should've mentioned as much. The first time you added the links, a simple edit summary like "added link" would've been fine; however, a two word explanation like that was not really sufficent after the files had been removed for a specific policy/guideline reason.

You posted above that The problem is not the Commons image, yet you still re-added it as well. Bascially what you did would be equivalent to adding a WP:WIKILINK to the article John Steuart Curry and then embedding an external link somewhere else to the same article as John Steuart Curry. There is no need to add external links to the Commons file urls when internal links to the files can be added which properly display the file.

The consensus against embedding external links into articles appears to have been as such for quite sometime. The relevant guideline tells us to avoid adding links to the bodies of articles like this. Trying to embed the same link more than once is even less of a good idea. Giving you my personal stamp-of-approval to do this isn't really going to change any of that because (1) I don't think an exception is warranted and (2) another editor could come along and remove the links for the same reasons as I did at any time. Even if the two of us here agree that an exception is OK, we still cannot decide to ignore or create our own exceptions to a commumity-wide guideline. If you, on the other hand, are able to establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of re-adding the links that goes beyond the the scope of just you and me or goes beyond the scope of this talk page (something like an WP:RFC) that involves a larger segment of the Wikipedia community, then that would be one way for an exception to be granted.

Two possible ways to resolve this might (1) adding a link to the east wall image to the "External links" section or (2) using Template:External media. The problem with the first option is that there's already a link to the image added to the "External links" section. If you click on the image for the east wall in www.kshs.org/p/kansas-state-capitol-online-tour-tragic-prelude/16595, you get the same image you linked to with www.kshs.org/places/capitol/tour/graphics/curry_conquistadors.jpg. Generally, relevant article don't need multiple external links to the same pages/wesbites and since the more general link includes text content about the mural it seems better to link to that page and not the subpage for the east wall image itself. Option two involving the "External media" template might work, but there's no need to add the template more than once, and it would work very well in either infobox or the lead of the article. It would need to be added to the body of the article preferably near any article content discussing the east wall.

Since it seems unlikely that there are lots of other editors watching this particular talk page, if you feel that other input is necessary, then perhaps posting a Template:Please see at WP:ELN might be a good way of letting others know about this discussion. If you're not sure how to do that, then I can.

Finally, there might be no image showing the east wall that currenty exists, but one can be created if the work itself is PD (which seems to be the case). Anyone who has the time and desire can photograph the east wall and upload their photo to Commons under a free license. So, even if you're unable to do so yourself, someone else might be able to so instead. Have you tried asking at WP:RI or c:COM:RI about this? Perhaps someone living in the area who likes to take photos and who also is a Wikipedia editor can get over to mural and take some photos of it. You could also try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kansas since there are probably some members of that WikiProject who live in that area. At the same time, if you think this image is the best possible representative image of the east wall that anyone could ever create, then try contacting the Kansas Historical Society (per WP:PERMISSION) and see if they would be willing to release this photo or perhaps another phote they might have of the wall under a free license so that it can be uploaded to Commons. Sometimes a copyright holder will agree to do such a thing. They might not even have to upload anything at all. All they would need to do is to attach a free license to the photo on their website per c:COM:OTRS#When contacting OTRS is unnecessary, and then someone else could upload it for them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)