Misplaced Pages

Talk:Wallace Collection: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:15, 27 June 2008 editKbthompson (talk | contribs)40,503 edits Clean up banner clutter using AWB← Previous edit Revision as of 15:15, 15 June 2009 edit undoJaguarjaguar (talk | contribs)129 edits →Literary allusions: new sectionNext edit →
Line 13: Line 13:


This serves no purpose but to puff the collection. Sits favourably? What does that mean. Is this a list of private collections? If so, then we should just put a link in the "see also" section to a list of private collections. Just listing these names serves no real purpose. It was claimed that the facts are not in dispute; I don't see any facts to dispute, just a list of vaguely explained names. Why pick (only) these? This list smacks of original research. --] 16:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC) This serves no purpose but to puff the collection. Sits favourably? What does that mean. Is this a list of private collections? If so, then we should just put a link in the "see also" section to a list of private collections. Just listing these names serves no real purpose. It was claimed that the facts are not in dispute; I don't see any facts to dispute, just a list of vaguely explained names. Why pick (only) these? This list smacks of original research. --] 16:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

== Literary allusions ==

The Wallace collection comes up in loads and loads of novels, particularly; I'm thinking most obviously of ] and ] but I'm certain there are tons of others. Someone should make a section on this and if no one else does I will in a longish time

] (]) 15:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:15, 15 June 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLondon Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMuseums Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

References

I can't seem to get the references listed in the References Section, anyone help?--81.106.79.133 11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Peacocky sentence

I have removed this sentence:

"The Wallace Collection sits favourably amongst a group of private collections, primarily European, which include; The Royal Collection, as the greatest private collection in the world, Waddesdon Manor, the Bowes Museum, Herrenchiemsee, Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Frick Collection and the Liechtenstein Museum."

This serves no purpose but to puff the collection. Sits favourably? What does that mean. Is this a list of private collections? If so, then we should just put a link in the "see also" section to a list of private collections. Just listing these names serves no real purpose. It was claimed that the facts are not in dispute; I don't see any facts to dispute, just a list of vaguely explained names. Why pick (only) these? This list smacks of original research. --Eyrian 16:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Literary allusions

The Wallace collection comes up in loads and loads of novels, particularly; I'm thinking most obviously of Iris Murdoch and Anthony Powell but I'm certain there are tons of others. Someone should make a section on this and if no one else does I will in a longish time

Jaguarjaguar (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Wallace Collection: Difference between revisions Add topic