| Revision as of 13:19, 12 January 2013 editJohnbod (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers280,727 edits →Requested move: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:30, 12 January 2013 edit undoJohnbod (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers280,727 edits →Requested move: addNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| :'''Oppose''' Their website shows that 'The' is used in the logo and apart of the official name. -- ]]]</nowiki>'''</span>]] 22:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC) | :'''Oppose''' Their website shows that 'The' is used in the logo and apart of the official name. -- ]]]</nowiki>'''</span>]] 22:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :: But that's also true of the ] and the ], and note the titles of their articles. Also, the Wallace don't use it in their URL. ] 10:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC) | :: But that's also true of the ] and the ], and note the titles of their articles. Also, the Wallace don't use it in their URL. ] 10:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::No it's not. For example, a list of, say, speakers at a conference would typically be listed: "AB, curator, National Gallery; CD, curator, The Wallace Collection,..." ] (]) 13:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC) | :::No it's not. For example, a list of, say, speakers at a conference would typically be listed: "AB, curator, National Gallery; CD, curator, The Wallace Collection,...". My "Art Fund Guide 2013" (p. 53) lists 90 museums in London, including both those, of which ''only'' "the Wallace Collection" is given the definite article - though note it is sequenced under "W", which bi think is normal. ] (]) 13:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Oppose''' Always part of their name. ] (]) 03:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC) | :'''Oppose''' Always part of their name. ] (]) 03:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :: This from the ] refers to it as the ‘Wallace Collection’ with no definite article. ] 10:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC) | :: This from the ] refers to it as the ‘Wallace Collection’ with no definite article. ] 10:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:30, 12 January 2013
 | 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 banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
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)
Arms and armour
No mention is made of the extensive collection of weapons which fill the ground floor.--KTo288 (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Requested move
 | The request to rename this article to Wallace Collection has been carried out.
If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag. |
The Wallace Collection → Wallace Collection – No need for the definite article, per WP:THE Ham 22:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Their website shows that 'The' is used in the logo and apart of the official name. -- ] 22:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- But that's also true of the British Museum and the National Gallery, and note the titles of their articles. Also, the Wallace don't use it in their URL. Ham 10:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- No it's not. For example, a list of, say, speakers at a conference would typically be listed: "AB, curator, National Gallery; CD, curator, The Wallace Collection,...". My "Art Fund Guide 2013" (p. 53) lists 90 museums in London, including both those, of which only "the Wallace Collection" is given the definite article - though note it is sequenced under "W", which bi think is normal. Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- But that's also true of the British Museum and the National Gallery, and note the titles of their articles. Also, the Wallace don't use it in their URL. Ham 10:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Always part of their name. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- This list of public bodies from the Cabinet Office refers to it as the ‘Wallace Collection’ with no definite article. Ham 10:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a good week to use them as an authority! These days they don't seem to get anything right..... Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- This list of public bodies from the Cabinet Office refers to it as the ‘Wallace Collection’ with no definite article. Ham 10:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)