This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 213.55.176.130 (talk) at 16:28, 27 October 2017 (Added note about missing disambiguation page.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:28, 27 October 2017 by 213.55.176.130 (talk) (Added note about missing disambiguation page.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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)
"Other Usages" is broken
Was looking for the "Wallace Collection" band, found this page, and the disambiguation link is not a link, and no way to reach the band with the same name from this page. It seems to me that this was not the case some years ago.
Note that google returns ONLY result on this page, you have to explicitly specify "band" to find the band page.
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 following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain /c 15:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
- I see that you're right about the print edition of the Art Fund Guide, but on their website the Art Fund have other ideas. I suppose both are acceptable, with the institution preferring its branding The Wallace Collection but ordinary usage (it would be interesting to look at captions in art books, for example) following the line of thought in WP:THE. (If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not.) Here for instance you have one of their own curators slipping from one to the other in the same piece. If both are viable I’d prefer the one that follows general usage and Misplaced Pages policy. Ham 15:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Several newspapers get "The" - there was a lot of debate at talk on the NY Times some years ago. I don't think either of us are going to change our minds, so let's see what others think. The MOS in fact allows quite a few exceptions, and gives examples, and I think this meets the criteria (vague though they are). Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see that you're right about the print edition of the Art Fund Guide, but on their website the Art Fund have other ideas. I suppose both are acceptable, with the institution preferring its branding The Wallace Collection but ordinary usage (it would be interesting to look at captions in art books, for example) following the line of thought in WP:THE. (If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not.) Here for instance you have one of their own curators slipping from one to the other in the same piece. If both are viable I’d prefer the one that follows general usage and Misplaced Pages policy. Ham 15:16, 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)
- Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support per WP:THE. The "The" isn't consistently capitalized in running text even by the museum itself. See, for example, this press release. When in doubt, omit the definite article. --BDD (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support per above. Jane (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support - I agree it's a marginal one, I'm 60:40 about it, but I'm a big fan of shorter titles over longer ones and it makes life easier if there's significant usage without "The" even if the "The" has more official status than in many other cases.Le Deluge (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.