Talk:National Portrait Gallery, London/Archive 1

Archive 1

RE: Article move (NPG (UK)> NPG (England)>NPG (London)>????- Posted on User talk:Mais oui!

Hi Mais oui! I noticed the change of title you recently gave to "National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)" to reflect the fact that it's specifically in England, and that there's a Scottish National Portrait Gallery as well. There's a slight problem with that, because the Gallery's perspective is pan-British (and beyond that, extends to people like Wallis Simpson who have strong ties with British history in some way). One of its founders was the very Scottish Thomas Carlyle. So I think the "England" in parentheses is misleading, although I can see why you might think that "United Kingdom" is contentious. May I suggest either National Portrait Gallery (London) or National Portrait Gallery, London as an alternative?

The option with a comma follows the example of National Gallery, London, but that's because it's the way the National Gallery styles itself on its website to distinguish it from all the other National Galleries. I'm not clear on whether it's correct to use a comma when disambiguating an article title, as with e.g. Strand, London, or the more usual parentheses. Any thoughts? [talk to the] HAM 21:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Either "National Portrait Gallery, London" (not in parentheses, which would to my reading misleadingly suggest that the remit of the collection only extended as far as the boundaries of London, although I don't know what the MoS stance is on this) or, even better, "National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)" which is the most accurate title and, as always, should not have been changed without prior consultation on this page. Badgerpatrol 21:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Just added a postscript to Mais oui's talk page, which just happens to agree with Badgerpatrol, although I didn't know of his post... ([talk to the] HAM 21:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC))

PS: A third option would be to revert to National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom) to reflect its scope, while making clear in a disambig notice that it's not the only NPG in Britain. Something like:

This article is about the National Portrait Gallery based in London. Also in the United Kingdom, but unconnected to this institution, is the Scottish National Portrait Gallery in Edinburgh

After looking at the disambig page for National Portrait Gallery, I think that it makes more sense to have the name of the country in the article – in which case it would have to be United Kingdom, not England. Regards, [talk to the] HAM 21:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have moved it back to the original, for now. I note that the outfit next door is National Gallery, London and so there may be a case for a rename of one or the other. However, since the move was carried out without any consultation whatsoever (let alone consensus) it seems appropriate to return to the status quo. If Mais Oui! ever responds (and since he sometimes makes dozens of similiar POV-pushing edits in a single day, it wouldn't surprise me if he is not even watching this page) then we can discuss it reasonably. Badgerpatrol 23:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mais oui! has now reversed this, again without any consultation. This is quite annoying. However, in fairness to him, it seems that there is some confusion over whether the text in parantheses refers to the location of the institution, or its remit. This may be exacerbated by the fact that the main National Gallery is at National Gallery, London (although equally, the remits and coverage of the NG and the NPG are not the same, so different naming conventions may apply). Nonetheless, these permuatations need to be discussed, not altered arbitrarily. In short, I personally am not necessarily against a rename, but it needs to be discussed in order to at least try and chieve a consensus. I am unable to rename this article page at present (I think it would be appropriate to return to the status quo until some consensus for a move is arrived at); I suspect it may require an admin to do so. For now, NPG (UK) redirects here. Badgerpatrol 08:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It does not really matter very much whether the word(s) in parantheses refer to the remit or the location. What is absolutely essential however is that that word(s) disambiguates! In this case the words "United Kingdom" are absolutely useless, in fact downright confusing, as a method of disambiguation, for the simple reason that there are 2 such institutions in the UK.

Regarding the word "England": it is by far the best disambiguator. Please note that this institution is run by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has an English (not UK-wide) remit (because those issues are devolved to the SP, NAW and NIA) --Mais oui! 09:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for responding (however belatedly) to the repeated requests of your fellow editors for some discussion and clarification of your edits. I do notice that you have again undone some of my own measures to return the pages to the status quo pending discussion, which is unfortunate- perhaps your definition of consensus is unusual or unique. Moving and renaming a page is a major move; I tend to think that it is best to discuss such actions before carrying them out, rather than post facto. I suspect the majority of WP editors might agree. Regardless- it is not at all clear to me that the current state of affairs reduces ambiguity. As always, the unusual nature of the UK is the source of confusion. In fact, introducing the word "England" into the article title is in my view likely to increase ambiguity in the sense that it implicitly suggests (to me, at least) that the remit of the NPG (Lond.) only extends to English historical figures and personalities. This is not the case. (Are moves afoot to remove non-English portraits to the Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast galleries? If so, I would almost certainly be inclined to change my view on this.) I am not 100% happy with the current title, and I would like to see how the discussion develops before coming to a definitive decision. However, if you are going to be intransigent, I might be prepared to accept it as a compromise. It is unlikely however that I could accept NPG (England), as you suggest, simply because I find it to be extremely misleading. Thanks again for your response. Badgerpatrol 10:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

While the DCMS's remit may well be confined to England, the NPG's (perhaps perversely) is not. Aside from Carlyle as co-founder, one of the current star exhibits there is a new portrait of J.K. Rowling, and there must be plenty of other eminent non-English Britons there. So 'England' strikes me as being the least adequate disambiguator. Also, if it covered only England, then why on earth have a satellite gallery at Bodelwyddan Castle in North Wales?

'United Kingdom' as a disambiguator would be far less "useless" if we add a disclaimer of the sort that I suggested in the postscript above. [talk to the] HAM 10:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

(OK, so J.K. Rowling on closer inspection turns out to be less Scottish than I thought. But my point still applies – I refer you to Walter Scott, R.S. Thomas, even, er, Seamus Heaney. And that's just writers.) [talk to the] HAM 10:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, JK Rowling is English. Badgerpatrol 10:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the national portrait galleries of the world do not restrict themselves to only displaying portraits of their own nationals. Eg, here is a photo of The Beatles displayed at the SNPG. I would be extremely surprised if the American, Australian and Canadian institutions banned the display of portraits representing non-nationals. The galleries are for the respective nations, and although they are obviously primarily of nationals, they are not exclusively so.

(Badgerpatrol: I do not know what you aim to achieve by repeatedly scolding fellow Wikipedians like an errant child. If it gives you some paternal satisfaction then great for you, but it leaves me utterly unmoved, indeed it rather reduces my urge to talk rather than increasing it. Highly counterproductive in other words. Most of us do have other things to do you know.) --Mais oui! 10:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussing major changes before making them is not optional, it is a necessity, whether you have an "urge" to do it or not. Your editing style is not conducive to building consensus- perhaps I am not the only person who has mentioned this? The self-stated remit of the UK NPG is to include major figures from British history (although a Google search indicates that their mission statement is to "collect portraits of famous British men and women"; the American national portrait gallery's website opens with "Generations of remarkable Americans are kept in the company of their fellow citizens at the National Portrait Gallery"; the SNPG "All the portraits are of Scots, but not all are by Scots"; from the Australian NPG's inclusion criteria: "the subject must be Australian, either by birth or association", and so on). As mentioned above, whilst the main site is in London, the UK NPG also has a branch in Wales. In fact, unlike the National Gallery (or indeed generic national galleries) the remit of NPGs is to include historical figures from the country of interest, rather than be general collections of art. 5 minutes poking around on the web would have confirmed this- presumably you did at least this before deciding unilaterally to rename the page? For this reason, it is appropriate to include the country (or countries) of interest (ie the remit of the collection) in parantheses in order to differentiate between generic NPGs, whilst it might be more reasonable to include the principal city (ie the location of the collection) for the main National Gallery (since it is quite correct that there are two (or more) NGs within the United Kingdom; there is only one NPG for the United Kingdom however). As I described above, the distinction between remit and location is of critical import here. In this instance, I feel you should reconsider the move, although I will of course wait and see how (and if) the discussion develops before requesting that the page be moved back.BTW, from what I can see, the Beatles picture is part of a temporary exhibition and does not seem to be part of the SNPG's collection, and is thus not relevent here. Badgerpatrol 14:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is already becoming becoming ridiculously large so I will keep my argument as succinct as I can. We all of us have better things to do with our time than this.

'English' will clearly not do for an organisation that was established as a "British Historical Portrait Gallery" [1], still thinks of itself as such (if there has been any modification in its self-definition, then it has been to the word "historical", rather than "British", as living people are now allowed), and has operations in Wales. Mais oui, the 'Nation' in the 'National Portrait Gallery' is that ill-defined thing, the United Kingdom/Great Britain – however uncomfortable you, a Scot, or I, a Welshman, may feel about that. Your point about non-nationals is taken, except that the "nation" as the curators understand it is again Britain.

This leaves either London or United Kingdom. (Why am I still re-treading the same ground as in my first post?) Two of the three participants in the debate want the latter. I have proposed a disambig notice that would explain that this is not the only NPG in Britain, coming before the main body of the text – it couldn't be made clearer than that. It is also more accurate, as the supposedly "London" NPG has three branches outside the capital (which, incidentally, ought to be mentioned in the article). This is the proposal that most accurately reflects the nature of the NPG and of the SNPG in relation to it (as a seperate institution overlapping it in coverage somewhat). I am in favour of reverting the title to National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom), but adding that all-important qualifying note. [talk to the] HAM 14:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Including the text as you suggest resolves any preceived ambiguity- btw, this talk page can be easily archived; length is not an issue (although my longwindedness might be!) ;-) Badgerpatrol 15:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with both sides of this debate, but I lean towards the UK option.

There is one small reference in link above to it orignally having been intended as a "British Historical Portrait Gallery", and I note that it "has operations in Wales".

As mentioned by others, this is all part of the general muddle that exists around the conceots of nationality in this island, and I don't see that any solution has been offered which genuinely meets all the concerns expressed here.

• London is probably an inappropriate disambiguator for a body with ops in Wales
• England is inappropriate for the same reason
  • However both have a degree of logic, since the HQ is clearly in London/England
• British, Great Britain or United Kingdom both risk implying that the Scotish NPG is somehow a subsiduary or inferior body, and it is neither

Of those options, the GB/UK one is probably best because its failing is an unfortunate implication rather than a clear factual error. However, I synpathise with the Scots who dislike it, so I suggest caution.

I don't see that a discussion will produce a better outcome, so may I suggest that one of the editors involved writes to the NPGs in both London and Edinburgh and asks each of them how they would resolve this, and posts the responses here? I am sure that the issue must have arisen for them before, so I hope that an answer could be enlightening. I tried this before when thwre was confusion over the name of an Irish politician. The replies I got clarified the matter: see Talk:Neal_Blaney#Neal_not_Neil. (but I'm not ofering to be the letter-writer this time)

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 15:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That is one idea and a useful contribution, although I really don't see it as necessary here. The "London" NPG makes its jurisdiction quite clear on its website and its materials- and that is the whole of the UK. As noted, and quite apart from this, it has an outpost in Wales. The Scottish NPG equally has a clearly-stated remit pertaining only to Scotland. It's not accurate to characterise this debate in terms of a polarisation between Scots and others- I am Scottish, and I have no problem whatsoever accepting that some institutions have a remit covering the whole of the UK, whilst some have a remit pertaining only to the individual home nations. What does annoy me (greatly) are situtations whereby institutions which do have a UK-wide remit are erroneously referred to as "English", which frankly I find extremely insulting as it demeans and ignores the contribution from the other UK nations. However, far more important than any political sensibilities is simple manifest fact- this is not the English National Portrait Gallery. If it were, I would wholeheartedly support a move to NPG (England) or similar. It is the UK NPG, and to refer to it otherwise is just plain wrong. Contacting the gallery directly is one idea, providing sufficient information is forwarded to the respondents that they are made aware of the context of the issue and the workings of Wikipedia (for example, that a majority of commentators so far support a move back to the original title, where it sat happily for 2 1/2 years, and that every other NPG on the dab page clearly states the country of reference in parantheses- which in this instance is inescapably the UK). Although I do not relish Mais Oui!'s unilateral and uncommunicative editing style, he has a wide knowledge of certain subjects and is an enthusiastic editor. I often seem to often find myself defending and criticising his actions in almost equal measure after "Hurricane MO" blows through a given article. In this case however, he is just plain wrong, and shows in his above comments that he failed to grasp the underlying concept involved. This is a simple mistake, the character of which we all make from time to time, and it is easily rectified. I do not in any way see how including UK as a dab here suggests that the SNPG is an inferior institution and I would not support it if it could be construed in that way. The Scottish rugby team is not labelled so as to indicate that it is subsidiary to the British rugby team; it is labelled as such to indicate the manifestly discriminative fact that one pertains only to Scotland whilst the other draws from the whole of the UK; two separate countries. Just because they overlap does not in any way imply that one has, or should have, dominion over the other. Badgerpatrol 02:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Badgerpatrol, I know that Mais Oui's tremendous energy and occasional terseness can cause a bit of friction, but that's partly because he tends to be the lone voice of a perspective which is often overlooked in UK-wide discussions, the Scottish one. In this case, I think that the unilateral renaming was unfortunate (it's one of MO's vices, but we all have our vices), but that shouldn't blind us to the fact that MO has a point here :)

You say that 'the "London" NPG makes its jurisdiction quite clear on its website and its materials- and that is the whole of the UK', but I didn't see that on my quick skims through there. I may have overlooked something, so coukd you help us out by providing referenced quotes? If you have that evidence in sufficient weight and certainty, it seems to me to be a potential clincher ... but, as I said, what I have seen so far is very tenuous.

If a ltter is to be written, though, I suggst that it should not attempt to load the question by setting out a headcount. The only question that I think needs to be asked is "we are discussing how to distinguish the two NPGs. We have considered these options: what do you recommend?"

Hope this helps, --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 03:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he tends to make himself the lone voice on occasion. There are plenty of Scottish Wikipedians on here willing to give their own individual perspective. In this instance, he does not have a valid point, and it is he that is blind to the facts at hand, with which he would have furnished by even the briefest of researches. Howenever, I recognise that MO!'s attitude is not the main point of discussion for the moment. As for the NPG's remit:

• from its brief content description on Google (supplied I believe by the site itself): "Founded in 1856 to collect portraits of famous British men and women, the collection represents the most comprehensive of its kind.";
• from the main website: "'...a gallery of original portraits, such portraits to consist as far as possible of those persons who are most honourably commemorated in British history as warriors or as statesmen, or in arts, in literature or in science'."[2]; "the House of Commons agreed to vote a sum of £2000 towards the establishment of a "British Historical Portrait Gallery".
• The National Portrait Gallery was formally established on 2 December 1856..." (same); "Christian intended to express the second floor on the exterior by means of a sculpted frieze of figures in scenes from British history, but it was abandoned to save money..." (same);
• "The National Portrait Gallery in London houses a unique collection of personalities and faces from the late Middle Ages to the present day. A national pantheon of the greatest names in British history and culture..."[3];
• "Written by Charles Saumarez Smith, the Director of the Gallery 1994-2002, this book features a selection of over 120 of the finest portraits in the collection, forming a permanent record of the range and diversity of British life over the last five hundred years, and a fascinating overview of the people who created it." (same);
• and, my favourite: "Collecting policy: The Gallery acquires portraits from the life in all media, whether by purchase, bequest or gift, of the most eminent persons in British history from the earliest times to the present day." [4].
• Galleries include: We are making a New World: Britain 1914-18 | A National Portrait Britain 1919-59 and Britain and the World 1939-59 - showcase| Britain 1960-90[5].
• A quick search of the collection reveals portraits of e.g. : Ewan McGregor[6]; Sean Connery[7]; Boswell[8]; Hume[9]; Hutton[10]; Scott [11]; Burns [12]; and recent SP presiding office David Steel[13]. ::::::: These are merely the first Scots I thought of, the collection is full of them (and of course, Welsh and Irish). Many more references are certainly available if you require them. And, as noted above, the NPG has a base in Wales and was founded by (among others) Carlyle. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that its coverage extends across the UK. Badgerpatrol 04:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Badgerpatrol, thanks for the list: very useful (and I hope it's OK for me to have added bullet points). I think it shows that:

• the term "British Historical Portrait Gallery" appears to have been used only in the planning stages, but the "National Portrait Gallery" has been the formal title since its foundation in 1856, without any qualifier/disambiguator; clearly someone chose at that time not to commit to any national terminology.
• the gallery's remit covers at least Great Britain, and possibly all of the UK (though I have not checked, and can only guess abut the latter: including N. Irish people in "UK" or "British" ventures is always a minefield)

But that doesn't really resolve the name issue for me: remit and nomencalture are not always strictly correlated, particularly in an amorphously quasifederal system such as the UK. (

So I looked elsewhere for guidance.

• The Scottish National Galleries website calls its own NPG] "the Scottish National Portrait Gallery", and titles its link to the London institution simply as "National Portrait Gallery".

If we were dealing solely with the UK, I would therefore suggest that "Scottish NPG" and "NPG" would be best (if that terminology will do for Scottish gallery and the London Gallery, it'll do for us). However, that isn't workable, because there are also the American, and Australian institutions, both called "NPG", and it would not be fair to either of them to put the London-centred NPG at the undisambiguated article space. (The Canadians helpfully call theirs "The Portrait Gallery of Canada", and life would be a lot easier if other countries followed a similar path, as with the National Gallery of Ireland. But then the fuzziness of the notion of "nation" with the UK is at the root of this difference anyway).

The Australian NPG's list of links is worth a look: it lists: "The National Portrait Gallery, London"; "The National Portrait Gallery Washington", and the "National Galleries of Scotland".

Checking again on the NPG website, I see that http://www.npg.org.uk/live/bodfirstfloor.asp desvcribes the galleries in Wales and elsewhere as "egional partnerships", rather than as "regional galleries". That leads me to think that maybe the Aussies have got it right and that London does, after all, have a slight edge as the best disambiguator.

However, after all of this, I can only conclude that either "NPG (UNited Kingdom)" or "NPG (London)" would both be reasonable options. I can't see enough difference eithe way to make it much more than a toss-a-coin decision. I suspect that the "London" option is likely to be much more preferable to those of a Scotish nationalist persuasion, and the "United Kingdom" option will be preferable to a lot more more people, but generally less important to them.

My own final thought is this: the NPG itself has clearly opted for vagueness in defining what National it is the National Gallery of. Wouldn't it be most NPOV to avoid challenging that ambiguity, by using London as the disambiguator? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 05:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the formatting. I am not certain that the term "British Historical Portrait Gallery" was ever used as a proper noun, but I suspect was rather always employed adjectively, as in the passage I reference above- as a description of the remit of the gallery, rather than a suggestion for its name. I do not agree that anyone at the time of the founding of the gallery actively chose not to commit to any notions of national ideology, but rather neglected to include a disambiguator since a) none was needed (the UK NPG was at that the time one of very few (if any?) NPGs across the globe); b) the natural assumption (particularly at that time), less so now obviously) would be that "national" pertains to the whole of the UK; c) it is in the (arrogant and sometimes annoying) tradition of British institutions failing to include a geographic disambiguator. I *am myself* of a Scottish nationalist persuasion, although I hesitate to pigeonhole myself into any political grouping as I see no place for politics on Wikipedia. I certainly do not have a problem accepting the manifest facts as they stand however, and I strongly object to the notion of pandering to the political views of any group on Wikipedia. I note also that no-one who has so far contributed to this debate is actually English. The only issue here is one of objective factual accuracy, and I see no reason to involve politics at all. As stated above, I would have no problem with moving this page to NPG (England) if the remit of the gallery were to change and non-English figures were to be removed to other locations. No offence, but I am scratching my head at why you still think that the NPG has deliberately opted for vagueness in defining its remit when it is very clearly stated on its own website- those of British nationality, regardless of geography. The collection also includes George Best, Seamus Heaney, Ian Paisley etc (I make no political judgements here, I am simply pointing out the manifest fact that they are there). Bodelwyddan Castle is in fact described as "an outstation of the National Portrait Gallery" on its own website[14]. I agree that it is unfortunate that a disambiguator is needed, and it is indeed notable that the SNPG refers to the institution in question without one- but on here, a disambiguator is needed. NPG United Kingdom, where the page sat for years, and which currently only one respondent objects to (for reasons that, frankly, he has yet to fully articulate), which fits in with the naming and dab protocol of other NPG pages, and which is supported by a huge weight of evidence, is the best disambiguator. A dab notice worded similarly to that suggested by Ham above would be very useful to prevent any possible confusion. Badgerpatrol 19:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A few cautionary words

I feel there is very little to add to this debate. Only National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom) and (London) have valid arguments going for them, and the former has the stronger one. Assuming that UK is reinstated – allow me to look into my crystal ball for a moment – this will leave us with one article titled National Gallery, London and another called National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom). Now, it could be that some stickler for uniformity will decide that National Gallery (United Kingdom) is better, and later some no doubt well-intentioned user will note the existence of Wales and Scotland's national galleries and so change the qualifier to England. Supposing an edit war then ensues, many of the arguments used to defend UK in the NPG's case will be untenable (daughter galleries outside England, of which the NG has none; non-English subjects – completely irrelevant in the case of a gallery with a scope as wide as the history of Western painting). The only thing that would resolve that conflict would be an email from the Gallery itself, and even then there would be some who would argue for England on the grounds of geographical location, with no equivalent of Bodelwyddan Castle to undermine their argument.

That is why I would strongly argue to leave both National Gallery, London and National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom) (when that name is reinstated, that is) as they are. Neither title is perfect, but the former should be allowed to stay because the NG does style itself that way on its website, and the latter for the reasons we have debated at great length above. Some might see this as an argument in favour of National Portrait Gallery, London, but let's not forget those branches of the NPG outside the capital. (By the way, BHG, I think you got a little tied up with the term "regional partnerships" – if it has a few rooms and exhibits paintings in them, it's a gallery in my book. But thanks for your involvement in this debate, which must have taken some patience.) I'm just giving this a seperate header so that it can be easily linked to if such a situation as I've imagined does arise. I'll also link to here from Talk:National Gallery, London, where there was some discussion regarding the proper title of that article a long while ago. [talk to the] HAM 20:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I think that's very sensibly laid out. One major difference here is in the scope or remit of the respective collections- the national collection of British art is actually at the Tate, whilst the NPGs' remit (as outlined ad nauseum above) is exclusively for British historical figures. And, as Ham rightly points out, the NG explicitly styles itself "National Gallery, London", thus removing any ambiguity. Badgerpatrol 01:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Noone has yet addressed the fundamental issue: the words "United Kingdom" do not disambiguate! There are 2 NPGs in the United Kingdom, not one. It is by no means clear that "United Kingdom" in this case is referring to the remit rather than to the location. For that reason "London" appears to be the only valid disambiguator. --Mais oui! 08:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume what you mean is that UK doesn't disambiguate in terms of location (because it clearly does in one sense, namely its remit). The explanatory note proposed for the top of the page would address your point about there being another NPG in the UK and make clear the exact nature of each one in relation to the other. In fact, NPG (UK) would effectively start off as a disambiguating page (which I know is what you want, as you have recently redirected NPG (UK) to the general NPG disambig page), before launching into the article text proper, about an institution whose most accurate title is the National Portrait Gallery of the United Kingdom. Hope this addresses that issue for you. Regards, [talk to the] HAM 16:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Another point worth noting is the intention of disambiguation. Mais Oui! seems (correct me if I'm wrong) to be concerned about disambiguating between the SNPG and the UK NPG. I think much of the discussion above actually centres around disambiguating between the UK NPG and institutions of the same name outwith the United Kingdom. There is no real need to disambiguate between the UK NPG and the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, since the official name of the latter automatically disambiguates between the two ipso facto; there is a need though to disambiguate between the British, Canadian, Australian and US NPGs, which all share the same name. Currently, all of these others are disambiguated along national lines, whilst this one is inconsistently alone in disambiguating by specific location. One interesting thing I did notice as an aside was that the US NPG is at National Portrait Gallery (United States) and not Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, which strongly indicates the intention of whomever named that page. Disambiguating between the two UK-based galleries is not actually an issue, since there is no likelihood of any confusion between them- providing of course that the basic search "National Portrait Gallery" continues to point to the collective dab page, a point which I don't think anyone is disputing. The question is not so much "How can we resolve any ambiguity?" (if there is any remaining doubt, Ham's sensible suggestion to include the dab notice before the text surely addresses it), but rather "What's the most accurate title for this page?". In fact, a pedant might argue that having this page at "National Portrait Gallery, London" and the other at "Scottish National Portrait Gallery" actually increases confusion and ambiguity, since prima facie I guess it could be taken to indicate that the London NPG is actually a regional branch of the Scottish one. Badgerpatrol 06:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED. This was a tough one. I took a lot of things into account, including all of the arguments below, and pages such as WP:DAB, WP:NC, WP:NEO and WP:MGA. Since it was such a close call, with no "perfect solution", I'll explain my reasoning in some detail.

• The United Kingdom is the nation for which this is the NPG, while "London" fails to reflect the museum's scope, or indeed all of its branches.
• The NPG in Scotland is uniquely named, and there is no need to disambiguate from it, especially if we implement Ham's suggested note at the top of the page.
• For the name of the article, we look to common usage, but for disambiguation of otherwise identically named articles, we apply internal standards. The most common name is simply "National Portrait Gallery", which is not unique, so we append to it a parenthetical disambiguator based on effective disambiguation, not based on how people in the world disambiguate when they need to.
• The argument that, because most ghits for "NPGUK" point to Wikipedia, we are creating a neologism, is effectively answered by the "Ohio Senator" argument. A disambiguator in a title is not to be understood as part of the name of the article's subject, but as an internal aid to navigation.

I thank all participants in this discussion for articulating their arguments so well and in such a respectful and cooperative fashion. It's really nice to read a long and involved debate at Wikipedia in which nobody accuses anybody of vandalism, or of WP:OWNership, or of failing to AGF. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move

I have listed this article on WP:Requested Moves"*National Portrait Gallery (London) → National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom) —(Discuss)— Standard for NPG articles to disambiguate by country, not city, and this move would revert back to the articlespace occupied for ca. 2.5 years until recent move. There is no need to disambiguate between NPG (UK) and Scottish National Portrait Gallery (per the intent of the move) since the names and roles of the two galleries are not consonent anyway. There is a need to disambig. between the NPG (UK) and other institutions with identical names across the world, which the current title does not adequately do. —Badgerpatrol 12:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)"

• Note that I'm not implying in any way that this debate is over; typically move requests take several days to complete. Hopefully this will in fact stimulate discussion by bringing in independent voices. I think a pretty good argument has been made for NPG (UK) but any additional sensible points, for or against, would obviously be very welcome. The full case is available above, but succinctly: a) the NPG has several outstations based outside London, including one in Wales; b) the original move (to NPG (England)) seemed based on a slightly incorrect notion of the Gallery's role and remit, which is UK-wide and not just restricted to England, as stated very clearly by the NPG and as reflected in their collection; c) there is no need to disambiguate between this page and the Scottish NPG, since their official titles are different anyway and, since the basic search "National Portrait Gallery" points to a dab page, there is no possibility of confusion. There is by contrast a need to disambig between this page and other institutions with identical names, which are currently disambiguated by country (see National Portrait Gallery), seemingly by intent rather than by accident. Badgerpatrol 12:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• 1. Where is this standard established, and 2. How far does this extend, e.g. should National Gallery, London also be renamed? ~ trialsanderrors 19:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned by Ham below, the NPGs in Australia and the US are disambiguated by country, reflecting (I think) the official titles of the two institutions. This is despite the fact that for Wikipedia purposes, other potential disambiguators could include e.g. Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery and National Portrait Gallery (Canberra). I suggest that the intent behind the disambiguation is therefore to include a national identifier in the article title, which if followed in this would give NPG (UK). The reason for this is that the purpose of a National Portrait Gallery is to act as a historical archive specifically to record the lives and images of a given country's historical figures. This link [15] does redirect to www.npg.org.uk/, as does this one [16] (without the city qualifier). One reason for this may be to distinguish between the main site and the various regional NPG outstations- all of which are outside London and one of which is outside of England. The official title of the institution is "The National Portrait Gallery" (see e.g. the Museums and Galleries Act 1992[17]). Note from that also that the NG is referred to officially as simply "The National Gallery" and not "The National Gallery, London" but the NG does style itself "Nat. Gall., London"[18]. The National Portrait Gallery, judging from its website, does not style itself "National Portrait Gallery, London", and as detailed above this is not the official title either. A key difference between the National Gallery is in its scope and remit; the National Gallery is the British national art collection, but it is not the national collection of British art (which is at the Tate, broadly equivalent to the Smithsonian American Art Museum). Nothing intrinsically connects the NG collection to the UK except by simple virtue of the fact that it is located here; it is international in scope. The NPG by contrast is intrinsically connected to the UK by virtue of its very existence (see discussion above). Assuming good faith, the intent of the move was to disambiguate between the Scottish National Portrait Gallery and the UK/Lon NPG, moved originally to NPG (England). There is actually no need for this, since the official name of the Scottish institution is different anyway, and since the basic search "National Portrait Gallery" points to a dab page (National Portrait Gallery) where the two are juxtaposed. There is no possibility of confusion, and the NPG does not consistently append either "London" or "United Kingdom" to its name, so choosing the most appropriate and informative disambiguator is pretty much up to our own judgement. I suggest that following the Wikipedia convention and maintaining consistency is sensible here, not for its own sake but because I feel that including a national disambiguator is a worthwhile move, as it a) is describing an institution that has fairly extensive, permanent operations outside of London, and b) gives an informative statement of the remit and scope of the collection, as well as its location. I would suggest that if we refrain from moving this page back then we ought also to consider moving the other two obvious candidates (National Portrait Gallery (United States) and National Portrait Gallery (Australia) in order to avoid confusion, and I shall leave a note on those talk pages linking to this discussion. Badgerpatrol 04:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but I stay with my oppose, per WP:Avoid standardization paranoia and the fact that common use overrides standardization concerns. I don't see any evidence that NPGUK is in common use, unlike NPG,L. ~ trialsanderrors 19:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So, to clarify, you want to rename the page and move it to "National Portrait Gallery, London"? Badgerpatrol 02:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, per [19] vs. [20]. ~ trialsanderrors 19:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It is clear that the standard is established on Wikipedia from the page National Portrait Gallery, where the UK/London one is alone in having the name of the city, as opposed to the country, in parentheses. As regards the naming of National Gallery, London, please see here. [talk to the] HAM 16:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - this provides consistency with the other NPGs and accurately describes its scope. BlueValour 00:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, for reasons outlined above. Badgerpatrol 14:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons given above, plus the new evidence by User:Trialsanderrors that all the top Google hits for the "United Kingdom" version are for Wikipedia - always a very bad sign: it shows that Wikipedia is making up a brand new term, ie. WP:OR. --Mais oui! 00:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I won't try to change your vote. However, for the record, no-one is trying to claim that NPG (UK) is in common use- undeniably, the title most commonly used is simply "National Portrait Gallery". Similarly, I strongly suspect that the Washington Post or the Melbourne Age do not describe new exhibitions as appearing at "National Portrait Gallery (United States)" or "National Portrait Gallery (Australia)". I daresay that John Smith (Ohio Senator) rarely appends "Ohio Senator" to his name when writing cheques- but his article is so labelled on here in order to disambiguate it. Should we remove the disambiguators from this and all the other John Smiths because to include them would be Original Research? I think not. The paranthetic disambiguator is entirely an abstraction to distinguish this page from others that share the same title, tailored to the specific needs of Wikipedia, and is presumably used nowhere else. Hopefully we all now accept that the original intent of the page move- to distinguish between the Scottish National Portrait Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)- whilst assumedly in good faith, in fact was not necessary- there is no possibility of confusion between these clearly different institutions, so long as the basic search NPG points to a dab page, which it always will. The decision as to what to call this page is ours- so the question is, what is the least misleading title for the page, and what is the title most commonly used? There is no substantive difference between "NPG (UK)" and "NPG, London" in terms of the name of the institution, both would be equally recognisable to a non-expert, and by far the most common descriptor is simply "National Portrait Gallery"- see e.g. [21], [22]; [23]; [24]; [25]; [26]; [27]; [28] ; [29]; [30] (the top few relevent contemporary news stories drawn without artifice from a search of The Guardian and The Times). In all of these, the phrase "National Portrait Gallery, London" occurs precisely twice; the first obviously as an address rather than a title ("National Portrait Gallery, London WC2") and the second more ambiguous but probably meant also an address. On every other occasion (numerously), the unalloyed phrase "National Portrait Gallery" occurs. It is not at all true that "National Portrait Gallery, London" is the most common name for the institution, it is certainly not the official name, and there is very little evidence that this is the name by which the institution styles itself. Badgerpatrol 02:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There's clearly very little need for disambiguation for local sources when they talk about the NPG in London. Nevertheless, if they think they need to disambiguate they use "London", not "United Kingdom" (as does the NPG itself, see first find on the Google search). As I posted in my response in the Munich air disaster discussion, common usage should always trump standardization needs, or we end up with something like "1-0, 1986 FIFA World Cup quarterfinal Argentina-England" for what is universally known as the Hand of God goal. ~ trialsanderrors 20:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

With that Google link redirect, is the NPG seeking to disambiguate between itself and other portrait galleries around the world, or between its own London headquarters and the 3 other major outstations, all of which are outside London? This article is about the institution itself, not about the London branch of said institution. There are no other occurrences of "NPG, London" on their website that I could find, and it is emphatically not the case that the phrase "NPG, London" is commonly used in normal speech or writing, as the links above demonstrate. Thousands (tens of thousands?) of Wikipedia pages are disambiguated in order to minimise confusion, rather than reflect strict common usage (see e.g. the John Smith example above). Among these tens of thousands are National Portrait Gallery (United States) and National Portrait Gallery (Australia). It is manifestly not the case that "NPG (London)" is in common use; the very least that would be required would be a move to "NPG, London" which would even then be confusing for several reasons; 1) The lack of a national disambiguator contrasts this page with the other NPGs, and would lead to uncessary and easily-avoided confusion about what the remit of the collection actually is (London? England? or the entire UK?); 2) since the other UK-based NPG does include its remit (Scotland) in its name, it could lead to a situation whereby the UK NPG could actually be perceived by an uninformed reader as an outstation of the Edinburgh SNPG, thus completely contradicting the stated intent of the original move and of disambiguation generally; 3) by analogy with the "NG, London" page it would be easy for a similarly uninformed reader to assume that the name by which the UK NPG most commonly styles itself is "National Portrait Gallery, London". A quick comparison between the NG and NPG websites will suffice to demonstrate that this is emphatically not the case; 4) a move to "NPG, London" misleadingly implies that this page only refers to the London headquarters, whilst I believe Ham and myself had planned to add information to the page pertaining to the other branches. It is certainly not the case that "NPG (London)" is ever used to describe this institution in common speech or prose. "NPG, London" is very rarely used (see links above) and when it is used it is usually in the form of an address rather than the actual name of the institution. To restate; I certainly don't see how leaving this page at "National Portrait Gallery (London)" reflects common usage (since it is never used). "National Portrait Gallery, London" is also rarely if ever used as the name of the institution (presumably because it isn't correct), and introduces an unecessary degree of confusion and ambiguity (not least because it is factually wrong, unless this article is split to deconvolve the various outstations and the scope of this article is changed to concentrate only on the London branch). "NPG (London)" is definitely a no-no if the goal is to reflect common usage. If the goal is to minimise ambiguity ("give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity) then "NPG (UK)" is the best. IMHO, I do not see that either "NPG (London)" (a syntax that is never used in common speech or writing and thus presumably would never be searched for) or "NPG, London" (which introduces unecessary confusion and ambiguity) is more recognisable or less ambiguous than "NPG (UK)", where the page sat without problems for years and which maintains naming consistency within the project- the only purpose of this disambiguation, let us not forget, is to distinguish this page/institution from the other two in the Anglophone world which share the same name. Badgerpatrol 14:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

minimise confusion NPG London does a better job at that than NPG UK. ~ trialsanderrors 03:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? Badgerpatrol 11:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

1. More commonly used. 2. More specific location. ~ trialsanderrors 07:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see that we shall have to agree to disagree! Just to be clear- as a UK native and long-time resident of the London area, a regular reader of the national and local press (and some non-English papers) and keen (over keen!) television viewer, I can confirm that "National Portrait Gallery (London)" is never used by anyone, anywhere, as the name of this institution, except for here on Wikipedia. As for your second point, the location is not more specific, since we are seeking to describe an institution that is not solely restricted to London. Would it be less confusing to rename Federal government of the United States to Federal government of the United States (Washington D.C.)? That is after all where that particular organisation is headquartered. For the reasons I outline above, even if the NPG was restricted to London (it is not), it will in fact potentially *increase* confusion and ambiguity if the name remains as it is, especially if the disambiguation of the other NPG pages is not altered. Anyway, thanks for your input and responses. Badgerpatrol 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Use of the article title National Portrait Gallery (London) doesn't imply that this is a name anyone uses outside Wikipedia, rather it implies that the common name is National Portrait Gallery. That's the role of the disambiguator in the article title. No change of vote. Andrewa 17:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The English have a way with English that defies logic, for example many of the attractions of London are actually in the City of Westminster and somehow it seems quite natural for it to be so. Similarly with this. It's the National Portrait Gallery of London, somehow, even though we all know London is not a nation. The existing title is the best of a confusing lot to describe a confusing situation. Andrewa 16:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The National Portrait Gallery of London? With respect, I don't agree with you about that being the best of a bad bunch. The National Portrait Gallery in London (as implied by the styling National Portrait Gallery, London, the same formula as that used by National Gallery, London) – OK, better, apart from the fact that there are bits of it outside the metropolis. National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom) – better again, as it's at least accurate about the contents, but still not perfect, with its apparent implication that the UK only has one NPG. But we can at least do something to dispel that confusion early on the text with the dab notice I've been proposing. The perplexed will have the situation clarified for them before they even start reading the article proper. For my money, the least confusing option is still NPG (UK) plus disambig text. [talk to the] HAM 20:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The City of Westminster is a borough of London. You speak as if they are two separate places- they are not. Everything in Westminster is also in London, as the former is a constituent of the latter. The City of Westminster is a part of London in the same way that Queens or Manhattan are boroughs of New York. Through a historical quirk, it happens to be called a "city" council rather than a borough council- that doesn't make it an actual city in any real sense of that word that we would recognise (in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of Britons are unaware that this is even the case anyway). I don't therefore recognise your analogy as valid. To be honest, I really don't see how reverting to the previous title (where the page sat for 2.5 years without incident) is confusing at all. This is the National Portrait Gallery for the United Kingdom located in the United Kingdom. The equivalent entity for Scotland and in Scotland has a different official and common name, and the basic search "NPG" points to a dab page anyway. Where's the confusion? For the reasons I outline (in excruciating detail!) elsewhere, the title as it is is both a) confusing and ambiguous; b) divorced from everyday language and understanding. Badgerpatrol 02:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The City of Westminster is indeed part of London, although incidentally, and perhaps confusingly, the City of London is not. Anyway, enough trivia. I think the current page title is fine - Oppose. It is the National Portrait Gallery, and I imagine most people who know, even outside the UK, would say if asked that it is "in London", rather than "in the UK". Oh, alright, a bit more trivia; in this country, we have a National Gallery of Victoria... FiggyBee 18:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The City is not a borough and is not policed by the met (but then neither are London Waterloo, London Paddington, London Victoria etc). It is obviously well within the "city limits" (which vary according to who you ask and when you ask them anyway) and City voters do take part in London Assembly and London Mayoral (i.e. Greater London Mayoral) elections. Nobody when asked would deny that The City is a part of London, although I suppose in some sense you are technically correct. As for your substantive point- see the long discussion above regarding the relationship between remit and location in the specific and unique case of National Portrait Galleries. Basically, "NPG (UK)" is much more informative, more factually correct and less ambiguous. Badgerpatrol 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is now 71KB long; it is asking too much of anyone to read all of it. However, as it is consisted mainly of the same arguments being reiterated ad nauseam, I wish to ask whether you have considered such points as the fact that parts of the NPG are outside London etc etc etc. Sorry if I come across as a bully and a bore; that's just the effect this depressing affair is having on me... [talk to the] HAM 18:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I hold no brief for the Scottish National Portrait Gallery; but this seems a perfectly good disambiguator. Septentrionalis 20:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement to disambiguate between the SNPG and the UK NPG. There is a requirement to disambiguate between the UK NPG, the Aus NPG and the US NPG the latter of which are dabbed along national lines. This (among many other things- see above) demolishes consistency in article naming and could pose problems on that basis alone. Badgerpatrol 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Tally

Three contributors in favour of the move (Badgerpatrol, BlueValour and Ham), two against (Mais oui! and trialsanderrors) and one (BrownHairedGirl) with ultimately no preference for either. Does this constitute a consensus? [talk to the] HAM 20:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not by my understanding of consensus: one third of participants are strong objectors. There is no majority for the proposal, and a bare plurality. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The proposal should be relisted under propped page moves in an attempt to generate more attention. It is blatantly absurd that this move- which was done with no consultation whatsoever, let alone even an attempt to build consensus- cannot now be reversed despite the fact that it defies logic and is not favoured by the majority. Clearly there is more of a consensus to move the page back than there ever was to move it here in the first place. However- that sadly is the situation we are faced with currently. Badgerpatrol 14:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

More discussion is needed IMO. Andrewa 16:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Closure?

There's been a lot of spirited and cogent arguments given by all sides on this issue. I'm coming in new to the discussion (from WP:RM) and, after reading through all the text of this page, I think that all the arguments have been basically laid out and perhaps it would be of interest if I could sum up and perhaps move to closure? This is the oldest living request at WP:RM, after all. BTW I am American.

First, I think that the kicker in all this is that UK is different from most other nations in that it is a nation of nations - nation-state in the first use, self-aware ethno-linguistic-historical group in the second. This colors a lot of articles dealing with UK entities. You do not have these problems with the USA, France, Germany, Italy, and so forth. Nor even with Switzerland or Austria. There (to simplify) you have the nation-state and you have provinces (or states or cantons), period. The UK has a third level: nation-state, subnations (Scotland, England, etc.), and counties.

Second, this is a situation where there is no perfect solution. We need to find the least bad solution, and recognize that that is what we are doing. OK, to begin.

"National Portrait Gallery (England)" doesn't seem to have garnered much enthusiasm. I don't see going with that, at all. It does seem clear that the "National" in the title does not seem to apply to just the "nation" of England. Regardless of what particular bureaucracy it is under, it appears that in its founding, in how it sees itself, and how it is seen, that the "National" refers to the British nation (= the UK, for our purposes) and not just the English nation. (There could be and maybe someday will a portrait gallery strictly for the English nation, but this is not it. (There are complicated historical reasons why British institutions often also stand in for purely English ones, but that's a whole nother essay.))

Now, the gallery is in England, but if we want to use the location of the institution, "London" is more exact.

So I think England is out. But not such much due to the points raised above - many other points have been raised by other editors - mainly because it didn't seem to raise much enthusiasm. So on to London vs the UK.

So then, a question. If this British institution happened to have been founded in Portsmouth, would "National Portrait Gallery (Portsmouth)" be proper? It would in a sense, but it also doesn't seem quite right. So in precisely the same way ""National Portrait Gallery (London)" feels a bit wrong. One would not say "National Portrait Gallery (Washington, D.C.)", I don't think. And in fact the American article is named "National Portrait Gallery (United States)". (If the UK decided for some reason to move its capital to (say) Selby, would the article on the legislative buildings properly be titled "Houses of Parliament (Selby)" or "Houses of Parliament (United Kingdom)"? The latter, I think.)

London is much larger than Portsmouth or Selby, is instantly recognized by most all English speakers, and is the traditional location of many traditional British institutions. But the principle still applies, I think.

So "National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)" is starting to look pretty good.

But.

The remaining sticker is that there is another Natonal Portrait Gallery in the UK, that of Scotland. Both galleries use the word "National" because both the UK and Scotland are nations - but in different senses of the word, as noted above, and that makes a deal of difference, I think.

In the United States, we would have a National Portrait Gallery and perhaps various state galleries, which would be called Pennsylvania State Portrait Gallery etc. or perhaps regional galleries (Midwest Regional Portrait Gallery etc.). The word "National" would never come up. In another country the National Portrait Gallery of Scotland would be called the Regional Portrait Gallery of Scotland. And my reading of the situation is that is what it is for the purposes of this discussion, I think - a regional gallery (even though the region is called a "nation"). I'm sorry if that's insulting to Scottish editors, but can't be helped.

The nomenclature of United Kingdom entities is confusing. We just have to accept that. There is no perfect solution to this naming problem. However, after reading this page and stepping myself through the thoughts described in this post, I for my part have concluded that "National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)" is the least bad name. I also think that, taken as a whole, both strength of argument and (to a slight extent) numbers of commentors on each side weighs a bit more on the side of "National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)", although all sides have respectable arguments.

So. I would like to achieve closure on this and make the move to "National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)", with various redirects of course. I won't do this yet, but can anyone give a reason not to? Bearing in mind that I have already read all of the arguments on this page. Herostratus 17:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's well laid out and I agree with almost everything there (except (as you correctly surmise ;-) the SNPG being a "regional" gallery- a) because it isn't so, b) because it incorrectly suggests that it is somehow a subordinate component of the UK NPG when in fact both are completely separate). The key point is that both the common name and the official name of the equivalant entity for Scotland alone is different- it is the Scottish National Portrait Gallery. With the dab page (and especially with the dab page and Ham's dab notice) there is zero possibility of confusion between the two- unless this page remains here, in which case confusion actually becomes much more likely. Any paranthetic disambiguation is required only to distinguish between the NPG (UK), NPG (US) and NPG (Aus), not between the SNPG and the NPG (UK). Badgerpatrol 02:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

One reason not to is that many of the arguments which you have asked not be repeated apply to this name too. Bearing in mind that we have also read the above (including your last post), can you give a reason not to leave it as it is? Andrewa 20:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If asked to paraphrase the current article title, I would do so thus: National Portrait Gallery (the nation being London). Such a bonkers notion is only confirmed by the NPG disambig page as it is at the moment, where we see NPG (London) alongside NPG (United States) and NPG (Australia). Now we are in agreement that that is a patent absurdity. NPG (United Kingdom), by contrast, asks you to believe that the United Kingdom is a nation, and that requires a little less suspension of disbelief, don't you think? If there are to be crazy discrepancies on Wikipedia, they should be ones that are already there in the real world (like the City of Westminster) and not ones of our own making (like National Portrait Gallery (London)). With my regards, [talk to the] HAM 20:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I know what you're getting at, but I don't agree with this simplistic paraphrase. National Portrait Gallery in London (London being a city) is also a legitimate paraphrase. To see this alongside other NPGs at the disambig accurately reflects the way English works. Our job here is to use English as it is, rather than as we think it should be. Andrewa 21:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The other two NPGs (both obviously located in Anglophone countries) are disambiguated by country. This one is disambiguated by city, when let's not forget that the only purpose of this disambiguation is to distinguish this entity from the other two (in Australia and the US) with identical names (since there is no identically named institution in the UK to disambiguate this one from). How does that accurately reflect the way English works? I should clearly have paid more attention in my English lang + lit lessons at school, because I must confess that I can't quite grasp your point. Badgerpatrol 02:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Granted, there is nothing to stop London in brackets from meaning that as well. I do not mean to make impositions on English when I say that NPG (L) implies what I think it does when it can also have another meaning. But the standard that has been established (i.e. NPG (Country)) is too sensible, and the case for the London/UK NPG deviating from it not strong enough when any confusion can be put to rest by way of a disambig notice at the top of the page.

Too right, the encyclopedist shouldn't remake the English language to suit his or her own preferences, but that doesn't detract from the fact that (as I see it) there's an element of taxonomy to "our job", and where there is a model that works, we should apply it consistently. Even though we've expended I don't know how many kilobytes arguing about this, I don't think that the British NPG is an exceptional enough case to buck the rule: the title NPG (UK) is strictly speaking correct, and there is only one way in which it could mislead by implication (though not to a reader attentive enough to read the proposed disambig text), whereas NPG (L) could potentially do so in several ways, which need not be reiterated. Is that reason enough not to leave it as it is? [talk to the] HAM 22:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this element of taxonomy supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines? There are so many of them I have trouble keeping up! But my feeling is that Wikipedia:use English, Wikipedia:neologism and others discourage it, particularly where article titles are concerned. Andrewa 23:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't time to trawl through them to find out; it was merely an observation on my part about this whole business of disambiguation. If you can explain to me how National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom) is in a language other than English, I will take your invocation of Wikipedia:use English seriously. As for Wikipedia:neologism, Badgerpatrol tackled that in his post about John Smith (Ohio Senator), exhaustively I think. [talk to the] HAM 23:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Steady on! National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom) is of course English. I think what you're saying is that you can find no basis for this element of taxonomy idea in the current guidelines and policies. But please provide a link to the post about John Smith (Ohio Senator), it sounds very relevant. Andrewa 08:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That post is on this page: go to the section "Requested move" and it's the post after Mais oui!'s 'oppose' vote. The gist of it is that in arguing for NPG (UK) we're not coining a neologism, unless all disambiguation is to be considered as such and a title such as John Smith (Ohio Senator) is to be read as suggesting that the man is actually in the habit of appending the words (Ohio Senator) to his name. We know as residents of the UK that National Portrait Gallery is the only name truly in usage (but the article cannot be called such because there are other institutions in other countries with that same name); we are not arguing that it be henceforth referred to as NPG (UK); thus "Avoid standardisation paranoia" and "WP:Neologism" do not (in my opinion) apply.

Got it, thank you! The post in question brings up some interesting points but is not consistent... having rightly pointed out the function of the disambiguator (ie internal to Wikipedia), it then proceeds to discuss whether the disambiguator is used outside of Wikipedia. I fear I have not been consistent in this myself, so I can't be too critical.

Actually, it's perfectly consistent. As you will see from WP:NAME, priority in choosing article names should be given to the title most easily recognised, where a choice exists. T+E posited that in this case that is National Portrait Gallery (London. In fact, that syntax is never used to describe this institution, and so (as I point out) the only relevent criterion is what works best in a Wikipedia context. However, I sense from some of the more recent comments that the voluminous discussion above is not already not being read by new respondents, so I shall leave it there. Badgerpatrol 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

'Taxonomy' was never intended to be anything other than a personal take on encyclopaedia-building (note the disclaiming "as I see it") and I don't expect it will ever be enshrined in policy. As I was only bringing it up to explain my semantic point about (London) in brackets, an issue which has now thoroughly done my head in, I won't elaborate further on this "wiki-sophy" of mine. Instead I wish to re-emphasise what I said a few posts ago, which has not been picked up on: that NPG (UK) potentially misleads on only one count (and even that can be easily remedied), whereas the current NPG (London)'s potential for misdirection is greater. Best regards, [talk to the] HAM 17:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame this wasn't properly structured into Survey and Comments sections, we could then have subdivided Comments and made it a lot easier to read, but it still wouldn't be easy. Disagree that there's any potential for misdirection in the current title, I think it accurately indicates the confusing situation, and that if we try to resolve this confusion we (1) only make it worse and (2) overstep our mandate as Wikipedians. We may need to agree to disagree on this. Hang in there, and regards appreciated and reciprocated. Andrewa 20:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a potential for misdirection in that it a) misleadingly suggests that this instiution is wholly based in London, when it is not; b) the lack of a national disambiguator could be taken to mean that this institution is subordinate to the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, when it is not. As for your second point- you are aware that the article name was recently changed from NPG (UK) to NPG (England) and then NPG (London), and that the proposed rename would only return the title to the status quo where it had sat for 2.5 years without any obvious confusion? Badgerpatrol 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

People. It doesn't matter. Sheesh. Provided the proper redirects are in place, everybody going to get the article just as quickly no matter what the name is. How about naming it "National Portrait Gallery (taxonomical name disputed)" with redirects from both "...(London)" and "...(United Kingdom). OK that wouldn't be allowed, but let me say that, on the most deep and profound level: whatever. Herostratus 02:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. Whatever happens, the current title (whilst confusing and inaccurate) is a vast improvement on the grossly misleading and factually wrong "National Portrait Gallery (England)", which was the destination of the initial move. Badgerpatrol 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

True. We tend to be passionate about getting things right, whatever that may be. But a reasonable principle is that if the community is of two minds, it doesn't matter which way we go. Sorry if I've been forgetting that at times. Andrewa 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template for NPG links

I should probably have left a message about here when I created it, but better late than never, I hope.

Template:npg name is a simple way of making a link to the NPG's collection of portraits of an individual. The intention is that like {{imdb name}}, it will be handy in the "see also" section of biographical articles.

It works in a similar way to {{imdb name}}: find the NPG's ID for an individual, and that's all you need.

For example:

• {{npg name|id=01653|name=Charles James Fox}}

produces

• Portraits of Charles James Fox at the National Portrait Gallery, London

I have set it to refer to National Portrait Gallery (London), simply because that's the current article name. If it is changed, then the template should be edited to reflect that.

--BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 09:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Removed from main page to here per WP:TRIV (I would personally prefer not to have a trivia section, particularly where the information adds nothing whatsoever of encyclopaedic value to the article, but that's obviously up for discussion): "Posing for artist Stuart Pearson Wright at age 14 while on a break from filming Harry Potter, at age 16, Radcliffe became the youngest non-royal ever to have an individual portrait in England's National Portrait Gallery. On 13 April 2006, his portrait was unveiled as part of a new exhibition opening at London's Royal National Theatre, then moved to the National Portrait Gallery where it currently resides." Badgerpatrol 14:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How to get images from the NPG for the Wikipedia

I've removed this info Misstinkafairy (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

... anyone reading this may wish to familiarise themselves with the legal action mentioned in the following section. Paulbrock (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Name change (Sigh...)

Despite the voluminous discussion on this page I see Mais oui! has changed the name again. As we all know he pays no attention to discussion, and as the disambiguator London is less fragrantly bad than England, this time I'll let itstand. 'Commenest name' as a rationale doesn't really hold water (see discussion above, if you can be bothered), but if it's supposed to mean that the NPG's London base has a higher profile than Bodelwyddan Castle et al, then fair enough. It's clear that MO! wants to emphasise the Englishness of the NPG so as to rationalise its relation to the Scottish National Portrait Gallery. So I've added a sentence to the intro stressing the messiness of their non-relation.

Of course, the NPG is actually meant to vindicate the construct of British history, which always means the history of England first and, only when they have been subsumed into it, those of Wales, Scotland and Ireland (still in the Union in the 19th century, all of it). So in that sense it is a very English gallery, but one that flies the Union Flag, not the St George's cross. The English were quite unselfconscious about their equation of 'England' with 'Britain' until recently; the need to define England as distinct from the imperial project has only really arisen with the devolution of Scotland and Wales. Understandably, they're having problems with it. Maybe London is the perfect disambiguator after all, since no-one on Talk:London can agree as to whether it's the capital of the UK or of England. Ham 18:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

seeing as there is another (albeit prefaced with Scottish) National Portrait Gallery in the UK, it can not be disambiguated with 'United Kingdom'. that's the only reason i see for the move. ninety:one 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It should at least have a comma & not brackets, per the usual convention of the NG etc, and to avoid references going through a redirect. Unless anyone objects I will move it there after a while. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

no! brackets is the way, we recently moved National Gallery (London) from a comma ninety:one 19:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As a footnote to this debate, it has to be said that brackets are handier than commas for formatting reasons. It's quicker to type [[National Gallery (London)|]] than [[National Gallery, London|National Gallery]]. I exaggerated the problem with brackets above; ease of formatting needs to be considered as well. Ham 01:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, one often wants National Gallery, London in the text, which of course works via redirect, but never National Gallery (London), which is just wrong, imo, unless in a list using that convention. The move there in 2008 was undiscussed and should be reversed. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Where the phrase appears in text it can be formatted thus: National Gallery, London. This is better style than National Gallery, London. The formula National Gallery (London) would never appear in text, as you rightly say, but with the addition of the character | it becomes National Gallery (the official and familiar name), which IMO makes the brackets very useful, and justifies the (admittedly undiscussed) change as bold editing. Ham 16:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

London should not normally be linked, and your way besides has the problem that people will hit the London link (which surely no one is ever likely to want) when they mean the NG one. I will set up a poll some time. 15:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose "National Gallery, London" is the best style of all, but the current syntax works perfectly with that too.

What if the disambiguating term for both were "United Kingdom", in parentheses? National Gallery (United Kingdom) and National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom). This follows (more or less) the convention of National Art Gallery (Bulgaria) and National Art Gallery (Thailand). The problems I can see with this are convincing anyone that "London" as a disambiguator is wrong per se, and the need to then change hundreds of links. (But we could get a bot to do that.) Best, Ham 22:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not a usual term, and the NPG certainly, and perhaps the NG, technically covers Scotland but obviously they have their own National Gallery, so another raid from Mais Oui is to be expected. If it must be disambiguated, which I don't actually accept, as in art history etc "National Gallery" by itself always means London, it should be "National Gallery, London". Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed about the likelihood of a Mais Oui raid. On your point about the term '"National Gallery" by itself', note that their logo on the website reads "The National Gallery", the publishing company is the National Gallery Company Ltd. etc. etc. The way I see it, just as England's rugby union is just "the Rugby Football Union", Britain's national gallery is "the National Gallery". Pariochal in both cases, but officially the correct names. I favour disambiguating, then, with brackets. Let the poll decide! Ham 23:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Poll: The Wikipedia copyright row should be mentioned in this article.

I suggest leaving this poll open until 29th July (7 days from now) before making edits either way.

Support - please sign below.

• Support Notable. May lead to landmark copyright case. Of interest to our readers. Widely verifiable bodnotbod (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support If the NPG were pursuing a copyright protection claim against someone else, mentioning it wouldn't even be controversial. Because it's a claim against Wikipedia (ultimately), various reasons are invoked by some people as to why it should be airbrushed out of history. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Recentism is being overhyped here. Readers will expect to find some reference to this important legal case.--Charles (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support worthy material per my comment above. MickMacNee (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support see above Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support a one-sentence mention is OK, it's not very important in the grand scheme of things but it's silly not to have ANYTHING. Paulbrock (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Notable enough. People will come here, expecting to find something about it. It has been widely covered by the media. I can gurantee that there wouldn't be objections if the lawsuit was against a different website, not Wikipedia. I would suggest not finding ways to exclude this being inserted by studying policies. Clover345 (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support, with mention of the threatened legal action. It looks as if this, with the 2008 donation, could be the most notable thing to happen to the NPG this decade. Ham 22:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support, provided it is a small mention it can hardly be called misplaced. --ZincBelief (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Qualified support. Pragmatically, there should be a very brief mention and a link to a separate article about the event. - 15:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support per above statements of Charles and Clover345. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Against - please sign below.

• Oppose per WP:Recentism, WP:News articles and WP:NOT#NEWS. The sisterlink to Wikinews is enough for the readers. See my comments above. Besides, it already is mentioned in the "Finances and staff" section. I don't see anyone edit-warring over removal of that. -- œ^™ 23:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. If it's already mentioned in the "Finances and staff" section, what are we voting over? I'm in favour of including the story but more than one mention would be undue 'recentism'. Ham 16:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• The finances sentence is a round the houses way of mentioning it, actually without mentioning it, by using the incident to cite something pretty much unrelated(how much they make from digitised works). It is not a decent addition at all, and is certainly not a replacement for a mention of the legal threat. MickMacNee (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Also the finance section doesn't actually mention the threat of legal action. How about adding "and the gallery has threatened legal action against the editor who uploaded the images"? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a similar debate going on elsewhere

Rather to my surprise, I've found there is an article National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts. It was nominated for deletion about 29 minutes after it was created and the deletion debate can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts. If you have expressed an opinion on this page, you might want to contribute there. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)