Talk:Melville Monument

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coleridge on Dundas[edit]

Kindly refrain from making editorialised comments in brackets. If you disagree with what Coleridge said about Dundas, kindly find a reference to counter what he said.Mikesiva (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over Dundas and the abolition movement[edit]

@Richard Nevell:@Quadrilla1: In the interests of preventing an edit war, I think we should take the issue of recent edits to the "Controversy over Dundas and the abolition movement" to the talk page. For my own part, the case that this section should exist is beyond dispute. It's an important part of this monument's place and history and this article is the place to explore issues relating to the monument in more detail than they can be addressed on the article about Dundas himself.

Nevertheless, it is important that this is the article about the monument and discussion of Dundas' activities and legacy should be here as far as relevant to the monument. The article on Dundas himself explores his wider legacy quite thoroughly. I have added information from this article to the article on Dundas where relevant to increase that thoroughness. I tried to keep to relevant information in my own edits. As it stands, the current section contains a lot of information about Dundas that is simply a broader discussion of his legacy rather than anything especially relevant to the monument. This is creating an imbalance in the focus of the article. Yes, the monument is a site of controversy: the article should reflect that; but it's also a major Edinburgh landmark: the current jumble of start-class information about the monument itself does not reflect that. Balance in articles is better created by adding information rather than by deleting it.

To correct this imbalance, I suggest editors do two things. First, we make sure the section on Dundas' legacy is chiefly relevant to the monument and not an overall discussion of his legacy. My own restoration of relevant information was an attempt to do this. Second, we add more information about the monument itself.

I would appreciate your thoughts before any of us plough ahead with further edits. CPClegg (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting a discussion, CPClegg, and apologies for not replying sooner. My thoughts on the matter are similar to yours. The issue should be mentioned but does need to be focused. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Richard Nevell, you'll see I've add quite a lot to the page, which I hope reflect the issue. CPClegg (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article does read much better now. After the line on the slave trade, I added a sentence about the attempts by Dundas to restore slavery in Haiti during the British invasion. That is key, because it addresses the controversy about whether Dundas really was an abolitionist.Mikesiva (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Victuallers (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by CPClegg (talk). Self-nominated at 19:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • This article flags as a bit short, unfortunately: 20147 characters when it was at 4512 (requiring 22560 characters prose). I see there has been some instability prior to the expansion; is this related? It does have appropriate citation density. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Sammi Brie, that's odd: the javascript tool's showing me 31,009 for the published article and 38,537 for the plain text. Yes, it did have issues with one persistent vandal before the expansion but since then has been very stable. Thanks for taking a look.CPClegg (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CPClegg: Still showing as 20,147 here. Very unusual. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 14:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CPClegg, Sammi Brie, I just used DYKcheck on the article, and noticed that it was counting the "See also" section, which it isn't supposed to ("See also" is supposed to be a bulleted section per MOS:SEEALSO, so I've added the needed bullet); this takes it down to 20109 prose characters. I'm not sure why the javascript tool is so wildly off from DYKcheck—38537 was the total number of bytes rather than text at the time—but DYKcheck is what we go by. Another 2451 prose characters will be needed to reach a fivefold expansion. (I did check around the vandalism, and 4512 prose characters is the starting point as Sammi Brie notes above.) CPClegg, I hope that won't be a problem! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie and CPClegg: I'd recommend rejecting the nomination is there isn't an expansion within a few days. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CPClegg has not edited on Wikipedia for over four weeks, and the article remains too short to qualify for DYK. Marking for closure. Should they return prior to closure and commit to expanding the article within seven days, the nomination can remain open. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, BlueMoonset, I can't really think of ways to expand the page that aren't rather forced. Perhaps it's best to leave it slide. Thank you all for looking at it, though. If any of you wanted to review the page, that would be excellent. I would hope it's a bit more than Start Class now.CPClegg (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 July 2021[edit]

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melville Monument, Edinburgh → Melville Monument – It is the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why my search didn't find that. Still, stet. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A hatnote will cover the other one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Alledged"[edit]

86.142.106.13 has added the word "alledged" before "legacy" in the lead section along with poorly-formatted and unrelated citations. I believe this is editorialising as the word (correctly spelt or otherwise) seems aimed at undermining the plaque's veracity when simply saying "legacy" is effectively neutral. The user has repeatedly reverted my and Sahiab3005's edits without explanation and has refused my offer to take the issue to the talk page. I would invite the user or others to discuss the matter here.CPClegg (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

81.154.104.143 For your reference. Please contribute here before making further edits.CPClegg (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
81.147.111.162 For your reference. Please contribute here before making further edits.CPClegg (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melville_Monument&oldid=1208988188"