Talk:National War Memorial (Canada)

Update on the urinating on War Memorial

I found a story that said the two teens under 18 were sorry. One sent a letter Ottawa police and the other appologized to the legion, veterans of Canada, and citizens of Canada. A third man, identified by police as 23-year-old Stephen Fernandes of Montreal, was charged Friday with mischief for allegedly urinating in the same area charged.[1]. Mr. C.C. 16:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Cenotaph or not?

I don't believe that the word cenotaph is still appropriate for this article. A cenotaph has no human remains at the site. Since May 2000, the site has also been the location of the Canadian Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.161.1 (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. One could think of the area as two sites one a cenotaph and one as the Canadian Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. It appears that the latter is immediately in front of the former so the cenotaph is actually still empty. My feeling is that the description should not change. Dger (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

At the "National Day of Honour" the Prime Minister announced that Afghanistan would be added to the War Memorial. Haven't found a source reference yet, though (besides "anonymous editor at my IP was there and heard it said"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.78.180 (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Gallery

Three simple questions: Why must the images of various elements of the monument be in a separate section at the bottom of the article, away from the section outlining the features of the monument? What is the purpose of including in the collection an image that shows the same as is in the image in the infobox? What does this image (with a caption that doesn't explain its relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery) show that this image doesn't? "Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made" and it doesn't seem the section of images here entirely follows that direction; at least two are "indiscriminate... images of the article subject." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Three simple answers. They don't need to be in a separate section at the bottom. My objection was to the removal of a heading and the slashing of relevant images. If you wanted to move it up with a subheading, I'd be okay with that. I apologize that I did not make that clear. Second, the infobox image does not show anything other than a corner of the tomb of the unknown soldier, which is now a major component of the site. The infobox is good for its intended purpose, but the gallery image does much more. A gallery, the theme of which are the elements of the monument, needs to include the tomb, ideally a wide-angle shot showing it in its entirety. Third, the first image shows an important level of detail from a completely different angle. The second image, while good in showing the overall work from the front, is not nearly as good for showing any level of detail. The caption on its face explains its relevance. I work a lot with galleries, and wrote the current policy at WP:IG, and I have never encountered a determination where images showing detailed aspects of the subject of the gallery were deemed to be "indiscriminate" in a context like this one. I don't follow every discussion (by any stretch), though, so please point me to one if you are aware of it. If you think there are better images to show finer details in the sculpture, I would be very open to that too. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no need for a separate section for the images. They're illustrations; they can be in the section that contains the text they illustrate.

The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is a separate monument. Hence, it has its own article. It's only tangentially related to the subject of this article.

What's the importance of that detail in particular, in relation to all the other detail not captured in any image here? The caption doesn't explain anything about that; it just says exactly what the image is: a detail. Really, it's only a slightly closer view of a part of this image in the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody said the gallery needs to be in its own section. WP:IG requires that galleries be appropriately titled (so that the theme is evident and to discourage people from adding random vacation shots). A subheading is not going to sever it from the rest of the Monument section.

It's silly and pedantic to say that the Tomb is "only tangentially related" to the memorial. Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree. It's even mentioned in the lead. It is a key element of the memorial site, and its design was carefully chosen to fit in as part of the larger whole. The fact that it also has its own article is irrelevant.

You are just repeating yourself on the detail. It's caption clearly identifies it and it much better shows the individual statue elements. I think it's a good choice because it is of the front of the advance, but again, if you think we have a better detail image, or think we should have more than one view, then I am all ears. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Galleries don't need to be either titled or under their own heading (or sub-heading). WP:IG says a title isn't necessary if "the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article", which the one we have here is. Further, see WP:IG's favoured example of how to use galleries well: 1750–75 in Western fashion, particularly 1750–75 in Western fashion#Children's fashion and 1750–75 in Western fashion#Working class clothing. The gallery here can simply fit into the "Monument" section here where I had it. (Which raises the question: if you didn't object to it being in that section, why did you move it out and back to the bottom again?)

The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and the National War Memorial are two separate things; they don't form two parts of some whole. Regardless, if you absolutely must have some image capturing both, use this one, wich gives a wider view and we don't have two images on here showing what looks to be the exact same two sentries.

Of course I'm repeating myself; you didn't address the question I originally asked. There's a bunch of detail pictures of the memorial at Category:National War Memorial (Canada) (linked from this article), where anyone can see them if they want. What, in particular, is the special importance of the detail you insist be here? "I like it" doesn't really suffice. I didn't say anything about using a "better detail image". I removed the detail image and didn't replace it.

Also, this this image of the back end of the monument doesn't show anything this one from the side (at an only slightly different angle than the other one) doesn't already. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The theme of these gallery isn't clear from the context, which right now is a section called "Monument", which would invite anyone with vacation shots to add them to the gallery. The theme of this gallery is an overview of the main elements of the site, not simply a series of images of the article subject. I moved it because, frankly, I was simply reversing all of the changes you'd make to the gallery - I didn't know location was so important to you, as none of your edit summaries referred to location. I've said that I'm okay with your location, so unclear why you are still complaining about it. And I can ask you a question - why, when it was obvious that someone objected to your edit, did you simply perform the exact same edit again in response? What did you think that would accomplish?

The Tomb is a key element of the Memorial site. There are not two "separate things". Let's just say we're not going to agree on that. As for your proposed image, why would we want a wider view when the point is to show the Tomb? I'm not opposed to the image you suggested, but just not sure it's an improvement.

I have answered your questions. You just don't like the answers. The sculpture is the main element, so it is not unreasonable to show the detail of the main sculpture closer up. The importance is self-evident. You didn't ask for a better detail image, but you did complain that you personally did not think it was that much closer, so I invited you to find a better one since closeness was what you were complaining about.

The image showing the rear of the monument certainly shows more than the other one - not only the view of the back of the monument, but also a daytime, clear view of the granite base. Not to mention rear and side views are different.

It doesn't look like we are going to suddenly find agreement here, so perhaps this compromise. We move the gallery, use a ";" subheading (surely we can agree on some wording), and delete the detail image. We could also swap the tomb images as you suggested. I'm not thrilled with a couple of those changes, but compromise is better than arguing these same points over and over.Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you haven't answered the question; you keep offering the same red herring and are now misrepresenting my position. You haven't explained why that detail is particularly important, as opposed to, say, this one. That demonstrates there are other good images showing the sculpture close up; it's possible many, many more can come in future. Since we can't have them all here, but we can have them all (and whichever are later added) at Commons, it seems best to leave them all there, rather than picking one of a random part of the sculpture.

The section is called "Monument" because it focuses on the physical aspects of the monument. Feel free to suggest an alternate heading. But, that's not really our focus right now. If the gallery is in the section that explains the physical aspects of the monument and it shows images of the physical elements of the monument, the theme of the gallery will be blatantly clear (as the ones I pointed to at 1750–75 in Western fashion are). No title or sub-header is needed. (Images are chosen for use in an article for their ability to illustrate the text as well as for clarity and composition. Whether or not the photographer was on vacation when taking the picture is irrelevant.)

This image shows the full height of the memorial, as well as the front of the podium on which both the war memorial and the tomb sit. The picture currently used shows neither. (Are we seeing a changing of the sentries in the former?)

We have a clear look at the war memorial's base in the infobox picture. Fair enough that this one is taken in broader daylight. But, the other shows the full "flow" of the figures through the arch. When it comes to the gun carriage and rear figures, I don't think they're both essentially the same; I see the same west flank of the same two figures and the same wheel of the gun carriage in both. I think I've managed to include both, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's neither a red herring, nor have I misrepresented your position. I've explained it many times now. It's not unusual or unreasonable to have a close-up shot to show the fine detail on the main artwork component of the memorial. And, no, we do not need to comprehensively show every aspect in detail - one image is sufficient to show the detail. In any event, I suggested a compromise which would have addressed your concern with the detail image. Yet you haven't responded to that suggestion, and seem to want to keep arguing in circles instead. Sigh.

The theme of the gallery is not clear the way in which you have proposed to set it up. There would be nothing to stop anyone from adding their vacation shots (so to speak) to the gallery, in a manner consistent with the section. The subheading is essential to providing a clear scope to the gallery.

I won't speak to your comments on the images themselves at this point, because I already addressed your comment on the first one (and referenced it in the proposed compromise), and you have not filled in the wikilinks for your other comments. Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

When you say my point of contention was the closeness of the "detail" image, you're misrepresenting my position. I said the detail image is redundant because it is essentially a repeat of the front on view used in the gallery; only marginally closer and from a slightly different angle. If I'm saying picking one close-up shot of the sculpture is a little POV, why would I suggest a close-up shot to use? Regardless, I'm sure you've seen I left the detail image you want in there.

What stops people from adding their vacation shots is a bunch of editors scrutinising what's being put in this article and ensuring it complies with Wikipedia guidelines.

I have fixed the paths to the images. I don't know that it matters anymore, as both images remain in the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, FFS. Please do not make changes for which you know there is no consensus. A compromise is not a buffet - you can't pick the parts you like, ignore the opinions of others which you don't like, and implement it however you want. You just ignored points that I told you were important to me. Please do not edit the gallery until there is consensus here. Thank you.Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent your position. You need to go back and read my comments. You missed the point. I appreciate you don't think a detail image is needed. But you nonetheless complained more than once it wasn't close enough. I simply addressed your complaint. Ironically, I've proposed a compromise that fully addresses your concern, yet you still keep arguing about this point. It's unclear why you keep arguing about it, and why you seem unwilling to discuss a compromise.

In any event, if you want to discuss a compromise, either the one I proposed, some variation thereof, or something new entirely, I am all ears. Would love to discuss it. It would be preferable to this arguing in circles which you seem to want to do. We can keep going back and forth if you would like, but it does not seem productive. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't once complain a picture wasn't taken from close enough.

Not one image has been removed from the article; only one has been replaced with a wider version of the exact same view. What is it, then, you're now saying needs a compromise? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You complained that it was only a slightly closer view. I replied that you could pick a closer view if you wanted. If the closeness didn't matter to you, then you ought not to have raised it. You have beat that horse to death now.

Honestly, why you feel entitled to keep editing the gallery in dispute is beyond me. Moving images away from the gallery, so that it no longer covers the main thematic elements of the memorial, is as much a problem as your earlier edits. Not to mention you removed the heading in dispute. Having said that, I can live with your last set of changes, although the heading is weak. But that's the point of a compromise. I have reinserted the image from the side, which is an important element of the gallery. If you can live with that, we have consensus and we're done. Otherwise, we can revert the last round of edits and continue the discussion.Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I complained it was redundant, not that it had to be closer. The person continually beating this horse is you, because you keep trying to convince me I said something I didn't.

The gallery isn't in dispute. Maybe elements of it are, but, that gets resolved partly by editing and partly by contesting and discussing (or quitting).

Six images in the gallery means (on smaller screens, such as on laptops) one image ends up on its own in a second row. The image moved out of the gallery has been moved to adjacent to words on March's description of his intent behind the monument's design; the image illustrates those words. It hasn't been misplaced. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

If the closeness didn't matter to you, then you ought not to have raised it.

Do not make changes to the gallery for which you know there is no consensus and that have already been objected to. There are other ways to deal with any problem with the second row. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it to honour the dead, or those who served?

Watching the ceremony today I was struck by the fact that while the CBC announcers said that "The Response" was dedicated to those who served, as opposed to those who died, and that the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier beside it was dedicated to those who had passed away, the Princess Anne read a message in which the Queen seems to assert that it is dedicated to the deceased, not all who served. Checking this page, it, too, asserts that it is a monument to the dead.

The veteran's department seems to say that it is dedicated to those who served, not merely those who died.

Seems like a point of confusion that the page might be making worse if it is on the wrong side of the argument.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National War Memorial (Canada). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/Infoparl/english/issue.asp?param=130&art=820
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070222025906/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=dfaae499-b7ae-4f6d-8190-b1fed9077bdb to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=dfaae499-b7ae-4f6d-8190-b1fed9077bdb
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216112926/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060707/memorial_update_060707/20060707/ to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060707/memorial_update_060707/20060707/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)