This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
The return of artefacts affects every country, and it should be possible to find someone calling for it in any of these. But what makes the subject notable? Is there an organised and notable movement, as for the Elgin marbles and such like? And are we successfully separating the desire for loans from lead institutions from calls for total repatriation? Welsh Government's MALD have successfully arranged the former but would not be involved in the latter. Sources need to be read carefully on that point. So what sources do we have?
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
21:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Like it is odd, that considering other repatriations are way more mainstream than Welsh ones, that there is only an article on Wales. Therefore no precedent, but we don't necessarily have to follow that, but a new precedent should at least have more sources on the topic itself. Usually each repatriation of each artefact are treated somewhat individually on Wiki, with the exception of
Repatriation in Canada which also has sources clearly on the general (non-artefact) topic. In its current state, the sources used here seem to be
WP:SYNTH as they mainly relate to the repatriation of individual artefacts, with the exception of the Nation.Cymru source and the Breton press release. More like that would help justify the article, but if those cannot be found, having only "repatriation" sections at each individual artefact would probably be preferred and a section at
Repatriation (cultural property). DankJae00:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The links for Welsh artefacts, in general, include the Nation.Cymru article, BBC Cymru Fyw (Welsh) article and the Bretton press release article (plenty of citations for individual artefacts). Would probably need to read through all the other articles to look for any further references to Welsh items in general.
Elsewhere I would say that the Benin artefacts could easily make an article also and are probably the most notable recently other than Greek artefacts including Elgin marbles.
Titus Gold (
talk)
01:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
While Benin and Greek are more known categories, are they really on the general topic? I usually only read articles on specific artefact campaigns, e.g. the
Benin Bronzes. But of course if there are at least three reliable sources listing them and describing it as a topic, an article or at least a list could be made. But better to raise that proposal somewhere like
WP:ARCHEO.
Also yes, BBC Cymru Fyw is another source (Google wasn't translating at the time, and later forgot it), but the Breton source is not great, it just states the topic is not considered by the Welsh government which doesn't say much. But per
WP:THREE could be enough to back up this article, but an extra one would be great. DankJae01:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I suppose my problem with this article (similarly to previous "Campaign for..." and "Proposals to..." articles by TG) is that, while there are some calls, there are no proposals to return these artefacts at the moment. Neither is there any connection between these Welsh artefacts and the final section,
Changes in museum legislation, which seems wishful
WP:SYNTH. It would possibly be better rewritten as a "List of Welsh artefacts in English museums" list article.
Sionk (
talk)
22:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Requested move 17 March 2023a
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.
Whilst this could be a sensible move, there are plenty of proposals for the return of individual artefacts. I would suggest briefly holding off on a change until some research is done to see if there is another source generally discussing Welsh artefacts' return. There are already three sources generally discussing return of Welsh objects but one of these has been described by another editor as "not great", so could be worth waiting to see if there is a fourth source.
Titus Gold (
talk)
12:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
What you show is that various people have said "let's return artefact x", but not that there is an encyclopaedic subject that discusses, in secondary sources that are independent of the subject, the topic of "proposed return of Welsh artefacts." There is not, and I raised the notability issue nearly a month ago now. I recognise you have put effort into the creation of a collection here, which is why I have not taken this to AfD. The question over the name is a question as to how best this collection of material would serve a reader. In that respect, a list article that describes notable Welsh objects and artefacts that are held outside of Wales is of benefit to a reader. That is why I proposed the move. It would preserve the value you have added.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
15:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
So either that would be omitted, or the move should actually be "List of Welsh artefacts in museums outside Wales". Please state your preference in your !vote.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
12:45, 17 March 2023 (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.
Requested move 17 March 2023
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.
Support, considering I suggested making it a list article. A number of reliable sources have drawn atttention to the numbers of important Welsh artefacts held outside of Wales and it would be of use to list them in one place.
Sionk (
talk)
19:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Rreagan007, "artefacts" is the common
British spelling, and respecting
MOS:ENGVAR this article was created in and relates to British English. The proposer is likely arguing this article should become a list over concerns of its notability as an article in the section above. DankJae00:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I didn't realize that there was a different spelling. My mistake. Obviously the British spelling should be used here. But the title still should not have the "List of" styling, as it is not a list article.
Rreagan007 (
talk)
01:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks, and you are right, but that is because there is an implied refactoring here. The "Proposals" section can go because there is no general over-riding notable proposal on repatriation. The description of each item could mention notable proposals as relevant. The changes in museum legislation would also go as unrelated to the page content. What is left is a list, in the same way we have
List of restaurants in Wales. If your objection is that it is not styled as a list in a table, I would be interested to know if there is a policy on that, but te restaurants article is not the only example of such lists. In terms of content, this will be a list that can be further expanded too. I am not opposed to removing "List of" from the title, of course. List articles can have "List of" or omit it and still be list articles.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
08:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
It's a rather wordy 'list', I agree, though some of the content would be better placed in the articles about the individual artefacts. If that was done, the article would be far more list-y. I've no opposition to simply calling it
Welsh artefacts in museums outside Wales, which would after all allow a general paragraph somewhere about the general calls for the artefacts to be returned to Wales etc.
Sionk (
talk)
11:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I’ve not suggested anything? Just asking for notability, and another general source, no opinion on this RM yet. However, the existing article has a bit of synth, which makes it wobbly as an article and is structured in some part like a list basing on sub-headings. DankJae16:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Support and restructure - Support title proposed and a restructure of the article into a table/list, based on the existing state of the article at the time of this comment. No sufficient sources for the article as a wider topic, over-reliance on quotations, with most sources being structured as a somewhat list themselves (
this source has a paragraph for each artefact separately, while
this one when translated has a section for each, arranged into a list, with both having little commentary on how such a repatriation occurs). Details on each artefact can be at their relevant articles. Of course, should there be more coverage, the article can be written as text again. Wouldn't mind if "list of" is not included, but the intention is to make it into a list for the time being. DankJae21:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This isn't a list, and can't see any reason to turn it into one. The questions about the notability of the subject seem to be based on an overly-pedantic reading of policy. There's no doubt there are a significant number of sources about the return of various archaeological artefacts to Wales. Saying we can't have an article on the phenomenon because they don't use the phrase "proposed return of Welsh artefacts" is like saying we can't have an article on fruit because all the sources are about apples or oranges. –
Joe (
talk)
13:20, 6 April 2023 (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.
New calls
The content of these articles now need to be mentioned. Thanks
Already added the first one before this comment....
on the 29th, a day before. The latter does not seem to have anything important not mentioned in the first, without becoming too detailed or on other countries. In the end, it is just a call. DankJae20:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
The return of artefacts affects every country, and it should be possible to find someone calling for it in any of these. But what makes the subject notable? Is there an organised and notable movement, as for the Elgin marbles and such like? And are we successfully separating the desire for loans from lead institutions from calls for total repatriation? Welsh Government's MALD have successfully arranged the former but would not be involved in the latter. Sources need to be read carefully on that point. So what sources do we have?
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
21:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Like it is odd, that considering other repatriations are way more mainstream than Welsh ones, that there is only an article on Wales. Therefore no precedent, but we don't necessarily have to follow that, but a new precedent should at least have more sources on the topic itself. Usually each repatriation of each artefact are treated somewhat individually on Wiki, with the exception of
Repatriation in Canada which also has sources clearly on the general (non-artefact) topic. In its current state, the sources used here seem to be
WP:SYNTH as they mainly relate to the repatriation of individual artefacts, with the exception of the Nation.Cymru source and the Breton press release. More like that would help justify the article, but if those cannot be found, having only "repatriation" sections at each individual artefact would probably be preferred and a section at
Repatriation (cultural property). DankJae00:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
The links for Welsh artefacts, in general, include the Nation.Cymru article, BBC Cymru Fyw (Welsh) article and the Bretton press release article (plenty of citations for individual artefacts). Would probably need to read through all the other articles to look for any further references to Welsh items in general.
Elsewhere I would say that the Benin artefacts could easily make an article also and are probably the most notable recently other than Greek artefacts including Elgin marbles.
Titus Gold (
talk)
01:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
While Benin and Greek are more known categories, are they really on the general topic? I usually only read articles on specific artefact campaigns, e.g. the
Benin Bronzes. But of course if there are at least three reliable sources listing them and describing it as a topic, an article or at least a list could be made. But better to raise that proposal somewhere like
WP:ARCHEO.
Also yes, BBC Cymru Fyw is another source (Google wasn't translating at the time, and later forgot it), but the Breton source is not great, it just states the topic is not considered by the Welsh government which doesn't say much. But per
WP:THREE could be enough to back up this article, but an extra one would be great. DankJae01:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I suppose my problem with this article (similarly to previous "Campaign for..." and "Proposals to..." articles by TG) is that, while there are some calls, there are no proposals to return these artefacts at the moment. Neither is there any connection between these Welsh artefacts and the final section,
Changes in museum legislation, which seems wishful
WP:SYNTH. It would possibly be better rewritten as a "List of Welsh artefacts in English museums" list article.
Sionk (
talk)
22:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Requested move 17 March 2023a
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.
Whilst this could be a sensible move, there are plenty of proposals for the return of individual artefacts. I would suggest briefly holding off on a change until some research is done to see if there is another source generally discussing Welsh artefacts' return. There are already three sources generally discussing return of Welsh objects but one of these has been described by another editor as "not great", so could be worth waiting to see if there is a fourth source.
Titus Gold (
talk)
12:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
What you show is that various people have said "let's return artefact x", but not that there is an encyclopaedic subject that discusses, in secondary sources that are independent of the subject, the topic of "proposed return of Welsh artefacts." There is not, and I raised the notability issue nearly a month ago now. I recognise you have put effort into the creation of a collection here, which is why I have not taken this to AfD. The question over the name is a question as to how best this collection of material would serve a reader. In that respect, a list article that describes notable Welsh objects and artefacts that are held outside of Wales is of benefit to a reader. That is why I proposed the move. It would preserve the value you have added.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
15:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
So either that would be omitted, or the move should actually be "List of Welsh artefacts in museums outside Wales". Please state your preference in your !vote.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
12:45, 17 March 2023 (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.
Requested move 17 March 2023
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.
Support, considering I suggested making it a list article. A number of reliable sources have drawn atttention to the numbers of important Welsh artefacts held outside of Wales and it would be of use to list them in one place.
Sionk (
talk)
19:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Rreagan007, "artefacts" is the common
British spelling, and respecting
MOS:ENGVAR this article was created in and relates to British English. The proposer is likely arguing this article should become a list over concerns of its notability as an article in the section above. DankJae00:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I didn't realize that there was a different spelling. My mistake. Obviously the British spelling should be used here. But the title still should not have the "List of" styling, as it is not a list article.
Rreagan007 (
talk)
01:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks, and you are right, but that is because there is an implied refactoring here. The "Proposals" section can go because there is no general over-riding notable proposal on repatriation. The description of each item could mention notable proposals as relevant. The changes in museum legislation would also go as unrelated to the page content. What is left is a list, in the same way we have
List of restaurants in Wales. If your objection is that it is not styled as a list in a table, I would be interested to know if there is a policy on that, but te restaurants article is not the only example of such lists. In terms of content, this will be a list that can be further expanded too. I am not opposed to removing "List of" from the title, of course. List articles can have "List of" or omit it and still be list articles.
Sirfurboy🏄 (
talk)
08:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
It's a rather wordy 'list', I agree, though some of the content would be better placed in the articles about the individual artefacts. If that was done, the article would be far more list-y. I've no opposition to simply calling it
Welsh artefacts in museums outside Wales, which would after all allow a general paragraph somewhere about the general calls for the artefacts to be returned to Wales etc.
Sionk (
talk)
11:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
I’ve not suggested anything? Just asking for notability, and another general source, no opinion on this RM yet. However, the existing article has a bit of synth, which makes it wobbly as an article and is structured in some part like a list basing on sub-headings. DankJae16:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Support and restructure - Support title proposed and a restructure of the article into a table/list, based on the existing state of the article at the time of this comment. No sufficient sources for the article as a wider topic, over-reliance on quotations, with most sources being structured as a somewhat list themselves (
this source has a paragraph for each artefact separately, while
this one when translated has a section for each, arranged into a list, with both having little commentary on how such a repatriation occurs). Details on each artefact can be at their relevant articles. Of course, should there be more coverage, the article can be written as text again. Wouldn't mind if "list of" is not included, but the intention is to make it into a list for the time being. DankJae21:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This isn't a list, and can't see any reason to turn it into one. The questions about the notability of the subject seem to be based on an overly-pedantic reading of policy. There's no doubt there are a significant number of sources about the return of various archaeological artefacts to Wales. Saying we can't have an article on the phenomenon because they don't use the phrase "proposed return of Welsh artefacts" is like saying we can't have an article on fruit because all the sources are about apples or oranges. –
Joe (
talk)
13:20, 6 April 2023 (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.
New calls
The content of these articles now need to be mentioned. Thanks
Already added the first one before this comment....
on the 29th, a day before. The latter does not seem to have anything important not mentioned in the first, without becoming too detailed or on other countries. In the end, it is just a call. DankJae20:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)reply