A fact from Amaravati Marbles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 January 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that since dozens of Elliot Marbles(example pictured) were brought to the British Museum their ownership has been uncontested?
This article relates to the British Museum. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one, as needed.British MuseumWikipedia:GLAM/British MuseumTemplate:WikiProject British MuseumBritish Museum-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture 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.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles
This article -- as written -- is somewhat confused in its structure, ambition and organisation. Is it about the site? the history of art? or the history of the collection in the British Museum? We now have Amarāvatī mahācetiya, a wiki article about the site in India. This includes the history of the place and some the history of art. It thus seems that this article should focus on the materials in London, how and when the items arrived, where and how they were displayed, and how we come to see them in the building of the British Museum today. I guess I'll make a start on this as time allows. --Shirazibustan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The starter of the new article was probably unaware of this one - developing a single article might have been better, and there is still a strong case for merging the two, or at the least swopping some content between them. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments above. Now making a start here by giving a focus on the Amaravati material in London, and the history of the collection at the British Museum. This will, eventually I hope, provide a clear narrative, and not repeat what will be covered in the article on the site of Amaravati (and its history) in India. --zippymarmalade
The more I think about this they should be merged. I am concerned you are just removing material here, which is actually of better quality than in the other article. If two articles are kept there should be substantial duplication between them. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, point well taken. Please give me a wee bit of time. I am working on making this article about the collections at the British Museum and thier history there over the last 135 years. That's a different story from what will emerge around the history of site in India. I've got my hand on some conservation reports on the stone (published in a scientific journal some years back), and I will add some old photographs from the 19th century of displays at the Museum. I think this will help readers answer questions about how this material came to London and why they see it there. The history of sculpture generally, Buddhist narrative and the geographical setting at the site in India are a different and distinct sort of story, best told in the site article, on which I am also working. Thanks, hope this clarifies --zippymarmalade
It seems that this person is Andrew James Scott, 1817–1884, known as a photographer. Though not that well known. It would be good to develop this line somewhat. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
