Talk:William Yolland

Pictures

The photographs of the Tay Bridge here take up more room than they do on the designer's own page. Taking WP:TOPIC into account, should we cut them back in some way? Is there a picture of Yolland himself we could add? --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still can't find a picture of Yolland, but I can trim these pics.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object to trimming the pics because Yolland was one of the judges of the inquiry, and he was clsoely involved with the examination of the remains. I have therefore restored the images so readers can appreciate the scale of the disaster. Peterlewis (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:TOPIC, as suggested in my request for comment? It reads: "Please be bold in deleting..." --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article and it says nothing about deleting very relevant images... so please justify your deletion! Peterlewis (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, a question of relevance. The images of Bouch's bridge appear on Bouch's page; Bouch was an engineer who designed bridges. Yolland was a map maker and railway inspector: images on Yolland's page should, in a similar way, reflect his career. What relevant material can you offer to fulfil this? Why do you insist on two images, very prominently displayed, containing only loosely relevant material? The policy clearly calls for "bold" deletion of such material: I am at fault for merely reducing its prominence. You wish readers to "judge the scale of the disaster": I have now added the link to the correct Wikipedia article so that they may do so, in an appropriate level of detail and with these images (and one of mine—I've no objection to images that are relevant) included. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any further comments, or may I put it back as it was, into its less prominent position?--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no objections after a full month: implementing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Death

I've changed this from 5 September 1885 to 4 September 1885 because his Times obituary, from Monday 7 September, specifically reports that he died on "Friday last". That makes it 4 September. As it's the report most immediate to the event, that's the one I'm going with. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the date from his Royal Astronomical Society obituary of February 1886, now added as a ref (thanks, NASA, for putting this online!)--217.155.32.221 (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]