This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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 the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
with the "1893" date in the info-box. It seems to me that the 1903 dedication date is what is called for but in the info box template it asks for a "start date". This is not (opinion) a very useful date. Even the commission date of 1896 would, again, my opinion be a better choice. Now to see who else cares. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
your quite right. i tend to use the dedication date unless it took some time. (there are some with a 40 year span). don't know if there's any guidance on this. interest will pick up with wikimania i expect. btw, thanks for all the good photos. Slowking4: 7@1|x 17:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. US copyright laws have put a huge crimp in my ability to post, but I did just get permission from John Henry Waddell to use my pictures of his work, so that should happen in a week or so. Carptrash (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]