Jump to content

Talk:Alphonse Mucha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Alfons Mucha)

Alphonse vs. Alfons

[edit]

Most English-language sources seem to use "Alphonse", including the English version of the website of the Mucha Museum in Prague (although the Czech version uses Alfons). Wikipedia's guideline on naming suggests using the name that English speakers will most readily recognize, so maybe the article should be moved to Alphonse Mucha? —Celithemis 00:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Celithemis on this. The guidelines and common English usage suggest to use 'Alphonse'. SnappingTurtle 01:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. What is most important, how do people think the name is, how it really is? Mucha was Czech, I think it is disrepectful and untrue to change his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.212.119 (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki policy is to draw from reliable sources. "Alphonse" would appear to be the correct English usage of his name. Ty 02:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have voted against the recent unilateral and undiscussed move of the article from "Alfons" to "Alphonse". He is known as "Alfons" both in the Czech Republic and France, and note the de:W article is at "Alfons" as well. I really don't think such moves should be made without discussion. (BTW, note that the move broke the link to Commons). I feel even more strongly that if we insist on Anglisizing his name for this article, the article at least needs to note the name the rest of the world knows him as. As to the claim that "Alphonse" was his "birth name"... well, I'll be charitable and assume that change was made out of simple carelessness. I changed it back to Alfons; if anyone disagrees with that, please provide a citation (and we'll correct his birth name in all the Wikipedias in other languages too if such information can be shown). Thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The move was to move the article to the name used in it according to wikipedia article naming. This isn't de:W, the Czech Republic or France. It's en:W which is English language so we follow major sources for usage. Alphonse is used by the English site of the Mucha Museum in Prague,[1] and the Mucha Foundation.[2] Oxford Art online says Alphonse.[3] Books written by his son, Jiří Mucha , are titled Alphonse.[4] Grove art online says, "Mucha, Alphonse [Alfons] (b Ivančice), [5] His birth name is Ivančice, the common English version is Alphonse (and less often Alfons). Sargentprivate (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. It looks like you or someone you're quoting mis-read what is indicated by "(b)". Ivančice was the name of the town he was born in, not his given name. His given name was Alfons. Infrogmation (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, (b) for born I misread. But as in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)." Other sources to add to those previously given for "Alphonse": the Museum of Modern Art,[6] the Tate,[7] the Victoria and Albert Museum,[8] the National Gallery of Australia,[9] the Union List of Artist Names ("Mucha, Alphonse" as the primary name).[10] The article name should be used for the article. Sargentprivate (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article to match the article title on every single other Wikipedia including French. I hadn't even noticed this thread, and honestly its current relevance is questionable, because it's over three years old, and publishing standards with regard to Mucha have changed. The spelling "Alphonse" was popularized over 100 years ago, when it was still common practice to refer to people by the variant of their name in the local language of the writer (e.g. an Italian named Giuseppe Blanco would likely be referred to as Josheph Blanco in English, José Blanco in Spanish, Josephe Blanco in French, etc.) This practice has been almost completely extinct for at least three generations now. Early English works on Mucha picked up the French spelling since Mucha's work was best known and popularized in France. Today, however, newly-published works increasingly use "Alfons", including in both French and English. For English-language examples, see those by Jana Brabcova, Renate Ulmer, Petr Wittlich, and Alfons's own descendants Jiri Mucha and Saraha Mucha. Some works still in print still use "Alphonse", such as all of Dover Press's repros of his work as clipart (but note that these were first published many decades ago, when Mucha was still being uniformly called "Alphonse" in French and English publications), and some recent retrospectives by Husslein-Arco, et al., and Rosalind Ormiston. I own almost every book ever published in English, and many in other languages, about Mucha, and virtually all of them that use "Alphonse" in the title clearly note that his name was really "Alfons" in the text and that "Alphonse " was simply a spelling preferred by his French publishers. At any rate, the fact that even the French Wikipedia, along with all other ones,* now uses "Alfons" is a strong indication of a world-wide consensus to use "Alfons". It makes the English WP look ignorant to continue to misspell his name. If someone wants to undo the move, you'll have to do it via WP:RM, since the redir now at Alphonse Mucha has been edited to include {{R from alternative spelling}}. PS: If you want to raise an issue with me personally, use my talk page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 16:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC) *I'm not counting Latin, which is a playground Wikipedia like the Elivish and Klingon ones, nor Simple English, which does whatever the main English one does. 00:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN much? While I agree with the move, the tone of your message above is along the lines of "This is the way it is. Deal with it. My way or the highway." This isn't how we do things here. Moving the article and then making that final edit to the redirect to prevent anyone other than an admin from moving it back hardly assumes good faith on the part of any other editor. Please work with other editors rather than steamrolling over them just because you think you're an expert on the topic (at least that's the impression I got from your "I own practically everything about Mucha in English" comment). This helps to preserve editing harmony. Thanks. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's your snide accusation that constitutes an assumption of bad faith and borderline personal attack on your part; I did not add {{R from alternative name}} to the redirect "to prevent anyone other than an admin from moving it back", I did so because it was a redirect from an alternative name, and that template is supposed to go on such redirects. I did not "steamroll" over anyone. I made a simple, obvious edit to bring this article in line with the 40-odd other Wikipedias that have articles on Mucha. As already noted, I did not even notice that an unresolved naming discussion thread had ever been opened here. As it is, it should have been labeled {{stale}}, since it's three+ years old and did not come to a consensus. Obviously, if I'd thought there was such a discussion here I would have just opened a WP:RM about the issue. But stop overreacting please. This is just a wiki and this is just text. WP:BOLD is policy, and WP:BRD is a standard operating procedure. If you are convinced the article should remain at Alphonse Mucha, ask an admin to move it back, I'll open a formal WP:RM, and that will be that. Histrionics are not helpful. Please see also your user talk page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 00:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you took my message as snide as it wasn't intended that way. I was merely pointing out how your move and then message here was coming across. As I already stated, I agree with your move, so there's no need to convince me about it. "Alfons" is definitely the correct spelling. In your original post, though, you specifically pointed out that if someone disagreed with the move they would have to open a discussion at WP:RM "since the redir now at Alphonse Mucha has been edited to include {{R from alternative spelling}}." This comes across as you purposely editing the redirect to prevent the article being moved back by anyone other than an admin. If this is not what you meant by it, I'm sorry I misunderstood you. It is very easy to misunderstand that, however, given the way you presented it. I think that, in this case, it would have much more simple to move the article and then post a very short "I have moved the article to "Alfons Mucha" because almost every other Wikipedia (including the French Wikipedia) uses that title and more modern usage is trending that way from the previous adoption of the French spelling of his name." Keeping it short and simple like that would have been much more effective and explained the reason for the move very simply. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean now. I was simply observing the fact that trying to directly revert the move wouldn't work; I was not gloating. This is just a wiki and it's just text, and no one's house is going to fall down if someone has to start a WP:RM thread to deal with my error (which was failing to notice that a previous dicussion here about the title closed without consensus, so I should have opened an RM instead of just moving the article; I still maintain that this was not actually a policy violation, just a WP:BOLD move that, obviously, was likely to trigger the R and D aspects of WP:BRD, and that Alfons Mucha is in fact the most proper article title, regardless how we arrive at it. I apologize for mistaking your response as being more critical than it was. Anyway, I did the move because it seemed obvious and necessary, added the R-from template because that's the proper thing to do with that type of redir, then after the fact noticed the old discussion when I came to the talk page to post precisely the kind of "I have moved the article..." message you suggest. At that point, I noted that the template would block simple revert and require a RM instead. I could have communicated it better! — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 08:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, text is pretty hard to parse into intent sometimes. Live and learn, I guess, for both of us. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a case of ownership; before today's name change he'd only edited the article once [11], adding 11 bytes, also about the name. It's a case of being over-sure you are right, and disregarding relevant policies and the views of other editors, all too typical of this editor. An admin will I'm sure revert his changes, so he will have to go to the slight trouble of starting an RM discussion, which he should have done in the first place. He does not often edit in the visual arts area; if he did he would probably be more aware of how many artists are not known in English by their actual name in its local form. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've generally found SMcCandlish to be a very conscientious editor, so I disagree that this is "all too typical" of him. Whether he edits in the visual arts area is irrelevant as any editor is welcome to edit in any area they so choose. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod has strongly opposed me on some other issues, including article naming ones. I'm not sure how "doesn't agree with me" seems to equate to "is a bad editor" to him, but oh well. Not really my problem. "The fastest road to failure is to try to please everyone all the time", as my grandfather used to say. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 08:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you have issues with my editing behavior, use my talk page, and stop abusing this article's talk page as a venue for editor criticism. (Second notice.) Alfons Mucha is not his name in its "local" (by which I guess you mean Czech) form only; it's his name globally, now even in France, and even in modern works in English about him. This article reflecting a refusal to accept that is a serious WP:NPOV problem. Suggesting that I'm ignorant of the visual arts and incompetent to edit in such articles is another borderline personal attack, based on nothing but your imagination. (As a matter of fact, one of my sidelines is trading in art and antiques, mostly 1880s to 1940s, and I have somewhere around US$20K worth of Art Nouveau and Art Deco on premises, so you might want to rethink you assessment. I do not spend much time editing articles on everything I happen to know much about, just areas where I think WP's coverage badly needs improvement). Also, I have not "disregarded" any policies or the views of any other editors. I'll be perfectly happy with an admin reversal of my move followed by me or someone else opening a new WP:RM, because the original discussion here did not conclude with a consensus it simply petered out, the WP:COMMONNAME in English is clearly in flux, as shown by the reliable sources I alrady cited, and the arguments and reasoning for "Alfons" outweigh those for "Alphonse" (now that I see this old thread exists and anyone bothered to make any). The case for "Alphonse" is what I call "COMMONNAME fetishism", a belief that that section of WP:AT exists in a vacuum and is the ultimate authority, when in fact all experienced Wikipedians know that its default advice is moderated, even sometimes overturned, by other concerns, most often WP:COMMONSENSE. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 00:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"He does not often edit in the visual arts area" is what I said, and that is true, isn't it? You seem to say so yourself. The rest is you whipping yourself up. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You said that, and then followed it with weasely implication of ignorance/stupidity on my part. You failed to consider the possibility that I know full well that in English we sometimes use Anglicized names because they're deeply historically embedded in our language (e.g. Magellan, Columbus), and that I understand that sometimes we continue to use these spellings in WP articles for WP:COMMONNAME reasons, but that I am making a clear argument that this is not such a case and should not be approached as one. You also accused me violating policy without actually demonstrating this to be the case. This is what is known as "character assassination". — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 08:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I'll ask an admin myself to move the page back, and then start a WP:RM. An admin already opened the RM, without moving it back, so I acted too late. I reiterate that I had no idea there was already a (moribund and inconclusive) discussion about the matter, or I would have gone the RM route in the first place. I also reiterate that the case for Alfons is stronger than that for Alphonse, and that WP:BOLD is policy, so all the personal attacks and bad-faith-assumptive ranting up there is grossly inappropriate. It is 10x more important that a civil discussion ensue about why English Wikipedia alone of all projects should continue to use a spelling (not an English one, but a French one abandoned even by fr.wiki!) that is no longer being promoted by many modern works on the article subject, than for any editors to abuse this article talk page as a forum for personally bashing me just because I pointed all this out though a bold page move. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 00:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Updated 08:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Le Pater

[edit]

images from la pater have beenposted to wikimedia, [12], but the article is so crammd with images i dont know where to put one. it needs its own article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Alfons Mucha → Alphonse Mucha –

It's a bit late for you to come over all procedural, doncha think? Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the discussion polite. This kind of comment is not helpful. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, I wasn't being procedural, I was being logical. Please see WP:LAWYER; there is no procedural requirement that this stuff be done in any particular order or way, by any particular party. It simply would have made more sense to revert my move back to the longer-term status quo and then discuss my proposal to move the article to Alfons Mucha as the proposal in a new RM, instead of prematurely starting a new RM that is inverting the situation to seem like the status quo is Alfons Mucha already. Why you are ankle-biting me for trying to undo my own error, after I have in fact twice, now thrice, admitted it was an error to move the article now that I know there was already a no-consensus discussion, back when, about the article name, is beyond me (especially since it would probably be an easier debate for you to "win" that way instead of this way). You appear to simply be lamabasting me for the hell of it, something I have now pointed out four times, here and at your talk page. For the last time, I request that you stop it, and focus on editing instead of editors. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 08:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-evidence: Piles of reliable English-language sources, from Frommer's to The New York Times, use "Alfons Mucha Museum", regardless of the spelling chosen by whatever sub-webmaster translated the museum's webpage into English:
Some examples found in five seconds on Google

Alfons Mucha Museum Prague | Czech Republic - Prague Life http://www.prague-life.com › Culture › Museum The museum is all about life and work of Alfons Mucha, the famous Czech painter who was the defining artist of the art nouveau movement in France, and who ...

Review of Alfons Mucha Museum and other museum reviews in ... www.frommers.com › ... › Czech Republic › Prague › Attraction Frommer's review of Alfons Mucha Museum in Prague. Get information about this attraction including applicable cost, tickets, operating hours and an expert ...

Alfons Mucha Museum - Health - The New York Times travel.nytimes.com › ... › czech republic › prague › WHAT TO DO Jul 22, 2009 – Reviews and ratings of Alfons Mucha Museum in Prague from The New York Times.

Mucha Museum - Prague - Reviews of Mucha Museum - TripAdvisor www.tripadvisor.com › ... › Prague › Things to Do in Prague Rating: 4 - 176 reviews The museum itself is not incredibly large but contained within this space is a nice collection of Alfons Mucha's incredible work. The museum is more of a large ...

Alfons Mucha Museum, Prague, Czech Republic www.topsightseeing.com/.../prague/.../alfonsmuchamuseum.ht... The Mucha Museum is dedicated to the life and work of the world-acclaimed Czech Art Nouveau painter Alphonse Mucha (1860-1939), housed in the 18th ...

Alfons Mucha Museum (Muzeum A. Muchy) information - Plnnr.com plnnr.com › Cities › Prague, Czech Republic › Attractions Alfons Mucha Museum (Muzeum A. Muchy) at Prague: description, address, and more. Tagged Museums, Historic sites, Galleries.

...and many pages more. (Sorry these URLs aren't clickable; just search for "Alfons Mucha" Museum -Wikipedia via Google to find these and many more.)

Furthermore, the Mucha Foundation site lists both spellings in the same breath: "A comprehensive resource for information on Alphonse Mucha (or Alfons Mucha) with details on his life, the Mucha Trust Collection, news, exhibitions, events ...".
Various reliable sources on visual art and the arts in general (including both specialist publications and mainstream reportage on the topic) also use the "Alfons" spelling:

More examples found with near-zero effort

Jane Van Nimmen reviews Alfons Mucha - Nineteenth-Century Art ... www.19thc-artworldwide.org/index.php/.../alfons-muchaShare MAK – Österreichisches Museum für angewandte Kunst/ Gegenwartskunst, Vienna. ... Le Pater, Final sketch for sixth allegorical plate, Forgive us our trespasses, .... the horseshoe in Mucha's imagery emerged unmistakably in the first gallery, ...

Czech Art Nouveau gem by Alfons Mucha goes on view at the ... artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=55340 May 14, 2012 – /B Alfons Mucha (1860–1939) was the most famous Czech modern artist ... by Art Nouveau Czech artist Alfons Mucha, at the National Gallery in ... Epic from the American millionaire and Slavophile Charles Richard ... Marc Quinn opens major exhibition of his works at the Oceanographic Museum of Monaco ...

Alfons Mucha. Master of Art Nouveau A Retrospektive www.hypo-kunsthalle.de/newweb/emucha.html Alfons Mucha - Exhibition of the Kunsthalle der Hypo-Kulturstiftung Munich. ... This world-renowned Art Nouveau figure head, famous for his poster designs, book ... The financial support from the American benefactor Charles R. Crane ... collection of the Museum of Decorative Arts in Prague and the Musée d'Orsay in Paris.

The Apotheosis of Love – Unknown Works by Alfons Mucha in ... www.praha.eu/.../museums_and_galleries/the_... - Czech RepublicShare Jul 22, 2010 – Entertainment: Museums & Galleries: The Apotheosis of Love – Unknown Works by Alfons Mucha in Municipal House ... until 30th September 2010, right after which it will move on to The GASK Gallery in Kutná Hora. ... “It is a great honour for us that we can launch the series of exhibitions in the Municipal ...

2012 in the arts: Galleries - Features - The Prague Post www.praguepost.com › FeaturesShare Dec 26, 2012 – As the year drew to a close, Prague's Museum of Decorative Arts ... Alfons Mucha and Art Nouveau were in the news in other respects, as well.

And so on. Basically, for every case you can find an "Alphonse" I can find an "Alfons", and mine will be just as new or more current.
P.S. The insinuation "McCandlish may not like WP:COMMONNAME" is a triple fallacy, being ad hominem, a straw man and a red herring. I do in fact regularly cite COMMONNAME, when it is actually pertinent. COMMONNAME is not the be-all and end-all of article titles policy and our naming conventions generally (or there would only be WP:COMMONNAME, obviously).
— SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 08:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restatement of my oppose, so people don't have to go dig it out of the old thread: The problem with an analysis like the old one presented by Johnbod in the three-year-old thread, along with his newer statement just above, and essentially reiterated by Ewulp, is that it neglects to account for the fact that the reliable sources in English are most recently (i.e. the last 15 years or so) moving away from the "Alphonse" spelling, even in French and English, the only two languages in which it was ever much used. Fewer and fewer books about Art Nouveau, art history generally, or Mucha specifically, especially those published in the last decade in either language prefer that spelling. If the French Wikipedia has abandoned it, and English only ever used it because it picked the spelling up from French, this is a strong indication that it no longer makes sense for en.wiki to insist on it. Especially given that its a misspelling (i.e., an error, or a Frenchy colloquialism at best). Wikipedia is not bound to honor such things; we do not give "EYE-tal-yun" as a valid pronunciation at Italian people, Italian cuisine, etc., despite it being the common pronunciation in large parts of the US, and we don't give "horny toad" as the title of Horned lizard despite nearly all people familiar with the animal using the former (vernacular) not latter (technical) name.

    The WP:COMMONNAME analysis being proferred here for "Alphonse" is simply off-base as a matter of both WP:COMMONSENSE and the ground truth about what's going on in non-reprint and non-out-of-print reliable sources. Even the fact that the Mucha family website offers that spelling on some of its pages is outweighed by the fact that the actual print books written by members of that family do the opposite (especially given that it's likely that the site is produced under contract by someone else – the same goes for the museum site, and see below for proof they use the Alfons spelling, too – while the books were actually written by the Muchas themselves). Here's another "Alfons" as used by the site of a third family member, his granddaughter, the artist Jarmila Mucha Plockova http://www.muchaplockova.com/story/mucha-family-history/Share Family History: The Mucha Dynasty – "Since 1888 Alfons Mucha lived in Paris doing illustrations. .... After 1979, the National Gallery in Prague organized many Alfons Mucha exhibitions around the...." When the three family members who have published on the matter use "Alfons" in their own works (and only managed to contradict themselves on one webpage which probably wasn't even written by them), it's beyond original research and hand-picking sources to avoid a verifiability outcome you don't like to insist they don't know how to spell their own ancestor's name! It verges on a WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:ADVOCACY violation.

    WP:COMMONNAME gives us a default pattern of naming, that is not a law of nature, just what to do in the absence of a clear rationale for something else. This case has several clear rationales for something other than what the majority of English-language publications (most of them now out-of-print, and decades old when still in print) have historically used for this subject. The latent supposition that all English-language sources preferred "Alphonse" until recently isn't correct, either; Ulmer's book is almost 20 years old now, and I'm just talking about books with Mucha's name in the title. It's not just books, by any means. An Amazon.com search for "Alfons Mucha" in quotation marks[14] produces 20 pages of results, from calendars to cell phone covers to dinner plates to posters to jigsaw puzzles, all current/recent products intended for a general, English-speaking audience, marketed under the "Alfons" spelling. But what about books? Let's look beyond the usual suspects (see my post in the original thread, above, for various recent works about Mucha that use "Alfons"). The Coasts of Bohemia: A Czech History by Derek Sayer (2000), uses "Alfons". Let's Go Budget Prague: The Student Travel Guide by Harvard Student Agencies uses "Alfons" (and contradicts the claim made above that the Alfons Mucha Museum uses the "Alphonse" spelling). The Lonely Planet: Prague city guide (Neil Wilson, 2007 onward, updated annually) uses Alfons. (All of these results can be verified by using the "Search inside this book" feature at Amazon, like so.) And so on. I could do this all day. Most books that use "Alphonse" are from the 1980s and earlier, with a very large proportion of them being published by Dover Press, who have more or less actively proselytized that spelling (relying on them heavily raises an undue weight sourcing problem, especially since they are not works of scholarship at all, but just collections of clip art for crafters).

    But whatever. I really don't care much. I arrived at the article, saw that it was using an obsolete spelling, that all other-language Wikipedias including French were using the proper "Alfons" spelling, and so I moved it. It seemed clear at the time that no one else cared, since what was then the redirect, Alfons Mucha, did not even have a {{R from alternative name}} on it yet. If I'd looked at the talk page, I probably would have seen the old thread, and thus would have started an RM instead of being bold and just doing the move, but it really doesn't matter, since it's easily undone. Flying off the handle and accusing me of bad faith in the move is really beyond the pale, and just anti-collegiality antagonism for its own sake. Even if this RM ends up favoring the "Alphonse" spelling for now, I firmly predict that within 1-5 years it will be at "Alfons", for the reasons I've presented, and will stay that way. Just the fact that the French Wikipedia uses "Alfons" now ought to be enough; it makes zero sense for a wiki from another language (English) to keep defending a spelling now rejected in the language that spawned it (French). It's like en.wiki refusing to accept Beijing, Romania and Mumbai and still insisting on Peking, Rumania and Bombay just because outdated sources familiarly use them.
    — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 07:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad you don't care very much! I'm not going to go through this filibustering farrago of personal attacks and selective quoting point by point, but the situation is very clear for anyone who searches on "Mucha" on google books (including disregarding older ones), or looks at major museums. Too many of the points made are blatently inaccurate - there is no need to consult a student travel guide for what spelling the Mucha Foundation use when I have given a link to their website above. And so on. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if course, it's always more convenient to ignore logic and evidence that contradicts you than to respond to them substantively. To address the tiny number of points you bothered to answer: The fact that works like student travel guides and mainstream newspapers are starting to use "Alfons" instead of "Alphonse" is actually extremely significant in this context. The fact that a website authorized by the family foundation, but almost certainly not actually authored by them, used "Alphonse" is outweighed by the fact that three publishing members of the family themselves directly use "Alfons", including when writing in English, as do a large pile of third-party reliable sources about the museum. How much cold, hard cash are you will to bet that if we write to the foundation and ask for materials by mail that English-language ones received will use "Alfons" or a mixture of "Alfons" and "Alphonse"? I'll put up US$100. The short snippet quotations my copy-pastes from Google included are Google's own summarizations, not my edits! I did not "selectively quote" or even touch those quoted passages in any way. You're generally just not making sense here. There is nothing "blatently [sic] inaccurate" about quoting a book. Would you like to buy the book and scan the page that you think I quoted inaccurately and prove that accusation? Also, please see wikt:filibuster; responding in-depth to your position has nothing to do with filibustering. This is not a legislative body or anything like one, and I am not doing anything to delay the outcome (RMs run for 7 days, regardless of whether anyone's posts are detailed or monosyllabic). Random google searches that turn up lots of "Alphonse" cannot effectively be weeded through for age, because you don't know and cannot know the age of the original source materials before they was digitized or quoted, in the vast majority of cases. The fact that "Alphonse" does seem to outweigh "Alfons" is only one of several factors that have to be considered in deciding what the best article name in on en.wiki; it is not a magic bullet. And what personal attacks? Please specify them and how they violate WP:NPA. In the interim, please explain to us why you continue to personalize the debate in an ad hominem manner, consistently going after the editor personally rather than the content of the issue, especially after you have been warned repeatedly not to do this, per WP:CIVIL and other policies and guidelines. This is, I believe, the fifth time I've asked you to stop that. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 19:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - per ngram it's clear that English print sources are increasingly treating him as a Czech, but hasn't quite overtaken the nom francisé yet. I think that if this goes back to a French name title then "(Ivančice, 24 July 1860 – Prague, 14 July 1939)" should stay in lead to show immediately that he did not emigrate to Paris, that we are not dealing with a Handel or Schoenberg or Navratilova type passport change. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, however this turns out. A lot of people do in fact think that Mucha was French or a immigrant to France! — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 19:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, indeed Alfons "hasn't quite overtaken" Alphonse: as at 2008 Alphonse remains almost 3 times as popular! Unless something drastic happens after that McCandlish's "firm prediction" of an overtake (which is likely to be right at some point) within "1-5 years" is out by a factor of about 10. Let's all come back in 15 years; it's not our policy to be in the vanguard of such changes. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your data is relying heavily upon the exact opposite of recentism, namely piles and piles of digitized out-of-print materials that do not reflect current trends. However, even the "recent" 2008 data is 4+ years old, so you're not only relying on old data, but completely excluding new data, doubling the unreliability. Again, whether "Alfons" has overtaken "Alphonse" (I didn't say that it had, I said it is clearly trending in that direction) is only one of various factors that has to be considered. If WP:COMMONNAME were the only factor of relevance, the rest of WP:AT and all the NC guidelines would not exist. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 19:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet more evidence, but to take it further it's easier and as informative to do as I did above, & start with the best sources & see what they use. I only looked at Getty ULAN (the normal authoritative RS on Artist's Names), MOMA, the V&A, & The British Museum. As all use "Alphonse" I thought that was enough on English-speaking museums. I'm interested to see that though He Who Must Not Be Named has obviously been doing tons of research, he has not found any Anglophone museums using "Alfons". I mean there must be some, one would think, but how minor are they? The old debate found "Alphonse" in the main Canadian & Australian museum sites too I think. It would be clearly wrong for us to title the bio of a well-known artist with a name not used by a major proportion of big museums. Translated pages on the sites of non-Anglophone museums don't count, as their English will be very variable, though Czech museums using "Alphonse" in English are noted above. Johnbod (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2013 (UT
  • Support. Even the most recent years of the ngram show Alphonse used more than Alfons, and until that changes dramatically (not a majority, but an overwhelming majority), the article should remain at Alphonse Mucha. Note to closer, if there is no consensus to move, the article should be moved back to its stable title at Alphonse Mucha (the correct way to have done this RM was to revert the recent contested change and propose a move to Alfons Mucha). Apteva (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - but you mean Support surely? Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Duh. This article was created in 2002 as Alfons Mucha, and was moved to Alphonse Mucha on 22 September 2009, and moved back to Alfons Mucha on 4 February 2013. I am suggesting that Alphonse Mucha is the stable title that this should be moved to if there is no consensus. Apteva (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. An important point. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If this name had diacritics, the community would probably vote for it to stay in its namespace in its native spelling. This ought to be no different, although there are no diacritics to contend with. 'Alphons' is exactly the same phonetically as 'Alphonse'; add to that there are an increasing number sources in almost all the languages that spell his name without the terminal 'e' that it would be fallacious to assert 'Alfons' is not English. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 06:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As amply demonstrated above, an increasingly minority of sources, mostly translated into English. WP:COMMONNAME applies. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Okay, this is getting crazy

[edit]

Will people stop moving this article? Anthony, you started the move discussion above and it was closed as no consensus, yet here you are, two days after it was closed, moving it in blatant disregard for the discussion above. If you disagree, there are other acceptable paths to take to resolve this dispute. Moving it like this is not the way to go about it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it is the way to go about it. The article had been at Alphonse for ages, with a discussion above 2 years ago clearly not in favour of a move. It was moved out of process & when I asked AA to move it back he started the discussion above. Ideally he would have moved it back first, as McCandlish says (end of section before the new RM) he would have done & before starting a RM. The RM was no consensus for a move back to Alphonse, but clearly would have been NC for a move to Alfons also. So we should preserve the status quo ante which, after some vigorous prodding from moi, AA has done. It is as it should be - see everyone again in what, two years? Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then he should have posted about it here, first. The way he did it is likely to inflame the issue with some who hold strong opinions on the matter (of which I am not one as I really don't care what title the article uses as long as people stop moving it back and forth). 08:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Well again, ideally yes. But AA does so much of the grunt work on moves all the time that we shouldn't grumble. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restorer of Czech Freemasonry

[edit]

I think this needs some historical context... Czech Freemasonry has been banned and restored several times over the years... so which "restoration" are we talking about? Is it really worth mentioning? Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

My grandma's maiden name is Mocha and we have been told we are related to him. My father traveled to Praqua to visit his family's hometown. Does anyone know more about his family? Nancy Nonnemacher (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for misspelling Pragua... Nancy Nonnemacher (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mucha's family

[edit]

Did Mucha really have any Jewish origins? I can find no mention of that anywhere except in one interview (in Czech) with his grandson, where it is mentioned that Alphonse's grandmother had some Jewish roots [15]. Whether that's true or not is probably up to a genealogist to find out. Mucha himself was, however, born into a Christian family, as were his parents. Also the arrest by the Gestapo was more a result of Mucha's Slavic nationalism than anything else. He was accused of being a "friend of the Jews" among other things, [16], but not of being of Jewish origin himself, which the Nazis would surely find out and use against him. So overall I'm doubtful whether there's any jewishness in Mucha's family to speak of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baclinic (talk • contribs) 15:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alphonse Mucha. 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:

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) 20:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image from this article to appear as POTD soon

[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:CZE-17-Republika Ceskoslovenska-100 Korun (1920).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on 28 November 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-11-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonse Mucha
A 100 Czechoslovak koruna banknote featuring artwork produced in 1918 by Czech painter Alphonse Mucha (1860–1939). The note shows the image of Slavia, the daughter of Mucha's American patron Charles Crane. Born in Moravia, Mucha moved to Paris in 1888 where he enrolled in the Académie Julian. He rose to fame in 1895 with his poster of actress Sarah Bernhardt for the play Gismonda, which was displayed across Paris. Mucha returned to his homeland with a move to Prague in 1910. He worked there on the The Slav Epic, a series of twenty paintings depicting the history of the Slavic peoples of the world, which became his most important work.Banknote: Alphonse Mucha and the Banking Office of the Ministry of Finance, First Republic of Czechoslovakia.
Reproduction: National Numismatic Collection, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution, Godot13.
Archive – More featured pictures...

Signatures

[edit]

I came here to leave a short note than Mucha had two signatures. The one in the infobox is, I suppose, the way he signed letters, but his more familiar signature on his artwork is simply "Mucha" underlined. But I see that people can't even agree on his first name so it is doubtful that this matter will ever be addressed. Can two signatures go in the infobox? Wastrel Way (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Eric[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alphonse_Mucha&oldid=1233818233"