Talk:Annunciation (Memling)

Boucicaut master

Really thrilled to see that image fit. I had thought of uploading another version. Which is better, this one or the one we already have, File:Stundenbuch Jean de Boucicaut.JPG ?? Victoria (tk) 15:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

new one is much better. Please, please replace. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Off to commons to upload. Victoria (tk) 15:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd not crop; leave the margins; a sence of what it is. Ceoil (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

They're crooked. But, ok. Will try again. Victoria (tk) 15:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sound; I can straighten. Ceoil (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok. You straighten. Victoria (tk) 15:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Or, we could use this from the Getty. Has the attendant angel and isn't crooked. Victoria (tk) 16:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Ceoil (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh is right. But it's a 17 mb file. I made the mistake of clicking the download button but my computer wasn't happy. Will try again later. If I can upload we can decide which to use. If not, the crooked one will do. Victoria (tk) 16:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, I've uploaded a somewhat straightened version, File:Boucicaut hours visitation (2).jpg, in case it's of use. I've left the borders intact, though they're not even, but they could be snipped too. If you'd prefer not to use it, please don't feel you have to. It's just there if you want it. Sarah ^(talk) 18:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, I'm impressed. Looks much better. I must not have the right software - I couldn't get anything close to that. It's in the article now. Victoria (tk) 18:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'm glad it helped. Sarah ^(talk) 18:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Scaling

Happy Easter everyone. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Re: [1] @Ceoil: Undo opportunist. Page by page as In say. My god man did you look at the effect of what you let behind. No idea what is meant by "opportunist" here, or "Page by page as In say", but I'll respond to the part I do understand. Yes, as with all of my edits I did look quite carefully at what I left behind, and I saw no discernible difference. What difference did you see? I'm interested to know why the following sentence from WP:IMGSIZE does not apply here: "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width." ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC) You edited minutes after I said on talk Arbitration Committee: But is the saying that you are tired of the "perennial battles" on the one hand while recommending that every instance "ought to be discussed on the talk page" that goads, and paints the pro infobox people as grind-them-down-slowly merchants. WTF, specificaly about this page.[2]? Coincidence? I think not, and the ironies are multiple. You may dress up intimidation how you like. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC) @Ceoil: "WTF" is right. I have a few ArbCom pages on my watchlist, and I read that discussion for any educational value it might have had. I clicked on the wikilink to this article. I had no opinion on the infobox issue, but I did notice that the article used fixed image sizes. As I veryoftendowhenIrunacrossthat in any article, I changed them per the guidelines, which have strong community consensus and very solid reasoning behind them. There was no connection between the ArbCom discussion and my edit, beyond the—yes—pure coincidence of my path to the article. Are you reasoning that the ArbCom discussion somehow renders the article immune to unrelated improvement edits? I'll ask again, and perhaps I'll get an answer this time: What difference did you see? I'm interested to know why the following sentence from WP:IMGSIZE does not apply here: "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width." ―Mandruss ☎ 22:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Mandruss - you're poking. Please don't and move on. Things will get sorted eventually. Have faith. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Mandruss, I dont know you from adam, never heard of you before, but *read the words I wrote* - saying that you are tired of the "perennial battles" on the one hand while recommending that an instance "ought to be discussed on the talk page" that goads, and paints the pro infobox people as grind-them-down-slowly merchants.. 5 secionds later you edited the article. Yes absolutely I see you as instigating harassment, I'd be a fool not to, your expliation is utter bullshit, that you are editing automaticaly without thought, and lacking in any guiding principal - but you did open up a talk page discussion, an action which betrays the aw shucks defense. Ceoil (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC) @Ceoil: What in hell are you babbling incoherently about? I have not commented in that discussion precisely because I have no particular opinion on any of it. I have not been involved in infobox wars, ever, and I don't expect to do so. If one is so immersed in a contentious issue that they lose all sight of the WP:AGF principle and assume that any editor touching a related article is part of the perceived conspiracy of incompetence, with no evidence other than the fact that they touched it, I submit that they need to back away from it for awhile. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Mandruss, the issue is this: I posted to the arbs noticeboard about a specific issue. Sometimes it's best for an editor to sit on his or her hands instead of wading in. It appears that you took a look at the article and found something that wasn't quite up to snuff, that didn't quite follow policy so to speak, but what Ceoil is trying to say is that this might not have been exactly the time to right a wrong. If that makes any sense? I see issues every single day that float by on my watchlist and I'm just like, "meh". More often than not, they're issues on articles I've put hundreds if not thousands of edits into, countless hours of reading and writing, and still manage to go "meh". This might have been a good time to simply say, "meh" and move to something else. I'm logging off now for the night, so won't reply if there's more here. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Meh. I'm moving on to something else. The fixed image sizes will be removed eventually regardless. I'm sorry to see irrational emotion, paranoia, and assumption of bad faith win out over calm reasoning, but I'll get over it. Carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Can an uninvolved editor please archive this discussion? It's gone beyond useful. Thanks. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC) there was also this on that talk - "Please infobox warriors, dont make this another test case, that would be most tiresome". Mandruss you are the first mover here. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC) ...and, between the two of us, the only rational one. I am not an infobox warrior—as I have stated and you have not refuted—and my edit had nothing to do with any presence or absence of an infobox—as I have stated and you have not refuted. That means nothing in that discussion has any bearing on my action here. I have given up trying to get you to see the obvious flaws in your argument as a futile exercise, and this comment is merely for the record. Good day to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Can an uninvolved editor please archive this discussion? It's gone beyond useful. Thanks. Victoriaearle (tk) 00:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC) I have default 300px set, so with upright 1.2 the pic looks huuuge, but I quite like that. Bit too big though. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

The main contributor/s somehow managed to get this article started, researched, written and through FAC. Along the way the title was checked, the prose was checked, the sources were checked, etc. Why all the many changes to satisfy a POTD blurb? As for the title change, huge thanks to Johnbod for overturning. I almost had a heart attack when I saw it, but then just shook my head and walked away. Clearly I'm opposed to it. The painting didn't have a title per se, it's an Annunciation scene. Most sources refer to it as Memling's Annunciation, though, for some reason, the Met does add the definite article. In the future please bring such changes to the talk page to discuss. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Ah, it's the curse of the main page! Museum captions are variable on such "the"s, but WP:THE gives WP a clear position. See User_talk:Amakuru#Annunciations for further discussion. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I followed WP:THE when I .. um .. started the page! I've just looked the sources. Annunciation throughout except the Met publications. But, of course, we know this. Victoria (tk) 17:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Citation changes against citevar

Per Wikipedia:CITEVAR under the "To be avoided section" it says, "adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates, or removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently". This article has a consistent citation style that passed FAC (also please see FAOWN) and it shouldn't be changed without discussion and consensus. Rodney Baggins can you please revert this, this, this, this and bring to talk page to gain consensus? Thanks, Victoria (tk) 14:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. Please tell me what FAOWN means? I can't find it in wiki mos. I assume it means something like "the person(s) who took the article to FA effectively own the article" which to me seems bizarre! I shall post again shortly. I was simply being bold and trying to make improvements. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FAOWN says "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." Basically, if tomorrow someone makes substantive changes to Shackleton you can revert and ask for a discussion and consensus because of your good work there may have saved the bronze star. Citevar is a thing: citation style shouldn't be changed without consensus. Unilaterally changing it on TFA day is frowned upon, whether or not a particular editor considers the existing style crappy or scrappy [3]. You were bold, I chose not to revert on TFA day and meant to change back today but in the process of changing ran into an edit conflict while even more citations were being changed. So I posted here. That's the normal workflow. Victoria (tk) 18:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I take it there were no objections to my slight image tweaks? [4] In particular, there is no need to put upright=1. Also, I scaled up the main image slightly, so the dimensions were held in first line of caption. This is true for all displayed text sizes, as the caption scales with the image and does not move around within the available space (contrary to what some other editors think). Sometimes it pays to tweak the image size to "accommodate" the caption for aesthetic consideration.

I totally get what you're saying about FAOWN. The only reason I've been showing an interest in TFAs recently is that I had Shackleton landing in my lap a few weeks ago and I got personally involved in saving it for TFA, and I have John Spencer coming up on Sunday, so it's become an area of interest of late. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of CS1 templates for Sources section

I think the use of CS1 citation templates would improve things in the Sources section. I'm a bit baffled why anyone would not see that as an improvement. Templates provide consistency and clarity.

My (reverted) edits also fixed a number of errors, namely:

• The editors of "From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Painting in the Metropolitan Museum of Art" are Ainsworth and Christiansen, which was previously omitted.
• Shirley Neilsen Blum was previously not linked.
• None of the journal articles were identified with DOI, jstor and/or Semantic Scholar IDs.
• The Metropolitan Museum of Art Guide is incorrectly cited. The 2000 edition (2nd ed.) was edited by Philippe de Montebello, not Kathleen Howard, as he was director of the museum at the time.
• None of the journal articles have publishers attributed to them.
• The editor of "The Renaissance in the North" is John P. O'Neill; James Snyder just wrote the intro.
• "Fifteenth- to Eighteenth-century European Paintings in the Robert Lehman Collection" has a whole host of co-authors (seven in total), most of whom were previously missed out.
• The Burlington Magazine citation has incorrect volume, issue, page range.

Also, 25em is far too narrow for source listings, hence I changed to the more common 30em.

Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. will take a look at these as I get to it. DOI is not required. Neither is Jstor. But those are just off the top of my head. Will post back. These can be fixed without templates if they need fixing. Victoria (tk) 18:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  In "From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Painting in the Metropolitan Museum of Art" only Ainsworth is used. Editors are necessarily required.

  Blum not linked. Maybe she didn't have an article when this was written?

  Have already addressed DOI

  The Annunciation section appears to be written by Snyder - in fact the Met gives him as editor author. Victoria (tk) 19:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, this was useful feedback. The only requirement is consistent citations, and for the sake of consistency I've left as is some entries for now. I believe Sterling & Snyder were the authors for those bits in the books, which is why I chose not to write out all the various editors - and honestly, this is problem with leaving an article on the shelf for too long. Anyway, if we all agree that editors are needed I'll rewrite the citations. If we all agree on other pieces I'll rewrite the citations. All this can be done without templates. If there's consensus for the templates, then they can be put back. Victoria (tk) 19:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)