Talk:La Promenade (Renoir)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dab title

Because there are several works by Renoir that have the title of La Promenade, I have disambiguated the title by year. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: in addition to the above, there are also several works with this name by different artists, so I have also dabbed by artist. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Page move

The title of La Promenade (1870 Renoir) was correct. I can't possibly see how La Promenade (Renoir, Los Angeles) is either correct or appropriate. You appear to referring to "Where there are several variant titles, preference is usually given to the predominant one used by art historians writing in English, and if this is not clear, the English title used by the owning museum." That's a matter of debate as the MOS guideline shows. First, there are not "several variant titles", there are the same titles produced for different works of varying dates. As a result, we disambiguate by date and artist. Disambiguating by "Los Angeles" does not come close to an "owning museum". I'm reverting this move. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas,

Thank you for contacting me on this issue. The guideline I was referring to is not the one you mention, but rather this one: "If the artist painted several works with the same, or very similar, titles, add the location of the work if it is in a public collection. For example, Annunciation (van Eyck, Washington), as van Eyck painted several Annunciations." I don't see anything about disambiguating by date. Is there another guideline that is in conflict with this one? If not, and you disagree with including the location rather than the date, I would recommend proposing that the guideline be altered rather than simply reverting my move.

Neelix (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Neelix: It's interesting to me that you should enforce a poorly written, subjective guideline subject to your personal interpretation over and above our policies on article titles. The least you could do is discuss your poor move on the talk page. There is a primary policy, not a guideline, that directly conflicts with your bold page move made without discussion: Wikipedia:Article titles. That policy states "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." As someone who has worked on this topic, disambiguating by the location of the work is the most absurd, ridiculous thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The only thing the reader cares about is the a) name of the painting, 2) the year it was created, and 3) the artist. This is precisely what our policy on article titles addresses, namely that our readers will a) recognize the name of the work and the artist, and b) naturalness: it will contain information that readers are likely to look for. In other words, name of the work, date, and artist. Anything else violates our primary policy on article titles. I am at a loss understanding how adding "Los Angeles" benefits our readers. It contains zero information value. At this point, I think that the guideline should be deleted as it is all but useless. Our stable policy on article titles must take precedence over useless MOS guidelines written on a whim that do not benefit our readers. Editors who enforce useless guidelines instead of our polices are the real problem, not the guidelines themselves. They are supposed to be implemented with careful judiciousness and forethought; it is not a one size fits all solution. It is surprising to me that you think this new article title is somehow helpful or ideal when it represents the worst solution possible. The original dab title had everything the reader needed. Now, it has nothing. And you expect me to respect such poor decision making? What a joke. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. The guideline is neither poorly written nor subjective; it is quite explicit and straightforward; the van Eyck example provided is clear. The policy you mention is not in conflict with this guideline. I disagree that readers care more about the year of creation than the location of the painting. My move was far from bold. You appear to be arguing that this guideline is wrong in general rather than that we should make a specific exception for this article, so I again recommend that you start a discussion about changing the guideline. I agree that exceptions should be made to the guidelines sometimes, but only when the guideline is in general the right thing to do and there is reason to make a specific exception. The guidelines represent much wider consensus in the Wikipedia community than we find in individual discussions on article talk pages such as this one; it would invite chaos to simply disregard the guidelines whenever one editor disagrees with them. Neelix (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? Show me the "consensus" for this passage in the guideline. It was probably added without any discussion and without any knowledge by anyone else, as are most useless MOS entries. The policy on article titles takes absolute precedence over any sub-sub-sub MOS guideline that nobody is aware of or uses. You haven't made a single argument as to why your page move title is superior to the original, nor can you, evidently. Instead, you've attempted to shift the burden, asking me to prove a negative. Sorry, that's not how it works. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm moving the article. As House points out several times, Renoir did not paint several works with the same, or very similar title. Further, the other work, "Mother and Children" is no longer known as La Promenade. Therefore, your reading of the MOS does not and never did apply. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)