Talk:Portrait of Mariana of Austria

Portrait of Mariana of Austria is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 29, 2020.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 27, 2019	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Handkerchief size

Was the size of the lace handkerchief a compositional trick worthy of El Greco or a factual record of an immensely large and spectacularly valuable fashion accessory that no one else could rival?truthordare (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. It is clear that nobody wants these moves to happen and that the MOS should be changed. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 05:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– Per MOS:VATITLE, Avoid "Portrait of Fred Foo" titles, if the individual is named – just use "Fred Foo", with disambiguation as necessary, even if the museum uses "Portrait". Normally I would've just done these on my own, but since there are so many that do not follow this rule, I figured I would play it safe and start a discussion just in case there's a reason that there are so many. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 22:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Nearly every article about a painted portrait violates this rule; see for example [[Category:16th-century portraits]], [[Category:17th-century portraits]], [[Category:Portraits by Hans Holbein the Younger]]. A rare exception is Jacob de Gheyn III, which is categorized as both a biography and an article about a painting. Rather than move all these articles, it would make more sense to update MOS:VATITLE unless there's a good reason why paintings should not be treated the same as sculptures, for which titles such as "Statue of Fred Foo" are recommended. Ewulp (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this, I think MOS:VATITLE needs to be updated to fit the standard in this case.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree. I suspect that just use "Fred Foo", with disambiguation as necessary, even if the museum uses "Portrait". was recently introduced, as it is rather idiotic, and given the OP is spamming with multiple, very much misguided, AFD notices. A preventative block might be in order. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh what? 2008 is not recent. If other editors agree that the MOS should be updated then I'm fine with that. How am I misguided when I'm just following the MOS as it is right now? This isn't even AFD. I started a move discussion even though I was well within my rights to move the pages without discussion. You also shouldn't remove the discussion notices from each article before the discussion is closed. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was the rules that told me to do it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence. I think you need to reflect, Bait. Ceoil (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, I'm not sure I understand your point. My goals are not unbounded/unlimited. I was moving articles, then I realized there were just so many articles that, according to the MOS, should be moved. So I decided to stop moving articles and ask for community input. The whole reason I started this RM discussion was because I reached a "limit". Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I put this bit in WP:VAMOS back in the day. That was approved by the community, but I don't remember discussion on that specific point, & I don't feel too strongly about it, so I will wait for other comments. I don't support Portrait of Baertje Martens → Baertje Martens - we need something to say it is a painting. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose? Such a change would require the moving of hundreds of articles, so it doesn't make sense to support a small snippet here. I think "Portrait of..." is the best solution since "Barbara Lubomirska (painting)" sounds really odd imo; "Beatrice Cenci (Reni)" makes it unclear that it's a painting we're talking about, most people won't know who Guido Reni is, is this a poem, song, painting etc. or what of Beatrice Cenci (?); something like "Susanna Lunden" alone also isn't clear as a painting either. Aza24 (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Bait30 can't be blamed for applying a guideline in MOS:VATITLE, but all the existing titles work and many of the proposed ones don't, so the MOS has things the wrong way round and should be changed. Ham II (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ham on both points they make. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until/unless we have an RFC about whether the clause of VATITLE is really proper guidance. Has it been discussed some place? Sounds opposite to what we decided last year on "Statue of...". Dicklyon (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: It's clear that no one wants this move. @Ewulp, Ortizesp, Ceoil, Johnbod, Aza24, Ham II, and Dicklyon: would one of you be willing to start the RFC/discussion at the appropriate place to see about getting the MOS changed? Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 05:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per comments of Ewulp and others, I'm going to boldly remove that clause and see if anyone objects, before opening an RFC. Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need an rfc - just do the change, and note it, with a link to this, at the talk & VA project. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-adjusted to give:

Portraits may be called either "Portrait of Fred Foo" or "Fred Foo (Titian)" as title; disambiguation by the artist is usually best. Do not just use the plain name. Titles such "Portrait of a Man" are alright to use, but probably need disambiguation. The WP:COMMONNAME should be used for modern works where the title is given by the artist, and others such as the Arnolfini Portrait.

Any comments before I notify around? Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answering myself - I think "Do not just use the plain name [adding] of the sitter" is clearer. I wonder if something should be said about the way to handle the fairly common situation (also affecting classical sculpture) of old identifications of the sitter that are now disregarded by art historians? Example: Titian's A Man with a Quilted Sleeve (not Ariosto after all); also some self-portraits. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops – I didn't know the discussion was carrying on here, and have already tried to tighten up the phrasing; parts of it are now quite different from Johnbod's text above. Really, WT:VAMOS feels like the place for this discussion, particulary if it's going to branch off to the new topic of disregarded identifications. Ham II (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, though I see no need to exclude sculpture at all. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]