Talk:Portrait of a Man (Velázquez)

Clearer view of painting information

Hi Nikki I reverted you so that the info box stands on this painitng. I'd note that the term material is not appropriate in the art world for the " medium " used in in an art work, but the template would have to be changed I guess. I don't see a reason for your removal of a clear way to describe a painting, more in line with what one sees in a gallery where each piece of information is separated so it can be clearly seen. I don't see any reason to muddle the information together. That said, although art is an area of interest and expertise and I did revert you on a horse /jockey article another area of interest , I really don't want to get involved in the whole info box mess, so could you leave for me and others clear reasons for your removing info boxes on articles to make this simple and as non contentious as possible. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC))

Hi Olive, let's start out with something simple: when a change to an article is disputed, the status quo is restored pending discussion, per WP:BRD (with limited exceptions that don't apply here). Thus, I've reverted the article to its stable version wrt templates. I'm not sure where the "more in line with what one sees in a gallery" is coming from - different galleries have different styles of presenting information, but none that I'm aware of put their artworks into a template! Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is the status quo on Wikipedia for articles on works of art:[1], [2], [3],

[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I'm happy to revert to the WP standard or you can.

• Reverting to a stable version implies instability. There was no instability on this article. Apparently, an editor brought this article inline with standard established on the multiple articles on art on Wikipedia. Your reversion away from the standard and status quo does indeed create contention, though, especially with the edit summary you left to support the change which tells us nothing. Thanks for adding some information here.
• I didn't say art galleries use templates although these days some probably do. What I suggested is that art galleries consistently and traditionally list aspects of the art work and do so in a way that is easy to read, generally one aspect per line. I have never seen a gallery in my years in this field mash information together so that it is difficult to read. The medium, the size, the artist's life span, and the date of the work help define an understanding of the work and are in any gallery of note delineated, so that they can be read easily.
• We could certainly take this to a NB if you'd like more eyes on this.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC))

• As per Wikipedia guidelines, the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox is determined on a case-by-case basis. Neither inclusion or exclusion is considered a default, although examples of articles with and without a box can be produced.
• Instability arose when you re-reverted without seeking consensus. The article had no box to begin with. A bold edit was made to add one, and it was reverted, returning the article to the original state (which is what "status quo" means). The appropriate next step is to discuss to attempt to reach a consensus (WP:BRD).
• You suggested that the use of an infobox is "more in line with what one sees in a gallery". In some ways that is true, but in more it is not - and besides, this is a different medium. Nevertheless, I've adjusted the formatting of the caption to address your opinion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding an info box to a new article is hardly a bold edit. You removed that edit with out consensus, with no discussion, and with an edit summary which gave other editors zero information as to why you would consider removing an info box on an article you've never edited and with out prior discussion. This creates instability. You still have not given any reason for removing something that lists information clearly, you seem to be focused on discrediting my actions.

We could benefit from knowing specifically why you removed the infobox on this article. I'd add that I am somewhat aware that the info box issues has been contentious, so I will take this to a NB to get input on what should be a very simple issue rather than create a long drawn out contentious situation saving us both a lot of grief. This seems such a simple situation, I'm sure we can come to some agreement. And as an aside, galleries have a relatively standard format for describing art works as I described above.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC))

There seems to be some confusion: this is by no means a "new article", and there is no requirement to have consensus or prior discussion to revert a bold edit – in fact, where it's disputed, there should be discussion and consensus to reinstate said edit. If you'd like to present arguments in favour of doing so, feel free. As already stated, I've adjusted the formatting of the article to attempt to address your concerns, although those aren't entirely clear to me – you suggest that the template is equivalent to a gallery display, which doesn't seem an apt analogy. After all, galleries do not typically place artworks within templates, and the template has some similarities but also significant differences from a gallery display. You also raised the terminology problem with the box above. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You have yet to explain why you chose to remove the info box, and with out an explanatory edit summary. Further you didn't explain on the talk page. Until I know why you removed the info box, there's not much to discuss. Nikki I have no vested interest in info boxes per se. I believe the article will better for a format that delineates painting information clearly. I so far don't see a reason of any kind for removing this kind of formatting. I won't edit war with you or trade back and forth comments that don't address the core issue. We have to get down to what your objections are before I can agree to anything. If we can't do that here I do think we could ask for outside input.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC))

We seem to be talking past each other here. I mentioned above some of several reasons why the template is a net negative in this article: it uses terminology and presentation inconsistent with best practices for artworks, and your issue insofar as I understand it can be mitigated without the use of such a template. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

"...it uses terminology and presentation inconsistent with best practices for artworks." Where do you discuss "best " practices for artworks, a necessary foundation and understanding for dealing with terminology and presentation inconsistent with those best practices?

And ...In an effort to understand why an editor would arrive on this particular article, and remove the info box, when multiple WIkipedia articles on art works use info boxes, when the format of an info box does make information easier to see, I looked at the editor who added the info box, and in doing so also came across this, [10]. So the editor who added the info box here is accused of being Andy Mabbet. I don't know much about the info box wars but i know enough to know that Andy and you have been on different sides. Now while I've looked at the SPI case and Rexx's logical comments, and in no way see that this could be Andy, I'm concerned that you thought the editor on this article was Andy. Given the lack of any substantial reason for removing an info box, the initial lack of discussion, the non informative even somewhat misleading edit summary, and lack of subsequent substantial reason to leave the article with out the visual clarity the info box adds; I do start to wonder what's going on here. I've decide to reinstate the info box given this recent development and given the benefits for the article of doing so.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC))

I gave you a reason for removing the template, and tried to address your concern about its lack (per "suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns"); absent any elaboration from you about your issues or any response to my efforts, there is no consensus here to restore the template, no clear indication that it is a net benefit, and certainly no support for your actions - no matter who added or removed the box to begin with. Nor have you presented any reason to disrupt other formatting in the article in your hurry to edit-war the box back in. I do start to wonder what's going on here, myself. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I am adding back this comment which was removed by Nikki after she added more to the comment above. I'll comment later on this. Nikki this statement simply isn't true.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC))

Apologies for the edit-conflict mess, but: disagree, and unfortunately much of what you've written above appears untrue as well. Hopefully when you get a chance you can clarify. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Removal of critical information from info box

I don't see a comment indicating why you've removed, from an infobox, critical information on an artwork. And once again, I don't see anything in your edit summary which gives us any information. (Littleolive oil (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC))

Critical information? Of the examples you listed above as "the WP standard", none include the website parameter, so by your stated standards it should be excluded. You yourself pointed out above that "material" was inappropriate. Finally, the given measurements introduced inconsistencies between article text, source, and template. Of course, since you didn't have consensus to add the template in the first place and failed to either clarify your concerns or respond to the proposed formatting solution in the discussion above, it would make sense to simply remove the box. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't add the template, Nikki. I returned after it to the article had been deleted with out reason given. I didn't comment on web site parameters. I am commenting on content which was included in the original info box and which includes size of the work and the material or medium. Both are critical in visualizing the work and understanding the physical aspects of the work. I will readd the painting size per the Met. Museum of Art, which holds the painting in its collection, is a world respected museum and for both reasons can be considered the definitive voice on the painting size. We can adjust the word material to medium in the template. In the meantime, I clearly support using material for now, so that we have information in place about the paint used. I did return the word myself after I' d removed it, noting it had to be changed in the template Not sure why you'd use my comment on the word as a reason to delete. The word isn't inaccurate so much as not the word generally used among galleries and artists. so its fine for now.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC))

We actually have an info box for painting which would probably be useful [11]. Perhaps we should use that info box.] Thoughts?(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC))

That's not an infobox, it's a template intended for pages in the File namespace. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok Yes I see.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC))

Whatever terminology you prefer, you "returned" it without consensus and contrary to the practices outlined at both WP:BRD and WP:CON. You should not now "readd" a parameter that contradicts the "definitive voice on the painting size". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Nikki . This doesn't make sense. You removed content with out consensus or discussion. You are trying to tell another editor their revert is not acceptable but your reversion is. You're involved in an edit war and you're saying in effect "its fine for me to revert and remove, but not for you,olive." Further what the heck are you talking about here " a parameter that contradicts the 'definitive voice on the painting size'." I am saying the painting size is necessary, and the definitive voice on that size is the Met. What are you objecting to? As far as I can tell this discussion is going nowhere.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC))

Using type seems like a good change, instead of material, and seems fine to move the M M of Art url to external links.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC))

Let's try again: an infobox was added on 6 Jan without explanation or consensus, per WP:BOLD. I disagreed with its addition and reverted. The appropriate step for anyone seeking to readd/return/whatever the template should have been to seek consensus on talk; "Do not continue to revert, which is the beginning of edit-warring. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante)" (WP:BRD). Instead, you began an edit-war. I reverted to the status quo and tried to address your stated concerns with not having a box, as I understood them, by adjusting the formatting (per the "compromise"/"consensus through editing" provisions of WP:CON). Then, after having said you didn't intend to edit-war, and without either clarifying your concern or explaining why my edit wasn't sufficient, you edit-warred again to restore the template. Ideally, I should not have reverted you, but ideally you should not have made your initial edit to the article at all, and certainly not your subsequent edit. I'm getting frustrated because the approach you suggest is problematic here ("it's fine for me but not for you") seems to have been the one you have adopted. If that wasn't your intent, great; hopefully we can move forward.

The parameter you propose to re-add uses a conversion formula (starting with metric and converting to a decimal value) that is not consistent with either the source or the article in either actual value or presentation. Given the formatting prominence of the value in the first line, it's preferable to just leave it out of the template rather than introduce such inconsistencies. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Its hard for me to believe that an admin is trying to tell me my edit began an edit war while hers were fine. However, I'm not going to hash this through once again.

Second, there are simple ways of adjusting the first line of the article to agree with what is in the sources:

• 27 × 213⁄4 in. (68.6 × 55.2 cm) to 68.6 × 55.2 cm (27 × 213⁄4 in.).

There is no reason for the article to not contain a conversion to the Imperial system given the system is used in a major Western English speaking country. I'm not gong to argue this either. The article should have the paining measurements in the info box. Without it the info is incomplete, and we'd actually look like we know what we are doing by having the standard information used around the world on describing paintings. However, not worth the argument. (Littleolive oil (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC))

It's hard for me to believe that's the conclusion you drew from all of the above. But thank you for making improvements to the article today. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

De rien.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC))_