Talk:The Hours (engraving)
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Okay, I'll acquiesce on the format of the larger photos on the side. But I liked my original format of the detail area better. The text is a nicer size and lines up better in the area under the pics. The other way, the text is aligned with the outer box, and it looks jaggy.
Mrs rockefeller (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK no problem. Also, please don't forget that you don't own the article! (see WP:Own) – ukexpat (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Being a web developer, I don't particularly care for the Wiki gallery tag. It looks rough to me, and the user has very little control over how it looks. They say that a revised gallery feature is on the way. Let's hope it's soon! Mrs rockefeller (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Article Title
[edit]I had originally titled this article: The Hours (engraving by Francesco Bartolozzi), as there were several 'The Hours' on Wiki. The title was changed (moved) to: The Hours (engraving). I didn't have a problem with that. Shorter is better, as long as the artist's name is plainly visible, and I think it is.
However, I politely disagree with the change to: The Hours (picture). When I think of a picture, I am reminded of a photograph or a film. I don't think I like referring to a piece of artwork as a 'picture'.
This particular piece is an engraving. It is based upon a piece by Maria Cosway, but she is plainly credited, both in the text, and in the original information underneath the engraving, which I photographed and placed in the article. Therefore, I reverted to using the title: The Hours (engraving).
Mrs rockefeller (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I changed the title to 'picture' because we don't normally have separate pages on engraved reproductions of paintings. There are many paintings from this period that have been engraved.It was the normal method of reproduction, but we usually have an article on the painting, with additional commentary on any notable reproductions. The normal convention is "Title (painting)". If there is more than one notable painting with that title it would be "Title (Michelangelo painting)" etc. "Picture" was a compromise between 'painting' and 'engraving'. However, I see no reason why this should not remain as it is unless or until more detail is added on the original art-work. Paul B (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)