Jump to content

Talk:The Monarch of the Glen (painting)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 1

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, Pages not moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch of the Glen (painting) → Monarch of the Glen

If it is left please review in another 150 years to see if the 150-year old TV series is still outperforming the 300-year old painting. No chance of recentism swaying the results then Yomanganitalk 00:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The painting is the primary topic. Deor (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be closed as no move because the rationale given is that the painting is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - yet the TV series gets the readers and links (average 10,000 readers a month for the TV article compared to 900 for the painting), and a Google search throws up a random selection of responses in which the TV series features predominantly. I'll wait seven days for some evidence that the painting is the primary topic, as that has been asserted by the majority above. If there is no evidence supplied then this will be closed as no move. SilkTork *YES! 15:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of WP:Primarytopic is that article statistics and google searches may help, but are not the determining factor. Suggesting that people review the stats is one thing but using them to overrule a consensus doesn't seem right to me.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggests methods for ascertaining the primary topic based on how many pop culture references can be marshalled. I suppose that explains our edifying look at the big bang theory. Yomanganitalk 00:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite happy to go with that as a close if there is some rationale or evidence supplied which suggests that a roughly equal amount of readers are looking for the painting as they are for the TV series, othwerwise it would be an inappropriate close which is not serving the readership. Currently more than ten times as many people are expecting to find the TV series, and we are giving 10,000 people a month (plus the 1,000 looking for the painting) an unnecessary click through. We should deliver 10,000 people to the right page, and let the lesser number have the click through. That is the thinking behind WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Our doubt in this case, and the reason for extending this discussion, is that a number of people are asserting that the painting is primary, and I am willing to give them a chance to show that is the case. The evidence currently is for the TV series, but I wanted to see if my research was inaccurate. SilkTork *YES! 19:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How are you ascertaining that 10 times as many people are expecting to find the TV series? If it is from the grok stats then your methodology is flawed as a) the TV series would have been the default page to which anybody typing "Monarch of the Glen" would have gone, and b) those stats refer to all hits, not to hits from people expecting to receive one article or the other based on typing "Monarch of the Glen". I suspect that the number of people who actually reach the page by typing "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch of the Glen" directly into their browser or clicking "Go" is in single figures. Most people will arrive at one or other of the articles by clicking a link from a related Wikipedia article or from a search result (with a summary of the content), so they won't be surprised by the content or have an unnecessary click through. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC gives guidance only and poor guidance at that. Yomanganitalk 00:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I followed the advice in Primary - as that is the guideline that was used as the rationale for the move. I find the suggestions in that guideline acceptable and sensible; it says look at the number of page views, incoming links, ghits and publications - it doesn't suggest relying on any one method, and it does advise discussion - which is why I didn't close this request, but left it open for further discussion. If the advice is inappropriate in some way, then it might be helpful to bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Bear in mind that the stats count how many people look at a particular page, not how they got there. So, on average, 10,000 a month view the tv series, while 900 view the painting. They come from internal and external search engines and links from other articles. If people land on the tv series but wanted the painting, they would move on to the painting and by viewing the painting be counted there as well - however, it appears that less than 10% of those who view the tv series go on to the painting. Moving the page will not alter the amount of people who wish to view the painting or the tv series, but by not having the page for which records indicate most people view as the primary page means that the majority of people land on the page they don't want, and have to click through. Does that help? If not, I will try to explain further. I am aware that my explanations may not always be clear. SilkTork *YES! 08:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like SilkTork may well be right. A quick Google search does indeed show that, of the first 30 hits, 28 refer to the television series or book by Compton Mackenzie on which it was based, and just two to Edwin Landseer's iconic painting. Even on Google Books, the first twenty items split evenly 10—10. On that basis I've changed my vote above. Would also suggest we undo Anthony Appleyard's premature intervention, move the television series to Monarch of the Glen and move the disambiguation page to Monarch of the Glen (disambiguation). Clearly I was wrong, and the television programme is very obviously the primary topic. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Google hits were a reliable method of ascertaining notability or importance, lumping the book and the TV series together is no more valid than lumping the painting and book together ("the book and the painting from which it takes its title"). Yomanganitalk 00:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the notability or importance of a topic, but about ease of use for our readers, and saving our servers. If it is determined that a page is popular but not notable, then the page can be put up for deletion. But if the page is both popular and has been accepted as notable, then it becomes the Primarytopic. Primary is not about which article is most notable - it is about which page is most popular. Deciding which page most people want to view and using that as the primary target saves people effort and saves our servers. There are sometimes people who I would regard as notable and important who share the same name as somebody who is notable and popular. For me as a beer geek, Michael Jackson (writer) springs to mind, but I understand that important though he is, the beer writer only attracts an average of 6,000 readers a month, while the pop star attracts 25,000 a day. SilkTork *YES! 08:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for saving the servers or serving the readers better aren't really relevant. The strain on the servers from 11,000 hits a month are negligible, and since the readers mostly come to the pages from internal and external search engines and links from other articles, the impact on them from a move is extremely minor. I have a solution that may suit everybody until the book article is written. Move the painting article to The Monarch of the Glen, the title by which it is more frequently known. I think I only left it off originally because it already existed as a redirect. Yomanganitalk 12:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When that happens we can switch the primary target. Stuff changes all the time, and we adjust. SilkTork *YES! 08:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, Anthony, the TV series did run and end (five years back) and still it remains the most popular item. In answer to Yomangani, the book may well have borrowed the title from the painting, but that is not quite the same thing as the TV series being an adaptation of the book. The book and TV series tell the same story. The book merely alludes to the painting in its title. And let's not forget that the book was written by Compton Mackenzie, one of Scotland's most respected writers. This really isn't an issue of trash culture versus real culture. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We shouldn't be comparing cultures anyway, we should be looking at which article is most used. However, both are examples of popular culture. Landseer was a popular Victorian painter; and this particular painting is mainly known through its extensive use in advertising. As Skinsmoke indicates, of the two cultures, the one based on Compton Mackenzie may have the better claim to a serious and enduring relevance. Though we shouldn't be second quessing the future - nor do we need to. We look at the relevance and importance and interest an article holds right now - and the tv series appears to have that, based not on assumption or assertion, but on measurable evidence.
At this point I will withdraw my offer of closing this. I have got too drawn in, and made too many arguments in one direction. I will leave this for someone else to close. SilkTork *YES! 08:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are arguments for having the book (currently a redlink) as the primary page. What I was saying is that if you use google hits as a measure for which article should be the primary topic, then you need to look at hits for the TV series alone, not hits for the TV series combined with hits for the book (on which it was probably only loosely based and for which there should be a separate article). It also seems strange to count sites for B&Bs and hotels in Badenoch which are cashing in on its association with the series as "Monarch of the Glen Country" and sites selling DVDs, but I really don't know how counting google results is supposed to contribute to the argument anyway; should we move Apple to Apple (fruit) on the same basis? Yomanganitalk 12:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. TV series should be primary topic with a hatnote pointing to a disambiguation page. SilkTork *YES! 08:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Comment - perhaps it is not possible to determine a Primary topic. The current disambiguation page does the job fine, is quite clear and at worst we impose no a second click for any user to get to the topic of interest.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to The Monarch of the Glen (painting). We have clear consensus for adding "The" to the title, but no consensus that this is the primary topic of the name. The Monarch of the Glen will continue redirecting to the dab page. Cúchullain t/c 18:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Monarch of the Glen (painting) → The Monarch of the Glen – This has always been the actual title of the painting (see the 1892 Christie's catalogue, Lot 42, online copy) and google book search. The previous discussion above managed almost entirely to miss this point. Therefore the tv series, which the last discussion got hung up on, is no longer an issue, though I think the "other uses" disam should remain where it is at Monarch of the Glen (disambiguation) for both with and without "The". So the other uses are the novel and the novella within a collection. No contest, I submit. Failing that, move to The Monarch of the Glen (painting), which is effectively a speedy. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an oppose to the second suggestion, & if so, why? The painting is by far the best known, and meets WP:PRIMARY. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is an oppose to the primary suggestion. "The Monarch of the Glen" should redirect to the disambiguation page, or be a disambiguation page itself. Similarly, "Monarch of the Glen" should be a disambiguation page, or redirect to a disambiguation page. With the change of this article to The Monarch of the Glen (painting), then the disambiguation page would move to The Monarch of the Glen and The Monarch of the Glen (disambiguation)/Monarch of the Glen (disambiguation) would redirect to them. Gaiman and the novel are getting a fair number of hits on regular Google, so I don't see any overwhelming primary topic. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to "The Monarch of the Glen". Any potential confusion with "Monarch of the Glen" is properly the subject of a dab page and with respect to Compton Mackenzie this painting is an instantly recognisable icon rather than a novel from 1941, current knowledge of which tends to derive from the TV series. I don't think I have ever even seen a copy of the book myself and the Gaiman novella isn't even a red link. It is unquestionably the PRIMARYTOPIC for that specific title. A corollary, and further advantage is that the TV series could become the less clumsy "Monarch of the Glen" and the current dab page would be Monarch of the Glen (disambiguation), presently a redirect.Ben MacDui 09:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:The Monarch_of_the_Glen,_Edwin_Landseer,_1851.png, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for January 25, 2025. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2025-01-25. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Monarch of the Glen (painting)

The Monarch of the Glen is an oil-on-canvas painting of a red deer stag completed in 1851 by the English painter Sir Edwin Landseer. It was commissioned as part of a series of three panels to hang in the Palace of Westminster, in London. As one of the most popular paintings throughout the 19th century, it sold widely in reproductions in steel engraving, and was finally bought by companies to use in advertising. The painting had become something of a cliché by the mid-20th century, as "the ultimate biscuit tin image of Scotland: a bulky stag set against the violet hills and watery skies of an isolated wilderness", according to the Sunday Herald.

Painting credit: Edwin Landseer

Recently featured:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Monarch_of_the_Glen_(painting)&oldid=1211126828"