Talk:Values of Civilization (Doyle)

Naming Conventions

I think we should come up with a uniform way to refer to the statuary. Here are a few examples of how we could do this:

• Sculpture of Law
• "Sculpture of Law"
• Law —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkadams888 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Because we are grouping all 8 statues together and calling them one artwork titled Values of Civilization, which we have italicized, maybe we should stay away from also italicizing the titles of the individual sculptures, and stick to using quotation marks? I don't know... But you are right- I think they do need to be uniform. Also, I think a lot of us are using the ISM condition reports for the measurements (so we have something to document). So we should also probably be uniform in how we use those measurments (ft. and cm.). Lastly, this is random, but isn't "Carrara" spelled with the two "r"s at the beginning? It might have been misspelled in the ISM condition reports. --Herr0183 (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

WP naming protocol (as I understand it) discourages starting with Sculpture of -- this is consistent with art historical usage. (It's not Michelangelo's Sculpture of David but Michelangelo's David. That gets us to Law. I can't find a precedent for names in a sculpture group, so I want to follow what happens with titles of multi-volume books. The name of the general work (in our case sculpture group) is Values of Civilization; the name of the volume (in our case individvual sculpture) is Law. If we are clear in the opening paragraph that the eight sculptures are part of Values fo Civilization, then italicizing individual sculptures should be fine. Tricia Gilson (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

ISM measurements: feet (with cm in parentheses).Tricia Gilson (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Carrara is correct.Tricia Gilson (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hah. There are a few things misspelled in the ISM reports for my pieces, including 'palette' and 'Constitution.' Anyway, I like the idea of italicizing the sole name, and discarding 'Sculpture of', because it was a bit clunky. Sorry it took so long for me to get on board with the article, but I think my email is entered incorrectly in the Google doc. I was wondering if we could perhaps include a small section, or at least a link to, Neo-Classical art; though I have been unable to find documentation that the pieces were done in this style, it fits the time period. Mkadams888 (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

References

We should find a uniform way to reference the ISM records. They aren't really condition reports, so perhaps we should choose the latter of these:

• Indiana State Museum Condition Report, April 11, 2006
• Documentation on Oratory is recorded in the Indiana State Museum Mimsy database, ID 99.2006.020.0058.

Also, anything from the State Archives should be referenced (per their request) as follows: Indiana State Archives, Commission on Public Records. It's fine to also include more specific info, like the date or that it's from the Minutes, but I'd rather not have Mr. January displeased with me:D Mkadams888 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like you guys had already thought of this. Blame my fevered brain! Mkadams888 (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses! I like what we've decided about how to refer to the individual sculptures- I will update my descriptions accordingly. Regarding referencing the ISM records, we can follow the Wikipedia:Citation templates and fill it in with what information the ISM records include. So author = Indiana State Museum, title = ID and perhaps name of sculpture, date of publication = date on database record. Then the last part of the citation would say, "Retrieved from Indiana State Museum Mimsy Database 4 December 2010 (or whatever date you retrieved it). So the total citation would look like this: Indiana State Museum, Commerce ID 99.2006.020.0060, 25 Sept. 2006, Retrieved from Indiana State Museum Mimsy Database 4 December 2010. That way, those citations are more consistent with the other citations. Let me know if that looks okay to you all- I'm happy to adjust all of those citations. --Herr0183 (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

@Herr0183 good solution for citing Mimsy. I'll leave it up to you to change those citations.Tricia Gilson (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm having a problem one of my references & am hoping someone can fix it for me. At the end of the section on Law, I cite the same work twice. I couldn't figure out how to use the ref name. Thanks!Tricia Gilson (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Where did you need the citation to go? (After which sentence?) --Herr0183 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Images

Links to Flickr images. If you have additional images of your work in Flickr, be sure to add links in the External Links section. Tricia Gilson (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could combine all of our Rotunda sculpture Flickr images into one group or set, so that the External Links won't be so bulky. Mkadams888 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Another option may be to have sub-categories for each sculpture in the External Links. Tricia Gilson (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick aside: I updated the tags on the images in our gallery to reflect that the artworks are in the public domain. Although we each possess the copyright to the pictures we took of the sculptures, I went ahead and added the tag stating that we release our photos into the public domain as well. --Herr0183 (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's another possible solution; if you created sets for each of your sculptures, you could simply link to the set itself. I think that would clear up our External Links section nicely:) My apologies for not having worked on the page much today, I was trying to bulk up my other article. I'll be working on this one more (namely my descriptions) after I get home from work tomorrow. Mkadams888 (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

@Mkadams88: I like that solution! :)--Herr0183 (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yay! The page is starting to shape up! Mkadams888 (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Links to other WP articles

I've unlinked our "heroic-sized" from heroic b/c "heroic" in our instance refers to a type of sculpture -- over-life sized sculpture. I added a link to allegorical sculpture instead. I've also unlinked repeated terms; for instance, Art was linked in the first paragraph & in the description of the piece. I've left the first one linked. Tricia Gilson (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, I may have gone a little link-crazy... Mkadams888 (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Statehouse 025.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Statehouse 025.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Statehouse 025.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)