Talk:Bust of Otis Bowen

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

Requested move[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: moved all. The Untitled one will be discussed on its own page. Kotniski (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otis Bowen (Lanagan) → Otis Bowen (bust) — Wikipedia:WSPA/IndianaStatehouse has created a lot of great content on public artworks from the The Indiana Statehouse public art collection. A list of articles is here. The majority of those listed here have an unusual disambiguation scheme: the name of the artwork, followed by the surname of the artist as the disambiguator. This naming scheme was followed by reference to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (visual arts) ("VAMOS") (the Indiana project's naming discussion can be seen here). VAMOS has been edited by only a handful of editors since creation. The relevant language for this naming convention was added here with no indication of prior discussion in the edit summary nor have I found any looking at the talk page or by surveying the edits of the person adding the language at about the time he added it. The relevant language of VAMOS is:
  • If the title is not very specific, or refers to a common subject, add the surname of the artist in brackets afterwards, e.g. Reading the Letter (Picasso). It is better to disambiguate by the artist's name than by medium, as there may be other paintings or sculptures of the same name by other artists.
  • 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".
The rationale behind disambiguators is to best assure that those looking for a topic will recognize the topic they are searching for among others of a possibly confusing title. Secondarily, those who just stumble upon a topic name, should get a glimmer of what might be behind the name looking at the disambiguator. I don't think the current disambiguators serve either purpose well. Only that small subset of people who come armed already knowing the name of the artist will have a clue what the surname in parentheses means. This also means that all other persons seeing these disambiguators will not have any ambiguity they experience remedied by reading the disambiguator. These articles are not covered by the example used at VAMOS of a super well known artist being the disambiguator—"(Picasso)"—an artist's name that will be recognized by a vast number. Only a very few artists fit this mold and none of the pages here do. When I see what looks like a person's name, followed a last name in parentheses, I have no idea what the article might be about. This would not be true were the names followed by "(sculpture)", "(bust)" "(statue)" ("painting)", etc. and this is the convention set forth at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, which also specifically provides that using proper nouns should be avoided:

A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be:

One other issues with the last name rationale at VAMOS. We don't normally disambiguate for the possibility of future articles, but only for existing topics. Accordingly, the rationale provided that we should use last names because there "may be other paintings or sculptures of the same name by other artists" doesn't work for me; if those articles do not yet exist, we should disambiguate only against existing articles. If that inchoate, notable article is created, we can then further disambiguate by more specific art medium, e.g., "(bronze bust)" instead of (bust), by year, location, or even by the artist's last name, but only when that further disambiguation is needed.

So I see three possibilities. Keep these where they are; use a generic class disambiguator as WP:DAB provides, or use a descriptive title, such as "statue of ___". As shown by the names I've suggested on the moves, I think the second naming scheme is best. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose most. As the main author of VAMOS, I would say: a) To a large extent, and certainly in this area, it followed existing practice, and is not at all "unusual" for this area, and b) It has had very widespread acceptance, and c) you ought really to have raised the matter there as well. Having said that, it is typically the case that articles on works of fine art are by well-known artists, and in many cases with titles that are far from unique, whereas I imagine this most of this lot are extremely obscure even in Indiana. My first reaction was to query the notability of many of these articles. I think articles like Sherman Minton (Gage) would very probably fail at AFD if the sources given are all that there is. It would probably have been better to create an overall article on the statuary in the Statehouse. George Washington (Houdon), as a 1932 copy by an unknown (& to look at it, not very skilled) copyist of an 18th century original, is absolutely not notable. If we ignore this issue, some of these titles might be sensible, but others plainly are not. Both the existing and proposed titles for the Washington bust are clearly ridiculous. It is not actually by Houdon, sadly, and there must be hundreds if not thousands of busts and statues of Washington, and Lincoln. You need to see Category:Abraham Lincoln in art, and Category:George Washington, who should have his own "in art" sub-cat. Columbus too. Titles like George Washington (bust) are non-starters for disambiguation. This is one of several cases, perhaps most of these, where a title like George Washington (bust, Indiana Statehouse) is probably best. The "plaques" are another issue. Plaque normally implies just lettering, & such works don't really have titles, but relief sculptures do, & it would probably be better to describe these as reliefs, like Sarah T. Bolton Relief, which is probably ok as it is, or as proposed. Untitled (Mueller) should be something like South entrance statues, Indiana Statehouse; many modern works are given the title "Untitled" by the artist, but these plainly weren't. Some proposed changes, like Indiana (Matthews) → Indiana (statue) look ok to me, if there aren't lots of these. Also Frank O'Bannon (Ryden) → Frank O'Bannon (bust), though Frank O'Bannon (bust, Indiana Statehouse) is probably best. Both of these also seem notable. Hope this helps. Johnbod (talk) 10:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided: First and foremost I want to thank the three of you for taking the time and making a serious effort to consider the names of these articles. I think this is an important discussion, and that we can make some real headway.
As an experienced museum professional I can say that the title of an artwork is very important. Ideally the title of a Wikipedia article would parallel the name given to the artwork by the original artist. For an artwork a title can carry a variety of meanings and significances. We had some difficulty with this topic last year as well when we created the IUPUI Public Art Collection, and there are many other examples that can be seen in articles that have been made, particularly about older public artworks that have gone forgotten, like many of these in this collection have. Take for example Indiana (Matthews), which many at the Indiana Statehouse thought to be called Ceres. The student's research found that it was made in 1893 to be a figural representation of Indiana. The title of this artwork is very important to its history, so a correct title should be reflected in Wikipedia. I know less about how disambiguation works in Wikipedia, but know that few issues have been worked out or even fully considered when it comes to matters of art in Wikipedia. Most of the rules and logic were set up to handle information about other subjects. Issues that have been discussed relative to art usually hinge around very famous artworks, and usually paintings. This is not surprising because for many years paintings have been the most famous artworks the world over.
I would like to have some more time to consider this topic and this naming--perhaps a month? One week seems to be too short and not enough time to hear from a large swatch of relevant voices. Perhaps this discussion can be framed in a different context?
Also, and while I think it should be removed from this discussion completely because it is a separate issue, I want to address Johnbod's point about notability (PamD has brought this up around at least one of these articles in the recent past). Really, this discussion should happen elsewhere, at another time; we should focus on the naming conventions now. Since it has surfaced and it can be a thorny issue, I want to point out that I have never seen a good discussion in Wikipedia about notability for public art, or really for artworks. I've had a few minor discussion about the topic. In any case, the notability flag need not be waived for public art that is on permanent view in Federal, State, university, religious, and many other culturally important and historic buildings. The fact that artwork exists there is makes it notable.
The easiest comparison to find is that of professional baseball in the U.S. Consider Federal buildings the MLB, and buildings at the other level to be the AAA minor leagues. To consider these artworks not notable would be to punish them for recent mainstream media's lack of capacity to cover the arts in the U.S. Many of the artworks held a much greater significance and notability in previous years. It is only in our recent times that this interest has wained. This reality, in fact, is one of the reasons many of us are making articles about these artworks in Wikipediea in the first place: to restore their significance and meaning in our plain site. Thanks, --RichardMcCoy (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this isn't the place, but treating all public artworks as inherently notable won't fly. Notability for artworks essentially depends on independent coverage in RS in the normal way, & while commissioned works with press coverage will probably be ok, a standard plaster replica like George Washington (Houdon) certainly won't be, any more than individual plaster Replicas of Michelangelo's David. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. I agree with RichardMcCoy that this deserves more like a month than a week. But I don't think that's much of a concern, as, due to the enormous backlog at WP:RM, at least a month is likely anyway... I too need to think this through some more, but I have to say that the nom presents a compelling and well thought-out case. I also agree that, at least for artwork, that notability in the past is good enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. As one of the students who participated in the Indiana Statehouse project I feel that these artworks need as many qualifiers as possible to facilitate their relevance in Wikipedia and in boolean searches. I am not sure what the naming conventions should be but I would suggest that even though the artist's names may not be significant to some individuals I think they merit remaining part of the title of the article because they serve to functionally disambiguate each artwork from any others of similar type. For example Coal Miner (Szaton) distinguishes it from any other Coal Miner statue like the one by John McKenna at Brownhills.
I do think that clarification of type of artwork is a necessary part of the title I am not sure if it should be included in the title or the parenthesis. Coal Miner statue (Szaton) or Coal Miner (statue by Szaton), but I think that may, in the end be an aesthetics issue. I also disagree with the notion that we shouldn't disambiguate until articles are created necessitating disambiguation. If you are aware that there are multiple iterations of an object in the public forum, you should disambiguate with the thought in mind that those objects exist and you must therefore differentiate your object from the group. It seems silly to disambiguate in retrospect when you can circumvent the entire issue by distinguishing an artwork from a larger group at its inception. Avoid assuming that there won't be Wikiarticles about those objects, just go ahead and disambiguate. I think it serves the entire Wikipedia community to specify articles to avoid later moving and retitling. It is less work for everyone.
Overall I hope that whatever is done pertaining to these artworks that all the Wikipedians out there appreciate the significance of documenting artworks that otherwise would remain anonymous and esoteric. Understand that notability is not something that is merely extant in and of itself, it is a tenuous concept, fluid and ever changing, we are attempting here to reconnect these objects with the wider scope of human historical reference. Ultimately that is the purpose of Wikipedia to document and connect human beings with the collective knowledge and work of the world. That is notable in and of itself. Wikipedia has the power to create notability as well as document it, so please embrace our noble work. Thank you to everyone for your thoughtful contributions to our project. I am proud to have been a part of it.CLAvalon (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; the nominator is absolutely correct that disambiguators like "(Picasso)" and "(Michelangelo)" are in a class by themselves and ought not be used as the model for disambiguating all artworks. Picasso and Michelangelo are immediately recognizable by nearly anyone as artists, but they are among a very small class of such artists. For works by any artist not in that class, it's far preferable to fall back on our standard disambiguation schemes, which is to identify the class or context of the article's subject. Powers T 14:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support most moves. We should generally use the least-specific disambiguator that will do the job for casual readers. I have no suggestion for the untitled work, unfortunately. If there's no suggested title that improves findability according to the criterion posted, then I would support keeping that one at the present title. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (except the final "Untitled" one), the proposed titles are clearer as to what they mean, though I wouldn't object to "(bust by Jones)" either. (I have a script with which I can perform the moves if it's so decided.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing[edit]

Hi. I'm here to close this move request, if I can, but I'd first like to ask some questions.

  • Has everyone said their piece, or are there arguments still not on the table?
  • Do those who support the moves make exceptions for any but the last, untitled, piece?

Pending clarification on these two points, I think we can close this request and move the pages. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Johnbod's point about Lincoln, Washington and Columbus is well taken—we do need some additional disambiguation where the subject of the artwork is hugely famous, has been depicted in numerous other artworks, and there is no unique name for a particular piece. There are two suggestions on the table for the additional disambiguation: use "Indiana Statehouse" in the disambiguator or use the artist's name as author of the type of media as Kotniski says just above. I think the latter works well because it extends the natural disambiguation of a class with one more step for precision and works well as a rule to adopt for future similarly situated articles. So I guess I would amend the request for the five title in this class, as follows:
George Washington (DeLue) → George Washington (statue by DeLue)
George Washington (Houdon) → George Washington (bust by Houdon)
Abraham Lincoln plaque (Schwarz) → Abraham Lincoln (plaque by Schwarz)
Abraham Lincoln (Jones) → Abraham Lincoln (bust by Jones)
Christopher Columbus (Vittori) → Christopher Columbus (sculpture by Vittori)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with this too.--Kotniski (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This final proposed change by Fughettaboutit, using, for example, "bust" for disambiguation with the artist's last name, seems to me a good solution. An additional rationale for using the artist's name instead of "Indiana Statehouse" as Johnbod suggested is the portability of most of these pieces. Because they are owned by the State of Indiana and not by the Statehouse, they could be moved to other State buildings. The artist's last name would not change.
The three plaques are more properly called reliefs. For these works, I suggest the following names:
Abraham Lincoln plaque (Schwarz) → Abraham Lincoln (relief by Schwarz)
Frances Elizabeth Willard (Taft) → Frances Elizabeth Willard (relief)
Wendell Willkie (Fjelde) → Wendell Willkie (relief)
To find an appropriate name for the Untitled (Mueller) article we might turn to the Smithsonian survey of public art. They assigned a descriptive name in parentheses -- Reaper, Blacksmith, Pioneer Family. There may be no elegance to the title, but I would suggest that the Smithsonian's Save Outdoor Sculpture offers at least that descriptive name. I suggest
Untitled (Mueller) → Indians, Reaper, Blacksmith, Pioneer Family (sculpture group)
I would like to suggest moves for the Thomas A. Hendricks (Park) and Oliver P. Morton (Schwarz) articles. The suggestion for Hendricks was to disambiguate with (statue). The Hendricks article, while concentrating on the statue of Hendricks, is about the monument to Hendricks which includes two additional statues. The same goes for the Morton article. For these two, I suggest
Thomas A. Hendricks (Park) → Thomas A. Hendricks (monument)
Oliver P. Morton (Schwarz) → Oliver P. Morton (monument)
Thanks! (talk)Tricia Gilson (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final list?[edit]

Based on above comments, this would appear to be the final list of moves to be made:

Any more suggestions?--Kotniski (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Mueller)[edit]

For this one, I would suggest a descriptive title, something like "Sculptures by Mueller on Indiana Statehouse". Any further thoughts?--Kotniski (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restarting discussion on that article's page.--Kotniski (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I just want to take a moment to thank you all for working through this issue so carefully and thoughtfully. I think that the names you have suggested really are appropriate, including the Mueller issue.

I'd only like to suggest a little more considering. For example with Abraham Lincoln (relief by Schwarz), it is possible that with such a prominent political figure as Lincoln that there could be multiple relieves, monuments, or statues created by the same artist. To this end, the question is if further disambiguation would be something like: Subject Name (type of artwork by artist at location in year) This seems like a good way to finalize disambiguation for artworks that do not have formal titles given.

Thanks,--RichardMcCoy (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2011 (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.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Benjamin Harrison (bust) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bust_of_Otis_Bowen&oldid=1221245010"