Talk:The Westward Journey

Untitled

I have formatted the language according to the Wikipedia: Manual of Style (words). Made grammatical corrections to overall article.

Requested move

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: seems we finally have agreement Kotniski (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Untitled (Mueller) → Sculptures by Mueller on the Indiana Statehouse — Or some variant thereof. Please see previous discussion at Talk:Otis Bowen (Lanagan)#Requested move. The current title is overly cryptic.--Kotniski (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to repeat my recommendation that we refer to the Smithsonian's Save Outdoor Sculpture project which assigned this sculpture group the name "Indians, Reaper, Blacksmith, Pioneer Family." See Indians, Reaper, Blacksmith, Pioneer Family. Here's my suggestion:

Untitled (Mueller) → Indians, Reaper, Blacksmith, Pioneer Family (sculpture group)

Tricia Gilson (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Support above suggestion, except that it shouldn't need a disambiguation - how about Indians, Reaper, Blacksmith, Pioneer Family. This is also a bit cryptic, but then an article about a novel or film wouldn't have any disambiguation unless the title was non-unique, so Dodsworth is just as cryptic. PamD (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

But is this really the title of the work? It sounds like just someone else's attempt to solve the problem that we now have - what to put at the top of a webpage about a work that doesn't have a title of its own, and therefore needs a description instead. And Wikipedia's solution can be expected to be different, since Wikipedia's scope is different (our pages could be about absolutely anything).--Kotniski (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Support move to Indians, Reaper, Blacksmith, Pioneer Family. Agree that the disambiguator (sculpture group) is unnecessary. Yes, it's really the title of the work for the purposes of Wikipedia:article titles. Andrewa (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC) PS while I prefer this title, note below that South entrance statues, Indiana Statehouse is acceptable, with a redirect from Indians, Reaper, Blacksmith, Pioneer Family. Andrewa (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC) PPS Change of vote to supporting The Westward Journey, with redirects from both other proposed titles, see below for formal vote. Andrewa (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides the save our sculpture project, has the work been referred to in literature? If so, by what name? Raul654 (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Not many others online... In flickr, see [1], and see Google [2] for others. But the point is, what other title is there? This is an acceptable title for the article, and a far better one than Untitled. If there's a more common one, let's use it by all means, and let's also tell SOS about it. It's possible, but it's doubtful, otherwise SOS would know it. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• support South entrance statues, Indiana Statehouse or similar, as already said at the other page. It is far clearer. The smithsonian db is concerned with giving titles to works; we are concerned with giving a title to an article. It's a different function. Anything is better than the present title. Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with all of this except the suggestion of South entrance statues, Indiana Statehouse as the title... where is it from? If it would be unique to Wikipedia (see Google [3]), that's not good. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what the WP:Commonname in Indiana would be, never having visited that no doubt delightful state. But I'm pretty sure it isn't either Indians, Reaper, Blacksmith, Pioneer Family or the current title. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

So, because the proposed name has little attestation, you're proposing one that has none? That doesn't seem to make any sense at all. Surely a little attestation is better than none? Andrewa (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. A look at local guidebooks might well turn up a formulation close to this, which I would support. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion and in the end I don't have a vote to cast in either direction. But I do want to point out that despite what Johnbod indicates, Wikipedia, like the SOS! volunteers should be concerned with exactly the same thing: naming articles to reflect the names of artworks; they are not different functions. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes they are! There are countless examples, including most of the Indiana Statehouse sculpture articles, where we use different names for articles from what a catalogue title would be. I notice this Smithsonian argument was not produced at the main debate, and few of the titles settled on would be exactly those used by them. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the need or point of this argument, Johnbod. There is no reason to have a Wikipedia article titled different than the name of an artwork, if it is known. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"Night Watch or The Night Watch or The Shooting Company of Frans Banning Cocq (Dutch: De Nachtwacht) is the common name of one of the most famous works by Dutch painter Rembrandt van Rijn. The painting may be more properly titled The Company of Frans Banning Cocq and Willem van Ruytenburch." - to name but one. WP:COMMONNAME is the over-riding policy.Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you appreciate these kinds of dialogues and their tangential possibilities more than me. Common names changes, titles by artists of artworks do not.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, museums rename their artworks all the time, often every few years. Compare different catalogues/guidebooks for the same institution over a long period & you will see. The London National Gallery has called the Arnolfini Portrait by about 6 different names, and other scholarly sources use still further variations. I do wish you would make a statement it was possible to agree with every now and then. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, but in this case the name isn't known (there probably isn't one). Then we use a descriptive title. I still think it's a more helpful description (in this case) to say where the work can be found and who produced it, than to list the items depicted. Attestation isn't so important with descriptive titles.--Kotniski (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree on reflection that South entrance statues, Indiana Statehouse is a good and entirely acceptable title for this article. Suggest a redirect from Indians, Reaper, Blacksmith, Pioneer Family would be good if that's the result, as that seems to be the closest we have to an official name. Vote above qualified with a PS to reflect this latest thinking. Andrewa (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with South entrance statues, Indiana Statehouse, with redirects from everything else which has been proposed and variations thereon! (It currently has only 3 incoming redirects...). PamD (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll support that too.--Kotniski (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The name "South entrance statues, Indiana Statehouse" implies that there are sculptures at the other entrances (there are not), does not indicate any relevant information about the sculptures' composition beyond their location, and does not define the artist. Further, it these sculptures are in the area close to where a tympanum would be in architectural terms, and not really near the "entrance." The designed entrance to the Statehouse is on the east side, but the west entrance is what is used now for security reasons. I do not understand how this name helps this article. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well unlike the alternatives it makes it clear from the title alone - to people doing a search and seeing just a list say, what the subject is, without the need for very specialized knowledge. That is the main purpose of an article title. Johnbod (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

""South entrance statues, Indiana Statehouse" implies that there are sculptures at the other entrances"? I don't see that at all. These are some statues in a particular location; they have no common name (I wonder again whether they can really be "notable", but that's another matter!); this phrase is a way to identify this group of statues and distinguish them from other topics, in the apparent absence of any established name for them. It does also indicate what they are, but as I suggested above by mentioning Dodsworth (is it a village, or a rock band?), by no means all titles of articles give any indication of the nature of the topic. But I don't really care and we've all wasted far too much time debating the title of this one article. PamD (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

PamD: Your notability statements, which you've mentioned before related to these artworks I think is unproductive in general and specifically unhelpful here. I would prefer if you would please either substantiate your notability grumblings here or elsewhere, or move on. There are artworks on the grounds of the Indiana Statehouse that do have proper names, and they have been reflected in the SOS! survey and these article titles.

Jonbod: this title does not make clear much at all. As I said, this is not an entrance to the Statehouse, and these artworks are actually above the second floor of the building, so truly not not above an "entrance." Yes, they are on the south side, and yes they are at the Statehouse. I continue to believe that the main purpose of an article title for artworks is to actually respect the name given by the artist(s) when known. Absent of that known fact, the title should deal with the either the subject or artist; the location and owner are of tertiary importance. However, I'm noticing a pattern in discussions with you in that it seems you'd prefer to believe your "winning" than actually consider the matter. To this end, you can change the name to what you'd like.

Absent of real research or opinions of others that have an historical background with the artworks at the Indiana Statehouse, that could help discover a more historically accurate name, I see little point in continuing on here.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, now that Richard has clarified that this isn't an entrance (not clear to me, and perhaps others, until this latest post - and perhaps the infobox in the article needs to be amended too), would South portico sculptures, Indiana Statehouse be acceptable? Or alternatively Indians, Reaper, Blacksmith, Pioneer Family, if that's what the SOS lists it as? I'd be happy with either, and either would be better than the current title. And if challenged so sourly to substantiate my "grumblings" about notability, then I might just do that ... except that taking to AfD successfully would be a waste of my effort in helping with this article in its earlier stages. PamD (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC) (amended PamD (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC))

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be fine with "portico" for "entrance". I'm not sure Richard has clarified anything; that it may not be used currently as a public entrance makes little difference in architectural terms. As far as I can tell from the plan, there are doors under the portico. I see from the National Park Service [4] that "The sculptural program atop the portico is The Westward Journey. On the left side of the cornice ledge, Native Americans are forced west, while Euro-American pioneers enter from the east." Plan C - better than the present title anyway. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support move to The Westward Journey. (Doesn't even need a disambiguation, just a decision as to which of this and Westward Journey Online II is the primary usage to which Westward Journey should point, and a redirect hatnote on the other one.) Congratulations, JohnBod, on finding this! Interesting that Mueller doesn't get a mention, but I suppose the Smithsonian record counts as a WP:RS as evidence that he actually was the sculptor. PamD (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support move to The Westward Journey. Nice work Johnbod for finding what, in the end, was a terribly obvious reference for the title for this work. I can't go back and give the student any worse of a grade for missing this, no matter how obvious it was... Thanks to all for getting it right.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• I can support this also, though the NPS are the only source to show on google [5] - nothing on gbooks either. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support move to The Westward Journey (change of vote). Good work team. Andrewa (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Come on then, let's do this, it's been long enough (discussion can be reopened if someone has a better idea).--Kotniski (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

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.

Reliable source?

Context: Central to WP:Notability is "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." It's not clear to me whether this sculpture group meets that criterion. I see that another editor has already tagged the article with {{refimprove}}. PamD (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The only reference which actually appears to discuss the sculptures is the rather cryptic: "SOS! Survey Questionnaire, Description 1992-1994". I've got a feeling that if I rummaged around in the project pages for Public Art I might be able to identify what this survey is, but it needs to be made clear in this reference on this page, so that readers and editors can see whether it is a reliable source. Please could someone (Richard?) expand that reference so that we can see what it is? Thanks. PamD (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've now found the article Save Outdoor Sculpture!, made a redirect to it from SOS! (yes it was already listed at SOS (disambiguation), but that's a long page), and linked it from the ref. But as the questionnaire doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article, it's not much help. Found a link to the record at the Smithsonian, and have given it as an External Link. No indication of any source for the "description" section. PamD (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

PamD, as you and I know well from this article, and the other written by this editor, it was written hastily and still needs a lot of work. Thanks for working through the SOS! source, which is highly reliable. This article remains one from the Statehouse that needs considerable work; it's on my to do list.

I do want to point out that difficulty, which I've done many times, of working on public artworks and art in general. Particularly from a Calvinistic, puritanical US perspective, public artworks have not been highly regarded in US society; likewise, they have received dramatically poor attention from the media in the second half of the 20th century and beyond. However, I believe with good research, information will surface about this important sculptural group.

Finally, I do hope that at some point that notability guidelines that deal with artworks and artists distinctly will be written; they deserve special consideration in Wikipedia, and from my last look around cannot tell that they've ever received any. Thanks, --RichardMcCoy (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually the general policy works perfectly well for them, as past discussions have concluded. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll not be taking this argumentative bait; suffice it to say I disagree. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

All's well that ends well?

Thanks, Richard, for your cleanup of the article. With Johnbod's discovery of a reasonable title, it's now looking pretty good! It's come a long way since I first saw it - led here after stub-sorting the same editor's other contribution at a similar stage in its development! PamD (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)