Talk:Las Meninas

File:Las Meninas, by Diego Velázquez, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Las Meninas, by Diego Velázquez, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 1, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-09-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

FA sweeps
I noticed some issues while reviewing this article: (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Citation format is not consistent between short and long refs
 * There is some unsourced content
 * Too many blockquotes that should be paraphrased, add bloat to the article (goes against requirement to have a concise length, "stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style")
 * Staggered you don't object to the number of images! Perhaps you are getting the hang of this. We are unlikely to agree on the last point. This is one of the most written-about paintings in art history, and it is usually a mistake to attempt to parphrase subtle analysis by major figures too much. I completely reject that this goes against the criteria - I think you'll find all this was there when FAC was passed, except for the Kenneth Clark just added last month, which is worth having, but might be trimmed a little. The referencing seems consistent - short where works are used several times, and long where not. The cn points are pretty trivial.  Johnbod (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * buidhe
 * Citation formats are a trivially resolved matter...hold on
 * There is/was very little unsourced content in fact; the examples I suspect you noticed were from a quick scan and largely to do with the way paras, sourced to a common page range, were broken up. This mostly now addressed, with some recently tacked on stuff removed.
 * Re quotes; this painting is extremely complex and historically significant, and art historians have teased over it meanings for centuries. I personally think it would reduce the service to readers if we were to try and paraphrase their nuanced thoughts rather than let them speak for themselves (with, as the article provides, full attribution.)
 * However I have been wrong once or twice before. Inviting comments as I see you seem to be a FAR nom badge collector (FA sweeps???) and do not want to see this thought process spread. Ceoil  (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see a big issue with the quotes, I think compliment the text rather nicely. I will say that three Foucault quotes in one article might be stretching it though; I mean I know he's Foucault but he's also not an art historian (or afaik, especially known for art critcism), so the emphasis on him seems a little undue IMO. Aza24 (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Have taken out some scissors, hopefully this is ok, and buidhe will spare us from his points scoring "FA sweeps". Ceoil  (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will look in when/if FedEx ever gives me back my computer; if I forget, please ping me. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sound, would be appreciative re compliance with MOS guidelines especially. Ceoil  (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to help make the citation style consistent (grunt work), but I can't tell what style is intended. How do you distinguish between what goes in References as a long citation, and what goes in Sources with a short-form back in References?  Some articles put only books in Sources, but that doesn't seem to be the format here.  Some put only those that are used more than once in Sources.  Let me know what the style is and I will help.  Separately, I see some layout issues (MOS:SANDWICH) that I will address.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sandy, the inconsistency is not your problem; its highlighted now as work needed, and I commit to sorting by the end of the second weekend after the next paddy's day. Ceoil  (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy to help if I can :0 Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, sources used more than once should be "in Sources with a short-form back in References" and I think all or nearly all are. This is pretty common & seems ok to me. I don't accept it is not "consistent". But if people aren't happy, then converting eveything to in "Sources with a short-form back in References" would be best imo. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC).
 * If that is the style, and if that is done, then that is consistent :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As I said in the edit summary John, the style is inconsistent through... the templates seem like the quickest way to standardize this—I won't be altering the style to sfn or anything like that. I understand citevar, but surely if a solution is quick and efficient, it should be favored? Aza24 (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK—I've formatted all the references consistently now. Any book/journal source that is used more than once now is now "in Sources with a short-form back in References" and the others (book/journals which are only used for one page) are in short ref form; hopefully this works. I can adjust it to having all refs in short form back to the sources if that's preferable. Aza24 (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would think this one can be marked as "satisfactory" at URFA 2020 now? Aza24 (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, Aza24; I am swamped, but will put it on my list to review. Meanwhile you should feel free to go ahead and mark it at URFA ... it only takes three reviews, and they don't have to be mine!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing for WP:URFA/2020, notes: Marking "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020, nothing here rises to a level needing FAR. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Some "de-howevering" might be useful. See overuse of however and User:John/however.
 * If this was a specific king, it seems it should be uppercase, per MOS:JOBTITLES. as the painter was admitted to the order by the king's decree on 28 November, 1659.  From the article text, I glean it was Philip ?  Maybe just spell it out (King Philip) to deal with upper or lower case issue?
 * This is murky business to me (king v. King) and may need further review throughout, but don't trust me on that :) JOBTITLES says "They are capitalized ... When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon and ... When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II)
 * Take advantage of interlanguage links for red links, sample:
 * Watch for MOS:DATERANGE, sample:
 * Page no ranges in citations are not consistent in terms of number of trailing digits (decide how many trailing digits to use, and be consistent in short citations vs long):
 * López-Rey (1999), Vol. II, pp. 310–11 versus
 * The Art Bulletin. 48 (2): 212–214.


 * marked Satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020 by Aza24 and me. It is OK to mark your “own” articles; if either of you do that, it can be moved off the Review list. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think it's satisfactory. Thanks both! Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * per John, much appreciated Aza24 and Sandy. Ceoil  (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Las Meninas is not Spanish for either Ladies-in-Waiting nor for Maids of Honor
I'll try to be brief because I'm sure most of the people who read this will know more than I do both about art and about Wikipedia. Usually I'd just edit the first sentence to say "Las Meninas (Spanish for The Girls) [...]", but here I worry that there might be an specific reason for this difference (specially because someone already changed this part of the article before). I believe it should be changed in some way because it's wrong to say that "Las Meninas is Spanish for Ladies-in-Waiting" or for "Maids of Honor". signed by ip user /176.xx.x.xxx
 * Hi, did the word "Meninas" evolve in meaning between the 17th and 20 & 21st centuries? For eg, in English, "lady" certainly did. Ceoil (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The article says "Her ladies-in-waiting, known by the Portuguese name of meninas.." sourced to Kenneth Clark (note 42). Whatever the word may mean in other contexts (in either language), WP:RS are entirely agreed that in this context it translates as "Ladies-in-waiting". Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the only source have found disputing the English title is Michel Foucault, and of course he did. Ceoil (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Spanish wp only has an article beginning "La menina (del inglés: MEN, multiple endocrine neoplasia) es una proteína que en los seres humanos está codificada por el gen MEN1....", but in Portuguese WP there is an article on "Menina" meaning girl. In Spanish it would just be Las Ninas, no? Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Figure number 7
Just wanted to share this info and these sources from eswiki:

Google Translate: "7. The character next to him, half in shadow, is the only one whose name Palomino does not give. It only mentions him as a guardamas, although more recent studies assure that it is Don Diego Ruiz Azcona."
 * source 1 Iconografía y semiótica. Una obra de Velázquez. Carmen V. Viduarre - Universidad de Guadalajara - url: https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/EIKO/article/download/73482/4564456555410/
 * source 2 "Las Meninas" de Velázquez''. Mar Doval Trueba (Doctora en Hª del Arte) text might be here somewhere: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/autor?codigo=258487

I don't have enough Spanish or art background to interpret but I thought it was interesting in case anyone else wants to check it out. jengod (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation
las is never |laz|have you not been to Spain? 213.233.108.137 (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * [z] is how /s/ is realized before voiced consonants, like /m/ 186.50.216.68 (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)