Talk:List of depictions of the Virgin and Child

Requested move 26 July 2021

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved The Virgin and Child (The Northbrook Madonna) → Northbrook Madonna and Virgin and Child with Four Angels (Donatello) → Chellini Madonna. Not moved List of depictions of the Virgin and Child – both "Virgin" and "Madonna" are in similar circulation in this context, but editors perceive Virgin as broader and more culturally neutral. Really, this should not have been bundled, the articles are only tangentially related. No such user (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * List of depictions of the Virgin and Child → List of depictions of the Madonna and Child
 * The Virgin and Child (The Northbrook Madonna) → Northbrook Madonna
 * Virgin and Child with Four Angels (Donatello) → Chellinci Madonna Chellini Madonna

The Virgin and Child (The Northbrook Madonna) should be replaced for Northbrook Madonna because of this name is too long and Virgin and Child with Four Angels (Donatello) for Chellini Madonna by the same manner. Also per WP:WP:CONCISE on pair with Manchester Madonna (the name is used instead The Madonna and Child with St John and Angels).

Content of the article List of depictions of the Virgin and Child clearly include far more articles which have "Madonna" in the title than "Virgin" because of context of that article is "Visual art" (Mainly painting but also sculpture; however, this is not for example list of Marian Shrines where there is no phrase "and Child", this is not not list of prayers/anthems/music / or all "the arts" put together; there are contexts where Virgin is more common name but here not excatly), in context of that coverage Madonna is the most notable name, for that we have article titled Madonna, with many redirects (from latin  Mea Domina = My Lady, archetypically through lanuages "Madonna of" also mean "Our Lady of"). Madonna is not common name in purely religious stuff but undoubtly is common name excatly in that context of the list. Especially in ENGLISH language, Italian and plenty others, In fact currently almost all wikidata entires other than French and Spanish have title Madonna what is consistent with Commons.

World Cat suggests that Commons of course will never be changed at least in context of paintings because of there are 590 results for "Virgin and Child" and 801 for Madonna and Child. Analyse of "either of World Cat and Britannica" also suggests that "Madonna and Child" is probably more appprociate title for English Wikipedia (at least in that context because of we always can create other lists for Mary, in other contexts where there is no "and Child" and The Virgin is primary name). As for Britannica - this ecyclopedia separatly has articles "Virgin Mary", Madonna and even core topic "Madonna and Child" (does not have any core topic "Virgin and Child"). Britannica get also consistency for that core topic because of knows in smart way how to apply both names, for example Virgin and Child is used in the article about Saint Anne (Grandmother of Jesus) and in the article about Holy Family but "Madonna and Child" is rightly in in overall core article "Religious art and incography" to have consistency with educating about "core topic. I belive redactors of that traditional and reliable encyclopedia always carefully discuss terminology and knows when name can be used primarily or not.. When we analyse English books in World Cat then if we choose in advanced search subject/title Virgin and Child for all "art & architecture" we have 45 /143 results, meanwhile for Madonna and Child we have 43/179 results.

I collapsed it because of rationale is long and focussing on Wikipedia's usage is bit less important, however:

When we look on this through categories and pageviews from Holy week/Easter octave(unfortunetly categories are too wide and big to check all 6 yeears of pageviews on server) then this look in the following way:

Category:Mary, Mother of Jesus -after check by Ctrl + F Madonna we have 360 results, 72 out of these articles gets more pageviews than this list itself (so more than 104 per 15 day). We can also find 128 "Madonna and Child" and 41 with "Virgin and Child" (BTW there are also 209 articles with word Virgin and 70 out of them get more views than this list, most of them overlap with other contexts which I reffer at open rationale). To make review/research for better referenced articles on M&C/V&C, we can check these with "3 or more pageviews per day". Here we have 21 M&C and 15 V&C, so Madonna is more relevant to WP:Readers (I do not count the Chellini Madonna as V&C or M&C, and do not count "List of depictions of Virgin and Child"). There are also 9 M&C which gets more pageviews than this list, and 8 V&C with more views as well. Out of these 21 M&C there are still 14 M&C not holded in Italian museum. I also noted that some of these 15 V&C probably would be titled rather M&C than V&C by Britannica. For example "Diptych of Philip de Croÿ with The Virgin and Child" does not have article on its own in Britannica but biography of the author in Britannica reffer "Madonnas with Child" not "Virgins with Child", and Diptych of Maarten van Nieuwenhove as another Dutch pieace has article on its own in Britannica titled Madonna and Martin van Nieuwenhove. There is one example of M/M&C/V&C which always gets more either of pageviews and pagewatchers than core article on "Madonna (art)". This is Black Madonna (often central for both Catholics and Orthdox).

Category:Paintings by collection Ctrl + F there are 120+ articles with word Madonna in that category (++95% is relevant to Mary) and out of those 120+ there are 66 which generally have Child in primary name. Out of these 120+ Madonnas 31 gets more hits than this list and out of these 66 M&C there are 6 which gets more hits than this list. There are 69 pages with word Virgin and 19 of them include Child to primary name. Out of these 69 there are 15 articles with word Virgin which gets more hits than this list and out of these 19 V&C there are only 3 which gets more hits than this list.


 * Support As nominator because of "The Virgin and Child" is Madonna Dawid2009 (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Added more on 19:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)~
 * Oppose the first. The 2nd should certainly done, but this discussion hasn't even been notified there, which won't do. Same for #3, which I'm not sure about. I doubt Chellinci Madonna is the WP:COMMONNAME.  Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The notification for #2 was added by the bot at 22:06, 26 July 2021, and for #3 was added at 05:51, 27 July 2021. Perhaps the bod was just faster than the bot. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support and would also support the form without the article "the" — List of depictions of Madonna and Child — per the 24-entry Madonna and Child (disambiguation), rather than the 8-entry Virgin and Child (disambiguation). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can agree with "Madonna" instead "The Madonna". There is also disambig Mother and Child which always reffers to Madonna, not Virgin. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose #1: It's bogus to say that only "Madonna" is correct in visual arts contexts; what about all the paintings of the Nativity, Marriage, Death, Assumption and Coronation of the Virgin? In English "Madonna and Child" and "Virgin and Child" are used interchangeably, and according to Google Ngram Viewer "Virgin and Child" is slightly more popular in more recent sources. ~ Support #2 per WP:CONCISE. ~ Move #3 to Chellini Madonna, not "Chellinci Madonna"; see the V&A and the Burlington Magazine in particular. Ham II (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out my typo and providing sources Ham, I agree with "Chellini Madonna". Google Ngram Viewer actually does not speak in favor of "Virgin and Child" - this speaks in favour of Madonna and Child. According to GoogleNgram, "Madonna and Child" is always slightly more often used term in very the most recent sources (2013-2019) and evidently has a better usage in whole modern coverage; for Madonna and Child, there is 0,00003537 at best in 1964; meanwhile, Virgin and Child gets 0,0000318637 at the highest in 1994 (Let check all possible options: "with case-intensive", "without case intensive", "either of with Child or and Child, all: "English, British English and American English". This is easier to say Madonnas than Virgins or "Madonnas wih Child" than "Virgins and Child" so sometimes comprasion of Google Ngrams can be inflated or not, Madonna has more alternatives in name: ,,). This was even likely acknowledged by consensus of Britannica research that Madonna and Child are frequently used term in modern English sources; because of this proof, English source does not have dedicated "core topic" "Virgin and Child" but has dedicated "Madonna and Child". In fact, the same is on Wikipedia; we have a redirect on English Wikipedia from Virgin and Child to Madonna (art), which has been created in combination with earlier article Madonna and Child (despite the fact there are other wiki data entries which choose name Virgin and Child, but probably due to fact in few otherlanguages can be competitive claim about choosing common name beetwen "Madona" and "Madonna", which is not available in English for that matter). Would you still support the current title if we would try to change Madonna in the featured article and the list in FA? Where should be the phrase "Virgin and Child" redirect if not to the article on Madonna? To disambig? To list? Or should we create few more lists for Mary, Mother of Jesus and Child Jesus just as we have, for example, in Depictions of Muhammad and Depictions of Muhammad in film? Dawid2009 (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * On Ngrams, Virgin and Child has been very slightly above Madonna and Child since 1981 in the " [all varieties of English"] corpus, if "Case-Insensitive" is turned off. If "Case-Insensitive" is turned on, Madonna and Child overtakes Virgin and Child by a whisker in 2013, but Virgin and Child is in in the lead again by the tiniest margin after 2018. As this is about the titles of artworks, which are usually in title case, I don't see why we'd favour the case-insensitive results over the case-sensitive ones.
 * Looking at the other relevant corpora with "Case-Insensitive" switched on, in American English Virgin and Child is ahead of Madonna and Child from 2006 to 2018, but not in 2019, the final year of the sample. In British English Virgin and Child is in the lead from 1972 to 2011, after which Madonna and Child is by a narrow margin. All these margins seem much too narrow to be of any significance, and I doubt that Google Books has every single relevant book and scholarly article. Ham II (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Because titling are not fragmentary phrases in books like "Madonnas" or "Madonnas with Child",+ Madonna has more alternatives. For the record M&C outgone V&C in American English too, and already in 2015 if we switch on case intensives. I must agree that all those differences seems very, very narrow and just shows that both terminologies/names are correct/common in English (surely this is not the same accident what recent discussion about Czechia vs Czech Republic on Wikipedia; where both names are correct too, despite big differences) but maybe Madonna could fit per WP:Consistent and WP:Primary Redirect per Wikipedia's policy? what do you think? Usage in modern sources also seems go on pair with google trends and gives promience to Madonna. According to the Google Trends "Madonna and Child" always was more in common usage/search than "Virgin and Child" and Mary and Child" on the Internet, usually even than Mary&C and V&C put together , . Since  2017 "Mary and Child" has outgone "Virgin and Child" as second alternative to "Madonna and Child" by Google Trends. However, on the other hand this still does not much on google scholar; for the google scholar in art context V&C gets 50.64% for whole time / and 50.5% for 2021 /. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * List of depictions of the Madonna and Child wouldn't necessarily be WP:CONSISTENT with Madonna (art), despite using the same word, because the meaning suggested by Madonna (art) is "A picture, statue, or medallion of the Madonna", more than the Madonna/Virgin/Mary herself (which would be the sense of the word in List of depictions of the Madonna and Child). Ham II (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The search results of various relevant resources available on the Wikipedia Library usually show a preference for "Virgin and Child" – sometimes by very little, sometimes by a lot. In only one instance I could find did instances of "Madonna and Child" outnumber those of "Virgin and Child".
 * {|class="wikitable plainrowheaders" style="text-align: right;"

! ! "Virgin and Child" ! "Madonna and Child" !scope="row" | JSTOR !scope="row" | Grove Art Online !scope="row" | Oxford Companion to Western Art !scope="row" | Oxford Dictionary of Christian Art and Architecture !scope="row" | Oxford Dictionary of Art !scope="row" | Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and the Arts !scope="row" | Concise Oxford Dictionary of Art Terms
 * 9,913 results || 9,894 results
 * 1,318 results || 133 results
 * 98 results || 45 results
 * 42 results || 81 results
 * 36 results || 21 results
 * 7 results || 5 results
 * 5 results || 0 results
 * }
 * Ham II (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * None of this matters much at all, especially the usage on WP itself, which I have discussed below. What is important is the terminology used by the best sources, such as major Anglophone museums for pieces that do not come with a traditional name (like Northbrook Madonna). I'll also note that so far you have three very experienced visual arts specialist editors opposing, and two editors not normally editing this field supporting. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You yourself already acknowledged couple times that "Madonna" is frequently used term in that context, in English. As for "Chellini Madonna"you kept opinion below that it is old fashioned term but later supported my request, I belive very rightly; Chellini Madonna not only is promient name in the most recent sources but in fact outgone Madonna Louise (the singer, primary topic) on some graphs, are things with so high ngrams oldfashioned?


 * As for your comment about these disambigs, they are incomplete anyway. On 100 Great paintings we see four art pieces with primary name Madonna, none of them are holded in Italian museums; an example with the highest position on this ranking was painted by Netherland painter and is now holded in French museum, the ranking includes also two examples of Madonna with primary for V&C. None of these six "Madonnas" need be holded in anglophone museum to be ranked by English source, the thing not necesarilly need be holded in anglophone museum to pay attention WP:readers. The Britannica at core topic educate/link to Egyptomania and Henry Moore, is not that correct way? Dawid2009 (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * On why so many of our articles are "Madonnas" rather than "V&C", this is very often caused by serial stub creators like the Italian User:Attilios (now a rare visitor) who preferred this form (more natural in Italian). There's no doubt that "V&C" is the more correct modern term in English. Plus many of the "named" ones, like "Chellini Madonna" keep the old-fashioned term. Many of the list, in major Anglophone museums, will be described by the museum as "V&C" not Madonna - I went to demonstrate this at Madonna and Child (Donatello, Louvre), where the only ref does indeed use "V&C", but also gives a different artist - some work needed there .  That's a typical one-line stub by User:DilletantiAnonymous, making up his own title.  Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I should add that with one American exception all the works listed at Madonna and Child (disambiguation) are either by Italian artists, or in Italian museums - most are both. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding: I'm ok with #3 going to Chellini Madonna, not "Chellinci Madonna"; thanks Ham. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the terms, "Madonna" and "the Virgin" in art are pretty interchangable, so I see no reason to change it here. Carptrash (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - I think I'll support that change for now, but I am still awaiting additional comments from other editors. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  08:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support at least for #1 and #2. In fact, the "Northbrook Madonna" appears to be the second topic's common name (e.g., per this source, which uses that name exclusively, and the museum that currently houses the work, which uses both names but primarily uses "Northbrook Madonna"). Moreover, "Northbrook Madonna" provides WP:Natural disambiguation, which is far preferable to the double-name convention currently used for the article title. The current double name also utterly fails WP:CONCISE, as noted by Ham II. (Tangentially related, the Northbrook Madonna was recently displayed side-by-side with the Small Cowper Madonna so that visitors could study the paintings together.) I also think "Madonna" seems generally better and that consistency is desirable, and the concept of virginity seems unnecessary to introduce when referring to the subject. Per the nominator, the list article includes far more articles which have "Madonna" in the title than "Virgin", so using "Madonna" is simply a better match to the list content. However, I do not put myself forth as an authority on the subject matter. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems as if your argument is based on ILIKEIT. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's based on WP:COMMONNAME, WP:Natural disambiguation, WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENT, with perhaps a touch of WP:NPOVTITLE. There were copious references to Wikipedia guidelines and policies in my comment – did you not notice those? —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I did see that you sprinkled your preferences with bits of policy yes. Am unimpressed, however. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose 1, in all my readings "Virgin" is by far the most common title given by art historians writing in English. IRL it should be beside the point but for purposes here is prob swaying google returns: Johnbod is right in saying that User:Attilios, an Italian who seemed to have mass created stubs from indices and footnotes, did not have great English, would not learn from mistakes, and listened to nobody, set an unfortunate precedent towards "Madonna & c", which is not at all prevailing in the litrature. Ceoil (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * prob swaying google returns - most stubs were created few years ago meanwhile Britannica online has titled topic "Madonna and Child" since 2000 and frequently controlled. We can also by the same manner demonstrate Beautiful Virgin Mary from Krużlowa error where art piece is called on Wikipedia Virgin despite all used sources reffer indeed to Madonna. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Another problem is that (despite mentioning them in the first sentence) the list excludes all 37 articles in Category:Eastern Orthodox icons of the Virgin Mary, the majority of which are of the Virgin & Child. In my experience Orthodox people can live with "Virgin and Child", but don't like "Madonna". For no very good reason, the list excludes the large number of "V&C plus saints" paintings - but doesn't explain this. Looking at the categories it seems to be pretty incomplete anyway. Thanks to our busy stub-creators, we have many more than are in the list. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the closing admin will realise that the supports, none of which typically edit in the art history area (Dawid2009 works in talk page categorisation (vital or not, etc), while BarrelProof's top 10 edited pages are all whiskey related) are generally backing into precedent found "in wiki", while those that object are mostly VA editors and are saying the bias in the wiki cats and titles are overhang from a few early (2005-2007) mass stub creators whose first language was not English, and were not working from English sources. For sure, the VA objectors need to clean up their house re the existing cats. Lucky we do have an in-house expert at this kind of thing, pinging Randy Kryn, who has broad knowledge of art history, as is widely trusted. Ceoil (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And in Attilios's case, were nearly always writing about paintings in Italian collections, which is fine (and I suppose there are more notable versions of the subject from Italy than anywhere else) but leaves our population somewhat unbalanced. We have many much higher quality articles on Netherlandish ones, mostly by Ceoil, but numerically the Italian two-liners dominate. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose all Virgin and Child is a more neutral title, the other two RMs should not have been bundled In ictu oculi (talk) 06:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Generally speaking, the term Madonna implies the presence of a child. Leonardo's drew a "Head of Madonna." But even in this drawing, she could be looking down at a child who is just outside our view. In short, I have to wonder if this subject is distinct from Madonna (art). 99to99 (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "the term Madonna implies the presence of a child" is correct - certainly this is not the case in everyday Italian. Equally, images of the Madonna and Child are often referred to just as a "Madonna", but this is just shorthand.  Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not the only one who thinks this. The word "Madonna" is "commonly applied to works of art, especially those images that feature mother and infant" according to Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society. More technically, it suggests that the depiction illustrates a theological point such as theotokos, as opposed to a scene from the gospels. 99to99 (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not much of an RS, nor a very technical point. Obviously both alternative titles indicate it is a "portrait"/icon, rather than a narrative scene. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't agree with you, how can it be "much of an RS"? Here is Oxford Dictionaries: "A picture, statue, or medallion of the Madonna, typically depicted seated and holding the infant Jesus." That's not very well written, but I think it makes the point. 99to99 (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pretty dubious, imo - certainly proper art history doesn't use the term that way in titles etc. The proposal is to move to List of depictions of the Madonna and Child; I don't think List of Madonnas will find much support. Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * it:Madonna col Bambino probably is not pleonasm but I tend to agree with 99to99 Virgin and Child is correct redirect and does not seem fail WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT (This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term), according to Cambridge dictionary Madonna has two definitions and there is at least some connection to Thetokos. I am not sure how title "List of depictions of Virgin and Child" works with WP:CONSISTENT (The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.) for other categories and disambigs as long as we have this redirect, and this (especially that there was no opposition for "connection beetwen Madonna and Child" in this discussion) but I will leave this for experienced editors who are familiar in the subject. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.