Talk:Nasturtiums (E. Phillips Fox)

Date
The lede has "1912", while the infobox says "c. 1912". Which is correct? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

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: Not moved per WP:VAMOS Mike Cline (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Nasturtiums (E. Phillips Fox) → Nasturtiums (painting) – Nasturtiums is a "painting" not a " E. Phillips Fox" and is better disambiguated in that manner. I can't find specific guidance for disambiguation of paintings but I note that Naming conventions (books) states "To disambiguate, add the type of literary work in parentheses, such as "(novel)", "(novella)", "(short story)", "(dialogue)", "(essay)", "(play)", etc.". This could be generalised to cover all artworks I believe. Mattinbgn (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Standard practice, see Category:Australian paintings for example. Jenks24 (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong. See below. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are suggesting - despite the evidence linked to - that Australian paintings are not routinely disambiguated as "X (painting)"? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He didn't say "standard practice for Australian paintings", and of course there should not be any such special treatment for the art of one country. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per my nomination and the discussion at Talk:Otis Bowen (bust).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The relevant guidance is (naturally) at WP:VAMOS: "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 generally 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." "Title (artist)" is in fact the normal and recommended disam style for artworks, but works best when the artist is a little better known. It is unlikely that Fox is the only person ever to title a painting "Nasturtiums". You could of course create a redirect from "Foo (painting)".Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment "The relevant guidance is (naturally) at WP:VAMOS" Can't be too "natural" if I have been editing here for nearly seven years and have created around a dozen or so visual arts articles and this is the first I have heard of it. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Touchy, touchy! Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment "It is unlikely the Fox is the only person ever to title a painting "Nasturtiums" - name another notable painting so titled. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well ok, by Odilon Redon, and there is more than one Van Gogh. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems counter-intuitive to me that to find an article about an artwork, you are expected to know the artist. One of the main reasons I would consult an encyclopedia article about an artwork is to learn who the artist is? VAMOS is inconsistent with the appraoch taken by the rest of the encyclopedia (including other artworks such as books etc.) in disambiguating by creator rather than class. A bit like the equally idiosyncratic US place name disambiguation practice, it seems to put the cart before the horse. It appears to cater well for the exceptions like the numerous paintings named "Madonna and Child" by forcing all paintings requiring disambiguation to use a non-standard, unintuitive disambiguation method. It is one of the strangest guidelines I have seen in Wikipedia for a while. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is long-established, and indeed reflected normal existing practice. Paintings of standard subjects are the rule rather than the exception in most areas of art, when you add religious & mythological subjects to self-portraits and portraits of very famous people, and so on. You do not consider the the different contexts in which a name occurs. For example, if I am looking at Category:Australian paintings, to disam by "painting" gives me no extra information. We must have hundreds of artworks disamed in this way. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * To me as well Mattinbgn, besides other reasons explored at the discussion I linked above. There it was discussed that if additional disambiguation becomes necessary because an article is created on another painting by the same title, then that can be done in various ways, such as  in keeping with the parenthetical disambiguator scheme at WP:DAB, with which the VAMOS guideline conflicts.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It can be done in various ways, but there is one established way of doing it here which is supported by the MOS. There is no need to reinvent the wheel here. If you don't like Vamos, you should raise it there or, better, at the Visual arts project talk. I note that none of the supporters here have actually edited the article. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agreed with Johnbod, classic categorization of artworks is done by the title, author method, and WP:VAMOS implements it mostly correctly. For users unfamiliar with an artist who search on a painting name, WP's background tech ops generally will direct a search to a useful disambiguation page. For instance, a person searching for a painting entitled Roses will arrive at the Roses disamb page wherein they will find a link to van Gogh's painting of that name. Sometimes a further search is needed, but it generally works well enough, though it could be improved. &mdash; Sctechlaw (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2012 (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.