Talk:Nativity (Christus)

Left and right in the Gallery
The captions in the Gallery use "left" and "right" from the viewpoint of someone in the painting looking out at the viewer. I was expecting it would be like we describe people or items in a photograph, i.e. "left" is the viewer's or photographer's left. Any comments? --71.163.153.146 (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Tricky and no right answer. I'd say usually go with L/R from the viewers POV, unless saying "to Mary's left". Ceoil (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ceoil. I'd need some convincing (like seeing several examples) to leave it the way it is.  Maybe Victoria can tell us why she used that convention in the captions?  --71.163.153.146 (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Several? Haha. Anyway, here is an example where it really matters and where I, frankly struggled Last Judgment (van der Weyden). Not only because the damned and saved are traditionally shown on a particular sides of Jesus, but also you have the gates of heaven / hell at the outmost lower frames. I found the sources contradictory in using figures/viewers POV; its all a biteen messy, and as I say, no right or wrong. Ceoil (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Re-edited for your pleasure 71.163. Tks for the edits and comments, and nice to see you around again man. Ceoil (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I wanted to experiment with Proper right and left, but ended up making a mistake on the archways because I don't know my lefts from rights (truly!). So no convention there, simply a mistake. Thanks 71 for mentioning and Ceoil for fixing; I'll revisit the gallery when I build the page up more. Victoria (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for straightening it out, guys, and keep up the good work. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We've only had proper right and left for 2 weeks or so & it was astonishingly hard to find an online or printed definition, though there are zillions of uses. None of the big museum glossaries bother with them. I'm not sure I approve of using them for architecture etc, just figures. And I'm still not sure what to do about figures with crossed arms etc. Any ideas? But we should make more use of them now we can link them. Johnbod (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting article. The distinction is close to my heart, and am delighted to see it discussed, typically astute of OP although as if anybody listens to me, or him. Again, features should be distinguished from the viewers pov, figures (in this narrow gendre) should be described as relative to the saint. In my openion. I dont get the distinction re folded arms but sounds interesting. Do tell. Ceoil (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cassandra here! Gosh, I hope proper right and left isn't about to open a big can of worms (using both hands, yet).  I'm hoping this has been addressed and pretty much settled in the MoS (haven't looked).  --71.163.153.146 (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You;d be a brave ip to take it to MoS. Those guys tear each other apart at the drop of an en-dash, something relatively substantial like this? Last man standing. Bring out your dead. Ceoil (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just looked at Manual of Style/Captions and searched for "left" and "right". It uses "right" once, in the word "copyright".  So . . .  --71.163.153.146 (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I added "See proper right for ways of unambiguously describing right and left in images." to the visual arts "tips" section. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Kneeling or standing angels?
I had a hard time telling whether the angels are standing or kneeling. (In the gallery captions, we described them as standing until I changed them a few minutes ago). What finally decided me was the length of the gold and green cape of the first angel on the left and how much of it is on the ground behind and beside him. (They look like boy angels to me). The far-right angel in greenish yellow looks like he's in the process of kneeling down (or getting up). --71.163.153.146 (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather than idly wondering what you should be doing now is researching. ps, angels are sexless. Pss, if you want any of the (journal) sources, can emial them to ya. Ceoil (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ainsworth says kneeling, and we should follow the sources. I threw that into a different sentence last night without realizing it would be controversial. Let's remove for now and when I feel like it, or anyone else, we can revisit and cite appropriately. The article is only in the process of being built - there's quite a lot to find and to read. P.ss. I've just read the Ceoil is sending on journal access. Since I've had precious little time (and difficulty accessing) to retrieve and no time to read, am more than happy to turn this over to you two. Unwatching now. Victoria (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly all kneeling, imo. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Victoria: sorry for the distraction. I wasn't trying to be controversial; I was just thinking out loud.
 * @Ceoil: how can you email me anything?
 * @To whom it may concern: it should be PPS because it abbreviates Post Post Script.  --71.163.153.146 (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
I added an infobox and Victoria removed it with the explanation: "please don't do this". If there are good reasons for not using an infobox, I'd like to hear them. My first reason for adding the infobox was because the existing caption looked cluttered and junky; the second reason was that the infobox automatically translates cms into inches. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Victoria restored the infobox while I was writing the entry above. I am oblivious to ArbCom's statements on infoboxes and anyone's history or preferences on the issue. I really am sincere when I ask "Isn't an infobox an improvement here?". I don't have my heart set on it; I would just like some good reasons for not having an infobox. If consensus is not to have one, I will abide by consensus here (even if it's contrary to ArbCom's wishes). --71.163.153.146 (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you should log in and not hide behind an IP. So far the following has happened.
 * You took a sentence directly from the source with minimal rewriting and added while the article was on the main page which was a very close paraphrase. While on the main page, after your edit, the article said: none wears the chasuble of the principal celebrant at Mass, suggesting that Christ himself is the priest. Source says:  none wears the chasuble worn by the principal celebrant, suggesting that Christ himself is here both priest and sacrifice.
 * You pointed out a mistake regarding left/right that could well have been fixed.
 * You questioned the issue of angels kneeling. They are per the source.
 * You added an infobox minutes after yet another arb clarification regarding infoboxes was initiated - which is provocative. I want to abide by the proposed six month moratorium and therefore won't discuss.


 * As I said yesterday, I'll unwatch again. This is a complicated piece of art and still lots of research and writing to be done, but it can be done another time. Victoria (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You make it clear that my contributions, even my questions, are unwelcome here, so I will leave you to it. PS:  You might brush up on WP:AGF when you get the chance!  PPS:  My conscience is clear.  --71.163.153.146 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 71.163 to be fair, you know I listen to and respect you, but adding the infobox was sly, designed to, well I dont know what. This incarnation cannot, seriously be more rewarding than your last when we did a huge amount of work together on van der Weyden. We did well with Virgin and Child Enthroned I thought. Ceoil (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what "conscience is clear" refers to. All I know is that I wrote a small article for xmas DYK and now it's blown up into something that I don't understand and prefer not to deal with. Off to brush up my AGF to make it nice and shiny for 2014! Victoria (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * AGF is not a pact to jump into stupid. Dont worry and carry on. Ceoil (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "My conscience is clear" means every edit I made to the article was done with the intention of improving the article and that questions I asked on this talk page were for clarification of something related to the article. I haven't been hiding anything or editing with any sort of agenda.  As far as I know, I haven't violated any of our policies. (Can everyone else here say the same?)  I agree that my paraphrase about "the chasuble of the principal celebrant" may be too close for comfort (it's a judgment call), but I didn't exactly edit-war to keep it in the article, did I?  So, my conscience is clear.  --71.163.153.146 (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sticks and stones
Bad news, guys. I've changed my mind—I just can't walk away from such an interesting topic. Guess you'll just have to suck it up, as they say. Sorry 'bout that, Chiefs! --71.163.153.146 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is interesting! Thanks for the edits! I expect the page to grow significantly but there are a lot of sources to be read, parsed, and processed, which will take time. Victoria (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really bad news ;) Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year to both of you! Thank you.  Let's work together.  --71.163.153.146 (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless of course a CU doesnt block you in the meantime :) Meanwhile, its all yours, fuck head. Ping me again at PR. Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead
Please mention the landscape in the lead. Also the bold colourisation. Maybe the word triptych. Ceoil (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. Will do. Victoria (tk) 14:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Cannot. find. anything. anywhere. about bold colorisation - only less than a sentence in Ainsworth. If you have a source handy, please go ahead and add (at this point you more than deserve a co-nom!). The sources I have only talk about the date, the arch, the iconography, and RvdW's influence. Will continue to search though. Thanks for the edits. Victoria (tk) 16:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * P.s - not sure about triptych in the lead, because it's not? But I think I might have had it at some point. Will trawl through history. Anyway, thinking about that point. Victoria (tk) 16:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think if its a northern 15th century religious single panel, its probably a dismantled triptych fragment. This one looks like a former central panel. Bty, am coming across Christus more and more in my van Eyck reading (hoping to finish up here with a complete set of articles on the likely works); although he was in his prime 20 odd years later, its surprisingly recently the two were disentangled. I'd love to tackle the bio more, but its goddamn thorny and the scholarship is hedged and complex; very hard to summarise concisely. Anyway, are you fining any new projects to interest you? Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've not been able to review the sources; hoping to be able to this weekend. But Upton, Hand, (and I think Ainsworth), says there's no technical evidence it was a triptych. No evidence of missing wings or hinges, etc. Mentioned in 1st para of description. If you think that needs to go in the lead too, I can add it when I get to it. Would like to help with JvE (very much!). Victoria (tk) 02:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * P.s, Yes, have noticed the new JvE's. Very nice! Victoria (tk) 02:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I'm coming across as a demanding so and so, I'm just a bit proud for you on this one; cant wait to see it on the 25th! I remember Johnbod's lovely Nativity at Night (Geertgen tot Sint Jans) a few years back, and the impact it had. I think thoughtfully placed main page articles make wiki something special, and readers become aware that its a living, breathing self aware thing, quite different to encys of the past. If that doesn't sound too gay. Ceoil (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No you're not; I've just not had time to dig through the sources, or it's not been apparent to me, or something. Anyway, I found it in Upton's 1990 book (the pages there don't always show). Found something re color too last night - will get it in today. No, not too gay; I agree. Victoria (tk) 12:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Phew! Looking again closely again a the tot Sint Jans. Note how circular both that and the Christus are, the way your eye movement works; this is very common in music too, which has the advantage of resolve . Ceoil (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was slow on the uptake there (and frankly, very busy!). The Nativity at Night (Geertgen tot Sint Jans) is quite lovely - though I don't think that's a word that does it justice. Victoria (tk) 13:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've been through all the sources and have hedged back and forth, added text in bits and pieces. But I think I've got it right now. I did miss an important footnote as it happens and have added a note. Thanks,, for pushing home the point and for making me take another look at the sources. Victoria (tk) 16:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . Just doing ma joab, marm. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Perspective
Re the inline about flatness - I might have used the wrong link there. The sources mention that Mary and Joseph's heads are placed exactly in the center of the painting, and some of the sources have lots of fancy diagrams with lines to show the perspective. I tried making one, failed, but could try again if that needs more explanation. Victoria (tk) 16:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've clarified. But we don't seem to have a link for Focal point. Only a disamb page. Anyway, yes, it was meant to be flat. You're right, of course, again. Victoria (tk) 18:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hurray! Thanks for responding so quickly. Ceoil (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Got curious. And so re-read the sources. And there it was, plain as day. Just needed a little nudge, is all. Victoria (tk) 18:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Sneak preview
Well, I tore open the corner of the wrapping paper and peeped inside and what a lovely painting! The little angels so seriously carrying out their angelic duties... But that is beside the point. The article wonderfully complements the painting. It is so calm and thoughtful, and, as with the painting, this disguises its technical mastery. To all of you thank you very much indeed and do have a Merry Christmas. Thincat (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Lovely compliment and Merry Christmas to you too! Victoria (tk) 00:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Petrus Christus Nativité Haute résolution.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Petrus Christus Nativité Haute résolution.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 25, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-12-25. 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) 05:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible Error
The article describes some of the archway scenes: "The others are of Cain and Abel: their sacrifice to God; Cain slaying Abel; God appearing to Abel; Cain expelled to the Land of Nod.[9]" Is the third not God appearing to Cain in Genesis 4:9-15? ("Am I my brother's keeper?") The figure is holding a club, and this makes the scenes chronological. I confess I do not have access to the cited source. Merry Christmas! 71.62.127.75 (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)