Talk:Portrait of a Lady (van der Weyden)

Lead Image
Hi Calliopejen1, sorry to have reverted you, but the 2nd image used as the main pic looks very flat and red washed on my screen. I suppose the one I have is low enough res, I might try and look around for a better alt to upload. Thanks for the other edits though. Ceoil sláinte 20:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

To do

 * identity mentioned in lead, not in main text removed - dead end
 * ref Cristus capt
 * turn prov to narrative
 * exhib hist
 * break desc into head and dress?
 * London portrait more likely by workshop; Kemperdixk, 25
 * sub-articles for gallery pics
 * bridge gap between statements re break with religious idealisation & flattery (contemporary beauty).
 * Attribution
 * gallery premab Ceoil (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

His name


In my opinion we should call Rogier van der Weyden - van der Weyden rather that Rogier...Modernist (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I had been working off web sources mainly until this morning; went through some bookstores in town and found in our new 2nd hand art shop - he is usually indexed under W, though in text he is refered to as Rogier. I dont want to switch or change yet as I dont fully, actually begin understand Dutch naming convention. Ceoil (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I switched the name in the captions and I left the name in the text as is (I think)...Modernist (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call. Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Portrait of a Lady 1460.jpg
"File:Portrait of a Lady 1460.jpg" says under it that: "This similar painting with much less detail is from his workshop and may date from as late as 1466." From where do we derive that it has "much less detail?" Is that sourced? If it is not sourced I don't think it should be said. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you might be right siven the current sources used. I have been trying to find text that compares the two works, but no luck yet. I've asked User:83d40m to return to the article re this edit. Hopefully he has something. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not just say something like "This portrait is from his workshop (if that is known) and may date…" Bus stop (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, anything uncovered later can be reinserted or included in the body text. Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil and 83d40m discussion

 * re Rogier van der Weyden and portrait of a woman c. 1460

Hi 83d40m, regarding this edit [1], I would appreciate very much if you did re-engage; if there are errors in the page I would very much like to know. Any partial revert of your earlier edits,[2] [3], I suppose was carelessness and not intentional. I was impressed at the time, and likely going back over the page I reinstated earlier statements which might have had weak founding. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I hope to get to it for a once-over this week -- sorry about the frustration expressed and thanks for following up. I will post this to the article talk page as well for any further discussion. 83d40m (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

regarding the caption -- the similar portrait was compared to this painting when they were displayed together once and I think that is cited in the text 83d40m (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

here is the text in the article that discusses the differences between the two -- The high quality of the painting was shown clearly when it was hanging in London alongside the very similar National Gallery's workshop painting for a few weeks in the 2000s, as the London information display caption freely admitted. The London subject has softer, more rounded features and is much younger and less individually characterised than the c 1460 model. The technique also is less subtle and fine in the London work.[29] 83d40m (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just only saw that ref. I look forward to your help and input when you have time. I found also that the National Gallery London publish a 1997 study of his painting technique, use of egg-temper for underpinnings which were then work over with oil. The paper seems to discuss both works. Campbell, Foister, Roy. "Early Nothern European Painting". National Gallery Bulletin, vol 18. Ceoil (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Memling
Memling's Portrait of an Old Woman from c. 1470 would be a good addition for the gallery. The composition is very similar and the background is also blue-green and lacks any detail unlike most of his portraits. I don't see it on commons though, so you'd have to upload it. Yomangani talk 10:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, wouldn't it be better to use a Petrus Christus with a date before this painting when the caption is discussing Christus' influence on van der Weyden? File:Petrus_Christus_004_detail.jpg has many compositional symmetries even if the focus is not as tight. Yomangani talk 12:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I made the switch, although the source specifically mentioned the later Christus portrait in terms of sculpted etc. Other sources say that Rogier may have also been a sculptor, so I wanted the emphasis. Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The later one would sit happily in the gallery. If the 1460 date is correct it's more likely that the Christus was influenced by this one than the other way round. Yomangani talk 02:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Diamond?
What's this "diamond-shaped background" and its "sharply pointed angles" all about? Am I missing something? (I don't think I've ever seen this painting in real life, but I don't see any of the angles in the image here). Yomangani talk 11:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont see it either. Not there anymore. Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Kemperdinck says she "is enclosed in a diamond-shaped structure of diagonals ...." These are made by the linen, including its folds. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a page no? I cant find it. Ceoil (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * P. 100, of his Taschen book. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't have it, I only have the Prestel edition of the Basel Museum book. Would you mind doing the honours, please. Ceoil (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
Well done...Modernist (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mondernist. Ceoil (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox
One reason I supported this article at FAC was its lovely uncluttered look. Why has an infobox been added? The infobox doesn't appear to add new information that wasn't in the image caption, but it does detract from the look of the article. Unless someone objects, I'll remove it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree - the infobox is optional, I removed it...Modernist (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Departure from Standard English
"Netherlandish"???? Surely that should be Dutch! The Netherlands might be the country, but the painting and the artist are Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read Netherlands_(terminology). (Als Engels je moedertaal niet is kan je "taalfouten" maar beter gewoon negeren...) RubySS (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Friedrich II dates
Our article Friedrich II, Duke of Anhalt says he died in 1918, so he couldn't have sold a picture in 1926. Most likely it was Joachim Ernst, Duke of Anhalt who sold it in 1926, but that's just me guessing. jnestorius(talk) 19:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ear
"The woman's left ear is set, according to art historian Norbert Schneider, unnaturally high and far back". I have this book, no such info at all. Only about veil. --Shakko (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I remember the section I pulled this from, will take a look back. Thanks for spotting. Ceoil (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox: WP:BOLD restore and request for views and consensus
I see that Wikipedia's arbitration committee has just ruled on infoboxes. The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article, and the decision whether to use one in an article should be reached by consensus.

I can't say that any consensus was reached here. An editor added an infobox here. It was reverted three minutes later by another editor with a curt "no" and a commented command in the markup not to insert them added for good measure. The infobox was subsequently restored by the original uploader. Some hours later another editor posted his objection on aesthetic grounds. This was agreed by a fellow editor 11 minutes later who then removed the infobox.

All this took place in the matter of a few hours and a cursory inspection of talk pages show that the three editors involved in deleting the infobox work closely together in the Visual Arts project.

I don't call that consensus building :(

I'm going to make a WP:BOLD edit restoring the infobox and on this occasion request that a proper exchange of views is held with a genuine attempt to reach consensus.

For my own part I would say that the aesthetic scruples expressed by Truthkeep88 are entirely spurious and overridden by functional concerns i.e the proper documentation and collocation of information with a view to Wikipedia's future development (for example as a neural network). Amanda Jane Mason (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The arbcom case has merely reaffirmed WP's long-standing policy (at WP:INFOBOX) plus topic-banning some people for persistently readding infoboxes where they are known to be contentious, and arguing in an overly vociferous way. The arguments by the pro-infobox party that editors of a page, or in a Wikiproject, objecting to an infobox were displaying ownership were not accepted and do not appear in the decision. To cite this decision in restoring an infobox that 3:1 editors had objected to is therefore odd. I also prefer the article without an infobox, which as usual means the main image has to be too small. To suggest that the semantic web needs Wikipedia to provide machine-readable data on a well-known painting in the NGA is surely laughable. The wider issues around infoboxes are gone into at vast length in the arbcom case, & since you have found your way there already I suggest you read that.  Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I really would be grateful if you would adopt a less mansplaining tone towards me. You reversed every trace of my first siginificant edit in Wikipedia and I really think you ought to throw me a bone for that. Regarding the semantic web, I've never heard of it (though I do happen to be a considerable expert on the design of binary search trees invented by Tim's  dad - curiously I made an edit this morning related to those) and thus can have no idea whether my ideas are risible or not. I was just thinking of quantum computers and stuff, silly old me! However the arbcom decision did reference  metadata, which is basically what I was on about.


 * I make it 1 - 1 so far. What's your beef about image size? It's scarecely an issue, because surely most readers know to click on the image to get a full size image. That's why I say Truthkeeper's objections objections above are essentially spurious. Amanda Jane Mason (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Driveby: The description of another editor's rationale as 'spurious', and 'overridden by functional concerns i.e the proper documentation and collocation of information with a view to Wikipedia's future development' goes beyond WP:BOLD; it reverts an earlier consensus out of hand, and dismisses the sentiments filed above ('I make it 1- 1'). It also implies that to disagree is to represent an obstacle to the encyclopedia's progress. Whether or not one takes the rapid 2010 discussion as definitive, the working relationship of the visual arts constituency is not necessarily a negative thing--one or two decent articles have been fashioned by said contingent--and has often functioned as a constructive and cohesive element. The backdrop for this article is the broader infobox issue which has been argued in relation to visual arts features for years, and unilateral changes prior to fuller engagement probably won't gain traction. I'd suggest that the functional concerns are reason enough not to include an infobox; they don't, one hopes, always trump 'spurious'; aesthetic concerns. 5-2 against, if adding the previous discussion. JNW (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been looking at TruthKeeper88's position on infoboxes in more detail. I see she now contributes as Victoriaearle. I have to say I couldn't immediately fathom what her issues are but I gather she has actually withdrawn from the project for a while to present 'evidence' about the question of infobxes. Is that so, and in that case is it not rather disingenuous for Johnbod to dismiss the Arbcom decision as a mere reaffirmation of existing policy? It would be helpful if she could make her view known here. I do want to try and understand what the aesthetic objection is here.


 * JNW: I take exception to 'driveby' and ask you to strike it. No 'consensus' was reached here. There was no proper discussion, the series of 2010 reverts over a few hours, essentially a matter of a few minutes in two episodes, described by you as a 'rapid discussion' was certainly rapid but not a discussion, and that is precisely the locus that brought the issue to Arbcom. Amanda Jane Mason (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It accurately characterizes my involvement at this discussion: some input and gone. Best wishes in your editing, JNW (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. I beg your pardon. I thought you were suggesting I was indulging a driveby. Good wishes reciprocated. I see you've been a long-standing contributor. Amanda Jane Mason (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The 2010 discussion was perfectly valid, given the issues were well known to all concerned, and will be well known to you if you do as I suggested before and read the arbcom case. Insofar as the case was not "a mere reaffirmation of existing policy" it strengthened the position of those preferring not to have infoboxes in some articles, as the pro-infoboxers loudly complained (proposed decision talk page). On a wider note, I'd suggest that adding infoboxes to FAs where they have already been rejected is not the best way to start a quarrel-free editing career; there are plenty of other areas to build up experience in. Best of luck. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've got slightly lost here since stuff was reverted between edits. I can only repeat I want to see the issue discussed. It wasn't before. I doubt Attilos who originally supplied the infobox would agree it was discussed. It's right that I can't contact him to ask his views? Amanda Jane Mason (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Modernist:Regarding your reverted edit it would have helped if it hadn't been quite so enigmatic. Was there a debate about van Gogh infoboxes as well? Can you give me a pointer? Indeed you were the user who reverted Attilios. Was he involved there? And why the revert? Amanda Jane Mason (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you asked - Hmmm, reminds me of??? who was that sockpuppet I'm thinking of - you know the Van Gogh expert...oh yeah...Rinpoche...Modernist (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jack Merridew, in your guise as Amanda Jane Madison (cute ref to Amandajm, by the way). That's all I wanted to say. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there Kafka Liz. I don't believe we've met, I'm not Jack, don't know Amandajm and I have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry :) Amanda Jane Mason (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Beastly bad luck, Mandy. Nice heist. It did hurt where it matters and it is all archived. 103.17.199.106 (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed the box, though keeping the better image etc, as consensus here is now much clearer. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Rogier van der Weyden - Portrait of a Lady - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Rogier van der Weyden - Portrait of a Lady - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 22, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-05-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)