Talk:Saint Jerome Writing

Disambiguation
In accordance with Disambiguation, I've moved this page back from Saint Jerome Writing (Caravaggio, Rome) to Saint Jerome Writing until there are more than two topics or an actual disambiguation page is needed (and created). Following today's move, we were left with the very strange situation of this page being a redirect to Saint Jerome Writing (Caravaggio, Rome), Saint Jerome Writing (Caravaggio, Vienna) being a redirect to Saint Jerome Writing (Caravaggio, Rome) and  Saint Jerome Writing (Caravaggio, Rome) having a hatnote to Saint Jerome Writing (Valletta). I don't disagree that this is the primary definition - at least, if Google images is any indication. But considering that the former generic name was a redirect to this article, none of the incoming links were updated, and the extra step was necessary to reach the other anyway, it hardly seems necessary to move this unless an actual disambiguation page is to be created. :) (If nothing else, consistency seems key - if for some reason we need this to point to a separate page where people can take a hatnote to a third, that second page should not be disambiguated differently - why should this be " Saint Jerome Writing (Caravaggio, Rome)" when the other is "Saint Jerome Writing (Valletta)"?) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ??? Can't understand what you are saying here. There are two Caravaggio paintings for which we use the same title - of course there are "two topics". In this situation it is pointless to look for a "primary" subject. You are misreading Disambiguation, which says at the start: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead". That is the situation here. Further work may be needed but the situatuion was already wrong & my edits a step in the right direction - you have just put things back. Since they are both rather short the best solution might be to merge them. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'll try to be more clear. :) You didn't create a disambiguation page. You created a redirect from the main and longstanding page here to a new title, which had (as it always has) a WP:Hatnote directing people to the secondary title. This is unnecessary, if it is the primary title and incorrect if it isn't. You also used a different disambiguation scheme than would be consistent with Saint Jerome Writing (Valletta), and you created a redirect from Saint Jerome Writing (Caravaggio, Vienna) to Saint Jerome Writing (Caravaggio, Rome), which is surely not a good idea, since those looking specifically for the former and certainly not going to expect to land on the latter. As DISAMBIG makes pretty clear, it is perfectly acceptable to have one at the primary title when that one is the primary expected result - it seems to me that here this is the case, as the link above would suggest. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * AS I say above, it is inappropriate to look for a primary meaning here - and ridiculous in my view to use a google images search to try to show this. The Rome painting obviously gets seen by more tourists than the out of the way one in Valetta, and no doubt has better links to picture libraries, but what does that matter? A google books search suggests that not even Caravaggio's paintings together are primary, let alone one of them. The Valetta picture should be properly disambiguated following WP:VAMOS and Disambiguation. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If AS you say above, neither of them has a primary meaning, why would you leave the neutral title as a redirect to one and use a hatnote to the other? Disambiguation is pretty clear that hatnotes are for primaries. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Calm down, that was just a typo. It was a step in the right direction, not the wrong one. I'd better move that Valetta page. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to know. When anybody starts one response with "???" and the next with a word all in caps, I tend to think there must be some excitement. If neither is the primary, then a proper disambiguation might be the right solution, but why would you use Saint Jerome Writing (Caravaggio, Valletta) as a better title than Saint Jerome Writing (Valletta)? The original title seems more WP:PRECISE. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, see WP:VAMOS. I think place without artist is very rarely suitable for paintings. How on earth is less information more precise? Online, people aren't mainly interested in where paintings are, but who they are by. Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:PRECISE doesn't refer to adding in extra details - quite the contrary. :) It says, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." What is the benefit to having "Saint Jerome Writing (Valetta)" a redirect to "Saint Jerome Writing (Caravaggio, Valletta)"? Are readers more likely to search for it under the latter name? Is it in the way of "Saint Jerome Writing (Smith)"? Have other artists than Caravaggio got paintings called "Saint Jerome Writing"? If so, the name would make more sense - although even more if we hosted those articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Have other artists than Caravaggio got paintings called "Saint Jerome Writing"? Yes - all religious titles (which are of course much later creations) are likely to have dozens/hundreds/thousands of other works with the same name, especially for such a standard subject - most often called Saint Jerome in His Study, but which could be called anything on the whim of a curator or art historian. See the google search which mentions others. "Saint Jerome Writing (Valetta)" is uninformative unless you already know there is a Caravaggio of the subject there - indeed it might not be a painting at all, but once you add Caravaggio in most people will know that it is.  Paintings should be disambiguated first by artist, and then also by location if there are still two or more it might refer to. From WP:VAMOS, which is more of less the usual practice here: "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. If the artist painted several works with the same, or very similar, titles, add the location of the work if it is in a public collection. For example, Annunciation (van Eyck, Washington), as van Eyck painted several Annunciations."Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are others of the same title by different artists (and Google certainly says so), then disambiguation makes more sense to me. I'm still not 100% sure of the value of moving this page and leaving a redirect to one of the articles rather than keeping it as it has been for years until a proper disambiguation page is needed - that's out of step with WP:HATNOTE usage - but now that the two articles would use the same title scheme and we no longer have the oddity of "Saint Jerome Writing (Caravaggio, Valletta)" as a redirect to this article, I won't oppose the move. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)