Talk:Venus and Mars (Botticelli)

Sections
The article could usefully be divided into sections. It aids reading and allows a coherent structure to be maintained when additions are made. Tsinfandel (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Datura flower
Thank you Tsinfandel for the interesting info & article link on the supposed Datura plant in Venus and Mars. I do have to revert the edit though because it was a gross misidentification of the plant in the painting. Datura (and especially D. stramonium) are known as the thorn apples because of their very deeply thorny seed pods, as can be seen in Brugmansia & Datura by Ulrike & Hans George Preissel, pg 124; and also here is a link to many Google images of these seed pods: Datura stramonium. The leaves in this painting, too, are really nothing even similar to Datura or Brugmansia. Also, Datura stramonium are endemic to the southeast of North America, and would not have been spread to Europe until well after Christopher Columbus' voyage in 1492 (same reference), however Botticelli's Venus & Mars was painted c. 1483. Tom Hulse (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * this edit violates NOR see discussion on Datura stramonium page. Tsinfandel (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Per the continuing discussion on reliable sources for this subject at the Talk:Datura stramonium page, I would like to remove this paragraph, but I'll wait for comments. Verne Equinox, do you think the partial picture you added is still relevant without that newest paragraph on Datura stramonium still in the article? Tom Hulse (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for discussion about an infobox in this article
Should this article have an infobox?

This article was originally started with an info box but that was subsequently deleted by an editor, with the curious observation that the infobox "detracts from the painting", when the article was substantially in its present state, and which editor had contributed nothing previously to the development of the aticle and went on to make only a few techical edits of the same nature. By contrast the info box had survived a number of substantial contributing edits by another user who has a close working relationship in the Visual Arts project with the deleting editor.

The arbitration committee has recently published findings on the issue of infoboxes, of which notably was found that there ought to be a discussion for each individual article in the absence of a global policy.

I request such a discussion now.

Especially I would really like to know how an infobox "detracts" from a thumbnail of a painting. This thumbnail points to a very beautiful high resolution image of the painting held on Commons. Of course it's pleasant that you can see a reduced image of the painting in the article and it serves a purpose as reminding us what the image actually is, but most users wishing to enjoy the image will immediately click through to the high resolution image held on Commons.

The frank impression I have is that the editor who deleted this infobox sees the article in some way as beautiful in itself. Well, that's frankly extremely silly. I'm not sure there isn't something of a hoc fecimus claim involved as well. But of course we know editors give up copyright, and to claim moral rights simply isn't tenable. Ironic to observe that the image itself is (claimed) to be in the public domain. In this case we aren't given a source but it's almost certainly the National Gallery (London). Unlike its Washington counterpart this gallery doesn't put their digital reporoductions in the public domain, you have to poy good money for them. I have no idea how much it charges for its high resolution images, I should think a lot. On the most optimistic interpretation of the circumstance, what we have here is a philanthropist who has acquired the image and "gifted" it to Wikipedia, who may reproduce it with impunity essentially because in US copyright law "mere labour" can't be copyrighted. Quite a lot of other people might well, on the contrary, simply think the image stolen.

I should think the time for the National Gallery to challenge that are long past. But if it were still possible to mount a credible challenge, then Wikipedia's case I should imagine would be much strengthened were these thumbnail images provided soley in the context of an infobox in an encyclopaedic article and not as a reproduction adorning a web page as our deleting editor plainly thinks it should be.

I really would like to see a convincing argument for not having an infobox in this article. No doubt Wikipedia will one day develop metadata for art objects. In the meantime infoboxes provide a useful half-way house. In particular there are fields for catalogue numbers and gallery URLs that would be awkward to incorporate otherwise. 185.29.167.60 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for reasons already stated several times on several artices with several incarnations of this editor. I note the implied treath and bullying, and frankly partonising nature of the proposal. Meta data bla bla - nice try at trying to deflect at Jack, Rinpoche. Ceoil (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you give me a pointer to where I can find your views, please? I mean I simply don't know your views. I did note that you were editing at this article while it did have an infobox. I am really trying to understand why an infobox detracts from the painting. 185.29.167.60 (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure! Ceoil (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't make your views known there. You did make your views known here. You said you preferred not to use infoboxes in visual arts projects because artists were not a species and couldn't be defined by them and because it was preferable for the lead in an article to have two images. You also said you couldn't see why wikiprojects shouldn't have authority over articles under their own remit: I take that to mean each article should be discussed on its own merits, as indeed I think there ought to have been here.


 * Regarding your two objections, you had a fortnight before deleted the infobox at Caspar David Friedrich here. The information deleted was his nationality (German), his field (painting) and his movement (German Romantic). Of course we artists everywhere can only be flattered at the reverence we are accorded by the Visual Arts project, that we are indeed supraspecies, Übermenschen of high culture above mere societal norms, but I can't see that nationalities, fields and movement are something that cannot be defined without degrading our utter wonderfulness. Nor can I see why, if there are to be two images in a lead, why one of them shouldn't be in an infobox.


 * I mean I think there are some valid objections to the over enthusiastic use of infoboxes. Johnbod makes a very good point about those lists of represenative works (who decides?) while I'm equully suspicious of 'influences'.


 * But what is at stake here is an aesthetic issue. Precsiely why does an infobox detract from a painting? Your colleague Modernist assented to your removing the Friedrich infobox only reluctantly. Yet within 11 minutes of editor X posting their disappoval of the infoxbox at Roger's Portrait of a Lady he removed it. You yourself were editing here comfortably when the article had an infobox. I can't see either of you in the circumstances are really commited to X's point of view in the circumstances.. 185.29.167.60 (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Apart from anything else, with a picture of this format either the image would be far too small or the box ridiculously wide. It might be ok below the image, but not many of the usual factoids are actually certain. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Its moot now anyway as Rinpoche ‎ has retired, again. Victoria was only ever the intended target here, for shame. Ceoil (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What? This is silly. Have an infobox separate from the image so as to not distort it. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I can't really see the point in arguing over this.  Without any compelling arguments either way, I guess I favor the (new) status quo, which is no infobox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Venus and Mars
Well if that what its called now, wouldn't be unopposed to a page move back. I made the last move based on non-NG and perhaps dated sources. Fantastic work here recently. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I don't have strong views. The NG was evidently calling it "V&M" before Lightbown et al were using "M&V" (which Reitlinger does also in 1961) so I think both could be called current & ok. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If I was to call it, I'd go for the NG V&M; Venus is the more active participant - Mars is sleeping, from google it seems it was long know as V&M except for a bit; plus V first sounds better (ILIKEIT). If thats ok, we'll need a helpful admin. Ceoil (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure - ladies first! Go for it. At one point it was known as "Mars Sleeping", perhaps from the von Bode idea that Venus was a vision. That may be how it started. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, all by myself. Either there was a further dab after my last page move, or I now somehow have admin powers. Ceoil (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Venus and Mars National Gallery.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Venus and Mars National Gallery.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 1, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-10-01. 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) 00:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)