User talk:Vincent Steenberg

Names
Per guidelines, we should follow WP:RS in this as in anything else, and not engage in WP:Original research. As I'm sure you know, there is really no concept of a correct spelling at this period, in Netherlandish names or any others. A very good source, which collates many other reference works and other sources is this (Bosch entry shown), and also the usage of major English-language museums, as the usual name in English may well be different from that in Dutch or Flemish. These are not always infallible or consistent, but are what we should normally use. What Dutch Wikipedia has is not in itself important; they are not an RS. It may be worth recording that there are variants, and perhaps giving some in a footnote, referenced to reliable sources, which do not include primary sources like a single document, or even several.

For example "Adam Pynacker" is the "preferred" spelling of Getty Union, is used by the National Gallery in Washington, the Fitzwilliam in Cambridge & the Courtauld in London  etc. It should therefore be what English WP uses, whatever the usual spelling in Dutch. The English have the right to anglicize names like other words, whether Raphael or Pynacker, who was popular in 18th century England! Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Johnbod and Vincent, just wanted to say that I have not really contributed to any discussion on this point, because I am more interested in making redirects so that artists are findable with all known spellings. Vincent, I definitely do approve of your work in categorizing the Dutch and Flemish painters on Commons. I would like to support and continue your valuable work here on the English Wikipedia. Yesterday I spoke with some people at the RKD in The Hague on the value of the various databases out there (Getty, Joconde, RKD). They claim that they are negotiating with the Getty so that the Getty will link directly to the RKD for Dutch and Flemish artist biographies. They did not approach the Getty, but the Getty has approached them on this subject. I think this means that the RKD has final say on the proper spelling of artist names. Even though the RKD is leading on the scientific side doesn't mean Wikipedia is leading. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a follower of the recognized sources, so if and when the Getty artist page changes, I guess then the english wikipedia pages will change. For the NL wikipedia the RKD is leading, so no problems there. I propose to create all artist pages that are *not yet* in the English WP using the RKD name, including cases where a full stop in the name exists. Before I do this however, I need to be sure that this is OK. I see that there are already some examples, such as Hans Gillisz. Bollongier. I don't want to break anything. Please let me know what you think! Jane (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Getty aims to use all major sources, without conceding priority to any - it about seeing what the consensus of major sources is. There is also the question of language - the English name may well be different from the Italian (very often) or Dutch. On the whole I get the imprsssion that the full stop contractions are rather more common in English than Dutch. Of course redirects are fine, but for article titles I would generally prefer Getty/ULAN to the RKD in English where they are different, also seeing what major English-language museums use. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! About the US museums vs (other country) museums, doesn't it depend on the museum? I mean if the painter's work is mostly represented in one or two institutions, wherever that institution is, then maybe the name that institution uses would be the most appropriate apelling? This gets into the touchy field of nationalistic "ownership" of painters, but I think it would be good for me to just try and get this straight in my head. Jane (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a common situation with DGA painters, is it? They are generally pretty widely spread. The London National Gallery has a full online listing of the artists of all its works, as I think do the NY Met & Washington NGA & probably Chicago etc, though they aren't picked up on google searches - you have to go there, eg london ng here. I have the catalogue for the London Wallace College if you ever need me to consult that - not sure it's all online. I'm always happy to be asked about individual cases. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! It's good to know you have that Wallace collection list. In case you ever need it, I have the comprehensive Haarlem St. Luke guild list. I have seen the London National Gallery list - is that the same as the Getty spelling usually?

Strangely enough, I have discovered that there are museums outside the Netherlands that have more paintings (or drawings!) of one painter than any museum in the Netherlands. Examples are where the museum in question has acquired the collection of some german prince or religious figure's collection, where the painter spent most of his time working for that person. I am talking about the list I am adding painters to Wikipedia from, which is the Houbraken list. The major list is mostly on Wikipedia already; I am now starting in on the secondary list (though many of these painters are more famous today than they were when Houbraken was writing). Jane (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference for Domenicus van Wijnen
Dear Vincent Steenberg, Thank you for the reference to Arnold Houbraken, which you contributed on the 8th of April 2012. I went to use that source in my local library but van Wijnen's name didn't come up in any of the indexes. Please can you indicate in which volume of the 3 and on which page you found the reference. Nicolerouillard (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, the indexes for Arnold Houbraken are incomplete. He referenced a long poem about bentvueghels at the end of volume two. Domenicus van Wijnen is referenced as Askaan, number 53, withe the comment

" (53)Dominicus van Wynen Hist. en gezelsch. Sch." Hope it helps, Jane (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)