Talk:Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:53, 18 January 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 18, 2019.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 11, 2015	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Spain Unassessed

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts FA‑class

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Images to use later

[1]

Deleted quote

1964, Bernard Myers;

"This is probably the most well-known of the black murals from the House of the Deaf. An awestruck congregation gapes at the silhouetted goat-devil. A white shrouded figure in the centre of the picture appears to be issuing from a hole in the ground, a grave or tomb. At the extreme left of this extraordinary scene of resurrection by sorcery sits the demure figure of a young girl. She is veiled and heavily draped in black, her hands hidden in a muff. What is her significance? Is she put there to heighten the grotesqueness of the others, or is she part of the ceremony, a seemingly innocent victim like the adolescent figures that are supposed to have a strong affinity with poltergeists? Certainly she heightens the horror of the scene."^[1]

References

^ Myers, Bernard. Goya. Spring Art Books, London, 1964. 39

piece to reintegrate

Witches' Sabbath originated from earlier commissions for the Duke and Duchess of Osuna of folkish depictions of witches which were by comparison cartoonish in their humour and charm. The earlier drawings showed a conventional crescent moon; in this painting it is replaced by a lightning effect.^[1]

References

^ Cite error: The named reference Boime110 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

¿Qué?

"Some are known by a variety of titles attributed to a number of sources, including his children and his friend Bernardo de Iriarte from around 1868". The titles are given in around 1868? The titles are given by his children and friend in around 1868? The titles are given by his friend in around 1868? He made friends with Bernardo de Iriarte in around 1868? (what I'm saying is I don't understand this sentence and you should perhaps revise it, but I'm saying it with the subtlety of a van crashing through your bathroom wall while you are taking a shower; wash the soap out of your eyes, grab a towel, step over the rubble and sort it out. Mwah.) Belle (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC) [Stamps foot] Hellooo [pouts]; All your editing and nobody pays me any attention. [Flounces off in high dudgeon] Belle (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is well known that when a featured article candidacy is ongoing, nobody cares what you (the general you) say on the talk page. I agree that you have found a gaping hole and it is the very sort of issue (an issue of meaning) that us pro copy editors cannot simply re-word our way out of. But really, lodging an oppose over this would not be an overreaction at all, and well deserved for a certain personage having ignored Belle. Riggr Mortis (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, Morty. Because of your proper attention here, I'll overlook that you ignored me for several months last year; now where are your bunny and cookware?; just joking; I'll be far too busy opposing the FAC to spend time taking revenge for minor slights; maybe next week? Love forever (FOREVER) Belle (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ya. Trying to fix this, as I agree it's, well, not easy to parse, but I can't find the book quoted, so can only guess at the meaning. Lady Liz of House Kafka (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks; I'll give Ceoil the benefit of the doubt for a few days before I condemn his FAC with my powerful arguments about the utter ruin this one sentence causes. Do you think I've scared Riggr Mortis off with my declaration of undying love? (it's always the same; either they leave me or they stay with me forever chained to the wall in my basement). Belle (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Riggr don't scare easy, in my experience. He can become inexplicably aloof, though. It adds to his mystery. Building the legend, as it were. Lady Liz of House Kafka (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks, y'all talkin' about me. Actually it's the opposite, I do scare easily (if I didn't I might have gay-married Ceoil).^¿Qué? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoOUZxWlFlc (this song is about Goya when he was at home in the Quinta del Sorrow)

For those of who prefer to stay on topic, Belle's Powerful Arguments are powerful and Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belle, I think the history of todays names comes from Huges; panic re-searching starting now; you make a very good point, and thank you very much for obv close reading, least somebody is awake. Apololgies for the tardy responce, was at a glamerous photo shoot, dont you know. Ceoil (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The names were mostly given in the late 1860s to 1880s; mostly by family members. Sorry guys for the confusion, was badly stated. Tks though for the extensive copy edits; deeply appreciated and it seems needed. Ye guys have been missed. I'd cry if I wasnt so so long around here and battle hardned. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Providing you were draped across the bonnet of a car in a thigh slit silk dress how can I hold a little delay against you? No, yucky; let's just go for a tux; I've done a little sick in my mouth imagining the first one. The text is much clearer now; I won't have to crush your FAC dream after all (what shall I do for kicks now?). Belle (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine a tiny Speedo? ;) Lady Liz of House Kafka (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None more black. Sound Belle, no matter what Riggr says. Ceoil (talk 23:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I'm quite dizzy at the thought of it. And, Ceoil, just when you thought yourself rid of me for a while: "The work seems to have been seriously damaged even before its removal from the walls of Goya's home;^[1] the base of dry plaster may have contributed to its early deterioration. Frescos completed on dry (rather than wet) plaster can survive for a long period on a roughened surface." Should that be "cannot survive for a long period"? Otherwise, it confuses me. Belle (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; I'll get my coat. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cite error: The named reference JJJ37 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Should the parentheses be in italics?

Shouldn't the page title be "Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat)"? {{DISPLAYTITLE}} will fix it if that's appropriate? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 03:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism ? ? ?

I think the lede has been vandalized.

Check the last two sentences. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hard-coding images

WP:IMGSIZE requires us not to use hard-coding for images. This article can be Featured, or use hard-coded images, but not both. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a featured article as is; leave it alone...Modernist (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IMGSIZE requires us not to use hard-coding for images. This article can be Featured, or use hard-coded images, but not both. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's a link: [2] to it's becomming a featured article. LEAVE IT ALONE!...Modernist (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I know it's a Featured Article. That doesn't make it perfect or unimprovable. It doesn't give you the right to revert changes that make it noncompliant with policy. And it doesn't give you the right to call me a troll. Please have a proper think about why it's important to keep the hard coding. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Art articles have special needs, and this was promoted in 2015 with the large images. WP:IMGSIZE suggests not using fixed image sizes "[e]xcept with very good reason". The needs of art articles are generally accepted as a very good reason. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted by whom? I think it's silly as you can achieve the same image sizes in a compliant way. Why is it so important to keep non-compliant coding? --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted by editors who write art articles and review them at FAC. As for your second point, you didn't reproduce the same effect. Here is your version of the article. The main image is postage-stamp size, and the other images are very different sizes. There's no consistency or coherence. Changing image sizes or layout in an art FA is the equivalent of doing a rewrite of any other. It's best to propose it on talk given how contentious it's likely to be. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So here we are in talk discussing it. I am absolutely not seeing any cogent reason why the numbers have to be hard-coded, nor is such an exception noted in the policy. Other than WP:OWN and one editor's amour-propre, what is it we are arguing about, exactly? --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like your version to be accepted, you have to argue for it. For example, you'd have to explain what the advantage is of presenting a stamp-size image of the topic of the article, as you added here. I can't see any benefit to doing that. The article is about that image. If ever there were a "very good reason", per the policy, to present a large, fixed-sized version, this would be it, surely. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either you are deliberately deploying a red herring here, or you are ignorant of how image formatting works. Here I'll bold it this time. You can achieve the same image sizes in a compliant way. And that is what most articles do, and what this one ought to do. It really isn't complicated. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image width

Why on earth are there so many large images? I thought lead images should not exceed 300px. And what's wrong with using default thumbs and upright thumbs? This is a beautiful article but the image widths need to be addressed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose having the images made smaller. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per [3]; this featured article and it's images should be respected as they are...Modernist (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What does featured status have to do with image width? We can adjust image widths regardless of article status... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support image width reductions. I'd prefer seeing regular thumbs or upright thumbs. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose miniaturizing images in an article on a work of visual art, particular the lede image of this wide painting. I can hardly even see it in this version of yours. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Image widths can be adjusted within the infobox. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose reducing the image sizes. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quinta del Sordo 1900.jpg

Is there a reason File:Quinta del Sordo 1900.jpg is 340px wide, specifically? I understand bending some image width rules to illustrate works of art, but this image does not depict a work of art, and just looks larger than necessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is and please read the article. The artist chose to paint a mural on the wall of his house. He chose the size. There were other murals, along with this one. They were photographed (hence that particular photo), then they were removed from the wall and restored. Some of the original mural was lost, which is shown in the photograph. The photograph shows, a.) the mural as it was in its original location, and, b., the mural before the left side was cut off, which changes the composition. The reduction in size brought it down to about half an inch or less by two or so inches on my browser - less than postage stamp size. Again, as with the infobox issue, the sizing and placement of these images were rejigged many times and have existed for years, through FA and a first TFA without this interference, in other words with long-standing consensus. Should you need a declaration of support, happy to provide one. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I added an infobox, but my change was reverted. Should the article have one? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This article soes not require an infobox. This is a featured article...Modernist (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I know the article is featured. What does that have to do with having an infobox or not? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because those editors who created this article and brought it to featured status decided not to use an infobox; that's why...Modernist (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, so because a couple editors made this decision, that means that's the best possible decision? Articles can always be improved. Are there specific reasons not to have an infobox? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Here's the version that passed FAC. Here's the version with an infobox. This is a complicated piece of art with parts that are difficult to see even when the image is boosted - I should know, I've worked this page and often after reading a source have had to zoom in on the image to see what's what. The inclusion of the infobox adds little value and eliminates the value of seeing the article topic - a piece of visual art. Also oppose having the images made smaller. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you opposing based on image width? Image width and infobox inclusion are different issues, and image widths can be defined within infoboxes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support infobox inclusion. Why not? Adds a nice summary to the lead. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What summary does it add that isn't already in the caption? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template:Infobox artwork has many fields. Artist, for one... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear - consensus is against an infobox....that includes Ceoil, Iridescent, Modernist, Tim riley and all the editors who brought this article to featured status...Modernist (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Where was this decided, and why? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was decided in 2015...Modernist (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose adding an infobox for the reasons outlined above, especially given that the one that was added (permalink) served only to reduce the image size and add a caption. Art articles have special needs when it comes to image size and placement. Those decisions are best left to the editors most familiar with the work. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Another Believer, the article was started in 2010 (almost a decade ago), and has existed from that time to now without an infobox. In other words, a nine-year-long consensus exists not to add an infobox. Doing so on the day this article runs for the second time as TFA is provocative and unnecessary. Pinging @WP:TFA coordinators , so the coords are aware of this because it explains why some of us prefer not to run the TFA gauntlet. A DS alert has been posted and needs to abided by. This isn't the first time you've added an infobox to an FA visual art article, without consensus, I've been involved with, and it's really annoying. In the least consider shelving the discussion until it's off the main page so as to avoid edit warring (this goes for other stylistic changes as well) and consider not badgering discussants. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Me? I mean, maybe I've added infoboxes to articles before, but you say that as if it's a bad thing (and you make it sound like this is something I do often, which is not true). I think the article could use an infobox, and the wide images look silly, IMO, but I'm moving on to other things. Happy editing, all! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Myers, Bernard. Goya. Spring Art Books, London, 1964. 39

[Boime110-2] Cite error: The named reference Boime110 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[JJJ37-3] Cite error: The named reference JJJ37 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[1]

[1]

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 ***It was decided in 2015...[[User:Modernist|Modernist]] ([[User talk:Modernist|talk]]) 20:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 **** Where? ---[[User:Another Believer|<span style="color:navy">Another Believer</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Another Believer|<span style="color:#C60">Talk</span>]])</sub> 20:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
+*'''Oppose''' adding an infobox for the reasons outlined above, especially given that the one that was added ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witches%27_Sabbath_(The_Great_He-Goat)&oldid=879063678 permalink]) served only to reduce the image size and add a caption. Art articles have special needs when it comes to image size and placement. Those decisions are best left to the editors most familiar with the work. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 20:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 *****{{u|Another Believer}}, the article was started in 2010 (almost a decade ago), and has existed from that time to now without an infobox. In other words, a nine-year-long consensus exists not to add an infobox. Doing so on the day this article runs for the ''second time'' as TFA is provocative and unnecessary. Pinging {{@TFA}}, so the coords are aware of this because it explains why some of us prefer not to run the TFA gauntlet. A DS alert has been posted and needs to abided by. This isn't the first time you've added an infobox to an FA visual art article, without consensus, I've been involved with, and it's really annoying. In the least consider shelving the discussion until it's off the main page so as to avoid edit warring (this goes for other stylistic changes as well) and consider not badgering discussants. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoriaearle]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 20:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 ****** Me? I mean, maybe I've added infoboxes to articles before, but you say that as if it's a bad thing (and you make it sound like this is something I do often, which is not true). I think the article could use an infobox, and the wide images look silly, IMO, but I'm moving on to other things. Happy editing, all! ---[[User:Another Believer|<span style="color:navy">Another Believer</span>]] <sub>([[User talk:Another Believer|<span style="color:#C60">Talk</span>]])</sub> 20:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''' adding an infobox for the reasons outlined above, especially given that the one that was added ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witches%27_Sabbath_(The_Great_He-Goat)&oldid=879063678 permalink]) served only to reduce the image size and add a caption. Art articles have special needs when it comes to image size and placement. Those decisions are best left to the editors most familiar with the work. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 20:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)