This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsTemplate:WikiProject ArtsWikiProject Arts articles
This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
A fact from Nativity (Christus) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 December 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
The captions in the Gallery use "left" and "right" from the viewpoint of someone in the painting looking out at the viewer. I was expecting it would be like we describe people or items in a photograph, i.e. "left" is the viewer's or photographer's left. Any comments? --71.163.153.146 (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ceoil. I'd need some convincing (like seeing several examples) to leave it the way it is. Maybe Victoria can tell us why she used that convention in the captions? --71.163.153.146 (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several? Haha. Anyway, here is an example where it really matters and where I, frankly struggled Last Judgment (van der Weyden). Not only because the damned and saved are traditionally shown on a particular sides of Jesus, but also you have the gates of heaven / hell at the outmost lower frames. I found the sources contradictory in using figures/viewers POV; its all a biteen messy, and as I say, no right or wrong. Ceoil (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to experiment with Proper right and left, but ended up making a mistake on the archways because I don't know my lefts from rights (truly!). So no convention there, simply a mistake. Thanks 71 for mentioning and Ceoil for fixing; I'll revisit the gallery when I build the page up more. Victoria (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've only had proper right and left for 2 weeks or so & it was astonishingly hard to find an online or printed definition, though there are zillions of uses. None of the big museum glossaries bother with them. I'm not sure I approve of using them for architecture etc, just figures. And I'm still not sure what to do about figures with crossed arms etc. Any ideas? But we should make more use of them now we can link them. Johnbod (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article. The distinction is close to my heart, and am delighted to see it discussed, typically astute of OP although as if anybody listens to me, or him. Again, features should be distinguished from the viewers pov, figures (in this narrow gendre) should be described as relative to the saint. In my openion. I dont get the distinction re folded arms but sounds interesting. Do tell. Ceoil (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cassandra here! Gosh, I hope proper right and left isn't about to open a big can of worms (using both hands, yet). I'm hoping this has been addressed and pretty much settled in the MoS (haven't looked). --71.163.153.146 (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You;d be a brave ip to take it to MoS. Those guys tear each other apart at the drop of an en-dash, something relatively substantial like this? Last man standing. Bring out your dead. Ceoil (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a hard time telling whether the angels are standing or kneeling. (In the gallery captions, we described them as standing until I changed them a few minutes ago). What finally decided me was the length of the gold and green cape of the first angel on the left and how much of it is on the ground behind and beside him. (They look like boy angels to me). The far-right angel in greenish yellow looks like he's in the process of kneeling down (or getting up). --71.163.153.146 (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than idly wondering what you should be doing now is researching. ps, angels are sexless. Pss, if you want any of the (journal) sources, can emial them to ya. Ceoil (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ainsworth says kneeling, and we should follow the sources. I threw that into a different sentence last night without realizing it would be controversial. Let's remove for now and when I feel like it, or anyone else, we can revisit and cite appropriately. The article is only in the process of being built - there's quite a lot to find and to read. P.ss. I've just read the Ceoil is sending on journal access. Since I've had precious little time (and difficulty accessing) to retrieve and no time to read, am more than happy to turn this over to you two. Unwatching now. Victoria (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added an infobox and Victoria removed it with the explanation: "please don't do this". If there are good reasons for not using an infobox, I'd like to hear them. My first reason for adding the infobox was because the existing caption looked cluttered and junky; the second reason was that the infobox automatically translates cms into inches. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Victoria restored the infobox while I was writing the entry above. I am oblivious to ArbCom's statements on infoboxes and anyone's history or preferences on the issue. I really am sincere when I ask "Isn't an infobox an improvement here?". I don't have my heart set on it; I would just like some good reasons for not having an infobox. If consensus is not to have one, I will abide by consensus here (even if it's contrary to ArbCom's wishes). --71.163.153.146 (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should log in and not hide behind an IP. So far the following has happened.
You took a sentence directly from the source with minimal rewriting and added while the article was on the main page [1] which was a very close paraphrase. While on the main page, after your edit, the article said: none wears the chasuble of the principal celebrant at Mass, suggesting that Christ himself is the priest. Source says: none wears the chasuble worn by the principal celebrant, suggesting that Christ himself is here both priest and sacrifice.
You pointed out a mistake regarding left/right that could well have been fixed.
You questioned the issue of angels kneeling. They are per the source.
You added an infobox minutes after yet another arb clarification regarding infoboxes was initiated - which is provocative. I want to abide by the proposed six month moratorium and therefore won't discuss.
As I said yesterday, I'll unwatch again. This is a complicated piece of art and still lots of research and writing to be done, but it can be done another time. Victoria (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make it clear that my contributions, even my questions, are unwelcome here, so I will leave you to it. PS: You might brush up on WP:AGF when you get the chance! PPS: My conscience is clear. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
71.163 to be fair, you know I listen to and respect you, but adding the infobox was sly, designed to, well I dont know what. This incarnation cannot, seriously be more rewarding than your last when we did a huge amount of work together on van der Weyden. We did well with Virgin and Child Enthroned I thought. Ceoil (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what "conscience is clear" refers to. All I know is that I wrote a small article for xmas DYK and now it's blown up into something that I don't understand and prefer not to deal with. Off to brush up my AGF to make it nice and shiny for 2014! Victoria (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"My conscience is clear" means every edit I made to the article was done with the intention of improving the article and that questions I asked on this talk page were for clarification of something related to the article. I haven't been hiding anything or editing with any sort of agenda. As far as I know, I haven't violated any of our policies. (Can everyone else here say the same?) I agree that my paraphrase about "the chasuble of the principal celebrant" may be too close for comfort (it's a judgment call), but I didn't exactly edit-war to keep it in the article, did I? So, my conscience is clear. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sticks and stones
Bad news, guys. I've changed my mind—I just can't walk away from such an interesting topic. Guess you'll just have to suck it up, as they say. Sorry 'bout that, Chiefs! --71.163.153.146 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is interesting! Thanks for the edits! I expect the page to grow significantly but there are a lot of sources to be read, parsed, and processed, which will take time. Victoria (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
