Jump to content

Talk:Busts of Cristiano Ronaldo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

[edit]
Done

---Another Believer (Talk) 16:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---Another Believer (Talk) 01:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Art criticism sources

[edit]

All the sources seem to be from sports journalists. Please look out for any comments from established art critics who would be better qualified to comment on the merits of the sculpture. I haven't found any yet. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbcatcher: I'm on the hunt for any and all critical reception, thanks! I'm also looking for specific details about the work of art, such as dimensions, weight, etc. I've written several Good articles about public art and sculpture, so I feel comfortable digging in the trenches for these sorts of details. Do share if you come across anything interesting or helpful! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural reminder

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See also: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 22

The request to move this draft into the main space can be made at Wikipedia:Deletion review. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57 and Anthony Appleyard: I don't understand what needs to happen for this article to be moved into the main space. This is ridiculous... ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was clear. Kante4 (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The community gets it wrong now and then. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accept it and move on. Kante4 (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because that's always the solution... ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photo

[edit]

I hope that we can eventually get a photo of the sculpture. It is at a major airport and photos contributed by the photographer would probably be allowed under Freedom of panorama in Portugal. Let's hope that a Wikipedian with a camera goes there soon! I have added request to c:Commons:Picture requests/Requests/Europe#Portugal, but I don't know how effective that is. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbcatcher: Thank you! There is an 'image needed' tag on this talk page, too. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Number 57: Just in case you're curious about the merge, HJ Mitchell acted on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Public_Art#Bust_of_Cristiano_Ronaldo and User_talk:KJP1#Bust. While I'm against this article being redirected, I'm glad to have the histories merged. ---Another Believer (Talk) 06:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the history merge, but the article itself being restored as a separate article is not acceptable given previous discussions. Number 57 06:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: Yes, I understand. Just wanted to provide an explanation. See also: Talk:Cristiano_Ronaldo_International_Airport#Update_2. ---Another Believer (Talk) 06:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I'm trying to get more participation in the discussion re: whether or not the draft article should be moved into the main space, and I don't want to be accused of shopping around for folks who might agree with me. Are you aware of any venues for asking editors to revisit notability discussions, or would could we plan for you to nominate the article for deletion again if I can get it moved into the main space. I'd like the community to assess notability beyond the few individuals who participated in the last AfD, but I want to follow procedure here. I realize you might be less interested in helping here, since you're against moving the draft into main space, but I really think a new AfD discussion is appropriate given the article has expanded to include a second sculpture with additional press coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was already moved back into the mainspace and converted to redirect. We've had a recent discussion on restoring the article, and there was clearly no consensus to do so. I'd recommend taking the hint that other editors do not feel this is notable and concentrating on doing something productive rather than forum shopping until you get the answer you want. Number 57 09:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I figured you'd respond in this way. Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know we disagree on this, but I've restored the article. If you still believe the topic is not notable, please nominate for deletion instead of merging. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the redirect based on the multiple discussions we've had, none of which have resulted in a consensus to keep the article. If you reinstate the article again, this will go to ANI. Number 57 15:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what else to do, so I went to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 May 9. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, this discussion was closed. @RoySmith: Can you suggest how I go about getting community feedback without being accused of forum shopping? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We already had community feedback in this discussion. Are you just going to keep going until you get a discussion that goes your way? Number 57 15:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not, but I don't think editors have sufficiently considered the most recent version of the article. I've posted a note on your talk page and would really appreciate your help in starting a fresh discussion re: the fully expanded version of the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I take responsibility for this topic being discussed in too many spaces. Are you ok with me (or you, or someone else) collapsing and/or archiving this discussion? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, give it a rest and come back in a few months to see if consensus has changed. Number 57 16:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm not trying to hide anything, I'm just trying to centralize discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Location of second bust

[edit]

Anyone know where the second bust is located? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 sourcing

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 15:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Should the article "Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo" exist in main space?

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
  • No Consensus as to a restore, esp. in light of a recently-concluded debate and this RFC.I will also note that that Verbcatcher's compromise is decent enough.
  • I've been reading through the entire saga of the disputes, (centered on the stand-alone notability of the article) and I will request you take a voluntary break from anything concerned with this article.
    • If this was not for the mess you've created at multiple venues (with valid concerns of re-litigation), I would have let the new version of the article stand with the launching of a mandatory AfD.
  • Signed by ∯WBGconverse at 16:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Should this version of the "Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo" exist in the main space?

Back in April 2017, the Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo article was redirected to the Cristiano Ronaldo International Airport article, per this AfD discussion. In March 2018, I revisited Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo (now merged as the result of this discussion and this discussion), after a second bust depicting Ronaldo was created by the same artist. Again, the project received significant secondary coverage in reliable sources.

I started this discussion on the airport article's talk page, and invited editors who participated in previous discussions to weigh in, including editors who commented in the AfD discussion. I made the mistake of also discussing the same topic in other locations, including Talk:Bust_of_Cristiano_Ronaldo#Merge and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 May 9, and at several WikiProjects in an attempt to get more editors to weigh on in the discussion. I take responsibility for starting discussions in too many spaces, but I was just trying to get wider community input.

My attempt to ask for help here was not particularly helpful, and when I tried to make updates to the redirected article (with "under construction" template displayed), Number 57 reverted. I've since been accused of trying to hide discussions and threatened with WP:ANI. I was just trying to make additional expansions and collapse/archive some of the side discussions and centralize comments here. I'm not looking to hide dissenting opinions.

Now, I've noticed editors with an interest in sports seem not to like this article, while editors with an interest in public art/sculpture do. I know some editors will be upset that I've opened this request for comment, and I expect we will see similar voting based on sports vs. work of art. This is why I feel a new discussion needs to be had by a wider net of Wikipedia editors, and on this article talk page, not the airport article's talk page. Many editors have contributed to this discussion, but few have commented on the most recent version of the article, which has recently-merged content from the draft space, and can be seen here.

I am looking for editors to re-assess the notability of this topic. The article now has information about two original works of art, both of which have received significant press coverage. I've used the "Media, the arts, and architecture" and "Society, sports, and culture" parameters for this RfC.

Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • No It's not noteworthy enough for a standalone article. Your persistence in starting discussion after discussion (the most recent one being only just over a month old), seemingly until you get your way, is shameful behaviour and needs to be looked at by other admins. Number 57 19:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not obvious, my vote is Yes, the article should exist per GNG. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the bust is notable and given the current condition of the article it should easily pass GNG. The problem is these RfCs tend to go on forever. Valoem talk contrib 13:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No- there's been enough discussion about this already. I recognize this tactic: keep demanding this be re-opened again and again and again and again and again and again, until you finally get the result you want-- which is then locked in permanently. Reyk YO! 08:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Reyk: That's not quite right. I've revisited this discussion because there's now a second sculpture and wave of press, not because I didn't get my way a year ago. Yes, I made the mistake of starting a few discussions in different spaces, but I was acting in good faith to try to get editors to weigh in. But again, I'd like to focus specifically on subject notability here, not my mishandling of how to revisit this discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

[edit]

The proper channel is AfD which this would survive. Valoem talk contrib 18:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been through an AfD and the decision was to merge. Number 57 18:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Valoem: I agree, and I've offered User:Number 57 the opportunity to renominate the article at AfD, but this offer has been declined. You're welcome to contribute to the above discussion, if you're interested. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another AfD wasn't required as we had a discussion about this just over a month ago and there was no consensus to restore the article. Number 57 19:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm no longer the only editor preferring to restore the article. I still think AfD is the best way to get the community to re-evaluate notability, but I can't force anyone to restore and nominate, so hoping others will participate in the above discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The subject has been massive expanded it is not the same thing another AfD is warranted and I am sure it will survive. Valoem talk contrib 19:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The level of media coverage makes this sculpture notable, so we should have this article. The place to discuss this appears to be Wikipedia:Deletion review. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Verbcatcher: I tried this already... ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem and Verbcatcher: Well, the RfC just ended. Any other ideas? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: I suggest you convert most of the draft article into a section in Emanuel Santos, and change Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo to redirect to this section. The section would comprise most of the article, but I think this is reasonable as this bust is the main reason for Santos's notability. This is not ideal, but it makes the content available to readers and perfection is not required. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Verbcatcher:  Done Diff. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source

[edit]

"And nearly, but not quite, as the awful bust of Cristiano Ronaldo at Madeira Airport, which looked more like The Head from Art Attack than the footballer. A second attempt by sculptor Emanuel Santos was little better – it was bland, but at least it resembled a human, just not Ronaldo."

@Verbcatcher: In case you're still following along! ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: yes, I'm still watching this. This source doesn't say enough to be worth adding to this article, but it might be ammunition for a notability challenge. In my view, Santos's first bust of Ronaldo is not great art, but it is of more interest than the bland mawkishness of some public sculpture. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Verbcatcher, I've gone ahead and added here for now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More post-2020 coverage:

---Another Believer (Talk) 03:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goal (website) looks like a reliable source, but I am dubious of Republic TV. The Herald (Glasgow) is reliable. You could add a section ('Aftermath'?) showing that the sculpture has remained in the public consciousness for some years. You might add Ron McKay's comments in the Herald's to Statue of Diana, Princess of Wales, but McKay doesn't actually compare that sculpture to Santos's. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verbcatcher, The Herald article says, "It is almost as bad – all right, not nearly as bad – as the gold statue Mohamed al-Fayed installed in Harrods when he owned it, of his son Dodi and Diana holding left hands and with their right ones torturing some winged creature. And nearly, but not quite, as the awful bust of Cristiano Ronaldo at Madeira Airport, which looked more like The Head from Art Attack than the footballer. A second attempt by sculptor Emanuel Santos was little better – it was bland, but at least it resembled a human, just not Ronaldo." You wouldn't consider this a comparison? ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know The Sun is not considered a reputable source and should not be used to verify specific claims, but can this be used to say, "In 2021, Dan Hall and Catriona Graffius included the original bust in The Sun's overview of the "most awful statues ever carved" and said, "The bust of Ronaldo is arguably the most infamous celebrity statue of all time thanks to its bizarre expression." ?

For the record, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says, "The Sun was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject. The RfC does not override WP:ABOUTSELF, which allows the use of The Sun for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended." ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't add the article from The Sun unless you can establish that its authors are recognised art critics. The list of sculptures they choose to mock is their own, and is not the result of a reliable survey of opinion. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Busts_of_Cristiano_Ronaldo&oldid=1210738755"