Talk:Caspar David Friedrich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Caspar David Friedrich 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 27, 2009.
November 27, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.


Hi, while I don't agree with the recent edit, I'd still integrate the infobox. Any justifiable objections? Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • This is a featured article and the infobox is not needed...Modernist (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It's there at most bio articles. It's nice for an overview. Why not here? -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It makes the lead image too small for one thing. This is an issue with a very long history. aren't you aware of it? See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Because there were multiple things that were done in the edit with which we have gone back and forth, I feel it is helpful to break that edit down into functional portions in order to identify what is controversial and what is not. The edit consisted of the following:
  1. Add an infobox
  2. Change the order of {{main|List of works by Caspar David Friedrich}}. This was moved to the top of the section in which it is located. That it should be immediately under the section heading is explicitly specified in WP:MOS#Section organization. The visual impact on the page is noticeable only with the page in a narrow window.
  3. Use {{-}} to force the "External video" box to complete prior to the gallery being shown. The visual impact on the page is visible only when viewing the page in a wide window.
  4. Change the size of the pictures in the gallery
  5. Add Image: Image:Caspar David Friedrich - Klosterruine Eldena (ca.1825).jpg to the gallary
  6. References changed from {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} to {{Reflist|20em}}
  7. Bibliography changed from {{refbegin|2}} to {{refbegin|30em}}
  8. Add a blank line between the last external link and the {{Caspar David Friedrich}} at the bottom of the page.
  9. Change the order of categories at the bottom of the page. No categories were added or removed.
  10. Removal of invalid null parameters in citation templates (Re-added to article)
  11. Fleshing out a bare URL citation (Re-added to article)
If I have missed something, please feel free to add it to the above list.
I have assumed #9 and #10 are non-controversial and re-added those changes into the article.
Number 3: I would normally use the {{clear}} template in such a location. To me, it appears to be an improvement. However, I can not test in all environments:OS/browser/mobile/etc.
I object to the combination of #6 and #7. The References and Bibliography sections should retain a look similar to each other. Two columns, as they are currently, appears to be the most common. My primary issue wrt. these is that they should end up with both sections having the same number of columns of similar width.
Number 8 appears to be an improvement. It does a better job of visually separating those elements on the page.
Number 1: It appears that the primary contention is with the infobox
In the five years since this page became a featured article, infoboxes have become basically standard on Wikipedia. The fact that this is a featured article does not mean that it should never change. It does mean that extra care should be taken when making changes so that the quality of the article is not reduced.
The infobox appeared to be a reasonable addition to the article (Although, I would not have limited the image width to 187 pixels which I felt was too small; this could easily be adjusted.). Adding an infobox moves the article towards being more consistent in look-and-feel with the rest of enwiki (or at least that is my impression). In a brief look at the current feature article candidates, I noted that only 2 of those 52 FA candidate articles do not have an infobox.
I am neither strongly for nor against having an infobox in this article. I lean towards having one because it gathers interesting data in a easily accessible location and having one appears to be more consistent with the majority of maintained articles on enwiki.
NOTE: The above was written prior to my reading the previous two responses. As of the time I post this, I have not yet read the arbitration case linked above. I will do so. However, I will state again that I am neither strongly for an infobox in this article, nor strongly against one. It does appear that it could benefit the article to have one, but only if there is consensus to do so. — Makyen (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Johnbod, Ceoil and I as well as several editors worked hard bringing this to FA status. Yesterday - I returned the article to its FA form as of 9 January 2014 [1]; because after which on 13 January an editor utterly changed the gallery and screwed up the article format - see the gallery after this edit [2]. Yesterday I also attempted - unsuccessfully - to add this image Ruine Eldena (incorrectly titled Eldena Abbey Ruins by the editor in February), that had been added in February without explanatory text; but I realized it is redundant with this image The Abbey in the Oakwood - see this - Eldena Abbey - and really doesn't work with the rest of the article, wasn't needed, so I didn't add it. I appreciate Makyen fixing the reference templates; as to the External Video - it was added long after the article achieved FA status. As to the infobox - it is not required and it was left out by consensus...Modernist (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

File summary box[edit]

This is quite a minor issue, but I happened to notice that the summary box with the file of Graveyard under Snow lists Cmentarz w śniegu as the title in Portuguese.[3] Actually, that's the title in Polish. Sca (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Tetschen Altar[edit]

Here it is written, "The altar panel depicts the crucified Christ in profile at the top of a mountain, alone and surrounded by nature," under "Move to Dresden." This is wrong- the Tetschen Altar depicts a Gipefelkreuz, or a gilded crucifix, not the actual crucifixion.[1][2]Madaldal (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caspar David Friedrich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Koerner, Joseph Leo (1990). Caspar David Friedrich and the Subject of Landscape (1 ed.). New Haven and London: Yale University Press. p. 47. ISBN 978-1-86189-439-7. 
  2. ^ Grave, Johannes (2012). Caspar David Friedrich. Munich, New York: Prestel. ISBN 978-3-7913-4628-1.