Talk:Ritual wine server (guang), Indianapolis

Name Changes

It appears someone has gone in and changed the name of our Ritual wine server article to Ritual wine server (''guang''), Indianapolis Museum of Art, 60.43. This unfortunately means that all links to the original article now link to a generic ritual wine server page. Plus, he removed the bold text the headed up the first paragraph that is typical of all Wiki pages. I understand why he made the title change since it would be too confusing given the generic page, but it throws off our page and makes it lack the same cohesive design as all our other pages. Do you by chance have a recommendation for a better name for our article so that we can mark the two pages distinct without making the title look so cluttered? Ive been trying to think of a compromise that doesn't completely change the museum object listing title, but I'm at a loss with this one. AngelKelley (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The title is fine, and many of the IMA objects have disambiguated titles, and others, life "Storage jar" would need them if the articles were created. I have piped the main incoming links & the others can easily be done. There is in fact no requirement to repeat and bold the article title in the lead - see WP:LEAD. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say. Johnbod has his method for doing things and generally gets them done his way ... I suggest moving this discussion to the talk page of that article.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. And while I again, understand your reasonings User:Johnbod, I think pages for objects from a single institution should have a certain level continuity among the pages. The title, although technically acceptable, messes with the typical design all our pages try to follow. I'm merely asking if there is a compromise for a title that addresses both your concerns and my own.AngelKelley (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions, but I basically look at things from the perspective of the whole encyclopedia, which I suggest you should try to do also. I'm not sure what you mean by "typical design". As time goes by many of these articles may need further disambiguation - I doubt there is only one The Crucifixion (Cranach). Does the museum only have one guang? I expect not. Individual objects from the decorative arts always need more disambiguation, like illuminated manuscripts, because they lack individual titles. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand the importance of looking at the bigger picture, but if you look too big it can have the potential to overshadow the smaller picture. Perhaps a compromise would be to simply include "Indianapolis Museum of Art" or even just "IMA" in parentheses after all our pages. My reasoning is this: if someone is specifically looking for IMA artworks and they read about something they like, then visit themuseum they will expect to find the object under the title it was listed under here on Wikipedia. Needless to say, if we diverge too far from the original, albeit generic, titles the IMA has assigned the objects the visitor will not be able to locate the pieces they wish to see. I certainly understand the disambiguation dilemma when dealing with such a large collection of articles, but I also think that continuity among pages (in this case following a template for overall design and utilizing similar formatting styles) that link directly to a specific topic can be important as well. It doesn't help those searching for specific articles if every page about a given topic is listed by something different and unrelated to one another.AngelKelley (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind going to Ritual wine server (''guang''), Indianapolis (60.43) - with one set of brackets already, we can't really have two. That's so long as there are no other collections with ancient Chinese bronzes in the city, which I guess is the case. You can pipe the link in the IMA template to anything you like, & very many of them do not use the exact article title if you look. I don't really understand the issue about not finding the object - my title has more information than the original. This is the only ancient Chinese bronze individual piece to have an article yet, and will be read by many people who have never been within 1,000 miles of Indianapolis. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking around for a professional term for this kind of thing and haven't come across anything yet .... I would have thought the Getty Vocabulary Program would provide some guidance for this, and on other things such as contemporary artworks made in editions, as seen in the List of Tony Smith outdoor sculptures. But, alas, I've not found anything to speak to this point ...--RichardMcCoy (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard, that would just be too easy :)AngelKelley (talk)

(ec)Chinese ritual bronze is pretty standard for the class, but the various shapes, like guang, are used for individual objects. I'm not sure of the best term for a copy/example of an edition of sculpture - I suppose cast/casting is the best but it sounds a little technical. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

i can't say for certain there are no other Chinese bronzes in the city, but I do agree that either the city name or the museum name could be helpful in specifying more about the piece. Can we perhaps do without the accession number in the title though? I do see merit in including it in the article itself and I would like to see all our articles edited to include this, which I'm willing to work on in the near future. For the title however it clutters it up a little and not everyone will even understand what the numbers signify. I would be happy with either Ritual wine server (''guang''), Indianapolis or Ritual wine server (''guang''), Indianapolis Museum of Art. I will also suggest to User:RichardMcCoy, who heads up the IMAsWikiProject, that we consider adding the agreed upon extension to all our articles to help with continuity and other disambiguation concerns. This way we can keep our titles similar to the original IMA object listing without running into this same issue again.AngelKelley (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should add "Indianapolis" to everything, but for things like the peony vase it would be good. The British Museum and the Freer/Sackler each have 20+ guangs I think, & the big Chinese museums more. I don't know about Indianapolis, but they may very well have more than one (later ones come in ceramic etc also). Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so have we at least agreed to take the accession number out of the title and reserve it for the article itself? And if there are concerns about multiple examples in a single city, would the museum name be better than just the city to at least narrow it a little further? If the museum itself ends up with more than one article concerning a particular type of artistic style, the issue will just need to be readdressed to offer clarity among the similar pieces. Almost there now! :) AngelKelley (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Article

This article was completed as part of the WikiProject Public art, e-volunteer program at the Indianapolis Museum of Art. I am no longer an e-volunteer with the WikiProject, but I would imagine they might be interested in knowing one of their articles is marked for deletion. There are about 100 works of public art within the museum collection that were chosen for article creation, most of which have long-since gone active. Please feel free to contact the Wikipedia:WikiProject Public art leads with additional information. In the meantime, I will change the name of the article to make it more accessible, but additional considerations may need to be addressed by the WikiProject. Thank you. AngelKelley (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)