User talk:Vincent Steenberg/Archive/2

Temptations of St. Anthony, Bosch

I saw you have added this image of Bosch's Temptation of St. Anthony to the category "Copies after work by Jheronimus Bosch". I must say I don't agree with that. This painting is traditionally ascribed to Jheronimus Bosch. It has been considered an original Bosch painting since a long time and by many reputed experts, such as Friedländer (1937), Robert Eigenberger, De Tolnay, von Baldass, Roberto Longhi, Ragghianti, Lievens-De-Waegh, and Ettore Camesasca. A recent scientific research done in Universidade Estadual de Campinas has also stated that the painting is probably an autograph first version of the famous Lisbon tryptich. The majority of the experts above have said the same. And the museum (MASP) still present the painting as a Hieronymus Bosch autograph work. So I would like to know where you based your opinion to categorize it as a "Copie after" Bosch when the majority of art historians have said it's probably a painting "by Bosch", and, indeed, a preparatory oil sketch, executed before Lisbon tryptich (and generally dated c. 1500). Thanks, Dornicke (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dornicke, That's interesting. I based my information on this page, which seems to be based on Gerd Unverfehrts book published in 1980. And yes, that's 29 years ago, so that might be out-dated. Do you know where this scientific research has been published? Sounds interesting. I'll put the file you mentioned in the main category for the time being. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Vincent,

Yes, there's an abstract about this research, you can read it in this link here (PDF), (found only in Portuguse on the web, though, but I'll try to make a resume).

It's a note about an expertness made at the Institute of Arts, Universidade de Campinas, conducted by Sandra Hitner, with the intention of trying to find scientific signs that would confirm or dismiss a theory, suggested by Friedländer in 1937, that the painting now in Sao Paulo would have been a first version of the Lisbon panel. Friedländer's opinion have been accepted by many other reputed art historians (you can see the sources for that in the Portuguese article of the painting). But it has also been refuted by a number of other European art historians, specially in the last decades, but rarely after direct observation (the painting has in these current cases been observed only by photographies, and there has been a tendence of considering all the 15 versions of the Lisbon artwork as copies, without discussing or even analysing individually the differences among these versions). Anyway, this particular panel has granted a different place at least in the opinion of great names in the traditional litterature.

The scientific research was published in 2007, and endorsed the attribution of the painting to Bosch, supported by São Paulo Museum of Art and by it's main curator, the Italo-Brazilian art historian Pietro Maria Bardi, since 1954, when it was acquired by the museum at the Knoedler Gallery, New York. It has involved ultraviolet radiation, infrared examination, stratigraphy of the pictoric matter, etc. It has centered it's attention in the fact that there are many details in both panels, absent in the majority of the other copies, that go from the type of wood, to the dovetailing, which are almost identical. And to a kind of behaviour in the making of the painting by the artist that has been also documented in the panel in Lisbon (very similar pentimenti). According to the conclusion: "há detalhes inéditos na composição a óleo do MASP que fazem dele uma autêntica versão de pesquisa por parte do artista. Estes detalhes foram minuciosamente catalogados, pois pode tratar-se de uma obra em etapa de evolução até atingir a perfeição demonstrada no painel de Lisboa" (there are unprecedented details in the composition of MASP's oil that makes it an authentic research version of the painting by the artist. These details were minutely catalogued, since it might be in fact an artwork in a evolutional stage until reaching the perfection demonstrated in the panel at Lisbon - my translation).

Hope that helps. If you have any doubt, feel fre to ask me. Regards, Dornicke (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dornicke, That's very interesting and useful information. Thanks for making that synopsis. I'll try to fit it in in the Dutch wikipedia. The Lisbon tryptich has been dendrochronologically dated 1495-1501 or later. Does that mean the São Paulo painting is dated the same way or do they think it's older?

What's interesting in relation to this is that File:J. Bosch copyist The temptation of St Anthony.jpg, which is now in a museum in 's-Hertogenbosch, has also been examined (information about this can be found at the bottom of this page), with which they could establish it was a copy. It seems that copyists drew the composition on a cardboard, put holes where the lines are, put this on a panel and sprayed carbon powder over it, so that the composition appeared on the panel in little dots. The card board could then be reused, so they could copy works on a large scale. That might explain the large number of copies of this painting. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the scientific research has "reopened" the debate about the possibility of the work been a previous version, some Brazilian historians have dated it to the same period of the Lisbon version indeed (Luiz Marques, Luciano Migliaccio, P.M. Bardi). But the possbility of it being later has not been discarded, though. Anyway, the majority of the contemporary sources in Brazil usually date it of circa 1500, and that's the hipotetical date suggested by this last research. But it's far from being a consensus, of course.

I didn't know about this using of carbon powder to make copies in large scale. That's also useful information to talk about the other versions in the article of the Lisbon panel. Thank you too for pointing that out! Regards, Dornicke (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I liked a lot the list you did for Bosch's artworks at Dutch Wikipedia! It's very elegant and well structured! Would you mind if I use it as a model for making a similar list at Portuguese Wikipedia? Dornicke (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That list is not my work though. The maker seems to be nl:Gebruiker:Onderwijsgek. But I'm sure he or she won't mind. The only problem is that Onderwijsgek ordered the works by country of their location (making it look even more structured), while I bulldozered over that thinking I could order them chronologically, which was more difficult than I thought. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Prins der Geillustreerde Bladen

Beste Vincent,

Kan je voor mij misschien de categorie Prins der Geillustreerde Bladen aanmaken? Dat was een periodiek als Eigen Haard; ik heb erg veel afbeeldingen die ik dan gemakkelijk kan categoriseren (de categorie Eigen Haard was werkelijk ideaal!).

Met vriendelijke groet, Menke (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ja, natuurlijk. Wat ik dan meestal doe is onderaan de bewerkingspagina van de betreffende afbeelding [[Category:Categorienaam]] typen. De pagina vervolgens opslaan en dan door op de rode link onderaan te klikken een nieuwe categorie aanmaken. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Compliment

Beste Vincent, regelmatig zie ik je waardevolle aanvullingen voorbijkomen. Mijn compliment voor de kwaliteit van je bewerkingen. Met vr. groet, Gouwenaar (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Dank je, Gouwenaar. Met de website van het RKD en de website geheugenvannederland kom je al een heel eind. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ja beide sites gebruik ik ook regelmatig als bron voor artikelen op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia. Overigens gaan je inspanningen hier wel iets verder dan het putten uit deze beide bronnen, of ik moet me al heel sterk vergissen. Met vr. groet, Gouwenaar (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

soms maak ik gebruik van het boek waar ik op dat moment mee bezig ben. Ik ben bijv. nu in de weer met een boek over de schilder Jheronimus Bosch. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Vincent, inderdaad, vanuit mij ook een dank je wel voor het aanvullen van info van upgeloade bestanden. Groet, Kweniston (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hoi Kweniston, Sorry voor mijn late reactie. Leuk om te horen dan ik er goed mee weg kom. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

template:Similarimage

My English is very bad :( --shizhao (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--shizhao (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

goeiedag

ja je mag 'm draaien. Helanhuaren (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC) ok, bedankt, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dirck Barendsz

Hi Vincent,
I don't really understand why the cat for works of Dirck Barendsz needs to be Category:Dirck Barendsz. instead of Category:Dirck Barendsz, when even the creator-tag is Creator:Dirck Barendsz. Could you explain? --Túrelio (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Túrelio, "Dirck Barendsz" without the dot is technically a spelling mistake. All names in Dutch ending with -sz should be written with a dot at the end, for example "Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn" and "Jan Gerritsz. van Bronckhorst", because they are an abbreviation. I know these are minute details, but why do it wrong while you can do it right? And the difference between category name and creator template this exists now can be easily fixed I think. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

p.s. for a references on Dirck Barensz. see the Netherlands Institute for Art History webpage. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know that. I've deleted the cat and renamed the creator template. --Túrelio (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks a lot. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Rosslyn3.JPG

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 20:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Spanish intro

Hi, Vincent! There is nothing to correct, you wrote it perfect. Good Spanish for somebody who doesn´t speak Spanish! ;-) --Balbo (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Source for Holy Kinship

Seems to be from here. I'm not sure.--Shakko (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 3d299503496a53720b5933b1c12f52a4

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Pieter de Graeff

Dag Vincent, graag jouw mening over de nieuwe versies van File:Pieter de Graeff (1638 1707).jpeg en File:Jacoba Bicker.jpg, Gothika heeft de omlijstingen verwijderd, persoonlijk vind ik dat geen fraaie oplossing. Met vriendelijke groet, Gouwenaar (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Gouwenaar, klopt, die wijzigingen heb ik zelf bij Gothika 'aangevraagd'. De reden voor dit verzoek was dat de oude afbeeldingen slechts een gedeelte van de lijst lieten zien. Afbeeldingen van schilderijen met lijst vind ik op zich geen probleem, als er maar een versie zonder beschikbaar is. Hierin ligt dus ook de oplossing: afbeeldingen met en zonder lijst uploaden. Van het eerste bestand bestaat op dit moment al een versie versie met lijst (zie File:Sammlung goudstikker.jpeg) en van het tweede zal ik zometeen een nieuwe versie (met lijst) uploaden. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Voilà! Ik heb geprobeerd de kleuren van File:Portrait of Jacoba Bicker by Caspar Netscher.jpg zoveel mogelijk aan te laten sluiten bij File:Sammlung goudstikker.jpeg, maar het is niet zo heel erg goed gelukt. Misschien ben jij daar beter in? Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Dank voor je reactie. Ik zal morgen eens naar het kleurverschil kijken. met vr. groet, Gouwenaar (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ik heb deze afbeelding geplaatst, volgens mij sluit deze versie redelijk aan. Met vr. groet, Gouwenaar (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Signed and dated

You created several templates like {{Signed and dated tr}} etc. I wanted to localize them, but I realized, that it would be much more convenient to do so, if the different versions were integrated in a single template. So I created {{Signed}}. It takes 4 parameters: 1: vertical position (bottom, top, centre), 2: horizontal position (left, right, centre), signed: the actual signature in the painting, dated: the actual date in the painting. What do you think? (The template might still need some fine-tuning in the texts)

E.g. {{signed|bottom|left|signed=P. Picasso|dated=11. Februar 1929}} will result in: Signature and date bottom left:

P. Picasso 11. Februar 1929

--Slomox (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

ok, great, I will definitely try it, see how it works and make adjustments if necessary. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I used it on File:Rembrandt_169.jpg. That wotks fine. However there seems to be a typo in the Dutch, that I can't locate (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rembrandt_169.jpg?uselang=nl). Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. --Slomox (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:After

Hello, I've seen that you created this template. Can you tell me what the template is supposed to be for, because {{Other date|after|3000}} already gives something like this: “after 3000

date QS:P,+3000-00-00T00:00:00Z/7,P1319,+3000-00-00T00:00:00Z/9

”. If there's anything specific that this template is doing, maybe we can then add it to {{Other date}}. This way, we don't use so many templates, which is easier for tracking templates. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, No, it has nothing to do with dates. "After" here is meant as in "copied after" in the Artist-section of {{Painting}}. See for example File:Joos van Cleve 012.jpg or click on "What links here" for other files in which this template is used. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand it. What exactly does "after Jheronimus Bosch" mean? Does it mean, that the artist is unknown, but that he was a pupil of Bosch? Or that the artist copied Bosch's style? Or something else?

And please, for templates like this, it is indispensable to make the referred-to object's name a parameter. We need to use "{{After|[[Jheronimus Bosch]]}}" instead of "{{After}} [[Jheronimus Bosch]]". That give's additional context to the template and most importantly: this is the only way to allow the template to be fully functional. Some languages for example may want to use postpositions instead of prepositions. --Slomox (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"After Bosch" means an (almost) exact copy of a work by Bosch. Works in Bosch’ style are described as "Follower of Bosch". As far as I know in art history it is the generally accepted way of noting this. I will fix the template as you have suggested. At the moment the template works in German, English,French and Dutch. Postpositions are unknown to me so far. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Patroler

To reduce the number of unpatrolled pages in Special:NewPages I give you the autopatrolled right, so your newly created pages are marked as patrolled automatically. See Commons:Patroller for more information, for you nothing is different. --Martin H. (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Leonardo self.jpg

Hi, please don't remove the language templates in the description, thank you. Hekerui (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

ok, no problem. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Joos_van_Cleve_012.jpg

Hi, according to nl:Joris Vezelaer, the man in the picture is not from Antwerp but from the Dutch city of s'Hertogenbosch. I changed its categories accordingly. Cheers, --Maashatra (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, yes that is true, but he spent most of his life in Antwerp. But I think in English you can say he was "of 's-Hertogenbosch" and "of Antwerp". In other words put the file in both categories, if that's ok with you. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're right... Did he spend his early childhood in Antwerp?
If he did then I think it's O.k. Otherwise, I don't think it's a good category to put him in. Lots of people have been living a long part of their life in Antwerp (mostly in previous centuries) but not all of them should be included in the category. I hope you agree with me. Anyway it would be a good thing to ask some admin as how to deal with disputed categories. Cheers, --Maashatra (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No, he went to Antwerp as a child and made his career there. Compare with Rubens, also a famous citizen of Antwerp, but in fact born in Siegen in Germany. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Pieter van der Heyden 004.jpg

Hey, I noticed that you tried to add inscriptions to this image, but the abuse filter disallowed that. I've modified the filter so that you're now able to properly add them. Sorry for the inconvinience. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks a lot. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

CountryAdjective

You added 'FL' to {{CountryAdjective}}. This is rather problematic. 'FL' is not a valid code according to ISO 3166-1 alpha-2. Quite the opposite. According to the ISO standard it is indeterminate reserved and its use is strongly discouraged. CountryAdjective - as the name suggests - is for countries and Flanders is no country. So we have to revert this. If we would allow it, this would automatically invite further additions. Basque, Catalan, Welsh and many other groups with no country may want to be represented in this way too.

Personally I dislike the nationalist undertone of a phrase like "Belgian painter" for myself. Why is "Belgian" an important fact, but "French-language painter", "gay painter", "left-handed painter", "Caucasian painter", "Socialist painter" or "fat painter" not? Why this sole focus on citizenship? But fighting for more awareness for biases like this is a fight I cannot win. At least this is not the place to fight the fight. So I keep down and try to just provide the necessary templates to allow people to do what I cannot prevent. So they at least pursue their bias in a localizable way...

For some groups of persons of course citizenship is totally not meaningful. For example it wouldn't be meaningful to call a Basque poet from Miarritze a "French poet" and a Basque poet from Errenteria a "Spanish poet". The most defining characteristic of a poet is the language he is writing in. So we should provide a template that allows to characterize him by a language. For a religious leader neither citizenship nor language are the most important characteristic, but religion. So we need yet another template, that allows to characterize him by a religion. But these need to be different templates! We cannot mix these different characteristics in a single template. --Slomox (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I see now that FL is reserved for Liechtenstein. What a shame. I guess we have to start a new template called {{HistoricCountryAdjective}}? I'll revert my edits. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I created {{RegionAdjective}} meant to catch all the regions, countries, ex-countries, etc. not covered by {{CountryAdjective}}. --Jarekt (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

yes, I noticed. Thanks a lot. I'll try using it right away. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Pieter Brueghel de Jonge - Volkstelling te Bethlehem, 1605-1610.jpg

Hallo Vincent, ik zag dat je aan de omschrijving van het schilderij Musee de Caen Hebt toegevoegd. Is het je duidelijk dat het om twee verschillende schilderijen gaat? Controleer maar, in detail wijken ze af. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Jan, ja, je hebt helemaal gelijk. Ik was iets te snel met mijn conclusie. Kan het zijn dat het om dit schilderij in het Bonnefantenmuseum gaat? Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ik denk het wel. Het wordt als zodanig ook vermeldt op de website van het Rijksmuseum [1]. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

ok, dan zal ik het binnenkort een keer bijwerken. Mvg, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The younger / elder vs. (I) / (II) approach

Vincent, I like your approach of creating language independent versions of the names ending (in english) with "the elder" or "the younger" by using "(I)" and "(II)". I think it works well for category names and creator page names. However in the name field of the Creator page I prefer language dependent versions with names similar to what one would find in that language wikipedia. That is why I recently expanded template:name to allow names like "David Teniers " where "The Younger" part is autotranslated to the language of the viewer. I tried to write {{name|younger}} and {{name|elder}} in a way that reflects the form most often used on each wikipedia. I noticed your deletion of {{name|younger}} from the name in Creator:David Teniers (II). I think we should switch back to "Name=David Teniers " and may be modify {{Name}} to reflect nl.wiki preference. What do you think? --Jarekt (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jarekt, I am aware of the existence of {{name|elder}} and {{name|younger}} and let me start by saying there's nothing wrong with it. However, there are two reasons why I am reluctant to use them. Firstly, sometimes there are more than 2 generations with the same name. What do you call the third generation? In that case numbering them (I), (II), (III) is a more elegant solution. Secondly, a person like David Teniers (1582-1649) was never called "David Teniers de Oude", at least not in his lifetime. But like I said, there's no harm in your construction, so if you want to change my edits to Creator:David Teniers (II), go ahead. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

File:MODHIR_AHMED_"Self_Portrait"_2004-102x70,5cm_1.jpg

Hi Vincent,

Thank you for your concern regarding the above mentioned image. It just goes to show how you protect the rights of the users. I am the author and i uploaded the image and the art work of Modhir Ahmed that i have uploaded is my personal collection. When i uploaded it, under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. I just don't understand what i need to do now. Help! Tokistar (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Tokistar, No problem. I think the most obvious way to get around this is to ask Modhir Ahmed to fill out and sign a "Declaration of consent" and send this to Wikimedia. You can find this form and the email address where to send it at Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. If you have any questions you can also contact one of the Administrators here on Commons. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

See Commons:Village_pump#Category/Creator names: "John Doe the Younger" v.s. "John Doe d. J." v.s. "John Doe (II)" --Jarekt (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad edits by JarektBot

I noticed you are cleaning up some of my today's bad edits. Sorry, about that. I am cleaning it up too. It seems like in my testing of the new script I never run into LangSwitch in painting Artist field. It breaks my script and seems to be used in some of your files. --Jarekt (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, That's ok. I am making the description in the Artist field a lot simpler from now on: not using LangSwitch and also not mentioning date of birth and date of death. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)