→infobox: add |
Marthacustis (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
[[user:Ceoil]] ; [[user:Johnbod]] - is there a reason why you do not want an infobox showing the work in wikidata? [[User:Marthacustis|Marthacustis]] ([[User talk:Marthacustis|talk]]) 17:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC) |
[[user:Ceoil]] ; [[user:Johnbod]] - is there a reason why you do not want an infobox showing the work in wikidata? [[User:Marthacustis|Marthacustis]] ([[User talk:Marthacustis|talk]]) 17:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC) |
||
:Go back in the history, and look at what you actually did - everything about it was wrong, including the wikidata link, which went to another work entirely. Wikidata links are especially useless for prints, encouraging the impression that there are a handful of copies around, instead of many hundred. Plus they usually make the image too small and contain the wrong info, as yours did. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 00:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC) |
:Go back in the history, and look at what you actually did - everything about it was wrong, including the wikidata link, which went to another work entirely. Wikidata links are especially useless for prints, encouraging the impression that there are a handful of copies around, instead of many hundred. Plus they usually make the image too small and contain the wrong info, as yours did. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 00:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC) |
||
::go back in the history and look at what i did. i linked to wikidata and it had comfused information. i then corrected the information. this is a print, that is held by multiple institution including the Met and NGA. editors are particularly useless if they do not edit edit wikidata. "just saying no" to wikidata by calling it useless is proof of incompetence. the information is not wrong, you are. [[User:Marthacustis|Marthacustis]] ([[User talk:Marthacustis|talk]]) 17:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:37, 23 May 2017
Visual arts Start‑class | |||||||
|
BM category
Does this really belong in a British Museum category? It is hardly a "defining" characteristic of the print. The other prints we have categorised like this have uniqiue material in the BM - the proof album, heavily covered in the article, for The Disasters of War, and a drawing, illustrated in the article, for the Durer Rhinoceros. I modi is just a unique impression. Almost everything in Category:Prints (art) could be categorized in this, and loads of other "collection" categories, on this basis, which I don't think is helpful. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I took this issue and ran with it. I put a discussion on the Visual arts wikiproject here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Placing_of_Prints_into_.22Collections_of....22_categories. Witty Lama 12:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Stupid question - since this is an engraving, I assume there's a metal master plate somewhere. Where is that? Raul654 (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Nazis
Removed this for reason in edit summary, but the knight was (see Bartum etc) regarded with special interest and self-identification by German nationalists and then Nazis, & a bit on this would be welcome. Johnbod (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with removal and have added a bit, but there is much more on this, ie why they regarded it as so. It should probably be mentioned in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
infobox
user:Ceoil ; user:Johnbod - is there a reason why you do not want an infobox showing the work in wikidata? Marthacustis (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Go back in the history, and look at what you actually did - everything about it was wrong, including the wikidata link, which went to another work entirely. Wikidata links are especially useless for prints, encouraging the impression that there are a handful of copies around, instead of many hundred. Plus they usually make the image too small and contain the wrong info, as yours did. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- go back in the history and look at what i did. i linked to wikidata and it had comfused information. i then corrected the information. this is a print, that is held by multiple institution including the Met and NGA. editors are particularly useless if they do not edit edit wikidata. "just saying no" to wikidata by calling it useless is proof of incompetence. the information is not wrong, you are. Marthacustis (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)