Talk:The Cloisters/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

The Très Riches Heures is held by the Chateau du Chantilly, France. The Met has Les Belles Heures. Corrected. Alexisr 19:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Article name

See Talk:The Dakota#Requested move for a discussion about using "the" in the name of an article about an NYC building. --Enkyo2 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Library and Archives

User:Doniago Hi, can you explain why you reverted my edits? There is not any information on the page about the library and archives, and these I would argue, are notable aspects of the institution- I provided citations and links, and the library/archives are a large institution, with published materials written about them. Also, I am very familiar with GLAM-Wiki policies, and my intention with adding that section was to expand coverage of the library/archives digitized materials as to aid researchers that wanted to dig deeper from the main Cloisters page. OR drohowa (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Replied at my Talk page since you started a conversation there. We can bring it here if you have concerns regarding any of what I said there. DonIago (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Here is an article which could prove quite useful in improving the "In Popular Culture" section: http://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-museum/now-at-the-met/features/2013/cloisters-in-popular-culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalTech (talk • contribs) 16:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  • WP:Trivia says (first sentence, in bolded letters): "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information". This article is on my watchlist (in fact it's my favorite museum) and for the past few days I've noticed the slow edit war. Beyond My Ken has reverted the deletion of the list of miscellaneous information now five times by my count, with the most recent edit summary of "discuss". I'm not finding a discussion here, as per BRD, (bold, revert, discuss), but will open this. We don't need that section. It consists of two entries of miscellaneous information that doesn't really add much, if anything, to the page. There a lot more that can be added to this page, but from a curating point of view, tidying/trimming trivia is common and shouldn't be controversial. If we need a straw poll of whether to keep or or not, that's ok. I don't see a compelling argument to keep it and see that according to WP:Trivia it's best to trim out at this point. Victoria (tk) 17:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
This is such a non issue that its beyond belief. I think there is a burned out editor, bitey as they come, who has backed himself into a corner, which is fine, as he has nothing else to offer the page. Or maybe he hopes to add video game mentions, at some stage. The article needs quite a bit of work; why prople who want to help should be blind reverted (from the outset), doesn't seem collegial. Ceoil (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Per Victoriaearle. The idea that this is an issue is beyond my...understanding. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Well apparently this thread, that was opened a year and half ago, is an invitation to add trivia. Somehow that comment at the top of the thread slipped through the cracks and none of us bothered to point out that we don't add trivia sections. Apparently to avoid escalating we have to be clear that there's a consensus to do without the trivia; that removing trivia from articles such as this is standard; that there shouldn't be a trivia section. There's really no reason to edit war over it. It's a very clear cut issue. Victoria (tk) 17:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, just to be on the record, this article doesn't need a trivia section and is better without it. As shown above, WP policy supports its removal. Can we put this to bed now? Kafka Liz (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Also for the record, I endorse that "consensus [is] to do without trivia; [and] that removing trivia from articles such as this is standard". Ceoil (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll just note that WP:IPCV discusses an RfC that concluded with "The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases." Any editor wishing to include such material is responsible for providing such sourcing if they wish their information to be retained. I would also note that this isn't the first time BMK has appeared to disregard this; I have been forced to conclude that they have somewhat of an inclusionist bias with regards to such matters. DonIago (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Two sourced items, both of which point out instances where the Cloisters was used as a location for film shoots are not, by any strethch of the imagination, "trivia". They are legitimate popular culture items which are appropriate for this article. Some editors don;t like "In Popular Culture" sections in any way, shape, or form, and they attempt to delete them en masse, but there have been numerous comunity discussions, and there is no community consensus for eliminating "popcult" sections. These, considering that they are actually sourced, are absolutely legit and appropriate. BMK (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Film shoots are trivia. Consensus is and has for a long time been against inclusion of this sort of passing *stuff*. I'm not sure what other community you mean, maybe a fan fiction wiki? Meanwhile on planet earth. Ceoil (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
That's your personal opinion, which is not shared by the WQikipedia community. The facts are sourced from a metmuseum page' for crying out loud. They are sourced facts froma reliable secondary source and they are about The Cloisters. You get a consensus here that items like that must be removed before you remove them again. BMK (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you'll find its a widely held view. You are bullying now at this stage. Please stop as it is a bit frightening. Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • So it has a source. I can find sources that say Barack Obama is Muslim, and others that say Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the Devil incarnate. Sources aren't holy writs, and consensus seems to be against the inclusion of this trivia section. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken, you wrote in your edit summary here, "discuss". I opened a discussion. A consensus formed quickly after a few short hours. Let's see where the consensus goes in a few days. Posting with bolded text is counterproductive, imo. After taking a break for an hour or so, I came back to work - this after being mostly gone from here for about six months - and seeing this "discussion" is a stark reminder of why I've not been in a hurry to return to Wikipedia. If in a few days consensus is still against you, perhaps it's best to let this go, but at this point the discussion is clearly in favor of deleting the section. In the meantime I'll have to unwatch the page because it's getting to be disruptive. Victoria (tk) 21:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore. This is an encyclopedia for the general reader, many of whom may have been exposed to the unique architecture (from NYC) from the referenced films. NE Ent 21:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore. Per NE Ent. Well-sourced information. Gamaliel (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
(ec)Sourcing is important, but it's not the only criterion. That said, NE Ent raises an important point, one worthy of consideration. I'm fine with restoration given a reasoned response such as theirs. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The factoids more properly belong in their own article. The aim here is a well sourced encyclopedia, not a string of disconnected events. Also there is the matter of precedence, better people that me have fought lesser idiots on the value of changing wiki into a boys compendium of 70s movies references, and things we liked in the old days. This is important. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore. These items can be sourced to multiple independent reliable sources and relate information about iconic appearances of The Cloisters in notable works. For example [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. One more that should be added is Al Pacino's semi-documentary Looking for Richard, where the setting was particularly significant, as noted in multiple academic works, for example [8][9]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
In the past I have humored such low brow pseudo achedimic nonesence with their own spin out articles. I offer that olive branch here, to die in self satisfied obscurity in a list of things filmed near the Cloisters. Ceoil (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The last time I was there I bought a book about the place. I'll write the article as it should be written, instead of a stub piece, with some trivia, and we can work in a section about the iconic architecture. But there are some apologies due. Seriously. Victoria (tk) 23:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've refactored the information from the list into the History section per WP:POPCULT , hopefully that will be a reasonable compromise; I'm sure the writing I added could be improved and encourage additional edits. NE Ent 00:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Quite frankly I don't think anyone cares at this point. An immeasurable amount of damage was caused tonight. Victoria (tk) 00:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would like to note that this popcult section has been deleted in the past. I only restored a few mentions that I could substantiate with reliable sources. Plus, there's no reason why pop culture references about the subject should be deleted if the subject is notable. Thanks. epicgenius @ 00:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete All Pop culture references. It's easy to find a pop magazine that says that some one-hit wonder or fluff pop icon mentioned the Bible, forex, so does a Miley Cyrus ref to the Bible get mentioned there? No. Do I smell WP:CANVASS?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The source here is the Metropolitan Museum of Art, (the largest museum in the world, according to us), not a pop magazine. Given that, project wide there are one hundred thousand [10] "popular culture" references, project wide removal would require a site wide WP:RFC, which I sincerely believe would fail to gain consensus. NE Ent 01:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • If you wanna start a separate page called The Cloisters in popular culture and throw the spotlight on two scenes (two scenes!) from some movie, then by all means please do go ahead and do so, and have a very nice day. Put a link to your article in the "See Also" section of this one. No one would argue. But Two Scenes is a cousin to WP:UNDUE, and violates the spirit of the "passing mention" language in Wikipedia:POPCULTURE. But here? No.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • DeleteThe article is better without the add ons...Modernist (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No, it is not as good without popular culture. As a reader, I find the pop culture references to be amusing, and sometimes, relevant. A problem arises only when many popular culture mentions get added without sources. epicgenius @ 02:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No, just because you like it doesn't mean diddly squat. Pop culture should be included only when the subsidiary pop culture phenomenon is itself notable as a phenomenon, not when some source or other mentions the topic in a pop context (as in Miley Cyrus and the Bible, above).  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • If we rely on verifiable information, then pop cult can be inserted. If it's sourced, by all means it can be included. If not, then we shouldn't include it. I think the IPC section is sourced here. epicgenius @ 12:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Please read above beginning "If you wanna start a separate page"  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I think this governs the case of "should this page have a popular culture article," not "should this page have such a section." That said, trivial cameo appearances shouldn't be included regardless of sourcing. epicgenius @ 23:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete IMO, sections like this are of no benefit to the majority of articles on WP and only work on film, pop, and other media related articles. To have a section here reduces a nicely written article into a list of uninteresting and unimportant factoids, with the scope of it becoming inflated with even more dross in the future. If we must use these "facts" then it would be a good compromise, I think, to have the factoids relegated to a foot note rather than have them languishing in a section all by themselves. Let's leave bulleted trivial information to the filthy tabloid newspapers. CassiantoTalk 06:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete As far as I can tell, the disputed section contains a reference to the Coogan's Bluff, which is not about the the film; that would be Coogan's Bluff (film). Unlike Portrait of Jennie, the article about Coogan's Bluff doesn't even mention the Cloisters. It would be giving a lot of undue weight to a film that doesn't really have anything to say about the Cloisters. Now, if someone wanted to mention Borges' poem, like the suggested source from the met does, that would be another matter entirely. I suppose that doesn't fall under "popular culture". Mduvekot (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • So if we update Coogan's Bluff (film) article to mention The Cloisters, it should be in this one? NE Ent 23:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I still don't think it belongs here because the film is not about the Cloisters. I just thought I'd mention the error in the link. You'd think that if people cared so much about reinserting the trivia, they'd at least get it right. Mduvekot (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
FWIW I added Maya Deren an important artist whose filmwork at the Cloisters is probably worth mentioning; IMO Eastwood should be deleted...Modernist (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I removed the mentions of "Starring X person, Y person, and Z person." epicgenius @ 00:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete (or start own article). Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable trivia. I'll never get those seconds back. FWIW, the two bits added are neither popular nor cultural. Especially trivial are mentions of when this notable location was used as a general backdrop with no reference to the history of The Cloisters at all. "What was the name of the fictional Abbey that used The Cloisters for its exterior shots in a 1948 film?" "At what minute did Clint Eastwood's motorcycle drive past The Cloisters?" - Sorry the argument "But this trivia is SOURCED!" is weak at best and mind numbing at worst. --DHeyward (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks like consensus says delete the trivia; it should all go including Maya Deren that I added...Modernist (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hasty to call consensus now ... let's give it a couple more days ... NE Ent 14:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:IPC applies. It's verifiable, and we should include it. End of story. And I don't want to assume bad faith, but a lot of people who have commented above have never edited the article. I think some canvassing is in order. epicgenius @ 00:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
(ec) People often don't need to actively canvass, if the drama spills over onto talk pages. That's how I got here. But my convictions are genuine.. ha ha.. you don't know me... I used to be... quite... self-expressive on this topic. Back in the day. To clarify, I have no objections to pop culture when the pop culture phenomenon ITSELF is very clearly notable, AND I also have no objections to pop culture when it is moved to its own "Topic x in popular culture" page. Both of those are eminently reasonable. But cluttering up a good page with trivial crap just because some source somewhere or other mentioned it is... what can I say? It's like graffiti. Seriously.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
There does not need to be drama. But, if people agree that the popular culture section is graffiti to this article, let's not restore it. I still think it may be appropriate or even interesting, though. epicgenius @ 02:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Although I personally think it adds value, I can't in good faith read the current consensus as supporting addition; obviously an WP:RFC would be an option but I don't feel strongly enough about the matter to start one myself. NE Ent 02:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with NE Ent; I am disappointed by the response here, because this is not based on any sort of "tabloid" or "trivial crap", and we can find multiple serious and scholarly works that reflect on the image of The Cloisters as reflected in film; but I also can't say that the discussion so far supports my perspective. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I think an independent RFC would be the best option. Many editors in this discussion clearly work in or near a related topic area. I'd like to get some third-party input for this, and not just from the admin's noticeboard. epicgenius @ 11:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC) (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Compromise: hidden text (not by me) currently reads *Due to its contrast with the nature of the city itself, the Cloisters is a well known New York landmark and has been a favorite location for filmmakers. In 1948, the experimental filmmaker Maya Deren used its ramparts as a backdrop for her experimental film Meditation on Violence.<ref> Also that year, Portrait of Jennie used the Cloisters as the location for a convent school.<ref> In the 1968 movie Coogan's Bluff, it was the location of a shoot-out.<ref>
This a lot better; its woven in to the text as opposed to bulleted, it doesn't have its own "pop cul" heading, and is contextualised. Its very poorly worded yet, but propose this as an acceptable compromise, for further work. Ceoil (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • My thanks to Ceoil for inviting me to participate here. My problem with the proposed text above is that it states as fact that "Due to its contrast with the nature of the city itself, the Cloisters is a well known New York landmark and has been a favorite location for filmmakers." That is a positive statement of fact, as well as assuming the reason that filmmakers used it, and would need to be sourced. Something less declarative, such as "The Cloisters is a well-known New York City landmark and has been used as a filming location a number of times" would, I think, be acceptable without a specific source. The rest of the statement seems fine to me, however. BMK (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, what I am suggesting is this statement:
"The Cloisters is a well-known New York City landmark and has been used as a filming location a number of times. In 1948, the experimental filmmaker Maya Deren used its ramparts as a backdrop for her experimental film Meditation on Violence.<ref> Also that year, Portrait of Jennie used the Cloisters as the location for a convent school.<ref> In the 1968 movie Coogan's Bluff, it was the location of a shoot-out.<ref>"
BMK (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree, and have gone with your version. Ceoil (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I made a few small copy edits to the included text, which folks are free to revert if I've gotten it wrong. I like how it reads now, but am happy to discuss if my edits are problematic. Best, Kafka Liz (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It sems fine to me. BMK (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

War?

Ceoil, which war are we talking about in the 1600s? The only American/Spanish war I can find is the one in 1898? CassiantoTalk 23:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, will look. Also of deep fascination are the Paladins; the article encompasses a variety of periods and strong characters. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Moved ref

This unused ref was in the external links (where unused refs don't belong)—moved it here for consideration:

I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 21:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Selected objects

I don't know if there is a free image, but might the large rosary bead filled with miniature carvings be suitable for this section? I'm referring to this work. It was not on display on my last visit, but if anyone could obtain an image, I think it would be a great addition to the article. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I remember seeing it displayed several years ago - mind boggling - I remember buying a postcard of it from the Cloisters store...Modernist (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I did as well. My first visit was around aged nine, and I was thoroughly enchanted. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
My kids were too; that is one of the most amazing works in the entire collection; totally incredible...Modernist (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
My folks had brought me there to hear the Waverly Consort. I did enjoy the music, but this really stole me, even at nine, and surrounded by unicorn tapestries. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
The website says 'not on view' otherwise I would have gone up and photographed it :(. --regentspark (comment) 13:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Now in the gallery in Section 6 (which maybe should actually be titled as a gallery?) —Luis (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Request

The commons images of the Moutiers-Saint-Jean doorway are quite blurred, if any NYC people are in the Cloisters in the near future, can ye think about photographing and adding. Ceoil (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Looks like this was resolved with the Met's recent Open Access release czar 21:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed. And then some. Ceoil (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

refs

OK if I add sfn, cite book, etc.? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Ceoil (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
It’s looking very good, lads. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Find or delete: Suda (2016), 89 Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Dont shoot. This is about Gothic boxwood miniatures. Ellis, Lisa; Suda, Alexandra. "Small Wonders: Gothic Boxwood Miniatures". Art Gallery of Ontario, 2016. ISBN 978-1-8942-4390-2. Both are curators at the Art Gallery of Ontario, and are in the refs. Ceoil (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The scholarship is very broad, so have removed these as not in use. "Further reading" not needed either. Ceoil (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • there's no Clarke (2004)
  • Bayard or Baynard? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, will take a look. Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Clark should have been (2003), and Bayard correctly attributed now. Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't hink that book was written by clark/clarke. I think it's:

Bonnefont Cloister

Sourcing for the history of the "Bonnefont" cloister dates from the 1970s. Current sources [11] [12] [13] supports the idea that the elements came from a cloister and other monuments in and around Tarbes, not Bonnefont. The section should be updated to reflect this. –dlthewave ☎ 19:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2018

165.50.73.198 (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DBigXrayᗙ 14:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Illustrations

The image 'Limbourg brothers - The Belles Heures of Jean, Duke of Berry' seems wrongly labelled Davidships (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, have fixed this now. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Cloisters/Archive_1&oldid=1137230294"