Talk:George Washington (Trumbull)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Washington (Trumbull) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from George Washington (Trumbull) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 February 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Scheduled for POTD
[edit]Hello all
An image from this artitcle has been selected for Picture of the Day on July 4, 2024. See Template:POTD/2024-07-04 for details. — Amakuru (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 20 March 2025
[edit]
![]() | It has been proposed in this section that George Washington (Trumbull) be renamed and moved to George Washington (Trumbull, 1780). A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
George Washington (Trumbull) → George Washington (Trumbull, 1780) – While this article is more widely viewed than George Washington (Trumbull, 1790) (by approximately a 4.5:1 margin), I'm not convinced that it's the primary topic by enough of a margin to justify a WP:PDAB. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 12:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr (lets chat) 01:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Would George Washington and William Lee not be a more natural disambiguation? Rafts of Calm (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I think that this article is the primary topic. It was Picture of the Day. George Washington (Trumbull, 1790) was created later and caused the problem. I would rename the later to perhaps Washington and the Departure of the British Garrison from New York City. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- I suggest both are moved. Rafts of Calm (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support: The current title is unjustified WP:INCOMPLETEDAB. This painting is not the primary topic for "George Washington", so it cannot be moved to that title. Renaming the other article does nothing to resolve the ambiguity of the current title for this topic, and there is insufficient justification for a WP:PDAB. Renaming it to George Washington and William Lee seems revisionist – Mr. Lee is not at all prominent in the picture, which is clearly focused on Washington, and I doubt very many other sources identify the painting that way. — BarrelProof (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Revisionist or not, it’s a natural disambiguation and supported by reliable sources. It’s not for us to determine what the name of the painting should be. Rafts of Calm (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, after a bit of searching, I see that name being used by The Met and a site called Discovery Virginia and Artvee, although I have the impression that the name is not used very widely. — BarrelProof (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Given that the Met is currently where the painting is located, does that give their naming any extra support? ―Howard • 🌽33 15:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not really. Wikipedia prefers WP:COMMONNAMEs, not WP:OFFICIALNAMES. There is actually a preference for reliable sources to be WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The museum is not independent of the painting. They may choose labels for very different reasons than Wikipedia does, such as revisionist reasons, promotional reasons, and avoidance of criticisms. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Given that the Met is currently where the painting is located, does that give their naming any extra support? ―Howard • 🌽33 15:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, after a bit of searching, I see that name being used by The Met and a site called Discovery Virginia and Artvee, although I have the impression that the name is not used very widely. — BarrelProof (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Revisionist or not, it’s a natural disambiguation and supported by reliable sources. It’s not for us to determine what the name of the painting should be. Rafts of Calm (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: 4.5:1 is probably enough for a PDAB in this case. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 10:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- 4.5:1 is exceptionally low for a PDAB pageview ratio. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, 4.5/1 is too low. Should be at least 10/1. Steel1943 (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- 4.5:1 is exceptionally low for a PDAB pageview ratio. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Relisting comment: Relisting to generate a more thorough consensus. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject New York (state), GLAM/Metropolitan Museum of Art, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Visual arts have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 12:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Chicdat regarding page views. It is telling that the proposed title is and has been a red link, indicating a non-familiar name. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. The nominator makes a valid point to why the partial disambiguation is not sufficient. In addition, given the nature of the topic matter, the ratio of views is probably caused by readers who arrive at this article and don't go to the next one because they assume they reached the correct article, which might not necessarily be the case here, especially given the 10-year difference between the subjects and the subjects being created over two centuries ago. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Also, regarding the WP:NATURAL claim above: I have no opinion on that matter ... as long as the current title ends up becoming a redirect to a disambiguation page and the nominator's proposed title becomes a redirect towards whatever the new title of this article becomes. Steel1943 (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- No objection to a move to George Washington and William Lee * Pppery * it has begun... 20:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: These names all seem to fail the recognisability test to me. This reads in part The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. What identifies George Washington (Trumbull, 1780) as an article on a painting? Is a person familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in this subject area even aware that Trumbull here refers to an artist? George Washington (Trumbull, 1780) might be a suitable title in an encyclopedia of art, but for a general encyclopedia it seems esoteric to me. Perhaps this is a gap in our naming conventions? Andrewa (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- MOS:ART/TITLE allows both the current style and "Portrait of George Washington" (plus disambiguation): "For portraits in two-dimensional media, the styles "Portrait of Fred Foo" or "Fred Foo (Titian)" are both acceptable". The "Portrait of..." style would be clearer to the general reader in this case. The potential pitfalls when arguing for that style are WP:COMMONNAME, if examples of that specific phrasing for that portrait can't be found, and WP:CONCISE, but I think the benefits of being more explicit outweigh those considerations.
- That could leave us with the article title Portrait of George Washington (Trumbull, 1780). Usually further disambiguation than by artist is by location, not by year, but Portrait of George Washington (Trumbull, New York) wouldn't work as that could also refer to the 1790 portrait in New York City Hall and a version of General George Washington at Trenton in the Met (and perhaps others).
- George Washington and William Lee would have WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION going for it, and that part of policy is about overriding WP:COMMONNAME. It would also be a style more WP:CONSISTENT with most of our other articles on Trumbull's portraits of Washington (and all of them if George Washington (Trumbull, 1790) were retitled Washington and the Departure of the British Garrison from New York City, as it should). The fact that by the Met's own admission the second figure is only assumed to be William Lee (despite that now being the title it uses for the work) is a sore point, though. Ham II (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- C-Class Metropolitan Museum of Art articles
- Low-importance Metropolitan Museum of Art articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Early Modern warfare articles
- Early Modern warfare task force articles
- C-Class American Revolutionary War articles
- American Revolutionary War task force articles
- C-Class New York (state) articles
- Low-importance New York (state) articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class visual arts articles
- WikiProject Visual arts articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- Requested moves