 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Name
editPer guidelines, we should follow WP:RS in this as in anything else, and not engage in WP:Original research. There is really no concept of a correct spelling at this period, in Netherlandish names or any others. A very good source, which collates many other reference works and other sources is this (Bosch entry shown), and also the usage of major English-language museums, as the usual name in English may well be different from that in Dutch or Flemish. These are not always infallible or consistent, but are what we should normally use. What Dutch Wikipedia has is not in itself important; they are not an RS. It may be worth recording that there are variants, and perhaps giving some in a footnote, referenced to reliable sources, which do not include primary sources like a single document, or even several.
For example "Adam Pynacker" is the "preferred" spelling of Getty Union, is used by the National Gallery in Washington [1], the Fitzwilliam in Cambridge [2] & the Courtauld in London [3] etc. It should therefore be what English WP uses, whatever the usual spelling in Dutch. The English have the right to anglicize names like other words! Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Johnbod, that's fine. As you might have noticed, I tend to pick a spelling, and then I just try to make redirects from the most common alternative spellings. It's all about findability, as far as I am concerned. Many painters changed their signatures with completely different spellings according to where they were, which is very frustrating for modern historians!! I don't have access to the Getty names, so I use the RKD spelling (which by the way isn't always consistent either!) Jane (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- You do have access to the Getty list which is fully online and linked above (and very easy to use). I use that, & if in doubt check the National Galleries in London & Washington, both also easy to find. If they all agree, that's enough for me. In the case of Pynacker, I think that spelling is a traditional anglicization - is it found in Dutch at all? Where there is an anglicized version, or variant Dutch spelling, used by most English sources, we should of course use that, just as we do with Raphael. In general the usage of art historians is harmonizing towards that of the native language or country, but WP should be following not leading this. I don't know if you noticed but this one was changed from "Pynacker" to the Dutch version a few months ago.
- Very cool! I guess getting the link is more difficult, but I did it for Houbraken. The summaries seem to be much more brief than the RKD and no links to images, but hey - they do have the family tree, so that's something. The RKD has more random info like students & teachers - here is their Houbraken.Jane (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's just for the name, & sometimes dates etc. Actually mistakes on relationships etc are fairly easy to find if you use it a lot. But the great thing about it is that pools the usages of a great number of good sources, some listed at the bottom, & saves hunting around & comparing them. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah it definitely helps - any source that you can get to that easily is welcome!!
- It's just for the name, & sometimes dates etc. Actually mistakes on relationships etc are fairly easy to find if you use it a lot. But the great thing about it is that pools the usages of a great number of good sources, some listed at the bottom, & saves hunting around & comparing them. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Very cool! I guess getting the link is more difficult, but I did it for Houbraken. The summaries seem to be much more brief than the RKD and no links to images, but hey - they do have the family tree, so that's something. The RKD has more random info like students & teachers - here is their Houbraken.Jane (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- You do have access to the Getty list which is fully online and linked above (and very easy to use). I use that, & if in doubt check the National Galleries in London & Washington, both also easy to find. If they all agree, that's enough for me. In the case of Pynacker, I think that spelling is a traditional anglicization - is it found in Dutch at all? Where there is an anglicized version, or variant Dutch spelling, used by most English sources, we should of course use that, just as we do with Raphael. In general the usage of art historians is harmonizing towards that of the native language or country, but WP should be following not leading this. I don't know if you noticed but this one was changed from "Pynacker" to the Dutch version a few months ago.