Talk:Statue of Harriet Tubman (DeDecker)

Merge discussion

Proposed merging into here and moving back to base name:

• Statue of Harriet Tubman (Little Rock, Arkansas)
• Statue of Harriet Tubman (Gainesville, Georgia)

In April 2016 the article Statue of Harriet Tubman was split into 3 articles for the three locations that have identical copies of this work. This made all three articles much weaker than a good article on the sculpture would be. So let's put them back together here, discussing all three installations, and then move back to the base name. If we need a disambiguator, the artist's name would be appropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@MurielMary: since you did the split, tell us what you'd think of re-merging now. Dicklyon (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: I went ahead and did the merge of the meager contents. If nobody objects soon, I'll ask for the move back to base title. Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this Dicklyon. Is there a relevant WP guideline or policy about this type of situation, where there are multiple installations of the same statue? Or other similar pages as a precedent for how to set this/these ones out? MurielMary (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Not that I know of. But some of the reasons at Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merger appear to apply here. Dicklyon (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way TBH. I've posted in WT:Public Art#Separate pages or merge? asking for comments, let's see what transpires from that. MurielMary (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

One article for identical copies of the same design seems appropriate to me. I'd love to see a single, fully fleshed out article. We can then fork out content for specific locations, if needed. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I should also say, I'm sure there are other statues of Tubman, so perhaps we should disambiguate along the lines of Statue of Harriet Tubman (DeDecker)? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Could do. Though if we don't have articles on others, that would probably be considered unnecessary disambiguation. Dicklyon (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I just also want to avoid folks adding info about other Tubman statues to this one. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge is done. I found there's a copy in Mesa, too, so I'm adding a redirect like the others:

• Statue of Harriet Tubman (Mesa, Arizona)

Requested move 31 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Statue of Harriet Tubman (DeDecker) → Statue of Harriet Tubman – Probably (as far as I know) we don't have other statues of Harriet Tubman in Wikipedia, so the disambiguation by artist is unnecessary. I've moved it to the current name after doing the merge suggested above, since the title with "(DeDecker)" was suggested and was available. I don't have strong feelings about whether to stick with unnecessary disambiguation or move back to the base name, which will take a page-mover's help. Dicklyon (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 02:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I dunno, I might have to oppose. Articles like Harriet Tubman Memorial (New York City) and Harriet Tubman Memorial (Boston) also have statues of Tubman. I don't really think DeDecker's statue of Tubman is the statue of Tubman. Perhaps Statue of Harriet Tubman should actually be a disambiguation page, or something along the lines of List of statues of Harriet Tubman? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind you opposing. Thanks for pointing out those others; I had only looked at the "Statue of". Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

There are at least 3 "Statue of Harriet Tubman" pages (and more if you count redirects), plus other memorials like Harriet Tubman Memorial (New York City), Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Historical Park, and Women on US stamps. Most of these are included under Legacy in the Harriet Tubman article, though it's kind of cluttered and hard to scan. I think that either of Another Believer's suggestions would work. Maybe List of Harriet Tubman memorials to cast a wider net; statues could be one section. Leschnei (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Works for me! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The other two "Statue of" articles were just because I forgot to finish the merge by making them redirects. Did that now. Dicklyon (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as nominated. The relevant part of the MOS, WP:VAMOS suggests it should be Harriet Tubman (DeDecker statue). I think the discussion above shows why this is best. It is an edition of 7 at various locations, so one can't use the place, and DeDecker is not very well-known. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
• Use Johnbod's version. While the nom is correct that the current name isn't how we do things, Another Believer is correct that we need a DAB page, and JB is correct that MOS tells us how to disambiguate artworks (including three-dimensional ones). The statue has a title so we should not resort to a WP:DESCRIPTDIS for no reason, much less one then saddled with a WP:PARENDIS on top of that. The current name is just a "no". — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 07:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose. On second thought, we should not use Harriet Tubman (DeDecker statue) absent proof that Harriet Tubman is the actual title of the work (I thought we had that, but I don't see it in the article). I agree that just "Statue of Harriet Tubman" is naturally ambiguous, even if it's not directly conflicting with another article yet. That could change at any time. Statue of Harriet Tubman should be a DAB page. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. Not the only statue of her. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Move to Harriet Tubman (DeDecker statue), and create List of Harriet Tubman memorials, redirecting the other redlinks to that title. bd2412 T 02:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The statue isn't called Harriet Tubman. It's a statue of Harriet Tubman. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

    Are we certain of that? (Yes, we're certain it's a statue of her, but are we certain it has no title, or that it has one and that it isn't Harriet Tubman?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

    Conversely, unless we are certain it has a name then we shouldn't impose one on it. In any case, its name isn't going to just be Harriet Tubman. That would be ludicrous. Note that just being inscribed "Harriet Tubman" doesn't make it the actual name - that's just a descriptor of who it depicts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per above comments demonstrating there are other articles on statues of Harriet Tubman. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Follow-up discussion

I suspect this will come up again (if not for this piece then for another). I'm dubious about the "just being inscribed 'Harriet Tubman' doesn't make it the actual name" reasoning. As a collector of art nouveau busts by Villanis, Rigual, etc., I know from direct experience that they are near-universally treated as titled by the names inscribed (often rather large) on their bases: Cléopâtre, Farfalla, Melodie, Saïda, etc. The assertion that they are not conventionally treated as titles is simply counterfactual, whether one might like to propose to the wide world that they shouldn't be. The idea that they're not titles of the works is pure original research / wishful thinking. There is no basis on which to treat them any differently from book titles, or the names of movie and TV shows on their title cards.

When it comes to titling of works, WP has a long history of doing what RS do (e.g., using incipits, or "place or person of discovery" conventionalized post hoc designations, or classical music catalogue numbers, or whatever, in the styles (italics or not, quotation marks or not, capitalization or not) those sources most often use and as style guides that touch on these matters (like New Hart's Rules for some of them) advise.

Unfortunately, some statues and other works are likely to be just barely notable enough for inclusion but without sufficient sourcing to determine a common name as a statistical matter. This means we really need a consistent default approach to this. Dicklyon drafted a first taken on one (as a separate naming conventions page, which didn't attract much support), but we should deal with this somewhere. It should be based on what any relevant sources on English writing say to do and what high-quality sources about artworks are doing, not editors' "it should/shouldn't be that way" suppositions. I'm not sure where to host such a discussion. Maybe at WT:NC (i.e. WT:AT), or perhaps WT:ARTS.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)