Talk:The Cloisters: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 21:19, 20 September 2024

The Cloisters is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 1, 2018.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 19, 2018	Featured article candidate	Promoted
April 22, 2018	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Featured article

Metropolitan Museum of Art Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of Art. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Metropolitan Museum of ArtWikipedia:GLAM/Metropolitan Museum of ArtTemplate:WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of ArtMetropolitan Museum of Art
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Museums High‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Mid‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Consensus request for editing introductory statement of "Garden" section.

Section 3.2 begins with a confusing and unrelated fact regarding the use of gardens during the medieval era:

"During periods of political unrest and military invasion, gardens became essential for community survival.[116]"

The source cited (ISBN 978-0-87099-775-4) is text on both the gardens at The Cloisters, and the history of medieval gardens themselves. Though interesting, and perhaps relevant somewhere else in the article, this statement is a non-sequitor in its current context and should be removed from the garden section. Rimless Spectacles 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it should probably be removed. Ceoil (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Beyond My Ken (talk)

thank you; I appreciate the help Beyond My Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimless Spectacles (talk • contribs) 20:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rockefeller's Palisades donation

"In 1933, Rockefeller donated several hundred acres of the New Jersey Palisades clifftops, which he had purchased over several years for the Palisades Interstate Park Commission to preserve the land from further development." Why is this relevant? Was this land across the Hudson even visible from the Cloisters on Manhattan? PRRfan (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original myth is often used by the Cloisters to say "Rockefeller purchased the land across the river so that the Cloisters had a nice view" It is visible from the Cloisters, which is right along the Hudson River overlooking the Palisades. PalisadesResearch (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if the sentence is removed, but the original sentence was already incorrect and thought to be connected to the section. Thank you! PalisadesResearch (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both, much clearer now. Ceoil (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{ArticleHistory
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
+|action1 = FAC
-{{WikiProject New York City|class=start|importance=mid}}
+|action1date = 2018-09-19
-{{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places|class=Start|importance=low|needs-infobox=no}}
+|action1link = Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Cloisters/archive1
-{{WikiProject Museums|class=start|importance=mid}}
+|action1result = promoted
+|action1oldid = 860241118
+|currentstatus = FA
+|maindate=December 1, 2018
+|action2=PR
+|action2date=19:39:15 22 April 2018 (UTC)
+|action2link=Wikipedia:Peer review/The Cloisters/archive1
+|action2result=reviewed
+|action2oldid=939526645
 }}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|
+{{WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of Art|importance=top}}
+{{WikiProject Museums|importance=high}}
+{{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places|importance=low|needs-infobox=no}}
+{{WikiProject New York City|importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject Visual arts }}
+}}
+{{User:MiszaBot/config
+|archiveheader       = {{talkarchivenav}}
+|maxarchivesize      = 75K
+|counter             = 1
+|minthreadsleft      = 3
+|minthreadstoarchive = 1
+|algo                = old(365d)
+|archive             = Talk:The Cloisters/Archive %(counter)d
+}}
+{{archives|search=yes}}
+== Consensus request for editing introductory statement of "Garden" section. ==
+Section 3.2 begins with a confusing and unrelated fact regarding the use of gardens during the medieval era:
+<blockquote>"During periods of political unrest and military invasion, gardens became essential for community survival.[116]"</blockquote>
-==Untitled==
-The Très Riches Heures is held by the Chateau du Chantilly, France. The Met has Les Belles Heures. Corrected. [[User:Alexisr|Alexisr]] 19:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
+The source cited (ISBN 978-0-87099-775-4) is text on both the gardens at The Cloisters, and the history of medieval gardens themselves. Though interesting, and perhaps relevant somewhere else in the article, this statement is a non-sequitor in its current context and should be removed from the garden section. [[User talk:Rimless Spectacles|Rimless Spectacles]] 25 January 2021 (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. --[[User:Enkyo2|Enkyo2]] ([[User talk:Enkyo2|talk]]) 14:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
+:I think it should probably be removed. [[User talk:Ceoil|<span style="color:#006633">Ceoil</span>]] ([[User talk:Ceoil|talk]]) 17:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
+::I agree. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
+::{{done-t}} [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]])
+:::thank you; I appreciate the help [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rimless Spectacles|Rimless Spectacles]] ([[User talk:Rimless Spectacles#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rimless Spectacles|contribs]]) 20:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Xsign -->
+== Rockefeller's Palisades donation ==
-==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. [[User:OR drohowa|OR drohowa]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 20:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
+"In 1933, Rockefeller donated several hundred acres of the New Jersey Palisades clifftops, which he had purchased over several years for the Palisades Interstate Park Commission to preserve the land from further development." Why is this relevant? Was this land across the Hudson even visible from the Cloisters on Manhattan? [[User:PRRfan|PRRfan]] ([[User talk:PRRfan|talk]]) 15:35, 12 March 2024 (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  <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:LegalTech|LegalTech]] ([[User talk:LegalTech|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LegalTech|contribs]]) 16:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+:The original myth is often used by the Cloisters to say "Rockefeller purchased the land across the river so that the Cloisters had a nice view" It is visible from the Cloisters, which is right along the Hudson River overlooking the Palisades. [[User:PalisadesResearch|PalisadesResearch]] ([[User talk:PalisadesResearch|talk]]) 16:16, 12 March 2024 (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. {{u|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.  [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|tk]]) 17:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
+::I don't mind if the sentence is removed, but the original sentence was already incorrect and thought to be connected to the section. Thank you! [[User:PalisadesResearch|PalisadesResearch]] ([[User talk:PalisadesResearch|talk]]) 16:18, 12 March 2024 (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. [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk:Ceoil|talk]]) 17:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-::*Per Victoriaearle. The idea that this is an issue is beyond my...understanding. [[User:Kafka Liz|Kafka Liz]] ([[User talk:Kafka Liz|talk]]) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
+:::Thanks both, much clearer now. [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk:Ceoil|talk]]) 17:25, 12 March 2024 (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. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|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? [[User:Kafka Liz|Kafka Liz]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 19:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-{{out}} 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. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|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. [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|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. [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Kafka Liz|Kafka Liz]] ([[User talk:Kafka Liz|talk]]) 21:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-*{{u|Beyond My Ken}}, you wrote in your edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Cloisters&type=revision&diff=712363193&oldid=712359608 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. [[User:Victoriaearle|Victoria]] ([[User talk:Victoriaearle|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. <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 21:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-* '''Restore.''' Per NE Ent. Well-sourced information.  [[User:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">Gamaliel</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Gamaliel|<span style="color:DarkGreen;">talk</span>]])</small> 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. [[User:Kafka Liz|Kafka Liz]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] ([[User talk:Ceoil|talk]]) 22:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)