A fact from Poniatowski gems appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 July 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Lightburst (
talk) 18:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Created by David Eppstein ( talk). Self-nominated at 23:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Poniatowski gem; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
@ David Eppstein you can look through Prendeville if you want to find images (monochromatic photographs from 1850s). If you find one you like I'm happy to crop, color adjust, and add to commons. But we could also try to look around for full-color photos; there may be some available under open licenses. – jacobolus (t) 02:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
The Met has not caught up with the times, and still subscribes to the idea that the Poniatowski collection was all fakes, rather than as modern inventions based on antiquity. They were fakes in that they were presented by the Prince as ancient, and only later, decades after this death was it determined they were not. It destroyed the market for ancient gems and sowed doubt, thus a very low opinion is held of the neo-Classical gems. ¶ So do post the gem from the Met, it is a fake ancient gem but a real Poniatowski, if that makes sense. ¶ We don’t know who carved which gem, thus their non specific attribution.I'll report back if I get a response from the Met or CARC. – jacobolus (t) 21:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Parking sources here to investigate / possibly cite. – jacobolus (t) 05:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@ User:David Eppstein: It's hard to answer questions you put into commit messages unless you are asking to be reverted. It reads kind of passive-aggressive (and the SHOUTING commit messages previously are more like just aggressive).
I am happy to answer your question though, "what is the purpose of having three different formats for citations, one of them deprecated??"
The purpose was to split some of the best references out into a separate section at the bottom, because readers often just skim down to the bottom of a Wikipedia article to look for good secondary sources. If we can separate some of the best summaries, it makes it easier for them to get a good (non-Wikipedia) overview and/or deep dive into the topic. Many references buried in the footnotes are useful for verifying some specific trivial claims in the article, but aren't that useful or interesting otherwise.
The purpose of using the "harvard" style references is that these are links to primary-source catalogs that are not really being treated as "references" per se, but more like subjects of the article. – jacobolus (t) 07:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
A fact from Poniatowski gems appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 July 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Lightburst (
talk) 18:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Created by David Eppstein ( talk). Self-nominated at 23:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Poniatowski gem; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
@ David Eppstein you can look through Prendeville if you want to find images (monochromatic photographs from 1850s). If you find one you like I'm happy to crop, color adjust, and add to commons. But we could also try to look around for full-color photos; there may be some available under open licenses. – jacobolus (t) 02:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
The Met has not caught up with the times, and still subscribes to the idea that the Poniatowski collection was all fakes, rather than as modern inventions based on antiquity. They were fakes in that they were presented by the Prince as ancient, and only later, decades after this death was it determined they were not. It destroyed the market for ancient gems and sowed doubt, thus a very low opinion is held of the neo-Classical gems. ¶ So do post the gem from the Met, it is a fake ancient gem but a real Poniatowski, if that makes sense. ¶ We don’t know who carved which gem, thus their non specific attribution.I'll report back if I get a response from the Met or CARC. – jacobolus (t) 21:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Parking sources here to investigate / possibly cite. – jacobolus (t) 05:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@ User:David Eppstein: It's hard to answer questions you put into commit messages unless you are asking to be reverted. It reads kind of passive-aggressive (and the SHOUTING commit messages previously are more like just aggressive).
I am happy to answer your question though, "what is the purpose of having three different formats for citations, one of them deprecated??"
The purpose was to split some of the best references out into a separate section at the bottom, because readers often just skim down to the bottom of a Wikipedia article to look for good secondary sources. If we can separate some of the best summaries, it makes it easier for them to get a good (non-Wikipedia) overview and/or deep dive into the topic. Many references buried in the footnotes are useful for verifying some specific trivial claims in the article, but aren't that useful or interesting otherwise.
The purpose of using the "harvard" style references is that these are links to primary-source catalogs that are not really being treated as "references" per se, but more like subjects of the article. – jacobolus (t) 07:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)