Talk:Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg)

Needs infobox

{{Infobox Fabergé egg}} like the other egg articles. — MrDolomite • Talk 04:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 3 February 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move back to Red Cross with Triptych. There is a strong consensus to move this page, but zero consensus as to where. Thus, as a "first step", I am moving it back to its previous location. I will start an RFC as to setting up some sort of definitive set of rules for naming the Fabergé eggs. This page should then be moved to the appropriate location as determined by the outcome of the RFC. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Red Cross with Triptych egg → Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg) – This page was moved from Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg) to Red Cross with Triptych by MaybeMaybeMaybe in 2012. I subsequently moved it to Red Cross with Triptych egg, since the article was not about a triptych but about an egg and(that was careless) unaware that it had already existed once under Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg). It appears that a large proportion of the Faberge egg articles exist with either the parenthetical Faberge egg at the end or simply the word "egg". I attempted to move this article back into Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg) but was prevented from doing so by its edit history. There is no explanation as to why the article was moved away from this namespace in the first place, and no discussion anywhere about the move. I see no reason not to move it back (unless there really is a good reason somewhere). KDS4444 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• It was probably moved because the earlier title used parenthetical disambiguation when there's no need for disambiguation. It wouldn't be a good idea to move it back. The egg is in the collection of the Cleveland Museum of Art, and they refer to it as the Imperial Red Cross Easter Egg. That may be our best choice for the article title. - Eureka Lott 03:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

(Only problem with that is that there were actually two "imperial" Easter eggs decorated with red crosses which are visually almost indistinguishable— one had a triptych inside, and the other had a series of portraits, known as something like Red Cross with Imperial Portraits. Whatever title we decide on needs to make clear which egg we are talking about, since either one could be considered an Imperial Red Cross Easter Egg.) KDS4444 (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Move back to Red Cross with Triptych, since either of the alternatives is unnecessary disambiguation, and appending "egg" is not how we do disambiguation at all. KDS4444's rationale "I subsequently moved it to Red Cross with Triptych egg, since the article was not about a triptych but about an egg" is not applicable and would not be unless the original title was of the form "Something (triptych)" and the move was to "Something (egg)", and that parenthetic disambiguation was necessary in the first place, which it is not. The title of this work is Red Cross with Triptych; nothing about that suggests that the entire work itself is a triptych; indeed the opposite is true. If I have a "sandwich with mustard" does anyone believe I am eating nothing but mustard? If there were a notable painting called Flaming Green Hat on a Psychotic Duck it would never be moved to an article title here of "Flaming Green Hat on a Psychotic Duck painting" or "Flaming Green Hat on a Psychotic Duck (painting)" on the basis that it isn't actually a duck but a painting. It would only be disambiguated (and with the parenthetical treatment) if there was another work, e.g. a song, with the same title.
  Neutral, leaning oppose, on alternative suggestion Imperial Red Cross Easter Egg (which should exist as a redirect), unless and until someone proves a WP:COMMONNAME case for that, and I'm skeptical that's possible. This CMoA label for it appears to be a descriptive one, not the work's original title or a translation thereof.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment & response It seems like it would be a good idea to have all the Faberge egg articles under the same type of heading, no? Whether that is parenthetical or not? Also, the work has no official title nor was given one by Faberge— the name it has now was one that it became referred to subsequently by art dealers. When it was made, it was simply an Easter egg, no title (not like a painting, so that analogy does not apply). If we were going to move it to something analogous to sandwich with mustard, then it would go to "Sandwich" (i.e., "Red Cross") so I don't think that analogy quite works either. Given that the work does not have an official title, and given that it is an egg, and given that the other Faberge egg articles have parentheticals, that seemed like the right thing to do. But I agree that parentheticals is not the usual way to disambiguate such things, so perhaps it is best left with at Red Cross with Triptych egg? And then it is perhaps best that the other egg articles be moved to similar namespaces? I also like Eureka Lott's idea above. Thoughts? KDS4444 (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• One website uses the current title, but it seems like a descriptive title or a less commonly used one. Suggestions:

Move to Red Cross Triptych Egg per following more recent sources: book about Faberge's Eggs, encyclopedia about Faberge's Eggs, another book about the Eggs, Danish-language book.

Or move to Red Cross Egg with Resurrection Triptych per following sources, though very older: another book about those Eggs, book about Carl Fabergé, The Lapidary Journal, a bulletin from the Cleveland Museum of Art, another photo collection of Fabergé's works.

One source uses "Red Cross Egg", but I'm unsure whether it's a good title. Another source and PBS use "Red Cross Egg with Triptych". Somehow, the usage seems divided. I don't think WP:NAMECHANGES applies as no name change has been verified. Therefore, it all comes down to WP:DIVIDEDUSE, saying that the least surprising title should be used. Id est (that is) use either "Red Cross Triptych Egg" or "Red Cross Egg with Resurrection Triptych". I believe that the less surprising title is the "Red Cross Triptych Egg". George Ho (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• One of the issues here is that there were apparently two Faberge eggs featuring red crosses which looked almost identical— one had a triptych inside (we have no photos on Commons of this egg), and the other had four portraits of members of the imperial family in their nurse's uniforms (Red Cross with Imperial Portraits, which is another title which should probably be harmonized with wherever this one eventually goes). "Red Cross Triptych Egg" seems a reasonable, simple, unambiguous, unsurprising title. KDS4444 (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: There seems a rough consensus to move, but no consensus on the target. Relisting in the hope we can build one. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I have placed a notice about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Visual arts in the hopes of getting some input from editors with perhaps more experience in this matter. KDS4444 (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

A very good idea. And I've just learned what a triptych is... the article didn't even link to it. It does now. Andrewa (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Move back to Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg). Clear. Unambiguous. Nothing wrong with it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

(Well, there is also that: go back to where we started.)

Collapsed somewhat long argument by KDS4444 for withdrawing this proposed move

I have had a good look at the policy on parenthetical disambiguation— I understand that we are not really trying to disambiguate this article namespace from others with the same title, but are (or rather, I am) trying to find a consistent way to title the articles on the Faberge eggs so that they can be be easily recognized by readers. Sometimes that will mean disambiguation of some kind is necessary (e.g., Pelican (Faberge egg)) and other times it will not (e.g., Memory of Azov), and still others could have required disambiguation but are named so that at the moment this is not technically necessary (First Hen Egg is more often called the Hen Egg, which would definitely require disambiguation under that title). It looks like right now, the only Faberge egg articles that have a parenthetical "(Faberge egg)" at the end are those clearly requiring disambiguation from other articles with the same name (though Cradle with Garlands (Faberge egg) and Standard Yacht (Faberge egg) are among the few exceptions), while the rest exist under some form or another of their more or less unique assigned name, sans either disambiguation parenthetical (which in these cases is unnecessary) or even the word "Egg"/ "egg" at the end (this despite the fact that the lead sentences of most of these has the word "egg" in bold font as part of the first mention of the subject in the lead sentence— not that doing so is against any policy, only that it is interesting). This means that we have article titles such as Royal Danish and Alexander III Equestrian which are about a Faberge egg, though you would never know it from the article title. That isn't necessarily a bad thing: I believe this was done because according to the naming policy for works of art, the final use of the word "egg" or "Faberge egg" was treated like the word "painting" or "sculpture"— that is, it is technically unnecessary and only serves to make the title longer than it needs to be. However (I know, I know, "Get to the point!") the various articles that could have had "painting" or "sculpture" at the end of their names also have actual precise names— names (i.e., titles) which do not include the word "painting". The eggs, though considered works of art, were only given titles by circumstance and as became necessary for cataloguing them. This also means their current "names" often vary quite a bit, with everyone understanding which egg a person means by virtue of context and history... But when there is no context and when the common usage of the title of just about all of the eggs I can think of does include the word "egg" (often capitalized), it then seems appropriate for us to include that as part of the article namespace and to also provide disambiguation when [rarely] necessary in parentheses (i.e., "Pelican Egg (Faberge egg)", "Royal Danish Egg", "Red Cross with Triptych Egg" "Imperial Coronation Egg", "Lilies of the Valley Egg", "Spring Flowers Egg", though certainly nothing like "1898 Imperial Lilies-of-the-Valley Faberge Easter Egg with Surprise"). The exact name used won't matter much at all (whether we use "Red Cross with Triptych Egg" or "Red Cross Triptych Egg") so long as we have the capitalized "egg" at the end of the name to signify that it is a specific and (now) named egg, which is the way many, many authors and museums do it, though perhaps not all. No one refers to the Pelican egg as "Pelican" or even "the Pelican".

That was way too long, so I have put it in a box for others to read as they like, and I apologize— I could think of no simpler or briefer way to make that case, which I hope is now convincing for those who read it. It means I would like to withdraw my original request for a page move to Red Cross with Triptych (Faberge egg) so that the page can just be moved to Red Cross with Triptych Egg (even though that makes it sound like the triptych egg goes with another object called a Red Cross, but that will likely be the case with many of the egg articles, and so be it). KDS4444 (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Why, given that Category:Fabergé eggs shows a mix of the three styles (no disambiguation, parenthetical disambiguation, or adding "Egg") with none any more prevalent than the others? Better to revert to its original title. I therefore oppose your withdrawal. We need to continue the discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Move back to Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg). All these eggs need that in the title somewhere, to clarify the subject. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Either "... egg" or "... (Fabergé egg)" would be fine. Since it was at the latter to start out with, I think that's where it should go. So I support closing this decisively and if my vote is useful for that, great, and if not, ignore me. Homunq (࿓) 14:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Move back to Red Cross with Triptych per SMcCandlish. Pppery 21:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Red Cross Triptych Egg per the evidence above that this is most common in the relevant sources; it is also most common in Google Books (185 vs 120 for "Red Cross with Triptych", none for the present title, and obviously none for constructed titles like "Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg)". As noted above, titles that just use "Red Cross" with no "Triptych" won't work due to confusion with the other "Red Cross" egg. Additionally, the titles with parenthetical disambiguation are out of step with the WP:CRITERIA as they're unnecessarily over-WP:PRECISE and not WP:CONCISE; there are no other articles on things titled "Red Cross Triptych Egg" that this could possibly be confused with.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That would fail MOS:CAPS. That's a description, not a proper name, so at very least "egg" would not be capitalized in that construction. An argument can be made that "cross" and "triptych" wouldn't either (it is not a reference to the Red Cross organization, nor is the work a tryptic. What it is, is an art egg with a red, cross-themed triptych on it, and the conventional title for it appears to be Red Cross with Triptych with the word "egg" appended, inserted somewhere, or omitted. WP doesn't need "egg" anywhere in there, because it's overdisambiguation. The higher above arguments that all Fabergé works should be disambiguated with "(egg)" or "(Fabergé egg)" is not how WP does't disambiguation (see WP:AT, WP:DAB); we only apply it when the title is actually ambiguous without it. WP:CONSISTENCY applies to the base name, and does not imply tacking on extra disambiguation where not needed. Otherwise all song articles on WP would end in "(song)" or "(Artist's Name Here song)" etc. for "consistency". That is not the kind of consistency we're looking for. We're looking for the "China" vs. "Peoples Republic of China" kind of consistency.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Lower casing would be fine, though several of the sources capitalize "Red Cross Triptych Egg" as noted. That form is also apparently the most common of the options.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm also fine with Red Cross Triptych Egg. I doubt many sources not already giving a clear context as a Faberge egg use plain Red Cross with Triptych, and oppose that. Johnbod (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Move back to Red Cross with Triptych (Fabergé egg) per WP:PRECISE. I see a number of issues here, firstly with the current title: "Red Cross with Triptych egg" is too confusing; is it a Red-Cross-with-Triptych egg or a Red Cross with Triptych-egg. Capitalising the title does nothing for me. Similarly, Red Cross with Triptych doesn't suggest at all to me that this article is about an egg, especially due to the common nouns in the name. The question here comes down to what's more important – avoiding disambiguation or clarity, and I favour the latter. Laurdecl ^talk 01:01, 12 March 2017 (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 RFC

Based on the above discussion I have started an RFC in an attempt to codify the naming conventions of these eggs. Please join in the discussion here. Primefac (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Danish Palaces (Fabergé egg) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)