Talk:Bolognese School

Requested move 26 July 2024

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

– Schools of art, schools of thought, etc., are usually rendered in sources with lowercase school. We should fix, consistent with WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. This is a logical extension of the consensus at Talk:Cretan School#Requested move 25 April 2024, but I thought I'd do another discussion just in case. And for the Cuzco school, restore the common spelling. (These are all found at Template:Western art movements, and there may be others there that I've missed.) Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support: These are the names of movements / stylistic variations, not specific institutions. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note – I'm planning to add Sienese School and Cologne School of Painting above, if nobody minds. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please continue adding, as long as the same principle applies. Whatever you find – the Dogs Playing Poker School, the Velvet Elvis School, etc. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hereby nominating Hudson River School. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free, as long as nobody who has commented already objects. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added Hudson River School (it was moved in the opposite direction by Waggers in May 2007). The others were facetious. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think King of Hearts needs to review my edit for how to add new ones to the list, in two places, to make the template do its job of notifying and such. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing SchreiberBike below, I just want to explicitly mention these are supported by MOS:MOVEMENT a.k.a. MOS:DOCTCAPS a.k.a. MOS:FIELD. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. We should also standardize the disambiguation scheme, i.e. choose between "(painting)", "of painting", and "of painters", unless there is a legitimate WP:COMMONNAME reason to maintain the discrepancy. I vote for the parenthetical disambiguation (painting). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally prefer natural to parenthetical. And "of painting" is uniformly more common than "of painters", as far as I can tell. But let's leave that question for later. Dicklyon (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Juwan (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose, taking proper names and impropering them is not the purpose of Wikipedia. For example, Hudson River School is the long-time proper name of the art movement and has very few equals as a known group of American artists. Trying to lowercase history does humanity no favors. Wikipedia is better than this. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per RK. One or two of these might be alright, but certainly not eg Hudson River School. Some of the Italian ones could/should be moved to eg Bolognese painting. The nom's "Schools of art, schools of thought, etc., are usually rendered in sources with lowercase school" is simply not true. A bunch of the the usual lower-case fanatics who othwerwise don't edit in this field at all have showed up. "School of.." is an old-fashioned way of describing artistic groups and movements, and the sources normally treat the terms as proper names. The April discussion (Crete, Novgorod etc) was a bad mistake, which ought to be reversed. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hudson River School is one that started out capped and stayed 60–80% capped in books for over a hundred years, so I can see not lowercasing that one. Are there others that you object to for reasons like that? As for Bolognese painting, that would be OK, too, but Bolognese school of painting is also very common in sources, and was once very domiant (see n-gram stats). I'd have no objection to changing it, but such other changes would make this RM overly complicated. Let's fix the over-capitalization first. Dicklyon (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The ones for Italian cities should probably all be moved to titles consistent with Florentine painting and Venetian painting, because "School" is rather old-fashioned in that field: Bolognese School, School of Ferrara, Forlivese school of art, Genoese School (painting), Lucchese School, Sienese School → Bolognese painting, Ferrarese painting, Forlivese painting, Genoese painting, Lucchese painting, Sienese painting. (I wouldn't advocate doing the same for the others.)
Here are some more article titles in art history or architectural history: Amsterdam School, Barbizon School, Delft School (architecture), Glasgow School, Hague School, Munich school, Traditionalist School (architecture). (Also School of Fontainebleau, School of London, School of Paris, School of Posillipo, School of Reims, School of Resina and School of Tuam, and École de Nancy.) Outside those fields there are Genoese School, Sicilian School and numerous others at Category:Schools of thought, Category:Composition schools and their subcategories. There are also the disambiguation pages Berlin school, Birmingham School, Bologna School, Boston School, Chicago school, Dutch School, Italian school, Manchester school, New York School and Norwich School (disambiguation). I'm just gathering evidence at this stage, but I would expect many if not most of these to be proper names in usage. Ham II (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Looking at the titles of the works listed as References and Further Reading items for the EN:WP articles on, for example, the Delft School, the Norwich School and the Boston School among others than the upper-case form is clearly the accepted and commonly used name.14GTR (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalization in titles is irrelevant. We need to assess capitalization in sentence context, per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note – I have removed all the "Strongs". No need to overheat the discussion. Revert if you object. Dicklyon (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just unbelievable! Restored mine. Please DON'T mess with others' comments you don't like again. You really should know better. Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Most of the discussion so far has been about how other sources capitalize, and that's relevant, but our own Manual of Style at MOS:MOVEMENT says: "Doctrines, ideologies, philosophies, theologies, theories, movements, methods, processes, systems or schools of thought and practice, and fields of academic study or professional practice are not capitalized" (italics in the original). If some of these are actual named organizations, then they are proper names and capitalization is appropriate, but most of these are informal groupings named for a locality. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As has often been pointed out, this silly part of the guideline has never been observed - we don't (of course) use impressionism, renaissance and so on. But who can be bothered to take on the lower-case fanatics? Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure all would agree that Renaissance is a proper noun; it's over 90% capped in books. Impessionism, on the other hand is only 2/3 capped, per book n-gram stats, and is used lowercase in over 800 Wikipedia articles. Some of those may be wrong, but I wouldn't assume it should always be capped, given the common lowercase usage in books. You're right though that a lot of article titles go against guidelines. That's a big part of what I work on. Dicklyon (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That just means another group to uppercase, in this instance 800 miscased examples of Impressionism. I've done uppercase correction runs in quite a few in that number range (most recently am chipping away at uppercasing 'Industrial Revolution', have finally got those down to under 500). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to see how you could justify capping at Abstract impressionism and such. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I don't think I've uppercased any of the examples of 'Abstract impressionism', which is a different animal altogether. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is precisely what MOS:DOCTCAPS is about, and these moves should also be effectuated per WP:CONSISTENT policy, to agree with our treatment of all other "schools of thought" sort of subjects. See also recent RM: Talk:French liberal school#Requested move 2 July 2024. Same issue. PS: If one or another of these things turns out to be an actual instution (a school in the usual sense) and a proper name thereby, then sever it from the rest, but proceed with lower-casing the others. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some source data

People don't seem to have been checking, so I'll help. Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy cases: n-gram stats for Bolognese, Pont-Aven, Cuzco, Sienese, Cologne show between 50% and 80% lowercase, nowhere close to our criteria for capping. And Lucchese school only shows up lowercase.

Here is a clearer view for the Cologne school of painting; very much lowercase. I'm not finding much on the music, other than the actual school Cologne School of Music, which is not the topic of Cologne School (music); the sources are mostly in German, which won't help, so I'd say just follow our guidelines.

Harder cases are where caps are common due to actual school names (Delft School of Design, Delft School of Microbiology, Boston School of <lots of things>, Norwich School of Art & Design, Quito School of Art, Quito School of Fine Arts, Volcano School of Arts & Sciences.

Oftentimes, the n-grams will resolve these, e.g. Quito School of Art, School of Fine Arts, vs school of painting and school of art. Norwich school of painters or painting, Delft school of painting, Boston school of painting.

It's hard to find sources on the Volcano School. The article's reference are thin and not very inaccessible. In a Google Books search, I see 2 capped and 1 lowercase in the first 10 hits, where the rest of the hits are on different topics. On the second page of 10, find 1 and 1. So it's hardly "consistently capitalized" in sources.

The Hudson River School downcasing has been particularly objected to, as it's more commonly capped in sources. Here are n-grams, showing it's hardly a slam-dunk in light of the criteria articulated in MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, but I do see their point.

That's all of them. Users who have expressed opinions without data would do well to have another look. Dicklyon (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who launched this slap-dash nom bundling unrelated subjects without proper research. "School" is such a common word that Google searches including it have to be taken with a strong pinch of salt, even more than most N-grams. What strong recent RS can you produce lower casing it in Hudson River School or Sienese school? A normal google search on the latter shows pages of very reputable pages from museums, art historians & auction houses capitalizing it, while those that don't are on linked-in, instagram etc. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did check all that I listed before I did this RM. I just didn't post all the complicated evidence, figuring people would look for themselves in any case. Nothing slap-dash about it. And yes the common uses of "school" make it non-trivial, which I why I detailed my finding with links above. For Sienese school, check out recent books: 2023, 2013, 2021, for example. The Hudson River one is harder, admittedly. Here's one from 2005, and one from 2009 (and that wasn't part of my nom, recall). Dicklyon (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That "2023" result is a reprint of a book of 1855, the "2013" one is a reprint of one of 1923 and "2021" is a reprint from 1902! I wonder if all ngrams for "[Italian city] school" are scrambled and give an artificial boost to an antiquated turn of phrase. "Sienese painting" appears more in recent book titles, whereas book titles with "Sienese school" skew earlier. Ham II (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it was you who accepted Hudson River School as part of your nomination, lumping it in with the questionable ones. Trying to "take out" a prominent uppercasing by mixing it in with obvious lowercasings? Not a practice that should be done on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said "feel free" without checking to see if I would have proposed it myself. That was not smart. It's fine if you and others oppose that one, but that's not a reason to oppose the ones that are more often lowercase in sources (like the Hudson River school was 50 years ago, but no longer). Dicklyon (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you allow Hudson River School to stay in your nom knowing that editors 'support' the entire list. You pretty much admit here and elsewhere that Hudson River School has the n-gram and source evidence to uppercase but you still allow it to be lumped in with obvious lowercasings. What, do you hope it will slip through and be lowercased along with the others and, if so, why? Randy Kryn (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]