Talk:Retable

Image copyright problem with Image:Staurotheke.jpg

The image Image:Staurotheke.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Retablo with Retable

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, as these are distinct objects with names having a similar root. Klbrain (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Merge with a more developed article of the same name --evrik ^(talk) 05:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Though the meanings overlap in Spanish, these articles deal with different subjects. Didn't you read them? They begin:

"A retable is a structure or element placed either on or immediately behind and above the altar or communion table[1] of a church."

"A retablo is a devotional painting, especially a small popular or folk art one using iconography derived from traditional Catholic church art."

In English the meanings are distinct enough.

Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• I did read them. I still believe they can be merged. There's also overlap between Reredos and altarpiece. --evrik ^(talk) 13:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Not really, especially as so many altarpieces are now detached and in museums. There's more overlap between retable and dossal but I don't think these should be merged either. Any two articles could be merged, but why should these two be? No real reasons are given. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• As an aside, I've always thought dossals were the cloth banner hung behind the altar. In any case, I think that the retable article could be easily integrated into retablo. --evrik ^(talk) 15:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• So you keep saying, without reasons. Surely any merge should be to the English, not the Spanish word? But then where do the small popular ex-votos of the Hispanic world go? Dossals are a term for a cloth hung behind the altar, but not just that, as the article explains. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• One article is clearly more developed and could absorb the stub-like text from the second. The subject would be better covered in one piece of work. --evrik ^(talk) 19:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• What "subject"? There are clearly two subjects, see the opening sentences above. So two articles. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - They are two different things. A retablo is a small devotional painting usually done on tin or scrap metal. They are not altar pieces nor a structural element. Different than a retable. Netherzone (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've taken the liberty of adding hatnotes to distinguish between the terms. Klbrain (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Exact definition of a Retable seems hazy

I know this has somewhat been hashed out before but I feel the common definition is not clear enough. A retable can be, but is not required to: be structural, be freestanding, have artwork, have a shelf/gradin (Which could probably use it's own article), or have a curtain. This leads me to believe that the only real requirement for something to be a retable is that it be the backdrop of an altar. This would mean that a dossal, altarpeice, gradin and reredos are all, in fact, subsets of the retable, instead of being analogous with it. Encyclopedia Britanica seems to imply a retable is more or less an alterpiece with a gradin attached. This definition is not corroborated across sources. I would say "A retable is a backdrop for an altar" is probably the most proper definition. Magjozs (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

"backdrop" is hardly precise, and will puzzle many - we say "A retable is a structure or element placed either on or immediately behind and above the altar or communion table[1] of a church." In practice, "the only real requirement for something to be a retable is that it" is called a retable (by some). Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"The only real requirement for something to be a retable is that it is called a retable" is somewhat acceptable in my opinion, but I would still advocate for retable as a broad category since all of the other forms of Altar backdrop can be functionally called retables under it's normal definition. A definition like "The retable is an object in the sanctuary which is placed directly behind or above the altar space to provides a backdrop for the altar itself from the point of view of the congregation" might be the most neutral definition. I feel this definition is the closest to actual application. The biggest question as to whether a retable is a specific item or the broader category is whether or not the retable must be in contact with the altar. Magjozs (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see this is any clearer or more helpful (or grammatical or "neutral") than the present text. Backdrop is just not a helpful term to introduce. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)