Talk:The Yellow House
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
2 Bridges
editI don't know why, one of the last revisions eliminated important facts: The first of the 2 bridges served the local connection to Lunel, the second ond the P.L.M. --R.P.D. 02:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can't see the revision you refer to. Was it mine? Anyway, I suggest you put the info back in. I am really only just tidying from the point of view of English style and idiom. Tyrenius 14:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I fear it was my fault - probably forgot to save the final version, or similar nonsense. It is restored now. --R.P.D. 15:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Requested move
edit- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Yellow House (painting) → The Yellow House – It seems to be known by this name. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. There are way too many confusables here. Look at the DAB page Yellow House. I would support adding "The", if that is in fact part of the name; but nothing is gained by removal of the qualifier, and much is sacrificed in utility and convenience. NoeticaTea? 03:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Prefer title remain as is. Try googling The Yellow House, and then try The Yellow House (painting)...Modernist (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose dropping "(painting)" from the title. The extra qualification makes sense even if TYH is technically unambiguous. Glrx (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's probably worth noting that the article was moved to The Yellow House (painting) by an editor who doesn't appear to have commented here. Jenks24 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Van Gogh and van Gogh
editWe use Van Gogh at the start of a sentence; after which van Gogh is used. Most scholars use van Gogh not Van Gogh...Modernist (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Huh? Using your citations:
- Yes, I believe the consensus is "Van Gogh", "Vincent van Gogh", index under V, and use "Vincent" when necessary for clarity or consistency (which is quite often given the prominent role of Theo, various uncles, and Vincent's father). Stumps 07:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- As I understand it, there were discussions on VvG capitalization, and the result of those discussions was if "Van Gogh" was alone, then it was capitalized; if medial as in "Vincent van Gogh", then it was not capitalized. My take is that was the consensus and spellings across Van Gogh articles were edited. Subsequently, you reversed your opinion:
- See this - Van (Dutch) clearly Van Gogh is correct...Modernist (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- We are writing - Vincent van Gogh, Van Gogh (unless we decide to use van Gogh) and in some cases in proximity to his close family Vincent...Modernist (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Modernist, I see you reversed yourself shortly after writing this, but overwhelming consensus (particuarly from Dutch sources) appears to be as you state it above.--Chimino (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Where is the reversal of consensus? During those discussions it was known that scholars used both variations. Glrx (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- I did reverse myself - initially I favored V however having participated in the other discussions I came to the conclusion that v made the most sense, especially re - Rewald and Pickvance...Modernist (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- You reversed yourself, but where is the evidence that the WP:CONSENSUS was reversed as well? Glrx (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- As I said re the scholars Pickvance, Rewald, Hughes and Traulbaut. Initially we used V and now v - If we return to V - we need some good reasons - its going to have to be everywhere and with agreement...Modernist (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW as I just did a quick peruse of Vincent van Gogh - the V is back. Frankly I'm ambiguous at this point - lets use V...Modernist (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- As I said re the scholars Pickvance, Rewald, Hughes and Traulbaut. Initially we used V and now v - If we return to V - we need some good reasons - its going to have to be everywhere and with agreement...Modernist (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- You reversed yourself, but where is the evidence that the WP:CONSENSUS was reversed as well? Glrx (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- I did reverse myself - initially I favored V however having participated in the other discussions I came to the conclusion that v made the most sense, especially re - Rewald and Pickvance...Modernist (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Huh? Using your citations:
File:Vincent van Gogh - The yellow house ('The street').jpg to appear as POTD soon
editHello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Vincent van Gogh - The yellow house ('The street').jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 22, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-02-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Real photo needed
edit"The place without the house looks almost the same." Cool. Can we get a photo of this location to verify? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)