Talk:Daulat (artist)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

India: History Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

A fact from Daulat (artist) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 April 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a Mughal painter described himself in his self-portrait (pictured) as "the lowly, needy, insignificant, Daulat"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daulat (Mughal painter).

Wikipedia

38,839 views! - note the page has since been moved & the link above doesn't work. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 April 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. "(artist)" is sufficiently WP:PRECISE as no other person with that name is an artist. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daulat (Mughal painter) → Daulat (artist) – In their revert, Johnbod summarized "do a proper RM, like everybody else". But "Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if ... It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move." WP:RM, so "like everybody else" is just dickish, since undiscussed moves are done all the time. It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move because "If possible, limit the tag to a single, recognizable and highly applicable term." (WP:NCPDAB) and "If a biography needs disambiguating then John Smith (artist) is usually the best choice, as opposed to e.g. John Smith (painter) (see Lead section above)" (MOS:VATITLE). Two others (All pages with titles containing Mughal painter) should be moved as well, but this page is in queue for the front page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is (pretty much) the standard disambiguator, as JHJ admits above (and no, they shouldn't be moved either). The case is analagous to the many cases such as John Foo (British army officer) where "excess" disambiguation is well accepted. I'm afraid JHJ usually has difficulty accepting that anyone "would reasonably disagree" with him on anything. I'm going to remove any tag on the article until the DYK is over. MOS:VATITLE says "usually" because most Western artists (by far the majority with articles) did drawings, watercolours & often prints, as well as just paintings. With Mughal painters the case is different. Speaking as the person who wrote that sentence in the policy, "painter" would be better here. What's double dickish is doing one of these just before an article hits the main page, especially a bad one like this. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's precisely because the article is about to hit the main page that I moved it to the better title in the first place, which you reverted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so you said. The bot has reinstated it, so I suppose it will get pulled until this is resolved. Triple dickery. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The shorter the disambiguator, the better. "Mughal" is not necessary as there are no other painters or artist by the same name. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That implies he was a "painter" in the normal meaning of the word, which he wasn't. If he was European, he would be Daulat (illuminator) or Daulat (miniature painter), and nobody would raise an eyebrow. Mughal painting, which he practised, is all about miniatures, and the extra disam makes this clear (for those aware of the subject anyway). Johnbod (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support The shorter title just makes sense, and there aren't any other artists he'd be confused with on Wikipedia yet. "Painter" also works, sure. Abeg92contribs 19:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The shorter, the better. But couldn't we make it Daulat? Who else would he get confused with?? TuorEladar (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at Daulat? Apparently not. This is what you get when a rename tag runs when an article is on the main page. Johnbod (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on either artist or Mughal painter, although I am leaning more towards artist since the lead's first sentence states he is an "artist in Mughal painting". However, per Johnbod's reasoning, I am very against him simply being named as a "(painter)" like others have suggested above, for the same reasons I wouldn't call illuminators just "painters." - Whisperjanes (talk) 04:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.