Template talk:POTD/2020-05-02

Strange title for this picture. Could not find it to verify. Jmar67 (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the title is wrong. See This for a picture of that title, and then see for the POD with a different title and painter. DuncanHill (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google Arts & Culture's page on this painting has that title (In a pine wood. Study), although I can't verify this on the collection's website. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 03:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/In a pine wood - Study thought it might be an incorrect translation from Danish — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This picture was painted in 1863 and translates to "in a spruce forest" which seems to match Duncan's first image — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth, Ravenpuff, and Amakuru: as the people who most often deal with POTD, and would have some idea how to easily swap this out with another picture, I wonder if this should be swapped out now (or, at least, preparations made to do so) so the question can be addressed in a less hurried way? 8.5 hours before this is on the main page. In extremis I guess we can just keep today's picture up for another day, but I assume that's not the optimal solution. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe we could just strike out "~~entitled In a pine wood. Study,~~" from the POTD blurb if we can't determine what its actual name is – the bolded article is about the artist, anyway. That said, a possible replacement, if it becomes necessary, could be Template:POTD/2020-05-02. The proper way to do it (in order to preserve edit histories) would be to conduct page moves without leaving redirects: first moving 2020-04-26 to some other date in the future, and then 2020-05-02 to 2020-04-26; although, in extremis, cut-and-paste moves may have to do. The protected version for tomorrow should then be re-created (the easiest way is to delete the page and then use this link). Finally, the templates on both file description pages should be tweaked. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this discussion earlier today. I wrote the original caption and was also puzzled by what seems a very unsuitable title. I suggest we just omit the title from the blurb as Ravenpuff suggests. I am not in favour of moving this POTD to a later date because everyone is going to just forget about the problem and move on to something else. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer to POTD regulars, but it seems pretty weird to have a painting as the POTD and not give the name of the painting. And DH's comment above led me to believe we're not even 100% sure Dalsgaard is the artist. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The POTD does seem to be signed by Dalsgaard on closer examination (bottom right). The title as given makes no sense. DuncanHill (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it's indeed from Hirschsprung Collection, searching for Dalsgaard there doesn't show that painting. With that in mind, I support swapping to another image. Brandmeister^talk 18:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the signature, except... Doesn't that same signature give a date of 1870, not 1863?? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted! DuncanHill (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the doubts expressed about this entry, and the closeness to go-live, I have pushed it back to the Future and replaced with the second of May entry as Ravenpuff suggests. If anyone has better sourcing and can clarify without doubt who the artist was, and what the title is, we can re-run it as and when, but that should be done in advance of any future running date, currently scheduled for 2021-04-25. Thanks for the spot. — Amakuru (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the collective failure to deal with the incorrect/incomplete information for the POTD yesterday, it is good to see the problems with this one being dealt with in advance; and a salutary lesson not to believe everything any source, even Google, says without question. But all this is too late, as it has been punted off to next year already. Oh well.

It has been surprisingly difficult to track down good sources for this painting.

The Hirschsprung Collection does not appear to have its own comprehensive online catalogue, and most of the works it holds are not mentioned on its website (as the search linked above shows).
The Kunstindeks Danmark and Weilbachs Kunstnerleksikon website is more helpful (our article on Kunstindeks Danmark redirects to Weilbachs Kunstnerleksikon).
The Kunstindeks Danmark advanced artwork search for artist="Dalsgaard" and museum="Den Hirschsprungske Samling" picks up 11 of his works. (I can't easily see a way to give a permanent link to that search result.)
Indeed, one of the 11 Dalsgaard works held by the Hirschsprung Collection is his 1863 painting "I en granskov" ("In the spruce/fir/pine wood"). I think that is actually the one here (same as the Russian(!) TripAdvisor link above), and not the one scheduled as ~~tomorrow's~~ next year's POTD.
Notwithstanding the comment at the FPC, I think it is also not Dalsgaard's 1851 painting "Læsende pige fra Salling" ("Reading girl from Salling"), also held by the Hirschsprung Collection. We have that (different) image; and see also Google Arts & Culture (that one I think they have got right).
But I am reasonably sure the POTD image is a third Dalsgaard painting held by the Hirschsprung Collection: it is his 1870 painting "En rekonvalescent" ("A convalescent"). (Signed and dated 1870, as noted above: it is the only 1870 painting by Dalsgaard listed by the Kunstindeks Danmark as being in the Hirschsprung Collection; indeed, the only work by him in 1870 that the Kunstindeks Danmark lists at all.)

Some convincing support (albeit not "reliable sources" perhaps) from this (different TripAdvisor link) and this blogpost (web searches for "Dalsgaard convalescent" produce other likely matches). And then, look at the caption on the frame in this image which seems to be a photograph of the same painting from this blogpost (but not this image - again, look at the caption on the frame - from this other blogpost, you'll need to scroll a long way down).

If you believe all that, as I do, I'd suggest the last sentence of the blurb is amended to say: "This picture is an oil-on-canvas painting entitled En rekonvalescent ("A convalescent"), created by Dalsgaard in 1870 and depicting a girl reading. The painting is now part of the Hirschsprung Collection in Copenhagen." Theramin (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Theramin: That looks good. Well done. DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; this is pretty in-depth. The picture of the painting with its accompanying frame and caption is the most convincing piece of evidence here. Barring any other concerns, I think that we can reschedule the Dalsgaard painting for May 2. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 04:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the Dalsgaard POTD has now been rescheduled for May 2, 2020, with the title En rekonvalescent. Thanks for everyone's help. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised by the difference in colors between this POTD and the version of the same painting found following the Russian TripAdvisor link above (click on the arrows below and you'll find a photo of the convalescent with a vibrant blue hair scarf and a very nice light beam coming from the upper right). On this version the hair scarf is black and the beam of light is invisible. You can find the painting there where it was in 2013: here. Hard to see details but the scarf looks blue indeed, though the beam of light is invisible. Has the painting been damaged by sunlight between the Russian photo and Google's? Arnaud Chéritat (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]