Talk:The Parsonage Garden at Nuenen

Conflicting dimensions

ArtSalonHolland says the painting is 25 x 57 cm,[1] but the Singer Laren Museum says it is 39 x 72 cm.[2] I'm assuming that the Singer Laren figure is more authoritative, so I'm going to edit the article to reflect their measurements, but wanted to make a note of it here. Kaldari (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

But now the part about the painting exceeding double square is incorrect. Benevolent Prawn (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I've changed that back. The gallery that owns the painting clearly says it is "hoogte: 25 cm breedte: 57 cm" but "lijst: hoogte: 39.4 cm breedte: 72 cm diepte: 5 cm" [3]

That is, the painting is 25 cm × 57 cm (9.8 in × 22.4 in); but with its ornate frame, it measures 39.4 cm × 72 cm × 5 cm (15.5 in × 28.3 in × 2.0 in) (image).

Dimensions are usually quoted without the frame, which may be changed. Theramin (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you know who stole the parsonage garden at nueuen Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead image

The lead image is currently doubled the size of whichever thumbnail size a user prefers. In other words, the upright scale is 2.00. The maximum thumbnail size is 400px; the minimum is 120px. Usually, per WP:IUP#Infobox and lead images and MOS:UPRIGHT, the upright scale for lead images should have been "no wider than 1.35" unless there are some exceptions per WP:PAG#Adherence. More than just rules, I think 2.00 is too big for many desktop readers, including ones who still use 4:3 monitors in case 16:9 monitors break, like mine. Also, any reader can still click on the image to see a bigger view, so why not 1.35? Why 2.00, and why not reduce the upscale size? --George Ho (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the alphabet soup, but we are not in a "usual" situation. As the article notes (and attentive readers might have spotted for themselves) this is an unusually wide, quite dark painting - super landscape indeed, not portrait or upright - so "upright=1" produces an indistinguishably smeared muddy postage stamp with none of the detail visible. Whereas "upright=2" at least allows the reader to see more of the topic of this article. It doesn't help that valuable pixels are wasted with padding for the stupid infobox. One solution might be to liberate the image from that prison cell, and put it in its own gallery. It would be better to see it in its full glory, like this. Oh, I give up, do whatever you want. Theramin (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's a much better image. I've added the existing darker image once more on the page, in a larger depiction to lead off the 'Description' section (so readers can actually view it). "Great work" to a few editors for putting up the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

F185, JH484

What does this info in the lede mean? Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

In articles about paintings, such numbers represent their associated description in a catalogue raisonné, which can be used to authenticate the work. This is explained in the footer template at the bottom: Cataloguers Jacob Baart de la Faille (1928 and 1970; "F"), and Jan Hulsker (1978, revised 1989; "JH"). Ideally, and to avoid future confusion, each ID should link to their associated cataloguer. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Vital information as titles can be vary, confuse, or duplicate. Catalog numbering is vital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJacques (talk • contribs) 07:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Who really stole this artwork

I need to know who stole it Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

No answers at all? Abdullah Al Manjur (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)