File talk:Wappers - Episodes from September Days 1830 on the Place de l’Hôtel de Ville in Brussels.JPG

出典：ウィキメディア・コモンズ (Wikimedia Commons)
ナビゲーションに移動 検索に移動

The name of the painting[編集]

Wappers (copied from Japalang's talk page)[編集]

Hi Jappalang. You recently checked File:Wappers - Episodes from September Days 1830 on the Place de l’Hôtel de Ville in Brussels.JPG.

That name of the painting is not correct; one finds several variant names but I assume to have determined the most proper one, by verifying what the museum calls it, and doing a thorough search on the web (excluding wikis and copy sites): 'Episode' must certainly be singular, and "Place de l’Hôtel de Ville" (though a part of the French language name) is in English (for the painting and in general) referred to as 'Grand Place' (taken from "Grand-Place", also common for the same square in French, but in English without the dash; corresponding to the only name this square ever had in Dutch language, "Grote Markt"). I modified the data and added the name in Dutch language. The capitalisation varies between the languages. I also corrected the name of the museum, included the name of the relevant museum building because the major name has several other locations, and added the museum name in Dutch.

With such a long name, a caption under a thumbsize picture is usually shortened. Often, September Days is replaced by the more informative "Belgian Revolution" (which is not in the full name of the painting) and the location gets dropped from the name. Perhaps the file name does not matter so much then - but with an apparently very complete name, users will assume it to be the correct name, without looking at the file data... I did not upload the file, hence I can not delete and upload to a correct name. Is there a way of renaming (or copy/delete) available?
— SomeHuman 2011-02-19 20:29 (UTC)

Re: Wappers (copied from SomeHuman's talk page)[編集]

Hi, regarding File:Wappers - Episodes from September Days 1830 on the Place de l’Hôtel de Ville in Brussels.JPG, I simply followed what the Belgium museum calls it. http://www.fine-arts-museum.be/site/EN/frames/F_peinture19.html — "These vibrant emotions and theatrical effects are expressed by Gustaf Wappers (Episodes from September Days 1830 on the Place de l'Hôtel de Ville in Brussels) and ...". Renames on Commons are handled through the {{rename}} template. What you are proposing, however, seems to be a personal interpretation when compared to the official source (the museum). Jappalang (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[返信]

Continued here on the file's talk page[編集]

SomeHuman's argumentation about the name in English[編集]

There is no "official" name for this painting in English. The name shown on the English language page of the museum, simply links to a French language short description, hence the name was badly translated without checking what occurs in English elsewhere. The museum allows navigation to look up the painting in the 'Fabritius' database, giving more details than the short description. Unfortunately, that database exists only in a French and a Dutch version. I had to look for proper sources, before changing the data on the Wappers file. That's what had proved the museum's all too easy "translation" of the painting's name for a mere text to be wrong; actually in more respects than I mentioned, but of less importance and not quite mistakes: about this painting, "of the" occurs more than "from", and "of Brussels" more than "in Brussels".

Anyway, you should be able to understand that my remark had little to do with a personal interpretation. The Dutch and French names of the painting have 'Tafereel' and 'Episode' in singular; the English in the museum's text has 'Episodes', plural. It is then not just a personal opinion to recognize an uncareful translation by the museum. Unfortunately, the picture was uploaded without checking more than one source. By that name, it used to occur only on the museum's [one] page - and by now is being sent into the world by Wikimedia from where the faulty name might catch on. Apparently, I might have to do my work all over again. This will take me a while. I'll come back here.
SomeHuman 2011-02-20 10:26 (UTC)

Pro memorie, I suggested 'Episode of the September Days 1830 (on the Grand Place of Brussels)'
The parenthesis '(' and ')' occur relatively rarely, but most clearly indicate the optional inclusion of the last part and therefore preferred at least in the file name. The painting is also wellknown by the preceding shortname. The full title can as well be shown fluently, with or without a comma behind '1830'.

In fact, I had already given a most decent source as reference among the data of the file:

  • Rooses, Max (1914年) Art in Flanders、C. Scribner's sons, New York, U.S.A. (republished on web at Open Library, a project of the non-profit Internet Archive, funded in part by a grant from the California State Library and the Kahle/Austin Foundation)、pp. p. 301−302 Retrieved on 2011年2月17日. "In 1833 he painted his vast composition, The September Days of 1830 in the Grand Place of Brussels (Fig. 559)"

Here are a few more:

  • Romanticism in Belgium. CODART Dutch and Flemish art in museums worldwide. Retrieved on 2011-02-20. "Gustaf Wappers’ monumental Episode of the September Days 1830 is exhibited in its recently restored frame" (using the perfectly correct shortname for the painting, and mainly for that reason meanwhile added as reference in the WM FILE data)

A few sources that may be less notable or otherwise less fit as Wikipedia references, nevertheless showing the general usage of the suggested title:

  • www.1st-art-gallery.com quote: reproduction of Episode of the September Days 1830 on the Grand Place of Brussels, a painting by Baron Gustave Wappers.
  • www.webshots.com quote: Episode of the September Days 1830, on the Grand Place of Brussels - Gustaf Wappers
  • www.pantip.com quote: "หนึ่งในนั้นก็คือEpisode of the September days, 1830, on the Grand Place of Brussels" ("One of them is the Episode of the September days, 1830, on the Grand Place of Brussels"), a mere blog comment, but it shows that someone at a great distance had discovered a decent name in English.

Note these search results by Google:
+"the Place de l’Hôtel de Ville of Brussels" 1830 -wiki -blog -- 0 results
+"the Place de l’Hôtel de Ville at Brussels" 1830 -wiki -blog -- 0 results
+"the Place de l’Hôtel de Ville in Brussels" 1830 -wiki -blog -- 11 results:

  • The Royal Museum of Fine Arts, assumed origin of the faulty name 'Episodes from September Days 1830 on the Place de l’Hôtel de Ville in Brussels'
  • on Google books: Elson Roessler, Shirley; Miklos, Reinhold (2003年) Europe, 1715-1919: from enlightenment to world war、Rowman & Littlefield、p. p. 134 Retrieved on 2011年2月20日. ISBN: 9780742527676. "3.3 Episodes from September Days, 1830, on the Place de l’Hôtel de Ville in Brussels by Gustaf Wappers (Royal Museum of Fine Arts, Belgium, Brussels)" [or did someone at the Royal Museum read this book?]
  • www.anothertravelguide.com quote: "Both Episodes from September Days 1830 on the Place de l'Hôtel de Ville in Brussels by Gustaf Wappers and paintings by Antoine Wiertz stand out"...
  • www.repromasters.com quote: "Below: two photos of the successfully restored painting: “Episodes from September Days 1830 on the Place de l'Hotel de Ville in Brussels” 1835" ... "In 1984: placed on wooden frame, restored, retouched and new resin varnish applied. In 1998: dust removed. In 2003: hung in original frame and moved to Forum (current location)." Most obviously, the source was the Royal Museum.
  • ziphen.benjaminbruce.com: this and 3 archived pages on that site, quote: "As we entered the Royal Museum of Fine Art"...
  • www.brusselsjournal.com quote: "In honor of the fiftieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, Europalia.Europa and the Palais des Beaux-Arts in Brussels have organized"... ..."one can see the triumphant Gustaf Wappers oil-on-canvas Episode from September Days 1830 (on the Place de l’Hôtel de Ville in Brussels), a sort of Belgian (and hence Rubensian)"... Remarkable detail: the author of this 2007-10-30 article, is the same Mathew Omolesky who, more than a year later on 2008-12-29 stated the proper name with "Grand Place" in the Newsletter LEAP/Europe 2020. Had someone pointed out his mistake?
  • One on www.flickr.com that I cannot retrieve, Google shows 'Uploads from wujia. - "(Royal Museum of Fine Arts of Belgium). "Episodes from September Days 1830 on the Place de l'Hôtel de Ville in Brussels" by Gustaf Wappers. ..."
  • One referring to the Wikimedia Commons File:... in question.

Note these most revealing search results by Google:
+"the Place de l’Hôtel de Ville of Brussels" -1830 -wiki -blog -- 0 results
+"the Place de l’Hôtel de Ville at Brussels" -1830 -wiki -blog -- 0 results
+"the Place de l’Hôtel de Ville in Brussels" -1830 -wiki -blog -- 0 results:
This proves that there is no "Place de l’Hôtel de Ville" at, in, or of Brussels in the English language about any subject whatsoever, despite the minds of the translator at the Royal Museum (at the time that the one text had been produced), and possibly of the one authors of 'Europe, 1715-1919: from enlightenment to world war' who apparently had decorated their book with a picture of the painting, assumedly thinking like yourself, "it's on the Royal Museum's website, it must be the official name". Or sthey had concocted the bad translation and someone at the museum had consulted their work. Never believe a single and utterly unsourced text, regardless who published it, if it requires expertise on as different fields as Fine Arts and Fine Languages.

The total of 11 (eleven) occurrences with "Place de l’Hôtel de Ville" about Wapper's painting (apparently all 11) or not (none), needs to be compared with no less than 480,000 (almost half a million) occurrences with "Grand Place":
+"the Grand Place of Brussels" -wiki -blog 151,000 results (corresponds to "de Bruxelles", and "van Brussel", 'as in the proper French and Dutch name)
+"the Grand Place in Brussels" -wiki -blog 332,000 results (corresponds to "à Bruxelles", and "in Brussel")
+"the Grand Place at Brussels" -wiki -blog 8 results (corresponds to [also] "à Bruxelles", and "te Brussel")

Note also that "Episode from" implies "taken from" (as from a series of consecutive episodes), whereas "Episode of the" rather means "depicting" (here appropriate), while the French "de" and Dutch "van" can be translated either way. Furthermore, unlike "Episode" may, the Dutch "Tafereel" does not imply any consecutive part (as the in that language more common word 'episode' may), it more clearly means "static or very short visualisation". Hence all things considered, the words of my suggested name are most correct, for usage in English about this painting as well as linguistically corresponding to both known 'official' names. The only alternative would be, inserting the word "in" or rather "of" in front of "1830" although that is not done in the 'official' French and Dutch names.
SomeHuman 2011-02-20 23:40 - 2011-02-21 04:12 (UTC)

Update Unlike what had been assumed during a discussion (further down), the file name by which an image is available on Wikimedia Commons may be in plain view on the Internet: Wikipedia articles republished on certain other sites do not show the images with captions but merely the File: name as text, e.g.: 'Egide Charles Gustave Wappers' (also [1]) and 'Brussels' on Reach Information sites (three web pages retrieved 8 March 2011). To prevent this, it did not suffice to change the title data, also the file name needs to be corrected..
SomeHuman 2011-03-08 03:46 (UTC)

Submitted as SomeHuman on Ziphen (site of Benjamin Bruce, pseudonym Mashkioya):[編集]

Hi,
Your website mentions a name for a painting exhibited in the Museum of Modern Art, one of the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium. Unfortunately, I assume you must have obtained the name from a text on the website of the Royal Museums, or from Wikimedia (having taken the name from that same text for File:Wappers – Episodes from September Days 1830 on the Place de l’Hôtel de Ville in Brussels.JPG).
On the discussion page of that file, I am attempting to convince Wikimedia to change the name. The data section of the file already has the proper names of the painting and of the museum, in French, Dutch and English:

Episode of the September Days 1830 (on the Grand Place of Brussels)
- singular Episode
- ‘of the’ occurs more often than ‘from’, and appears more correct (not taken from, but depicting the September Days).
- The name in French uses “Place de l’Hôtel de Ville” (‘Place/Square of the City Hall’), the one in Dutch “Grote Markt” (‘Large Market’, read: ‘Main [Market] Square’). Also in French however, that square is wellknown as “Grand-Place” (also used for the ‘Main Square’ elsewhere). In English texts, one does not find the name of that square refering to the City Hall there; apart from a few exotic names, it is always referred to by te name “Grand Place” (most often without the ‘-’).
-’Grand Place of Brussels’ occurs more often in the English name of the painting, than ‘Grand Place in Brussels’.
- the parenthesis ( ) rarely occur in the full name for the painting, but the preceding part is found in use as a shortname; that is why I prefer to show them, but you could just as well show the full name fluently.

I will again look up serious sources so as to prove the proper English name on Wikimedia. I had done this before, leaving out blogs and wikis, and came to the name suggested here above. The results will be on the aforementioned talk page at Wikimedia Commons.

Certainly, the name given by the museum is the worst. The link under that English name in the text by the museum, goes to a short description in French language. Navigation on the museums’ website, allows finding a more comprehensive description on the ‘Fabritius’ database. This exists in French and in Dutch, and we can consider those names official. But there is no English version of this database and someone put a very uncareful translation from French into the English language text, without checking sources in English.

Your website is one of the very few with that wrong name, all originating from the Royal Museums’ text directly or via Wikimedia.

Hoping to have been of assistance,
Kind regards,
SomeHuman.
[Please, forgive me for not showing my real identity, which is being kept from Wikimedia and Wikipedia]

The above was submitted on 2011-02-20. -- SomeHuman 2011-02-20 23:40 (UTC)
Update: The Ziphen site is now found to show 'Episode of the September Days 1830 on the Grand Place of Brussels'. -- SomeHuman 2011-03-07 19:45 (UTC)

Dispute between Jappalang and Somehuman[編集]

I have no idea how this spawned the above, nor why I am constantly referred to attend to this. I am not the uploader of the image who selected this file name; as I stated in my reply to SomeHuman, I simply verified information and implemented the Artwork template across images of the work by Gustav Wappers, namely File:Wappers - Episodes from September Days 1830 on the Place de l’Hôtel de Ville in Brussels.JPG, File:Gustaf Wappers003.jpg, and File:Wappers belgian revolution.jpg. (One wonders if the two other files were overlooked during this scrutiny.) Contrary to what SomeHuman implies, I have gone through several sources in my verification. One can talk of how inaccurate the English title is, but as far as I know from the details I searched, Gustav Wappers never named his work in English, and even the original French (?) title of his work varies (some dropped the date portion, some did not bother with the location). As far as I am concerned, Episodes from September Days 1830 on the Place de l’Hôtel de Ville in Brussels is what the Belgian Museum calls it in English. I see no need to rename the file, per Commons:File renaming#What files should be renamed?; I find no misleading element in the file name (incorrect attribution, date, or subject). If one would like one's "accurate" title of the work, they are free to write it in the Description ({{Information}})) or Title ({{Artwork}}) field with the relevant sources. Jappalang (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[返信]
Jappalang claims to have gone through several sources in his verification, but only names one. I showed my verification, and there are only two sources that just might be independent from one another, though that is most unlikely because of the identical and extremely stupid mistakes:
  1. using a plural in English about a single 'Episode', there is only one scene on the painting. There is no variation of the French or Dutch name with this plural.
  2. calling the most famous place in the centre of Brussels by a for the English language unintelligible French word that does not occur even once on the entire Internet in an English phrase - except of course in this wrong name of the painting (and that only 11 times). One other name for that place occurs nearly half a million times in an English language phrase.
As far as I could find online, the museum itself only used the faulty name for the painting on a single page. And anyway, since when did a Belgian museum become the authority on English language? The English language site that is most supported by Wikimedia Commons, the English language Wikipedia, has a clear rule: usage in English determines the 'proper' term. That is, the term that is most often used. 480,000 against 11. How can this be allowed to continue spreading such a thoroughly bad name?
Of course, Wappers did not give a painting an English name. Neither did Van Eyck, Rubens, Van Gogh... And often, it was not the painter who suggested a name. But we're glad to find a proper translation of the name that found its way around the world. For Wapper's masterpiece, that was the French language name, and indeed, one also refers to it as "The Belgian Revolution of 1830" (in any language), because anything about "September Days [of] 1830" (in any language) is less informative - these days. But the more original name is the one used by the Royal Museum and the large majority of other serious sources. And if we accept that French language name, then the name in Dutch, English or whatever language in which no other name for the painting got coined, should give a reasonable translation. That must never be a ludicrous falsification as a plural for a single depicted episode, or a place name that is only used in French whereas that place has a very wellknown name in English. Such does not deserve being called a translation, it's gibberish.
And, I did deliver sources as Jappalang suggests - both here above and in the File data. But I'm not going to plaster each of the 480.000 of them anywhere. That is not my mere claim: I proved it further above, anyone can see how I did it, and simply repeat it as verification.
SomeHuman 2011-02-21 20:50 (UTC)
Let me make it plain:
  • I did not upload the file; User:Szilas uploaded it with this file name.
  • Whatever offense you have with the file name you should be taking it up with him, not me (hence, my puzzlement and growing irritation with your constant "referencing" of me above).
  • Regardless, I find no fault with this file name (the Belgian museum's per Commons:File renaming#What files should be renamed?; the uploader could have named it as "File:Gustave's nice big painting.jpg" and there is no reason that is wrong.
  • Your insistence that I checked no sources is a misrepresentation (or does this diff, my sole edit to this file's page, show only the Belgian museum website?). I do not need to list down every source I looked to see if the artwork has been reproduced and published; my intent was to show publication and the sources relevant that are presented.
  • The sources themselves gave many different names both English and French. To repeat, some do not even have the date, some do not have the venue, some simply refer to it as the Belgian Revolution. So to me, there is no "true name".
  • Since the uploader has stated he took the photograph at the museum and uploaded it under the museum's given name, I let it stand in the Title field of Artwork.
I find this whole exercise to rename the file by presenting massive walls of text a frivolous venture. Numerous files can exist of the same subject and there is no hard line that photographs of Artworks must take on the "true name" in name space; the Title/Description fields of templates are sufficient for that purpose. Jappalang (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[返信]
Just as plain:
  • I did not address you, Jappalang, after your reaction of not wanting to be bothered, not on your talk page, and not here: I only had to refer to your comments and did that in the third person - which most certainly should not puzzle or irritate. And I would not have addressed you in the 2nd person now, if you would have left it at that instead of complaining about my behaviour. I never insisted that you did not check several sources, I only said that you had presented only one for that name in English: the Royal Museum - and that I had been utterly unable to find more than one other.
  • I had never thought or said that you uploaded the file. I had simply seen that you had worked well at it, including the addition of references that you just now showed on this discussion page. I had thus initially assumed your being interested and well aware of the matter at hand. It was rather misleading to say that you had checked "several" sources, in this discussion about the name of the painting, so I had to point out that you did not present sources other than the Royal Museum, for your point of keeping the file name: nothing else was questioned. That was by no means dishonest, because on this discussion page I had myself presented the only source (a book about history, not art) that supports the name as the Royal Museum had mentioned on a single web page.
  • Why do you keep making this a dispute? You had not presented any argumentation for the file name to be well-chosen, and you had sufficiently stated that you found the file name acceptable because the Royal Museum had used it. Let it be at that, if you like. I did neither blame anyone for having created the file by that name, nor you for introducing it as English title in the data section (I simply corrected that, and you apparently accepted). But please, do not try to defend the survival of that file name:
  • In case the file would have been named "File:Gustave's nice big painting.jpg", I would not have disturbed you in the first place; it would not have bothered me in the least. But a file name that closely resembles the in French very often occurring and therefore properly acceptable title referring to the painting, is misleading: Hardly anyone will go and investigate whether that (to them apparently translated) title, is a reasonably good translation. Hardly anyone will then refrain from unintentionally introducing that in English language never used name of the site in Brussels - one that is referred to by a far more simple and more intelligible name 480,000 times on the web alone - thereby unknowingly initializing a needless corruption of the language and confusion of its speakers and readers that would be hard to get out of the world's English. That is the offense I have with the file name.
  • Indeed, I had already corrected the title in the data field for the file. But that will not be enough, because it is only the file name that one uses to link to it, and readers of e.g. a Wikipedia article may well take it from such a link without ever having looked at the file itself on Wikimedia Commons, and thus without being aware of its data fields. The wrong name for the painting, and then soon also in unrelated contexts: the wrong and confounding name for the Grand Place of Brussels, would sip into English. Comparing the nuisance of that, with the nuisance of renaming a single file here, straightforwardly suggested my not-so-frivolous venture.
Further to the point: I notified the Royal Museum by e-mail. I do not assume that it likes to become mocked for its poor English in the name of one of its eye-catching exhibits. Such would be undeserved as the English version of its website is generally far better than that one glitch might suggest. I hope to see their single mentioning of that name in English, improved. That would stop the main cause of a highly undesired proliferation.
Please, I am not putting the blame on anyone; I do not insist on your cooperation at the renaming of the file; I am not trying to win a dispute; I am trying to prevent the described confouding.
SomeHuman 2011-02-22 09:06 (UTC)
Whatever. Your presented me as "Jappalang claims to have gone through several sources in his verification, but only names one." and "It was rather misleading to say that you had checked "several" sources" plainly reeks to me of "he never checked anything except the Belgian website". My exploration of the sources were for publication evidence, and you simply misrepresented my checking as an intention of mine to advocate this file name. As for "I did not address you, Jappalang, after your reaction of not wanting to be bothered, not on your talk page, and not here", http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJappalang&action=historysubmit&diff=50210695&oldid=50141606 and its edit summary of "case proven" show a different attitude. But, really, whatever. I never had the mind to stand in the way of a file rename (I do believe it is frivolous), but I certainly do not like your insinuations that I never checked anything except the Belgian website and that I claimed there were several sources to support this file name. Jappalang (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[返信]
I did not present you, I presented a fact - after your having been presented to the readers by your own words. Do not quote me as if calling you misleading (in quotation marks) while leaving out the preceding context as well as the rest of the sentence that clearly delimits it - for then to put words in my mouth (in quotation marks) as what it would 'reek' like. You must have a funny nose. Not I but you presented the phrase "several sources" in the sole context of the name for the painting, while apart from the Royal Museum, these sources had an entirely unrelated context like you just stated - but there had been nothing at all that allowed a reader to assume that the "several" might not be advocating the name. No-one questioned their validity for their purpose, but that "several" would mislead any readers of the further above. That fact thus required mentioning, and I did not use inappropriate words or tone for it (at the contrary: "It was rather misleading to say" does not accuse as "You were" and also my "rather" softened the statement), and I wrote it without insinuation in a context that was no misrepresentation. If the fact does not please for your not having intended to mislead, I did not suggest such. I must remind you that it was you who first suggested the term "misleading": "I find no misleading element in the file name" - I had not yet used such term, I had called the name of the painting "not correct", "wrong", "badly translated" and "an uncareful translation by the museum", "faulty". Anyone knowing about the psychological interactions during a conversation, would not be surprised about my then using your term in a statement about something that was "rather misleading".
I had submitted an edit with "Case proven" comment here above [2011-02-21T00:40 i.e. with an hour zone difference 2011-02-20 23:40 (UTC)] and further tweaked that part [until 2011-02-21 04:12 (UTC)]; meanwhile I had shortly called for your attention to it on your talk page, with that same initial edit comment [2011-02-21T01:06, within a minute before submitting manually signed 2011-02-21 00:05 (UTC)]. All this came hours before your first indication of not liking to be bothered ["I have no idea how this spawned the above, nor why I am constantly referred to attend to this" 2011-02-21T08:57 i.e. 07:57 (UTC) on this discussion page], so your demonstrating my call while quoting my "after your reaction of not wanting to be bothered" is demagogy at its worst - or demands an apology for your having forgotten and lately misunderstood the sequence of events.
One clear misrepresentation of a person's behaviour, is that "I have no idea how this spawned the above, nor why I am constantly referred to attend to this": I had been as courteous as to let you know without a "massive wall" of text on your talk page, why I modified some data that you had added; and upon your calling that a "personal interpretation"', I presented proof here and dropped the aforementioned 'Case proven' invitation on your talk page. And those 2 calls had been all - "constantly", hmm. Someone was not very polite there, and it was not SomeHuman. And from there, I can not find anything revealing or even interesting about the topic.
Your first reaction on my Wikipedia talk page (copied here high above), ending with "What you are proposing, however, seems to be a personal interpretation when compared to the official source (the museum)", I did indeed interpret as what you just here above called "an intention of mine[Jappalang] to advocate this file name", or at least as requiring further proof for my 'case' - which, when given with that edit comment "Case proven", you never accepted and keep calling "frivolous".
Your above derogatory accusations (it "reeks", "you simply misrepresented", "your insinuations") come much closer to personal attacks than whatever you feel to have wronged you, and (in particular after my latest comment) appear unneededly defensive, far too hostile, and not in the least constructive. I would appreciate your taking a bit of time to think about what you actually read, whether or how to respond, and read a prepared response, trying to interpret it from the reader's point of view - because by now, I am not amused.
SomeHuman 2011-02-22 18:00 (UTC)

Email by SomeHuman to the Royal Museum of Fine Arts of Belgium (in Dutch)[編集]

copy for wiki converted with minor modifications

2011-02-21 22:19 (UTC)
Subject: In een Engelstalige tekst op uw website staat een erbarmelijke "vertaling" van de naam van het meesterwerk van Gustaf Wappers.

Geachte lezer,

Het meest gekende schilderij van Gustaf Wappers, een tentoongesteld werk, is in de 'Fabritius'-databank waaruit uw website gegevens haalt bij opzoekingen door online bezoekers, gekend als:
"Episode des Journées de septembre 1830 sur la Place de l'Hôtel de Ville de Bruxelles"
"Tafereel van de Septemberdagen 1830 op de Grote Markt te Brussel;"

De database bestaat niet in een Engelstalige versie, hoewel de website van de Koninklijke Musea voor Schone Kunsten die faciliteit wel biedt voor haar andere teksten.

Jammer genoeg, staat op een overigens erg zichtbare Engelstalige webpagina een schabauwelijke vertaling uit het Frans als Engelstalige naam voor het schilderij:
"Episodes from September Days 1830 on the Place de l'Hôtel de Ville in Brussels"

De meest opmerkelijke fouten zijn:
- het meervoud "Episodes" voor een enkel afgebeeld tafereel,
- de verkeerde louter Franstalige benaming voor de Grote Markt: In geen enkele Engelstalige tekst wordt die plaats "Place de l'Hôtel de Ville" genoemd. Op het internet meldt Google ruim 480.000 keer de "Grand Place" in een Engelstalige phrase met betrekking tot de Brusselse Grote Markt. De overname van die laatste Franstalige benaming is klaarblijkelijk de enige correcte in het Engels (evenwel veelal zonder het koppelteken '-' dat in het Frans gebruikelijk is).

Buiten die ene pagina op uw website, is er slechts een enkele fatsoenlijke bron die deze fouten ook maakte - zeer waarschijnlijk hetzij misleid door uw website, hetzij net omgekeerd:
Leesbaar op Google books: Elson Roessler, Shirley; Miklos, Reinhold (2003) Europe, 1715-1919: from enlightenment to world war, p. 134, Rowman & Littlefield. “3.3 Episodes from September Days, 1830, on the Place de l’Hôtel de Ville in Brussels by Gustaf Wappers (Royal Museum of Fine Arts, Brussels, Belgium)”

Die bron staat niet in verband met schilderkunst, het gaat om een geschiedkundig werk dat het schilderij slechts als illustratie toont en benoemt.

Zou u zo vriendelijk willen zijn, het nodige te doen opdat die erbarmelijk mislukte Engelse benaming vervangen wordt door een veel meer correcte:
"Episode of the September Days 1830 on the Grand Place of Brussels"
Dit in uw webpagina:
http://www.fine-arts-museum.be/site/EN/frames/F_peinture19.html

U kan nadere inlichtingen, ter volledige rechtvaardiging van deze gesuggereerde benaming inclusief de benutte voorzetsels, met ook argumenten aangaande de noodzaak om het euvel te verhelpen, terugvinden op de discussiepagina bij een foto van het schilderij op de website van Wikimedia Commons - waarop een bestandnaam werd aangemaakt als door uw pagina misleid (met extra gevaar tot wereldwijde verspreiding van de foute naam tot gevolg):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wappers_-_Episodes_from_September_Days_1830_on_the_Place_de_l%E2%80%99H%C3%B4tel_de_Ville_in_Brussels.JPG

Ook in geval de zeer ongelukkige benaming in Engelstalige brochures, teksten, of interne digitale bestanden zou voorkomen, lijkt het me hoogst wenselijk de gepubliceerde online pagina alvast zo snel mogelijk te corrigeren.

Hopend hiermee wederzijds een dienst te bewijzen,
Met vriendelijke groeten,
SomeHuman [pseudoniem op Wikimedia en Wikipedia websites]

「https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Wappers_-_Episodes_from_September_Days_1830_on_the_Place_de_l’Hôtel_de_Ville_in_Brussels.JPG&oldid=51680977」から取得