Talk:Triumph of Neptune and Amphitrite

Triumph of Neptune and Amphitrite → The Birth of Venus (Poussin) – As the article says, The Birth of Venus is the title preferred by the owning museum (see [1]), and it is therefore sensible to assume this is now the common name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, since that's the name that appears in the museum website. 〜Festucalex • talk • contribs 15:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Question, is the present name the name used by the artist? If so, then I'd oppose this nomination, but can't locate how old the name is on a quick look. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    WP:COMMONNAME infers that it doesn't necessarily matter: "the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Reading here, it seems that the oldest recorded title is il trionfo di Nettunno by Giovanni Pietro Bellori in the 17th century. Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "it is therefore sensible to assume this is now the common name" is a rather rash assumption. I'd need much better evidence than that. I don't think this (yet) meets the test in
  MOS:ART, which says: "Where there are several variant titles, preference is usually given to the predominant one used by art historians writing in English, and if this is not clear, the English title used by the owning museum." Museums change titles very lightly, and sometimes rather often; the Arnolfini Portrait has been given I think 5 different titles in National Gallery publications over a few decades. I don't think there's any doubt that the current title is the traditional one, but Philadelphia have apparently gone for something more sexy and school party friendly. The Getty give the traditional title precedence in the page for their study. In fact the different titles reflect a dispute over identification - the central female figure is either Venus or Amphitrite, and art historians can't yet settle on which, it seems. I think the debate was begun in the 1961 paper that's a ref, and even that uses the traditional title. This passage in a book may help. The article could and should mention all this, which for now it doesn't - really a more important issue. Doing the move would force a disam page, which I think would be a pity, though the far more popular The Birth of Venus (the Botticelli, natch) is clearly primary. This article averages c. 10 views a day, vs 1300-1500 a day for the Botticelli. I see the nominator mainly edits disam pages, so this may attract him, but not me. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisting comment: Relist to allow presentation of evidence; currently no consensus to move, due to the lack of evidence provided for the common name in line with Johnbod's argument BilledMammal (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Johnbod's well researched comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]