Talk:Hellmouth

Pronunciation

Is it pronounced like 'hell / mouth' or like 'hell / myth' ? 98.221.131.77 (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Actively grasping?

can someone please explain to me what an "actively grasping description" is? This makes no sense to me. Eric Rosenfield 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

External links

There are only two links currently. One just goes to a single image, the other goes to a blog with other images. As I explained when I removed those links, they do not meet WP:EL rules at all. An editor reverted this, told me to take it to talk, and suggest I read the EL rules first. I am fully aware of the rules, thank you.

There is nothing under the "What to link" section that applies to these links. The "Links normally to be avoided" section has several that show that they should, in fact, be removed:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. -- Any historical images are public domain, and if appropriate should be included in this article. Right away the one link that is nothing but a single picture is ruled out immediately... doubly so since that image is already included on the other link right at the top. Completely unnecessary.

11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. -- The "monsterbrain" blog is certainly not a recognized authority.

(Unnumbered, under discussion of YouTube, etc. for media:) See also Wikipedia:Copyrights for the prohibition on linking to pages that violate copyrights. The images on the blog for the most part are OK, as most of the images are so old they are clearly in public domain, and photographs of two-dimensional objects in the public domain are also public domain. But there is a whole section of images of photographs of three dimensional sculptures which do not have any copyright notices form multiple locations. I find it hard to believe that the person who ran the blog took all of those photos him- or herself, especially as they did not credit a photographer. These are likely copyright violations, and as such we cannot link to the site.

Considering the overwhelming nature of the evidence here that those links are not appropriate, I have removed them again. If they get restored I will go report them as at the WP:EL and/or WP:COPYRIGHT pages as appropriate to make sure they remain removed, per how we've handled links of the exact same sort across lots of other articles when this has come up in the past. DreamGuy (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you've really got the idea of the history of art. The Bourges image is far higher quality than the blog version, and is from a major monument of Gothic art, and much earlier than the majority of the images. It deserves its place; your "completely uneccessary" appears to be an editorial judgement, & I have to tell you it is a bad one. The blog is a very good collection of images with virtually no text except basic captions, a possibility the guideline does not appear to have thought of. What is the relevance of quoting Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. - indeed was does this mean anyway? Both links seem to meet this strangely worded & I suspect not thought through criterion easily - the blog certainly does. There is no Hellmouth Commons category unfortunately, and only three images in the article, which is not many for a topic like this; nor could they all be added to the article, as you seem to be implying they should be. Of course if all the images were in a Commons category, the links would not be needed, but they aren't. There is no justification for a presumption that the few sculpture images are infringements of the photographers copyright. No doubt they have been gathered from the web. You need to read the copyright page more carefully (my highlights):"However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works.

I don't accept at all that these links breach the guideline in any case, but would point out that it begins by saying: "it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Commonsense certainly seems to be lacking in your approach. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, OK. So claim I don't understand art history and lack common sense, fine, but that doesn't make you right, just a little over the top. "There is no justification for a presumption that the few sculpture images are infringements of the photographers copyright." No justification other than international copyright law and explicit Wikipedia policies on copyright. DreamGuy (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Bourges Cathedral Hell Mouth is PD, so I've uploaded an image and added it to the article. I hope that solves that problem. Regarding the other EL. Does it add material beyond that which would be in a FA? Undoubtedly: it has far more images than a FA would ever have. It's a blog. Yes, it is, but not as we know it. I agree with Johnbod that the blog caution was formulated for text, not image compilations. Images are treated differently to text. They are an exception to NOR, for example: editors are not allowed to upload their own text-based work, but are encouraged to upload their own image-based work. If there is a consensus of editors that this EL has a valuable compilation, I don't see a problem linking to it: I support the link on that basis. Copvio? Yes, the compiler effectively admits it: "All artworks posted at Monster Brains are the property of their respective copyright owners. Any works posted against the wishes of the copyright owner will be removed from Monster Brains by request. I can be contacted at xxx@yahoo.com." The 2D artworks all seem to be out of copyright, so aren't a violation (although he may not realise that), but the photos of 3D artworks are copyright. On that basis, it is a prohibited link. However, I've emailed the author of the page, explaining the problem, so let's see if he makes an acceptable page. Ty 01:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

For the convenience of new readers, the remaining link we are discussing is this one. Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC) This clearly meets 2/4 of the WP:EL criteria for "What should be linked":

1. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
2. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. Johnbod (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The two external links are fine...The single image EL resonated in the article and the image blog contained an enormous amount of related material that dissects art history and is both relevant and interesting. The External links section should throw additional light on the subject of the article as both of these did. Possibly the article can do with more links. While in general blogs are removed; in this case of a multiplicity of relevant and non-commercial images, without editorial POV, it can stay.

My suggestion is that since the single image link is gone; the one external link at issue - (Monsterbrains) should be reinstated in the article..pending word from Tyrenius's email of course.Modernist (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely the link needs to be removed until the copyright problem is fixed, not the other way around. Ty above admits it's a prohibited link, so it needs to be removed. DreamGuy (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the link is removed and for the time being should stay that way per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, as the linked page does contain copyvios, namely copyright photos of (non copyright) 3D works. However, I am in dialogue with the site creator, and he is looking to arrange a link for us that does not bring up the 3D photos, only the acceptable 2D ones. If this occurs, I will reinstate the link, unless there are any objections, in which case, please state them, so they can be discussed to reach consensus on it. Ty 22:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said pending the outcome of TYs email, (provided its successful) the link should be reinstated. Modernist (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I take it you mean after the outcome, rather while we wait for it ("pending"). Ty 01:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ty. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean we wait....if the guy comes up with non copyright problem photos - which according to what is in my mind from what I am reading is pending on the guy doing that,.......then we re-add the Monsterbrains...which surprisingly are pretty good pictures. Modernist (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. So we omit the link for the time being. Ty 01:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We leave the link off until we turn it on when and because there aren't anymore copyright problems. But what is interesting is it is a blog that can be used - a rare animal...Modernist (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the major difference is that most blogs are original content created by the author and this is simply a compilation of already existing material. Ty 04:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hellmouth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303013402/http://homeros.godsong.org/FRANKS_CASKET.pdf to http://homeros.godsong.org/FRANKS_CASKET.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this something we could include here?

Or, perhaps, it is a bit too disturbing? Harrowing of Hell#/media/File:Follower of Jheronimus Bosch Christ in Limbo.jpg

I was researching something related, and it took me a few minutes to figure out the significance of the large-mouthed behemoth near the center of the painting. I'm a huge fan of Bosch, but I understand that he isn't everyone's cup of tea. I thought it illustrated the point/topic of this article rather well

Thoughts?

AreThree (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)