Talk:Solomon

Image Portrayal

Images portrayed are not accurate representations of the description of King Solomon. Thiago1001 (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

"the description of King Solomon" - where's this? Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox portrait

@Remsense Closer up images are an advantage. Faces are the most recognizable parts of people and if we want people to understand what they are looking at, we should show primarily the face.

Dore's Solomon's Face

The Doré portrait has a unclear and undetailed face. For one, it's already zoomed out. Another is that the face can't really be distinguished from the beard. Another is that Solomon's brow droops down to such an extent that his eyes are shadowed. It is true that color is not an inherent advantage, but a color painting is more pleasing to look at than a black and white engraving, so it is more inviting to the reader, at least in my opinion. Even if color is not necessarily an "advantage", I don't see why that justifies reversion. Can you prove that lack of color is an advantage? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox portrait, again

@Remsense, I don't really understand how the portrait you chose is any more "historical" than the one I've chosen? According to Wikimedia commons, the portrait you've chosen is from 1700 while the one I've chosen is from 1872. Solomon is said to have lived in the 10th century BCE, so neither portrait is more "historical" than the other. The only reason I chose my this portrait is because it's a high quality scan of a painting and not just a blurry, dark photo of an icon. It's consistent with almost every other Biblical character to have a painted portrait in the infobox. If you are insistent in keeping this icon as the infobox portrait, please use a more high quality photograph. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how your chosen portrait is any more "random" or "historical" than mine. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I would compare the historical provenance of the artistic traditions each work belongs to as well., e.g. icons versus oriental Romanticism. I'm curious what others think though. Remsense诉 20:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:PORTRAIT (which we should remember is an essay and neither a guideline nor policy) recommends: Another case where an imaginary depiction will generally be suitable in an article is if it is a well-known, high-quality artwork that is independently notable as such.

Therefore it would be prudent to select an artwork which is notable in and of itself, like how Jesus' article features the Christ Pantocrator of Saint Catherine's Monastery, which is a notable artwork by itself. Rubens' famous apostles series is used for each of the twelve apostles (excluding Jude), etc. Can we find a portrait of Solomon which is notable in and of itself? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I originally chose Simeon Solomon's portrait since it was a high quality scan of a solitary portrait-painting by a somewhat famous artist. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

BCE/BC

I think this page should use BC instead of BCE since it is dealing with a figure in Christianity. HutchDoesStuff (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. See MOS:ERA, which states the actual criterion we use in articles—i.e., we retain the style first used within each article. Remsense ‥ 论 14:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

And I suppose I should add—if we were to make this a primary factor in deciding to switch as a matter of course, there are strong objections I can imagine to describing Solomon primarily as "a figure in Christianity", wouldn't you agree? Remsense ‥ 论 14:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

arrayed in glory

What the heck does "arrayed in glory" mean? Nosferattus (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

"Arrayed" means "clothed". So: "splendidly clothed". Feline Hymnic (talk)