Talk:Mask

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is supported by WikiProject Anthropology.

This project provides a central approach to Anthropology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for Mask: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:


    • Add/Validate sources

    Contents

    [edit] older picture removed

    I removed the older picture i hope the author didn't mind since i think (IMHO) this picture emphasis much better the article --Chmouel 02:48, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) Yes i think so aswell. This should be merged with masks. From Josh Hill

    [edit] identity mask picture added

    I am going to add a picture to the mask article, as suggested by two other people already.[1]

    What if this is used in an article about masks or ski masks? WhisperToMe 06:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC) It is a user photo, taken from the user's website. We can easily use this photo for the ski mask article. Keep. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] There could be external links

    There has been some discussion (and confusion), for example, about what type of mask to use to protect against the avian flu virus. What works and what doesn't? 69.6.162.160 14:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

    That wouldn't go in this article anyway. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] New Section Proposal

    I'm going to begin looking into state legislations and create a new section specifically for State Legislation. When I get enough info regarding the mask laws in other states I'll create a new section for it. The section will include the State, laws, and conditions for the prosecution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadwal (talk • contribs)

    Personally, I'd say not here. Perhaps this could be an excellent new article, but in the more general article on masks, I wouldn't. Just a couple of examples to verify the point is about all we need at this location. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    We should either have all or none. If we're going to indicate one incident of a man being arrested for violating a Virginia Statute, then every state should be indicated. Because its complete idiocy that we indicate one, but not the rest.
    You do realize that you removed the legislation points 876.12 through 876.155. Which indicate all places a mask may be pursued (876.12-876.15)and what circumstances must be met (876.115). Cadwal 05:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    You realize I'm not specifically against listing state laws regarding the wearing of masks. I just don't think that this general-information article is the place for it. For instance, we have a general-information article called Fire drill. Then we have a well-referenced spinoff article called List of fire drill regulations. We could easily do that here as well. We could have Mask with general information, and then a separate article called List of laws concerning masks, or something along those lines. For the general-info article, the one example is fine as a "for instance". You want to get into more detail about specific laws, great. Let's create a separate article. I'll even help out with it. Just not on the main Mask article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    I know you're not against listing laws regarding the wearing of masks. I just don't think that one small incident should be noted because of one guy's decision not follow the state statute (which is entirely blown out of proportion). I actually looked at the state statute to see why the guy would be arrested, and that state strictly prohibits the wearing of masks at all times unless it is for holiday celebrations, for medical conditions, on-the-job protection, or actually participating in a theatrical production or ball. But if it gets that one incident off of the main page, I'll start pulling up statutes from different states tonight to start a new page as soon as possible. I'll admit that the statute may need to be rewritten since it was originally created to prevent the KKK and similar hate organizations from gathering, but I can't support one state being favored over any other. Cadwal 06:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Ceremonial and Ritual Uses

    I wouldn't be qualified to write them, but I'm surprised by the absence of information on ceremonial or ritual masks (like the one in the image) and theatrical masks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.134.171 (talk • contribs)

    That is what I came here for as well. Sunshaker--72.140.175.249 04:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    There was a section on African ceremonial and ritual uses, but it was in a separate article. The two articles have since been merged - HammerHeadHuman (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Popular Culture References?

    Should this section be added, or would the list be way to long. Two examples off the top of my head are "Phantom of the Opera" and "Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask" with links to the corresponding references? Megadecimal, 9 March 2007

    I think it's a good idea. I was thinking of The Mask, V for Vendetta and The Man In The Iron Mask. I'm adding all of these; if anyone else feels like adding or removing stuff, we'll find out as we go. :) RagingR2 13:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Wikification

    I've began to improve the layout, referencing and content of this page, and would be grateful for comments. There's still much to be done including adding sections on other regional Ritual Masks. Bob 19:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

    • The {{todo}} template should stay permanently so others can add their thoughts; also, there is always something that can be added or worked on to improve articles. Items within the list can be edited or removed by simply clicking the edit link in the actual todo list. I have re-added the todo list, and removed all but one of the entries. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that HHH - I didn't understand the protocol.Bob 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] References

    This article is getting tremendously better than it has ever been in the past, however, without page numbers and more specific references (the title and author has been included, but also included should be the publisher, year, and ISBN) this article is not going to get very far on a quality scale. If whomever added these references could get a little more specific I think there is a good chance that this article could be elevated to A or B, perhaps even GA status... - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 16:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Artefacts!

    Re:edit by 70.49.45.150(→North American masks). Note the spelling 'artefact' isn't wrong, but the correct Eng. spelling. 'Artifact' is the US spelling. As a matter of interest what is the wiki protocol on regional variations? No big deal, just interested. Bob 07:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

    My understanding of spellings is that first of all, the article is either entirely in American English or entirely in the Queen's English. That said, if the topic lends itself to one way or another, use that way. For instance, we will look at the color of George W. Bush's hair, while we will admire the colour of Tony Blair's. If the subject matter doesn't lend itself one way or the other, then whichever way gets there first is what we use, and no changing it. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me, but that's my understanding of it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    You are completely right, at least as far as my experiences tell me... - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 00:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] First section of the article too narrow

    The article currently begins with "A mask is a sculptured object that is worn by a performer." This qualifications seems to be too narrow, since there are other uses for a mask, which are mentioned in the article, such as (medical) protection. So, a mask isn't always worn by a performer, and it isn't always sculpted; it can also be made of rubber or cloth, depending on the use and the design. RagingR2 13:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    I went in and dug up the opening from an old revision and spliced it in. How's that look? SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)\
    Looks good I think. I was just thinking, hey I'm comlaining about so why not fix it myself, but you were a little quicker than I was. :) RagingR2 13:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] What's going on?

    Why is this article being raided of useful content? Huge amounts of information have been removed. See this diff. In their place, we have no summary style; the content is just gone. I recommend a revert, but I wanted to discuss it here first. — Dulcem (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

    — Dulcem you're dead right. I'm not certain what there is to discuss as the recent changes amount to vandalism and need to be reverted. Will do. Bob (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    I've reverted the article to a version last edited on 5th February by SchuminWeb. This is some way before the raids by Anthony Appleyard, but it's the last version I can find before some of the major cuts to referenced entries were made; for example the cutting of the section on Japanese masks. Forgive me if in so doing I've lost some valuable contributions but the recent bout of edits to the article have, I repeat, been little more than vandalism and ignored wikipedia protocols. The result has been replacing a decent article with a series of lists. Bob (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I was hoping Anthony would pipe in and explain what he was trying to do, but since he's been silent, I think your revert was the best thing to do. Thanks. — Dulcem (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    I split the missing matter off into page Masks in ritual and theatre, which is linked to from section Mask#Artistry, to leave page Mask as a disambig page between sorts of mask. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    I can see what you've done, but I think the decision is questionable. Given the potential impact of the changes it would have been far wiser to have posted a query on this Talk page and waited for a consensus before taking the action you did. I appreciate that the disambig issue needs to be dealt with but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We now have an entry which is very close to being a list; a second level of disambiguation links; and the highly questionable use of Artistry as a sub-heading. You have also reverted to a version of Masks in ritual and theatre which has large parts of referenced material missing. I don't want to revert your changes without giving the issue more thought, and I for one would appreciate comments on these questions from other editors. Best wishes. Bob (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    I thought that I had copied all the external references into Masks in ritual and theatre. If you want to edit Masks in ritual and theatre, then edit it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Anthony, I'm very grateful for the kind offer, but you haven't addressed my main questions.Bob (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, thanks for clearing up your intentions, Anthony. I have to agree with Bob, though. I don't think turning this page into a disambiguation page is a good idea. Rather, this page should talk about masks in all their various forms. Those sections that get too lengthy can be split off into sub-articles (which you already seem to be doing), but in their place, we need to adhere to summary style, giving a synopsis of the information that can be found in the daughter article. — Dulcem (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    Anthony, I will be re-editing the Mask entry as you haven't replied to my or Dulcems comments on your decision to make Mask a disambiguation page. I'll take on the disambiguation issue rather than simply revert. Please do not revert other editors until you have participated in the discussion on the talk page. Cheers Bob (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

    I am unclear as to why we are still keeping this disambiguation page here. I personally do not see any reason to not revert. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    I spent yesterday reorganising and attempting to improve the edit by Anthony Appleyard despite my own misgivings about it (see above). Only Dulcem had commented on the issue and I felt it worth while applying summary style to the changes to see if they made any more sense of Anthony's disambig entries. Having (literally) slept on it I must say I'm inclined to agree with Stephenchou0722. I want to avoid a revert war with Anthony on this subject, however, having two other editors agree with me on this I'm now inclined to revert to a version of the pre-disambig entry, albeit with a clear link to a Mask (disambig) page to deal with the other definitions. I'm happy to do this soon if there are no reasonable objections. Bob (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    I have reverted page mask because as it stood it was only about theatrical masks, and the matter about other uses of the word "mask" had disappeared. I have reverted Masks in ritual and theatre to a full file, where I intended matter about theatrical masks to go (unless Masks in ritual and theatre is split into Masks in ritual and Masks in theatre). We do need a disambiguation page between the many things that the word "mask" can mean. Relevant matter in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mask&oldid=203487991 can be merged into Masks in ritual and theatre. Or please discuss it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC
    Oh. I see that the other matter is now in Mask (disambiguation). But your move depends on ritual and theatrical masks being a dominant meaning, which I doubt. I have never seen a play where the actors wore masks, and not many ritual uses of masks, but I have seen or used gasmasks and diving masks and computer masking booleans often. The disambig page should be the plain name. Anthony Appleyard (talk)
    The discussion about these issues has been going on in the Talk Page for over two weeks. You have chosen not to have a dialogue about these issues. I gave several days warning of a revert and again you did not respond. I even tried to accommodate your suggestions but other editors have agreed with me that the result was unecessary. Please follow protocols. Assume good faith and argue your case in the Talk Page before raiding the entries. Please accept the consensus. This is taking up a lot of my time and could be avoided if you chose to discuss things in advance. This has to be a final warning. Bob (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    Anthony, let's please assume good faith on this issue. I understand your points and you will see that I have previously tried to deal with the disambiguation issue. It is also easily possible to argue that the older meaning of mask is the generic one and more modern meanings such as your examples are derived from the older (i.e. the mask as a performance and ritual object). Also please note that the current entry is part of the Wikipedia Anthropology Project. By all means continue to argue your case. I'll listen - but do it in this forum and wait for a consensus. Best wishes Bob (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    After User:Dulcem's message, I DID answer twice. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    Sure, but an answer isn't the same as a dialogue. Cheers Bob (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    User:Dulcem complained in an edit comment at 10:36, 5 April 2008 "rv; this article should cover ALL masks, not just ritual and theatrical ones. Why the arbitrary split?".
    I split off the ritual and theater matter into its own page to stop page Mask from getting too big and to keep plain Mask as a disambig-ish page with only short descriptions. User:Bobf is treating the ritual and theater use as a dominant meaning and the other meanings are now in Mask (disambiguation). The subject of all masks is too big for one Wikipedia article, it must be split. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    Can't disagree with you more. This article can and should talk about all masks. We have summary style guidelines for a reason, and this is the third time I've brought them up. Encarta pulled it off; why can't we? — Dulcem (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    One page about all masks would get too big. It had to be split. Same as Frogman got too big and I had to split off it Anti-frogman techniques and pages about various nations' frogman groups. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree. I doubt that talking briefly about each type of mask would make this article too big. Right now, the article is only 26 kb in size. There are numerous articles that are twice or even three times as big. A brief summary of each type of mask is essential. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    Ditto. Anthony, you still haven't explained why you think Wikipedia's summary style guidelines won't work in this case. In fact, those guidelines are designed specifically for cases like this. Think about it this way. I'm a random Wikipedia reader. I want to learn about masks, all masks. Why should I have to look in two or three (or more) different places to find an overview of how masks are used? I shouldn't. I should be able to get a broad overview, in one place, of masks in theater, of masks in religion, of masks in sports, of masks for other uses. Then what if I want to learn more? That's when I click on the "main article" template at the top of each section. In other words, your splitting of this article is a solution in search of a problem. Let's not worry about splitting things up until we need to, which is not now. — Dulcem (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    It is a dilemma between that, and the page getting unwieldily big. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    No, that's just it. Summary style prevents the page from getting too big; that's why the guideline exists. — Dulcem (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    Here's my problem. We had proper split-outs, with Masks in ritual and Masks in theatre articles. Now the general Mask article has been appropriated for these specific topics. We had it right before, but now it's messed up. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    As long as the summary does not get long, like happened with Berlin#History of Berlin and History of Berlin in the past; the stub-and-pointer section expanded until it became major content forking with the main article that it pointed to. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Back at square one

    • We're essentially back at square one now. I've merged all the various bits about face coverings together to make a nice general article about masks. Yes, we do have a bit of a list issue, but that can be overcome without playing musical articles. We do need a general article on face coverings, otherwise known as masks. This is it. Split from this or that, toy with this or that, but all this as it stands now needs to stay out of disambiguation land. Disambiguation pages are for unrelated topics that people might be looking for. This is all related stuff that should stay together on this title.
      So in short: we need a general article on masks, if anyone wants an article on a more specific topic within then they need to start an article on that on a different title, and keep the disambiguation page free of face coverings. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    Looks much better, thanks. It's a serviceable page right now, in that it covers "facial coverings" of all types and will thus not confuse readers. I agree that it could be delistified, but this should be done by converting lists to prose, not by removing them altogether. — Dulcem (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The theatrical mask and ritual mask sections still dominate and need to be split off as a separate page, or 2 pages. Many readers will want info about one sort of mask, not about masks in general, and many of those, to save on the typing, are likely to type "mask" and expect a compact list-style index to what sorts of masks there are articles on, to find the exact name of the article on the sort of mask that he wants info on :: not an essay, as pointed at by "converting lists to prose" above. In Wikipedia we are writing a public source of quickly accessing information, not for literary effect. For example, the terms "ritual mask" and "theatrical mask" may overlap, with theatrical perforemances which are part of ritual, for example in a Hindu Ramlila; but I see little in common between a ritual mask in a religious procession and an oxygen mask in an ambulance in a side street nearby, except merely that both cover the face. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    The page is only 31 kb at the moment. No split is necessary at this time. It's an undeveloped article; if someone ever decides to research the subject and comes up with lots of material to push the page size over 32 KB, we can split at that time (being careful to leave summaries of the content that is spun out). — Dulcem (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    Well done SchuminWeb and all other editors and contributors - back to square one is fine by me. I think the result is a good, serviceable introduction to the subject of 'masks'. Which is what it should be. The debate on appropriate lay-out/design is interesting and it's a concern and issue not only confined to this topic. My research and reading is that the cultural history of the term mask does indeed start with ritual/theatrical face-coverings; and the word was (sensibly) appropriated to cover the increasing amount of technical and protective face-kit that has been a (relatively) recent phenomena. The current article follows a similar trajectory, which is entirely sensible. It therefore explains why there is a cultural 'connection between a a ritual mask in a religious procession and an oxygen mask in an ambulance in a side street nearby', which is precisely the kind of insight one would hope of a good encyclopedia. Bob (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)