Talk:Sandro Botticelli

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 September 2018 and 6 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): B am 240.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

pederasty

The section on Pederasty is troubling because it suggests hat pederasty and homosexuality are the same thing. Needs some rewriting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.175.210 (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

nationality

I was once told that Botticelli rejected the label "Italian", and fought a duel over it. Whether that's true or not, "Nationality: Italian" in the infobox is questionable for the time. —Tamfang (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No that's the way we do it. Strangely it's always Italians people complain about, never Germans. Go figure. Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because there was a tenuous entity that included most Germans. —Tamfang (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Fully argee with Tamfang. Mootros (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod...Modernist (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the consensus that Mootros refers to. Isn't the ascription of nationality based on a longstanding acceptance in art historical writings....not to mention every library I've ever been in? JNW (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The longstanding acceptance is towards ethic and cultural origins, hence we have a Dutch school. I cannot see that is has been extended to the idea of nationality. Perhaps we are discovering that particularly art historians have been operating rather ahistorical. Mootros (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Without seeking to discount the thought you propose, or argue re: the chronology of the founding of a nation, the issue might be whether or not it constitutes original research. If the bulk of published scholarship continues to refer to nationality, then that's what the encyclopedia uses. JNW (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, but do they really say this, that's what I wonder. "Nationality"... most don't, I guess. I leave this as thought for food for you art historians. However, I cannot see any credible mainstream historian, or any current mainstream historiographer making such assertion. Mootros (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Try the Metropolitan Museum of Art: "The name and nationality of the maker(s) of the object are given, if known."[1] In the case of Botticelli it is "Italian, Florentine".[2] We follow reliable sources, not the opinions of editors. Ty 02:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks more like an opinion to me, the way you interpret a library/ museums classification term in the info box. If you want to follow the source, the info box should state "library/ museums classification's nationality" Most info boxes use the term nationality in a completely different way. What is to be gained by introducing this historical inaccuracy? Lets move the discussion over here, where this is already discussed: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Nationality_in_infoboxes_.5BNationality_deletions.5D Thank you. Mootros (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Born in Italy?

I don't think there was any Italy when Botticelli was born. Italy was founded at the end of the 19th century. Why such inaccuracy? Mootros (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

See my post after (unindent) in the preceding section. Ty 02:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say born in Italy. Mootros (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The infobox has a separate entry for where he was born, so that is not at issue. Ty 13:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue is he was not born in Italy, as this box claims. Mootros (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think reverting and counter-reverting within individual articles--Botticelli and Rembrandt-- is the way to resolve this. It ends up being a battle of wills and leads to edit warring, perhaps the least preferable mode. If there is to be a discussion, the place to continue it is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, and bring sources rather than original research. Mootros, I comprehend your point, but you are acting unilaterally, and thus far you don't appear to be interested in consensus. JNW (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are right it should be discussed at WikiProject Visual arts. To be honest, I am in shock and disbelief that a GA article like Rembrandt is passed with such mistakes (stating born in the Netherlands, not even something "what is nowadays called NL") and when one corrects this, it is instantly reverted. I am not interested in editwarring but currently I am rather shocked. Attitudes by other editors as shown on this page with statements "No that's the way we do it" are not particularly inviting. Mootros (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have move the discussion over here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Place_of_birth_in_infoboxes Please do respond over there instead. Thank you. Mootros (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert of WP:IMGSIZE compliance edit

Re: [3][4]

@Johnbod: First, I'm curious about something. While I happened to return to this article out of random chance and nothing better to do right now, I generally wouldn't in a case like this. How much effort is required to perform a revert like that, with changes in five separate locations within the article, without generating a notification of the editor you're reverting? As compared to the couple of clicks required for an "undo"? Why would one go to that extra effort unless it's in the hopes that the reverted editor will be unaware of the revert, thereby saving you the trouble of having to defend your revert? Is that entirely ethical in your opinion? Is avoidance of discussion the best thing for the encyclopedia?

And could you explain the "very good reason" why the user size preference shouldn't work at this article? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

How much effort? Rather less than an undo, which I think takes at least one extra click, plus a little wait. That's why I hardly ever do them. I'm unaware exactly how the notifications work - I always seem to get notified when I'm reverted, but very rarely see "undo" notifications". As to the good reasons, when upright sizes over 1.5 are used the effects for those with preferences set high are too extreme. Plus, when WP comes to its senses & increases the ludicrously small default size, the images will be really rather too large for even more people. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so you reject the community consensus. Thanks for clarifying. I strongly disagree with that approach, but I won't press the issue here. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I see there is a Preferences thing for revert notifications, but not for undos. Perhaps your settings need look at. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: The Preferences thing for revert notifications applies to reverts by undo, reverts by rollback, reverts by Twinkle, etc. It has been my understanding that it should apply to all reverts except reverts by editing; it would be impractical to try to make the software intelligent enough to recognize those reverts. It was my impression that your revert was a revert by editing; if not, I'd be very interested to know what kind it was. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It was a revert by doing a null edit on the version before yours. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I've never heard of an editor using that technique, but whatever. Be aware that it's essentially a revert by editing, so it does not generate a notification. I think an editor deserves to know when they are reverted, and it's not reasonable to ask them to monitor page histories indefinitely. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say - "why not, I do". I can recommend the method, which I find much easier than undoing. Of course one has to pick through partial reverts. I think, by the way, it is very commonly used. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm with Johnbod on this one, especially wrt "pointless". Sigh. The version Mandruss is reverted to is, aesthetically *headache*. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Version of English?

At present the articles uses 'neighborhood" and "color", and also "neighbourhood" and "colour" etc, and it doesn't have a template stating which version if English it uses. The inconsistency was pointed out by someone playing Redactle, as it's today's target article. It looks to me as if British English is more widely used but I'm on phone and can't easily check. PamD 20:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The topic has no strong MOS:TIES to any national version of English, so we would MOS:RETAIN whatever version the article used originally. Or if there is no disagreement simply choose the one that is most prominent and make it consistent because that would be the least amount of work. -- GreenC 21:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Of course the article uses BrEng, but you know what these Americans are like. In fact there were eg 7 colours vs 2 colors & so on. Please say/correct anything else, & add a template if you know how to. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  I've added the template, thanks for tweaking the spellings. Did you mean to remove a paragraph, while doing so? You didn't explain in your edit summary. PamD 07:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. It was a poor recent addition, in the wrong place, and with a remarkably large number of mistakes. The Tornabuoni frescos were already mentioned. Our long, if poor, Madonna of the Pomegranate doesn't mention the family at all. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

"...the manuscript Dante"

In the later years section; it's footnoted, but unclear. Drawings for the manuscript of Dante's Divine Comedy perhaps? I hope someone who knows the source will clarify. Deliusfan (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Try reading the "Dante, printing and manuscripts" section above this! Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)